Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.49.71.240 (talk) at 12:15, 15 December 2017 (→‎SMS Marie: clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.


Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 33 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including those through November 22. Right now we have a total of 265 nominations, of which 129 (nearly half of them) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I moved a template

I am sorry that I moved Template:Did you know nominations/Willi Gundlach 2 to Template:Did you know nominations/Willi Gundlach. I thought I fixed all links, but when you want to review, the wrong one comes up. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now, Gerda Arendt. You may need to "purge" the DYK nominations page to get the fixed version if it takes you back to the "2" page (the link is near the top of the DYK nominations page). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Marie

Not to beat a dead horse as it was dealt with and is over with but how can a factual error like the one in the "SMS Marie" hook make it onto the main page? Obviously everyone makes mistakes but that hook stated something that was not even said in the article. Just to mention the issue, the hook said "... that SMS Marie (pictured) was the first warship built in Hamburg?" while nowhere in the article that was claimed at all(the article mentioned "the first time that a Hamburg shipbuilder received a contract for a warship of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)."). I hope it will not be totally out of place to ask for some more diligence because it seems rather odd that something that was never even claimed in an article was made into a hook and made it onto the main page. I also looked at the nominations page and seen the reviewer say they would assume good faith in the offline sources, obviously fair, but i cannot stress this enough: the claim was not made in the article at all. How can something like that happen? 91.49.87.145 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and i forgot to mention that it of course also was not true. There have been other warships built in the city. The oldest i could find after a short search was launched some 212 years prior. So it was not just a little off. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every page of Wikipedia has the general disclaimer in its fine print and that states, "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." It thus emphasises that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here." That includes the main page and WP:ERROR is fairly active as issues are noticed every day.
So far as the DYK process is concerned, one failing was not to check and enforce rule 3b, "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." The reviewer accepted the fact with an AGF about the source. Presumably, they didn't feel able to check this because the main source, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, was offline and in the German language. This AGF waiver doesn't seem to appear in the DYK rules. Perhaps there should be some guidelines for AGF because skimping in this way is obviously going to be error-prone because there's then no check that:
  1. The hook fact is stated correctly, without transcription errors
  2. That the translation is accurate
  3. That there is no close paraphrase or copyvio.
The OP is incorrect in saying that "it was dealt with and is over with". The article still states the fact incorrectly in its lead, "the first warship built in the city". And the article is still marked as as a GA. I suppose that the article got a free pass at DYK because it's graded as a GA. But look at the GA review which was perfunctory, "I will be instant passing this, as it meets all criteria". Such an assessment seems worthless because nothing is being checked carefully. Perhaps we should reconsider the special treatment given to GAs at DYK.
The people involved should be notified in such cases so that they get the opportunity to comment and address the issue. They include:
author: Parsecboy
GA reviewer: Iazyges
DYK nominator: 7&6=thirteen
DYK reviewer: The Bushranger
hook puller: Fram
Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The AGF guideline is in WP:DYKR. The "skimping" (your term) is because otherwise you would have to exclude offline sources, which isn't happening. That said, it probably should have said/should say "first Imperial German warship built...", if the OP's assertion is correct, I'll allow that, yeah. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a AGF rule for hook sources, it should be abolished. If you want to put a fact on the Main Page, make sure that it's online verifiable by most other users (not necessarily with an English source, but with an accessible source). Too often we've had errors because of such AGF (too often also because of other reasons, but let's not go into that now). GA review sadly too often is totally inadequate as well, but the DYK rules specifically state that reviews shouldn't rely on the GA status but should happen as with any other article (barring the expansion / newness rules of course). Fram (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing in to explain the instant pass: all the criteria were met, although I still provided some prose suggestions. I will admit that I benefitted from prior knowledge that it was not the first warship ever built there, and as such inserted a mental [Imperial German] in front of it. However, the average reader would not know this, and could easily be misled, so it is good that it was caught. On a side note Andrew D., I disagree your statement that I did not carefully check the article. I did in fact check the article carefully, and left a listing of all criteria and if it passed or failed (although obviously as it was instant passed it met all, and the application of the list was therefore somewhat redundant) and merely skipped over the "First warship" because it made sense to me in context; although as I've previously mentioned it is logical that a layman would not have done the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you want to keep a lot of FAs off of the front page, too, then. Wikipedia does not require online sources. Full stop. Yes, we can and should do better, but that doesn't involve making a "we don't require online sources except" rule. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't require articles to be longer than 1500 characters either, or many other requirements imposed to get to DYK, GA or FA. Your "full stop" is a non sequitur. There is no reason at all why stricter rules can't be imposed for the Main Page than for what is allowed in articles (you don't even need sources in articles, but we require them for DYK, so perhaps you want to abolish that rule as well?) Fram (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that Featured Articles don't require online sources, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKR states "If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline, foreign-language or paywalled sources, verify the basic facts..." This indicates that some fact-checking is still required. It would be sensible to verify the hook fact in particular. If a foreign-language/offline source is the only option, then a quotation from it might be required to support this verification. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiherstieg Schiffswerfte & Maschinenfabrik says "In the 1880s, Reiherstieg built SMS Sophie, the first warship built in Hamburg for the German Navy." That seems to be another error which still requires correction. Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... is there anything to prevent such an incredibly easy to catch error in the future? I find AGF with offline sources acceptable, not that it would matter to anyone. But in this case, it was so incredibly easy to verify that the fact in the hook was plain false. It was not sourced in the lead but only in a different paragraph where the claim of being the first warship built, full stop, was not made at all. I just don't get it. I am honestly not sure what to make of the lack of diligence and effort put into getting this onto the the main page. A five second search on the topic could have verified it as false. My intention in asking was certainly not to rub anyones nose in it, we all make mistakes. But if this can happen there is quite obviously something wrong with the system itself. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Area and others

They're gone now, but earlier today, I noticed that San Francisco Bay Area and a few other previously-featured DYKs were on the DYK section. Was this a glitch, or did it have to do with the sudden death of San Francisco's mayor? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That i can actually answer. It was not a glitch and had nothing to do with the sudden death either. Two of yesterdays original DYK hooks were removed for lack of quality and the featured article had no picture to go with it. So the main page was quite unbalanced with too few items on the left hand side. So to keep it balanced and looking even several old DYK hooks were run again, or recycled as some call it. Happens quite often actually, but not very often do so many old hooks have to be used again. Those that were used again were chosen by the admin that fixed the issue with the note "I have recycled three DYKs from the past six weeks or so that I thought were particularly "hook" worthy (personal opinion, of course).". Hope that helps even if i do not have a registered account, haha. 91.49.94.126 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 31 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including all those that are no longer current (through December 7). Right now we have a total of 260 nominations, of which 172 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two that are over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

At the moment there are 261 DYK nominations of which 172 have been approved. With eight hooks in a single set per day, it will take 21 days to promote all the approved hooks. Under normal circumstances the supply of newly submitted hooks is around eight and roughly balances those moved to prep, but the WiR World Contest in November, and other factors, swelled the number of submissions dramatically during that month and increased the backlog.

We could increase to two sets per day, and reduce the backlog that way, but I would like to propose that we reduce the number of approved hooks gradually by changing to having nine hooks per set. This would tend to balance the front page better as it is often overlong on the right hand side as compared to the left. A particularly short set of hooks could even have ten hooks, rather than reusing old hooks when balancing the main page. What do folks think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=815533705"