Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Comment: what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change
Line 232: Line 232:


::Proving my point about sidetracking this project with accusations. The minute you start pointing fingers at someone, and you do it often, you dilute your own credibility. This is not productive. So, please stop. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::Proving my point about sidetracking this project with accusations. The minute you start pointing fingers at someone, and you do it often, you dilute your own credibility. This is not productive. So, please stop. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::Get a grip. I was talking about the only decent set builder the project has already spending an hour to get a set together. It's not her fault the reviewers are promoting rubbish. You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith ''in extremis'', and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control. Stop blaming me for pointing it out. Do something about it. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:24, 4 March 2017

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
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
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.

Prep 1 - Sheeran

... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts six and a half years after its original release?

Not sure this precise claim is inline cited in the article, nor am I sure it's fair to imply that it could have entered the Australian charts any sooner, after all it wasn't released outside the UK until 2015. Pings: Cwmhiraeth, Mifter, HeyJude70. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Loose Change (EP). The hook is a factually correct statement; I don't think it implies anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inline cited per the DYK rules, regardless of the bogus hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an extra citation, but it was already cited inline. There is nothing bogus about the hook, it is factually correct. If you look at the history of Prep1 you will see that I had already amended the hook before you got to it. You have certainly introduced an error now, because the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK. Perhaps we should go back to the approved hook "... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts after seven years due to his new releases?", but I don't like that because of the "due to" bit nor the inaccurate "seven years". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to base my claim purely on techinicallities, but in the DYK it states '...after its original release'. The EP was originally released in 2010, and it doesn't say '...six and a half years after its Australian release'. The line leaves it open to interpretation I guess; if interred literally it is correct, but if it is assumed that it implies that it was released in Australia in 2010 it is wrong. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I see that the hook has been corrected to include 'UK-only', thank you. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Common sense and accuracy prevailed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth did you read the article? In the "Release history" section, it states quite clearly that it was released in the UK. So did your accusation of "the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK." mean something different? I'm not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did miss the "Release history" section, tucked away as it was at the bottom of the page. The hook facts were still correct however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tucked away"! Perhaps reading the whole article, categories included, would benefit the sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 - Dhyan Chand Award

I realise that quality is not a concern of the project, but should we really be promoting articles with basic English failures such as:

  • "The recipient(s) is/are selected by a committee constituted by the Ministry and is honoured for their contribution as a sportsperson and towards promotion of sports after their retirement from the active sporting career."
  • "Instituted in 2002, the award is given only to the disciplines included in the events like Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, World Championship and World Cup along with Cricket, Indigenous Games, and Parasports"
  • "The first recipients of the award were Shahuraj Birajdar (Boxing), Ashok Diwan (Hockey), and Aparna Ghosh (Basketball), who were honoured for the year 2002.[6] Usually conferred upon only three sportspersons in a year, a few exceptions have been made (2003, 2012, and 2013) when multiple recipients were awarded in a year."

And that's just the lead. Please, I understand that many DYK regulars including those who promote these articles to the main page, think we should allow these kinds of things, but honestly, is this an encyclopedia or a kid's school project? Pinging Vivvt, Cwmhiraeth, HalfGig. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Shame it was considered suitable in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth I know that readable English isn't a precisely specified criterion of the DYK regulations, but please, next time you spend at least 8 to 10 minutes checking each article you promote, read them and if they're not written in English, send them back to the noms area for a copyedit. This isn't a school project, it's Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what you mean by the statement: "This is a school project, it's Wikipedia". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not prepared to admit your error, you subtly obliterate the evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least my errors don't feature regularly on the main page!! Ps, so you actually know the meaning of "obliterate"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Obliterate: make invisible or indistinct; conceal or cover". Just what you did. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the history. You do know how Wikipedia works, right? Now then, please focus your efforts on reducing the number of mistakes you make which damage Wikipedia, rather than a typo I made. Talk about misdirection of effort. Plus I see you chose the second meaning, while the common, and first meaning is "destroy utterly" which is most people's reading of the word. So once again you're mistaken. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, hahahahahhahahahahaha! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP

Does "unsourced BLP" need to have zero source in order to qualify for articles that only need twofold expansion? I'm talking about the Leonard Patrick Harvey article which I found having one weak source and has a good scope to be expanded twofold. HaEr48 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48, zero sourcing for a 2x BLP is the rule. Leonard Patrick Harvey will need to be a standard 5x expansion if you want to submit it to DYK, from 1166 to 5830 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 - Kensington Railway Station

Again, no action required, but this was reviewed, passed and promoted whilst completely uncategorised. I've now addressed that but please, check that sort of thing before it gets accepted onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, did you not even notice that this wasn't categorised? How can I see that in seconds yet it takes you an hour to put together a set of seven or eight hooks, usually with one or two major errors? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are being bold and honing your belittling skills. Three criticisms of me in four minutes is pretty good going (here, here and this thread). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can hardly be described as belittling when it's clear statements of fact that your sets are usually error-prone. That's why I have to spend an hour a day clearing up for the benefit of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating more than one article in the same hook

How is this done? The template instructions don't give any specific guidelines. I simply used the two article titles, separated by a comma, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Akatombo, Miki Rofū. If this is not the correct way, please fix it for me. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, usually people would use either the main article title like Template:Did you know nominations/Tomahawk chop or something that encompasses all articles in it like Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Tunbridge Wells. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's an updated list of the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current nominations (those through February 20). I'm happy to report than only 12 hooks are left over from the previous set. Right now there are 201 nominations, of which 97 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four oldest, all left over from last time and still urgently needing a reviewer's attention.

Over two months 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) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

... that with 1,200 parking spaces, the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall used to offer a shuttle service?

This is going live in 1hr, but how is the number of parking spaces related to a shuttle service? The article has them as 2 separate sentences. And 1,200 car parking spaces isn't that interesting anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winner, "Most stunningly uninteresting hook of February 2017". The fact that the shuttle service apparently isn't even offered anymore would have added the perfect master's touch of complete pointlessness. EEng 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. There were two hooks approved: DYK nomination Wayzata Bay Center. I just swapped the hook with the other approved hook. People can discuss it if it's an issue. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 28 February 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 #5 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) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hooks still being overlooked (including one right now)

There's a special occasion hook for March 2 at Template:Did you know nominations/Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, and I don't have time right now to check and promote it. The first set for March 2 is already on the main page; the second set, currently in Prep 6, is filled without this hook, so one of its hooks will need to be moved, preferably before the set is promoted to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Prep 6 went to Queue 6 about the time you were typing this. And I'm getting ready to sign off for the day. So, this one will take an admin to make the switch within the next 10 hours. A strange side issue, is that I noticed Prep 2 has been mostly filled, but absolutely no hooks were promoted to Prep 1 right above it.

— Maile (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde. Looking at the hook, I think it would be helpful to add a piped link for "MLAs"—MLAs—because it's confusing without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I promoted a special occasion hook to Prep2 for March 3rd, I don't believe there was a special occasion hook for March 2nd, so I felt no need to look again at the special holding area for that date when promoting further hooks. Having added one hook to Prep2, I added a few more hooks to it while I was there, which explains @Maile66:'s anomaly. I would find it more noticeable if the special holding area was at the top of the approved page rather than the bottom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Wugapodes: You know ... that's a really good idea to have the special holding section at the top of the approved page. Like "Hey! Notice me!" where it can't be overlooked. I vaguely recall a previous discussion on this, but don't remember why it was decided to leave on the unapproved nominations page.— Maile (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, the March 2 hook was right there. It's been there since February 4, and I saw it still there shortly after you built that Prep 2 set. I don't know why it didn't show up on your screen, but it certainly should have, as it was right above the March 3 hook you promoted. Maile, I put the Special occasions area at the bottom of the Approved page because I thought that people would naturally look for it at the bottom of the page since they were used to it being there on the regular nominations page, with the earliest-to-be-promoted hook date at the top of the section, and the furthest out at the bottom. Will people look for it at the top of the Approved page's Nominations section (I don't imagine you meant the literal top, above all the explanations), or will we have to put a pointer to such a new placement from the bottom of the page, because that's where people are used to looking for it? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And now that I think about it, promoters should not have to scroll through a lengthy (sometimes) list of special occasion hooks just to get to the current approved ones. No magic solution on this one, except to keep doing how it's always been. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have a link to the Special holding area at the top of the Approved page? At present you have to make your way to the bottom of the page and hunt around for where the holding area starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've added it to the end of the top paragraph on the page. I did take a look at the Contents box at the top of the page, but that too is a long multi-screen slog. Cwmhiraeth (and anyone else), let me know how you think it works. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, just what is needed. Now I will have no excuse if I miss special occasion hooks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 8 – International Women's Day

I have started a new date in the Special Occasions holding area for March 8 – International Women's Day. We have 16 slots available that day – please fill them up! Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special holding area

A hook in Prep 3, Richard Springer, needs to be held for April 15th, but I am unsure how to move it to the special occasions holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polynesia time

If I calculate right, Missionary Day (now prep 6) will be shown when it's almost over where it is celebrated. Better a set earlier, or even two. - Once I'm here, prep 3 looks "long", compared to the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have moved the Polynesian hook to Prep 5 and reduced the length of Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, you have unfortunately not calculated correctly. French Polynesia is in the same time zone as Hawaii (UTC−10); in Prep 6, where I have restored it to, it will run between 02:00 and 14:00 local time on March 5, which is about as good as we can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misplacing the date line, - for me it feels like Australia, but I should have looked it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS

There are ongoing threads happening at WP:ERRORS, without linking articles or pinging contributors. So please be advised to watchlist the WP:ERRORS. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because too many errors are being promoted by this project. Please stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it's actually a useful thing to allow the rest of Wikipedia to see the sheer lack of quality coming from this project. As things aren't changing here at all, all errors will be reported to the main page, rather than within the project, to ensure as many people as possible can contribute. Hopefully it will result in an increase in quality from reviewers, promoters and set builders. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to ensure as many people as possible can contribute—as reports there, referring to nominations in queues, can only be handled by admins, that's certainly not true, since there are far more non-admins than admins. But perhaps that's the point? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can contribute to WP:ERRORS, and the pageviews there all focus on ensuring the integrity of the main page, while chatter at the DYK project can be vague, pointy and full of ownership issues. It's a great thing that the project as a whole can now see the issues at DYK for themselves rather than the current "closed shop" approach which encourages such ownership. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of having prep sets is so that hooks can be reviewed before they get to the queue or main page where admin attention is necessary. Your new approach seems decidedly unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the sheer volume of issues, I'm finding it difficult to review the hooks before they're queued up. So it is what it is , and more (and different) eyes will benefit this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here is the point in time where the sheep gets sheared - if something ends up on WP:ERRORS and it's a legitimate issue (not some of the nitpicking non-errors that pop up) then something somewhere in the process has failed. You cannot argue against the fact that if an error is on the front page it's a bad thing. What is needed is positive contributions to improve the Quality Control process around here. This isn't about pointing fingers (even if some love to do that) and it's nothing personal against anyone (even if some act like it is). The fact is that shit happens, errors occasionally get through - we are humans (except those of us that are bots), but that does not mean we can't TRY to improve.  MPJ-DK  14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And considering at least four of my remarks resulted in tweaks or modifications to hooks, in one single set, I think I'm entirely justified to report them wherever and whenever I see fit and am able. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that the review efforts really should be focused on when hooks are in Prep more than anything so we can get them fixed prior needing Admin intervention. Ques errors are less desirable, but still better than front page. So what things can we do to ensure higher hook quality in the prep areas? I would like to think that everyone involved are open to constructive sugestions. Please let's try to not make it personal, I would rather discuss solutions here than issues and finger pointing. i have not been very active on DYK recently but I am going to try and do more checking on the assembled preps and queues.  MPJ-DK  17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever built a prep with that many errors should be cautioned to be more careful. The prep builders are meant to be the main line of defense from bad reviews. They must act like it. Copy pasting and nothing else doesn't cut it. I was quite perturbed to find that one of my own hooks ran with an error a couple days back (quickly fixed) because a prep builder edited the approved hook to include a substantial piece of information that was false. ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the new "approved" page would be reorganized so that newly approved noms are always added at the top (or bottom), I'd be happy to help with QA as newly approved noms come in. But under the stupid setup we have now, they pop up all over the page without warning, and I'm simply not going to wade through the whole page over and over every day just to try to spot new appearances. Please, if we could just make this one change then the whole QA process could be pushed upstream to the Approved page, where it belongs, instead of happening in the context of the preps and Qs where it is now. Also, if QA happens at the Approved stage, the nom page is still open and QA questions can be discussed on the nom page itself, with all the earlier review material available, instead of here, which is very awkward. EEng 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep Area 5 Review

I work in Software Quality Assurance so I'm borrowing a bit from those processes to see if they can be applied with success here, some of the improvements we've seen where I've worked is through developing standards and internal check lists. Prep 5 is the next to be moved to Queue 5 that's going on the main page in like 6 hours now. I'm looking at the 8 hooks now trying to figure out the best, most efficient way of ensuring quality in the hooks. To me we need to make sure each hook & article as been vetted before it hits the main page. I see the following items that really need to be checked for the following.

  • Hook accuracy
  • Hook prose and appropriate linkage
  • Article prose
  • Article sourcing
  • Image license (In set and in the article)
  • Hook in prep vs. hook approved (is there a difference, does that introduce problems)
  • Anything else? I am going to start the review of the various hooks - and then when done post my finds on each hook, to share the findings here. If others review a hook it'd be great if they post their comments for the hooks here so we know what has been reviewed and what issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks
  • Miami Railway Station that in 1889, a US company built the Miami Railway Station (pictured) in Canada, now a National Historic Site and museum?
  • The lead said it was built by Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company (no source) while the body just says it was built in 1889 and sourced there. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the company was U.S. based but it's in the hook - not an error as such but unclear from the article.
  • Image license looks good to me
  • Article is okay, albeit more focused on the "background" than the station.
  • I'm by no means an expert on the English language but I would have thought the hook should read "which is now a"?  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea / Wallachian princely election that the aged, hernia-afflicted Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea reportedly ran in the Wallachian princely election only to hamper other candidates?
  • Not reviwed yet
  • Two Worlds that AllMusic thought Phil Collins' "Two Worlds", featured in Disney's 1999 animated feature Tarzan, "eerily echo[ed]" the worldbeats of former Genesis bandmate Peter Gabriel?
  • Hook prose: We should probably avoid repeating the word "feature"  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment that the only player strike in Japanese professional baseball history occurred during the 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment and lasted for only two days?
  • Hook prose: We should avoid repeating the word "Only"  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julian Radcliffe that Julian Radcliffe is the founder of the world's largest private database of lost and stolen art
  • Not reviwed yet
  • Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising that the 1887 book Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising presents 177 biographies of African-American men, most of whom were born as slaves?
  • Not reviwed yet
  • William Henry Daniels that Judge William Henry Daniels committed suicide in 1897, three years after being dismissed for not taking an oath of allegiance to the Provisional Government of Hawaii?
  • Not reviewed yet
  • Paludititan that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf?
  • A section is tagged with expansion needed, since January - Do we allow tagged articles like this on the front page?  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

MPJ-DK this is not the worst idea that ever came down the pike. Logical, simplistic ... and you're the only one so far who had added to it. So...no getting sidetracked. Do we have the man/woman power to do this on a steady basis? Can we hold it to "just the facts" and not get sidetracked with every thought that goes through someone's mind? The big flaw with the current process, IMO, is personality clashes that turn it into accusations v. defenses. When I check a set prep, the big ... BIG ... issue I see are promoters who are acting in good faith and changing the hook from what was approved. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth seems to take over an hour to build a prep set without this list of helpful pointers. And still many issues make it to queues and sometimes to the main page. It may mean that prep builders have to be prepared to put in the extra hours to ensure that reviewers have done their jobs properly. Or perhaps it means that prep builders should be bolder about sending nominations back to review rather than the current "If it's nommed, it'll run" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proving my point about sidetracking this project with accusations. The minute you start pointing fingers at someone, and you do it often, you dilute your own credibility. This is not productive. So, please stop. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip. I was talking about the only decent set builder the project has already spending an hour to get a set together. It's not her fault the reviewers are promoting rubbish. You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control. Stop blaming me for pointing it out. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=768606936"