Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to: navigation, search


"Did you know...?" template
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Nominations T:TDYK
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Removed hooks WP:DYKREMOVED
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
Shortcut:



This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

QPQ questions[edit]

If I comment on a DYK nomination, but someone else makes the final decision to approve, do I get any QPQ credit for having contributed to the discussion? Or does QPQ credit only go to the person who closes a nomination?

If I close a DYK nomination by rejecting it — or if I comment on a DYK nomination that is ultimately rejected — does that count for QPQ?

I just submitted my sixth DYK nomination (so, as I understand, I need to review something now, for the first time, in order to satisfy QPQ). I reviewed (to completion) three DYK's in 2012, and I commented on four DYK's (which others completed) in 2011 and 2012. Can I count any of that activity for QPQ credit now? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting won't be enough in your first two examples ("Nice picture" isn't going to cut it); you will need to do the review, but then it would count both for the approval and rejection; sometimes you can't give the final tick for some reason (you proposed an alternative hook yourself; you rewrote the article; your arms fell off); people will soon let you know if your QPQ isn't up to standard. About the 2011/2012 reviews: we have accepted historic QPQs, but they'd probably have to be to modern standards; I don't know how rigorous the QPQs were back in 2012, they were probably like caveman reviews (Thag make article! Ug approve, Thag come hunt mammoth? ). Try reviewing a current nom anyway; it won't hurt. Belle (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I just did a review — for True Detective (season 1) — but I realize now that I shouldn't have given the final approval because I proposed an alternate hook (which the original submitter said was OK, but someone else should really pass judgment on the hook). I'll back out my approval. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Belle, Nvvchar, and others, please have a look at User:Richwales/DYK, where I've catalogued my DYK history. I would propose that my contributions on the DYK's for Leal Garcia v. Texas, Crawley Development Corporation, and Belfast's Big Two are of sufficient quality to pass current standards. If others agree, then I may use one of these as my next QPQ. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 02:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've boldly changed my QPQ for the Keturah DYK nom to use my Belfast's Big Two review (from 2012) instead. Again, I believe this review was of a quality comparable to what is expected today. If people disagree and decide not to accept this for QPQ, I'll wait until someone else approves True Detective (season 1), where I did a full approval but need someone else to pass final judgment because I proposed a change to the original hook. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of any further action on the True Detective (season 1) DYK nom, and given the Keturah DYK reviewer's hesitation to consider a 2012 review for QPQ, I used my most recent review (Brad Carter) as QPQ for my Keturah nom. I would still like a definitive statement on whether my Belfast's Big Two nom is or is not acceptable for QPQ despite its age. I believe anyone who looks at this review will conclude that it is equal in quality to current reviews — or, if not, I would be grateful for a fair critique so that I'll know how to improve my reviewing in future. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There are currently over 200 nominations awaiting review so why don't you just hunker down and do one of those? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed two DYK nominations just now (Chris McKay and Birmingham Quran manuscript), and I intend to do more. But I still believe, on principle, that my 2012 review should qualify for QPQ use at some future time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'll bring up this issue again the next time I submit a DYK nomination. It may be moot by then — I currently have six recent DYK noms not yet used for QPQ — but whatever.... — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Richwales, I have always held that reviews made prior to the day of nomination of an article should not count toward QPQ, however, I haven't had much support for this view. Regardless, I think reviews made two or three years ago are too old, how are we supposed to check whether or not you've used the review for QPQ before? Gatoclass (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"How are we supposed to check whether or not you've used the review for QPQ before?" — A fair question, but not a showstopper IMO. You can use the QPQ Checker tool page to look at all my past DYK nominations, and by examining each of these nominations (there are only six of them to date), you can see which (if any) reviews I have claimed for QPQ in the past. I've also catalogued my DYK history at User:Richwales/DYK, and I plan to keep this page up to date as I continue to be involved with DYK. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And what about people with 100 DYK nominations? Are we supposed to check all of them too? I think realistically there should be some sort of cut-off point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not so concerned about technical issues because this comes about so infrequently that it isn't really an issue; WP:AGF applies. I agree that 2012 is too old to use, mostly because the whole idea behind QPQ is that you put one review in and get one review out to prevent a backlog from accumulating. While we certainly appreciate the reviews you did in 2012, they do not help with the current backlog, and so do not meet the intent behind requiring QPQ. While I can appreciate your desire for a definitive answer, it's impossible to give one. Ultimately, reviewers make the decisions regarding what they accept or decline. Whether to accept a QPQ is up to their discretion in odd cases like this, in the absence of a community consensus one way or the other. ~ RobTalk 08:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Captions[edit]

These are appearing on pictures but I missed the discussion and agreement. Can someone post it please Victuallers (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Victuallers, Not sure what you're referring to. But there seem to be separate but related threads at Talk:Main Page. See sections "Image captions", "Captions" and "Captions (2)". — Maile (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there was no discussion here. A notice was posted that it would be happening on July 18, although it actually ended up being postponed for about five days after that. Unfortunately, the change broke the bot's ability to archive sets and to place {{DYKfile}} notices on image talk pages. A few hours before the bot's first update with the new format, I informed Shubinator, who is now working to fix those issues. Thanks to George Ho for manually archiving. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And I see the bot's now been updated to deal with the captions. Thanks, Shubinator! MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What did I do wrong? Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to User:George Ho for helping me there. Another question: Is there anything to control the size of the image? The painting in Queue 5 seems awfully large. Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that does look too big. Does anyone know how to reduce it? Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe it's governed by the image width, so this one is taller to preserve the aspect ratio. If you made it narrower (and I don't know if that's possible any longer) then it would become considerably shorter and the detail would be missed. On a main page preview, it looks fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as documented at {{Main page image}}, you can limit the image size by adding a |width= parameter. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The new captions also seem to cause problems on the talk pages of DYK articles in which the DYK fact text is not displayed. It seems to start on 24 July with the article for NASA space-flown Robbins medallions of the Apollo missions. Crispulop (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've reported the issue to Shubinator. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 94 nominations are approved, leaving 210 of 304 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the sole remaining one from May and those from the first weeks in June.

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) 02:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking and loading...[edit]

Preps are empty. Very late here and I need to sleep. Folks are welcome to check and load....cheers, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please remove the extraneous "{{DYKnom|Example|Nominator}}" entry at the bottom of the Queue 6 page? It isn't visible when looking at the queue, but it may confuse the bot when distributing credits and cause a problem. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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 #1 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) 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue by more than an hour; admin needed to move the one full prep to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead hook captions and "(pictured)"[edit]

The most recent discussions on Talk:Main page seem to indicate that retaining "(pictured)" is a good idea, even with captions giving similar information, and ITN and OTD are both retaining it. I've been restoring it when I see it missing, but others are apparently removing it when it's there. I'm happy to go with the consensus, but I think we should agree on what we should do going forward, keeping in mind what's being said about the main page as a whole. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm with the keep (pictured) camp. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Makes it easier for the reader. ITN, and OTD also have (pictured). Even though we use the image always with the first hook, ITN and OTD do not. Without it, the viewer is not likely to connect the image to the correct hook.— Maile (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am undecided about this issue right now, but leaning to dropping it. There may be circumstances though, where retaining it is helpful, so we may need to retain some flexibility about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Another alternative of course is maintaining the (pictured) and dropping the caption. There may be a case for retaining both at ITN and OTD but the case is weaker for DYK given that the image hook is always the top one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also currently in favor of keeping "(pictured)"—just because DYK always uses the top hook doesn't mean that people visiting the main page will know this or realize after multiple visits that this is the invariable pattern for the section. I'd like to suggest, given the opinions so far, that we give the information in both places for now; we can always take one or the other away at a later time if consensus ultimately goes that way. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I never saw the need for captions when we had "(pictured)" but if the consensus is to go with captions instead then so be it. I do think that using both "(pictured)" and captions is well over the top and should be avoided. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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 #2 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) 00:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Now over approaching three hours overdue; admin needed to promote recently completed prep to queue so the bot can promote it to the main page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Images in all current nominations have been captioned[edit]

I've converted all active nominations with images to the new captioned format. For the caption, I used whatever "rollover text" was already there. In some cases, that may not be ideal as a caption. Nominators, reviewers, and set builders (as well as anybody else) should edit captions as appropriate.

If you'd like, you may add the optional |alt= parameter to the image template. This performs the same function as the old rollover text, so you can preserve the nominator's original rollover text as the alt, while supplying a more appropriate caption.

About five days ago, I changed the code which creates nomination pages to use the new captioned format, so everything should be okay from this point on. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 02:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Length of Captions[edit]

The equivalent of the captions we have now was to say "pictured" and now we have "McConaughey pictured at the 2014 Goldene Kamera Awards ceremony in Berlin" (This is but one example). I fear that we will have all kinds of detail included. Do we need to have a max limit? Include it in the 200 character count, or just say "minimum". So could the McConaughey example just say "McConaughey"? (I just cut down a caption that informed that it was a Black and white photo). Meanwhile can promoters and approvers keep an eye on this trend and cut back the unnecessary. Victuallers (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Captions need to be as brief as possible. Also, some of the images are too big, namely the ones that are larger vertically than horizontally, and I'd like to see that problem addressed too. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that Template:Main page image has a default size of 120px width instead of our previous standard of 100x100px, which also has the effect of making vertically-oriented images much larger. Was this intentional? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I could do without the captions altogether, but the size is ok. Johnbod (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on a second DYK appearance[edit]

I can't seem to find relevant info on this: if an article has appeared as a DYK due to newness, can it also be renominated following a promotion to Good Article status? And if yes, how should the new hook be proposed- entering the article name in nomination creation box just edits the original DYK template: should a new template be created or the previous one edited? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See Rule D1; it wouldn't be eligble for a second DYK if it's already passed the first time. If it had failed an earlier nomination, it could then be nominated a second time. Antony–22 (talkcontribs)
@Antony-22: Ok, thanks for that. It might bear mention or clarification in a more prominent spot: DYK eligibility criteria specifically excludes articles that have appeared in bold text in In the news or On this day sections, but is silent on DYK. Perhaps DYK should be explicitly added to OTD and ITN in 1e, or a footnote after item 1g to the tune of: Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible.[1] --Animalparty! (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Unless they have already been featured on Did you know

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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 #4 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) 03:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Display of ship names[edit]

Recently, there have been a couple of ship articles where the ship's pennant number has been displayed as part of the ships name on the Main Page. Whilst these, and other disambiguators, are needed to disambiguate between ships, they are not needing to be displayed. For example, HMS Victory (1737) should be coded as {{HMS|Victory|1737|6}} which displays as HMS Victory. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)