Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Prep 4[edit]

"that Gay Life was the United Kingdom‍ '​s first LGBT television series".

Was this broadcast in Northern Ireland? Secondly, the main source suggests it was just for homosexuals, and makes no reference at all to bisexual or transgender issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it was broadcast in Northern Ireland or not? As for the reference to LGBT, I interpreted that as the broad category into which the series falls. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Because the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. Great Britain does not. The article clearly states that it was geared up for homosexuals, not transexuals etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If you say a program was broadcast in the United States, does that mean it has to be broadcast in every state for the statement to be correct? I hardly think so. "Great Britain" appears to be a somewhat anachronistic phrase, and I'm not sure it wouldn't include Northern Ireland in any case. And I don't think a series has to cover every aspect of LGBT life in order to be considered an LGBT phenomenon broadly speaking; the term LGBT is one that has increasingly been used in recent times as a substitute for "gay". Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, "Great Britain" is in no way anachronistic. It is a specific identity and is different from the United Kingdom entirely. As has the programme itself which never covered trans-gender issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Great Britain article says the term "Great Britain" is sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom.[28] The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom formally, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001.[29] Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom".[30]
The LGBT article says the term has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of sexuality and gender identity-based community centers and media in the United States and some other English-speaking countries. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, so at the time of its broadcast it was a programme covering homosexual themes in Great Britain. We shouldn't be replacing history. But I have no more to add here, clearly it's rankled too much already. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As a gay man, I will say that LGBT is TOTALLY fine in this context, as there is no indication that to use the term, it should always cover all four (or five if you go with LGBTQ). Why the pedantry on this?--Kevmin § 19:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No pedantry, just accuracy. I was hoping we could ensure the DYKs reflected the actuality, not some future-proofed version. It's interesting you mention LGBTQ, so that's the case, why not amend the blurb to LGBTQ? Problem I have with it is simply that, at the time, BTQ wasn't part of what the programme reflected. Nor was it "United Kingdom" television. But as I said before, clearly I'm on a sticky wicket here, no-one dares to complain about the accuracy of these kinds of things so I'll do as the majority does, and just let it slide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
From the current standpoint, it‍‍ '​‍s the first LGBT series, so I see no issue there. As for the other matter, the first source for the hook clearly says it was the United Kingdom‍‍ '​‍s first such series, so I feel obliged to point out, given your suggestion of laxity on the part of others, that you are the party that overlooked the salient fact in this instance. Gatoclass (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I read that, but it doesn't make it factually accurate. But there you go, we had a gay television series broadcast in Great Britain that had a hook which was twice inaccurate, I trust that pleases some. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
TRM, the fact that you want to quibble about whether a TV series was broadcast in the "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is an example of why other users become frustrated with your approach. As I've said umpteen times, constructive criticism should always be welcome here, nitpicking doesn't fall into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Not really, we had an error reported at WP:ERRORS just the other day on this very point. Nitpicking and getting the facts right are entirely separate things, but the latter appears to be secondary to many here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Schrocat didn't identify the nature of his objection, but it appears to me as if he felt "UK television" was ungrammatical or awkward, which is not the same point at all. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well that's not true but the point is moot. The hook was maintained, as poor and inaccurate as it was. It's history now, although I note from the every-increasing "Removed" queue for June and July, quality is on the slide once more. Perhaps a bit more nit-picking is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
When the hook is maintained, that is "poor and inaccurate". When it's pulled, then "quality is on the slide". Or maybe some folks are just determined to find fault? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, with DYK, it's all too easy. Hooks should be accurate and items shouldn't be need to be pulled, they shouldn't be "promoted" in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, certainly it's all too easy to find fault so long as you are willing to parse the difference between "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain", I'll give you that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, as they're entirely different entitites then yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not entirely different, I think. And in the given context, not functionally different at all it would appear. Not to mention the supporting source. But at this point I have abandoned hope of an admission of error, let alone an apology, so I think it's time to head for greener pastures. Thank you at least for the frank exchange of views. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to read the article first before launching into a tirade about the political status within the United Kingdom. The program was first broadcasted on LWT, which meant only Londoners got to view it. There is nothing to suggest that it was broadcast in NI, or Scotland, or Wales. Or Birmingham for that matter. But given that it is sourced in The Independent as such, Gatoclass' US analogy sums this up nicely. As far as I'm aware, the acronym LGBT is a catchall for sexualities that are not considered hetrosexual. The term is possibly anachronistic (according to our article) but, unless there was a bisexual or transsexual TV series prior to 1980 in the UK, it is not inaccurate in this case. Just my thoughts, though consensus seems to show that this actually isn't an issue. Fuebaey (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a storm in a teacup! Right, Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and the United Kingdom (as before plus Northern Ireland) are different entities, and claiming they are not is POV. As TRM hinted at, this distinction is very important in Northern Ireland, sometimes policitcally (eg: Ian Paisley : "The Antrim coast road is one of the most beautiful in the whole of the United Kingdom"). Unless you have a source that proves Gay Life was syndicated to Ulster Television, we should go with what is verified in the source, which is "British". As for the second point, let me flippantly say that the source doesn't specifically say it caters to fans of bestiality either - LGBT is fine and I don't think there's any evidence that the programme shunned transsexuals or was unfavourable to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you've decided to chime in just at the point I was quitting this discussion Ritchie, but for the record, the issue is not whether "Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom" are different entities - clearly they are - the issue as I just reiterated to TRM was whether there was any functional difference between the two in the given context. I maintain there was not. More pertinently, however - I don't know what source you were looking at but this one clearly describes the series as the UK's first series for homosexuals. Last time I checked, "UK" was an abbreviation of "United Kingdom". Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've been informed. Enough said. Move on to something else now, just as most of us have, but realise that supporting inaccurate and misleading hooks at DYK don't do the process any good at all. It's shabby enough without experienced editors like you backing up the poor work done here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you feel that Gay life had to specifically portray aspects of BT(Q) in it for it to be classed as an LGBT program? Thats not how it generally works, and the LGBT community usually embraces programs as being LGBT even if they only cover one aspect. That is why I say your argument is pedantry. Your argument makes a clear implication that BT did not even exist at the time Gay life ran and thus only LG members woulds watch and accept it.--Kevmin § 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So now I'm "shabby" for pointing out that the hook was actually supported by the article source? And you expect me to just "move on" without response after accusing me, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, of "supporting inaccurate and misleading hooks"? That is truly Kafkaesque. I think you've lost the plot entirely here. Somebody please close this thread before it degenerates even further. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page draft proposal that will explicitly kill off DYK[edit]

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon - note that not only would nothing appear on the main page but links, but DYK would be instantly killed off by it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Should you have posted this at Talk:Main Page? DYK wouldn't be the only thing affected. Everything would instantly be killed off. What you link is only a draft. There are a lot of stakeholders in this. Doesn't this require an RFC for consensus? — Maile (talk) 19:47, 25 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 #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) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ramagiri Fort[edit]

There is a template problem with the DYK nomination for Ramagiri Fort. When I try to review it, clicking from the Nominations page, I get a blank page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Something to do with the errant space after the final backslash. Try now? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's better. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 24 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 #6 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) 23:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Now overdue. Admin needed to promote prep 6 to queue 6. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 25 July 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)