Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Backlog

What is the reason for the current backlog? Christmas vacations? The new system of updating without enough non-admin volunteers to do the work? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas/other holidays definitely have an impact. I'm back at my parent's house for the next two weeks, so I'm stuck sharing the computer with the rest of the family – no time for full updates. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like more good noms flowing in too... ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just an advance notice that as of about 6 UTC 21 December, I will not be updating DYK due to a lack of access to a computer until perhaps January 4. Thanks in advance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, I have limited access at the moment and will most probably have no access at all from 23-28 December (although not due to holidays) Yomanganitalk 10:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
...and I'm probably going to be 3RR blocked in a minute (lapse of concentration), so won't be able to do any updates today. Yomanganitalk 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So, are we in need of hands? If an emergency arizes, since I find myself coming to this neighourhood more and more often, I can read the Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide and try to save XMAS... or the DYK :) On the other hand, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a section to Template:Did you know/Next update dealing with 'which admin feels relativly sure they can do the next update(s), and when, so if the miss the deadline others know they can step in?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

God forbid. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Forbid what...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Both of you know better than to bicker. Please don't. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Lar, what bickering? I don't think my first post here was 'bickering', and my second is a civil, I think, request to clarify a brief remark which I failed to understand?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
All DYK enthusiasts please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus and implore Piotrus and Ghirla to do what they do best: Write top quality articles ! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I pitched in and did a couple (so far...) the new system with the side page to build up teh next update, and the credits at the bottom neatly showing who needs to get what credit, makes the update itself go very smoothly once you've checked that what your peers selected actually looks good and is eligible. I added one article to the update in one case, but that was easy to do. Since I have automation, the crediting itself also goes really fast. My time on task was like 15 min each time (instead of the 40 I used to use). So this system really gets my vote!!!! ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations

Perhaps we should make clear that translations that are original to the en Wikipedia are acceptable - I'm positive we've rejected translations in the past, although I'm not going to trawl back through the archives to find a case. Yomanganitalk 10:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If we did, we shouldn't have. Unless the article had other issues, anyway... translations are fine. If we need to clarify it, we should. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have accepted many articles new to en.wiki that were from other languages. I can't recall any incident. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
From these comments, I would have thought it was just me that was confused (I've not put articles I've translated forward for DYK, because I thought they weren't permitted), but the conversation above suggests that it needs clarifying. Perhaps a final regulation along the lines:
Articles may be translations from other language Wikipedias, providing the English article conforms to the rules set out above and references external to Wikipedia are included.
Obviously, translations of unreferenced articles shouldn't be given the stamp of approval unless references can be hunted down. Yomanganitalk 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir John Donne

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post, but I think today's DYK about the Welsh courtier should use the Welsh form of Owain Glyndŵr's name, and not the Anglicisation Owen Glendower. I don't expect that the latter has much currency among scholars any more, except when they're discussing the Shakespeare character. [talk to the] HAM 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

One of the DYKs that just got posted on the main page is: "...that Portuguese Josefa de Óbidos was one the few women dedicated to painting (pictured: still life by her) in the Baroque era?" Isn't the grammatical error obvious? "one the few women" doesn't make any sense. It should be "one of the few women". Her picture, as I read from the article, is called "Still-life", not "still life". Moreover, the "(pictured..)" should be located next to the name, not "painting". The whole DYK is confusing and, I feel, shameful for Wikipedia. If we can't even make what we put on the main page at least grammatically correct, we can hardly guarantee users the other 1.5 million articles are of any encyclopedic quality at all. Aran|heru|nar 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

-Dear Aranherunar, yes, the grammatical error is obvious. Even though I am not a native English speaker, I can assure you it was not due to my lack of knowledge of the language but rather a simple mistake. I agree one should be careful with grammar, but not obsessive: mistakes like these will always happen. If only native English speakers would contribute to the Encyclopaedia (about subjects on Portugal, China or other matters), it would certainly be more grammatically correct, but certainly less interesting and complete. Many articles I have written to Wiki have been grammatically improved by other users, which is a nice and constructive thing. Specific comments:

  • I have not added the "(pictured...)", but I agree it would have been better placed near the name. Not a problem to me, though.
  • "still life" is a genre of painting and, as far as I know, can also be written "still-life".
  • to say that the "whole DYK is confusing" because of the lack of this "of" is a bit too much. I am sure that most people would grasp the message of the DYK without ever realising there was a grammatical mistake.

--Fsouza 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are?

Stublike articles getting onto the main page? More stringent reqs should make articles look at lease start or B-class to get on. I even saw one article with two paragraphs that got on DYK.Bakaman 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been away for over a week (got called back yesterday evening by the vet as my dog needed an operation), so I've not been updating. I'm sure I'm not the only one away from the computer at Christmas - the section should start to pick up again soon. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From newly referenced info instead of new articles?

Shouldn't we be encouraging sourcing of articles rather than new articles? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-25t21:20z

What we should be encouraging is new articles that are already well-sourced. This is what DYK should be- and, in my view, generally is. -- Kicking222 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Laurel1.jpg

There's currently a note at WP:ERRORS that the image on DYK isn't matched with an item with "pictured", and I can't figure out which it fits. Could someone take a look? Thanks, BanyanTree 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks, BanyanTree 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lake Chaubunagungamaug

The main page has "Lake" and "Chaubunagungamaug" linking separatly to the same article. I know it's soon to be removed, but maybe it can be fixed beforehand. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to do it or else it would ruin the Main Page DYK box width. The full name actually made the left column 75:25 with the right column, so I had to shorten and separate it. Nishkid64 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the Portraits already.

Stop it with the portraits already!! DYK is also about landscapes, inanimate objects, and paintings. I don't wanna see some guy that bit the dust decades ago on DYK. I want to be educated and enticed to get drawn in. Enough with the dead dudes. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The last update had a picture of A Christmas Story House as the lead item. The other day the Library of Parliament made the lead. Portraits are more common as you can be fairly certain whether they're public domain or not. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather click on pics that aren't dead people. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Namus

I believe this article needs to better sourced before we put something this controversial on the Main Page. This –

The namus of a man is violated, if., e.g., his daughter is not dressed "appropriately" or if he tolerates an offense without reaction.

In most conservative interpretation, if a woman is raped, she is not seen as a wictim. Instead, it is considered that the namus of the whole family was violated, and to restore it, a honour killing of the raped woman may happen (estimated 5,000 victims yearly). In other cases, the raped woman under a social duress to restore namus commits forced suicide.

For a woman, namus is in obeyance, faithfulness, modesty (in behaviour and in dress), "appropriateness" ("she knows when to sit and when to stand up").

For an unmarried woman, the utmost importance is virginity before marriage, and "proof of virginity" in the form of bloodstains on a bed sheet is required to proudly demonstrate after the wedding night.

– should be sourced. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. We can't have an unsourced controversial section in the article. I'll put it off to the bottom of DYK/N. Nishkid64 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Controversial section? What is so controversial here? All is referenced. The guy with the name 'Tariq' should know better. This topic is all over Turkey and Germany. Whatever. I added plenty of references and expanded in no time. `'mikka 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You ought to be ashamed for posting a comment like that. You knew exactly what I was talking about, given the fact that I pasted the entire paragraph here. I know you'll respond with a that's not what I meant, but I know exactly what you're implying with the statement that The guy with the name 'Tariq' should know better. Sorry mikkalai, but the article was indeed poorly-sourced; that's a fact, as you acknowledged with all these changes, that has nothing to do with what you perceive as my name, ethnicity, or religion. Please keep your prejudices off Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Properly title article links please!!

...that Bruce Campbell was removed from office as a Circuit Court Judge in the United Kingdom after being convicted of importing whisky and cigarettes without paying customs duty on them?

At first glance, the article seems to link to Bruce Campbell, not Keith Bruce Campbell. Only by clicking on said link shows the redirect. Nothing in the article supports the useage of the former use of the name. Was this intentional to garner page views, or just an honest mistake?--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I was copying and pasting from next update to DYK, I saw that it was a redirect. I think it was unintentional. Nishkid64 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK tags in the small=yes format

You may be aware that a small=yes parameter has been added to the templates, per Wikipedia:Talk page templates#Small option. I just switched over Talk:Maraba Coffee so one can see the table of contents on the first page, and found myself in a bit of a quandary with the DYK tag. The person who had added the tag had signed the post. In order to keep the sig and tag associated, I put the sig in the box, but now it kind of looks weird. Do the DYK folk have a preference for how they want the formatting in these cases handled? - BanyanTree 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing articles from archive

At least one or more articles were not archived. I went here looking for my entry from December 31st, but the article is not shown on this page or one of the recent pages of the archive. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-02 14:16Z

I guess that periodically happens. I personally vouch for my own archiving, so don't blame me :D. =) Nishkid64 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooks

I've taken it on myself this past day to edit the hooks that are on the Template:Did you know/Next update page. Some were more like a opening paragraph than a "hook". Here's the one that made it to DYK before I got my hands on it:

... that the Ayles Ice Shelf at Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago collapsed in less than an hour in August 2005, setting a 66 km² (25 mi²) ice island adrift in the Arctic Ocean, but the collapse was only discovered during the recent analysis of satellite images captured by MODIS?

To me, that is not a hook! (great choice for a DYK, however). I would have changed it to something like:

...in 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago collapsed in less than an hour?

or...

...the Ayles Ice Shelf in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago collapsed in 2005 but was only recently discovered by analyzing satellite images?

Does anyone else feel strongly that these hooks need to "bite"? And while the subject is on the table, does anyone else notice the word "that" at the start of almost every DYK is an unneeded filler word? Here are examples from today:


See how removing "thats" doesn't change the meaning in the slightest? I hope these suggestions/observations are helpful. ◄HouseOfScandal► 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know some of the recent DYK's have been quite verbose, to say the least. Surprisingly, the DYK's I put were quite short. Anyway, getting back to the point. The word "that" is implied in DYK's, but I still think it is nice to put it there. I wouldn't mind it being removed, but I feel it might need to be used in some DYK's in order to convey the proper meaning. Nishkid64 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the word that is unnecessary due to the fact that the word that conveys nothing that the sentence could convey on its own. Additionally, I believe that the excessive use of the word that gives an unprofessional tone that Wikipedia should be avoiding. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think (that) no one intended to start inserting the word but (that) it somehow slipped in and (that) this bad habit has proved hard to break. I streamlined the last group of DYK's but someone inserted a "that" before every entry before posting them. Also, if I had the opportunity I would have changed:

...that in his 1560s work the Zimmern Chronicle Count Froben Christoph von Zimmern tried to establish a lineage to the ancient tribe of Cimbri just because his name sounded similar?

To:

...in the Zimmern Chronicle, Count von Zimmern claimed descent from the Cimbri because his name sounded similar?

As long as I can do so without stepping on any toes, I'll continue to gently advocate we sharpen our hooks. House of Scandal 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I do an update, I put all the "that"'s back if I see they were removed, but then I am a traditionalist. I do agree hooks need to be punchy, and I put that boilerplate comment reminding people that the hooks should be short into the source for the next update (../clear) since it seemed good to me. I guess I do not want to see "that" taken out, I like symmetry++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Too short?

...let's wait until we get more agreement on the whole deal with the hooks and the word "that" before making any changes to DYK. Also, I'm starting to dislike this whole shortening idea. Sure, it may make them sound better, but I preferred them when they were interesting and had dates and other particular names. I just lost interest in some of the articles, because the hooks seem so dry, as compared to the original DYK's. Nishkid64 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's probably a middle ground here which is ideal. I might be "dumbing them down" too much...Only in the last few days have I taken an active roll in the DYK process: choosing articles for the next update, editing hooks so that they are sharp, and even vetoing stuff that is POV, not up to editorial standards or whatever. I know its probably just a matter of time before my honest efforts at quality-control in this regard enfuriate someone, but my fingers are crossed that it is later rather than sooner. Contributions/HouseOfScandalHouse of ScandalHouseOfScandal 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • HouseOfScandal, I almost completely agree with you about what U call the "sharpening" of DYK hooks...but I can see Nishkid64's point that maybe U took it too far. However, given the choice between a hook that rambles on your phrase after phrase and one that is too succinct, I'd chose the shorter one. Regarding Nishkid64's point about the dramatic variety of articles HouseOfScandal cranks out, I noticed that too. I can't image what it must be like in your brain HoS! Just kidding, as long as they are all of the quality I've seen, more power 2 U. Do you take requests? -- Shaundakulbara 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Updating "Next Update"

If you add or remove articles from the next update page, please remove or replace the article on the suggestions page. If they aren't removed it becomes more difficult to manage the next update, and if they are removed from the next update page and not replaced on the suggestions page they are effectively thrown away without explanation.

If you make a change to the hooks please add an edit summary so the next editor has some idea why you have made a change.

I'd also suggest we take hooks in vaguely chronological order, i.e. let's not take them from yesterday when we have a queue of articles that are likely to expire in the next 24 hours. Yomanganitalk 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the chronological order has already been dealt with, and I also totally agree with the need for edit summaries. That would surely help make things easier. Nishkid64 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of balance on next update

On {{Did you know/Next update}}, we have six items. Five are United States-related. Now, I'm not the type who complains when a third, or even half, of the items on one of the mainpage templates are American. But five out of six? I'm going to see what I can do about replacing some. Picaroon 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You are right in this regard. We should try to have only one per country per update (I’m pretty sure this is stated in DYK guidelines somewhere). Most would probably agree its also a good idea to have at least one DYK per update that concerns the world outside North America and Europe. DYK weighs heavily towards history, but when there's something different (such as science or pop culture) thrown in, that's great. In a related note, it’s a shame to have a whole series of articles about something very specific (be it Ontario politicians, medieval Chinese literature, NASA or whatever) appearing on DYK many times in one week or even on several consecutive days. When we see a DYK and say to ourselves "didn't this one run already?" its indicative of a lack of variety. House of Scandal 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But all I can write about is sports, politics and current events. =( Nishkid64 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The theme repetition is always a problem, as editors always go and have a week or two, where they concentrate on a group of related articles, before moving onto another theme. I think at one stage in late August, I managed 4 Indian cricketers in one week, but people don't notice until you do about 7-8 of them. There's nothing you can really do, unless the standard goes high, eg to GA type level, so that the same guy can't write an article per day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_16&oldid=1142665686"