Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25


Another proposal (re: DYK vs. ITN)

Earlier this week, this tag was removed from a then-front-paged DYK, with the edit summary "please do not turn DYK into a 'runners up ITN'. DYK is not for news stories.":

...that on March 23 a Transaviaexport Cargo Airline Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft delivering humanitarian aid was shot down in Somalia?

Furthermore, before this nom was accepted, a user had tagged that it was perhaps more appropriate for ITN. However, on the DYK guidelines it says nothing about not accepting news stories. It seems to me that if we wish to draw a clear distinction between ITN and DYK, then that should be clarified in the #Suggestions part, because, as far as I could tell, the nomination did meet the criteria, and apparently one user (whoever filled the next update) thought it was good enough for inclusion, even with the note on the nom.

How could we phrase such a guideline? Don't include articles about events that happened this week? Or perhaps merely the hook shouldn't mention that it was this week (this hook did)? Or does this come up so seldom that we shouldn't worry about it? Rigadoun (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that ... I actually disagree with the removal of the hook. There is no such rule AFAIK -- DYK can show any new article, right? This was a new article, so it qualifies under DYK rules. Perhaps we should involve the ITN editors in this discussion. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
By convention, news is not generally approved of in DYK historically speaking. Although putting DYKs up which coincide with anniversaries etc, is considered ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we explain that in the suggestions box? It's not obvious, especially if the anniversary things are ok (which also have their own space on the main page). Rigadoun (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. I did some Eurovision Song Contest ones at the same time as it was held last year. Having said, these things are an inexact anniversary, eg the US election, World Cups etc, are not on the exact same day every four years, because the weekend or Tuesday, etc is not on the same date for each cycle. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about hook length limit.

I understand that the hook should be under 200 characters. Are spaces counted as characters? According to my word processor's "word count" feature, my hook slightly oversteps the 200-character limit if spaces are counted as characters, but if they are not, it is safely below the limit. I think it's more likely that spaces are counted as characters; if so, I'll have to trim the hook a bit. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, spaces are not counted for '200-character limit' rule. - KNM Talk 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly count spaces as characters; but if you are worried that spaces may make your hook too long, I would venture to suggest that some of the words could be shortened or removed. Just nominate it and see if someone else can do better - that is one of the functions of the suggestions page. -- ALoan (Talk) 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that spaces are counted generally speaking, but I never count the hook length anyway, because I am always trying to make them more succinct and removing redundant words. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone around to update the template?

Can anyone put the April Fools content up, as sort of discussed here? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's all good to go? I'll get right on it, and hopefully someone will be able to clean up the mess I'll make if I do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. If there's another nom or two we could use, that would improve the balance a bit, but what's there is there now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure things will be changed around later, but that's great for now. Carcharoth 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over the entries in DYK Template

May I request the involved Admins to stop the revert war that is going on, with the DYK Template? We need to keep in mind that, it is impacting the main page of the Wikipedia. Please use this page for discussion instead of reverting it from one another. Thanks. - KNM Talk 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Further,

  • Should we use those "funny" DYKs on this day, April Fools day?
  • Should we consider articles which are not recently created or expanded?
  • Are those "funny" entries really funny? What makes them to get precedence over the others?
Eg: ...that Rush Limbaugh was appointed an ambassador to India?
A person X was appointed as Y to country Z. What is so interesting in this fact? or in what way it is funny enough to be featured on April 1st? IMHO, it is not eligible for DYK. - KNM Talk 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In terms of that particular article and its hook, the oddity is presumably going to be stronger for an American than for someone from outside the US (Limbaugh being a commentator there). I was at least passingly interested in the fact that an ancestor of a famous person was also famous, but it's not the world's greatest fact by any means. In terms of the actual mechanics of the thing, I have no objection to adding "funny" entries to DYK. They should be eligible regardless, and a fair bit of that omission is probably my fault in that I assumed that the April 1 template had actually been vetted carefully enough before I added it all in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
After removing the penguin one, there is only one article there that was not recently created or expanded, and that one was specifically created to become an article for the April Fools Day Main Page. —Centrx→talk • 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Main Page 2008

The April Fools Main Page 2007 project was advertised in the Community bulletin board for a good deal of time and DYK's participation was discussed on this talk page several times and discussed over the past two months in detail at April Fools Main Page 2007. DYK participated in the April Fools Main Page 2006 project and there was a consensus among those admins who list themselves as DYK admins that DYK would participate in the April Fools Main Page 2007 project and there was a much broader consensus at April Fools Main Page 2007 for approval of the project. There was consensus to modify the DYK rules to meet the temporary, 24-hour needs of the April Fools Main Page 2007 project, such as using articles that were not recently created or expanded. The initial April Fools DYK list was posted for comment and those who participated in the project were notified on their talk page about the proposed April Fools Main Page 2007 DYK list was ready for final comment. DYK itself was notified that the proposed list was ready for comment. Despite these significant consensus approval and re-approval efforts, the DYK Template experienced reversions without concensus and issues that were resolved by concensus long ago were raised anew. Despite April Fools Main Page 2007's efforts to achieve its goals without disruption, it apparently did not completely succeed. What can be done for April Fools Main Page 2008 to address this? -- Jreferee 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem to go too badly, certainly not if previous years are anything to go by. I'm talking here about the planned stuff. The April Fools vandalism (people creating fake articles and inserting fake facts into real articles and not removing them) - that is destructive and needs tidying up for weeks after the event. Anyway, the planned "funny or obscure but true" stuff seemed to go OK. I saw some comments from people about the DYK items being funny, and some comments about the picture being funny, and lots about the featured article being a great "joke". In fact, the featured article 'joke' was maybe a bit too successful - I suspect some people still think we made it all up and that this George Washington instant coffee inventor never existed! Which is a bit sad, because he did!
The revert war over DYK was a bit silly, but not the end of the world. I think for 2008, make it clear in the edit summaries, and on the relevant talk pages, that the DYK rules are being bent for the day. Then point this out to any reverting admins and ask them to read talk pages and edit summaries before reverting. That should stop any revert wars. Carcharoth 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Is DYK archived properly? I've been trying to point someone at a page showing the DYK template for April 1, but have had to use a version link (probably best anyway). Carcharoth 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right: the 1 April entries are missing from Wikipedia:Recent additions. Easily fixed. But a version link is problably best anyway, for how DYK would have appeared on the main page - particularly, in this case, as there was some back-and-forth about what should appear (and a couple of the ones from the old update were retained for the whole day - so well done, Cappuccio and Desmarest's Hutia). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Having just spent some time today reviewing the bot's nominations from 27 March (some of them are pretty good, but they are too old now - my fault for wasting my own time) I wondered if anyone else is actually reviewing the bot output. If not, it uses up rather a large amount of screen real estate. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I review them when I have time. For instance, I picked out 5 off March 26 at the last minute (at that point we had no suitable ones on either March 26 or 27, so I didn't want to start siphoning off from the 28th... however, I also forgot to take into account April Fool's Day so it probably wasn't even necessary). howcheng {chat} 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OK - in which case, can I encourage other people to look at them too - as can be seen over the past few days, there are usually some gems there, often on unusual topics by new editors who would benefit from a bit of recognition and encouragement. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious...

[Moved from the Template Talk page] Have articles with a DYK ever later been later deleted for lack of notability (or other reason)? Lenoxus " * " 11:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it happen, and I doubt it would happen often if it ever does, since the DYK process should ideally involve checking for adequate sourcing and so on. What ends up happening is that article creation with sources, in an NPOV manner, without violating copyright and so on is encouraged. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I saw one or two cases, primarily involving mergers...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I remembered seeing at least one, so I scoured through the archives and found four:

I thought I remembered one other, about a "state" in the tribal area of Pakistan, but I couldn't find it so it may have been somewhere else. It is somewhat embarrassing, especially the hoax, but it is far better than the general list of new articles. Rigadoun (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of a hook of one of my DYKs got merged and deleted.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In mid January 2007, I went through all the old DYK articles to see if I could fix the red linked ones. Some I redirected. With the successful DRV and AfD#2 of this article, all the DYK articles were no longer red linked as of mid-January 2007. -- Jreferee 06:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spaces

[Moved from the Template Talk page]

Oak Street (Chicago) - Since this whole page is a talk page. I am not sure where to ask about eligibility. Word 2007 gives two character counts. One with and one without spaces. Would this article be DYK eligible. It is over 1500, but under excluding spaces. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not eligible because it was not recently created nor significantly-expanded. See #Suggestions above. - KNM Talk 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I count 1,028 characters with spaces. I didn't count the 'See also' and 'External link' sections becuse they are lists. I also didn't count "[edit]".-- Jreferee 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As for spaces, our newly rewritten and perhaps improvable #Suggestions state "Characters (with spaces)". Spaces count. Art LaPella 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes that was the question. Do spaces count, if I want to work on this and submit. I see it would be ineligible. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this count?

Would the Ridolfi plot count for a DYK? I have basically rewritten the entire article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think so. We usually go by a 5x expansion rule for DYK articles. The article was expanded significantly, but not enough for DYK. Nishkid64 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Expired DYK noms on the DYK template

Two noms from April 3 (Plaza Mayor, Trinidad, Cuba and The Century (building) are up for the next update. Earliest time is 12.20 UTC, 9 April. Surely their nominatin period has expired (6 days ago?). Including them isn't fair on other newer articles in the queue waiting to get a shot at being chosen. 81.157.196.211 09:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with 81.157.196.211 that rules should be followed, I'd suggest we cut the busy admins some slack. It looks like they are trying to catch up and clear the backlog, rather than deliberately picking sth old. It's off by less than 24h, i.e. so little! Let it be. Let it be. --PFHLai 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not too mention it is pretty unfair to exclude articles that meet all the requirements and were nominated the day they were created just because of a backlog. IvoShandor 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be on DYK twice?

I was just thinking about this loophole since Fanny Durack is quite short. It would not be difficult to make the main text five times longer. I wonder because it could theoretically qualify as an expanded article for DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good question. Seems to me that it isn't explicitly prohibited...IvoShandor 08:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I'd be wary of re-frontpaging something as I'd take the view that it had "already had its chance". It's a false analogy, but articles don't get featured on the front page twice and only in the most exceptional circumstances would one be ITN'd twice either (that I can think of). Not sure how On This Day works, but I'd imagine they try to spread the love as well. I'd also be a little bit worried that users whose articles weren't frontpaged in favour of the expanded one would complain - not that that by itself is a reason to do anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any specific examples, but I do think things can go to ITN more than once, if it's a case like multiple skirmishes that lead to the same main article about a conflict. But then, I think ITN is kind of different since it's not necessarily there to promote certain articles so much as mention news items, and there isn't always a very clear article to match the headline. I think it's also happened that a DYK becoming a mainpaged FA (generally after considerable further expansion/modification). Technically speaking, for DYK it shouldn't be allowed, since in order to qualify as a new article, it should have to be a non-stub, and for expansion it should have started as a stub. Personally I think the rules for expanded articles should be stricter, and require expansion to be from what is really quite stubby (say <500 chars), because it claims to be about the "newest articles," not "newly expanded articles." Under that criterion, Fanny Durack is definitely too substantial. Rigadoun (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Durack is only 1067 characters in the main text. It would fail today's standards. But if expand it to 10k in the main text as I could easily do, it counts as virtually new, correct? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the last point. Like many Wikipedia areas, visual arts has vast numbers of ancient two or three line stubs which are still over 500 characters long. In so far as DYK encourages new articles, the expansion of these to proper articles should certainly be encouraged. I would rather see the minimum for a new/expanded article increased. This comment (excluding signature, and with a bit of padding like this) is now exactly five hundred characters long, by the way – it isn’t a lot! Johnbod 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I've got no objection to a DYK'd article getting into the Featured pile (I can think of two examples, although the exact titles escape me - a saint of some description and something like "Durer's Rhinoceros"). What I meant - and may have been a bit fuzzy in saying - was that I'd be concerned if an article were to appear as a featured article more than once. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several articles that have appeared on the Main Page as a DYK, then become FAs and later appeared on the Main Page as TFA. A more recent (and quicker) example is The Four Stages of Cruelty, which went from DYK to FA to TFA in little more than a month. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From a different point of view, articles do get on the Main Page multiple times when associated with a POTD (and I'm not just talking about POTD reruns). I think Pollination has been up a few times, and History of photography is coming around for a 2nd time next month (with a different picture). howcheng {chat} 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just merged Cappuccio (2 weeks ago) with Chaperon (headgear) (January), which now has 2 banners. Johnbod 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Order to add

I don't suppose it matters too much, but the new suggestions instructions don't make clear if new items are supposed to be added to the top or bottom of each day's section. Is there a preferred order? Johnbod 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That should be clarified. Most people add them to the top. It makes it easier for people like me to look for articles I haven't seen if they're all in one place, so I suggest we mention that in the suggestions part. Rigadoun (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excluding lists and tables from character counts

I know a number of us including myself have left comments about character counts/article length excluding lists and tables and whatnot. It does say in the rules "main body text", but T:TDYK only specifies infoboxes, categories, and references. As a result, I've added lists and tables to T:TDYK. Feel free to revert if you disagree. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indicating nominations in edit summaries?

Would it be possible for the administrators to indicate in their edit summaries the nominations they have commented on? This would save editors from having to repeatedly check the DYK talk page to find out if their nominations have been commented upon. Cheers, Jacklee 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to do this. thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Newest" articles

Some editors have suggest the tagline 'from wikipedia's newest articles' for DYK is misleading because greatly expanded articles qualify as well. Check out Talk:Main Page#DYK and "newest_articles" for the original discussion. Nil Einne 07:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Newest articles" is close enough, particularly when all we really need is a compact and plain description for the MainPage. Greatly expanded articles are new articles for all practical purposes anyway, which is why they're now allowed on DYK. Sometimes it's necessary to just simplify things a little.--Pharos 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
One could even argue that stubs are not really "articles", but only, well, "stubs".--Carabinieri 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest "From wikipedia's latest additions". If "latest" is not good, "new" or "recent" would work, too. This fits any DYKs, be it a new article or a recently expanded old article. --PFHLai 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, "newest articles" is more impressive and it's basically quite true anyway. By, the way, I've recently modified the wording on the recent additions page (which "newest articles" links to) to explain the full practice.--Pharos 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Alexander at Issus Hook

This article needs ahook..and fast. Is there anyone who can help? I've already suggested one on the template, but it is thus far too long. --- ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 08:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reordering

Hi, Sorry it didn't look right that the admin's went to the top for next update so I fiddled with the order. OK in advance from my point of view to revert. Just a suggestion to keep in mind. Thanks for choosing an article of mine (though I guess I thought had good images too). -Susanlesch 09:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a desire to put my own nom on top -- I just thought the ant picture was the most easily discernible at this small size, where as the others were a bit more muddled (i.e., at 100x100px it was hard to tell what I was looking at). And I didn't put your nom (Charles Loring) on top because the last update also had a photo of a person on top so I was trying to vary it (and I didn't select the road sign pic because I would rather choose the picture goes with the boldfaced article rather than something more incidental in the hook). howcheng {chat} 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"Wish I could say I am impressed by your argument but to my eye the 3 of Birds playing card is genuine art. And, sadly because there is no way out of it now, finding you've put your ant article at the top of the next update twice in a row, I am reminded of a former boss who declared "never use a serif typeface" in television production which was/is 544x372, the CBS logo being only one example of what happens when one takes a wider view. -Susanlesch 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean to say here -- what does using a serif typeface have to do with the CBS eye? I took the ant article off that update for balance (the DYK section made the left column too long). The playing card is genuine art, sure, but at 100x100px it's harder to tell what it is, where as you can tell what the ant is even at that size. Is there some sort of "honor" to be first or something? I thought just appearing on the Main Page was good enough. If you really object, I'll just drop the ant article period. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe another admin can move it in for you. I surely don't object to it and will do it if no one else does. -Susanlesch 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Maybe someone with a little more experience would volunteer to take care of the order. -Susanlesch 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In a wider context, I know as a rule, I shouldn't be moving my own articles up to next update to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, but recently I've been doing a lot of the updates. If I don't pick my own articles, there's a good chance they won't be picked at all and like everyone else, I want to see mine make it to the Main Page. I figure as long as I'm objective about it, it should be fine, shouldn't it? howcheng {chat} 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same in the past.--Carabinieri 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A challenge

I was recently pointed at Mary Tofts, and I thought it would be ideal for DYK. Unfortunately, it appears a bit too long at the moment. If it was massively expanded (might not be possible) would it qualify for DYK? A better alternative might be to take one of the more notable people associated with the event (eg. Richard Manningham [1]), expand that and then do a hook based on Manningham's involvement with the Mary Tofts affair? I don't have the time, sadly, but is anyone up for the challenge? Carcharoth 11:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there will not be enough material to expand that article enough (in a strange incidence of synchronicity, I was looking at that image, for an entirely unrelated reason, yesterday). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
More Hogarth stuff I surmise. :-) Carcharoth 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting images

I always upload images from Commons and slap {{c-uploaded}} on them (not necessary, as the cascading protection will get them anyway, useful so the local copies can be deleted again).

This is a bit of a WP:BEANs issue, but other people seem to simple add {{mprotected}} or {{c-uploaded}} to the local page without uploading locally (see Image:Rachel Silverthorne Mural in Muncy, Pennsylvania crop.JPG and Image:LWD SZPAK.JPG); and some are not being protected as all, as far as I can see (for example, Image:Stetson's Uncle Tom's Cabin - Eliza.jpg).

I thought there was a potential issue if we did not either (a) protect the version at commons (but most en: admins - like me! - are not commons admins) or (b) protect a local copy. Cascading protection muddies the water, but as far as I am aware, it cannot reach images at commons. Can someone who understands the issues please confirm what is necessary. Do I need to continue uploading commons images? It is sufficient to protect the local page without uploading? Or is it necessary to do anything at all now? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Commons admin, so when I do the updates, I just do as you say: create a new page with just {{mprotected}} and then protect the Commons version (I set them with 12 or 16-hour expirations, with longer periods on weekends). There was a recent update to the MediaWiki software that made it so that the only way to tell if a page was protected via cascading protection was to go to the "protect" tab where you would see it. I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I believe it's been entered as a bug. Anyway, those who are not Commons admins will need to continue c-uploading them here, or if you're short on time and it's between the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM (GMT -7:00) leave a message for me and I'll (usually) get it pretty quickly. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good! So as a non-commons admin, I should continue to load local copies and {{c-uploaded}} them. OK.
According to Category:Protected main page images, you (as a commons admin) don't have to add a protected template to a local page if you protect it at commons and add {{En main page}} (not sure why the first step is necessary: doesn't cascading work there? I hardly ever need to protect them here, because the images are cascading-protected when the template is added). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, for DYK I don't bother with the {{en main page}} template on Commons. I figure it's only a short period anyway and the chance of someone trying to do a legitimate edit on it during that time is pretty low. Nobody's complained, at any rate. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Column balance on Main Page

I've noticed that the left-right balance on the Main Page can vary depending on one's browser screen real estate. For example, at 1024x768, the left (DYK) might be too long, but at 1280x960, both sides will be about even. This results in someone maybe adding an additional entry because it looks off on their screen, but then it messes up for someone else. Do we want to set a rule that we test the balance out at a certain screen resolution? I'm not too convinced of the need for this myself, but I thought I'd bring it up. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on screen resolution, browser setup, font size, skin, etc. I know from experience that I need to set up DYK slightly shorter than I would like to make it work for most other people :) I think this sort of thing tends to work be resolved pretty quickly if the length is off too much either way. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1024x768 is what Wikipedia is supposed to be formatted too, IIRC. That's the most common resolution, so I say we go with that. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say that Wikipedia is meant to be formatted for 1024x768? Is it meant to be formatted for a particular we brower, browser settings, font and font size, etc? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If we had some sort of statistics that showed the most common screen resolution and/or skin (most likely Monobook) that would help. 1024 is probably reasonable though. In my industry (web development) we've been recently converting our sites to be optimized at 1024x768, having upgraded from 800x600. howcheng {chat} 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

using the archives

Am I dense? Reading the archives of past DYK items I see no indication whatsoever of their content's date. Do I have to open up the archive page's history and make an estimation that these DYK blurbs date to approximately one month before the date of the archive page's creation, or something like that? Doops | talk 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They are just not set up that way. The easiest way would be to check for a the date in the template on one of the article's talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe we can separate them by date in the archive? howcheng {chat} 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to go back manually through our 139 archive? (I just set up another 5 from the last 3 weeks today.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orval Grove

...that Orval Grove was one out away from a no-hitter on July 8, 1943 when Joe Gordon doubled off of him?

Sorry, but this is a very badly written DYK. The terminology is foreign to anybody who does not know the sport of baseball and it is by no means clear how interesting or unusual this occurrence is, to a layman. In fact it's not even clear what sport this DYK is talking about in the first place. This should have been rewritten to have more context and be more inclusive to a worldwide audience, before being allowed on the main page. Qwghlm 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting it (mentioning the sport, which is definitely required). It's still terribly clunky to read, so with any luck someone who speaks fluent baseball will be able to translate it better before the template is changed again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what that hook means :/ -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it means that Grove was a pitcher who would have had a game where nobody hit any of his pitches (which is a significant achievement for a pitcher) if he'd got one more player out when Gordon hit a pitch and ran to second base as a result. Actually communicating that in a pithy hook which doesn't result in people wondering what it means (or wondering why it's been so badly-written, after I had at it :P) is a challenge, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just pointing this out for future reference, but you guys could've ASKED me to make it clearer :)--Wizardman 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my bad. I must have been in a hurry, because looking back on it, I should have rejected that hook. No-hitters aren't that rare (there seem to be a few each season, and I don't even follow baseball), and one-hitters are certainly more common. howcheng {chat} 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Late addition for the sake of information: No hitters aren't that common. Check List of Major League Baseball no-hitters, for instance from June 12, 2004-April 17, 2007 there wasn't a single no hitter in the American League and just two in all of baseball. Certainly there are seasons where multiple no hitters are thrown but they still aren't common given the long history of baseball and the number of games played in a season. One hitters are certainly more commons though. IvoShandor 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cartwright

This article was a DYK in February, after I gave it a fairly decent expansion from one sentence to around 1,200 characters (here was the old nom and the article as it was expanded then). Well, he died the other day, and I have expanded it again to around 5,200 characters (like this). Can I nominate it a second time? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed above at #Can an article be on DYK twice?, without much consensus. Rigadoun (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think it should be used. The only reason this is possible is the fact that the minimum size for an article has changed. DYK is supposed to give new articles (okay some are just stubs that were expanded) a bit of publicity, but how can an article be new twice?--Carabinieri 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Current and Next Update DYKs

Some of the current and upcoming DYKs have been tagged with reconstruction and revamping tags, and many do not look complete, with few links, bad formation (perhaps) and a lack of footnotes/references. Just mentioning it. Thanks, —A • D Torque 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably blind, but I don't see that on either the current batch or the next update template (the next update template being blank right now). It's usually the updating admin's job to make sure that whatever's on the next update is in fact a complete article - or at least, I got reminded very firmly to be more careful the one time I rushed an update through... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed them when I did an update yesterday. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Did you know/Next update/Time}}

I have been bold and moved the update banner to a subpage, and transcluded it back. I have also added it to next update, and the Main Page DYK template, so anyone reading any of the three pages can see when the next update is due. The subpage incorporates a header, so it is easy to edit (just like the subpages on WP:FAC, WP:AFD, etc.) Feedback welcome.

Is there a way to make the background change from brown to, say, red when it is 6 hours or more since the last update? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem to work, as the current time in the template does not update properly... Ideas welcome! -- ALoan (Talk) 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should do that now (switches to red background when the hours since last update are greater than 5). Yomanganitalk 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Did you fix it? Yomanganitalk 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I applied #ifexpr instead of just #if. howcheng {chat} 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, bit of confusion there - the red works fine (thanks, Yomangani) - I was complaining that the new time template does not seem to always update properly on each page - the different pages seem to display different times occasionally. Perhaps I need to purge more often? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be working more or less for me now. I take it there are no objections to the new setup? Any suggestions for further improvements? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say that this background colour change is a most useful new feature. Smee 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Most DYKs?

Frequent DYK contributors may be interested to see the discussion at User talk:Yomangani sparked by his recent 100th DYK nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK Award

The current DYK Award, is {{The DYK Medal}}. Perhaps we should create a separate one, for reaching a certain number of DYKs, like (50), or (100). Smee 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Created a category

Category:Wikipedia Did you know and Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors categories

I created a category to keep all the DYK related pages, including boxes, templates, Wikipedia pages, etc : Category:Wikipedia Did you know. Smee 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Added an output category for the three types of userboxes users display on their main page: Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors. It would be tough to put an output category attached to ({{UpdatedDYK}}) and to ({{UpdatedDYKNom}}), because as these are placed on user's talk pages, the talk page would go in the category, and not the user page... Smee 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
    • So far, looks like 111 Wikipedians have contributed to Wikipedia:Did you know... Smee 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Not that we really need to manage pages for DYK (there aren't that many), but the contributor list does look like a pretty good idea. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Did you know

  • I don't know about that last question. But I would be comfortable if others are with moving User:Anonymous Dissident's list into mainspace, as a subpage of this project somewhere, i.e., Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. I won't create/move the list myself, but let someone else if this sounds like a good idea... Smee 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, given that we're not totally sure about the numbers, I would avoid sending it to the Wikipedia namespace (P.S. Wikipedia is not the mainspace). It seems fine in the userspace for now. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay. I will personally not be the one moving anything anywhere into the Wikipedia space, I would let someone else do it if so inclined when/if consensus changes. But I see your points, and thank you for the most polite demeanor and kind feedback. Yours, Smee 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Change to the notification templates

Two important change to {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}:

  1. They no longer require the article title to be linked. Usage: {{subst:UpdatedDYK|Month DD|YYYY|Article name}}
  2. You can now do multiple notifications in one fell swoop simply by adding more parameters. Usage: {{subst:UpdatedDYK|Month DD|YYYY|Article 1|Article 2|Article 3}}. UpdatedDYK (for article creators) takes up to 5 articles, and UpdatedDYKNom (for nominators) takes up to 7. I figured it was a lot more likely that nominators would need more than creators. I've also update the boilerplate text in Template:Did you know/Next update to not have the links. Enjoy! howcheng {chat} 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice changes, Howcheng. I guess I need to fix up my monobook, then (I use an automated script for DYK crediting). Nishkid64 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WE need more admin help. Or just help.

Okay, there is currently a 12-hour gap right now in between DYKs, a 6 hour backlog. I just got on now so I can handle it, but with the next update not even created yet, this is posing a problem. Maybe we can find some reliable editors to choose articles for the next update so we're not scrambling, even though they can't do the main page?--Wizardman 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's no biggie. This has happened many times before, and we easily get rid of backlogs, or get faster updates in due time. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
When there is a problem, I tend to go to the anniversaries page and pad it up so we can buy another space for another item. Today I added in teh assasination of Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. Amzed it was not put up there straightaway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that is a creative solution: pad the right column so we can add more DYKs :) Hopefully the red template will encourage admins to roll their sleeves up and update the main page template.
Remember, folks - any editor (not just an admin) can move a candidate from the "Suggestions" page to the "Next Update" page. Speaking as an updater, it makes things much faster when someone else sets up the update for me, so I can just copy it over to the main page template and the archive, and do the notifications. Please help us out. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion...
  • Perhaps non-Admin editors who are active in the Did you know... project could also lessen the workload by helping out with the "Credits" part of the Template:Did you know/Next update page? Perhaps we could create a list of active Did you know... editors who would be willing to help out with this fairly automated task. Smee 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Or maybe even a Bot could do the crediting? Smee 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

The credits actually don't take that much time. The bulk of the work (for me at least) is filling up the update, because you gotta check each article, make sure that the references are good, make sure the fact mentioned in the hook is referenced, and that the article conforms to all other policies (NPOV, notability, etc). On top of that, you have to find a good mix of things to put in while making sure you get all the older ones. Then there's the image, and if the image is unsourced or whatever, then you use a different image or find an article that has a viable image. Lastly there's the whole issue of length, and can the facts be edited to be punchier, or just shorter so you can squeeze in one more fact when there's a lot of candidates... whew! So yeah, doing the credits is easy. :) howcheng {chat} 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarification. I am sure that there are editors out there that would like to help with all that, I know I would not mind pitching in. I suppose we all just have watched from the sidelines and see that it is mostly Admins that do those things. Smee 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

The investigation is the main problem, and sometimes the admins might even be complacent. I don't know if Lar didn't bother checking, but I eventually noticed that he posted my Harold Hardwick article last May when it was unsourced. I forgot to add the source and perhaps Lar assumed that because I am a honest editor that I didn't make anything up. Well I didn't, but a reader might be a bit sceptical. In any case, I guess that could happen when I am doing it because sometimes I think the regular guys will all put in their refs. Well they might forget like me. But yes, the investigation is the main problem, especially if you don't check sometimes, you get articles using primary sources, partisan sources, or promotional pamphlets among other things which aren't totally RS. But it's better to have all people looking, not just admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding editor action

Is it appropriate for another editor that may have a gripe/grudge/bias against a certain user that likes to create new articles and post noms to DYK, to follow that user around and post negative comments below a high number of that user's DYK nominations, in order to decrease the chances that many of the user's contributions will be featured on the Main Page? Smee 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

As long the comments are legitimate, I don't see any concerns. If it's serious wiki stalking, then the stalked editor should report to appropriate places. Regarding the negative comments, if it's nonconstructive, the administrators will ignore it. Aquarius &#149; talk 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on luck I guess. With some people who have sparring partners for nationalist topics, they often go around subjeting articles of their opponents to scrutiny that would otherwise be missed. I guess the way is to scrutinise the other uncontested articles better, although frivolous complaints and filibubstering are hopefully ignored. I picked one of Smee's articles over some irrelevant complaints a while ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so one editor thinks that if this is considered wiki stalking, it should be reported somewhere, and the other thinks that this really depends on "luck", and that if it is seen to be frivolous comments, some of the DYK noms will be chosen anyway. I am not certain what to do at this point. Any other comments, perhaps more direct as to what users should do if they feel this is happening, because according to the last comment by User:Blnguyen, it appears this is not an altogether uncommon occurrence... Smee 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
What I meant is that sometimes some people who make good articles may be held to a higher standard because they are editing in a hotly contested area. See for example the Anon Dissident list, Piotrus and Ghirla were one of our most famous but their articles were investigated the most by one another (usually). Whereas some mediocre articles may never be checked much because nobody is contesting them. That's consensus I guess (by terra nullius in some cases, and not others). But unless it is the standard one like length, no sources, oldness, % new, then I check the article again and somtimes ignore the objection. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the two are actually saying the same thing. Aquarius is saying that the comments need to be legitimate, and if they're not then it might be stalking. Blnguyen is also saying that the legitimacy of comments is what's important. The bottom line would seem to be that if you (say) nominate an article and I (say) come along and comment that the sourcing is in need of attention, that's perfectly valid. If, however, I come along and comment that "This is the 2000th article that Smee's nominated" (or even "Smee is pushing some particular POV here"), that's not valid. It's all about the nature of the comments, in other words. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, BigHaz, for your polite elaboration on this, very clear clarification. And if the second example you gave is the case, what is that user's best option of recourse? Smee 11:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
I'll preface my response by saying that I've studiously avoided the dispute resolution procedures here to date, for the simple reason that I'm not fond of disputes. If you think there's a bad faith element in the whole thing, I'd suggest getting in touch with either the user in question (if you think it can be resolved just by "talking it out") or directly with an admin (if you'd like another opinion). As for precisely what would happen after that, I'll say that the dispute resolution process can end up doing all kinds of things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you all for your helpful clarification and most polite responses. Smee 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Hmm, you could start an WP:RFC if necessary or lodge a complaint at WP:ANI I guess. There's never been an arbitration on DYK specifically, but there are some cases that have involved DYK editors who have had disputes generally about things (usually nationalism) and that debate reaches the nominations pages I guess. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, thank you for the advice, taken under consideration. Smee 10:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Ooops

Sorry for that revert. It blipped on my RC console. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest number of new articles in a single DYK hook?

Since I just changed one of my recent nominations into a three-for-one, it got me was wondering --- what is the largest number of new articles ever featured in a single DYK hook? And what was the hook? I'm pretty sure I've seen three-for-ones done before, any four/five/six-for-ones? Cheers, cab 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am pretty sure I remember seeing someone with a fiver once... Smee 04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

User:AlexNewArtBot

I think it would be interesting to start Crediting User:AlexNewArtBot as sort of a co-nom, and thus be able to see how many of its noms make it to DYK. Just a thought.. Smee 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

All the bot does is look for articles over a certain length, so I don't think that's particularly helpful. howcheng {chat} 20:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a little more complicated (I think it looks for the word "references" and things like that) but it is a bot and it hardly deserves credit. The only reason that might be useful is to see if it continues to be useful to have the list there for editors to find noms for. I assume most people (at least those who seem to suggest noms frequently) use the list for ideas (I do...). It seems to me there are more noms now that people have the list there for ideas (it's too hard to weed out the chaff from NP), so I think that's a decent enough estimate of the bot's worth. If we did credit it, it would probably get a DYK medal by now. Rigadoun (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, hehe, it would probably get a medal within, like a few days, at most. But anyways, just a thought to put out there, no big deal. Smee 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

New awards

Hopefully we will eventually need to make one for (200), hehe. Enjoy. Yours, Smee 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC).


Need another DYK category?

The policy of listing only articles newly created or expanded seems unnecessarily restrictive (and is not followed by all wikipedias, you'll notice). "Did you know" (or another category like it) should serve to bring attention to juicy bits of knowledge, the time-stamp of the associated article being irrelevant. How could we accommodate this slight widening? Urhixidur 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it isn't followed by any of the other Wikipedias. However, I like the policy, because it encourages new submissions and expansions of needed articles or too-short stubs. The point isn't really to bring attention to juicy bits of knowledge as an incentive to editors to write new articles (preferably that include some juicy bits of knowledge). Rigadoun (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cass Michaels

There was no explanation added as to why it was put in the expired section, nothing seems wrong with it... is there a reason why it wasn't used?--Wizardman 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Same question for Cassiber actually.--Wizardman 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, ther'e sactually enough room for both of them in the next update, I don't feel right adding them myself since it's technically a conflict of interest.--Wizardman 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

More hands needed

I think we need more updaters, because we are only averaging 3 per day lately. Otherwise I have to be a cranky guy on my admin anniversary and complain a lot about tautological articles and try and ween more length out of everybody. But I think as things are getting more supplied, we need to discuss whether the length needs to be raised again, or whether people should be more picky about the hooks. I prefer pickiness, insisting on hooks which aren't tautological to the name (eg..."that the Singapore Childrens Foundation is a charity in Singapore which looks after children") and other things which are plainly not counterintuitive or are common things ("that some event was held in some place" because everything has to be held somewhere) but it may get up people's nose. But yeah, more hands needed for updating as well as inspections, otherwise I might become very cranky :( .Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have been steadily doing a lot of the updates, and crediting, but I cannot do the actual move to the Main Page as I am not an Admin. But please let me know if I have been doing okay lately with the updates to Next Update. Yours, Smee 05:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
That's fine, you're doing a good job, but if you are online and DYK is ready, then feel free to pester an admin (preferably one with DYK expereince) who is online to do the move. And campaign for admins to have the red clock tag on their pages. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Error on front page

The current DYK states that a waterfowl is pictured, but the pictured animal is not a waterfowl. A quick fix would be to move the word "(pictured)" to follow "flight feathers" since the flight feathers are very visible in this image. Alternatively a different image could be used such as the recently featured Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg. --Aranae 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your error report. Next time, please post it to WP:ERRORS where it can get faster attention. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_19&oldid=1137408857"