Wikipedia talk:Did you know
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Earliest time for next update is Friday, 10 July 2009 08:49 Wikipedia time (UTC).
Today is Friday, July 10, 2009; it is now 07:39 (UTC) Time since last update: 4 hours. (verify) |
| Reset Clock – Purge | |
| Archives |
|---|
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.
| Main (T:DYK) |
|
|---|---|
| Rules (WP:DYK) | |
| Suggestions (T:TDYK) | |
| Discussion (WT:DYK) | |
| Prep area (T:DYK/P1) | |
| Queue (T:DYK/Q) | |
| Archive (WP:DYKA) | |
| Stats (WP:DYKSTATS) |
e · h · w · r  To-do: |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Priority 9 | |
[edit] July 4 question
Can you nominate an article you did since last July 4 that wasn't used on DYK that has relevance to July 4, 1776? That is, like April Fools Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with it but others might.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right now the only exception is April Fools, and I don't think opening it up is a good idea. The fundamental point of DYK is to feature new content. If we let the Fourth of July be an exception, people will ask for exceptions on other holidays, and we'd get into debates on whether a day counts as a "holiday" (what about National Pig Day?). Shubinator (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Guess I won't bring home the bacon then, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Shubinator here; July 4 is mostly just a US holiday, and arguably not even the most important one (as ridiculous as it is for a country that supposedly has separation of church & state, most people get off work for Christmas but not for July 4...but at least New Year's and Thanksgiving are non-religious holidays :P. then again, whether Christmas is even still a "religious" holiday is always a subject of debate...). It wouldn't really be fair.
- Out of curiosity, what is the article you have in mind? Is there any other way you might be able to get it onto the MP on July 4? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Shubinator as well, though I think if any day is worthy of an exception, it's National Pig Day. Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's Andrew McNair. Sources on him are next to nil, and I scraped like anything to get what is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, interesting. I found one site with a fair bit of info: 1. It's a blog, but it says the real source is the book Andrew McNair and the Liberty Bell by Mary D. Alexander; you could try getting your hands on a copy. It looks like he's depicted in a few historical plays and movies, so that could add another few sentences. Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Contrary to the suggestion above, most people in the United States do get off work on July 4 (and when it falls on a Saturday like this year, many people get the preceding Friday off, or the following Monday when it falls on a Sunday). Obviously, not everybody in the U.S. is off from work on July 4, but a great many people are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Guess I won't bring home the bacon then, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right now the only exception is April Fools, and I don't think opening it up is a good idea. The fundamental point of DYK is to feature new content. If we let the Fourth of July be an exception, people will ask for exceptions on other holidays, and we'd get into debates on whether a day counts as a "holiday" (what about National Pig Day?). Shubinator (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotected images
The last two images appearing in Template:Did you know (File:Alisterus chloropterus -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg and File:Richie Hall.jpg) were inserted without first being uploaded/protected locally or protected at Commons. (I protected File:Richie Hall.jpg at Commons as soon as I noticed.) This means that for almost seven hours, our main page was vulnerable to image vandalism. The three queued images for upcoming updates (File:MarkusHowell.jpg, File:Flag of Nunavut.svg and File:Astraeus hygrometricus.jpg) also were unprotected (and I've protected them at Commons as well).
Shouldn't DYKadminBot be programmed to verify that the image has been protected (either locally or at Commons) before performing the update? (I've left a pointer to this thread on Nixeagle's talk page.) —David Levy 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Normally it is the job of the moving admin to protect the images, I don't think we need a bot to do it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- You appear to have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not proposing that a bot protect the images. (This would be problematic, as they could be vandalised beforehand.) I'm saying that DYKadminBot should not place an image on the main page without first verifying that it's been protected. —David Levy 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Ah, sorry for that. That would be a useful feature indeed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
-
Once again, I just noticed that the current image (File:Heart left ventricular hypertrophy sa.jpg) was unprotected (and Iimmediately protected it at Commons). Hopefully, Nixeagle will respond soon. —David Levy 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, all of the images appearing in the upcoming queues were unprotected. (I protected them at Commons.) —David Levy 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Bot hiccup
DYKadminBot was over two hours late on the last update. For many weeks now it's been updating at 02:35, 08:35, 14:35, and 20:35, but that latest one was at 23:42. Hopefully this is just a minor hiccup (Wikipedia was very sluggish a few hours ago for me), but keep an eye out if the bot keeps delaying updates. Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah Wikipedia was having some problems so that probably delayed the bot, since it probably didn't account for the downtime and the bot thought it updated on time.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Question: Translations of other wikis = new?
Hi there. I'm not all-to-familiar with DYK, so this might be obvious for regulars here but it's something I wondered about: If I were to translate an article (say from de-wiki), does it count as "new" for en-wiki (as it does not exist here) or not (as it exists on some other wiki)? Regards SoWhy 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rjanag's post here covers it pretty well. The content is "new", but of course it must meet DYK standards. Shubinator (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you do not have access to the source then there could be a problem. Make sure that you check with the sources and verify. It would be your obligation to ensure that it is factually accurate in your translation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] I refreshed the main page template manually
Was confused by all the queues etc. Can someone please do the credits and load up some of the prep areas? I need to hop off now. Sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Credits done for this and article talk pages tagged (correctly, I hope :P). Chamal talk 10:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] July 4
Here we are on July 4 and no-one bothered to even load a US independence day update. Someone managed to throw one together for the next update, but I had to spend half an hour trying to fix the formatting errors.
What the heck is going on? Aren't there any Americans who care enough about their own independence day to make sure the right hooks get featured? I had to do Canada Day just a couple of days ago, with almost no help from anyone else, and I'm afraid I don't feel like doing a repeat performance this weekend. So please one of you Yanks step forward and show a bit of interest! Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. Turns out there's only a couple of Independence Day hooks left on Suggestions anyhow. I thought there was a lot more of them, I guess I was mistaken. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I did two last night, and just filled up another.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- You did two July 4 hooks last night? But that was July 3 in the US wasn't it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was July 3 when they were posted, but July 4 when they went up (although, to be fair, it was like 3 AM to 9 AM...although the but is an hour late on its update, which is probably my fault, so that set is getting some extra time). The next set with a July 4 hook is set to go up any time now...if the bot is running late maybe we should just flip it manually? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the bot just updated. (Oh, and Giants means two sets, not hooks, last night.) Shubinator (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- I should say, I did one set, thought I did two but used one article in it, Annual Reminder which was just on the main page.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the bot just updated. (Oh, and Giants means two sets, not hooks, last night.) Shubinator (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was July 3 when they were posted, but July 4 when they went up (although, to be fair, it was like 3 AM to 9 AM...although the but is an hour late on its update, which is probably my fault, so that set is getting some extra time). The next set with a July 4 hook is set to go up any time now...if the bot is running late maybe we should just flip it manually? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- You did two July 4 hooks last night? But that was July 3 in the US wasn't it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the Stonewall riots prompted a more productive content creation session. Perhaps it is hard to find an unwritten article on what is a fairly limited topic. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I did two last night, and just filled up another.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Stanhope (optical bijou) wikilink in Q5 needs to be fixed
Sorry about that but the link to microphotograph needs to be changed to link to Microform, not microphotography. The corrected hook should have the microphotograph wikilink corrected as follows:
that in 1864, René Dagron produced a stanhope which enabled the viewing of a [[Microform|microphotograph]] that included the portraits of 450 people in an area of 1 mm2?
The current microphotograph link directs to microphotography, ([[Microphotography|microphotograph]]) which is wrong. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] DYKSTATS link
Is it just my computer or does the article view link not come up for anyone?--Giants27 (c|s) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The site seems to be back up and running. It looks, though, like it didn't collect any data during the days it was down (see, for example, [2]). Tear... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- Aha - the missing stats have been retrieved! And Zhang can take her place on the STATS board with a round 5,000... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking instead of updating
[3] What on earth went wrong? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- The queue was missing a <!--Hooks--> Shubinator (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, curiously User:Rjanag omitted it. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was worried for a while that I had screwed this up again, but I only copied what was in the Prep Area; here is the problem. An editor inadvertently removed it while loading the prep; I can see how this would be an honest mistake, as it's right next to where we do cutting-and-pasting for the image, and easy to miss. Would anything be messed up if we moved it up one line (on Template:Did you know/Clear) to prevent more accidents like this from happening? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the fix I was suggesting. Feel free to revert it if you think it will cause a bot error; I just figured it might prevent the <!--Hooks--> from being removed by accident. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should work. I removed the line return before, so there's an overall one blank line (the commented out part isn't seen) in the edit window, which means nothing is changed on the template. Shubinator (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, curiously User:Rjanag omitted it. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, we need <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> back in T:DYK. Shubinator (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done, does that look right? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article renamed
The "2009 London tower block fire" article is now at 2009 Camberwell tower block fire after it was moved by another editor. Currently in the queue for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Halloween DYKs
Is it too early as I have reviewed a Dracula-related one? --candle•wicke 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although this is slightly better because multiple countries celebrate it, my answer's the same as in #July 4 question. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Preps need moving!
Kindly move the Prep Areas on so I may attempt to prevent the panic that will ensue tomorrow. --candle•wicke 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since you asked. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, if the preps are full and there are no admins around to clear them, you can organize further updates anywhere you want, such as in a personal sandbox. Just copy the text of T:DYK/C (Template:Did you know/Clear) into your sandbox, and prepare an update there. That way you can prepare as many updates as you want, and be ready to move them into the prep pages the moment an admin clears them. (Just be specific in your T:TDYK edit summaries that you are promoting them to a personal sandbox, rather than the regular prep pages...otherwise people might start getting confused.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Please check minimum sizes
Could everyone, when reviewing an article, please ensure that it meets the absolute minimum 1500 character requirement? Articles such as N'Mai River, which is currently on the Main Page, have been verified yet fall short. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The N'Mai River article has 1,478 characters of prose, is 22 characters really such a big deal? It's just 1.5% off. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The 1500 is meant to be an absolute minimum - 1500 is already bordering on too short. In fact, Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules makes it clear articles 1500 long may still be rejected. 22 characters may not be a lot, but we need to draw a line and we have a line that we cannot cross, simply because 1500 is already bordering on being a stub. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Chamal verified my hook that only had 1499 characters... he should be fired!!!!
- (j/k. Backslash is right, we need to be pretty strict about the 1500 limit. Of course, somewhere there is a point between where rejecting a hook is nitpicky, and that point lies somewhere between 1 character short and 22 characters short, but who knows exactly where. For the most part, we should be pretty wary about accepting any articles that are less than 1500—the only absolute exceptions are articles that I wrote! ;) ) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The 1500 is meant to be an absolute minimum - 1500 is already bordering on too short. In fact, Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules makes it clear articles 1500 long may still be rejected. 22 characters may not be a lot, but we need to draw a line and we have a line that we cannot cross, simply because 1500 is already bordering on being a stub. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 179 unverified hooks
...and just 3 verified ones. We're in no immediate danger since we have about 24 hours worth of queues assembled and ready but at this time tomorrow the panic will be in full swing if folks don't jump in to review some hooks. As always, the older the hook, the more in need of review it is. Thanks to everybody who jumps in here. - Dravecky (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've verified a few of the older ones, unfortunately as usual I then ran into a series of articles that couldn't be verified. I'll try to verify some more tonight. Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I'll go review a few.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have been verifying and preparing for several days now - I don't know how you all do it consistently but I presume there are usually more reviewers? --candle•wicke 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The current template has 8 hooks and the queues that are full all have 7... I'm sure we could cut down to 6 if we're worried about running out of verified hooks. Fewer hooks means more attention for each hook and a less intimidating-looking template. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have been verifying and preparing for several days now - I don't know how you all do it consistently but I presume there are usually more reviewers? --candle•wicke 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll go review a few.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Norway in Did You Know
Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is the nature of this complaint? Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some time ago there was a long period of norway-related articles on the front page, often in the DYK-section. Yesterday there was one and today there is one. I know that the DYK is for showcasing new articles that may be quite narrow in their subject, but one does not need to look far for other articles than to push out Norway-related articles at every opportunity. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- We just put up what the creators/expanders nom, it's not our fault Punkmorten is really hard working.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some time ago there was a long period of norway-related articles on the front page, often in the DYK-section. Yesterday there was one and today there is one. I know that the DYK is for showcasing new articles that may be quite narrow in their subject, but one does not need to look far for other articles than to push out Norway-related articles at every opportunity. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is the english wikipedia. Norwegian topics are not particularly familiar information for the majority of english-speaking readers, and for that reason, almost every new well-written Norwegian article would contain information appropriate to the DYK box. —Akrabbimtalk 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Citizendium ports
Just noticed that Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) hit the main page. It's a port from the corresponding article on Citizendium, with a little MoS tweaking to fit. Selection criterion 1.d (original to Wikipedia) would seem to discourage (though not ban outright) such hooks from appearing in DYK. I've no real objection to such material hitting the Main Page, but I thought I'd start a discussion on the topic now to get others' views on the matter, as the recent licence change is going to mean that we'll see quite a few articles like this appearing over the next month or two, and others sporadically afterwards, and I'd rather there be a coherent policy in place before it becomes an issue down the line. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, would such things be brought over without the encouragement of DYK? I think yes, so that's not an issue. However, Citizendium has very different, much more POV-pushing friendly policies than us, and I do think we should encourage review and revision before featuring them here, more extensive than just MoS tweaks. If they do revise and rework it, I'm fine with it, however. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Not a big problem though as a good port of all their top articles would keep dyk running for about 4 days. Victuallers (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was troubled by this article too. I didn't see anything that really made it notable or worth while, and the use of references was a tad troubling. I don't know about Citizendium articles in general, but if they are like this I would rather not have them without a major overhaul. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I feel the same about this as I do about articles that incorporate DANFS text, OWL, 1911, etc.... it may be free according to copyright, but it's plagiarism, it's lazy writing, and it's still a shame that so much of our community approves of it. Nuff said. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's not "plagiarism" to use public domain text rjanag :)
- I must admit I was a little uncomfortable about this article, not because it came from citizendium, but because it seemed a tad OR-ish to me. Since I was undecided about it, I thought I would leave it to someone else to approve. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The OR part was what I found troubling. Citizendium, Conservapedia, Literary Encyclopedia, etc, all allow a very liberal use of sources. It is hard to really tell where the source ends and where the editor's voice begins. We are a tertiary encyclopedia and not a college term paper and our standards would require things to be a tad different. I'm all for the pages being the base and then transformed to conform to Wiki standards, but it would take a lot more work than a simple copy and paste. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I agree. Maybe we should make the discouragement of ported articles into a straightforward ban, unless sufficient work is done on it to fully integrate it into Wikipedia? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well we certainly don't want articles from Conservapedia, since that is not run as an encyclopedia but as a vehicle for the promotion of particular political views. This issue has been canvassed before but the consensus has been that articles ported from foreign language wikis at least ought to remain eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- Generally the consensus has been that they're eligible but subject to all the same restrictions as normal articles here. If an article is crappy and unreferenced on zh-wiki (for example), and it is translated to here but left in the same crappy and unreferenced form, it won't be accepted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well we certainly don't want articles from Conservapedia, since that is not run as an encyclopedia but as a vehicle for the promotion of particular political views. This issue has been canvassed before but the consensus has been that articles ported from foreign language wikis at least ought to remain eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I agree. Maybe we should make the discouragement of ported articles into a straightforward ban, unless sufficient work is done on it to fully integrate it into Wikipedia? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The OR part was what I found troubling. Citizendium, Conservapedia, Literary Encyclopedia, etc, all allow a very liberal use of sources. It is hard to really tell where the source ends and where the editor's voice begins. We are a tertiary encyclopedia and not a college term paper and our standards would require things to be a tad different. I'm all for the pages being the base and then transformed to conform to Wiki standards, but it would take a lot more work than a simple copy and paste. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Opinions needed on the RS-ness of a source widely used on FAC/GAC/GA/FA
- Cross posting because people here are interested in RS matters
A lot of Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and WT:EURO YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] All U.S. hooks in queue #6
Yep, all seven hooks in this queue are US-related, and three of them are sports hooks to boot.
I know we have a shortage of verified hooks ATM, but I think it would be better to leave completing an update until some more have been approved rather than putting one together that has hooks all from the same country. It's not as if this was a really urgent update given that we have several in the queue already. Gatoclass (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
