Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.147.117.34 (talk) at 23:00, 18 April 2015 (→Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers: Mullen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut



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

WP:DYK rule 3B

I've been bothered about this rule for a few months. It promotes ridiculous and pointless edits like this (mindlessly copying a perfectly good citation). It's also an annoyance to have to hold up reviews for trivial "issues" like this, since nobody seems to want to duplicate their citations in this way (who can blame them?). In any normal article, it's implied that a statement is sourced to the next citation. I fail to see why DYK should be any different. Citing two sentences after the hook fact instead of one does NOT make the hook fact unreferenced. It isn't even any harder to verify. I thus propose that rule 3b be changed to: b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the paragraph(s) offering that fact. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old cliche, but .... I'm not sure why the rule was made, but in most instances it does make it easier and quicker to confirm the hook is factually correct, and from my experience this scenario described above doesn't occur too often. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you may recall, I thoroughly agree with you on this. There's no reason why DYK referencing rules should be any different from the rest of Wikipedia. Relentlessly (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requiring that hooks be absolutely directly cited doesn't bother me at all, and as Ritchie says it just makes things a bit more handy to verify, and kind of forces the article's "shepherd" to double-verify that this is indeed the source supporting the hook. It's just that one possible duplication, and easily removed, if redundant, after the hook's MP appearance.
What's ridiculous (here we go again...) is that dumb one-cite-per-paragraph requirement. That's beyond anything required anywhere else, and affects the whole article. EEng (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another noble attempt to rationalize this withering on the vine. EEng (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 4 that were "new" back in January, the second has 18 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 16 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 97 nominations are approved, leaving 292 of 389 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

From January:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know there are too many noms when...

...nomination templates no longer transclude (i.e. display fully, see bottom) on the main nomination page, T:TDYK. Are there any admins out there willing to clear the preps so we can shove more in? Fuebaey (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine to me. Harrias talk 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Template talk:Did you know has been bumping into Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. I just check the page' HTML source and it reports "Post‐expand include size: 2092137/2097152 bytes". Fuebay bought a little time by promoting three or four nominations, but it will take a couple full sets if we want more than an hour or three before the limit is again exceeded. --Allen3 talk 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is too many unapproved hooks, not too many already approved hooks. The best way to handle this is to concentrate on approving and promoting the 10 oldest hooks, with have really long discussions and make up maybe 15% of the combined text of all noms. EEng (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take back part of what I said -- I counted wrong. We currently have an approved reserve of 158 (i.e. GTG awaiting promotion + preps + Qs). I have long advocated 150+ as the trigger point for temporarily increasing the burn rate.

I therefore propose we switch from the current 2x8/day to 3x7 per day, until the approved reserve drops below 100, at which point we return to 2x8/day. (This will take about two weeks.)

"If the number of approved hooks decreases dramatically" -- do you have a number in mind? I do -- it's 100 (which sounds like a lot but is actually only 6 days' worth of hooks at 2x8/day). A healthy reserve makes it easy to put balanced preps together and insulates us from any unexpected downturn in the approval rate. In fact, if we stay at 3x7 until May 1, as you propose, then all else being equal on that date we'll have taken the reserve down to about 45, which we should never intentionally do.
Once we're down to 100- we should go back to 2x8. If after May 1, as you predict, it rises back to 150+, then we go back to 3x7 until it's at 100- again; but that's then and this is now. EEng (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, sorry: I don't see 100 as the magic switch where this should be turned back; sitting in the 90s for a while or even dipping to 85 wouldn't phase me. "All else being equal" is not the way the ups and downs of DYK tend to work, and we can go from 3x7 to 2x8 or even 2x7 if necessary... or up to 3x8 if approvals pick up. We're at 158 at the moment, eight above your magic 150, yet the world didn't end because we exceeded the number, and the world won't end if we go to 3x7 and later slide below 100 for a few days without instantly adjusting our run rate downward by five a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the world ending, but it is highly desirable to have neither too many approved noms waiting to appear on MP (because delays become annoyingly long and/or, as seen above, technical problems arise) nor too few (for reasons with which we're all familiar). Nor are magic numbers involved, but 50, 100, and 150 are easy to remember and fit very well with the experience that around 100 is a good target, 50 is too low, and 150 is too high; and further, the delta of 50 (on either side of 100) is plenty big so that the system is stable -- you hit the triggers infrequently. It's silly to keep having to open a discussion and have everyone and his brother weigh in on what is really just a straightforward quantitative maneuver. It's like a thermostat: at 76, the cooling kicks in; at 68, the heat kicks in; and in either case the heat/cooling turns off when you get back to 72. (Equivalent Celsius narrative on request.) You set it and forget it. You don't have everyone in the room discuss when to have the heating start and stop every few minutes. EEng (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be clear consensus to go to 3x7, I have made the appropriate changes to the prep areas to implement the change. The sets bult prior this discussion will take us through Saturday, so I recommend implementing 3 sets/day beginning with the first set on Sunday (00:00 12 April 2015 (UTC) update). --Allen3 talk 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, Queue 4 contains a special occasion request for April 11. If a change of rate is made before this set reaches the Main page then apropriate adjustments will need to be made. --Allen3 talk 13:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modifications to bot configuration needed to implement this change have been completed. Bot will start performing updates every 8 hours beginning with the 00:00 (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 16:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny-come-lately. EEng (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hook for Magnes the Shepherd on main page now and incorrect

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know... I have only have a moment as I am at work. Reported this error a few hours ago and I see no action taken. My hook was changed to something quite incorrect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point - if you "attribute something" to someone, it doesn't necessarily imply you personally "believe it". The Rambling Man, who's normally on top of DYK related stuff in WP:ERRORS is on holiday (rambling, one might assume), so if no other suitable admins are about, I think a post on WP:AN would do the trick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, if you attribute X to Y then, or make any other statement or claim, others are entitled to presume that you actually believe that attribution (or statement or claim) unless there's some reason to think you're dissembling. The real problem is the faint implication that Pliny knew about English derivatives of the root. I actually think the hook is ambiguous enough on that point, but in an abundance of caution I've suggested another at ERRORS. EEng (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It eventually got updated almost at a time it was about to drop off the page anyway. Unfortunately I could not be around to get it done sooner. I think all the problems would have been solved by keeping in the original hook, but we all have better things to do than talk about the past.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I need to push back here a little. The original hook --
... that Pliny the Elder attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root that has given English speakers the words magnet, magnetism, and related word forms?
-- made no sense, since it says Pliny attributed the man's name to the root (or to "the etymological source of" the root -- weird enough in itself) and that's completely backwards. By comparison the potential implication, in my correction, that Pliny had linguistic opinions about English is a very minor problem, because the ambiguous phrasing allows a reading which doesn't imply that. EEng (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng:No it makes perfect sense. Pliny attributed the etymological source of the Latin word magnes (Latin for magnetic ore) to the name of Magnes the shepherd (via Nicander). In turn, English derives magnet, magnetism and related word forms from that Latin word. You seem to be missing that two-step derivation relationship.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The number of steps has nothing to do with it. As you state it now ("Pliny attributed ... magnes to the name of the shepherd") it's correct i.e. the root magnes came from the shepherd's name. But your original hook ("Pliny attributed the name of Magnes to the etymological source of the Latin root") reversed what came from what: it said that the man's name came from the Latin root (or, as I keep pointing out, it said that the man's name came from the "source of the Latin root", as if there's some deeper source from which come both the root and the name). A simple fix to you original hook would have been --
... that Pliny the Elder attributed to the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root that has given English speakers the words magnet, magnetism, and related word forms?
-- but unfortunately I didn't think of that at the time. EEng (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, that's not the original hook. This is what you just said it was above in quote marks, followed by what it actually was:
... attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd to the etymological source of the Latin root (you)
... attributed the name of Magnes the shepherd as the etymological source of the Latin root (actual).

"To" and "as" work as opposites here. The hook said "as". And here's the first part of the sentence in exactly the same same form in another context for illustration and comparison. Did you know ... that philologosts have attributed elektron, the Greek word for amber, as the etymological source of the English word "electricity"? When you read that, do you see any reversal, any problem in direction? It parses exactly the same.

Holy shit. After writing the above, I realized where (I think) all the problems came from (if you agree that "as" would be correct). It was as, and was changed to "to" before you saw it, in this edit by User:Yoninah.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always like it when we can agree it's some third party's fault though actually I'd have changed attribute as myself -- not a standard construction. EEng (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The change was made in good faith, obviously. It's just not good to have incorrect hooks persisting for hours, especially after the problem has been noted. I just wish I had been monitoring the prep area, had seen the problem before it made it to the main page, and also that WP:ERRORS had functioned faster (obviously I could have just gone ahead, but in such situations I am always leery of exercising admin powers when I'm involved, even if it's not a wheel warring type situation, and also I was running, already late when I dropped the note there).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion [1] might interest you. EEng (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By linking that particular discussion it would appear you have entirely missed the point. The motivation for my posts to WP:ERRORS and here, and my problem with the hook as changed, could not be further from fussiness over anyone daring to change my sacrosanct wording. The issue was that my wording imparted correct information and the hook as changed imparted incorrect information. This was all about substance, and that linked discussion is all about a complaint over the words used without a change in substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that discussion is that, for whatever reason, plenty of hooks get approved which need subsequent fixing as they move through prep or Q, but unfortunately mistakes are made now and then in doing that -- either something which is actually correct gets turned into an error, or in fixing one error a new error is introduced. So if you care about your hook you need to keep an eye on it during its journey to Main Page. The fact is that, apparently, most editors don't seem to care, in which case the rest of us have to just do the best we can. For sure we can't just always let the approved hook run as approved on the nom page -- way too many of them have obvious errors.
And I don't agree that your original attributed as was appropriate. In your "philologists" version above, I would definitely have said "that philologosts have identified elektron, the Greek word for amber, as the etymological source..." (or, if we wish to telegraph some uncertainty, perhaps "that philologosts believe that elektron, the Greek word for amber, is the etymological source..."). EEng (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made the change from "as" to "to" because "attributed as" is not grammatically correct; the expression is "attributed to". Certainly "identified as" or "is" would have been preferable. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yoninah! Have you visited the Museums lately? EEng (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is your first post here Yoninah but by doing so your reversed the meaning, which is far more grave than any grammatical error you perceived. Anyway, I did not come here and this thread was not started seeking anyone humbling themselves or apologies but just action, and then we started down incredible path of "push back" deflection. By the way, identified as would be factually incorrect because Pliny did not identify it as the source, he attributed it, via a third party.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're not hearing what we (Yoninah and I both) are trying to get you to understand, which is that attributed as doesn't mean anything in this context. There was no meaning to reverse because there was no meaning. In trying to fix that, Y picked the wrong direction of attribution, and that's too bad, but the error in the original was there and something had to be done. EEng (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day hook violated DYK rules

On the DYK stats page, the top April Fool's Day hook was "... that extraterrestrial spiders have only six legs?" But that hook should have never made it to the main page. It violates DYK's rules. There are a few specific exceptions to the rules which are allowed for April Fool's Day, but all other DYK rules must be adhered to. The particular rule violated was "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." When bad hooks like this make it onto the main page, it undermines the credibility of DYK and of Wikipedia, and provides ammunition for those who would like to do away with the observance of April Fool's Day. Agolib 23:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the parties involved. Nominated by Sven Manguard, reviewed by Storye book, promoted by Crisco 1492. Agolib 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list over a week old and due for archiving, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 5 that were "new" back in February, the second has 19 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 13 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 84 nominations are approved, leaving 288 of 372 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the five from February 2015 would be most welcome.

From February:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

Hi can anyone review Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan. The reviewer says there is problem with paraphrasing. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review has been done, and significant issues remain both with close paraphrasing and prose. A good copyedit is needed if the nomination is to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=657106107"