Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

It is now very clear there is no consensus for this change

It is also clear that it is a disruptive change that is confusing contributors and making it harder to work, and that your reasons have been refuted by others. Please change this list back, Brian. This is the last time I am going to ask, I have asked nicely several times, and I am at the end of my patience. The right thing to do is admit you were wrong to make the change, wrong to refuse to change it back in the face of sincere opposition, and stop being bullheaded. Please, I implore you. Undo the damage you have caused, by changing it back. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the previous order of newest article creation/expansion date first. Please do not revert this restoration to how things were before the reordering without a clear consensus to do so. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not interested in ordering anymore. Feel free to correct the 3-5 misplaced entries that you'll receive daily around 24:00 UTC +/- 5:00, which will be misplaced by 24 +/- 5 hours. Or don't. I'll be focusing on the interest of the factoid, not its place in time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 22:56

Gosh - I have not been watching closely recently, so missed this rather significant change. I appreciate Brian's boldness in an effort to make a positive change, but this kind of singificant change needs rather more discussion before it is implemented.

It is rather upsetting that Brian would make such a major change, and then show such unwillingness to revert and discuss. There is clearly no consensus, and, despite its logical attractions, the change goes against the conventions on other project pages. Even WP:FAC has newest-at-the top, and has done since practially the year dot, but that does not stop the occasional person bottom posting, and there are enough editors around to fix the occasional errors. Blah eyeballs blah shallow blah. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lining things out

I have noticed a recent practice of lining things out. Please do not line things out. It is one thing to remark that there are issues. Please do that. But trust the admin to do the right thing and do not line things out. It is my view that one should NEVER line out words of another, whether it be on talk pages, consensus seeking things like AfD, RfA, etc, or elsewhere. Lining out shows, in my view, gross disrespect for the work of others and is judgemental. I have (or shortly will) reverted all lineouts made recently. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree more. Please discuss nominations of Template_talk:Did you know rather than changing them single-handedly when they are part of the template. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I sometimes get the feeling that some updaters aren't reading the replies to nominations, and I'd rather not put an article that's up for deletion on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:29

Address that with the updaters then, not the nominators. We want to be welcoming to nominators, not turn them off by lining out what they say. And when you do address it with the updaters, make sure you do it in as friendly a way as you can because the updaters do a hard and relatively thankless job. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is an updater coming along, not reading the replies, and just using the item; meanwhile I'm on the other side of the Earth, asleep for the next 5 hours. I'd rather prevent a definitely unusable entry (such as an AFD, or one that's months old) from appearing on the main page, than have to clean up after the updater's mistakes, and inform them after-the-fact. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:10

On balance, I find lining things out so insidiously bad and disrespectful of a practice that I do not see any reason to use it, ever, on anyone else's words. Ever. That far outweighs the potential risk of an admin selecting a bad nom. You're not the only person that watches the main page. Again, address the problem with the selector, not by alienating the nominator who might be a newb. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Will do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:15

javascript functions for template insertion on talk pages

I've created, and am debugging, some javascript functions here: User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js I know at least Cactus.man uses dropdown tab functions... I load them in my main monobook. you can see my invocation of them here User:Lar/moretabs/monobook.js. These are not very tested yet but I am interested in your feedback. They hopefully might speed things up a bit? Comments welcome (my talk page is probably the right place for now...) I am testing them with this update cycle. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I in fact used them in the current update and they seemed to work for me every time. you do need to have the article name in your cut buffer, or type it in by hand, when placing the user talk notices (I'm not a good enough js coder to determine the article name without prompting for it to be typed in) but you had to do that at some point if you placed templates by hand anyway... ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk to User:Lupin. He's a JS god, and has made scripts almost identical to what you're trying to do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 04:24

I talk to Lupin on a regular basis, do you have a more specific reference? The functions I created aren't exactly like anything else but they are based on code he and others have done. They're just simple insertion functions really since they do not span from one page to another, but they, I think, can speed up the tagging part, which is carried out after you've committed the selections but before you can release the suggestion list for update. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, will add comments to your talk page Lar. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been able to do DYK pretty quickly and easily using Firefox's tabs and Lupin's popup tool. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:10

I use those as well to get to the right place, what this automates is not that, but rather no having to type the template invocation syntax into the edit window. Getting to the right place is a much more complex job than what these scripts do. If you do not use additional tabs they may not be much use to you. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of CTRL+TAB, CTRL+C, CTRL+V... not too bad, but there's always room for improvement. Ask Lupin about his new-article source-request script, that's what you're looking for. From that, you could simply go to an article's history, click a link in your bookmarks, and then click one of the newly-created links next to the entry of the "article creator", and their talk page will be auto-filled with the template and article name; you could also get it to fill in the article's talk page automatically in another tab. Then just 2 clicks to submit each of those notices. So, a total of 5 clicks per article, and nothing more. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 23:32

Shortcut

Should there be a shortcut to Template talk:Did you know? It's a bit annoying to have to go via WP:DYK. Perhaps a shortcut like TT:DYK would work?smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget TT:, it seems to link to a foreign language Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. I thought all the language links were lowercase. SOME shortcut to the template and template talk areas would be a savings that I would use all the time, so good thinking. Any other ideas? ... anything short and easy to remember and type would be fine by me. (what about WP:tDYK and WPT:tDYK... the lowercase t carrying the connotation that it's the templates themselves you're going to??? Just and idea, I'm open) ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, T:DYK already seems to link to the template, so perhaps T:TDYK for the talk page. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it was only the TT link that's duffed. Of course that's the one that the most editors want to use, as it's where you go to do nominations... T:TDYK doesn't seem too bad to me. or maybe T:DYKT (or both) ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've set up both of the above; they should work with all capitalisations. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with either (or both). No more double navigation if I'm not on my watchlist page is a good thing. Well done guys. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the quicknav box: Template:DYKbox to include the new shortcuts. Thanks for the improvements. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Has this problem been discussed at Wikipedia:Shortcut? There are two points. First, the use of the WP:xxx shortcuts is hallowed by long usage (although technically incorrect, as it puts Wikipedia project information into article space), and WT:xx links to the talk pages of project pages are becoming more common. I think there needs to be a discussion about extending the process to other namespaces, such as templates and template talk pages. Secondly, clearly T: works (how many templates have shortcuts?) and TT: does not because it links to TT: (Turkish?Tatar, I understand); what if a Wikipedia is created that would have an interwiki abbreviation "wp:" or "wt:"? Is that going to break all of our shortcuts? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not been brought up there that I know of but wow, what a good idea. Thanks for surfacing that! ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, as you have seen. There is no language listed at List of ISO 639 codes with an ISO code of "wp" or "wt" so perhaps it all works... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors and their perogative in making selections, driving away contributors

I think that we should give DYK updating admins fairly wide latitude in selecting things, as long as they were selected in good faith, and as long as they adhere to the guidelines for selection as much as practical. Specifically I do not think that picking strictly the oldest items is necessarily a good approach. Please review the following exchange between Brian and myself, which I found unnecessarily questioning and combative. While I welcome comments and feedback, as any good editor does, I do not think this level of questioning is appropriate, nor do I appreciate being called a dick. I would appreciate comments on this from editors (other than myself and Brian) on whether this level of questioning was appropriate or not. I stand by my picks.

Further, (and this is something I just noticed) I stand by the specific wording I selected for my picks. Note that ANTARES was selected using the "irony" wording, which was disputed by Brian (see the June 10 section in this history version). I did not find the argument convincing (nor did the suggestion nom as you can see from the version and left it selected that way) Brian changed it to his preferred wording shortly afterwards (which I feel is inappropriately owning the template, and further, carried the argument to the article talk page: Talk:ANTARES (telescope). The article author is a relatively low edit count editor who is making significant contributions in esoteric scientific areas, where we need all the help we can get. I do not think that this level of advocacy is the sort of thing that will encourage contributors to continue to contribute DYK article nominations. So I'd like comments from other editors about that as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not my preferred wording. It's just grammatically correct. Are you seriously suggesting that removing the word "ironically" is going to drive this article-writer away? I think he's more happy that his article was chosen, than what the exact wording of the DYK nomination is, and that has been my experience with nominators to whom I've suggested alternate wordings. Your whole post here seems more like a rant against me than anything. Things should never become so personal on this site. None of us are more important than anyone else, and we shouldn't forget that. Feel free to continue your "discussion", and I may check back occasionally, but I want to write more articles, not have long-winded ego-debates on talk pages. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 16:10
  • It's your assertion that it's correct, but others do not agree (2:1 of those that commented or selected it preferrered it the other way). And if the contributor was happy, then why did he call you a "grammar nazi" on the article talk page in response? I think you're the one getting too personal here, asserting ownership, insisting you know best how things should be done in the face of consensus, being blunt and abrasive and uncollegial and I think you really need to take on board the idea that others do not appreciate your methods. But, again, it's the comments of others I am seeking above, I already know you feel you are right about everything. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugh. My assertion was backed up by hard sources, not conjecture. Did you read the nominator's reply? He called me a grammar nazi because I used the phrase first, and he was trying to show irony that didn't exist, for the same reason irony doesn't exist in that neutrino factoid: because all that is missing from the reader's knowledge is a simple fact. Once that fact is known (that neutrinos easily pass through the earth; or, that I'm a grammar nazi), it ceases to be ironic, simply because it never was ironic in the first place. Feel free to seek replies from others, but stop trying to turn it into gaining support against me (for whatever personal reason you have) by misrepresenting my statements. This is wasting all of our time, and making the process all the more worse for everyone. I'm done watching this page for the next couple days; mischaracterize me all you want. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 16:46
      • You're baldly reasserting you're right about usage as an argument device rather than admitting of the possibility that others might be right. Yet AHD definition of irony gives (as meaning 2b) "incongruity", as was cited in the discussion at the time. That's not "Conjecture", that's from a "Hard Source". When it comes to grammar, I'm descriptivist, not prescriptivist, so if some (22% of the usage panel approve it, per the usage note at ironic and that's "some") people use it, that's fine by me. Being a grammar nazi about stamping out a minority usage is not more important than not alienating contributors, and no matter how you spin what happened, the appearance to at least some other readers is that you alienated this contributor with your remarks here, and by continuing the insistence you are right on the article talk page. You need to stop giving the appearance of being so blunt, so alienating, so anti-consensus and divisive. Now really, in the larger scheme of things this is a minor point, one to laugh about, or it would be if you weren't giving the appearance of being totally bullheaded in this and just about everything else. This is no way to operate. Please change your ways. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with admins getting criticized for their picks, we should look for ways so this doesn't happen. A little flexibility in picking is ok.

I skipped all over the place when updating DYK (last year). Some of the things that influenced what got picked were; finding a good image, skipping below par entries, and having a varied selection- we don't want all U.S. or all science entries, for example. Picks were sometimes scattered over three days. Unused entries always received a polite note of explanation. If another admin wanted to do it differently, I helped instead of complained.

It is a little different now because there are a lot more entries. I'd like to see the bar raised a little on quality, update less frequently with the better enteries (give preference to articles based on size, referencing, images and illustrations...) Maybe this can foster some competition between the entrants? :) --Duk 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused...

I'm slightly confused by the recent changes to Template talk:Did you know. Where do we put new nominations? Jude (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says on the project page The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on top as the first item. ... it looks like someone's been putting them on the bottom, or just went through and reordered it all for some reason. Can we go back to the old way please? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a change. See this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Ordering. We are currently discussing this and your input would be appreciated. I had feared it would be confusing to users as well as the updating admins, and am sorry for any confusion it may have caused you. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I must've missed that while scrolling down... thanks! I'll check it out. :_) Jude (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reordered it because most people were confused, and putting their new submissions out of place, at the bottom instead of the top (how it's done on every other talk page). However, some user(s) have put their interests above all others, and we're back to the ordering that confuses newcomers. But I'm fine with that now, because the appeal of the factoid is more important than the age of the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 02:30

"most people"? I don't think that's correct at all. You seem to want to have the whole argument over again. That may not be a good approach. Why not look forward instead, and look to how you can do things differently, and less contentiously, in future? ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to I agree with Lar. This change was pushed through without consensus and many people are confused as a result, me included. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not good to introduce such major changes without prior discussion with other editors. I don't really care which kind of layout will stay, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor self-endulgence

I created a subst easy to use insta-template for The DYK Medal. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Singapore entry

Did you know "...that although the Constitution of Singapore had been revised in 1958 to implement self-government for the then British colony of Singapore, self-government was only officially achieved with the Singapore general election of 1959?"

Does the Singapore entry seem obvious to anyone else? A region declares self-government, and then holds elections to determine its leaders... there's not much of a gap between 1958 and 1959... So, what's interesting about this fact? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 01:33

Most countries achieve self government as soon as they secede, using an unelected government. (I can't actually think of a counterexample other than Singapore) I think waiting a year and not being selfgoverned is quite unusual, which is why I picked it. The hook made perfect sense to me, but you may have wanted to speak out about the hook or the article itself prior to it being picked, assuming it was nominated in sufficient time for you to comment. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update period

This has just been updated less than 12 hours after the previous update. What's going on? Jooler 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved from Template talk:Did you know

It was just over 12 hours, but the minimum period between updates is 6 hours. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Updates - hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Updates usually occur within 6 to 12 hours, or up to 24, depending on the availability of good suggestions. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:34

Update clock issues - Template_talk:Did_you_know#Refreshment section,

Several editors have reported (in the comments block near the clock where we sometimes in the past put "Hey, I intend to update later" or "we're running short, slow down updates" etc. sort of messages) that the update clock: {{DYK-Refresh}} might not be working completely right. The symptoms I saw were that it was claiming wildly wrong times when in preview. I almost didn't save it the first time I saw that, but I did, and it seemed OK once saved. You may have seen that in the edit summary for an update I did a few days ago. I note that this morning (or about 1500 UTC) I saw that Cactus.man had left it unchanged with an edit summary note that it was wonky for him. I went in and tried to correct it and I backdated it to a time that may not be completely accurate but it did seem to both preview and save correctly for me. As of right now it is saying the last update was 4 hours ago, which is what I intended it to say, given that I was guessing at what timestamp to use. Thoughts? maybe this is a transient problem of some sort? Cactus.man said he was going to contact the author so I think it's useful to gather additional input.. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed for now, but the underlying problem still needs to be resolved. This is the strangest error I have seen to date. A few days ago Omniplex made updates to {{CURRENTHOUR}} and {{CURRENTMINUTE}} to mathematically compute these values from the new {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} 'magic word' (e.g. 20241124171321) rather than using a large 'switch' to look them up from {{CURRENTTIME}} (e.g. 17:13). That was a good improvement and the way he did it is correct... but for some reason the actual mathematical computations sporadically produce negative results for no apparent reason. That's why you were seeing the correct result sometimes and bizarre stuff others. Even if you hardcode in the value it seems like one time in five it will come up with a wacky negative rather than the expected result. Some sort of problem in the computation logic behind the scenes. I reverted to the old method of getting the hour and minute until we can identify / fix the problem. --CBD 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CBD! So then it's not preview/save related, but one in five and it was just random that I thought it was preview related, doing another preview would (80% chance) have shown the right value?... Appreciate the fix! ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So it seems. If you check out the Template talk:CURRENTMINUTE page you will see what I mean. I set it up with two examples that show 'minutes' correctly most of the time, but if you refresh the page a few times they will evenutaly show negative results. Sorry this template keeps getting 'improved' into erroneous results, but I'm glad that it has been worth keeping anyway. I suspect that the incidence of problems will decrease as these newer capabilities in relation to time computation become more established. --CBD 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again to CBD for the interim patch. I did apply the usual numerical update to the template but it just kept showing a refresh time a day before the current time when I did it. Way beyond the scope of a mere mortal like myself. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)