Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Prep 4: Reply
→Prep 4: removed
Line 314: Line 314:
There's a funny word, "airgonation", in the third hook, which does not appear in the article or the dictionary. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a funny word, "airgonation", in the third hook, which does not appear in the article or the dictionary. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know%2FPreparation_area_4&diff=618776883&oldid=618776006 Added] by {{u|EEng}}; I can't see his link, but Google (all hail) seems to suggest that the term was coined by Horace Walpole for travel by hot-air balloon and never caught on until EEng's attempt to popularise it via DYK (don't worry, maligning EEng is just my hobby, he can take it) [[User:Belle|Belle]] ([[User talk:Belle|talk]]) 12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
:[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know%2FPreparation_area_4&diff=618776883&oldid=618776006 Added] by {{u|EEng}}; I can't see his link, but Google (all hail) seems to suggest that the term was coined by Horace Walpole for travel by hot-air balloon and never caught on until EEng's attempt to popularise it via DYK (don't worry, maligning EEng is just my hobby, he can take it) [[User:Belle|Belle]] ([[User talk:Belle|talk]]) 12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
::[EC] I removed that word. It seems that [[User:EEng]] found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_4&diff=618776883&oldid=618776006 add it to the hook] in prep. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:45, 28 July 2014

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.

Catch and release

I agree with Gatoclass‍—‌too many fish hooks

Promoting

For reasons beyond my control, I am unable right now to continue reviewing and promoting updates to the Queue as I've been doing for the past few weeks. Hopefully I will be able to resume shortly, but in the meantime, somebody else is going to have to do it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we might ask at AN for a few admins willing to take some of the weight off of GC anyway. What do people think about doing that? EEng (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Edwardx (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did anybody do this? Belle (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I began to, but I got stuck in saying just what it is they have to do. I know we started to compile the Q-promoter's duties but that discussion pooped out. Even so it takes some getting used to. I guess we could ask if there are some admins who used to help out here who could be tempted back. Even so can someone take a best shot what they're responsible for? We've made really good progress on reducing pulls and errors and we don't want to backslide on that. I also want to be pretty clear up front that it does take some investment of time. And finally, can maybe Fram and Gatoclass and ...? volunteer to be available to mentor for a few cycles? EEng (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<bump> EEng (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local talent

Well, Hey! We have two admins right here who participate on a semi-regular basis, insisting on correctness and etc: Fram and The Rambling Man. How could they refuse after all their input here? Surely, these good and faithful admins would pitch in in this time of need. They have the skills and the access. Show everyone else how it's supposed to be done. — Maile (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I'm happy to survey and pull incorrect and crap hooks. But when I do I just grief from the "regulars". There is no problem. Repeat. I'm around, but I won't be rapidly promoting queues to meet the demands of a bot at a rate with which I disagree. Turn it down to one set per 24 hours and I may be interested. In the meantime, I'll do my best to get the time (between writing quality content and checking on ITN) to ensure we don't get an excessive amount of ERRORS at DYK. Thanks for the invitation Maile66, I look forward to you engaging in some quality control too! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

Can other editors opine on the following?

Michael Botticelli

Rambling Man wants to substitute his own judgement [1] for that of the Boston Globe [2]. There have been only 7 persons in this position in history, so it's not unreasonable that this information would be known. Comments from other editors, please?

There's no need to speculate. State the facts we know, i.e. that he is the only one in his role known to be in recovery (not rehab as you erroneously asserted) because he has confessed to it. Many addicts are in recovery in private. Stick to the bare facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the nom page you'll see I raised the same concern originally. However, the personal backgrounds of holders of such positions are routinely investigated, and it is not unreasonable that this information would be known. The Boston Globe is second only to the New York Times for its reputation for reliability and it is appropriate to rely on it. Certainly we should either accept the statement as the source gives it, or reject it completely, but not water it down on our own to "known to be" or whatever. EEng (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "routine investigation" line is pure WP:OR and nothing to do with this hook. It absolutely needs to speak the truth, that he is the only person known to hold that role who is in recovery from some form of addiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, talking of "truth" is OR -- I only brought up routine investigations to counter your armchair intuition about what can or cannot be known. The RS says what it says and we should use that. EEng (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proving a negative is always a challenge, but a subtle change to the hook would suit all comers, so why not be realistic about it? Is there anything actually incorrect in the hook I've stated? Is it ambiguous, open to interpretation, subject to dubious sourcing? Nope. As for armchair intuition, you seem to be the professor of that particular college. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
God, you really are hell-bent on getting everyone to dislike you, aren't you? EEng (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the essay on not being a dick, WP:DICK says not to call people dicks (even if they're being a dick_ so I'm not going to say you're a dick. But you might read the essay anyway. Really. EEng (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC) "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks."[reply]
I just wanna be in your gang EEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd mention a Gary Glitter song but that'd be in poor taste....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt vs. soil

No need for this level of discussion on the DYK page --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source says "dirt" but TRM has his own ideas [3]. (And it really does appear the "dirt" is the correct technical term [4].) Comments from other editors, please? EEng (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the article mentions soil about five times, the scientific references about twenty times. You want "dirt"? Odd. If you do, then I suggest you update the article with all your editing expertise to make it fit the "correct technical term". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- sources do seem split/ I seized got focused one particular source, and for that I apologize -- I was overreacting to your high-handed edit summary "Try English". You are so high-handed and imperious that you make me look like a model of graciousness and tact -- and that's saying a lot. EEng (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would take a lot for anyone to achieve what I've done in a few seconds of quality control checks. Well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the way you treat people. It's really awful. EEng (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. A cursory glance at your talk page demonstrates that you are hardly in a position to attempt, rather pathetically, to chastise me for anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're making my point for me. I don't suffer fools gladly, but you make me look like a saint of warmth and patience. EEng (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (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) 03:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this just demonstrates the need for updates to be no quicker than 24 hours. There's no rush for an admin to get round to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken care of before you posted the above. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

(See my disclosures.) I am passing on a comment that suggests DYK's current backlog struggles further due to COI editors. I don't know if yet another rule is appropriate, but I didn't see anything in particular advising DYK reviewers to watch out for the visible effects that COI editing can have; the references to standard policy and NPOV may not be enough. I think DYK should stay open to all including COI editors, subject to the ordinary content policies, but maybe there should be guidance about promotional content, checking user history for signs of disclosed or undisclosed COI, etc. What say you? Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stake out a position right now, as a starting point. Under no circumstances should a paid editor be making DYK nominations. Even if the project had the manpower to take on whatever additional evaluatory burden this might entail (which it doesn't right now) a substantial part of DYK's mission is to give editors -- volunteer editors -- a warm inner glow through the momentary recognition of their work. Paid editors already have the cold hard cash in their hand, and don't need any warm inner glow (assuming they're even capable of experiencing such, the mercenaries!). EEng (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding about mercenaries. Sort of. Mostly.[reply]
Support this position. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this position. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And especially no DYK if they're planning a coup! EEng (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, then. I didn't realize there was such sentiment, but the fact that WP:DYK#Aims and objectives supports your view somehow gives me a warm inner glow. But then a few thoughts come to mind.

  • Belated thanks to EEng for promoting my DYK on Jonathan Quinn Barnett, but I guess my paid involvement wasn't obvious enough. Oops!
  • I asked about COI in general but you replied about paid COI, so I hope that other COI or close connection is okay because it's more like ordinary bias.
  • Since paid editors must disclose, a reviewer who disagrees with paid DYK on new articles would have the simple additional duty of checking the three places among which the disclosure is required.
  • Even then, if it's just a consensus sentiment and not a rule, another unconnected editor might be free to review or pass the nom based on taking a different view and independently judging the value of the hook.
  • User:CorporateM believes in working all paid articles to GA status, and I'm leaning that way. If a paid article reaches GA it's had broad support and that's quite a different story; might that qualify for DYK?
  • And if a paid editor is otherwise aboveboard and says something is not a paid article, I believe others would AGF.
  • If a paid editor wanted to suggest DYK without going to GA, might we make a list of editors willing to consider nominating on behalf of paid editors? You could announce something in an appropriate place and we could keep a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition on featuring articles about current political candidates?

Do we have any rules concerning featuring articles regarding current politicial candidates? We should have a prohibition against it, in my opinion. I'm writing about this for the Signpost but I'll give you a preview here. Cam Winton, fourth place candidate in last year's 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election, just told Minnesota Public Radio that his article was created by a friend to promote his campaign. And last October, DYK helped his campaign by putting him on the front page of one of the world's biggest websites twelve days before the election. So congratulations.

So I'm formally proposing amending the DYK rules to prohibit featuring in DYK any article about a political candidate currently running for office for six months prior to the date of the election.

  • Support as nominator. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have seen several articles that look as if they are created by the political team. This rule would also allow wiki editors to avoid coming under pressure if they are working for a candidate to write an article. The article may be written but we don't need to show it here. Victuallers (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this gets consensus, I suggest they just be delayed until after the election, rather than rejected. That way no one looses out on DYK eligibility just because they happened to do the work near an election. Monty845 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although if people only hear "Wikipedia delayed a report on [whatever] until after the election!" then that also can seem biased. Somehow I think the thing to do is completely suspend the nom -- in fact, it would be better if there isn't even a hook on the table, just an abstract "Article about Candidate X" -- all discussion held in abeyance until after the election, the nom just preserving that the nom was soon enough. EEng (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Of course, if we didn't have that idiotic "new content/7 day" preoccupation we could just say, "Don't even make such nominations until after the election."[reply]
"Check for neutrality" is a false standard. Just the fact that one candidate gets exposure on MP, while the others don't, is ipso facto not neutral, even if the hook itself is as neutral as "Candidate X's favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla." There's no such thing as neutral when exposure itself is valuable. EEng (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just ask Cam Winton; if not for the three people ahead of him he'd be mayor thanks to DYK. Belle (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be serious a minute, Belle. Are you saying that exposure on DYK might not make a difference, even the difference, in some cases? EEng (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it could and I'm sure it does for all sorts of things (Is Arthur Beale selling more rope than their competitors this morning? Maybe). I'm certain we should have a rule against promotion of political candidates (and we do), I just found the chastising tone of the introduction a little out of balance with the "help" we gave Cam Winton. Belle (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but there are problems -- for one thing I'm not sure it's easy to tell who's a candidate (officially or unofficially) -- and aren't incumbents always running for re-election, so to speak (term limits aside)? Surely ITN has dealt with this, and I'm sure I've seen something somewhere re [insert some restriction -- protect articles?] N days before elections. Seems to me this conversation could be usefully had in conjunction with ITN (and maybe On This Day), and perhaps at Village Pump. EEng (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is already a rule about this on WP:DYK: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. It's basically one month rather than six, but it has been on the books for quite some time, and is usually enforced. Winton's hook should have been delayed until after the election per this rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As BlueMoonset states, we have had this rule for a long time. It's a good rule. Contrary to Jakec, it's important because any non-negative publicity (and possibly even negative publicity) that a candidate gets in the run-up to an election could be valuable to the candidate. The fact that the rule didn't get enforced in Template:Did you know nominations/Cam Winton was presumably due to two factors: (1) the hook wording didn't alert DYK reviewers to the political candidacy and (2) the DYK reviewer who OKed it was considered to be highly trusted and competent. Failure to enforce the rule was a case of dropping the ball, as Jakec notes. I recall that the rule was a consideration (discussed somewhere on this talk page) in connection with another Minneapolis mayoral candidate in 2013 (same DYK nominator as Cam Winton, as it happens) for a hook that ran more than 4 months pre-election: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Andrew (politician).
I agree with Jakec that one month might be too short, but 6 months seems to be too long -- in many jurisdictions, elections aren't even announced that far in advance, so when looking at articles about potential candidates, we could get into unresolvable debates about whether an election is likely to be called within the next 6 months. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is highlighting an issue in DYK whereby everyone gets a pass. The problem is that most of the hooks aren't even "hooks", they're just statements which aren't of any interest to anyone. While DYK claims to be all about getting new editors involved (which is factually erroneous, more later), and while it's used as an easy vehicle for WikiCup etc (more on that later), we should be looking for something interesting in DYK, or else rename it "factoids" or something else equivalently bland to some of the hooks. Who decides which current political candidate hooks are in or out? Or is it a moratorium on these nominations globally? Impossible to adequately define, impossible to implement, pointless and really, it should all boil down to interesting hooks. WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree re many hooks are utterly dull and many others are hardly better, but I don't understand how you can't see that it's inappropriate for us to highlight a current or soon-to-be candidate (upcoming/new products might be another similar category, and there could be other categories as well). In fact, the more interesting the hook, the more inappropriate it would be. EEng (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it?" - No closer than seven days apart, in the past few months, and none at all in April to stop people from complaining (I get so tired of that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and by EEng as well
No, it's not excessive. It depends on the race. For US presidential candidates six months might not be long enough, sad to say, though this leads to questions about how we determine who's a candidate. For the moment, though, I think we'll soon have a consensus reconfirming that some prohibition is appropriate (there already being such a rule) -- the question then will be the time period and definitional questions. EEng (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not even sure that the one-month moratorium is fully justifiable. There's no evidence that I know of that suggests Wikipedia has any political impact. The idea that a DYK article that appears on the Main Page for a few hours one day has any significant impact - that is to say, any more than the presumably significant volume of media coverage of a candidate - seems fanciful. The idea that an article that appears up to six months before an election might have any impact seems frankly outlandish. Prioryman (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. for me this isn't where the problem is. I worry more about overtly tasteless or distressing stuff (current wars, murder cases etc). For me this isn't in the same ballpark. And an interesting fact on some current figure will probably garner more interest than many other hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary censorship of political topics. If elections are motivating editors to write quality content on candidates, then it serves the purposes of DYK to highlight their work just as much as it does to highlight the work of other editors motivated to write quality content for any other current events. Yes, elevating exposure of one candidate may be "unfair" to other candidates, but that same principle is true for virtually every DYK nomination on any topic. Why highlight a particular species of butterfly in DYK when there are thousands? Why highlight a particular artist in DYK instead of others? The answer to these questions is because editors have volunteered their time to work on these articles and bring them to DYK. So long as every editor has an equal opportunity to work on such articles and bring them to DYK, which they do, DYK is achieving its mission of encouraging quality content generation. This principle should apply to all articles nominated to DYK. We should not discriminate against political articles and their editors. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that the argument being made here-it increases profile-could be used to prohibit company's pages being featured on DYK-I suspect all the views do lead to a rise in profits, but we can't really ban company articles at DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Prototime put it very well. Basically, forbidding articles from appearing on the main page for anything but their quality or physical threats of violence constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not wild about how many military-related FAs there are and how few language-related ones, but what do I do for that? Fix it by working on language articles myself, not stifle the military editors' work under the aegis of overrepresentation. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep set builders: please remember to check special occasion area!

This is a reminder for prep set builders to check the special occasion holding area at the bottom of the T:TDYK page for hooks that are being held for promotion on certain days. Right now, there's a hook for Simon Maina that ought to be put in Prep 2 if the request for July 23 is to be honored—it's best done for UK daytime since the Commonwealth Games are being held in Glasgow this year. (I can't promote it because I proposed the ALT2 hook.) Thanks. (If the prep set has filled, you can always displace one of the hooks there to a later prep in order to make room for Simon.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of 37 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

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) 06:04, 22 July 2014 (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 #3 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) 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

"that the Toungoo Dynasty's decisive victory over Ava and its allies in the Toungoo–Ava War (1538–45) cemented the upstart kingdom's emergence as the largest polity in Burma since 1287?".

It's not clear at all which part of the blurb is being referred to as the "upstart kingdom". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I posted on my page...it's pretty clear to me it means this mob, both from the article lead and the intonation of the hook. Writing it another way makes it sound concrete and repetitive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added "Dynasty" to the blurb because prior to that it was even worse, but now are we saying that a Dynasty is equivalent to an upstart kingdom? Given the fact I had to link polity too, it could easily be read that because Taungoo had a victory, it turned Ava into an "upstart kingdom" and a "polity". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

Can somebody who has more of an idea than me deal with the nomination of a non-existent page by a new editor under December 3 on the nominations page. (Thanks, love you forever) Belle (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, run for your life! These two a completely crazy! As to the picture etc., it's fine. In fact, I wrote it that way, so by definition it must be fine. Seriously, the reader's native shrewdness will inform him that it's the referent of the entire phrase Canandaigua, New York post office that's pictured. (If the link text is just post office then the link become something of an easter egg.) EEng (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda: check out pansexualtity. Sorry I didn't get to the prep in time; my wife was feeling under the weather.
@EEng: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2014 (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 #5 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) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I wonder where this archived set (14 July) is now, not found in recent additions any more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. BencherliteTalk 22:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping. I thought I was blind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Gross

"... that Emil Gross set a Major League Baseball record by appearing in 87 games as catcher?"

What does this DYK even mean? Randy Hundley holds the single season record at 160. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means he set the record, not that he currently has it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:40, 23 July 2014 (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) 07:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the steam coming out of EEng's ears from here! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I better check the security settings on my webcam. EEng (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2014 (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) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (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 #4 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) 08:27, 26 July 2014 (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 #1 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) 21:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected June 18 nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Kournikova is getting ignored because the reviewer (Storye book) has not edited in 10 days. Since this nominee is getting so old maybe someone else should take over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation and reviewer at June 15 nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Chriesman. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Storye book has suffered equipment failure and has been unable to log in. Both of these noms have had active "review again" icons for a couple of days now, indicating a new reviewer is needed; I'm not sure what more you're expecting should be done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

There's a funny word, "airgonation", in the third hook, which does not appear in the article or the dictionary. Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added by EEng; I can't see his link, but Google (all hail) seems to suggest that the term was coined by Horace Walpole for travel by hot-air balloon and never caught on until EEng's attempt to popularise it via DYK (don't worry, maligning EEng is just my hobby, he can take it) Belle (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] I removed that word. It seems that User:EEng found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to add it to the hook in prep. --Orlady (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=618811784"