Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25


Current DYK tags

The current DYK articles and authors haven't been tagged with the DYK templates. I just wanted to make sure someone knew before the next update. It might be overkill to do the reminder, but they usually go up right away, so I wanted to make sure it didn't slip someone's mind. matt91486 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Article talk page templates

I wonder - is it worth replacing our current template, {{dyktalk}}, with {{ArticleHistory}}? So instead of 

{{dyktalk|30 May|2007}}

we would have 

{{ArticleHistory
|dykdate=2007-05-30
|dykerror=yes
}}

--ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we make {{dyktalk}} a subst-only template (like {{prod}}) that will add {{articlehistory}} with the correct parameters? So we can do either {{subst:dyktalk}} or {{subst:dyktalk|30 May|2007}} Resurgent insurgent 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- I love ALoan (talk · contribs)'s idea. This saves the trouble of converting to {{ArticleHistory}} later on, which can be a bother. Great idea. Smee 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
    • However, I also think it would be best to adjust {{ArticleHistory}} with OLDID input, so that we can have a DIFF of the article as it appeared on DYK, like we do with GA's and FA's. Smee 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
  • I'm not really convinced this has any benefit. The current DYK template is normally the first "milestone" on the page, so until something else happens the "Article milestones" section will be empty, and when something else does happen the bot will update the template anyway (or if it doesn't that means I forgot to finish a conversation I was having with Gimmetrow when the template was first created). Yomanganitalk 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- I like the idea of piggy backing DYK to inform the article's creators that there is such a thing as Article milestones for Wikipedia articles. Incentive to improve articles is always a good thing and if they learn that the article can be improved to reach milestones, they may be more incline to improve that specific article rather than moving onto something else. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Elsa Eschelsson

Can I apply to get this page on the frontpage as a new article? It is about the first woman to become a jurist in Sweden. She was also the second woman to get a doctorate in Sweden and the first one to teach at a university. She had her disputation (thesis defense) in Law exactly 110 years ago today (May 31, 1897). /Spinning Jenny

Try here (just read the instructions at the top and then follow the format of all the others). Yomanganitalk 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"DYK is only for articles that have been created within the last 5 days."

Having only come to this talk once (I think), it's quite probable I'm posting something that's already been discussed many times. But I've always been curious about 5 days as the principal criterion for DYK. Disincentivising new articles per se should not be a goal, of course, but why does this incentivise new articles ahead of polishing the million-odd older stubs? I realize it states "DYK is only for articles that have been created within the last 5 days...but former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been greatly expanded are also encouraged..." and thus that it does allow for stubs (note the emphatic "is only" renders the sentence contradictory). But it's a small "but", and this is clearly focused on new content, when we've still got a lot of old bad content.

What if the rule was "DYK is only for articles that have been created within or significantly improved from stub over the last 5 days", with the caveat that "at least two DYK articles at any give moment must have been created within the last 5 days". Maybe I'd go back to work on some of my own. Maybe people would wikify more often... Marskell 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article is about 80% new, then it is eligible, even if it not really a stub at all. Irfan Pathan was expanded from startish level to a GA from about 5k to 25k and put on the main page. For a more recent example Bill Woodfull from three days ago. The "former stub" is routinely ignored if the page is massively new content, and there have been some 8k->40k expansions that I put up there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Submit some of your expanded oldies. Provided they meet the criteria they'll get looked at on an equal footing with new articles. Perhaps the wording could do with tweaking but the process doesn't put new articles ahead of expansions. Yomanganitalk 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
DYK is (as far as I can remember, always has been) about encouraging and recognising good new content. That used to mean only brand new articles, but recently expanded stubs are just as welcome as brand new articles these days. (It would be a bit rough for your sparkling 1,000 word essay to be prohibited from DYK by the article having previously existed as a redirect or a one-sentence stub.)
The DYK criteria are a mix of idealism (how good should we insist articles are before they make the Main Page) and pragmatism (how low do the criteria need to be to ensure an adequate flow of candidates), and we try to employ a bit of common sense in interpreting them. So, we ask for new articles to be over 1,500 characters. It used to be 1,000, but we were getting lots of medicre candidates, so we raised the bar, but an article with "only" 1,495 characters could still scrape through. We ask for non-new articles to have been expanded significantly - we say from a stub by at least 5 times, but less substantial expansions occcasionally scrape through. We ask for references (of course). Even the 5 day limit gets bent on occasion. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
At least on the main page itself From Wikipedia's newest articles might be changed to From Wikipedia's new and recently expanded articles, with the latter linking to Category:Articles that need to be wikified or some such thing. The times 5 expansion also seems strange to me, but I'm sure you all know better. Marskell 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the usage of the examples BInguyen gave, as they go against the policies listed in Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions, where it says articles should be no more than 1,500 characters before expansion. They might "scrape through," in ALoan's metaphor, but I (at least) would discourage their use as against the DYK idea. I favor articles that were quite short before expansion (a few sentences), so much that they really were rewritten almost de novo. Rigadoun (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Current DYK

The current DYK for Goss v. Lopez wasn't removed from the suggestions page, I wasn't sure what the common practice was for used suggestions so I thought I would point it out here in case I was crazy. IvoShandor 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding credits...

... still remain. I went ahead and credited all the article talk pages, and article creators - could someone else help me out and go credit the nominators? Smee 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

dyktalk

Why is ({{dyktalk}}) routinely substed? If there is a good reason for that:

If there is no good reason for that:

  • Bot should be started with orders to unsubst all substed dyktalk banners (or at least list made so ArticleHistory can be updated with DYK info)
  • Those that subst this template should be informed not to subst them.

Personally I really dont see any reason for substing dyktalk on article talk pages. Also, this should be a obsolete template (because of the ArticleHistory). Shinhan 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. They should not be subst'ed. AFAIK, whenever I credit, I do not subst the dyktalk template. Other DYK updaters should take note of this, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Versions of English?

Is there a rule on the versions of English to be used in the hook? I drew attention in the 'Errors in the DYK' section of the main page discussion page to the current DYK that reads

"...that the Bukit Batok Memorial was built by Australian POWs to honor the war dead of the Japanese and Allies from Singapore's Battle of Bukit Timah? "

and pointed out that as the article is in Commonwealth English, then the DYK entry should be too, with '"honor" spelt "honour". Other editors didn't seem to think this was necessary. It just seems sloppy to me, especially as versions of English as carefully guarded/vetted elsewhere. Is there a set rule on this? 217.155.195.19 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, as the nom should follow the article, which should follow SIngaporean English. I don't know why other editors wouldn't agree, unless they weren't aware that English is an official language of Singapore. WP:ENGVAR doesn't explicitly say that they same should be true of DYK and other things like that, but it seems obvious to me that it should follow. I notice the article, however, consistently uses "commemorate" instead of "honour" (thus using a word spelled the same for all English varieties, which is recommended by ENGVAR); that may have been the best choice. Rigadoun (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'Commemorate' was originally used in the DYK hook, but was edited to 'honor' by ?Blyungen I think when he/she was preparing the DYKs for the front page. As the alteration has been made by an admin, I'm a bit surprised. It's not the first time these (no doubt) inadvertant edits have been made by admins putting the DYKs up on to the main page (I seem to remember an Australian Defense Department or some such appearing on a DYK entry a while ago); you would have thought that as admins they'd be aware of the sensitivity over the various versions of English and their correct use. And if they're not, they ought to be. 217.155.195.19 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be in the same version of English as the article, but since we don't have standard version of English across articles it isn't really important. I can link to colour in an article and get color, but I don't suffer overmuch as a result. Mixing spelling in an article looks ugly, but between links it is really neither here nor there. (Obviously a proper name should have the correct spelling as that isn't a regional difference, it's a fixed title) Yomanganitalk 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional DYK award suggestions

Good work Smee on creating DYK Awards for (25), (50), (100), and (200) or more contributions to DYK per the above discussion. (For the new awards, see {{The DYK Medal}}.) These new will encourage more participation in DYK. Here's some more awards ideas:

  1. New DYKs are updated (posted) four times per every 24 hours. Create a DYK award to be given for (2), (3), (4), (5), etc. contributions per each live Main Page DYK template update, in addition to The DYK Medal awarded for each individual contribution.
  2. Create a DYK award to be given to a user for providing all contributions to one live Main Page DYK template update.

-- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Smee

While this is a nice idea, I wouldn't want to overload this one project with too many awards - I think we have enough to aspire to as it is. But if others comment below and feel differently, I would not be opposed to the idea... Smee 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

I'd rather stick with the DYK Awards for numeric DYK contributions, instead of daily ones for number of contributions in each update. As Smee noted, we don't want to overload DYK with a lot of awards. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's just too much to deal with and I think they would just be ignored and probably never given out, don't wanna overwhelm the volunteers now. ; ) IvoShandor 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea, more awards may be too much. Maybe there is a better way to encourage such particular participation in DYK. I'll have to think about it. -- Jreferee 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You can always simply leave positive feedback/encouragement/compliments on a user's talk page. That is always nice to hear and most appreciated, and not done enough. Smee 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

New DYK Hall of Fame

I created a DYK Hall of Fame (WP:DYK/HoF) as a result of the discussion here. I think this will help encourage significant contributors to continue contributing as well as give goals towards which new and existing DYK contributors may strive. Please feel free to add to/modify the DYK Hall of Fame. -- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Per this Ref Desk thread, shouldn't DYK articles under consideration have a higher standard of copyediting before being considered for the front page? Are the articles associated with potential DYKs actually checked, or is it just the tag lines? Sorry if I sound snarky, I'm not trying to, just curious. Anchoress 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That is an interesting point. I see you commented that it was well-referenced, which is usually one of the main things we look to first, when picking out articles... Smee 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, the article is very well-referenced. That's interesting about checking for referencing. References are very important, of course, but for the front page - which is often the first introduction to WP for new readers - I believe copyediting should be considered as well, since most new readers are more likely to notice typos et cetera than a dearth of references. Anchoress 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. If you read through the comments after some of the potential hooks at the "suggestions" page, you will see some comments about copyediting there, but mostly hooks don't make it because the articles are inadequately referenced, not sourced at all at times (hard to believe, but it happens), or just the articles are too short (minimum of 1,500 characters for DYK). Smee 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
The main point of DYK is to encourage editors to work on new articles. Some pre-Main Page copyediting is sometimes needed, but usually when DYKs are on the Main Page, people get active and do their own copyediting or expansion on the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Nishkid64. A reward of making it to DYK is to bring a few editors to the article you created and have them improve it towards a higher standard of copyediting. From my own DYK experience, the interested generated by DYK in an article usually is fleeting, but enought to smooth out the rough edges of the article and perhaps give ideas on new directions for the content. In the case of the rape case article, there is a lot of details that should be removed (e.g. "They monitored her breathing on the way to the hospital" doesn't further the main topic or any sub topics.) The main contributor to the well referenced article has only been with Wikipedia since March 2007 and he/she certainly is some one DYK would like to encourage. -- Jreferee 00:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And of course, if you think an article needs a copyedit you can always do it yourself, or refer it to someone who is skilled in that area in case you are not. IvoShandor 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, everyone! Anchoress 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in late but I think this pithy quote is germane...

The objective of FAs is to display the best work of the community; that of DYKs is to invite others to improve the articles. --Gurubrahma 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [1] (quoted on my DYK subpage, with permission..)

Although the long time contributors with high numbers of selections totally rock, I am even more cheered by newbies who get that extra boost from the egoboo that their first DYK selection gives them, and then go on to contribute more neat stuff. I think some imperfect copy is OK. Copyediting needed? That's what the gnomes live for, and they come out in force, usually... ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I always liked seeing that, sometimes they post here. I remember my first one, I thought it was pretty cool. Ah, the good old days. IvoShandor 09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on eligibility

Are articles that existed as start-class for a while, then got deleted, and then recreated and brought up to start-class again eligible? They're "new," but then again they're not. Abdulsalami Abubakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is why I ask - I could give that several more paragraphs in a matter of hours, but would it be eligible for inclusion on template:did you know? Picaroon (Talk) 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • My first inclination would be yes. To the new user, they are new. Smee 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
    • It's definitely eligible. I don't think the article would be suitable for DYK in its current form, but if you expand the article a bit, it will qualify. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With its expansion, Abdulsalami Abubakar now has been nominated for DYK. -- Jreferee 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it might depend on the reason of the deletion, and how it was recreated. In this case, it was deleted for copyvio, and has been written all over so it is a new article. Deletion for other reasons, if it was restored to the original text (such as if a non-notable thing became notable from some event) would not qualify. Copyvio really doesn't count as "start class," as really it's ineligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia but nobody has noticed yet. Rigadoun (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

US-centrism

I'm going to get shouted at for this, but here goes. It seems to me that recently the majority of the first articles in the DYK section are to do with US topics. I haven't got any stats to back this up, nothing more than just a "oh, here we go again, another US article as the lead article" whenever there's been an update. As the lead article naturally gets prominance, can the editors who update it make sure that they choose some non-US ones, please. I know they are limited by those articles that have pix, but I've looked at the suggestions and there are always plently of non-US ones with pix. 86.142.110.168 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm

We have two Chicago related DYKs on the next update, which can be updated at any moment. IvoShandor 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK on my User Page

Hi there, apparently a note from an article I created (Chief Yellow Horse) appeared on the home page. How cool! Is there a good template for me to use so that I can remember this when I look at my user page. //Tecmobowl 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See [2]. You can't see directly how it was on the Main Page, but you can see it at the transcluded template. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just an idle thought, but would it be possible to get the user talk and article talk templates to display the actual DYK text? For those of us with short memories it would be a lot handier than trudging through the history of T:DYK just to see what it was. Unless, of course, there's an easier way of doing that which I don't know about? PC78 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough already!

of the Frank Lloyd Wright DYKs with pictures which makes them mini-featured. I see a similar gripe was raised in US-centrism above. The last two pictured lead DYKs were bloody FLW. Surely there are other DYKs with pictures available? 82.32.238.139 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't like Frank Lloyd Wright I guess. This is an area that Wikipedia was badly lacking in and an area I have worked hard to expand, DYK provides nice motivation for me to do a good job with my articles. I don't care about the pictures but that's nice too. I am sure the proportion is high lately because of all of the work I have done in this area but I don't think that is a reason to stop FLW DYKs from being in the top slot, but if it is a major problem then so be it. IvoShandor 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally recognize the hard amount of work that IvoShandor has put into this series of articles, and the articles truly are well-sourced, and the associated images are free-use. This is an incredible amount of work, that should be acknowledged, and not complained about. Smee 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Still, Enough Already

Too much Frank Lloyd Wright. How about Sullivan? How about Christopher Alexander? What about a history of the Yurt? Anything but FLW! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.89.71.11 (talk • contribs).

Instead of complaining perhaps you could compose a series of articles about the work of Louis Sullivan or Christopher Alexander. IvoShandor 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Not too mention I also composed articles about the Pleasant Home a work by George W. Maher, Andrew O. Anderson House by John S. Van Bergen, as well as creating and composing the article about Van Bergen himself, all three were featured in the DYK column too. I think if my articles cannot be featured in this column (unless there is a stipulation added to the DYK Rules, then I will be much less likely to compose them, I do this because I want people to know the things I find out and see, and DYK provides a nice opportunity to do just that. IvoShandor 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page notifications

If you are putting DYK notifications ({{dyktalk}}) on the talk pages of articles as part of the update, from now on, please do not subst them. GimmeBot, which handles the updating of the article history, deals with the unsubst'ed template quite happily, but at the moment it necessary for somebody to update the subst'ed version manually before the bot can handle it, so it causes problems when articles get put up for peer review or featured article. I'll change the documentation appropriately. Yomanganitalk 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientology/Lloyd Wright/Repeating topics

I've moved a Scientology related nom from expired noms to the next update, as there seems to be little justification for having left it out. I'm slightly worried that it appears we have a conflict between anti- and pro-Scientology articles as this probably doesn't reflect well on the NPOV of these articles, but while we are putting the anti-Scientology articles out I can't see a good reason to exclude the pros (except, you may argue, that two wrongs don't make a right). In light of this and the complaints over the run of articles on Frank Lloyd Wright perhaps we should consider some guideline on repeating topics on DYK (just don't ask me where we start!). It will be a shame to exclude people's work just because they produce articles on a single theme, but I can also see the argument against focusing on single topics for weeks at a time. Yomanganitalk 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The only quibble I had with KRC was that it's only sourced to Hubbard's books, which are primary sources. I know with the glut of anti-Scientology articles, it would be nice to have some pro- ones, but I wasn't willing to compromise the DYK requirements to do that. Don't be surprised if anyone complains about it (but then again, it's Saturday, so it might go unnoticed). howcheng {chat} 17:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, the KRC article was only sourced to 2 primary sources, so it seems the rules were bent a bit in this case to allow this as a DYK, as opposed to many of the other Scientology-related DYK articles, which have been all sourced to multiple secondary sourced citations. As for making some sort of policy, a great many editors contribute to DYK along tight-knit themes. If we are going to exclude articles along a subject, we might also consider military naval ships, which I have seen a lot of lately, and of course, articles relating to Cricket. I do not think that would be a good idea, because it would apply to a whole bunch of editors that contribute articles on different unique topics on the project. Smee 09:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
Having attracted my share of criticism over repeating themes at DYK, I think there's no particular need to change the way things work at the moment. There happens to be a spree of Scientology and Frank Lloyd Wright articles right now, which presumably means that our coverage of both topics was inadequate beforehand. Likewise, when I was nominating several Eurovision entries, our coverage of that topic was inadequate as well (it's still far from ideal, but I'm only human). The rules of engagement certainly used to say that each update shouldn't contain multiple articles related to one field, and that really seems to be enough as I see it. I've got nothing against a scientology article in 8 consecutive updates, but if there happened to be an update with 6 of them and nothing else I might be a little confused. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that we disallow articles on the same theme. Apart from all the negatives from an encyclopedic point of view, that would be impossible to police (where would we draw the lines?). We do get complaints about running with a theme in DYK for weeks on end though, so if we can address that without trying for some unworkable limit scheme which none of the regular contributors would support, we probably should. Perhaps we could start combining hooks from consecutive days when appropriate - the articles still get exposure, the creators and nominators still get credit, anybody counting their DYKed articles still gets to up their total by the same amount, it would actually help when we have backlogs, and at times it might even make the hooks more interesting. I'm thinking about something along the lines of (though hopefully more inspired and verifiable):
  • ...that three songs in Eurovision 1984 had "sneezed" in the title: "Whoops, I sneezed", "Sneezy, sneezing, sneezed", and "Jan sneezed"?
  • ...that in 1992 two books on Scientology, Jeff's Big Book of Scientology and Scientology for Beginners were published on the same day?
  • ...that two of the Frank Lloyd Wright designed houses in New York, Big House and Little House share the same floor plan?
  • ...that on the West Indies tour of Ireland in 1932, the Smith triplets, Joe Smith, Bob Smith, and Jim Smith, all scored centuries?
If the combined articles were originally to run on consecutive day was could then go a few days without an article on the same theme (having used up three days noms in one go) which would hopefully pacify the objectors a little . We could even combine articles when we have pro and anti stances, or from two editors on the same subject:
  • ...that James Johnson says eagles are evil but John Jameson says they are paragons of virtue?
It probably takes a little more imagination to come up with a hook covering multiple articles and in the past we have discouraged them, but I can't see any real drawback. Thoughts? Yomanganitalk 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see the attraction in it. Whether or not it'll work, though, is another matter. Personally, I'm still happy with the single-article system at the moment. Even the most dedicated article-writers end up taking a break every now and then (or writing a dull article), so repeating themes have breaks in them. 23:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On the discussion about themed entries: I don't think limiting people will do anything to encourage editors to fill out areas where the project is lacking. Given the number of DYK suggestions and the number of updates themed entires shouldn't really be a problem, whether they are about scientology or anything else people don't like we should be able to keep the main page balanced, I would think, oh and the FLW coverage is/was woefully inadequate. : ) I would be willing to try a multiple article hook but yes, breaks do happen. I haven't written a FLW article in a couple days and I have only one up on suggestions, and two others, one about another Prairie School architect and another about Elbert Hubbard's boyhood home. IvoShandor 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Railcard

Where do I sign up for my railcard(!)? Stevebritgimp 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Network Railcard? -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Destructive creativity

How did this piece of unquestionably horrible, unverifiable, anti-everything propaganda end up on the main page? Does DYK read articles before allowing front page mention? Note that he version that was linked for hours was this version - I have removed the worst parts at the moment. Pranks like this are bad for Wikipedia. --User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my bad. I didn't read the whole thing, but I just checked to make sure the references for the hook seemed valid. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! All the 34 footnotes were removed from the article and the article now has no in-line citation. Really, if this was a prank, you might want to check the other contributions by Steveshelokhonov. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a reasonable period for comments?

The article, Al-Khazini, recently appeared on the main page, with the claim that "......that 12th-century Muslim scientist Al-Khazini, who proposed a theory of gravitation long before Isaac Newton, was, in his early life, a slave of the Seljuq Turks?"

  • The page was created on 11 June 2007 [4]
  • It was on the Main page on 15 June 2007 [5]
  • A few minutes after that fact there was an announcement on the talk page [6]

There was no announcement on the article's talk page allowing interested editors time to fact check the article.

Subsequent to the posting of this "fact" on the Wikipedia main page, checking of sources revealed that the evidence did not support the claim for an anticipation of Newton's theory of gravitation.

I suggest that before posting material from new articles on the main page, there be an announcement on the article's talk page followed by a reasonable waiting period -- one to two weeks -- allowing interested editors to fact check the article. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia. --SteveMcCluskey 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes there is a reasonable waiting period. The assumption is that five days (this article lasted roughly 4, but they normally last a bit longer) is enough for people to check what's being claimed and how the article looks. Precisely what happened here I'm not sure, but in general five days is enough for this kind of thing. The fact of the announcement being placed on the article's talk page is a bit of a red herring, since that happens pretty much immediately after the article appears on the front page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that's the process, I just don't understand why it's that way. I'm proposing to change the process so that the "delay clock" does not begin until a notice of the proposed DYK statement is placed on the article's talk page. That will indicate that there is some urgency in achieving consensus on any controversial points in the article, especially as those may be reflected in the DYK statement.
I know such changes aren't easy to implement since it will take some time to generate and process a long queue of items waiting for review, but in my reading, taking the time to get it right is the most important thing. --SteveMcCluskey 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I can definitely see where you're coming from. The thing is, though, that so many DYK candidates are easier to verify. There'll probably be 99% of hooks which can be checked well within the 5-day period. This article (in both the fact that it possibly couldn't have been checked so rapidly and that it was wrong anyway) is very much the exception to the rule in my experience. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
At the time the article was proposed to DYK, the article looked like this. The information used in the pithy DYK statement was part of the initial creation of the article[7] and part of the article at the time it was suggested to DYK. That statement read "Al-Khazini was thus the first to propose the theory that the gravities of bodies vary depending on their distances from the centre of the Earth. This phenomenon was not proven until Newton's law of universal gravitation in the 18th century." This information was cited to and taken from page 7 of Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization, which, in turn, referenced Rozhanskaya, Page 622. Rozhanskaya presently is used as a reference in the Al-Khazini article. Here, the sources themselves support the claim for an anticipation of Newton's theory of gravitation. To say that this is a controversial point without citing to a reliable source that says it is a controversial point would be original research. You had edited the article multiplied times before the DYK post and did not change this information in the article. The article met the DYK criteria for selection and the DYK hook was written to draw the readers in to wanting to read and improve the article. The hook did resided on the DYK suggestion page before it was posted to the main page. The DYK suggestion page is where other editors may propose changes to the suggested hook as follow-ups - the reasonable period for comment that you propose. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

wondering !

nominating articles for DYK , should be over class A ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, in fact given the maximum time allowed to potential articles, it's extremely unlikely that one'd be rushed through peer review quickly enough to appear ont he main page as an A-class. I believe we've had one or two GAs in the section, but they're the exceptions. Articles just have to be fairly neutral, well-referenced, original pieces of at least 1,500 characters created in the last few days (well, and be interesting enough to write a hook about). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A few GAs, Irfan Pathan, Murali Kartik, Jack Fingleton, Bill Woodfull...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
They're GAs now, but weren't when they appeared on DYK. Irfan Pathan was promoted six days after featuring, for example. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Pathan was GAed two days before DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks chiefs Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Good" articles proposed by bot

OK, I think I finally figured out a way to move along the "Good" articles proposed by bot. First, I looked over all the articles proposed by the bot and sort them out into possible DYKs and those that probably would not qualify. Then, I started to nominate the good ones myself, but that was taking way too long (particularly in trying to find something interesting about the article). I finally thought of posting a notice on the talk page of those who created the articles to get them to create the nomination. Many of the editors may not know about DYK. If you look over the present "Good" articles proposed by bot list, I've posted a notice on the talk page of each article creator suggesting to them to propose their article to DYK. I think it is working as I have received a few comments back on my talk page about my requests. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Can you mark somehow the ones that you asked the authors about, so others could help, or are you willing and able to do it all yourself? Rigadoun (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I am neither willing nor able to maintain the "Good" articles proposed by bot ABMS (all by myself). I added a system to use to indicate if the author was prodded to nominate the article. That was the only image I could think of on such short notice. If you have a better one, please feel free to substitute it in. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, it looks like the bot is removing the smiley faces. I'll try to fix this. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the smiley faces were placed a few minutes before the bot updated the list. When such edits overlap, the bot may delete the original edits. Apparently, this is a rare event,[8] so it looks like we are good to go. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere Lucknow

The above school seems to have been removed from the front page because it was stated that it was only a 50% expansion. As I explained in the nomination the original article, although long, was completely unusable. Virtually the whole article was copied from the Old Martinians' website and was therefore copyvio. Compare this page of the website Old Martinians' Association website (click on schools, then on La Martiniere Lucknow) with the version of the article before we started to expand it [9] and you will see that it has been copied word for word. The only other content on the page was some directory-style information about the school which we've had to remove. If you exclude the copyvio content you will see that the article is in effect a brand-new article and clearly meets the guidelines. Surely you want to encourage people to remove copyvio content and develop articles in this way. Could the article possibly be reinstated. Dahliarose 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been reinstated but is unfortunately no longer in the top spot and is without its picture. Would it perhaps be an idea in future to preserve the wording of the original nomination concealed on the edit page in such cases so that future misunderstandings do not arise.Dahliarose 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stuff up

I have no idea what is going on . I just moved the next update articles to the main page and when I went to do the credits found that they had already been up yesterday. It appears brownouts are making their third appearance in two days. Any reason for them to been put back on the next update page? Yomanganitalk 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also recently did the next update and found two articles that had been there already (thankfully I had looked to make sure before clearing the Next Update page and recognized the topics). Please remember to remove suggestions moved to Next Update. Rigadoun (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot for RfA checks for duplicate votes. Perhaps someone can create a bot that checks the Template:Did_you_know/Next_update against Wikipedia:Recent_additions and flags any duplicates. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors

At Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors. there presently is a speedy renaming proposal to rename Category:Wikipedia Did you know Contributors to Category:Wikipedia did you know contributors. To comment on this, please post at request for speedy renaming. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It now is at Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Format change suggestion

Polish Wikipedia has recently changed its format of "DYK" and the change has been very popular with regular DYK contributors so I though I would share it with you (my apologies if it has been discussed already on English Wikipedia). Basically instead of using the same "did you know.. that such and such" for all entries we have implemented a much more flexible format allowing for questions like "did you know.. how many", "did you know.. who has done this and that", "did you know.. why such and such thing happened" etc. So for example instead of something like "...that Akwasi Afrifa became Lt. General and head of state of Ghana after a coup d'état, was detained after a second coup, won parliamentary elections after a third and was executed after a fourth coup?" something like "after how many coups was Akwasi Afrifa executed"? or perhaps "what military rank was held by Akwasi Afrifa, head of state of Ghana after a coup d'état, was detained after a second coup, won parliamentary elections after a third and was executed after a fourth coup?".

Another recent development is a "megaDYK" - DYK entries consisting of links to new articles only. It obviously requires some coordination from a few contributors but the results can be quite fun - see here for 2 archived megaDYKs (in Polish only, sorry :P). Cheers, Roo72 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted a couple DYKs with two new articles in the hooks. I don't know how others feel about the format. I think so far consensus has proven to favor the current format but I am sure consensus can change. As said, I don't know in this case. IvoShandor 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried a twofer (two Eurovision entries, in fact) recently, but both articles ran on the front page with the hooks I provided in case the twofer didn't get up. If I were updating the template and there was a particularly good twofer, I'd run it, although that's quite possibly just me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why those weren't chosen; I like two-fers...especially since combining related articles can cut down on the number related to one topic. It'd be nice to see a three- or four-fer, but it might be tough to coordinate that many eligible articles. I prefer the "...that" format, though, because it highlights some unusual fact that few would know, instead of making you guess off the top of your head. Rigadoun (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that, in addition to Did You Know, Polish Wikipedia add Do You Know statements. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of wikipedia:recent additions

Would it be possible to get a bot to archive the recent additions page? Right now I notice that it's gotten too long, and I can see why - it's fairly tedious to archive that manually. --JayHenry 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. I just archived it and it filled up seven pages. Rigadoun (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I put in a bot request. Let's see what happens. Rigadoun (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping problematic entries off the front page

So yesterday, we told a ghost story on the front page of Wikipedia.

See the Main Page error reports page and Talk:Alexander Campbell (businessman) for details, but essentially, for two and a half hours we told the world that a certain handprint on a jail cell wall kept magically reappearing, not only after being painted over but even after the wall was knocked down and rebuilt. Neither the front-page hook nor the article itself so much as hinted that this miraculous handprint might be a fake, though it was called a hoax even in one of the sources cited to support it.

With the number of DYK items, I'm sure most of them go through with no more than a cursory check, but this can't even have gotten that. A paranormal claim being presented as unquestioned truth should have raised a red flag for anyone who looked at it, and at least triggered a more careful review of sourcing. How can we keep such obviously problematic material from slipping through the cracks again? —Celithemis 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a DYK next update process as well as a nomination page. You, as well as any other editor, are welcome to read through the nominations as well as the associated articles. If you have a concern over the content of an article tag it and express any concerns at T:TDYK. You are also welcome to review the next update template and remove any to the T:TDYK page if you feel it is problmatic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I can do that, and I'm sure that others already do that from time to time, but such an ad-hoc process obviously did not prevent this embarrassment to Wikipedia from happening. For one thing, since there's no way to tell how much scrutiny an entry has received, one entry may be reviewed by a dozen people and another by none. —Celithemis 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no formal process. Most often a check includes a.) making sure it meets the threshold for expansion or creation in relation to the date. b.) does it have references?. Those are the two most popular checks. Also, it is of important to note that DYK's are not featured articles, they are from wikipedias newest articles. I have contributed many DYK's which had problems with them fixed after being put on the front page. DYK encourages contributions on newly created articles. While I agree with your concerns, a formal screening process in my opinion would kind of discount in my opinion the point of DYK. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's lovely (to be said in a Welsh accent)

A wonderful and eclectic and world-wide selection of DYKs on the main page at present with no one country dominating as has so often happened in the past, and even better, no FLW (apols to the dedicated FLW author - great effort, but it gets boring reading endless entries about the man and his works)!!!81.151.231.133 09:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We are pleased that you are pleased. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I did that update and chose things totally at random.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not nearly as boring as it gets listening to people complain about my volunteer work. IvoShandor 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

swindle

A current main page hook reads ...that the bestselling children's book The History of the Fairchild Family by Mary Martha Sherwood inspired the character of Pip in Charles Dickens's Great Expectations?

The article is quite a lengthy one, and its only mention of Pip comes in a single sentence: "It even influenced the portrayal of Pip in Dickens's own Great Expectations (1860–61)."

Putting aside the influenced/inspired distinction (which is non-trivial), I think it's a swindle for the front-page hook to promise something that the article doesn't deliver on. Intrigued by the hook, we read the whole article, only to find that it tells us not one whit about HOW Pip was influenced by it. It just makes that bare claim; substantiated, true, by a footnote, but not by any evidence. This is rather disappointing. Doops | talk 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooks are difficult to write as they should draw readers to the article but be supported by references. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selections,

the hook should be "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content.

It appears that we fell short on this one. I'm sorry that you feel swindle by the hook for this article. I contacted the author of the article in hopes that he can use the reference to expand on the hook point in the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the source says much more than that (I can't find the article at the moment - it is lost in my stacks of papers). I will look in the coming days. I do agree with Doops, though. That is why I thought that the other two "hooks" that I suggested were better - they both focused on The History of the Fairchild Family being one of the most popular children's books of the nineteenth century. I felt that that fact was much more relevant to the article than the Dickens fact, which, frankly, is a throw-away that I added only because readers go "oh, Dickens, I know him" whereas they do not (generally) know Sherwood. (Thanks for reading the article, though, Doops; I'm sorry you were disappointed by it. I'm afraid that there just isn't much scholarship on Sherwood or this book.) Awadewit | talk 01:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. This hook was indeed very 'hooky' and I agree that that's good; but it promised more than the article could deliver. If I were writing the hook for this article it would be something like this: ...that later editions of The History of the Fairchild Family, one of the most popular children's books of the Victorian era, omitted such grisly details as the gibbet which so impressed the Fairchild children. (OK, that's a bit long; but that sort of thing, anyway.) Cheers, Doops | talk 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a good one. I am new to DYK (I've been here a week or so), so hopefully my suggestions will improve over time. Awadewit | talk 06:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Think no one's looking?

Think again! The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Good" articles proposed by bot follow-up

There's a new set of "Good" articles proposed by bot. Anyone else interested in sorting them and placing a note on the creators pages suggesting that they nominate the article for DYK? As much as I enjoy giving people good news, it would help to have some assistance in dealing with the bot's continuous posts. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jreferee, this is something I'd be happy to help with when I have the time. What, exactly, is the process? You go to the article's creator and encourage him or her to nominate? Do you have some sort of form greeting that you use that explains how you found the article and how they can nominate it? --JayHenry 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've been working on the process for the past few days via trial and error. for "Good" articles proposed by bot instructions, see instructions. Basically, I open up all the newly proposed articles at one time (using the right click button on each article), look to see which ones have enough text and decent footnotes (usually at least four or more footnotes), and write down the names on a piece of paper. I then separate them into two lists - discards and ones to be prompted. I then post the prompt on the talk page. There are some more steps, but that's basically it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I went through and did it for the July 5th articles. It took a rather long time, but some of the articles were quite good and I think it's a great way to encourage relatively new editors (who, I noticed, do a lot of the articles that GoodBot picks up). It's definitely something I'm happy to continue to help with (and let me know if you think I should've suggested an article I didn't and vice-versa.) --JayHenry 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I usually right click each of the articles to open in a new tab, take a quick look at the article to see its length and number of footnotes. If it's descent, I write down the name on a piece of paper and move on to the next article. I may have 30 to 60 articles open at one time and my screening takes about five seconds for each article. I then copy the entire list into Microsoft word. I then use my handwritten list to electronically sort them into two piles: those to get notices and discards. I then create a notice for each user in one Microsoft word article, right click each user talk page button so as to open all the talk pages at once, then I copy, paste, close, copy, paste, close the correct notice onto each talk page. Also, don't be too picky about the article. The 5-day DYK nomination process is for helping editors improve the article to meet DYK standards. If the article has enough text and the footnotes show some effort to use multiple sources or one source really well, then that user should receive a notice for that article. Thanks for the help!-- Jreferee (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I spent a little more time than that actually reading through all the ones that weren't lists. But you're right, it's DYK and the whole purpose is to help improve new articles. Next time I'll be less picky! --JayHenry 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg and 6 July 2007 19:40 update

I did not update the first entry/image when I did the 19:40 update, because I have concerns over Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg. The image is licensed as being in the public domain, but it is a detail of a work of art for an artist who died in 1970. None of the public domain tags for art seem to cover this use, and I didn't want to have an image with possibly copyright issues on the front page. What do others think about this? Would someone like to update the image/first entry with something else?-Andrew c [talk] 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just skipped to the next image up on the Suggestions list. I have left Fernando at the top of the Next update, but I'm going to remove the image. If someone wants to clear up the image license, that'd be great. Here is the PUI listing.-Andrew c [talk] 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The bases for the free use tag is "Personal Collection of Printed Images." If User:Rodsan18 owns the original Image:Fernando Amorsolo 1a.jpg, then he/she needs to send free use permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee. If he merely owns one of many existing prints of the image, then it is very unlikely that the copyright for the original image came with his/her particular copy and a free use tag may be inappropriate. For DYK purposes, until somebody with access to OTRS comes along and tag the article or image with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question, the image should not be posted on the main page by DYK. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. For a bit I was worried I was being a bit too nit picky, but you reiterated a number of my concerns I was mulling over. Hopefully it can be cleared up. It looks like a fair use rationale + copyright license are shaping up at the image page. I was cringed a little when the PUI discussion suggested using the Free Art License.-Andrew c [talk] 21:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

versorium

I repeat that the versorium was not the world first electrical device by over two millenia. Why would we archive an error?--Ioscius (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That the baghdad battery was an electrical device is still heavily disputed. There is no dispute over the electrical nature of the versorium. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Expired noms and PD material

Is there any guideline for how long to leave expired noms on the suggestions page? It's pretty long at the moment, but I'm not sure if there's a specific policy.

Also, related to the recently unselected USS Lamons (see under July 6), I was going to comment that it may not have been chosen because while he's right about the PD usage, it said in the suggestions that articles with new (not PD) content are preferred, but then I couldn't find it myself. Was that removed (possibly replaced with the comment about good citations)? Rigadoun (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_20&oldid=1088219497"