![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
"Did you know"'s handling of pictures is inconsistent with "On this day" and "In the news."
"On this day" and "In the news" both used (pictured) recently AFAIK, while "Did you know" recently used (pictured) or (pictured) or ommited it altogether.
Could "Did you know" use (pictured) consistently, please? -- Kjoon lee 03:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the selection of Harbhajan Singh, which even weeks ago was far from a stub. Has the policy or its interpretation changed, or was this just a one-off? I'm just wondering whether I should submit other articles which have simply had a few paragraphs added to them. Stevage 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "speciemens" should be "specimens" in the "Did you know..." section of the WP main page. Please see Banksia epica and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/speciemen. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (copied from WP:VPA) -- Lost (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Recently, Tim Starling introduced a new function for performing date and time conversions. This has several advantages over the much more complicated mathematical method currently used in things like Template:DYK-Refresh. For instance, it allowed me to vastly reduce the size of the templates used to make those little 'next day' and 'prior day' links on dated sub-pages like Wikipedia:Tip of the day/September 1, 2006.
I've been pondering an overhaul of DYK-Refresh to adapt it to this new feature, but wanted to run it past the folks actually using the template. With the new function it would be alot easier to display the 'earliest time for next update', but the 'hours remaining' and 'hours elapsed' figures would be just as complicated as they are currently. Are those important or would the 'earliest time for update' be sufficient? In any case, the template would be made considerably less prone to people breaking it by editing a sub-template they don't fully understand and we could switch to using {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} format times like '20240714212826' in the 'DYK-Refresh' call rather than the somewhat more esoteric Julian date format (e.g. '2460506.3944444') used currently.
Let me know what you think or if there is something else which would work better. -- CBD 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:CBDunkerson) I found the time elapsed line extremely useful. Why did you comment it out? - Mgm| (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I do not live in GMT and in fact visit different time zones quite regularly, I get easily confused by trying to do relative date calculations in my head. So I found the "hours since last refresh" functionality very useful. I applaud efforts to make this template (and all other templates) simpler, but if there is any way to retain this functionality that would be very helpful, thanks! However weigh my words less than others as its been some time since I've had the 40 min in a row it akes me to do an update... ++ Lar: t/ c 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that its a useful template. Incidently, it doesn't appear to be working at the moment.-- Peta 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I know this issue has been discussed before, but I'd like to bring it up again. It seems a bit unfair that editors should put a lot of work into an article - with the prospect of having it featured on the front page providing at least part of the incentive - then having it dumped simply because administrators can't be bothered to update. Surely it should be possible to update the DYK more than once every 24 hours? Eixo 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This message was originally posted on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I know i'm a little late, but the Stereotypes of animals benefitted from alot of contributions after it was DYK. However, I don't know if giving it DYk helped it. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 07:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Onion dome is about 1-1/2 years old. How did it get on the main page? — Michael Z. 2006-09-09 16:55 Z
What is the problem here? Did the selection of onion domes push a better DYK candidate off the Main Page?
I think we can by-and-large trust:
The objection over "technical eligiblity" does not carry much weight with me, although this case is right at the margins of what I would consider acceptable (indeed, I have refrained from nominating articles similar to this because I thought the article was too large before I expanded it - a case in point is Charlie Williams (comedian), which was reasonably well-developed, if a little stubbish, before my recent expansion of it).
As Samir says, he has been doing a large part of the updating for months (which is a horrible faff), and this is the way he has been doing it. Given the lack of complaint until now, there is the consensus. In any event, if the blurb does not reflect the way things are done in practice, it is time to update the blurb - policies are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not suprising for me that, out of 1000 admins, Mzajac and David Levy admirably revealed the latest of Ghirlandajo's disruptions. I did not post on this page, so as not to hurt Mzajac's feelings (as I always try to do, according to him). Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that destubbed articles have been featured in DYK at least since my entry Veduta, which replaced this page. At first I was told by the updating admin that my article was not new and failed to meet the guidelines. Then I pointed out that the previous entry was plain nonsense and spoof and the article was promoted. If we are to follow Mzajac's logic, a troll who put dribble in place of Spanish Baroque precluded this article, once I submitted it, from participating in DYK. I don't think it's fair. As for the size of onion dome, I tend to agree with ALoan that it was a borderline case and that I could have looked better, but I've actually got an impression that the previous stuff (partly by me) was completely replaced (except for the lead). Furthermore, that article did not look like a stub because of huge images only. Even after my reworking as of 29 June 2005, someone still labeled it as a stub. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have some differences as to what the goals of DYK are. If the goal of DYK is to promote new, well-written articles, then the answer is to only allow new articles on DYK. If the goal of DYK is to promote new, well-written information, then the answer is to allow short articles that are expanded significantly to also be on DYK. My personal view is that the latter helps us improve quality of poorly written stubs, and allows more already-existing articles (that may appeal to more people) to be on the front page -- Samir धर्म 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I object to this being characterised as a "significant" change to the rules, or "sneaking" in a change to the rules. The basis is simple and has remained pretty constant - we highlight articles that either did not exist or that were poor but have had significant improvement in the past 5 days. But I am sorry if the page does not explain that clearly enough, so you have failed to suggest a DYK. But then I am sorry that many editors don't bring their new or significantly expanded articles to DYK at all.
On "atrocities", all I can say is (i) give some examples, and (ii) {{ sofixit}} - read the suggestions page and the articles posted on it, and participate in updating. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the data from the last week: User:Samir (The Scope)/DYK. All new articles are at the top (70) and all stub expansions (regardless of initial stub size) are at the bottom (24). Five administrators edited the template in the past week, and all put stub expansions (24/94 = 25.5%) on the main page. Mind you, this is all stub expansions, not the ones that were stubs. -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have full confidence in Samir's conduct. Please, everybody is allowed to criticise articles, the updating admins aren't going to get 10 articles line them up side by side and try and rank and critique them all for 3 hours at a time. Everybody is welcome to comment. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I too agree with Samir. The responsibility should lie more with the DYK readers to point out why an article cant make it. This will make the updating admin's task that much easier -- Lost (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since people seem to want to make it an issue, I think it might be useful if we add some guidelines for expanded articles to the DYK guidelines. My only suggestions are that
We might ask the suggestors to flag if the article is new, or if it has been expanded, and specifiy that is should be listed on the date that the major expansion took place. However I'm not really in favour of anything that would make the process more complicated. Something I'm finding vaguely odd is people creating a stub and the same author later expanding the stub and listing it as a DYK (it seems weirdly dishonest to me), but I don't know if we should also specify that the original have been created by someone different to the expander. Any comments?-- Peta 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the older definition... that the article had to be new, or a true stub, and the expansion or creation of it had to be enough to increase it by at least 1000 chars and take it out of being a stub. I'm not sure I want to see DYK opened up to "just any improvement", philosophically. (not that that is what is being advocated here but...) But whatever consensus arrives at is fine with me. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
"Did you know"'s handling of pictures is inconsistent with "On this day" and "In the news."
"On this day" and "In the news" both used (pictured) recently AFAIK, while "Did you know" recently used (pictured) or (pictured) or ommited it altogether.
Could "Did you know" use (pictured) consistently, please? -- Kjoon lee 03:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the selection of Harbhajan Singh, which even weeks ago was far from a stub. Has the policy or its interpretation changed, or was this just a one-off? I'm just wondering whether I should submit other articles which have simply had a few paragraphs added to them. Stevage 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "speciemens" should be "specimens" in the "Did you know..." section of the WP main page. Please see Banksia epica and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/speciemen. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (copied from WP:VPA) -- Lost (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Recently, Tim Starling introduced a new function for performing date and time conversions. This has several advantages over the much more complicated mathematical method currently used in things like Template:DYK-Refresh. For instance, it allowed me to vastly reduce the size of the templates used to make those little 'next day' and 'prior day' links on dated sub-pages like Wikipedia:Tip of the day/September 1, 2006.
I've been pondering an overhaul of DYK-Refresh to adapt it to this new feature, but wanted to run it past the folks actually using the template. With the new function it would be alot easier to display the 'earliest time for next update', but the 'hours remaining' and 'hours elapsed' figures would be just as complicated as they are currently. Are those important or would the 'earliest time for update' be sufficient? In any case, the template would be made considerably less prone to people breaking it by editing a sub-template they don't fully understand and we could switch to using {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} format times like '20240714212826' in the 'DYK-Refresh' call rather than the somewhat more esoteric Julian date format (e.g. '2460506.3944444') used currently.
Let me know what you think or if there is something else which would work better. -- CBD 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:CBDunkerson) I found the time elapsed line extremely useful. Why did you comment it out? - Mgm| (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I do not live in GMT and in fact visit different time zones quite regularly, I get easily confused by trying to do relative date calculations in my head. So I found the "hours since last refresh" functionality very useful. I applaud efforts to make this template (and all other templates) simpler, but if there is any way to retain this functionality that would be very helpful, thanks! However weigh my words less than others as its been some time since I've had the 40 min in a row it akes me to do an update... ++ Lar: t/ c 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that its a useful template. Incidently, it doesn't appear to be working at the moment.-- Peta 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I know this issue has been discussed before, but I'd like to bring it up again. It seems a bit unfair that editors should put a lot of work into an article - with the prospect of having it featured on the front page providing at least part of the incentive - then having it dumped simply because administrators can't be bothered to update. Surely it should be possible to update the DYK more than once every 24 hours? Eixo 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This message was originally posted on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I know i'm a little late, but the Stereotypes of animals benefitted from alot of contributions after it was DYK. However, I don't know if giving it DYk helped it. -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 07:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Onion dome is about 1-1/2 years old. How did it get on the main page? — Michael Z. 2006-09-09 16:55 Z
What is the problem here? Did the selection of onion domes push a better DYK candidate off the Main Page?
I think we can by-and-large trust:
The objection over "technical eligiblity" does not carry much weight with me, although this case is right at the margins of what I would consider acceptable (indeed, I have refrained from nominating articles similar to this because I thought the article was too large before I expanded it - a case in point is Charlie Williams (comedian), which was reasonably well-developed, if a little stubbish, before my recent expansion of it).
As Samir says, he has been doing a large part of the updating for months (which is a horrible faff), and this is the way he has been doing it. Given the lack of complaint until now, there is the consensus. In any event, if the blurb does not reflect the way things are done in practice, it is time to update the blurb - policies are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not suprising for me that, out of 1000 admins, Mzajac and David Levy admirably revealed the latest of Ghirlandajo's disruptions. I did not post on this page, so as not to hurt Mzajac's feelings (as I always try to do, according to him). Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that destubbed articles have been featured in DYK at least since my entry Veduta, which replaced this page. At first I was told by the updating admin that my article was not new and failed to meet the guidelines. Then I pointed out that the previous entry was plain nonsense and spoof and the article was promoted. If we are to follow Mzajac's logic, a troll who put dribble in place of Spanish Baroque precluded this article, once I submitted it, from participating in DYK. I don't think it's fair. As for the size of onion dome, I tend to agree with ALoan that it was a borderline case and that I could have looked better, but I've actually got an impression that the previous stuff (partly by me) was completely replaced (except for the lead). Furthermore, that article did not look like a stub because of huge images only. Even after my reworking as of 29 June 2005, someone still labeled it as a stub. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have some differences as to what the goals of DYK are. If the goal of DYK is to promote new, well-written articles, then the answer is to only allow new articles on DYK. If the goal of DYK is to promote new, well-written information, then the answer is to allow short articles that are expanded significantly to also be on DYK. My personal view is that the latter helps us improve quality of poorly written stubs, and allows more already-existing articles (that may appeal to more people) to be on the front page -- Samir धर्म 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I object to this being characterised as a "significant" change to the rules, or "sneaking" in a change to the rules. The basis is simple and has remained pretty constant - we highlight articles that either did not exist or that were poor but have had significant improvement in the past 5 days. But I am sorry if the page does not explain that clearly enough, so you have failed to suggest a DYK. But then I am sorry that many editors don't bring their new or significantly expanded articles to DYK at all.
On "atrocities", all I can say is (i) give some examples, and (ii) {{ sofixit}} - read the suggestions page and the articles posted on it, and participate in updating. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the data from the last week: User:Samir (The Scope)/DYK. All new articles are at the top (70) and all stub expansions (regardless of initial stub size) are at the bottom (24). Five administrators edited the template in the past week, and all put stub expansions (24/94 = 25.5%) on the main page. Mind you, this is all stub expansions, not the ones that were stubs. -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have full confidence in Samir's conduct. Please, everybody is allowed to criticise articles, the updating admins aren't going to get 10 articles line them up side by side and try and rank and critique them all for 3 hours at a time. Everybody is welcome to comment. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I too agree with Samir. The responsibility should lie more with the DYK readers to point out why an article cant make it. This will make the updating admin's task that much easier -- Lost (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since people seem to want to make it an issue, I think it might be useful if we add some guidelines for expanded articles to the DYK guidelines. My only suggestions are that
We might ask the suggestors to flag if the article is new, or if it has been expanded, and specifiy that is should be listed on the date that the major expansion took place. However I'm not really in favour of anything that would make the process more complicated. Something I'm finding vaguely odd is people creating a stub and the same author later expanding the stub and listing it as a DYK (it seems weirdly dishonest to me), but I don't know if we should also specify that the original have been created by someone different to the expander. Any comments?-- Peta 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the older definition... that the article had to be new, or a true stub, and the expansion or creation of it had to be enough to increase it by at least 1000 chars and take it out of being a stub. I'm not sure I want to see DYK opened up to "just any improvement", philosophically. (not that that is what is being advocated here but...) But whatever consensus arrives at is fine with me. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)