![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
... 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).
Why is ({{ dyktalk}}) routinely substed? If there is a good reason for that:
If there is no good reason for that:
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)
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)
'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)
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:
-- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Sorry to chime in late but I think this pithy quote is germane...
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)
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 ( | 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)
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)
We have two Chicago related DYKs on the next update, which can be updated at any moment. IvoShandor 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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. Yomangani talk 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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. Yomangani talk 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do I sign up for my railcard(!)? Stevebritgimp 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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?"
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)
nominating articles for DYK , should be over class A ? Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? Yomangani talk 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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? —Cel ithemis 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)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.
Think again! The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
... 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).
Why is ({{ dyktalk}}) routinely substed? If there is a good reason for that:
If there is no good reason for that:
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)
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)
'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)
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:
-- Jreferee 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Sorry to chime in late but I think this pithy quote is germane...
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)
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 ( | 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)
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)
We have two Chicago related DYKs on the next update, which can be updated at any moment. IvoShandor 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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. Yomangani talk 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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. Yomangani talk 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do I sign up for my railcard(!)? Stevebritgimp 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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?"
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)
nominating articles for DYK , should be over class A ? Ammar ( Talk - Don't Talk) 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? Yomangani talk 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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? —Cel ithemis 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)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.
Think again! The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)