Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Prep 6 - "nuclear weapons boss": another apologist, what a shame
Line 274: Line 274:
::::*Sure, but no-one learns from it, yet again. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::::*Sure, but no-one learns from it, yet again. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::*I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes. [[User:MPJ-DK|'''<span style="background:blue;color:white;border: 1px solid blue">&nbsp;MPJ</span>''']][[User talk:MPJ-DK|<span style="background:red;color:white;border: 1px solid blue">'''-DK'''&nbsp;</span>]] 23:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::*I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes. [[User:MPJ-DK|'''<span style="background:blue;color:white;border: 1px solid blue">&nbsp;MPJ</span>''']][[User talk:MPJ-DK|<span style="background:red;color:white;border: 1px solid blue">'''-DK'''&nbsp;</span>]] 23:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::*I'm sorry, do you want to try and look at the number of DYKs I've improved just before they hit the main page? Doing so is all well and dandy, but that's curing the symptoms. If you want to address the cause, like me, then you need to get those who made mistakes to do a better job next time round. But thanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing". [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


== DYK is almost overdue ==
== DYK is almost overdue ==

Revision as of 23:30, 4 March 2017

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Prep 1 - Sheeran

... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts six and a half years after its original release?

Not sure this precise claim is inline cited in the article, nor am I sure it's fair to imply that it could have entered the Australian charts any sooner, after all it wasn't released outside the UK until 2015. Pings: Cwmhiraeth, Mifter, HeyJude70. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Loose Change (EP). The hook is a factually correct statement; I don't think it implies anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inline cited per the DYK rules, regardless of the bogus hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an extra citation, but it was already cited inline. There is nothing bogus about the hook, it is factually correct. If you look at the history of Prep1 you will see that I had already amended the hook before you got to it. You have certainly introduced an error now, because the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK. Perhaps we should go back to the approved hook "... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts after seven years due to his new releases?", but I don't like that because of the "due to" bit nor the inaccurate "seven years". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to base my claim purely on techinicallities, but in the DYK it states '...after its original release'. The EP was originally released in 2010, and it doesn't say '...six and a half years after its Australian release'. The line leaves it open to interpretation I guess; if interred literally it is correct, but if it is assumed that it implies that it was released in Australia in 2010 it is wrong. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I see that the hook has been corrected to include 'UK-only', thank you. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Common sense and accuracy prevailed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth did you read the article? In the "Release history" section, it states quite clearly that it was released in the UK. So did your accusation of "the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK." mean something different? I'm not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did miss the "Release history" section, tucked away as it was at the bottom of the page. The hook facts were still correct however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tucked away"! Perhaps reading the whole article, categories included, would benefit the sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 - Dhyan Chand Award

I realise that quality is not a concern of the project, but should we really be promoting articles with basic English failures such as:

  • "The recipient(s) is/are selected by a committee constituted by the Ministry and is honoured for their contribution as a sportsperson and towards promotion of sports after their retirement from the active sporting career."
  • "Instituted in 2002, the award is given only to the disciplines included in the events like Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, World Championship and World Cup along with Cricket, Indigenous Games, and Parasports"
  • "The first recipients of the award were Shahuraj Birajdar (Boxing), Ashok Diwan (Hockey), and Aparna Ghosh (Basketball), who were honoured for the year 2002.[6] Usually conferred upon only three sportspersons in a year, a few exceptions have been made (2003, 2012, and 2013) when multiple recipients were awarded in a year."

And that's just the lead. Please, I understand that many DYK regulars including those who promote these articles to the main page, think we should allow these kinds of things, but honestly, is this an encyclopedia or a kid's school project? Pinging Vivvt, Cwmhiraeth, HalfGig. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Shame it was considered suitable in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth I know that readable English isn't a precisely specified criterion of the DYK regulations, but please, next time you spend at least 8 to 10 minutes checking each article you promote, read them and if they're not written in English, send them back to the noms area for a copyedit. This isn't a school project, it's Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what you mean by the statement: "This is a school project, it's Wikipedia". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not prepared to admit your error, you subtly obliterate the evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least my errors don't feature regularly on the main page!! Ps, so you actually know the meaning of "obliterate"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Obliterate: make invisible or indistinct; conceal or cover". Just what you did. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the history. You do know how Wikipedia works, right? Now then, please focus your efforts on reducing the number of mistakes you make which damage Wikipedia, rather than a typo I made. Talk about misdirection of effort. Plus I see you chose the second meaning, while the common, and first meaning is "destroy utterly" which is most people's reading of the word. So once again you're mistaken. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, hahahahahhahahahahaha! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP

Does "unsourced BLP" need to have zero source in order to qualify for articles that only need twofold expansion? I'm talking about the Leonard Patrick Harvey article which I found having one weak source and has a good scope to be expanded twofold. HaEr48 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48, zero sourcing for a 2x BLP is the rule. Leonard Patrick Harvey will need to be a standard 5x expansion if you want to submit it to DYK, from 1166 to 5830 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 - Kensington Railway Station

Again, no action required, but this was reviewed, passed and promoted whilst completely uncategorised. I've now addressed that but please, check that sort of thing before it gets accepted onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, did you not even notice that this wasn't categorised? How can I see that in seconds yet it takes you an hour to put together a set of seven or eight hooks, usually with one or two major errors? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are being bold and honing your belittling skills. Three criticisms of me in four minutes is pretty good going (here, here and this thread). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can hardly be described as belittling when it's clear statements of fact that your sets are usually error-prone. That's why I have to spend an hour a day clearing up for the benefit of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating more than one article in the same hook

How is this done? The template instructions don't give any specific guidelines. I simply used the two article titles, separated by a comma, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Akatombo, Miki Rofū. If this is not the correct way, please fix it for me. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, usually people would use either the main article title like Template:Did you know nominations/Tomahawk chop or something that encompasses all articles in it like Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Tunbridge Wells. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's an updated list of the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current nominations (those through February 20). I'm happy to report than only 12 hooks are left over from the previous set. Right now there are 201 nominations, of which 97 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four oldest, all left over from last time and still urgently needing a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

... that with 1,200 parking spaces, the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall used to offer a shuttle service?

This is going live in 1hr, but how is the number of parking spaces related to a shuttle service? The article has them as 2 separate sentences. And 1,200 car parking spaces isn't that interesting anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winner, "Most stunningly uninteresting hook of February 2017". The fact that the shuttle service apparently isn't even offered anymore would have added the perfect master's touch of complete pointlessness. EEng 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. There were two hooks approved: DYK nomination Wayzata Bay Center. I just swapped the hook with the other approved hook. People can discuss it if it's an issue. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hooks still being overlooked (including one right now)

There's a special occasion hook for March 2 at Template:Did you know nominations/Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, and I don't have time right now to check and promote it. The first set for March 2 is already on the main page; the second set, currently in Prep 6, is filled without this hook, so one of its hooks will need to be moved, preferably before the set is promoted to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Prep 6 went to Queue 6 about the time you were typing this. And I'm getting ready to sign off for the day. So, this one will take an admin to make the switch within the next 10 hours. A strange side issue, is that I noticed Prep 2 has been mostly filled, but absolutely no hooks were promoted to Prep 1 right above it.

— Maile (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde. Looking at the hook, I think it would be helpful to add a piped link for "MLAs"—MLAs—because it's confusing without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I promoted a special occasion hook to Prep2 for March 3rd, I don't believe there was a special occasion hook for March 2nd, so I felt no need to look again at the special holding area for that date when promoting further hooks. Having added one hook to Prep2, I added a few more hooks to it while I was there, which explains @Maile66:'s anomaly. I would find it more noticeable if the special holding area was at the top of the approved page rather than the bottom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Wugapodes: You know ... that's a really good idea to have the special holding section at the top of the approved page. Like "Hey! Notice me!" where it can't be overlooked. I vaguely recall a previous discussion on this, but don't remember why it was decided to leave on the unapproved nominations page.— Maile (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, the March 2 hook was right there. It's been there since February 4, and I saw it still there shortly after you built that Prep 2 set. I don't know why it didn't show up on your screen, but it certainly should have, as it was right above the March 3 hook you promoted. Maile, I put the Special occasions area at the bottom of the Approved page because I thought that people would naturally look for it at the bottom of the page since they were used to it being there on the regular nominations page, with the earliest-to-be-promoted hook date at the top of the section, and the furthest out at the bottom. Will people look for it at the top of the Approved page's Nominations section (I don't imagine you meant the literal top, above all the explanations), or will we have to put a pointer to such a new placement from the bottom of the page, because that's where people are used to looking for it? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And now that I think about it, promoters should not have to scroll through a lengthy (sometimes) list of special occasion hooks just to get to the current approved ones. No magic solution on this one, except to keep doing how it's always been. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have a link to the Special holding area at the top of the Approved page? At present you have to make your way to the bottom of the page and hunt around for where the holding area starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've added it to the end of the top paragraph on the page. I did take a look at the Contents box at the top of the page, but that too is a long multi-screen slog. Cwmhiraeth (and anyone else), let me know how you think it works. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, just what is needed. Now I will have no excuse if I miss special occasion hooks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 8 – International Women's Day

I have started a new date in the Special Occasions holding area for March 8 – International Women's Day. We have 16 slots available that day – please fill them up! Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a nom that might qualify, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special holding area

A hook in Prep 3, Richard Springer, needs to be held for April 15th, but I am unsure how to move it to the special occasions holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polynesia time

If I calculate right, Missionary Day (now prep 6) will be shown when it's almost over where it is celebrated. Better a set earlier, or even two. - Once I'm here, prep 3 looks "long", compared to the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have moved the Polynesian hook to Prep 5 and reduced the length of Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, you have unfortunately not calculated correctly. French Polynesia is in the same time zone as Hawaii (UTC−10); in Prep 6, where I have restored it to, it will run between 02:00 and 14:00 local time on March 5, which is about as good as we can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misplacing the date line, - for me it feels like Australia, but I should have looked it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS

There are ongoing threads happening at WP:ERRORS, without linking articles or pinging contributors. So please be advised to watchlist the WP:ERRORS. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because too many errors are being promoted by this project. Please stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it's actually a useful thing to allow the rest of Wikipedia to see the sheer lack of quality coming from this project. As things aren't changing here at all, all errors will be reported to the main page, rather than within the project, to ensure as many people as possible can contribute. Hopefully it will result in an increase in quality from reviewers, promoters and set builders. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to ensure as many people as possible can contribute—as reports there, referring to nominations in queues, can only be handled by admins, that's certainly not true, since there are far more non-admins than admins. But perhaps that's the point? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can contribute to WP:ERRORS, and the pageviews there all focus on ensuring the integrity of the main page, while chatter at the DYK project can be vague, pointy and full of ownership issues. It's a great thing that the project as a whole can now see the issues at DYK for themselves rather than the current "closed shop" approach which encourages such ownership. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of having prep sets is so that hooks can be reviewed before they get to the queue or main page where admin attention is necessary. Your new approach seems decidedly unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the sheer volume of issues, I'm finding it difficult to review the hooks before they're queued up. So it is what it is , and more (and different) eyes will benefit this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here is the point in time where the sheep gets sheared - if something ends up on WP:ERRORS and it's a legitimate issue (not some of the nitpicking non-errors that pop up) then something somewhere in the process has failed. You cannot argue against the fact that if an error is on the front page it's a bad thing. What is needed is positive contributions to improve the Quality Control process around here. This isn't about pointing fingers (even if some love to do that) and it's nothing personal against anyone (even if some act like it is). The fact is that shit happens, errors occasionally get through - we are humans (except those of us that are bots), but that does not mean we can't TRY to improve.  MPJ-DK  14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And considering at least four of my remarks resulted in tweaks or modifications to hooks, in one single set, I think I'm entirely justified to report them wherever and whenever I see fit and am able. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that the review efforts really should be focused on when hooks are in Prep more than anything so we can get them fixed prior needing Admin intervention. Ques errors are less desirable, but still better than front page. So what things can we do to ensure higher hook quality in the prep areas? I would like to think that everyone involved are open to constructive sugestions. Please let's try to not make it personal, I would rather discuss solutions here than issues and finger pointing. i have not been very active on DYK recently but I am going to try and do more checking on the assembled preps and queues.  MPJ-DK  17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever built a prep with that many errors should be cautioned to be more careful. The prep builders are meant to be the main line of defense from bad reviews. They must act like it. Copy pasting and nothing else doesn't cut it. I was quite perturbed to find that one of my own hooks ran with an error a couple days back (quickly fixed) because a prep builder edited the approved hook to include a substantial piece of information that was false. ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the new "approved" page would be reorganized so that newly approved noms are always added at the top (or bottom), I'd be happy to help with QA as newly approved noms come in. But under the stupid setup we have now, they pop up all over the page without warning, and I'm simply not going to wade through the whole page over and over every day just to try to spot new appearances. Please, if we could just make this one change then the whole QA process could be pushed upstream to the Approved page, where it belongs, instead of happening in the context of the preps and Qs where it is now. Also, if QA happens at the Approved stage, the nom page is still open and QA questions can be discussed on the nom page itself, with all the earlier review material available, instead of here, which is very awkward. EEng 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep Area 5 Review

I work in Software Quality Assurance so I'm borrowing a bit from those processes to see if they can be applied with success here, some of the improvements we've seen where I've worked is through developing standards and internal check lists. Prep 5 is the next to be moved to Queue 5 that's going on the main page in like 6 hours now. I'm looking at the 8 hooks now trying to figure out the best, most efficient way of ensuring quality in the hooks. To me we need to make sure each hook & article as been vetted before it hits the main page. I see the following items that really need to be checked for the following.

  • Hook accuracy
  • Hook prose and appropriate linkage
  • Article prose
  • Article sourcing
  • Image license (In set and in the article)
  • Hook in prep vs. hook approved (is there a difference, does that introduce problems)
  • Anything else? I am going to start the review of the various hooks - and then when done post my finds on each hook, to share the findings here. If others review a hook it'd be great if they post their comments for the hooks here so we know what has been reviewed and what issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks
  • Miami Railway Station that in 1889, a US company built the Miami Railway Station (pictured) in Canada, now a National Historic Site and museum?
  • The lead said it was built by Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company (no source) while the body just says it was built in 1889 and sourced there. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the company was U.S. based but it's in the hook - not an error as such but unclear from the article.
  • Image license looks good to me
  • Article is okay, albeit more focused on the "background" than the station.
  • I'm by no means an expert on the English language but I would have thought the hook should read "which is now a"?  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea / Wallachian princely election that the aged, hernia-afflicted Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea reportedly ran in the Wallachian princely election only to hamper other candidates?
  • Prose wise, source wise this looks okay to me, nothing jumps out at me.
  • All facts found and cited in the Filipescu-Vulpea article but I'm having a hard time finding the fact that he only ran as a "spoiler" in the election article. @Dahn: - can you help me pinpoint where the hook is found in the election article please?  MPJ-DK  20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing else for this one.  MPJ-DK  22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Worlds that AllMusic thought Phil Collins' "Two Worlds", featured in Disney's 1999 animated featuremovie Tarzan, "eerily echo[ed]" the worldbeats of former Genesis bandmate Peter Gabriel?
  • 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment that the only player strike in Japanese professional baseball history occurred during the 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment and lasted for only two days?
  • Julian Radcliffe that Julian Radcliffe is the founder of the world's largest private database of lost and stolen art
  • Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising that the 1887 book Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising presents 177 biographies of African-American men, most of whom were born as slaves?
  • Article states "had slave parents or were themselves slaves" but doesn't state that the majorit were actually slaves and does not state that they were "born" as slaves.  MPJ-DK  21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Henry Daniels that Judge William Henry Daniels committed suicide in 1897, three years after being dismissed for not taking an oath of allegiance to the Provisional Government of Hawaii?
  • Paludititan that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf?
I just tweaked the wording to "many" from "most" regarding the Men of Mark article. I am looking at the last hook currently. Mifter (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "expansion" tag from that section. Comparing the article from when it was added to now satisfies me that it was adequately expanded. I've currently trying to get my hands on the journal article used as the primary source to make some other changes but that is taking longer than I expected. Mifter (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

MPJ-DK this is not the worst idea that ever came down the pike. Logical, simplistic ... and you're the only one so far who had added to it. So...no getting sidetracked. Do we have the man/woman power to do this on a steady basis? Can we hold it to "just the facts" and not get sidetracked with every thought that goes through someone's mind? The big flaw with the current process, IMO, is personality clashes that turn it into accusations v. defenses. When I check a set prep, the big ... BIG ... issue I see are promoters who are acting in good faith and changing the hook from what was approved. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth seems to take over an hour to build a prep set without this list of helpful pointers. And still many issues make it to queues and sometimes to the main page. It may mean that prep builders have to be prepared to put in the extra hours to ensure that reviewers have done their jobs properly. Or perhaps it means that prep builders should be bolder about sending nominations back to review rather than the current "If it's nommed, it'll run" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proving my point about sidetracking this project with accusations. The minute you start pointing fingers at someone, and you do it often, you dilute your own credibility. This is not productive. So, please stop. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip. I was talking about the only decent set builder the project has already spending an hour to get a set together. It's not her fault the reviewers are promoting rubbish. You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control. Stop blaming me for pointing it out. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I built this particular prep set. I see that I started at 6.04 and finished at 7.23, so that's 79 minutes. During that time I also proposed a new hook for a nomination I did not promote, commented on a nomination I did not promote, rephrased an article I did promote and expanded the lead of an article I did promote to prevent it being tagged "lead too short". On this occasion I did not then alter any of the hooks, but I often do where I think they are ungrammatical or could be better expressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know the timings well as I'm usually waiting for her to finish so I can review the set. Maile66's outlandish and bad faith rant is not welcome nor conducive to solving the problems, unlike my comment about rejecting nominations more readily. As for timings of reviews etc, sadly time constraints work against me sometimes, and now is such a time, hence the error reports because queues suddenly pop up out of nowhere and their associated errors are just a hare's breadth from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was unfortunately unable to get reliable direct information, but some breeds of hare grow up to about 60cm long (excluding tale) so going by the photo here [1] I'd estimate a typical hare's breadth to be something like 10 to 15 cm. Too close for comfort in my book! EEng 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay now that we've gotten that out of the system let's move on to constructive input shall we? Great.  MPJ-DK  20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100%. Let's hope Maile66 comes back with something actually useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it would be geat if everyone could contribute with something helpful and without attitude so we can make a positive step forward intead of being stuck in the same environment of snide remarks and finger pointing.  MPJ-DK  21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Rambling Man: How many times must I remind you before you find yourself back before the arbitration committee? "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many times must you be reminded that statements of fact do not equate to insulting or belittling others. Maile got it all wrong, she should apologise and move on. As should you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, yes they very well can be, depending on how they are phrased and wielded. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, clearly not in this case if you bothered to read the context, the ABF insults and the solutions I'm seeking. Besides, your involvement with this case really precludes you from an objective perspective. After all, you're the "admin" who changed the main page text to purple when Prince died, right? And many of us pointed out your flagrant abuse of your position as an admin, right? In you, we trust? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Gorgeous red herring there. Chin up, and please treat people with more respect and civility. That's all I ask. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you under-estimate how poorly the community view you and your antics as a rogue admin, abusing the main page at your whim. That you weren't sanctioned for your many illicit actions on the main page is a mystery, Arbcom would do well to take a further look into your behavioural competencies. As for "chin up", please don't patronise me, I'm just fine, you need to start working on your interpersonal skills before you come tramping into a debate with people that you're clearly involved with, and with a basic lack of comprehension on how to interpret Arbcom's ruling. If you don't like someone stating absolute facts about incompetence or errors, this isn't your domain, I suggest you stick to purple text or whatever else makes you happy. That's all I demand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Again, red herring. Note that I'm not commenting as an admin, so involved doesn't apply. I'm commenting as someone who will bring you to Arbcom if you continue on your current path. You've been warned; I'm out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Again, you're inherently editing as an admin, so yes, of course it applies. Please, I'll see you at Arbcom whenever you're ready to discuss your rogue behaviour. In the meantime, I suggest you get on with making the place better, stop assuming bad faith, stop making problems where they don't exist, stop accepting unfounded arguments from others without justification (you're an admin, right?), stop wading in pretending to have some kind of higher knowledge and power, stop misunderstanding (deliberately?!) the meaning and intent of Arbcom, start learning how to read depictions of fact and reality and stop misinterpreting them as "belittling". I do sympathise that some people will have trouble delineating between "belittling" and "factual assertions" and that was always a fundamental issue with Arbcom's mishandling of the case, quite the cluster-f**k. But you don't need to keep repeating the problem, after all, you're a "trustworthy <purple>admin</purple>", right? Plus I see you've managed to derail, once again, a sensible discussion about how to improve this project. Please don't do that again, after all, you're an "admin", right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is utterly redundant and seems quite arbitrary. Concerning Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea, I gave the full quote, original and translated, on the nomination page. Currently, the article on him says: "Mistrusted as a Muscal, aging, and visibly suffering from hernia, he was credited with few chances, and was aware of it; however, he reportedly informed Lăcusteanu that he was only in the race to prevent either of the "Oltenian" brothers, Bibescu and Știrbei, from winning the throne." The other article in that nom, on the election itself, says: "Lăcusteanu, an elector of the 2nd class, argues that Vulpea, who suffered from hernia, was uncommitted to his own candidacy, but only ran in hopes of making victory more difficult for the brothers Bibescu and Știrbei. He viewed both "Oltenians" as upstarts who would destroy the country." Dahn (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither redundant nor arbitrary. In the specific case of your hook, perhaps, but this is a project talk page, and we're analysing the ongoing and chronic issues that beset DYK. If you've done the right thing, and your reviewer and promoter and admin, no worries for you. But this is a much bigger picture thing than just your "own" thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I am sorry you feel that it's redundant @Dahn: but unfortunately we have had some unfortunate issues slip through to the main page, I'd rather ask a question too many, than one too few. There is nothing personal here, just trying to make sure we get less issues through here. So thank you for narrowing it down for me, I have struck my comment on the articles. MPJ-DK  22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 - "nuclear weapons boss"

... that the White House's long-time nuclear weapons boss, Bill Gulley, was officially on the U.S. Post Office payroll, to make the president's staff look smaller than it was?

Is this some kind of joke? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia yet we are aiming to push this to the main page, a "nuclear weapons boss"? Come on people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article he was in charge of the "White House Mess" under Nixon. It's a shame he's dead because right now Trump could sure use someone with experience in that area. EEng 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes.  MPJ-DK  23:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, do you want to try and look at the number of DYKs I've improved just before they hit the main page? Doing so is all well and dandy, but that's curing the symptoms. If you want to address the cause, like me, then you need to get those who made mistakes to do a better job next time round. But thanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=768638225"