Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 7

message: I'm suggesting changing the name of this section on the main page from "Did you know..." to "Did you know that..." for the following reasons:
*To avoid the unnecessarily repetitive use of the word "that" in each entry. "...that" "...that" "...that" "...that" "...that"
*Also, if anyone has seen the show Bill Nye the Science Guy, they had repeated segments called "Did you know that..." which were in the same spirit as this template. That is my shred of evidence for how such a segment should be titled.
Any support? --BRIAN0918 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposed - while it would avoid repeating the "that" in each entry, ending the title of the section with the word "that" would be a little clumsy.  There are many newspapers that have a "did you know" section, which they title thusly. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Name change

message: Hello, I'm honored that my article on Stravinsky's Mass was just chosen for DYK! An editor changed the title from Bold Roman Type to Italicized Bold. I'm confused because according to the Wikipedia's Classical Music Manual of Style, generic titles like Symphony and Mass should not be italicized. I changed it back in the actual article but don't believe I have such privelages for the main page. Any thoughts? -- MarkBuckles 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical music titles

message: I don't understand the rationale for this requirement. It's very difficult to find good, non-stub, interesting articles just a couple of days old. I nominated an article I created, Homerun, 4 days after creating it. The next day, when it was 5 days old, someone rephrashed the fact. It was removed from the nominations list the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildanknight (talk • contribs) 
:See the section above titled "Time limit". Kimchi.sg 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I would propose that if someone creates a stub, then 10 days later, someone else turns it into a full article, the 5-day timer should be reset. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expansions from stubs are always counted as new articles (or should be), no matter how long the stub's been there. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear that. I'm working on some stubs on websites and TV shows. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about working on stubs that makes it challenging in my view is that clock starts when you make your first expansionary edit. For brand new articles, I always work in userspace, and the clock starts on my move to articlespace, I can take as much time as I need to get the article nice and beefy, well written, well sourced and illustrated, etc... So work fast but carefully! ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an example, Italo Santelli technically existed as an article for a long time, but my rewrite was judged enough of a "new" article do get DYK featured. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Note however that your article was destubified, nominated, and picked within the 5 day (or maybe 3 day, it may still have been 3 day, I forget) window. So my point is that if you are working on an article in talk space it does pay to work as quickly as you can (within reason) to give it more time to be refined and picked, if DYK is your primary goal. That said, perhaps DYK should not be a primary goal, rather, making the article better is the goal, and DYK a side benefit (the history, unsually, did not show the expected amount of edits after selection that I have seen on so many others... perhaps the article was about as good as it could get already? it IS a nice article) ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why require articles to be less than 120 hours old?