Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 14

message: DYK's can often be extremely facile and useless. I am writer on European history, and I have always wondered how some of this stuff gets posted. I noticed that Józef Piłsudski is described with one word: "dictator". He was actually Poland's liberator from the Russians, a self-taught military genius (his defeat of the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw was epic) and the greatest man his country produced since King Jan Sobieski. While he did stage a coup at one point, it was one of those "failed politics" situations that happen in many newly independent countries. He did not intended to set himself up as dictator but eased his own way out of office and died his country's grand old man. (He was also a vocal opponent of anti-Semitism.) 68.5.64.178 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some DYK's are really strange 

message: discussion moved from Template talk:Did you know by Peter Isotalo 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we should. It encourages people to make non-stubby articles with good sources and interesting facts. I see nothing wrong with that. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mgm. Of course I am biased:). All but one of mine have been self noms. But shouldnt this go to WPT:DYK? -- Lost(talk) 10:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the content and relevance of the article that is interesting to the readers, not the humility of the authors. / Peter Isotalo 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this is an issue for Wikipedia talk:Did you know, secondly, if we relied on editors scouring WP for new articles to nominate for DYK, we would have probably had one or two rotations a week only! Bravada, talk - 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made this remark because I noticed that some editors simply flood DYK with their creations. It is not that they write bad articles. This simply creates a bias. My suggestion is to introduce a quota: no more than 42 self-nominations per week, or something.  `'mikka (t) 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this will have an adverse effect. We will be limiting creation of relatively well written articles -- Lost(talk) 09:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? 42 self nominations per person per week, 42 self nominations on the template per week or something else? I see no problem with self nominations. The people who know that a good article has just been written are the ones who wrote it. More variety on the did you know template would probably be a good thing but I don't think this is a good way to achieve it. --Cherry blossom tree 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: agree with PETA DYK needs the nominations, if its appears bias then limiting those that are already contributing both to DYK and creating substancial articles on wikipedia isnt the way. If DYK is struggling for fresh nominations then reconsider the criteria so that articles that have under gone substancial edits can also be highlighted. Gnangarra 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limiting self-nominations? 

message: The talk message template currently displays as follows,
"An entry from Arki, India appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 September 2006"
Is it possible to add a link to the text that was displayed on the Main page. I would like to know what interesting fact was mentioned on the DYK (without having to search archive pages). Suggestions and comments? - Ganeshk (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK talk message template 

message: Has a nihilartikel ever been put onto DYK? --Dangherous 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nihilartikel 

message: I just had a quick look at recent history for the submissions page and noticed that an anon had added an  template to the top (which was swiftly reverted, probably due to the all-caps edit summary). Thinking about it, would it be worth the time for us non-admin page-watchers to actually start doing this ourselves if the next update is well overdue? Is there a chance it'd either get some new admins involved in updating the template (always a good thing), or be noticed by the current update-team more quickly than the clock currently on the Suggestions page? I'd view either as a success, personally. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected

message: I've noticed right now that Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture, which was a DYK for 10 May 2006, got deleted and no consensus that was apparent in the was made to have the article deleted. What the heck happened? --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. --Cherry blossom tree 10:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, if their gonna do that kinda stuff, at least do a good job of it and cleanup properly. Also, by default, shouldn't the DYK nomination also be deleted as well?--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Existant DYK's?? 

message: According to User:Gmaxwell, the highest contributors to WP are US, UK, CAN, AUS and then GER. I didn't find much at DYK about Germany, so I asked the German board to be more bold and nominate themselves (NP is unfeasible as 40% of the stuff there is deleted, and 45%+ have NPOV, too short, no refs, etc, etc, and that is even before we can find something remotely interesting in any of them). As such I can see that there are lots of Polish, Russian and Indian stuff, due to the high number of superb quality article writers from that part of the world who enjoy sharing knowledge with us. Perhaps we should go and see if there are any French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, etc contribs who aren't aware of DYK and encourage them to take part. Similarly, I see next to no stuff from China or Japan. Aside from that, I was wondering which WikiProjects were very active and to ask those ones to get involved some more. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which areas are weakly covered? 

message: The following message was just left at Wikipedia talk:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board:
:The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be a good idea for someone to check the DYK entries on those portals, if they select new or significantly expanded articles that for some reason don't make it to TT:DYK.  It probably makes the most sense if the existing readers and contributors of those portals pick out the most interesting articles and suggest them for the Main Page.  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any process of suggesting or assessing DYK entries for individual portals. Currently, even the featured portals (such as Portal:War) take their DYK entries primarily from the Main Page. I don't believe that we lack suggestions for the Main Page template, as well. As it is, the template is often a backlog. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - the portal in which I take most interest, P:UK, picks appropriate entries in the Main Page DYK archive to appear in its DYK.  But if some, such as P:NZ, do something else, the contributors there should be encouraged to funnel any eligible ones to the main DYK. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A large source of potentian DYK items

message: Ostkreuz's image on the front page, in my mind, doesn't look interesting to me. I mean, theirs a shot of a number of stools in a room in a B&W colorscale, an ornate bowl, and a manuscript illumination, and yet a photo of a near empty train station got chosen above those? --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todays Image....isn't remarkable.  

message: Does anyone know whether it would be possible to inform any of the other portals automatically about changes to the main page that might relate to their work?  It would certainly decrease the amount of time spent on maintaining portals, and might even increase the number of people and amount of time involved in the main page itself. Also, it would reduce the need for individual nominations to each portal. Badbilltucker 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination with other portals? 

message: Yeah I know, but it seems almost every other day there is a Eurovision-related article but can't we add something else? Many deserving nominations are left hanging while the Eurovision nominations almost always gets picked. --Howard the Duck 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We often see a series of articles on similar topics when an editor builds up a head of steam to improve our coverage in a particular area (I did several famous animals a while ago; lots of lists of things have redlinks that need filling - for example, there are plenty of redlinked World Heritage Sites).  Any of these streams will eventually peter out.  If you are concerned, why not create some new articles on "something else" and nominate them?  As Petaholmes says, almost all nominations are selected in the end. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm annoyed at the proliferation of Eurovision nominations, primarily because they normally have no hook and are of little interest to adult readers, particularly those living outside Europe. If it may be classed as a "stream", it is the longest-running DYK stream ever. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree. both BigHaz and myself are outside of Europe. Eurovision is actually watched around the world. We are adults as well. Your point about the hook is true though - since Lar stopped updating we haven't policed the hooks much (or at all).Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the point about contributing items to DYK, but the proliferation of Eurovision items is particularly noticeable- and not just a little embarassing. The point of the main page is to showcase the encyclopaedia and its content- so many items about one (not overly significant) subject is I suspect not helping our credibility. It would be far better to leave DYK items "live" for longer, if that is what it takes to raise quality and diversity, IMHO. Badgerpatrol 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its always interesting how people that don't partipate in the process have so many opinions The quality and diversity of articles that appear on DYK is generally good and many are excellent; there are a lot of good suggestions and I'd rather have a frequently updated template that an overdrawn selection process. Most suggestions sit on the suggestion page for about 4 days; during that time anyone could comment on, object to, or help improve the text of a nominated articles "factoid"; I can think of one editor who copyedits suggestions on a regular basis and a few that help improve the wording or focus of the factoids.--Peta 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my edit here. This idea that certain editors or groups of editors should be restricted from expressing their opinion is becoming distressingly prevalent on Wikipedia. Those who add to this debate are participating, in a fundamental way, to the DYK process. I'm not talking about an overdrawn selection process, I'm talking about leaving items up for longer so that there actually is some kind of filtering out of repetitive or less meritorious material. Do we really want "almost everything suggested" to make it on there? Let's not forget, we're talking about one of the most viewed pages on the planet here. The wording and the copyediting are fine-  it's the selection itself that should be scrutinised. I agree that any interested party can and should participate in this, however. Badgerpatrol 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not really making any point. DYK is supposed to feature new articles that meet several basic criteria; there is no criteria for merit and I don't think you'll convince anyone to implement one. Suggested articles sit on the suggestion page for up to 5 days - if you want to effect what appears on the template then make some effort to comment on the suggestions.--Peta 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think I'm not making a point, then you haven't read what I have said. But apart from that, your suggestion is a good one, but with one teensy-weensy flaw- if "almost everything" makes it through anyway, then what's the point in commenting? Badgerpatrol 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that the terrible, flawed, embarassing to Wikipedia, articles that people like you are complaining about get filtered out if they really are that bad.--Peta 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: err, where did I say that any of these articles are terrible, flawed or embarassing to Wikipedia? Badgerpatrol 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Eurovision items is particularly noticeable- and not just a little embarassing".--Peta 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, in context, "the proliferation of Eurovision items is particularly noticeable- and not just a little embarassing". It is the repetition of items pertaining to a particular topic- especially since it is a somewhat esoteric (and yes, perhaps stigmatised) one- that is the embarassing problem. One way to alleviate this in the short term would be to increase the lag between updates, thus automatically increasing the effective pool of available material and allowing more exacting selection (and this could and should be combined with Blnguyen's laudable efforts to drum up more material for the long term). I've got no particular problem with the articles themselves, which for all I know could be the most scintillating examples of the Wiki craft. I certainly have no reason to believe that any of the articles in isolation are flawed, terrible etc- please try not to mischaracterise the argument. Badgerpatrol 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 2.56 a week on one very, very, very small subject is too much. Wikipedia has a lot of new articles everyday, and many of them are deserving at the DYK section. Even 1-1.5 per week is too much. Sifting through the suggestions page, there were more facts that were more interesting, like the Curse of Colonel Sanders (not my nomination), heck I even saw that on Time magazine several years ago). I think each item in the DYK should have separate subjects, like one for science, once for math, one for society (Eurovision included), etc. During the past weeks almost every other day there is a Eurovision-related DYK. --Howard the Duck 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deserve a medal for that sort of dedication. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samir gave me one the last time this issue came up (back when I was writing up 5 articles a day with no infoboxes and in the middle of a lot of small countries). The difference, of course, was that I'd taken a month off work to recover from a really gruelling semester of uni then. Juggling work and infoboxes at the moment, I'm flat out getting three a day done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK is not just Eurovision