Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Suggestion: Name change
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)
- Not opposed but not supportive either... I kinda like the "...that" on each one. If it's changed all the archives need to get straightened around i would think. Convince me harder? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like it, the "that" unifies the entries. Did you know? by a phase seach on google gets far more hits than Did you know that?--Peta 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it does. All phrases get more matches on Google than the same phrase with an added word. My Bill Nye example was hard evidence that "Did you know that" is the way such a title should be. --BRIAN0918 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hard evidence of how it should be? or hard evidence that a particular show chooses to do it a certain way? I'd say the latter is all it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's hard evidence, which nobody else has provided. Either way, I don't care. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:26
- OK, since you admit it's just evidence of how some show chose to do it rather than evidence that it's CORRECT, let's leave it as is then. In general without a clear benefit, things should be left as is, especially in an area where many people have to update, and being able to do things by rote makes things go faster, and lets one focus more on content and less on format. At least you didn't just go change things on this one without seeking consensus first. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's a difference between changing a slight word that makes no difference, and making a significant improvement to a page by preventing almost everyone from placing entries out of order. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:15
- There's also a difference between a wording change and a major disruption to the main work page that there was no consensus for beforehand, no consensus for afterwards, and no agreed on benefits to doing, which cannot be easily reverted, which is a more accurate description of the change you refer to. Stop giving the appearance that you are being bullheaded please. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's a difference between changing a slight word that makes no difference, and making a significant improvement to a page by preventing almost everyone from placing entries out of order. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:15
- OK, since you admit it's just evidence of how some show chose to do it rather than evidence that it's CORRECT, let's leave it as is then. In general without a clear benefit, things should be left as is, especially in an area where many people have to update, and being able to do things by rote makes things go faster, and lets one focus more on content and less on format. At least you didn't just go change things on this one without seeking consensus first. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's hard evidence, which nobody else has provided. Either way, I don't care. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:26
- Hard evidence of how it should be? or hard evidence that a particular show chooses to do it a certain way? I'd say the latter is all it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it does. All phrases get more matches on Google than the same phrase with an added word. My Bill Nye example was hard evidence that "Did you know that" is the way such a title should be. --BRIAN0918 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Classical music titles
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)
Why require articles to be less than 120 hours old?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Vandalism
Someone vandalised the links for June 3. The link for "Super-14 Finals" now links to "Masonary Position."
Increasing popularity
Does anyone have any suggestions for increasing the popularity of DYK? This would be measured by an increase in the number of suggestions per day, and the number of edits per article that is featured on DYK. Here are a few possibilities that come to mind:
- Require that the suggested factoid be enough of a "hook" to interest even those who have no interest in the general subject. (subjective of course, but it will allow us to ignore more of the dull factoids than we do now)
- Place a maximum on the length of the suggestion; after all, people are more likely to read shorter, more interesting facts, than long, confusing ones, with numerous, superfluous, commas,, spread throughout, and overtaking the suggestion.
Any other ideas? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 18:00
- It's on the mainpage and is pretty popular already. I don't see the problem. The only way to increase the number of edits per article is to leave them on the mainpage longer or get more people to the mainpage. I don't see a huge reason to work on either. Volunteers will work on what interests them. And while I think we need to require DYK factoids to be referenced to minimally follow our core policies, I don't think further requirements would be helpful. People already try to pick the most interesting factoids. I agree shorter, easier to understand factoids are better. - Taxman Talk 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's on the main page, but as the main page goes, it's probably #3 or #4 in popularity among the 4 segments. I'd at least like it to contend with the #2 position. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 19:06
- I'm not sure I see a problem here, there seem to be more noms than we can pick (I recall when 90% of noms eventually made it, I don't think we're anywhere near that any more)... but the way to get better noms is to have even more of them, not to increase the requirements to make the process onerous on the noms... ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get more noms in order to have better ones to choose from. Any suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 19:17
- Off the top of my head: More publicity that noms can and should be made (question is where to publicise?), better guidelines for first time nominators so they know how to do it better (I think our guidelines are pretty good but they may be a bit obscure where they are now), and more friendliness and guidance so that people want to be repeat noms... (this is where we have our biggest issues if you ask me, reading over some of the current noms the comments made seem very terse and even a bit biting to newcomers... we speak in a shorthand, as WPedians do in so many places, which can be a bit offputting sometimes.) Hope those ideas spark some thought... but the takeaway is that if you want more noms you don't want to make it more restrictive or unpleasant, you want to be welcoming and friendly. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with Lar's last point. Is it possible to make the path to adding a nom request easier or more clear? That would help to get more and better nominations. Wikipedia:Recent additions with a link piped as Archive isn't necessarily clear on how to get there from the main page. - Taxman Talk 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head: More publicity that noms can and should be made (question is where to publicise?), better guidelines for first time nominators so they know how to do it better (I think our guidelines are pretty good but they may be a bit obscure where they are now), and more friendliness and guidance so that people want to be repeat noms... (this is where we have our biggest issues if you ask me, reading over some of the current noms the comments made seem very terse and even a bit biting to newcomers... we speak in a shorthand, as WPedians do in so many places, which can be a bit offputting sometimes.) Hope those ideas spark some thought... but the takeaway is that if you want more noms you don't want to make it more restrictive or unpleasant, you want to be welcoming and friendly. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get more noms in order to have better ones to choose from. Any suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 19:17
- I'm not sure I see a problem here, there seem to be more noms than we can pick (I recall when 90% of noms eventually made it, I don't think we're anywhere near that any more)... but the way to get better noms is to have even more of them, not to increase the requirements to make the process onerous on the noms... ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's on the main page, but as the main page goes, it's probably #3 or #4 in popularity among the 4 segments. I'd at least like it to contend with the #2 position. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 19:06
Avoid articles on recent events?
I've noticed some nominations have been about articles on recent events, such as a new dinosaur species being discovered, or an article on a recent sport championship. Should we avoid putting these sorts of articles in DYK, when they are more appropriate for In The News? Sometimes it seems like we're turning this template into another news section. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 16:45
- I'm fine with articles about recent events. See above, we had discussion on this very topic and consensus seemed to be that what Blnguyen was doing was fine. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather that the nomination be worded in a way that it doesn't refer specifically to the current event, or refers to some other fact in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:28
- I am comfortable with the resolution here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Current_events_and_Anniversaries_for_DYK ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of those replies referred specifically to Blnguyen's nomination, not to all nominations in general. In fact, the last 2 replies seem to be saying the same thing I am saying: we shouldn't allow simple news items that may not have been important enough to appear on ITN, as we don't want to turn DYK into another ITN. Now, if the article had some other interesting fact, that would be fine, but not simply "...that X just happened recently?" — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:20
- I am comfortable with the resolution here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Current_events_and_Anniversaries_for_DYK ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather that the nomination be worded in a way that it doesn't refer specifically to the current event, or refers to some other fact in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:28
I don't see a problem whatsoever with DYK entries that are about recent events. Provided that the article meets currently agreed DYK guidelines and the listed fact is interesting and will draw readers to look at the article, where's the problem? It achieves exactly what DYK aims to do, regardless of whether the article is about a current event, a recent event or a pre-historic event. I'm also perplexed Brian that you raise your concerns here, then you add the very new dinosaur species article that you cite to DYK just 2 days later, but you still don't seem to think they should be used ?? --Cactus.man ✍ 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say I was opposed to the dinosaur entry. I simply raised the question, and cited it. Very big difference. I'm fine if the nominated fact isn't simply "...that X recently occurred". As for the dinosaur article, the discovery was several months old (which I didn't know at the time), and the factoid had more interest than simple newness, as evidenced by the picture that went along with it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:13
- I'm with Brian here. Let's not confuse two separate sections of the Main Page. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ordering
Is there any particular reason why the order has the newer dates at the top? This always results in some people placing their more recent entries at the bottom of the specific date, rather than the top. Does anyone object to reordering the entries so that newer dates and entries are at the bottom? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 04:09
- I object. This ordering messes with my methodology for selecting items. I pick the picture by taking the oldest picture out of the top 3-4 that I think are worthy, then I go through from the bottom to the top picking items, which means I take the older ones first as they have less of a chance of getting selected. This ordering makes doing that a lot harder as it reverses the ordering. Please change it back. I would have liked to see more discussion before this change was made, frankly. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what the problem is. All you have to do is reverse the way you did things before. Now the chronology is top-to-bottom, not just the dates, but the entries under each date. And this prevents the very common practice of sticking new entries out of order (which in the old method occurred regularly, because people just put their entry at the bottom of the date, instead of the top; but now putting new entries at the bottom is fine because it's in order). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:23
- No, it means I have to go top down in one list and bottom up in the other (DYK stories are supposed to be oldest at the bottom. The order of noms inside a day is not that important. Again, I think this change should have had a lot more discussion before it was implemented. Changing it back and forth is a fair bit of work. In general I would appreciate more discussion here before big changes are made, or even little ones, despite this being a wiki. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't usually adhere to putting the entries in their chronological order in the Template itself—there's really no purpose to that, as they're already very close together in time; rather, I focus on making sure topics are evenly spread out (eg, not putting 3 US articles right next to eachother). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:08
- That doesn't address my concern, that you've introduced a change that messes me up (and potentially messes up automation I was working on, further) without seeking input and consensus first. I am not sure that's a good approach. I'd like to see it put back the way it was, please, unless a large number of other DYK regulars say they want to see it the new way. I'd do it myself but it's a fair bit of work and I think you should be the one to undo it since you did it without getting any feedback first. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was a fair bit of work, and so far you are the only one who has complained, although I don't understand your concern. You don't need to put them in chronological order, and even if you want to, it's not difficult to put 5 or 6 items in reverse order. On the other hand, it's a lot more difficult watching the nominations 24/7 to make sure that the various nominators remember to put new entries at the top, when every other page on the site tells them to put new things at the bottom. I was being bold in updating it, especially since I couldn't conceive of any problems it would cause, and indeed, you are to date the only complaint. I would ask to wait until we hear the opinions of others on this before getting into an unnecessary revert war. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 23:30
- That doesn't address my concern, that you've introduced a change that messes me up (and potentially messes up automation I was working on, further) without seeking input and consensus first. I am not sure that's a good approach. I'd like to see it put back the way it was, please, unless a large number of other DYK regulars say they want to see it the new way. I'd do it myself but it's a fair bit of work and I think you should be the one to undo it since you did it without getting any feedback first. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't usually adhere to putting the entries in their chronological order in the Template itself—there's really no purpose to that, as they're already very close together in time; rather, I focus on making sure topics are evenly spread out (eg, not putting 3 US articles right next to eachother). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:08
- No, it means I have to go top down in one list and bottom up in the other (DYK stories are supposed to be oldest at the bottom. The order of noms inside a day is not that important. Again, I think this change should have had a lot more discussion before it was implemented. Changing it back and forth is a fair bit of work. In general I would appreciate more discussion here before big changes are made, or even little ones, despite this being a wiki. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
(<-unindent) Brian, this change was unnecessarily pre-emptive and done without the benefit of discussion. Why raise a question here on a significant refactoring of the suggestions area, then barge on and make the changes to suit your own personal whim less than 10 minutes later, without waiting for any comments? You are an experienced editor and know full well that concensus for significant changes like this is a crucial part of how things should be done. That you have detrimentally affected the working method of at least one updating admin is sufficient reason for me to think that you should undo your changes until such time as a proper concencus is reached. You affected my working method as well, but to a lesser extent than you did to Lar I suspect. Also, there are many other updaters who are not currently active, have you considered what effect this will have on them when they return to updating? Please undo your re-ordering, and start a proper discussion on this (and other matters) before implementing major changes to the agreed process that may affect others. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was being bold in updating, as I said above, because the benefits outweighed any problems I could think of. So you would prefer that we have to monitor the Suggestions 24/7 to make sure people aren't putting them out of order? Because I was getting sick of doing that. Everyday there were at least 5 suggestions put out of place, usually about 24 hours out of place, because they just assumed "new stuff goes at the bottom", which is the case on every other page on the site. It's much easier to make the process simple for nominators, and do a little extra work on our part; even though it's not extra work. Why should we stick with some ordering that was chosen at some point in the distant past, which was probably counterintuitive then? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 14:17
- I dispute the supposed benefits of this change, as does Cactus.man. Is it possible that the benefits you see are not necessarily there to others? Further, I doubt that it is the case that you're the only one fixing things with DYK nominations. That reads to me as disparaging the contributions of everyone else and seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational in tone. Now, please put it back the way it was, as you've had two other editors request, and in future, please seek consensus before making major changes, I prefer that DYK be a collegial atmosphere in which we all work together harmoniously instead of having to repeatedly ask that other editors undo disruptive changes. How many editors will need to speak out against this change before you will undo the work? I see it as totally unfair and wasteful to ask anyone else to do it, you disrupted things, you should undisrupt them. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't answered my question Brian. Why did you not await some feedback to your own question before "being bold" and reversing the suggestion order? There is no consensus for your major refactoring change to the talk page. Your arguments about items being out of order are groundless. Please be equally bold and change it back, pending agreement to the contrary. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I said I was being bold in updating because of the benefits of the reordering; however, I should have waited for others' opinions, and will in the future. Whatever the current situation, how about we discuss the benefits/problems of the ordering, so as to more productively use our time? OK. Why should it be ordered downward? 1) Because entries for June 5th were getting put chronologically before entries from June 4th, or even June 3rd, etc; between 24 and 48 hours out of order. It happened several times a day, and I corrected it regularly. How often did you correct it? Please don't claim my actions are groundless; I wouldn't go to all the trouble of reorganizing a huge list for no reason. 2) Because the rest of the site is ordered downward, and it makes it that much less confusing for newcomers. 3) Because when they are ordered downward, new entries that are added under June 11th, when they were created on June 12th (there are 2 or 3 right now), can simply be separated with a June 12th header; instead of having to reorder the new entries upward, then cut and paste them up above June 11th, and then add the June 12th header (I've also done this at least a dozen times). 4) There are other benefits, but 3 will do for now. Please expand on the benefits/problems. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:59
- I have given my reasons above. Please undo it until there is consensus for change, which at this time there is not. This is about the third or fourth request now. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- My reply was to Cactus.man. I know where you stand, though I don't know why you won't go into further discussion about the matter until it's ordered the way you want it. Do you dispute my benefits? If so, for what reasons? Do you believe your benefit outweighs my benefits? If so, for what reasons. You haven't said anything about this, and the discussion has been counterproductive as a result. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:06
- There is no consensus for this change. Please change it back, until consensus is reached, instead of insisting that your reasons for the change outweigh other people's reasons for leaving it be. That is not how things are done, we operate on consensus. Right now it is 2:1 against this change. Please change it back. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You mentioned consensus in one sentence, and majority in the next. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and neither is Consensus. Numbers don't matter. Rationale does. That's why I'm trying to keep this discussion productive by focusing on the benefits/drawbacks of each ordering. Now, please, list the benefits of the upward ordering, and the drawbacks of the downward ordering. Then we can weigh each, get feedback from others, and figure out what the best choice is. This is how consensus works. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 22:34
- There is no consensus for this change. Please change it back, until consensus is reached, instead of insisting that your reasons for the change outweigh other people's reasons for leaving it be. That is not how things are done, we operate on consensus. Right now it is 2:1 against this change. Please change it back. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- My reply was to Cactus.man. I know where you stand, though I don't know why you won't go into further discussion about the matter until it's ordered the way you want it. Do you dispute my benefits? If so, for what reasons? Do you believe your benefit outweighs my benefits? If so, for what reasons. You haven't said anything about this, and the discussion has been counterproductive as a result. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:06
- I have given my reasons above. Please undo it until there is consensus for change, which at this time there is not. This is about the third or fourth request now. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I said I was being bold in updating because of the benefits of the reordering; however, I should have waited for others' opinions, and will in the future. Whatever the current situation, how about we discuss the benefits/problems of the ordering, so as to more productively use our time? OK. Why should it be ordered downward? 1) Because entries for June 5th were getting put chronologically before entries from June 4th, or even June 3rd, etc; between 24 and 48 hours out of order. It happened several times a day, and I corrected it regularly. How often did you correct it? Please don't claim my actions are groundless; I wouldn't go to all the trouble of reorganizing a huge list for no reason. 2) Because the rest of the site is ordered downward, and it makes it that much less confusing for newcomers. 3) Because when they are ordered downward, new entries that are added under June 11th, when they were created on June 12th (there are 2 or 3 right now), can simply be separated with a June 12th header; instead of having to reorder the new entries upward, then cut and paste them up above June 11th, and then add the June 12th header (I've also done this at least a dozen times). 4) There are other benefits, but 3 will do for now. Please expand on the benefits/problems. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:59
(out) Please do not lecture me on how consensus works. Whatever you may think it is or is not, it has not been achieved here, and will not be achieved by uninaterally changing things without first having achieved consensus and then insisting you are correct. Please change the list back to the way it was prior to your disruptive change. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that consensus has not been achieved here, and I apologized for being bold and updating the page before receiving some other opinions, and I won't do such actions again. We are past that. Now rather than waste our time reordering a huge list, can we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each ordering? I'm trying to keep our actions productive. What do you think are the benefits/drawbacks of upward ordering, and what do you think are the benefits/drawbacks of downward ordering? I for one, have not had to move a single misplaced entry since they were reordered downward (versus 5 or more a day, everyday, with the upward ordering), making managing the page much simpler. Do you agree/disagree with that point, and why? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 00:09
- Please, put the list back in the old order until consensus is achieved. Please. I have had to ask this too many times to be willing to discuss anything regarding it until you do so. I am very sorry but your actions have frustrated me to no end, not just in this matter but in several others relating to the DYK process. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, sorry to butt in, but is there any way that we can go back to having the DYK's put oldest-on-top again? The new method seems a little backwards from most of the by-date ordering on Wikipedia (see the various VfD nominations, etc) and quite frankly made my cute little browser script show all old noms instead of new noms so I know what articles to peek at. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please do butt in, that's what this page is for :-) I can see none of the perceived major benefits outlined by Brian for the revised oldest first order. Brian's points in order:
- The claim is that it will somehow eliminate entries being misplaced chronologically. The instructions are on the page, the suggestions area is split into date sections and people just need to read and act accordingly. The majority of entries make it in correctly. Unfortunately, editors are human and mistakes are made, and will continue to be made whether the order is oldest first or newest first. Yes, I have corrected misplaced entries, but nothing along the lines of the serious chronological misplacement that you claim was endemic under the old order.
- Parts of the site such as talk pages are ordered downward with new additions placed at the bottom. As Kylu points out above, this doesn't apply to all of the site and some *fD pages (WP:TFD springs to mind), which are much more similar in function to this page than a traditional talk page, are not. New entries are placed at the top and discussion on those entries then proceeds in the "traditional" new comments on each entry at the bottom fashion.
- For the specific example you cite, I concede this is a small benefit, but how much extra work is it to do a small bit of cut and paste on the few ocassions it's needed?
- None spring to mind
- As far as I can see, the re-ordering hasn't achieved any improvement in the functionality of the process, has only disrupted some updaters working methods, has confused some other users and was done without the benefit of prior discussion and, consequently, consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Rechecking all the *fD pages, apart from WP:AfD which is a unique and peculiar rambling beast, only WP:IFD orders things oldest first. All the others order entries newest first. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Middle path
I'd just like to point to the bold revert discuss essay. I don't think there is anything wrong with a massive reversion to an accepted practice. I do it myself sometimes, without discussion. Maybe I put some notes on talk while I'm doing it, or more exposition in my edit summaries. But I try to make it easy to revert in case someone objects. Because if someone objects then our overall cautios nature says that we talk over the change before we implement it. If it's too complex for someone to revert me, or if intervening edits have messed things up, I do my best to do the revert to restore whatever was the status quo.
brenneman {L} 05:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting, not quite "legalised revert warring", but also not quite what we have here. We have the first part of the process, but not the revert because of the sheer pain in the arse nature of having to undo it. That pain should fall upon the original "bold" editor if there are enough objections, which is what we have here. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)