Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Again ignored?

Hi. I created a lot of new articles all of which have been ignored on DYK. It's not that they are not interesting. Several of them have been already translated to other wikipedias and/or have been followed with articles concerning sub-topics. Now I self nominated my new article nuclear power phase-out and it gets ignored again. That makes me angry, because I don't understand the reason. I can cite the same arguments as Samuel Wantman above: Created 15:14, August 11, 2005[1], therefore not older than 120 hours (Template_talk:Did_you_know). Posted on the same day it was created on DYK (i.e. less than 36 hours after being written). The rules exclude stubs and ask for articles +1,000 characters in size - I counted 2895 characters (including wikitags). It also has a photo. It is no trivia - It is not about some US sportsman unknown everywhere but in the US (as popular in DYK) but about nuclear power and energy politics which are serious topics. It is an article original to wikipedia and it certainly belongs to the topics widely neglected in wikipedia. I listed it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks (Concerns DYK rule: Try to avoid country-centrism and topic-centrism). The phrasing of the question "Did you know?" was taken from the article. Thank you for reading. Ben ^T/_C 10:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Generally people try and use older articles first; if there's two days worth of older stuff, I wouldn't expect it to have been put up by now. If it's not been used in three days, then yes, there'd be grounds to complain about someone ignoring it - but it's still in the queue! Shimgray 13:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It looked to me as if the process of choosing articles was simply chaotic. I just wanted to put it on the talk here before it can get ignored again. I hope you are right, though. --Ben ^T/_C 11:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

That was great. The article improved a lot ([2]) in the 24 hours it was exposed. I understood also from monitoring the DYK template and the discussions that actually many people watch over it. Thank you for the hard work you do! Ben ^T/_C 05:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Recently expanded stubs

I propose that if recently created stubs are ineligible for DYK, then articles that have recently been expanded beyond the stub threshold should be eligible. This way, any article will have a "window of eligibility" once during its history. 130.126.102.57 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I most wholeheartedly agree. Most articles are created as stubs, which means that the vast majority of information added on wikipedia will not be eligable no matter how interesting or good it is. I've done a fair bit of work creating an article on Southend Pier in my spare time over the last few weeks, in order that I could put a new (large and comprehensive) article up, and nominate it here. (I'll admit, I wanted a moment of glory for myself and my home town - how very vain of me). I thought it would be a good candidate because it is an interesting subject and had remained uncreated for a couple of years. When I finally got round to adding it this morning (I don't actually get much spare time so has taken me a fair few weeks), it turns out someone had created a one sentence stub a fortnight ago, which means that my article is not valid for inclusion. Had that anonymous user NOT done that, my exact same article would be eligable, which makes very little sense to me. The front page recognises exceptional articles that have been done as collaborations, exceptional photography or graphic design, but does not recognise the valuable contributions of people who expand stubs into large comprehensive articles. I think these contributions should be recognised and this seems to be to be the most sensible place. Ok winge and moan over. MrWeeble 09:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking for a place to suggest the exact same thing for weeks. An excellent idea. Soo 19:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We often have too many articles awaiting DYK (particularly after not having them appear on the Main Page over weekends) and this might make there be too many nominations. violet/riga (t) 22:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What you say is true but that seems better to me than not allowing expanded stubs. Maybe admins should be allowed to exercise more discretion over which facts are interesting, or maybe we should just refresh the feature more often. It doesn't seem an insurmountable problem either way. Soo 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, faster cycling of content on the front page could only be a good thing making it less stale and highlighting more articles.MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. my thinking has come around to this direction as well. What we need, though, is a clear standard about what constitutes a recently expanded stub to qualify for DYK. I would say that it would have to be a stub beforehand of course, i.e. < 1K characters, and that it would have to be substantially expanded beyond that, to at least, say 3K characters. What's the thought on this?--Pharos 07:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although you might want to add a case that allows for slightly non-stubs, say any article expanded to three times the original size within 5 days and the result must be over 3k? And a guideline that adding the lyrics, a large list, or other non-creative space-user alone doesn't count as expanding the article. Bushytails 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

I did not think that stubs were meant to be featured in this section, there have been quite a few recently (there are two at the moment; although one isn't tagged as such). I am not entirely sure of the point in linking to an article that contains very little information beyond what factoid is listed here. Rje 00:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• It varies with each batch, but I've also noticed that some stubs do sneak through. We might want to be a bit more selective, even if this means that updates happen a tad less often. It also couldn't hurt to put a little nudge to the creators of articles that are on the short side.--Pharos 02:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cricket?

Is it just me, or is there a preponderance lately of DYK articles related to cricket (the sport, not the insect)?--Theodore Kloba 17:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that this would be because of the increase in interest in the subject within the UK due to the fact that England is doing rather well in The Ashes. (for "rather well" read "not screwing it up like they do most years" :P ) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 16:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Raj Ghat

"Did you know... that Raj Ghat and other memorials are sometimes considered India's modern day equivalent of Westminster Abbey?" According to a Google search for "Raj Ghat" "Westminster Abbey", no, that opinion wasn't widely known until now; there are only 18 hits (and were only 16 this morning), and the only page that comes up making a comparison between the two is Wikipedia itself. While there might very well be some people out there who do consider it the "modern day equivilant of Westminster Abbey", it's probably better to avoid referring to nebulous, unverifiable opinions in articles when possible, let alone on Wikipedia's main page. Aquillion 22:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Panelology

This article has been around for quite a while, but has spent most of its time as a rather undeserved redirect to comics. I fixed it up yesterday and now it even has a proper reference. Would anyone object if I listed it as a candidate?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why participate in DYK; should this be a Wikiproject?

IMHO, working for this feature of WP is a good area to practice getting the most impact out of the fewest words, a skill which has always challenged (and often eluded) me (and some other Wikipedians I have noticed).

I especially enjoy working on the DYK section because the publicity during the time the blurb is presented draws readers and editors to the articles, which stimulates collaboration with other Wikipedian and first-time WP contributors, resulting in additional content, factual corrections, and sometimes a bit of controversy!

Q: Would it be appropriate to have a Wikiproject for WP to more formally gather frequent contributors?

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Article was featured in DYK template

Another idea: I think the template sent to users when their nominations have been used is a real nice part of the Did you know process with WP. As an enhancement could the same (or slightly modified) template be placed on the article's talk page at that same time. That would increase awareness of DYK, and even start talk pages for some new articles.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Snap-dragon and children spurious

The assertion that Snap-dragon, a game involving fire and liquor, was a children's game, is not founded from the source material. Someone turned "young people" into "children" and this unfortunate terminology shift has made its way to the front page. See talk. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

See my reply on the talk page - there is sufficient evidence that it was played by children in the source material. Ziggurat 00:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Strap-on dildo?

From today's DYK, "...that a strap-on dildo may be used by heterosexual couples for pegging?"

Is it really a good idea to feature articles about anal sex on the main page? --Szquirrel 15:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not? WP:NOT ... "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors." Anyway, there's hardly anything in that article that anyone would need "protecting" from. Bushytails 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just amazed there was a sex-related article that no-one had written until now... Shimgray | talk | 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As was I... I noticed there was probably a total of 3 sentances about strap-on dildos spread between a couple of the sex toy pages, with no information at all... so, as I hope other wikipedians do when they see an article that should exist not existing, wrote one.  :) (and produced GFDL photos for, a step many people seem to skip...)

There's several other sex toy articles that need major improvement (and at least one new article), but I'll save those for another day... have other projects (such as metalworking) to work on! Thanks, Bushytails 19:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

I would be quite concerned if this article were not included in DYK simply because it contains sexual content. It fulfils all DYK criteria (created within the last 120 hours and over 1000 characters) and then some (it being 32kB already). --Oldak Quill 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be great if even half (or, more realistically, even a quarter) of our DYK articles were as developed as this one. It would be crazy for this article not to be justly recognized. I could, understand, though, why some might be reluctant to have put the image of the strap-on dildo on the main page.--Pharos 02:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thankies! It took about two weeks of solid work to write, including taking about 450 photos before I had the right ones, editing them, etc. Lots of work.  :) Thanks again, Bushytails 02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

Insufficient exposure

The current DYK had an exposure of just around 150 minutes as it was replaced by the picture. Is it not very short? Probably it can be re-featured for some 3-4 hrs. on monday. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK Barnstar and award proposals

There is a good discussion underway about having an award for outstanding contributors to new articles and DYK. This idea died from lack of interest once before, perhaps because you folks were all busy finding and/or writing new articles for WP. Please chime in this time, whatever your thoughts! The link is Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. Thanks. Vaoverland 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Executions, POV publicity

Has anyone else noticed an extraordinary number of US execution-related articles in DYK? I realize that this is an area where the US and a few radical countries stand in stark contrast with most of the supposedly civilized world, but are we perhaps getting a bit POV and out of balance in DYK on this topic? I haven't seen a single new article about how alternatives to capital punishment are working better elsewhere, or in the states which have abolished their death penalty laws. My point is not to argue the issue here, but to suggest we make sure DYK isn't being used for platform to publicize this controversial practice for any POV purpose, for or against. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

After even more execution articles in DYK, we are now even apparently using articles that aren't new. How about capitol punishment in New Hampshire, which page history date to December 2004? What gives, folks? Vaoverland 17:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has been removed. And I agree about a certain POV emerging via a long string of (American only) capitol punishment articles, even if the articles themselves are neutral. Why were User:Johnleemk's Malaysia articles stamped out, but not the capitol punishment ones. We have too many American nominations as it is. --Duk 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ice

There's a typo in the "did you know" item about the drug ice: "...and the when it is smoked..." (emphasis mine). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Siamese twins (English language)

Hi, the above article was created on 1st November and suggested for DYK on 2nd Novemeber. It hasn't been featured on DYK yet and has been removed from the suggestions page now, as being old. It wd be great if the parameters for not listing an entry are mentioned below the entry. e.g. nixie mentions that some articles are too short or bit too short - that is a helpful suggestion. However, for the above article, no reason has been forthcoming. An article featured on DYK typically gets more feedback and coverage - hence, it wd be great if a reason accompanies any entry that is rejected, as that wd help editors in future to improve their efforts in getting their articles featured on DYK. Also, I feel that, despite some good entries, DYK is not being updated regularly. --Gurubrahma 06:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That article was removed because it will be too old for the update at 0:00 UTC on the 6th. Since we don't have dyk on the weekend anymore some suggestions don't make it onto the template. There have also been a limited number of suggestions with free images over the past week which limits the number of updates that can be made to the template- I try and have at least 2 updates in 24 hours. Sorry your article didn't make it this time, if you write one with a free image it will certainly be at the top of the template sometime this week.--nixie 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I reckon that it's better to have higher quality articles that are a little older than to have poorer ones that are newer. Some of the articles submitted are <1000 byte stubs, and others are too similar to ones from the day before. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There really isn't a shortage of decent articles for DYK, the time limit has already been extended from 3 to 5 days. What would be good is if some other admins chipped in and helped rotate the content- but as I mentioned above there often aren't enough articles with free images to do more than 2 rotations a day.--nixie 13:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's true, and thanks for your efforts in this. I've done it from time to time but should lend a hand a bit more. As for the image problem, I've previously just rotated the other articles, leaving the one with the image. violet/riga (t) 13:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the issues is that an activity like DYK cannot be planned properly. e.g., whole of last week, there were very few images; for the coming week, there are five already. Thus, it becomes dificult to predict if and when we should update DYK. The problem with retaining the DYK with image and changing others wd be that regular editors may not even notice the change. I think the usage of flags may help, but it doesn't work in all contexts; also, viewers may get easily bored. However, the ppl. who lose out the most in the current scheme of things are those who may create an article on say, tuesday, but suggest it only on friday. How wd the earlier suggestion of 7 days limit for suggestions sound?? Sometimes, it appears that the shortage of images for "the picture of the day" is making DYK share the "2nd feature" space with it. If only we had the requisite contents and a place for 3 features, the FA, the DYK and the pic of the day.....Gurubrahma 13:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To Violet- for simplicity I prefer to update the whole thing at once, since you never know who will do the update or when it may get updated again. There really should have been more than one update on Friday- I changed it over at 0:00 or thereabouts (and then was tied up with real world stuff) and noone else updated all day- with the no DYK weekend old suggestions really need to get cleared out on a Friday. So Friday would be a really good day to help out if you have the time.

To Gurubrahma, I have been maintaining the template for about ~4 months - in that time the number of suggestions has increased significantly, eariler in the year the template only changed daily - now it needs to be updated at least twice a day (which didn't happen last Friday). In most weeks all suggestions that meet the criteria make the template, last week was an exception. Extending the the time limit above 5 days kind of defeats the purpose of having a section for new articles. On images- most of the articles on DYK are about people- it's a stretch to illustrate a person with a flag - also keep in mind that only free images are supposed to appear on the main page- so at least one of the current suggested images is no good. --nixie 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Edward George Honey

I have made a suggestion relating to this man, who introduced the idea of a moment's silence for Remembrance Day, and would like to see it on the main page on November 11, which is of course Remembrance Day. Harro5 07:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK's Malaysia obsession?

I'm Malaysian, and I'm delighted with the exposure we're getting in DYK over the past few days, but aren't four Malaysian-related articles a week on DYK just a tad too much? I'm also a bit concerned that, though the articles are pretty neutral the "taglines" may have anti-bumiputera POV (I'm not a bumiputera so I don't know if they would be offended- can't say for sure) Borisblue 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Image server installation and DYK

I believe that DYK should go on even if none of the articles have images due to the disabling of images. We may have to do till such time with images of national flags and the like. --Gurubrahma 16:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Change in guideline - borders on meaningless

The latest changes on WP:DYK say that DYK should appeal to 66% of people - who wd determine that? My first instinct was to revert but I think it is only fair to wait for comments before reverting it hastily. --Gurubrahma 15:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Death penalty

The number of death penalty articles being featured in DYK is getting out of hand. I have to wonder if it's politically motivated when the current DYK article, Capital punishment in New Hampshire is almost a year old! BrainyBroad 04:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has been removed. And I agree about a certain POV emerging via a long string of (American only) capitol punishment articles, even if the articles themselves are neutral. Why were User:Johnleemk's Malaysia articles stamped out, but not the capitol punishment ones. We have too many American nominations as it is. --Duk 19:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Archiving from template to template talk page

Please use these following tools when archiving from Template:Did you know to Template talk:Did you know:

• Talk Page Converter
• Talk Page Converter (backup)

--AllyUnion (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• The first link doesn't work. Also could you explain how exactly to use the tool.--nixie 07:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The first link should work now.
  • For the first link: What you do is cut and paste everything from Template:Did you know, and it will convert it into the text that the bot needs to use to process. You must specify the related line in which the image should go on.
  • For the second link: You just cut and paste only the "Did you know" lines into the textbox, then cut and paste only the image link into the second box, and enter the related image line into the third box.
  • I am in the process of authoring a second complimentary tool that will convert this format so it can be placed on to Wikipedia:Recent additions as well as its archives. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this combination of parser/bot help us? I don't mean any disrespect here, Ally, but isn't easer to do all this manually? What am I missing? --Duk 19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I tried the first link;

• you need to add *'s at the beginning of each blurb
• I think the image should be shown, not commented out with a colon

So I archived manually --Duk 20:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe long ago, the reason it was linked was to reduce the load time on the template's talk page, as the template's talk page can grow to an excess of a certain size. This causes problems for people with slow connections or when the Wikipedia itself is slow. The reason for these forms is that I'm basically creating a backup should the bot fail, and that there is a parser that does the same job of the bot. Gdr had a bot that would update DYK in this format. Sorry if I seem to be following a historical set of guidelines, but that's what I'm following. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the asterisk thing. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ernie's Work of Art

The "DYK" entry on Ernie's Work of Art states: "...that of the hundreds of Sesame Street picture books illustrated, Ernie's Work of Art is one of the few with voice bubbles?" Yet the article states: "As in many early Sesame Street books, all the dialog is in voice bubbles, as if it were a comic book" (emphasis added). Since the template will probably be refeshed soon, it's probably a moot point, but... --zenohockey 21:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled name: Helena Maria Viramontes

For the 14 Dec 2005 DYK: It's not Maria Viramontes, it's HELENA Maria Viramontes. See her professor's page at the Cornell website. [3]. The page itself has been corrected, but the front page still has it wrong. Omphaloscope » talk 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Template change

What do people think about adding a link on the bottom of the template to the DYK suggestion page in addition to or instead of the start a new article link?--nixie 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. It can be in addition to the link start a new article and probably the latter should be re-named to start an article. --Gurubrahma 13:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Are my eyes playing tricks?

The rules read that articles should be 1000+ characters in size (just reaching 1000+ characters would still make it a stub). Was it not supposed to be 1000+ words some time back? Even a 150-word article would qualify under 1000+ characters rule. Also, there is a 1000+ bytes rule. I think we need to make it consistent at all the places and I feel 500+ words would be a good choice (stub or no stub). Any views? --Gurubrahma 13:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I thought is was 1000 bytes, 500 words seems like an OK cut off too.--nixie 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Did-you-know section disappeared from the Main Page

I have noticed that the Did-you-know section has disappeared from the Main Page and has not been updated since Dec. 30, 2005. May I ask, what is the problem? Jan.Kamenicek 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the Ivanov hoax

Please remove the Ivanov hoax from the main page. The whole story appears to have originated in The Sun, an infamous UK tabloid and is reprinted without checking in tens of other newspapers. Since there is no respectable source for this story (and believe me, I tried to find one), it fails the rule of verifiability. Paranoid 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

US-centricism

At the time of writing all 4 items are US-focused (a US anchor, a US TV show, a website founded by a US CNN anchor and a US mayor), can I urge anyone who has seen a recently created, well-written, non-US article to add it as soon as possible. --Oldak Quill 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hello, can you elaborate who decided to ban fairuse images from WP:DYK? Because of that, we seem to have a dearth of images eligible for the main page. --Ghirla | talk 13:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)moving the msg. on my talkpage here--Gurubrahma 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

AFIK, I have not see fair-use images being used on DYK ever since I started following it regularly. The updating guidelines are also clear on that. Even this page has threads of conversation that talk of using free images. e.g. see this. Also, fair-use images are not appropriate for a section like DYK, imo. I'd like to know what other editors think of this, though. AFIK, even WP:ITN uses free images - most of the time they seem to do with national flags. Also, I don't think we have a dearth of images for DYK. Sometimes, I am able to find alternate images from related articles or commons as well. --Gurubrahma 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a free image policy for the main page - fair use images are only supposed to be used when there is no other choice. Since there is normally at least 1 free image for every 4 DYK suggestions DYK shouldn't use fair use images.--nixie 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

...and Serbs

...that many Russians celebrate the new year twice: once on the 1 January New Year of the Gregorian calendar and again on the Julian calendar Old New Year in mid-January? I cant sleap right now here in Serbia because many people celebrate Julian calendar New Year! Please fix this on Main page. Thank you! --M. Pokrajac 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Word misspelled

In today's The Chesterfield Kings section, the word "suing" is misspelled. NoSeptember ^talk 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign

Moved from my talkpage Is expansion of the Did You Know project possible?

Hi. I noticed you are somewhat active in the Did You Know template project. I couldn't find a discussion page for that template, as it looked like the default talk page was being used for operations. So I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly...

One of the concepts being explored at the Main Page Redesign Project is expanding coverage for both the Picture of the Day (POTD) and Did You Know (DYK) to seven days per week. One of the Main Page Redesigns we have produced already has support for displaying both of these features separately. POTD is already produced 7 days per week, and so is being displayed in that Redesign every day. Note that users may start adopting the Redesigns for use on their user pages, even if they don't become the new Main Page. DYK is currently only produced 5 days per week, and so its display remains static on weekends.

We have just started a new round of voting, and of course I'm championing the version with the most upgrades, including DYK.

The reason I am contacting you is that this version has unexpectedly taken an early lead in the race, and so it is possible that it could be adopted as the new main page. I thought I better start looking into what needs to be done to get it fully supported in case it does win, and heck maybe even boost its chances during the voting session (which lasts until the end of the week).

I was wondering if the DYK team would be interested in and up to the task of keeping the DYK project active on weekends? Perhaps even this weekend? Would you like the Main Page to support your feature 7 days per week?

I invite you to become familiar with our project. Come take a look at what we've accomplished so far, and feel free to join in on the fun. And of course, everyone with a user account is eligible to vote.

Sincerely,
--Go for it! 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC) end of message --Gurubrahma 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Radical suggestion?!: Since the audience in the weekends could be limited compared to weekdays, I suggest that stubs and stubby entries be pushed to weekends; we can also automate them so that we do not need to update them automatically for the weekends. Whistles? Catcalls?? Bouquets??? Brickbats???? --Gurubrahma 13:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Manual updating for the weekend doesn't seem like it would be any problem.--nixie 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pyongyang Arch of Triumph

The main page says that "the Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang was built in 1982 to commemorate the "victory" of Korea over Japan in the WWII" but the article says that "the monument was built to honour and glorify President Kim Il Sung's role in the resistance against Japanese rule." This is not only opinionating on the main page, but also breaks the rule stating that "the "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article." Nikola 08:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was a stub nominated for DYK?

I noticed that Lanzón is a stub. Yet I also noticed that under the January 26th date, an article was deleted because it was a stub. Why is it that Lanzon was nominated for the front, yet it's still a stub?? --Cantthinkofausername 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the last sentence (larget) today. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Original?

Surely the guideline for this that an article should be original to Wikipedia goes against the prohibition on original research? All "Did You Know" facts should in theory have been sourced from somewhere else, so this guideline doesn't make sense.Gatta 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Robin Miller

I moved the page to Robin Miller (nurse) as there is a Sir Robin Miller who is the CEO of HMV, a music store chain. SYSS Mouse 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aerosans

Aerosans not necessary armoured. It is more the exception.--Nixer 11:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal query

Is it appropiate for a front page DYK article to have sections missing infomation? I counted at least 5 sections with no info whatsoever in this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantthinkofausername (talk • contribs)

I concede that it may not be entirely appropriate; however, DYK is not a trophy that suggests that this is a good article - its mandate is to suggest interesting facts from new articles. The idea of having DYK is that readers may be interested in Wikipedia by having a look at the range of articles available and editors may be enthused to improve the articles further or start new articles. I'd not think that it is so much of a problem if some sections are missing; sometimes (not in this case), it could be an act of vandalism itself; in other cases, it signals that a barebone structure is available and other editors may fill in the gaps. --Gurubrahma 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling

Xian Xing Zhe now redirects to the correct name Xianxingzhe. Could someone fix DYK as well? Pissant 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)