Your changes on Terry Fox
I ask you to reconsider the large number of edits you are making to this featured article. While some of them are fine, I do not agree overall that you are improving the article. Please consider making suggestions on the talkpage if you want to delete material that you consider “excessive” as others do/did not agree.Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Slp1:, if you disagree with any changes I make to the article, please mention the changes on the talk page and I am happy to discuss it there (and feel free to ping me). I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, and I'm hoping to bring this article back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are currently deleting material and phraseology that was in the article when it was brought to FA, so no, you are not bringing it back to FA standard. I am sure that you don’t mean to do this, but your approach seems very heavy handed and insulting to people who put in the hard work to bring an article to FA. Who are you to decide that an article does not meet FA standards? Isn’t that the job of the FAR? Isn’t the first step for FAR to review the article on the talkpage and make suggestions in a collaborative way? Not to substitute your opinion of what is “excess” etc for those who wrote the article and the other editors who did the FA assessment long ago?
- Per BRD I will revert the edits I disagree with, and I ask you to go to the talkpage for you to make a case for why they are improvements. Thanks. Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Slp1:, I am sorry that my edits have upset you. I totally agree with you to revert my edits if you feel they are unhelpful; I am happy to open a discussion on the talk page whenever my edits are reverted, and I am making these edits under WP:BEBOLD, the first part of BRD, and will comply with the discuss part of that explanatory supplement. I will also note that FA standards have increased in the 10+ years since this article was promoted and I can only interpret the criteria as I have seen in FACs and FARs running today. I encourage you to take over improvements to this article to help bring it back to FA standards, and I look forward to discussing other ways that this article can be improved on that talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology. I realize that you are trying to help.
- I have been around for way more than 10 years, and in my opinion the FA standards have declined considerably so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this! Very early FAs were indeed problematic but this FA was promoted at a time when the standards were as high as they have ever been.
- If I might suggest it, avoiding the use of the phrase “bring it back to FA standards” will go a long way to help make this process smooth. Maybe say “make sure that it still meets FA standards”. Your current phraseology assumes that the article does not meet FA standards, and that it is something that the process of FAR decides by getting the opinions of multiple editors. It is also pretty insulting to those of us who have worked hard over the years to keep the articles up to that standard!
- Hi @Slp1:, I am sorry that my edits have upset you. I totally agree with you to revert my edits if you feel they are unhelpful; I am happy to open a discussion on the talk page whenever my edits are reverted, and I am making these edits under WP:BEBOLD, the first part of BRD, and will comply with the discuss part of that explanatory supplement. I will also note that FA standards have increased in the 10+ years since this article was promoted and I can only interpret the criteria as I have seen in FACs and FARs running today. I encourage you to take over improvements to this article to help bring it back to FA standards, and I look forward to discussing other ways that this article can be improved on that talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Another suggestion… compare the current text to the one at promotion. If a piece of text/info was there at that time, (and is now not out of date etc) there needs to be a really good reason to delete it, as multiple editors reviewed it at that time and agreed with its inclusion. Obviously the same cannot be said for the bloat that sometimes get added after the FA process!. Slp1 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Slp1:Thanks for your comments: I apoligise again for the way my edits were conducted and interpreted. I have taken your suggestion to heart and tried modifying my phrasing in my message at Talk:Terry Fox: it's hard for me to predict how my comments might be perceived and I appreciate feedback on how to improve these messages. I also think WP:URFA/2020 has jaded my opinion of featured articles promoted during this time: many articles have not been maintained since their promotion and require lots of improvements to bring them back to FA standards. I have been met with many barrages of "So fix it!" when I point out concerns on talk pages and FARs, so if I think the article is in good enough condition I will try to make the improvements myself to avoid the FAR. Hopefully, I will be able to improve the phrasing in my comments while continuing my review of these articles. As for comparing text to the one at promotion: I will do so when I am conducting my review. For some minor edits (phrasing, basic punctuation, etc.) I will try to be bold, but for major deletions I will post my concerns on the talk page in the future to ask opinions on why it was included. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to you for your response and I appreciate all your suggestions at Terry Fox. I am sorry that you have been having so many weird and difficult responses to your efforts to make WP better! I appreciate it must be very difficult to navigate the various situations you are facing.
- I am currently focussing my efforts on the École Polytechnique massacre article, but I will get back to Terry Fox and addressing your concerns as soon as I can.Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Slp1: Thanks for your responses. I hope you will do me a favour: WP:URFA/2020 is tracking which FAs are still being maintained and updated. I would appreciate it that, when you are finished fixing up Ecole Polytechnique massacre, that you mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, and also mark other articles that you are maintaining that still meet the FA criteria. This will greatly speed up our work and make it more likely that you will be pinged when a reviewer wants to make changes. Let me know if you have any questions, or post on WT:URFA/2020. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Slp1:Thanks for your comments: I apoligise again for the way my edits were conducted and interpreted. I have taken your suggestion to heart and tried modifying my phrasing in my message at Talk:Terry Fox: it's hard for me to predict how my comments might be perceived and I appreciate feedback on how to improve these messages. I also think WP:URFA/2020 has jaded my opinion of featured articles promoted during this time: many articles have not been maintained since their promotion and require lots of improvements to bring them back to FA standards. I have been met with many barrages of "So fix it!" when I point out concerns on talk pages and FARs, so if I think the article is in good enough condition I will try to make the improvements myself to avoid the FAR. Hopefully, I will be able to improve the phrasing in my comments while continuing my review of these articles. As for comparing text to the one at promotion: I will do so when I am conducting my review. For some minor edits (phrasing, basic punctuation, etc.) I will try to be bold, but for major deletions I will post my concerns on the talk page in the future to ask opinions on why it was included. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Another suggestion… compare the current text to the one at promotion. If a piece of text/info was there at that time, (and is now not out of date etc) there needs to be a really good reason to delete it, as multiple editors reviewed it at that time and agreed with its inclusion. Obviously the same cannot be said for the bloat that sometimes get added after the FA process!. Slp1 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I think something went wrong with your assessment tool
I reverted your assessment but I added the tags back in. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
FAC comments during GA reviews
Hi. Thanks for the explanation. My thoughts, for your consideration:
I understand you are coming at this from a good place (and in fact giving yourself more work to do as a result). My concern is that you are complicating the GAN process for editors. I note that you advise nominators to let you know if they want FAC feedback during the GAN, however if you are to continue doing that then I suggest it would be better to separate comments; this could maybe take the form of "GAN" or "FAC" at the start of every bullet?
My concern overall is that a GA nomination is based on the GA criteria. As such, the feedback should clearly show where the article needs work to meet the GA criteria. If you choose to weave in feedback for FA criteria, that should be sepearate so that it in no way does that extra feedback prevent promotion when GA criteria are met. Kind regards Mark83 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mark83: Thanks for expressing your concerns. This is my second time doing this, (and the first time was for an experienced FA writer whose article needed very little work to bring to FA). I had a similar idea to what you suggested above and I am going to separate the comments by placing (FA) before comments that are for the pre-FA review. I am working on the next set of comments right now: I hope you'll give feedback on what you see and let me know if I need to make my instructions or format more clear. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
In appreciation
The Hats Off Barnstar | |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to formally doff my hat to you in recognition of your work to bring more balance to the main page and TFAs. Long may it continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC) |
Smile :)
My Belarusy
Thanks for doing the notifications! Just a note: as I am wearying of doing the bookkeeping for other editors, I am working towards encouraging them to do it themselves rather than doing it for them. In particular, it's troubling how often I read through FAR and have to ping the original nominator to please update the status, so we don't all have to go have a look. It is expected that the nominator will shepherd their own nom, and I'm finding I'm carrying too much of that burden. So I plan to stop doing that :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I was willing to do it because it was this editor's first FAR, and I encouraged them to bring it forward. If it was their second or third one, I would insist that they do it themselves. Hopefully they will review other articles! Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- In this case, I agree ... but was just explaining myself :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Job!
The Good Jb! Award | ||
It's 4:30 in the morning where I am, but I simply couldn't wait on this; I'm highly thankful for your peer review contributions! After Sandy moved on, it was great to see another user carry the torch. By the way, the WikiCup plans on rewarding points for peer reviews in the following years, so hopefully that'll give some new eyes in the field. Now if you'll excuse, my fingers are confused and need sleep... Panini!🥪 09:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC) |
- BINGO- thanks for carrying on, Z! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Thanks for participating in the WikiProject report! Cheers, and happy February! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
Mobileye
Hi Z1720. My name is Gideon, I work at Mobileye. I'm reaching out to you because I would like to collaborate on improving the company's article, and saw that you are both an active editor on the page and that you were willing to put a great amount of time and effort to respond to a request that was put up on the Talk page last year. I'm taking a new approach and just put up a new request there now, and would love to hear your thoughts, if you're willing. Thanks! Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gideon at Mobileye: I spend less time these days responding to edit requests, but I encourage you to keep using the edit request system to suggest changes to the Mobileye article. I also encourage you to read through some featured articles like Legend Entertainment or which will give you a sense on how Wikipedia's best articles are written and formatted. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Z1720, thanks so much for your response. I appreciate it, and will take a look at articles like Legend Entertainment. As for questions- for now, my edit request was more of a question/discussion point, as I'm hoping to engage others and collaborate towards a final draft, as opposed to simply requesting small changes. If something specific does come up, I will reach out to you for help. If you do decide to get involved, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for your insight, Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gideon at Mobileye: Although I wish request edits was more of a discussion, the reality is that most editors do not want to discuss COI edits because they want to work on their own articles. It will probably be faster if you write the exact wording you want to appear in the article and ensure that your changes conform to WP:WIKIVOICE, specifically that the text is not trying to promote the company, emphasize unimportant facts or remove unfavorable material. Please also ensure that your draft includes reliable, secondary sources (Wikipedia has a list of reliable and unreliable sources at WP:RS/P). Longer requests usually take longer to complete because editors are less interested in checking those edits, so please be patient and consider making smaller requests (or splitting up the request) if you are able to. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Z1720, thanks so much for your response. I appreciate it, and will take a look at articles like Legend Entertainment. As for questions- for now, my edit request was more of a question/discussion point, as I'm hoping to engage others and collaborate towards a final draft, as opposed to simply requesting small changes. If something specific does come up, I will reach out to you for help. If you do decide to get involved, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for your insight, Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Re taking longer- that makes sense and I'll do my best :) Thanks again. Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, I hope you are well. My previous edit request was discussed and implemented (thanks for closing it!) and I'm now hoping to gain some clarity regarding the controversy section of the Mobileye article. One editor has already stated his opinion, but I'm not sure his answer addressed the points I brought up. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate you taking a look at Talk:Mobileye. Looking forward to your input! Thank you, Gideon at Mobileye (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Evrovidenie/GA1
Z1720, there was a response to your latest GA review comment, but they didn't ping you, so you wouldn't have seen it. Thought I'd let you know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
September 17 TFA
Hi Z1720. I see that you have pre-nominated NASA Astronaut Group 2 for the September 17 TFA. I was wondering if you would be open to considering allowing me to pre-nominate September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market instead? The reason I ask is that this article is about events that took place on this specific date, while it seems to me like NASA Astronaut Group 2 is perhaps less clearly tied to September 17 and could potentially run on any day. Of course feel free to let me know if you disagree, there's no pressure at all. JBchrch talk 01:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @JBchrch: Yeah, I'm fine with that. Feel free to replace the nom. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Enzo Enzo
Please review it. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Rahul Gandhi
Hi mate, my sincere apology no responding to your comments here. Due to no accessibility of internet at that moment I was not able to address points raised. As of now I will hold this article for a while. Meantime, would you like to leave your suggestions here. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hubble Space Telescope
Hi Z1, Before I stopped actively editing on my account (I wasn't logged in yet, because I was in public) due to my new job, can you spot other problems in this article? I'm sure this article is very much in worse shape and a lot of the texts are uncited, but some editor wants to be specific, so I kind of went on to you instead, and so I can maybe sent it into FAR next week at least. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:D50:AF70:E49E:FD5D (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Depths of Wikipedia
Thanks for promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Depths of Wikipedia! I saw that you wikilinked the other articles mentioned in the hook – any chance you'd be willing to undo that? They're linked from Depths of Wikipedia anyway, and if they're also linked from the hook itself I anticipate that many viewers will click on one of those other articles rather than the article that's actually on DYK. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ezlev: Done. I cannot guarantee that another editor will not add them back in, so I recommend watchlisting the Prep template. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Seven years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Carol Van Strum
Thank you Z172O for offering the alternative hooks. As I am just starting as a Wikipedia editor, this is my first page creation, and I had no idea what DYK was or how to submit for it before Michael Turnbull wrote me, I would say that the alternative hooks ALT 2b and ALT2d read well to me but I would leave it to those more experienced in the ways of DYK to choose the one most likely to grab a reader's attention. I had put 'barn' in not just because it is where the documents are but also because it sounded catchier to me than an expected word such as 'library'. Thanks for your help and consideration. Please let me know if there is anything I should do. Balance person (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Balance person: Thanks for your comment here. I see that the hook has been promoted, so continue to follow along the DYK process by going to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. If there's a problem with the hook (like someone changes the wording that makes the hook inaccurate) then post your concerns on the DYK talk page at WT:DYK. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. I hope DYK has been a positive experience for you. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (nom)
I didn't really consider Buck Wild to be core cast, but we can change it to "none of the original core cast members" if you'd like, since buck wild was (thank god) not in Ice Age. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I'm fine with this. There might be some OR concerns with "none of the original cast" but I think the information about the recasting in the reception section will cover this. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The DYK Barnstar
The DYK Barnstar | ||
In appreciation of your hard work. --evrik (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
- that's funny, i was just here to do the same :) thank you, thank you, thank you for all your work at DYK's prep sets; I've seen you raising questions at DYKNA, too, you've clearly got a sharp eye and your work is quality. I really appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Do it anyway, or find another to award. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Decome
Should I go back and add an image to the nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Decome? --evrik (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Evrik: up to you. If an image is added, please make a note so that others know that my approval did not consider the image. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would you consider approving the nomination again if I use an image from the article, decome? --evrik (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Cougar
Could you take a look at Cougar again, thanks. 2001:4455:699:AB00:C192:8362:8DB3:1CA7 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- recheck again. 2001:4455:620:F00:105B:86A6:E072:4642 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
re: this edit
good call. very good call. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK promotion
I was curious if there is something wrong with Template:Did you know nominations/Daisy Wood Hildreth. It's currently the oldest biography nomination with no image, but promoters continually seem to skip over it. SL93 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For reviewing at least 15 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
DYK for Adolphe Jacquies
On 21 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adolphe Jacquies, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Adolphe Jacquies was arrested for publishing a poem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adolphe Jacquies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Adolphe Jacquies), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for James Edward Smith (politician)
On 24 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Edward Smith (politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Edward Smith won the mayoralty of Toronto by one vote? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Edward Smith (politician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James Edward Smith (politician)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Joshua George Beard
On 25 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joshua George Beard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joshua George Beard was a member of the first Toronto City Council and the first Toronto School Board of Trustees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joshua George Beard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joshua George Beard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ravenswing 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
don dunstan
hello, Z1720! i had a question regarding this blurb for this article. i know that a full date is often mentioned in a blurb when it is relevant to the blurb's run date, and this blurb is scheduled to run on the 55th anniversary of dunstan's first inauguration as premier, as mentioned in your tfa nomination. however, i was not sure how best to insert it without going over the limit of 1025 characters. i am assuming that replacing "in 1967" with "on 1 June 1967" would be the best way to insert the date.
to make space for the addition, how do you feel about either replacing "Although he lost the 1967 election" with "After resigning in 1968", or dropping the "in 1999" at the end? the article states that dunstan resigned due to losing a vote of confidence after the 1968 state election, as his party had lost two seats in the election (although technically he had won the election in order to keep the seat for norwood), so i think this rewording may be more accurate. (in addition, i think "1967" may have been meant to be "1968".) also, dunstan's year of death is mentioned in the lifespan at the start of the blurb, so no information would be lost by dropping "in 1999". dying (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: Any of these solutions works for me. I welcome any improvements to the blurb. I have the template on my watchlist so I will look at your edits and if I have concerns I will contact you. Thanks for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- great, i ended up implementing the rewording and leaving the end of the blurb intact. thanks, Z1720! dying (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for John Hutchison (Canadian politician)
On 31 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hutchison (Canadian politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Hutchison, in his role as Mayor of Toronto, signed the city's bid to become the capital of the Province of Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hutchison (Canadian politician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Hutchison (Canadian politician)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Abishabis
On 31 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abishabis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Abishabis claimed that he could create a map to heaven? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abishabis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Abishabis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 11,636 views (484.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 50
Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022
- New library partner - SPIE
- 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
DYK for Alexander Manning
On 2 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Manning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the time of his death, Alexander Manning was the largest individual taxpayer in Toronto? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Manning. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alexander Manning), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK nomination of John Jacob Withrow
Hello! Your submission of John Jacob Withrow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Warring Kennedy
On 5 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warring Kennedy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Warring Kennedy was re-elected as Mayor of Toronto by 14 votes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warring Kennedy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Warring Kennedy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Globular cluster scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Globular cluster article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 10, 2022. July 1 has a date-linked TFA already. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for John Jacob Withrow
On 10 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Jacob Withrow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Jacob Withrow allegedly did not consult anyone before announcing a permanent exhibition in Toronto? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Jacob Withrow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Jacob Withrow), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Acoutsina
On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Acoutsina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that records of Acoutsina's captivity allow historians to analyse the eighteenth century French-Eskimo relationship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Acoutsina. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Acoutsina), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Pierre Allemand
On 13 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pierre Allemand, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on his third expedition to Hudson Bay, Pierre Allemand piloted a captured English ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre Allemand. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pierre Allemand), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Job Abbott
On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Job Abbott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Job Abbott designed the first through cantilever bridge in North America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Job Abbott. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Job Abbott), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)