Forum:CT:Did you know...

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was did you know feature to be used for new articles only. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:33, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support change to DYK

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:09, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
2. Menkooroo 21:14, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
3. nayayen★talk 21:30, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
4. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 23:12, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
5. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
6. For the record, I'm the one who added the comment to the page about new articles only; that was simply my understanding at the time, and I was never aware we had a policy to the contrary. Per the SH discussion about revamping the Main Page, I'd like to see significant expansions and possibly CAs added to the list of eligible articles, but that can be done later. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:11 UTC
   • No fault was intended by making mention of that comment. I suspect no one was even aware, or at least remembered, that this policy even existed, so no one should feel bad for not following it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:14, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
7. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
8. 1358 ^(Talk) 13:42, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
9. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:05, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
10. Indeed.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
11. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 02:03, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
12. ~Savage 22:01, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
13. graestan^(talk) 17:05, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
14. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose change to DYK

(Note that opposition to this measure is tantamount to supporting the policy wording as it currently exists.)

1. I don't see why we shouldn't use it for the neat things we find around the site. They're fun for us to read, so I don't see why our readers wouldn't enjoy seeing them as well. What are we supposed to do with them if we don't have the sources necessary to bring them up to status? NaruHina ^Talk 17:20, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Naru.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 12:44, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
3. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith ^{-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!-} 16:55, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• For the benefit of the casual reader, I'd like to see the Main Page read similar to Wikipedia's, which states "Did you know... From Wikipedia's newest content:" . Our Main Page merely reads "Did you know..." with nothing afterward. How about an addendum to this CT in favor of adding "From Wookieepedia's newest articles" afterward, so that any visitors to the site immediately know what kinds of facts they're reading? Menkooroo 21:14, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that. If you'd like, feel free to create a new voting section below this one on this same forum and write up the proposal. We can make this a joint proposal measure with separately-binding outcomes if you're cool with that. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
    • Done! Thanks for the idea. Menkooroo 21:39, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was add note to main page. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:33, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #2!

Per the discussion above, and for the benefit of casual readers, let's be like Wikipedia and make everything clear with a line beneath the blue bar that reads: From Wookieepedia's newest articles: Menkooroo 21:34, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Add it

1. Just to be clear, my signature is not part of the proposed addition. :D Menkooroo 21:34, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
2. nayayen★talk 21:36, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
3. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:51, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
4. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 23:12, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
5. —MJ— _{War Room} Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:15 UTC
6. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
7. Eh, why not. 1358 ^(Talk) 13:42, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
8. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:05, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
9. IMO, this doesn't seem particularly necessary, especially since we're not Wikipedia, but I have nothing against it.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
10. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 02:03, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
11. ~Savage 22:01, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
12. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Don't do it

Meh

1. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was expansions to remain excluded from did you know. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:33, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Proposition 3

Might as well do this all in one thread. This has been discussed in the SH, so let's vote. Do we want to allow expansions and/or CAs also? These proposals are in addition to, not a replacement for, the original proposal; if one or both of these pass, they will simply amend the original proposal, which still serves the purpose of not allowing any and all trivia.

5× expansions (calculated by word count)

Support

1. There's thousands of one- or two-line stubs floating around that could have a gold mine of interesting stuff perfect for DYK, but under the current rules, those could never be used because they already exist. Face it, it's harder to expand something fivefold than it is to create a two-sentence stub, so let's recognize the effort. —MJ— _Comlink Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:31 UTC
2. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
3. This sounds like a good way to encourage folks to expand stubs. ~Savage 22:01, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather keep it strictly for new articles, but I won't be upset or anything if this passes. Menkooroo 05:07, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
2. This just seems unnecessary to me. It's not like we're ever going to have a shortage of newly-created articles to add, unless Star Wars stops coming out with new material. We're supposed to expect people to go through the edit history and start counting words to make sure something does or doesn't meet this criteria? And what are the boundaries for this? Anything that ever undergoes a five-fold expansion during any period of its existence should be highlighted on the Main Page? A stub that reads "John was a smuggler." since 2008 gets to go on because someone adds 20 more words to it, thus engineering a five-fold expansion? That's not really deserving to me, and this concept overall just seems overly bureaucratic. I think the simpler we can keep things, the more efficient and enjoyable something like the DYK will be. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:08, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
3. I don't see a particularly good reasoning for having an arbitrary limit. 1358 ^(Talk) 13:42, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
4. Anything that'd get such an expansion would probably go on to status nomination and would end up being promoted on the main page anyway. nayayen★talk 13:51, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Tope and Nayayen. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:02, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
6. JangFett ^(Talk) 14:38, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Menk. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 15:49, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Menk and Tope.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
9. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 02:03, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Toprawa. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• What is this even referring to? Please save me/us the trouble of having to dig through old SH discussions to understand the purpose of this item. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:40, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Here you go: Forum:SH:Main_Page_Revamp_Crusade#Did_you_know.E2.80.A6. I've also linked it above. —MJ— _{Jedi Council Chambers} Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:46 UTC
    • To clarify, this is for any articles that undergo an expansion equal to or greater than five times the original size of the article before the expansion, no matter how large the article is before the expansion? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:51, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
      • Correct. The larger the article is to begin with, the more effort is required to expand it fivefold. —MJ— ^{Training Room} Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:54 UTC
• I'm abstaining since I don't see a reason for an arbitrary limit here (simple is better, yes), but I also don't see an option for just using old articles. How is a stub that was created for a new source any better than an article we created long ago on an interesting subject? They should be treated the same. What's wrong with showcasing that there was a field of sudy called Ximology, that on the planet of Dac crab-stuffed creampuff (CA) were a delicacy, that there was a sacred temple on NatiNati called the Poborandurannum, or that there was a mythological Bothan hero named Plot. Of course, I'm not saying that we should highlight articles that read like Plot, but it doesn't have to be written out completely to cease being a stub. NaruHina ^Talk 17:32, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification: I mean use both new and old articles. NaruHina ^Talk 07:11, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:24, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Newly-passed CAs

Support

1. Many CAs evolve from one- or two-line stubs, but are still incapable of being expanded 5× due to limited content. This would give these smaller but complete expansions a chance to show up in DYK as well. Note the the article would be required to formally pass CAN (i.e. be archived) before it could be added to the template. —MJ— _Comlink Friday, March 9, 2012, 04:31 UTC
2. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

   If and when we replace the Random GA/FA box with just a Random CA one, then we can simply include removing this part of the DYK in the process. nayayen★talk 13:54, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

   • Now that a CT for this has been started, I'm supporting that and striking my vote here. nayayen★talk 21:18, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

3. NaruHina ^Talk 17:25, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 02:03, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
5. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 12:46, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
6. Per above. If you kill a stub, no harm in giving you a cookie. ~Savage 22:01, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
7. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:29, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
8. --Eyrezer 00:00, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per above. Menkooroo 05:07, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Menkooroo above. I can see value in highlighting CAs on the MP, but I think there are better ways of doing it. Like maybe replacing the Random FA/GA boxes with a Random CA box once the GAs-on-the-MP CT is completed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:10, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Tope. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:03, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
4. JangFett ^(Talk) 14:38, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Menk. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 15:49, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
6. Per above.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Tope. 1358 ^(Talk) 23:36, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
8. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)
9. Per my vote striking reason above. nayayen★talk 21:18, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
10. graestan^(talk) 22:06, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
11. Per Nayayen and Menkooroo Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:39, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comments