Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

DYK Deletion sorting

In my ongoing review of DYK archives, I discovered that DYK Main Page articles are being deleted without input from DYK. I have posted a request to WikiProject Deletion sorting to have a deletion sorting page created for DYK. Many other projects have their own deletion sorting for articles of interest to their project (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender), and there is no reason why DYK should sit back and not provide input to AfD concerning DYK articles. If our judgment is wrong and the article is not a valid article, we then would need to change our practice to prevent such articles from appearing on the Main Page. If our judgment is correct, then deleting the article without DYK input would not put Wikipedia or DYK in the best light, particularly since such an article was on the Main Page and held out as one of Wikipedia's best new articles. -- Jreferee t/c 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How many former DYK entries end up being deleted? I suspect they are few and far between. -- !! ?? 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think someone did a relatively brief analysis of how many got deleted a few months ago and the total was in the single figures, even when those which got merged into other articles were added. Of course, it might've increased dramatically since then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree this would in theory be useful, especially as exposure on the main page does increase the risk someone will later take the article to AfD. However, the way deletion sorting works, someone would have to notice that the article had been on DYK to list it (there's no automation), and it wouldn't be apparent from the AfD itself, so I'm not sure how it would work in practice. Espresso Addict 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is not a whole lot of DYK articles that get listed at AfD. If WikiProject Deletion sorting does not find that there are enough AfD listings to warrant their crating and maintaining a DYK Deletion sorting page, I can easily create one as a DYK subpage. Deletion sorting is not automatic and requires manual input. Once the DYK Deletion sorting page is up an running, any of the regular DYK members can list relevant AfDs and DRV. I'm currently working with Rick Block to provide tables for the DYK archives that may be used for a variety of purposes (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Recent_additions_146/History). Once the new tables are complete (a very long term project), a bot can keep track of the DYK articles and provide DYK with notice of any AfDs, redirects, and other similar changes. -- Jreferee t/c 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The delsort project has typically required that proposals for new lists are accompanied with justification in the way of examples of Afd's that would have landed on the proposed list, if it had of existed. I dont think we need to stall this request in that way, but it would still be handy to see a list of past Afds that would have been caught, if that data has already been compiled, even if it is a bit old.
The delsort project will soon be able to automatically populate the delsort lists based on talk page tags, which will mean we can cater for specific needs like this. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals for more details. John Vandenberg 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
We recently had Human chemistry and Human molecule come through and get deleted (as original research/fringe science/hoax). DYKs don't get nominated very often once they've gotten through the DYK process (very few red links in the archives). What happens more frequently is they get nominated while they're still on the T:TDYK page. I don't know any recent examples off the top of my head. I know I nominated Marilyn Monroe pornographic film from T:TDYK. Of course, that's a bit trickier as there's no talk page tag for nominees... somebody would have to check the whatlinkshere. --JayHenry 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Before anyone troops off to redelete human molecule, it's probably not what you think :P GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find Gavin Kaysen anywhere.

err. Well, I know where Kaysen is, but I mean that I got a note, on my page, saying that my nomination of some info on Kaysen had been included in DYK?. I like to post the hook next to the notification, but for the life of me, I can't see any record of it actually being used. It's not on the recent additions page, though another entry from me a few days ago is there. A look through the history of the page 'coming up next' page doesn't actually seem to contain it (and while the note was posted to my page, it wasn't put on the article page; I did that myself later when I saw it hadn't been added). Did it actually get used, or did it get lost in an edit? If it was used, can anyone point me at *where* it got used, so I can get the hook that was decided upon? Thanks, --Thespian 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect time?

We may want to semi-protect, or even full protect Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. An anon just recent the counter even though there wasn't an update. I've reverted it, but it made me think that there is no reason for non-admins to have access to that page, assuming that the admin that does the update also resets the clock (which I've noticed some admins not doing). Anyway, just thought I'd bring it up to see what others thought.-Andrew c [talk] 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. How often does a non-admin do it for the updater? I know I've seen it when someone has forgotten to reset it. Maybe a reminder should be added on T:DYK/N, which includes reminders about protecting the image and archiving. Rigadoun (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected it for now, since there haven't really been any sensible updates to it by anons for a while. No real opinion on full protection - there hasn't been much of a problem with registered users fiddling around with it when they weren't supposed to so far, but updates to it are usually done by the updating admin. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to allow non-admins to get involved in the process... but, hey, if the DYK subpages are going to be locked down to admins only (yes, I know this is only the time template) then perhaps some admins could pull their fingers out - the last update was over 17 hours ago. -- !! ?? 17:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only T:DYK that's locked to non-admins. You and I can still edit the time clock. The problem is that it's actually been 17 hours since an admin updated and the next update is ready to go. --JayHenry 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Well, it has actually been more than 17 hours since the last update twice in a row now - are the admins on strike? -- !! ?? 11:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't update yesterday when the clock was 15 because next update wasn't ready. I just updated now, however I don't have time to thank the users. Since anyone can thank users (non-admins) it would be nice if someone could help be out because I'm leaving my computer now to go out. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It is largely a thankless task. It would be nice if some of the people complaining in the WP:ANI section mentioned below did something to help out. -- !! ?? 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I know. It's rotten. There should be a rule that admins who submit stuff should be obliged to help. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Polylerus

I think someone should officially notice that the abovenamed editor has gotten 30 articles on the DYK section. John Carter 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should be a good place to write his name in.Bakaman 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Added. [1].Bakaman 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK discussion at WP:AN

A discussion about DYK has been started at the Administrators noticeboard. -- Jreferee t/c 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy DYK MoS errors

In the current DYK, the episode titles "Blind Ambition" and "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" should be in quotes, not italicized. Also, note that the name of the episode is "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" and not "Cleveland Loretta Quagmire" (addition of a "The" and an en dash between "Cleveland" and "Loretta"). Robert K S 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Things like this should be posted to WP:ERRORS. I've copied this comment there and with luck it will be fixed. Rigadoun (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP

There have apparently been 3 DYK items removed from the main page template in recent days due to WP:BLP issues. It has been suggested on ANI that the current screening process is inadequate... I think further discussion should occur here. --W.marsh 15:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't classify the removed DYK as "controversial", I know that the current atmosphere involving BLPs is rather tense and cautious. Overall I think the DYK process works fine but it may be worthwhile to explore having a separate section for BLP noms or some tag to add to the nomination that will flag it for extra scrutiny. AgneCheese/Wine 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There were a few issues with the DYK that was removed 1) a rather salacious factiod was picked out - and one that had pretty ropey sourcing. Now, it may turn out to be true, but that's not the point. The point is that we can't take the risk that one of these times it will turn out to be libelous. The structural problem is that DKY's are recently created articles (thus not hada lot of time for scrutiny) they are then nominated (often by the creator) and listed. Now it may be that they are checked over the 5 days, but we can't be sure that will alway happen. Indeed in this case, it obviously hadn't. That means one failure to check by the lister, and we've got a problem. 2) I actually removed further negative material from the article that violated BLP. Linking an article from the mainpage that may contain other unchecked libels isn't great either. 3) Is it really fair to pick one possibly embarrassing fact from someone's life and feature it? That's what tabloids do!

Let's not wait until this becomes a problem. Let's increase our safeguarding. I'd actually like us t say that we don't feature negative or possibly embarrassing factiods about living individuals on the mainpage - period. That would be a nice clear rule - find another fact please. If that's viewed as two strong, then we shoudl insist that all factiods about living individuals are "signed off" by an uninvolved and experienced editor before listing by the lister. In signing off, the editor would certify "I have checked the factoid is fair and strongly sourced, and that the article itself complies with WP:BLP." The lister would then double check before listing. That would work. But, as I say, easier would be to say "no potentially negative/embarrassing factoids about living individuals" - that prevents both the BLP issue and the ethical problem of featuring some tabloidesque gossip about some not-very-well-known individual.--Docg 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very agreeable to expect extra "check ups" on BLP articles but I'm sure not how well a hard and fast rule on not "negative/embarrassing factoids" would work. For one thing, the idea of "embarrassing" can clearly be subjective. Case in point with today's DYK. While you (and possibly others) view the Rocky Horror/Drag factoid as "potentially embarrassing", myself (and possibly others) would not see it that way. Obviously its presence in the article should (like everything else) depending on the quality of the sourcing behind it. As for negative comments, while we are certainly not a tabloid we are not meant to be censored. Of course in the case of BLPs the negative comments are kept within reason, WP:NPOV and the relevant guideline. Ultimately that should be the same guiding criteria behind DYK tidbits. If its well sourced and in compliance in the article with the necessary guidelines then it should be an acceptable candidate. AgneCheese/Wine 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit confict)I was the one who added the last entry that sparked the discussion on the admin noticeboard. I'm sorry about this, I guess I didn't check the references thoroughly enough. For me, this isn't a BLP issue, but a general accuracy and WP:RS issue. I think we generally need to improve the way we screen suggestions, whether they're controversial (what's controversial, salacious, or embarassing about having acted in a drag show anyway?) or not. Two proposals come to my mind. The first is having each entry checked at least once by someone other than the nominator and the article creator. Two editors (I think it was Awadewit and Espresso Adict) tried to implement this a few months back, but noone really jumped on. I think it might be worth only adding entries to the main page that have actually been checked and seconded by someone. The other solution that comes to my mind is requiring nominators to name the source of the fact when adding a suggestion, if the source is a book, preferrably with the exact page number. Both solutions would require quite a bit of effort on the part of the DYK editors and the ultimate solution can only be to have more damn admins and experienced editors help out.--Carabinieri 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't want to overkill with a time consuming solution. I'd suggest that we need to focus on information about living individuals (just as BLP does). That's where the real damage could be done by inaccuracy.--Docg 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Having inaccurate or poorly referenced facts on the main page sucks, whether they're about living people, dead people, or non-human subjects.--Carabinieri 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
True...... but ultimately that should be the responsibility of the article's editors without the need for "hand holding" by the admin. BLPs are, again, a special situation that would warrant extra scrutiny but I think WP:ERRORS and the 5-day period suffices for everything else. AgneCheese/Wine 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We treat BLP differently for a reason. Innacuracies are bad, and make Wikipedia look bad. But bad info on individuals can be really harmful. We have no evidence of any generalprobelm with DYK's accuracy (doubtless there's been mistakes, but no harm) we do have evidence of BLP problems. So, lets get the BLP DYKs prperly safeguarded before we have a really issue. If the safeguarding we put in place works, and if problems arrise with non-BLPs, we can consider a more general solution later. Fix what's broken, leave the rest.--Docg 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

← Wot Doc said. It's an easy fix, just don't include ngative hooks about living people and quickly scan the article for red-flag words. No big deal, unless we choose to make it one. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with adding this to the guidelines? Some things might still slip through but this should help. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Are User:Doc glasgow and User:JzG planning to stick around indefinitely to tell us when articles (some written by admins - see above) meet their standards? If not, please would ythey define "negative", and provide a list of red-flag words, so we know when those standards are being transgressed. FWIW, I struggle to see the problem with the proposed hook for Rose Dugdale. What is this "real issue" of which you speak?
Or perhaps we should just go the whole hog and prohibit articles on living people, like the ODNB does. Who needs an article on Queen Elizabeth II anyway. -- !! ?? 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I think Doc and JzG are asking DYK regulars to keep this in mind. I've modified the guidelines: [2] to try to do that. That's my best shot but of course it's subject to revision and discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have discussed the issue for a bit longer first to reach some kind of consensus on the nature of the problem and how to resolve it, before we started editing the guidelines. Which articles have been perceived as problems recently?
  • A hook for Rose Dugdale on the suggestions page is said to be "wholly negative" because it mentions an art theft and a terrorist bombing from a helicopter (both of which are well sourced - she pleaded "proudly and incorruptibly guilty", for goodness sake).
  • The hook for Paul Oscar was pulled today (I guess the sourcing is not very good, but I struggle to see how it is in any way offensive to say that someone has played Frank-N-Furter and appeared in drag shows)
  • Kazi Salahuddin was pulled on 5 November, due to RS concerns (not a BLP issue, I think)
  • Buddy Caldwell was pulled on 2 November due to "election neutrality concerns" (whatever they are)
  • Dave Teo and Agustin Dovalina, III were also pulled in quick succession on 2 November (I think I can see why)
Have I missed any in the last week? Which of these is a grave problem?
Anyway, User:Lar's formulation seems pretty inoffensive - so no doubt others will now want to beef it up. We certainly must keep WP:BLP in mind - no doubt the editors of the articles which have been pulled or criticised recently were doing so already - but I still wonder how to tell when an article is "excessivly negative" or "certain words and usages ... might give offense". Is the aim here to avoid upsetting the subject of an article, or to write something an article is NPOV and well-sourced? -- !! ?? 18:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Buddy Caldwell article, I think the removal would've been because he was/is a current candidate in an election, and there was nothing about his opponent hanging around, so it could be interpreted by those with a sufficiently conspiracist view that Wikipedia was endorsing Caldwell over anyone else. It seems a bit tenuous to me, but I'm not American and thus haven't grown up with the political system there and any equal-time regulations like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of banning "negative" facts from DYK is ridiculous and a violation of WP:NPOV. Further, introducing such a policy as a reaction to someone's participation in drag shows being mentioned on DYK is just plain homophobic crap. What the hell is "negative/embarassing" about drag shows?! It would be completely POV to not include "negative/embarassing" facts about people and would lead to ridiculous discussions about whether certain facts are "negative/embarassing". Let's talk about how we can make DYK more accurate, rather than how to WP:CENSOR it.--Carabinieri 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the criterion should be verifiability, not positive content. With regard to that, updating folks should check that the hook is cited (I think, given BLP, it's reasonable to demand an inline citation for the fact in the hook) from a reliable source (the latter was apparently the problem with the hook in question). That's also more enforceable, as it's less open to debate whether a hook is cited from a reliable source than if it is negative or embarrassing. It's also most in the spirit of BLP and Wikipedia policy in general. Rigadoun (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this problem would be a more systematic way of checking referencing, neutrality, etc of nominations. Like I said before, two editors tried to implement such a system a few months ago, but noone joined them. I'm gonna give this another try and hope I'll get some support. The system is really simple: you just have to read the nominated articles for those criteria and either voice any concerns on T:TDYK or leave a note endorsing the nom there. This won't increase the effort that has to go into DYK by much, since the proposals should be checked during the waiting period anyway, but will give us some assurance that each hook is in fact checked thoroughly before it goes on the main page.--Carabinieri 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Determining article size

Is there an easy way to determine an article's size in kb?--Appraiser 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

These days, it is recorded in the history tab - for example, before this edit, this page was 25,303 bytes. -- !! ?? 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Doh! Thanks.--Appraiser 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Easy is a relative term. The article history tab reports the size of each revision of an article less than several months old (when the new feature was enabled) but does not distinguish between readable text, images, references, templates, and other formatting information. Scripts such as User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js are able to distinguish between readable text and other information in an articles source, but commonly report information in integer kilobytes. For checking compliance with the 1500 bytes limit in the current DYK guidelines, a common method is to copy the readable text from a borderline article into a text editor/word processor on your computer and determine the size either through an editor feature or by saving the readable text to disk and checking the size of the saved file. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sure, I should have mentioned that DYK usually looks at the number of characters of readable text in the body (lead section and text sections, excluding references, infoboxes, formatting, etc). The number given in the history is usually significantly greater from that. -- !! ?? 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Two last-minute alt hooks for DYKNU ;-)

(Two items that were on the copy of the page I loaded but are now moved to Next Update)

...that according to the book The World Without Us radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore will be the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth?
  • ALT: ...that the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth will be radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore, according to the book The World Without Us?
...that 10TP was a Polish tank design, which advanced the Polish armor programme but came too late to provide the Polish Army with tanks of sufficient number and quality before the German invasion of Poland in 1939?

— Komusou talk @ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK userbox

What would you guys think a proposal to change the image to Image:Symbol question.svg? I thought it might go along more in the theme of the GA and FA userboxes. GlassCobra 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and implemented GlassCobra (talk · contribs)'s suggestion. If anyone disagrees, feel free to state that here, or go ahead and revert my change for the time being. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

Archiving to portals

Are we still archiving into relevant portals, as discussed at WP:DYK#Archiving? If so, can there be a better explanation of how to do this? The few I checked didn't seem to have been edited recently by DYK regulars, and don't necessarily follow our usual format. Rigadoun (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody does it I think. Some portals, like Bangladesh, West Bengal and Karnataka have regular contributors and they just do it themselves. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Portal Karnataka DYK Archive - Portal:Karnataka/Did_you_know/List_of_Featured_DYKs_related_to_Karnataka - KNM Talk 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who frequently nominate their own articles

Should this issue be addressed, and has it been already? I have noticed that some seemingly-vain editors will continually nominate their own articles in order to gain prominence on the main page. This is quite disturbing to see on Wikipedia. Frankly, many of the factoids mentioned in DYK are uninteresting, and I partially blame this on editors who will create an article for the sake of its creation only, and will often nearly plagiarize other websites online to do so. Now, I know many of you will want an exact example of this, but I must choose not to do so in order to avoid unfair allegations of "not assuming good faith," etc. But I do ask that the DYK community think of this and see who among you are doing this. - Cyborg Ninja 09:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"plagiarize other websites online" - what do you mean by that? Copyright problems should keep a page from being featured on DYK. --W.marsh 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK wouldn't work without self-noms.--Carabinieri 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who see an uninteresting hook should feel free to say "this is uninteresting, got anything better to say?", and in practise I see admins doing this every so often. It's hard because what's "interesting" is different to every user. If you're really disturbed by self-noms, I guess you could canvass various WikiProjects every week and ask them to nominate the best new articles which fall under their scope, maybe that would produce enough volume to increase the proportion of articles nominated by people other than their creators and improve the quality of third-party review. cab (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a self-nominator but I wouldn't characterized my reason for doing so as vanity-at least not personal vanity. It's more of an effort to get wine related articles on the front page and introduce more people to Wikipedia's usefulness as a wine-related resource on the web. When we are competing with Encyclowine, Vinismo and to a smaller extent Citizendum, getting as much "coverage" of our wine articles and the Wine Project can be a huge benefit in further developing content. Plus I just like writing articles. :) However I fully understand that what will strike a wine geek as interesting may not tickle everyone's fancy so I appreciate critiques or suggestions for any hooks that I nominate. AgneCheese/Wine 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The English language is ubiquitous. Remember Chinese kids learn the language in high school and southwest of there is India. It is an official language in many African countries. Hooks that aren't "interesting" to one person may be thought provoking to another. All that needs to be enforced is brevity, falsifiability, and article length requirements.Bakaman 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A future article

I'm new to this (DYK that is, not Wikipedia) and i have recently created an article on Clyde Fastlink. Are future proposed developments allowed in here and if so, would Clyde Fastlink pass? I suppose it is a self-nom. Simply south 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's okay for DYK as long as it meets the other requirements (length, recently created, etc.) In this case, the article should avoid being just speculation. It looks a bit short though. But the place to nominate it is T:TDYK --W.marsh 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I'm worried that you are put off by the discussion above. Don't be. I have nominated your article. Its currently too short at 1345 characters ... it needs to be at least 1500 characters. Some image would be good but they must be copyright free. You have two days!! Good luck. Victuallers 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry i changed things at the very last 45 minutes or less but after rereading the info, i realised i had got my wording wrong as it seems to be an interim service although it seems certain parts of it, particularly the segregated part (split from traffic) will be used for the tram system. Simply south (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That's alright. It didn't go on the main page, so no damage was done.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cartier

This is my first time trying this so I hope I got it right...

Looks good to me, but wikt:eulogy is an unusual word. Maybe Anglo irish statesman Edmund Burke ... mAde a wikt:eulogy which ....

Oh and you also have to break the 1500 character limit. (excluding refs and everything but real text) Victuallers 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following nomination ...

Is eulogy really that unusual a word? Asking the people around me at the moment, they all knew what it meant. Of course, this small sample may be skewed somewhat by the fact that I'm sitting in a library :P GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing, I wouldn't worry about it. Note you can also link to WP's eulogy, which is not a great article (pretty much a dicdef), but will serve the purposes here. Rigadoun (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

I've added artists of the Tudor court for the next update, with a portrait of Elizabeth I as the suggested (and very nice) image. However, I've noticed that tomorrow's main page for this day in history features a portrait of Elizabeth I, since it is the date on which she began her reign. Should we (1) stick with the choice and have two images of Elizabeth I side-by-side on the main page, or (2)choose a portrait of another person to illustrate the article, or (3) select a different article altogether to feature with an image? ---- EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wedginald

I was the one who created this article, and Zzyzx11 kindly agreed to let it jump the line to appear on the main page before its time. This has to do with current event issues that are explained in the article. To other admins: please don't replace it, many thanks! Panichappy (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err repeating?

Hi, I'm new here but aren't almost all the ones in the queue to be posted already posted? Just saying... Benjiboi —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of hooks?

It seems like the number of hooks that make it to the main page at a time is generally more than the recommended 5-8. Should we adjust the max at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

The main reason why there are sometime more than 8 hooks is that we are trying to re-balance the main page (see the above discussion). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, and that's fine, I was just curious if Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting should be adjusted to reflect changing Main Page tendencies. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
6-10 better reflects reality imho. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a little bit more fact checking.

It seems that some fact checking and verification is getting lost in the process. Azad Hind Stamps‎ hook was factually inaccurate compared to the one available reference that it did list (i.e. The Indian Postal Authorities considering them stamps rather than their inclusion into a book about India's Independence produced by the Indian Postal System) and now Anti-submarine boom net might have a major verification problem due to one image on the article page. All in the span of less than two days!! Is DYK sacrificing some quality control over pumping out the DYK's to the front page? How many other hooks have had problems that weren't caught before? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlsberg papyrus which appeared yesterday seems to be confused at best (and the hook was nonsensical as a result), but I think the purpose of the DYK section is, at least in part, to pick up on just such issues. A corrected one letter typo, that didn't appear in the hook anyway, is hardly a major issue. Or are you referring to how close the text is to the text shown in the photo, which isn't quoted as a reference even though a sizeable amount of the article is lifted nearly wholesale? Andplus (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, what I was wondering is why it's named on an "Offical" Plaque as one thing, when the article says something else. But if you feel the article is a possible copyright violation, then by all means raise the red flag. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I made two proposals on how to improve DYK's fact checking. Both were ignored. Apparently putting bullshit on the main page is only a problem when it concerns living people. It seems to me that most DYK helpers are unwilling to help improve the accuracy standard.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth I found the entire process a bit confusing from where to post, what to post and what format to put things in; then what to do from there to monitor things. It seems to me several things could be done to simplify the process and thus possibly encourage more newbies to assist. It might also make sense to have an intermediate holding pen for items that have been vetted or add some demarcation that an item has been fact-checked; I would favor something that indicated that the current update was full (and come up with guidelines of what full means - presumably 1200-1500 characters). This might help sort the work load into more readily recognized areas where people could help; the next update needs items or is full; these items need to be fact checked, etc. I found it frustrating to spend so much time copy editing one of my entries down to the 200 characters requested only to have an admin come along and chop off the bulk of it as "fat" after the process had vetted it and no further revisions seemed to be needed. If you wanted 100 characters I could have done that and would have little expectation otherwise. Benjiboi 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the case (not specifically to you Benjiboi), I think that DYK now needs a serious overhaul.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the perfect fool but i know if I had problems figuring it out (and it took several tries) then others simply gave up altogether and that's not the intent as far as I can tell. If the goal is to find and highlight some of the best new articles wp has to offer then go from 5 to 10 days and increase the vetting process, the editing of hooks and so forth. Shoot for quality not quantity and be honest about that. In this way we aren't encouraging good hooky articles to be written but fostering an environment to better writing not accolades for creationism alone. Also per the "explain urolagnia" verses watersports provide more insight as to non-r-rated content. I'm well used to queerphobic and sexphobic policies, at least be clear about it. Benjiboi 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK -- context checking

This DYK, its since passed into archives but some issues in general should be part of the check on DYKs

  1. the DYK grab is in relation to the sexual practices of female kob not the target article List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
  2. by rewording List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, to display homosexual behavior it has removed the context from mammals only to homosexual behavior in general.
  3. the source of the grab was from an image in the article not from the article text as such doesnt support, explain or expand on the grab.

Recommend that WP:DYK#Preparations Eligible items include that the grab must be written in context of the article and based on the article text. to help avoid a repeat of this situation. note that I have removed and urolagnia from the dyk grab in the archive. Gnangarra 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular hook was changed several times while it was on DYK, including one after a post on WP:ERRORS: [3] [4] [5] [6] I noticed that Wikipedia:Recent additions currently only has the first version and does not reflect the final version before DYK was updated with new hooks. Also, the nominator of that particular hook was complaining about some of the changes, see User talk:Benjiboi#Censorship. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
To sum up, the hook was eventually modified to read:
This addressed Gnangarra's concerns about the original hook but they were not changed on Wikipedia:Recent additions to. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This brings up another issue: I have noticed that when admins correct errors on a hook after it has been placed on the DYK template, they do not correct the same hook on the Wikipedia:Recent additions. Remember that under the current DYK rules, the new updates on DYK are immediately posted on Wikipedia:Recent additions. It is not the type of situation where old items are archived only after they have been removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The original hook was perfectly fine. These hooks have two purposes: to make the main page a little more interesting and to get people to read newly created articles. This particular hook fulfills both.
  1. "the DYK grab is in relation to the sexual practices of female kob not the target article List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior" Isn't a cob a mammal?
  2. "by rewording List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior, to display homosexual behavior it has removed the context from mammals only to homosexual behavior in general." No, it hasn't. It doesn't matter which words are linked. I've nominated hooks with only the word "is" linked. Sometimes that's the only way it works.
  3. "the source of the grab was from an image in the article not from the article text as such doesnt support, explain or expand on the grab." The fact was in an image caption and was referenced. What more do you want? Obviously, the hook can't always summarize the article, since that would, in many cases, be completely boring. --Carabinieri (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of DYK is also to attract more content to new articles, the hook needs also to be relevent to the article in this case it took a term and made it synonymous with something that it isnt. For something that gets displayed on the main page it needs to be factual and not just sensationalist Gnangarra 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is about mammals that display homosexual behavior. The hook gave one example of such a mammal and said it displays homosexual behavior. How is that taking a term and making it synonymous with something that it isnt?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Urolagnia isnt a homosexual behavior yet the wording implied it was. When you go to the article it discusses it as a heterosexual act both by text and by imagary. Gnangarra 04:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Intercourse, oral sex and yes, Urolagnia are homosexual behaviors when those partaking are of the same sex. I welcome youre reworking all sexual behavior articles to reflect that gays and lesbians as well as animals take part. Benjiboi 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe all the concerns have been addressed but if not please let me know. Benjiboi 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cache

Why does Template talk:Did you know start out with the words, "After you update the template, please click this link to purge the main page cache, so the update is shown to everyone."? The misnamed talk page (the real talking occurs here) is updated ten times more often than the template (referring to Template:Did you know). And why would anyone updating the template look at the top talk page instruction but not at the template instructions? My guess is that newbies adding a new hook to the so-called talk page, mistakenly click the main page cache purge link regularly, which is presumably a Bad Thing or there wouldn't be a cache at all. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

I'm a little confused about why Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was not chosen as a DYK. While initially John Boydell was nominated and hadn't been expanded enough, I know that the Gallery should have counted and I made this clear. Did I anger the DYK gods somehow? This is a good little article and it would have been nice to see it on the main page. I'm sure the nominator, User:Rupert Clayton, will be a bit disappointed as well. Awadewit | talk 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It expired. That happens when people don't update the template on time. I just had to throw eight things on there (and I normally don't do DYK, but I made an exception as it was twelve hours past updating). You'd think with all the names on the template talk, who say they update DYK, you'd think one of them would have noticed. But don't feel bad, one of my DYKs expired too, and unless the template isn't updated immediately after my update, the article I Am Not Homer is going to expire as well. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it expired (I'm familiar with DYK), but all of the other expired noms had problems with them - this one did not. It seems like a deliberate slight, frankly. Awadewit | talk 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When I updated the template, the I Am Not Homer slight wasn't intentional, I sincerely forgot it was there and I thought I had grabbed all of the November 20 ones that didn't have problems. You know what I think it may have been? People may have just grabbed ones that didn't have any comments, assuming those were okay, and saw that the Boydell one had comments and just walked past it, even though the comments were all by you and good ones, not ones that would have ruled it out for DYK. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would seem it is not possible to update DYK as frequently as intended. Until there are more editors willing or capable of updating, perhaps there should be only one DYK template per day, eh? :) Blasphemy, I know. Awadewit | talk 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh? How would that help? So more articles can expire and you won't imagine yours singled out? ;)Andplus (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No, so there won't be this desperate feeling of always being behind. Perhaps some sort of selection process will have to be implemented? (horror of horrors). I think it is pretty clear that the current process doesn't work. I worked on DYK for a while, but I felt this constant pressure to be updating and there were petty spats over nothing, so I quit. Something either needs to be automated if we want updates every 4-6 hours and we take the errors we get or we have to have many fewer updates, I think, until we have more editors. Awadewit | talk 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin updating

I've not been doing the DYK updates for quite some time. Recently, there has been a long time lag and I've had requests on my talk page to do the update. When I've gone to the Next update, it has either already been done, was in process, or this last time, there were two of us working on it. Fortunately, this most recent time, the other admin started after I'd repaired the image and protected it. I checked back on the Main page one more time and saw it had already been updated.

In order to avoid edit conflicts during admin updating of DYK, I suggested the following:

  1. Protect the page to admin edits only so suggestion are not added while the update is being done.
  2. Have a place on the DYK/Next update page for the updating admin to indicate that the update is in progress.

The protection and update-in-progress can be removed when all credits are complete.

Comments? — ERcheck (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin can add an edit to the credits like WORKING ON THIS and then remove it after it's done. If the page is page protected temporarily, the admin may forgot to release it. Often, non-admin help by filling the next update page then call an admin to move it to the main page. If they didn't do that, an admin might think that there is too much work to do and not do DYK. It would then be even later than it often is now. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the rules?

Many of the next update DYK are expired. The expired ones don't seem exceptional. We should develop a consensus to whether we should expand the 5 day old rule or when we should make exceptions.

DYK is often late. This reduces the opportunity for people, many of whom have worked hard to write new articles.

Are there any thoughts to increasing the number of days to 7. This would smooth out days that fewer people write. It would increase review for accuracy. Some hooks have errors. Perhaps a "submission within 4 days" and putting it on the next update within 7. The current system allows hooks to be added on day 5, too late for review! Increasing to 7 days would also give more chances for old hooks to appear.

In the interim, I propose that the old hooks that don't qualify should be placed here. If allowed later, they should be grandfathered in and added one per day (so as not to crowd out the contemporary hooks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Tancredo

  • ...that in the 1659 English play The English Moor, noted for its use of blackface make-up, one main character implies that Blacks and Whites are created equal by God? (I think the uploaded alt would sell short the salient point that attracted me most, so this was a last-minute less esoteric. — Komusou talk @ 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
IMO, nominations posted at Template talk: Did you know by the 5 day "deadline" should be used. It's not the fault of the nominees that admins can't/don't update DYK every 6 hours as per guidelines and clear the "backlogs" on a timely manner. Hooks with problems should not be used till the errors are fixed. In this case, a few days of grace period might be good. --74.14.22.113 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is very reasonable. I'd say to wait for some more responses. If agreeable, then it's possible that these expired noms should be exempted and placed in the next update slowly. This would show that nobody is attacking these 4 old noms but that discussion is needed. Let's wait 2-3 days then (if adding them) add them one per day except on days that DYK is extremely late. According to the IP user, we should disregard the 5 day limit as long as hooks are submitted on time.
How about giving one hook slot to a good but expired nom? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If we wait to use these, or only use them one at a time, these hooks will go from being expired to being very expired. Besides it's been de facto consensus to use hooks that are expired by a few days anyways for a long time.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there was no response to this, I have now added all of these entries to next update.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent because long proposal follows) I had left a note about an alt hook to the User talk:74.14.18.193 IP (unlogged admin?) who had uploaded my expired "English Moor" nom, and was directed to this discussion by Mrs.EasterBunny. (I took the liberty to insert my alt hook comment in the list above, BTW ;-) As for the issue you discuss, it seems to me that whatever unwritten rule is currently used (and probably not understood the same by all DYK admins) would be better off shared and explicited a bit. Just to get it started and vizualize it, here's a guideline draft:

  • Unexpired noms: DYK admins manage them to keep things running, but any editor can also select and upload *one* hook per "Next update" plate as long as:
    1. You are not the writer or nominator (and do not act on their behalf).
    2. You have reasonably checked the hook and article passed DYK standards for length, sourcing, and accuracy.
    3. You read and follow the upload procedure (keeping date and attributions at Next Update, then removing the whole nom from Suggestions).
  • Expired noms: only DYK admins can upload them, at their discretion. Those few days worth are kept:
    • As a buffer reserve of hooks in case there is a shortage, or the need for a short hook, or for a non-U.S. hook for balance, etc.
    • As a way of salvaging some recently expired good hooks that were left unselected or temporarily blocked for reasons now fixed, such as missing length or sourcing, temporary AFD or merge, contested claims now fixed, DYK update rate too slow, etc.

This is mostly based on what I have seen and understood of current practices, plus what is already said at DYK. I think any similar text would make things clear for all and set all DYK admins on the same page. — Komusou talk @ 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Above rules sound reasonable BUT in practice will cause problems. I have often see the DYK past due (red clock) and NO next updates were there. If only one move to the next update were permitted, then it would further create backlog. My own guideline is to add one if there are many hours left but to add all of them if there's less than an hour left.
I think (may be wrong) that one of the noms above was put on the next update by the nominator. If so, that's not the best thing to do.
I'll add one of the four on hold noms every few hours. That will deplete the list in a day or two. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The suggested " *one* hook " thing was intended to apply exclusively to the case of non-admin editors invited by current rules to upload hooks too if they wish so – not to regular DYK admins filling the plate, and not for the handling of expired hooks, so that shouldn't be a problem. (And if needed, an exception could be mentioned for crimson-red late updates.)
  • This was because the current Wikipedia:Did you know rules invite "any editor" to upload hooks if he wish so, but there are no specific info to avoid conflict of interest, or to avoid one such editor filling the Next Update with an unbalanced list (too long, too U.S./UK-centric, too much bios, etc.) The idea was to have the draft keep this current open invitation to all, but spell out reasonable limits. A non-DYK person uploading a single hook per rotation can't wreck the thing or cause too much trouble. (Also, the " *one* hook " wording was just to get started the idea, it could as well be "one or two max" or whatever.) — Komusou talk @ 18:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
All of these hooks have been slowly put into the next update and appeared on the main page with the exception of the Tancredo one which is subject to an intense discussion below (which I'm not a part of, but putting it in the next update now could be controversial). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the rules too much?

I was reviewing the recent noms and found one that slipped past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alabama_Drydock_and_Shipbuilding_Company&action=history

This was not expanded 5 fold. Not even 2-fold. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don;t know that it means the rules are being deliberately broken. More likely it means that participants are just not being careful to check up on the nominations before adding them to the Next Update. I've caught myself a couple of times on that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I notified the editor who submitted it and also said they could remove the message after reading it so as not to create embarrassment. We're here to encourage article writing, not scold people. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My 0.02, but one problem I imagine on Suggestions is that nothing indicates if a nom has already been vetted by 0, 1, or 10 admins – only problems are reported, not OK things. On a related note, I have tried to help this on the topic of images (I have been several times guilty of listing an image, only to find out later is was only fair-use) by tagging them visibly:
(pictured PDomain) or (pictured Commons)
This makes it clear the pic has been checked for status, and also the bold tag make it easy for the Next Update admin to see and remove it. This is something any admin checking a picture could do too, so as to tell the others it's been done. (Of course, the admin about to commit a Next Update to Main Page would still have to run a last check on the final picture, but 99% of the time things should have assuredly been cleared at the Suggestions level, with no picture initially overlooked, and no job re-done in vain by 10 persons.)
As for how to extend this to the other main points (1500 prose or 5x, sourced), I guess each admin verifying a nom could add something right under the first hook (and before any alts) such as:
  • DYK-ADMIN: 1896 prose OK, sources OK. -- Signature
Such clear tag should store information while preventing well-meaning editors from adding the tag themselves (mistakenly believing that it is up to them to have it like the other noms around, in monkey-see-monkey-do fashion.) Later, a little template could be used for it. That sort of things. — Komusou talk @ 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the above except that non-admin could do it. If we lose the help of non-admin, DYK will be even more late. As long as we work together, non-admin could do everything except moving the next update to the main page. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, note that I'm using "DYK admin" in a rather loose sense for lack of a better word. It doesn't necessarily mean "WP administrators", but the people who know well the DYK backoffice process and have regularly done it. For instance, Art LaPella isn't a WP admin, but seems definitely a "DYK admin" as I mention the word above. I don't know which word to use, "DYK regulars" isn't good because it'd include nominators too, which is entirely different from the backoffice process. I'm not sure it matters, because presumably regular non-WP-admin helpers who don't screw it could eventually be informed that they are considered "DYK admins".
  • And the idea was for the tag to have a short wording making it clear that it's not up to the creators/nominators to tag it, but only to people who know how to vet a hook and an article. "DYK-ADMIN" had that quality, but "DYK-STEWART" or whatever could achieve it too. Actually, the tag itself could be linked to a subpage explaining what is the tag for and who can assess it. (I think LaPella already does that when he says a hook is too long.) — Komusou talk @ 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To avoid confusion with admin, stewards, and bureaucrats, consider DYK assistant, associate, or clerk. There are RFCU clerks.Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"DYK clerks" sounds good (I dunno what the actually concerned persons think of it, though). Then, tagging OK articles could be done with as little as:
  • DYK-CLERK: size OK, sourcing OK. - ~~~~

(unindent) I suggested something like this a few months ago - that all noms be essentially "checked" over and marked as such. It didn't catch on. Awadewit | talk 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why not give it a try in a "leadership by example" approach, that is you (and any other clerk who wants to give it a shoot) would start adding "DYK-CLERK" tagging or such to noms you have reviewed, so as to spread the idea in action, show others that it can work, and let them see how it is actually beneficial to them too? After all, there is no rule against doing it; and since I doubt most DYK clerks are even aware of this discussion, no need to wait for a currently improbable extension of DYK procedure. (I know that for myself, I'll always tag nom pics as I outlined above, if only to make sure I didn't put a fair-use again. Even if I'm the only one doing it, I still think it's useful and worth doing it.) — Komusou talk @ 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I tried that, too. :) As you can tell, it didn't catch on. Awadewit | talk 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I have started by endorsing some nominations. I'm not sure about this "DYK-CLERK" idea. It ought to be alright if newcomers also start endorsing nominations. You can generally tell who has experience at doing this and who doesn't. If someone without it starts endorsing noms, you can always double-check on those nominations. I would definately encourage all other editors who have some experience on DYK to also check on DYK nominations. Another way to improve accuracy and referencing on DYK would be to require nominators to name the source the fact is being taken from on the suggestions' page.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth I have wanted to contribute to the process in some way but found it confusing and didn't want to mess things up by moving something that seemed fine but wasn't ect. As a suggestion maybe cleaning off some of the items off the page to subpages. Like admins who help when backlogged and the bot generated lists to make the page more concise. Also getting bots to vet the article and hook length might make sense. I'm not an admin but it seems like automating some of the processes to upload to main page and update all the related articles and back-room tasks could also be automated to a degree. Benjiboi 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK rules

I want to know how this DYK system works. Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) was nominated many days ago. It was unaccepted by an admin, because it was "not unusual" and "not concise". It was eventually included in the Next Update (WELL over 5 days after creation), then was removed because at the time, much of the info was simply removed, making the article too short. This was without the knowledge of any editor/DYK admin (and also I wasn't online at the time which I would have taken action to fix the problem). I would like to know what is going on with this DYK system, and whether it is up to the expected standards. I feel that this system has a number of flaws that need fixing. Please look at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 18. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about what happened to you. I observe the 5 day rule. Some bend that rule. I don't take things off the next update and wouldn't unless it was really bad, not referenced, or something like that. If someone has misbehaved, politely discuss it with them and here. My main complaint is that DYK is often late and this cuts down on the number of hooks accepted. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Elections

I added the following hook to next update:

User:WJBscribe commented on my talk page saying "I'm a little uneasy about so political a hook being included during an election campaign. Wikipedia is bound to be attacked for favouring the campaigns of people it chooses to included on the mainpage and we aren't going to be able to afford everyone equal time. I know its a little unfair to the editor who has worked hard on the Tom Tancredo presidential campaign, 2008 article, but I don't its an appropriate hook."

A similar entry on Chris Dodd's campaign was removed from the main page by User:DragonflySixtyseven.

I don't think having entries on ongoing election campaigns is a problem. Wikipedia isn't obliged to give candidates equal time and shouldn't be censored for electoral fairness. What do you think?--Carabinieri (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason for censorship and no harm in accepting DYK noms for political articles. The same DYK rules of new article/expanded five fold apply to all articles and any Wikipedia editor is free to create or expand any article about any candidate. However, I do think we should be mindful of the articles WP:NPOV (much as we would be mindful of a WP:BLP) and not promote an article with obvious POV problems. AgneCheese/Wine 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be mindful of avoiding it looking like Wikipedia is endorsing any political candidates. I believe strong complaints have been received by the Office in the past. We really don't need some massive public row about what candidates are receiving the most prominent coverage on Wikipedia. I suggest a note somewhere to advise DYK updaters against picking such entries. WjBscribe 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully have to disagree because I don't see how it can be interpreted as Wikipedia endorsing anything. I could possibly see a case if we were talking about Feature Articles but the description of DYK on the main page is pretty clear that this is a listing of some of Wikipedia's "newest articles". Wikipedia make no decision of which candidate, campaign or issue gets a new or expanded article-the editors do and if the content is acceptable to be included in Wikipedia then that new article should be treated equally as all the others. AgneCheese/Wine 15:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, I think the article on Tancredo's election campaign is ill-suited to DYK, because it's a sub-article. I'd much rather feature some of our articles on actually new topics instead of new facets of old topics. 24.250.193.241 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's far too USA-centric. I doubt anybody would think about putting something similar but relating to, say, the elections in East Timor in DYK. There's also the massive problem of being perceived to be non neutral and e-mails of complaint are received in relation to material such as this being on DYK. Nick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse removal. Basically, DYK is for highlighting new articles, not news stories. Once this starts, the nature will change.--Docg 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tricky question. It's very clear (to us) that this is a neutral factual selection that we do daily, and that's all it is. But the external appearance probably isn't so comprehending.
Encyclopedic articles are edited without much heed for "how it might look", subject to two contraints: neutrality, and strong exceptions for certain material in BLP's. Even then, to underline how strongly we write articles to our standards and not "how it might look", the additional exceptions for BLP are still quite tightly limited to unsupported or non-conservative material. Non-bias (NPOV) for or against any topic or fact is paramount in article writing.
Not so front page items. These (whether main page articles or DYK) are a selection we choose, to present Wikipedia to the world. They aim to catch interest and show the quality and breadth of work we do. That is their goal. If a topic is omitted, it does not necessarily mean that our showcasing is harmed.
There are some sensible considerations why certain content may or may not be suitable for the front page. For example, an article on sexual abuse or some Middle East matter (to take two themes) may be contentious to some, but may also precisely showcase to the world our ability to write high quality informative and encyclopedic content even on difficult emotive topics. That's what these articles are intended to do. But articles on current matters of high public interest, that inherently highlight one side (but not the other) of that matter, will appear to imply biased selection. The perception that one part of the field was highlighted and not the other, is likely to arise in many viewers minds and be discussed negatively.
(For example, suppose a new piece of software came out, and we showcased during its launch, the article Criticisms of X software [We have several articles of this kind of title]. Or suppose the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was in the news for some major charitable endowment and we mainpaged at the same time the article Criticisms of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or put up a DYK on "Steve Jobs charitable work". However neutrally written it may be, would we really expect people to feel this was just a neutral selection? Would we not be better to hold it back and use some other article instead, using this one later when it was no longer topical?)
In the case of main page presentations, we aren't really under any pressure to voluntarily place ourselves in this position, nor does it benefit us. Whilst such articles may be fascinating, there are many others equally able to do the job, and the held-back articles will still be accessible in future when the matter would no longer be seen as a present concern, for more general interest.
For these reasons there may be a fair case for deciding to hold back some articles related to topics of high current interest, that inherently will highlight one aspect only of contentious multi-sided issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to have censorship you should make sure everybody knows what is being censored on the suggestions page.--STX 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In non-profit legalese you need to fairly include (give opportunity to) all candidates; this, in part, means that if you have a town hall meeting, for instance, that all candidates are invited. Wikipdia's process is open to all candidates and we don't seem to be showing any favoritism whatsoever, and, in fact, might be censoring by not fairly allowing all DYK write-ups to be considered without prejudice. Just as we don't censor potential articles about the shortcomings of ou current elected officials but have them adhere to wikipedia standards for good articles and biographies. Benjiboi 23:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No you are just censoring some articles that are sourced, unbiased and not allowing the editors to those articles to have the same benefits as the editors to other articles. Again if you are going to censor these pages make a note of it on the suggestion page so that editors who edit these types of articles will make sure they do not post any such suggestions.--STX 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has an elaborate "criticism" section and is unbiased. Any additional exposure Tancredo gets as a result of the entry being featured on the main page is as much negative as it is posivite. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page is part of the encyclopedia. We don't omit coverage of the riots in France, for example, in order to avoid encouraging kids there to to take part. We cover Nawaz Sharif's return to Pakistan, even though he's a current candidate. Why should we deal with American elections any differently?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I also like how the admin replaced my well sourced, well written article with a stub. --STX 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia. I know that these articles are neutral, but putting them on the main page of Wikipedia, where tens of millions of people will see them, provide certain candidates with additional publicity. I can certainly imagine other candidates demanding the same kind of publicity. As such, while the articles are neutral, I do not think that they should appear on the main page, at least during the primary campaign. Danny (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In fairness the current US Presidential campaign has been going on for months and is still a year away from completion. Benjiboi 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is not going to be widely noticed. I started a discussion on the village pump. With a year until elections in the U.S., this will certainly come up again. [8] — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

This article was listed yesterday on DYK. It was unilaterally removed and now the hook is not in the DYK archieves, the talk page of the article has not been marked, nor has the author's talk page been marked.--STX 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by User:DragonflySixtyseven, probably for the reasons being discussed in the preceding section. I think this removal was improper. The entry was on the suggestions' page for several, but noone opposed the nomination. Then the editor replaced it with an entry of his own, which was never nominated. Further, the entry was not returned to the suggestions' page, nor was the issue raised on this page. The entry just disappeared.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please archive it, and place the DYK message on the talk page of the article and the editor who nominated the hook?--STX 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone objects to that. I would do it myself but I don't know the DYK system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Palladium Shopping Center

Perhaps as proof that the system may be a bit complicated Palladium Shopping Center was nominated incorrectly on the template page at the bottom under the bot generated lists. It would be nice if this could be rescued for DYK if possible. Benjiboi 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It has several problems. 1) It needs copyediting according to the template on the top of the article. 2) Most important, it is unsourced. Royalbroil 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I've added a wikiproject tag onto talk as well as a google search link. My hunch is this is a new editor who's not familiar with editing processes thus nominated a DYK improperly at the bottom of the nomination page and didn't wikify the article itself enough fro the DYK process. Benjiboi 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It contains hoax informations, it never collapsed. It definitely needs a proofreading. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this work?

Based on reports to AN/ANI, it seems to be late almost every day recently, I'd be willing to help out with updating but I don't know how DYK works.—Random832 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Random832, help is always appreciated at DYK. The project tries to update every 6 hours. It's just an arbitrary ticking clock to create a sense of urgency that keeps things moving. Delayed updates are really only a problem when there are lots of good expired nominations at the bottom of the nomination page. Updating the template is pretty simple. When the {{DYK-Refresh}} clock turns red, just go to T:DYK/N and copy the new hooks over to T:DYK. If you have the time, it's good to glance over the hooks once more for grammar/neutrality. Don't worry too much about making mistakes because people will complain even if you do everything perfect. Then comes the thanking/archiving part which is explained at the bottom of T:DYK/N. It's a less scary process than it seems! --JayHenry (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a more detailed official version which makes it sound more complicated than it is. --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive old talk items

Could someone please archive non-active discussions as this page is getting quite long. Thank you! Benjiboi 09:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

November 26

I would appreciate it if someone gave my hook a chance. I created the article 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on November 26, and it is well-sourced to (31) different sources. I addressed an issue Carabinieri (talk · contribs) had with the hook. Thanks, Cirt 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Cirt 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

T:TDYK

How do we nominate articles to be on the DYK part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.158.178 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to T:TDYK. --74.14.20.57 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
More precisely here Victuallers 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding your own self-noms to Next Update ?

  • DIFF - I have avoided adding my own self-noms to Template:Did you know/Next update, and instead wait for others to add them. But is this considered appropriate, or not? Cirt 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
I think editors should be discouraged from adding their own hooks (especially adding your own hook and not sticking around to do any more of the help!) This hook spent an appropriate amount of time at T:TDYK and so I see no reason to remove it, but perhaps we could drop Pastordavid a polite note? Make it clear that there's nothing wrong with his hook at all, but if we did not discourage people adding their own hooks we could end up with a free-for-all on our hands and people who would abuse the system. --JayHenry 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to already have the wording and idea down, why don't you drop him the note? That way it's not coming from the editor that initially picked up on it, but from a third-party. Thanks, Cirt 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
No need for the note. My apologies. I did not see a clear statement one way or the other on whether or not that was appropriate, so I just went ahead. Now I know for next time. Again, sorry for going outside of the conventional steps. Perhaps it would help to have that stated somewhere? Pastordavid 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK / Article expansion question

Re: the article Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming less than One Hour). How much of the existing article counts for how much is needed to expand 5x in order to count for a WP:DYK expansion? Is it just the paragraph-style text at the top, or does the list/bulleted stuff count as well, further down? In either case, an estimate of what the current character count is for the article, that would apply as a base to need to be expanded upon 5x, would be appreciated. Thanks, Cirt 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Well, I am going to start work on expanding this article, hopefully to over 5x its current size. I'd like it to be considered for a WP:DYK expansion based on the blurb text, excluding the bulleted list which doesn't provide as much as far as content goes. Cirt 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
    • I think for the time being I'm going to focus on other articles, but I'd still like some clarifcation on WP:DYK/expansion as applied to Lists and articles that are stubs save for large List format. Cirt 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
      • From past observation, I think people typically do not count bulleted lists, infoboxes and reference sections and pull quotes toward the character count. --JayHenry (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hook character count`

Are the three ellipses, the word "that" and question mark included in the character count? I know spaces count. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Three dots (one ellipsis) don't count. "That" counts. "?" counts. This isn't documented anywhere except User:Art LaPella/Long hook, which is probably just as well because being too specific defeats the purpose of the "about" as in "about 200 characters". Art LaPella 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that one "ellipsis" is three dots, and for answering my question. I do not intend to submit hooks that are very close to 200 characters. In future, when nominating articles for DYK, I will include a character count next to each hook. Knowing the answer to this question ensures the character counts are accurate. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

November 28

FYI, there are at least four noms from November 28 that I see, that are acceptable for Next Update, but were never chosen so far. As one of them is my self-nom, I will refrain from this next update, but I'd much appreciate it if these were considered, they just didn't make it in time. Thanks, Cirt 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Thanks. Cirt 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
  • But of course, good sir. By the way, if anyone out there is science minded, another set of eyes at Nitrogen-vacancy center would be appreciated. I lack the knowledge to know if the hook is accurate, though I assume it is and have added it to T:DYK/N. --JayHenry 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's so important to get these next updates to the main page. I've seen it hours late, even whole cycles missed. If there are an average of 7 per cycle and 20 cycles missed a month, that's 140 lost opportunities! Archtransit 21:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also someone noted this: Note to admins: Pls check Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Next DYK) before moving anything to the main page. The current set appears too long on my monitor screen. --74.14.19.239 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! Can we relabel Horatia? :It was Horatia Nelson who took that name, was asked by Horatio Nelson to use that name, and that in DYK terms Horatia Nelson is a name that is by itself a hook. And we've relabelled her Thompson. The hook could have been just two words. Current hook is more like a summary (I think) Victuallers (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bennie Osler

Why has my nomination for Bennie Osler on November 29 not been included? The comment was about how the hook was written, and alternatives have been suggested long ago that should fix this. The article meets the criteria for inclusion, was this an over-sight or am I jumping the gun? - Shudde talk 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be picked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I wasn't sure, because some from 30 November have been up. Just wanted to check. Thanks. - Shudde talk 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trusty system

I would like to ask the same thing about Trusty system as was asked about Bennie Osler. I did everything I could and would have accepted any more suggestions, other than arguing how Trusty is spelled. I worked hard on that article and feel frustrated! Mattisse 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it will still be picked. The first reference also uses the spelling "trusty" so the spelling isn't really a problem. Page is just a bit behind right now. --JayHenry (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If DYK would be updated on time, every good hook would be selected. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate hook

Riley Ann Sawyers is on the DYK and main page. This is a recent murder. This should be in the news section, not DYK. Some will argue that the murder of the week is inappropriate for WP and should be deleted, see debate on Emily Sander and those two murdered young adults (Newsom and Cannon, one of them named Christopher?) Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We have this discussion periodically,:
I think that there's a loose consensus that the criteria for DYK involve article length and existence of sources. There's been reluctance to add more rules and regulations about timeliness, notability, validity of certain topics, etc. You can see why -- there's concern a couple of threads up that DYK is already too confusing and has too many rules and bureaucracy. --JayHenry (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should use their best judgement. We should try to do best and not what is barely acceptable in every area of WP. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the clock?

The next update was set for around 20:00 hours and suddenly it's reset back to 0:32, pushing the update back almost five hours. How did that happen? Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it. Gatoclass (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I had fixed it but forgot to mention it here, sorry. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

Frank Anstey

A redirect is currently being featured. User:Qst created a duplicated article Francis George Anstey, which was inferior to the existing article Frank Anstey, and it was then converted to a redirect by User:Rebecca.--Grahame (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed it from the current template, as it isn't eligible for DYK. No judgment on whether they have been merged appropriately or which is a better title for the article, but it clearly wouldn't result in a 5x expansion of a topic. Too bad this hadn't been noted on the suggestions page. Rigadoun (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion on a path to user-friendliness

Y could be used by the approved DYK wonks to signify that the item has been vetted for accuracy (and length requirements) and is ready for uploading. I think this would make it readily apparent to those doing the work which items have been processed already. Benjiboi 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This is now (at least) the third time some such system has been proposed. I think it is clear that DYK needs a bit of reformation. Awadewit | talk 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Beyond! DYK seems to be a treasured and valuable aspect but its wonkiness is systematically off-putting to those who would benefit most from its user-friendliness. It reminds me of the psych-evaluation tests that if you could complete the test it proved you weren't "crazy" enough therefore denied service. In our case, if you can't navigate the hurdles of formatting, referencing and nominating within the arbitrary time format (all of which is clearly explained on a bewildering array of wikispeak articles utilizing various warnings and links to distract you from completing your task) you're screwed, game over - bye. And your article? Well, we're going to send goons around to disparage your efforts and delete any proof it ever existed. Thus your time here was an exercise in futility. (Please note this is meant as humor but real people's feelings are dented when confronted with a (hopefully) well-meaning system that instead makes volunteering their time, talent and wisdom an uphill battle.) Benjiboi 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Benji, I've always felt DYK should be as user-friendly as possible. So I sincerely want to help fix any problems. What part of the guidelines on submissions are, in your opinion, too confusing? I ask frankly because, having been many places on the Wiki, I've always found DYK to be by far the least wonky of them all. --JayHenry (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's a start,
  • I would replace the page as is with an easily-digestible overview aimed to first-time and non-English-as-first-language users. Here is our end goal, here is where to input your suggestions with tips and guidelines at the top.
  • Add a page just for DYK specialists to move all those entries that have been vetted and approved for publishing. So,
  1. Start page for raw entries;
  2. Holding pen for those entries vetted and approved and
  3. Final page for uploading.
  • I would clear off the bot generated list to another page; it adds volume and confusion both of which are not helpful. A Separate area explaining how you can help can be added somewhere logical. Possibly this would be an instruction page for those wanting to be DYK specialists.
  • I would clear off the timeclock, admins list and potential DYK specialists list to it's own page; it adds volume and confusion both of which are not helpful.
  • I would have a bold intro "First time at DYK" or similar including a top ten reasons items aren't included; this could also be a step 1-? (e.g. use this tool to check your article is long enough), etc.

From there I could certainly offer more but I see this as great start. Benjiboi 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Art LaPella 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I love Benjiboi's suggestions. It can be quite time consuming to load all of the articles into the next update. The biggest time consumer for me, in the times that I have promoted the DYK, is checking to see if all of the suggestions criteria are met. It is a great idea to have an area where all of the "approved" articles would reside. Then the articles that meet the minimum DYK criteria could be approved long before the final moment. The merits of actually using the article could be discussed there on the approved page if necessary. An approved area would eliminate the part that really slows down the process in a time crunch situation - checking to see if all of the suggestions criteria are met. This approved area should be formatted exactly the same as next update for easy updates to next update. The next update could be then be loaded quite quickly by a non-admin or the updating admin. The updating admin can deal with the image issues and promoted the update.
I also agree that the bot results take up too much space on the page and that they should be moved in an area accessible by a click from the navigation template. One newbie suggested an article by pasting it at the bottom of the suggestions page. It was never seen until it was too late.
We need to make this process easier so first time users can suggest easier, experienced DYK contributors can help make the promoting phase move along quicker and make it less error prone, and most importantly make it quicker for the promoting admin so that more updates can be loaded per day. Royalbroil 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, User:W.marsh and some others had a set of similar ideas about a month ago: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_23#In_case_anyone.27s_failed_to_notice... --JayHenry 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in that discussion I asked how I could be of help but received no suggestions. I was subsequently (more or less) told that I was doing bad, so I stopped helping at all. Is there a way I could help that will not end up with many people criticizing me? Mattisse 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum - I would really appreciate an answer on this. If there is no way I can help, please tell me that. Mattisse 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm in the middle of several projects and will continue to be throughout the weekend but I intend to push things in a better direction as consensus seems that changes probably would help. If we start with some of the obvious issues hopefully some elegant solutions will present themselves. This is a very active project so everything we touch will affect the work so we should be reasonably judicious and act cautious enough. I'm convinced as well that we'll need admins assistance as maybe a bot specialist or two. Essentially we'll be creating one or two new pages and then editing all of them for user-friendliness and adding some intuitive directions so newby editors go one spot and it's easy to use. We need to do this but we also need to get it right so this will be step by step. Benjiboi 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A bot perhaps?

I have been looking for an opportunity to create a bot and this might be an opportunity to do it. For now, would anyone object if I "clerk" here to get a feel for what needs to be done and mark articles that meet/don't meet the criteria? spryde | talk 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking it over more, the bot would check what it could: Hook is less than X, Page created or expanded after Y, etc. The template added would look like:
Article created or expanded within the last five days
Hook is 200 characters or less.
Article is less than 1500 characters.
Hook is sourced
Hook is NPOV
Hook is clear
Being new to this, I can think of a few other items (treating this like AFD where there is a main page that has links to sub pages and such and treats each nom as a separate entity. spryde | talk 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You might use some ideas from this similar proposal that hasn't gone over: User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot. Since I wrote that, this has been added to WP:DYK#Formatting: "Entries should start with an ellipsis of three full stops (not the ellipsis character …), and end with a question mark."
Also, when a hook is too long (not simply 201 characters - email me for my criteria, which I don't want people to "game") I link to User:Art LaPella/Long hook for more explanation. So similar pages could be written to explain other routine problems in detail, and linked from your templates. Art LaPella 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"A main page that has links to sub pages and such and treats each nom as a separate entity" would be almost a necessity for a bot, because of the difficulty of separating hooks from other associated comments when reading the existing T:TDYK. This is especially true if the hook lacks the most bot-recognizable attributes of a hook, that is, "...", "that", bolding, and "?". Excluding "that", these attributes are required by the rules, but contributors often don't know that (in some cases they do know and systematically don't bother). It's also especially true if the hook includes extra sentences beyond the "?". It's also especially true if a comment includes a new version of a hook that should be proofread - or just a fragment of a hook to explain a small change.
However, the existing display is also a necessity for human proofreading (a bot can't do everything), because it's a lot easier to read down the page - or more precisely, through the changes since the last proofreading time - than to enter a separate page for each hook. I think the best solution would be for the bot to use the separate pages as input, to create a page that looks more like the existing display, to enable human proofreading. Art LaPella 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood. However, I was thinking about something like AFD where you have a single page where each items is presented in a list and each subpage is transcluded into the main page. After a certain period of time, the bot will archive off past nominations. Anyway, that is a ways off. I have a simple bot right now that reads and writes to pages. I would need to add the regexes (and more importantly, approval from all stakeholders).
So from the initial page proposal, the following apply to DYK hooks:
  • Each entry has at least one bolded link.
  • Each entry starts with {{*mp}}…
  • No space immediately after …
  • 3 dots, not 2, not 4 or more.
  • Sometimes one character is used that prints as 3 dots. I’m in the habit of changing to 3 real dots when I notice, to make sure :::::it shows the same for everyone, but no one has ever complained so it might not matter. Anyway, either change the character or :::::recognize it as a substitute.
  • It should include a question mark, although this may be controversial with one editor (I’m not sure). It doesn’t necessarily come at the end because occasionally there are 2 sentences. There should not be a space immediately before the question mark.
Once I get these working, I will email for the rest of the guidelines. The holidays are coming up so this may have to wait until next year. spryde | talk 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a template developed that is both user and bot friendly even if initially the DYK wonks have to slowly roll these out while the bugs are sorted. Ideally would have spots for name of article being nominated, date of creation/expansion, name of creator/expander(s); hook, alt hook(s) and sections for length, and other items that need to be vetted with a default of TBD with the bots doing whatever checking possible to modify each item as checked or error for a human to follow up. Benjiboi 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I also like the idea of a bot. I think you should use positive-affirming stuff instead of negative, so instead of Article is less than 1500 characters., use Article is more than 1500 characters. I also wonder if these new bot notices on the T:TDYK page will clog up the page even more, and if there is some way around this? Cirt 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
I struggled with either the use of the negative sign and an explanation of what was wrong or a negative sign versus what was checked. Would work better for items that fail the basic criteria? spryde | talk 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Either way, just something to think about, it's not too big of a sticking point for me. What about people who disagree with the bot's assessment of their noms? What is the next step for them to do, bring a notice to this talk page? Remove the bot's notices themselves or change them? Cirt 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
Well, some of it is black and white. Article length, hook length, creation date, etc. Other items that are more subjective I would rather just provide the fields for an admin/third party to finish reviewing (hence my request to clerk a bit). I think the template is a way we can streamline the process and quickly run through quite a few items. Maybe I should create a mockup of what I propose to visually illustrate this. spryde | talk 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, some of it is black and white. A mockup would be a great idea. As for your offer to clerk T:TDYK, I would most certainly support that offer. We are definitely in need of more helpers at WP:DYK. Cirt 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
Maybe the fields for a DYK nom can be: Hook, Nominator, Author. Simple and to the point. A response template can be made that has all the other fields. spryde | talk 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Submission template

Well, I worked on one a bit and it is finally somewhat stable.{{User:Sp/DYKSub}}. This simplifies the formatting issue a bit and let's experienced editors submit quickly.

Using {{User:Sp/DYKSub |selfnom=Shshshsh |hook=the '''[[Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Awards]]''' given in [[India]] were formerly known as the Red and White Bravery Awards and its name was changed in response to protests about it being related to [[cigarettes]]}} would provide:



Using {{User:Sp/DYKSub |nominator=Sp |author=Shshshsh |hook=the '''[[Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Awards]]''' given in [[India]] were formerly known as the Red and White Bravery Awards and its name was changed in response to protests about it being related to [[cigarettes]]}} would provide:



Not sure if anyone would find this useful. It is still rough around the edges but could perhaps be useful. My checking template is coming along as well though I figured with step one of the whole process should be what gets submitted :) spryde | talk 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It "simplifies the formatting issue a bit" only if everyone, including newbies, remembers to omit the formatting that the template supplies, which you yourself failed to remember (notice the "that that" bug). But if we could somehow make everybody use it, the bot could distinguish hooks from comments. "lets experienced editors submit quickly" is puzzling - requiring us to master some previously unrequired template syntax has the bot advantage I just described, but we won't correctly submit more quickly by removing the WYSIWYG factor. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I want to do a bit of string parsing to see if it starts with the correct item, ending with the question, etc. This is a rough draft as such to see if there is interest. The optimal solution is the AfD method with a central main page and subpages that are transcluded into the central page. That allows segregation of each dyk submission and bot friendliness. I need to think about this quite a bit more as I would rather do this right than rush into something. spryde | talk 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you're still thinking, the AfD method is perhaps optimal but consider this easier-to-program compromise: we leave everything on the existing page, but we ask everyone to start each hook with the word "HOOK", and comments with the word "COMMENT". The software would recognize variations such as "Hook", "hook", "hook:", "VERSION" (for alternate versions of a hook), and ::*VERSION (indentation and bulleting) as synonyms for "HOOK", and edit them. Anything that starts with "SIGNATURE", "SIG", "COMMENT", or maybe "NOM" (with similar variations) would go unedited. We get compliance by 1. getting a consensus 2. manually adding the prefixes throughout the page, once only, when we're ready and 3. error messages for anything without a recognizable prefix, or for a hook that includes a time (hh:mm indicating an unseparated signature). Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I really think there's no way for the AFD method to work. It would require dozens of subpages to be created every day, it will be very confusing for people, it would completely mess up the way that a lot of people vet hooks and do the next update. I hate to just be a naysayer, but I see nothing but negatives in the idea of turning Did You Know into thousands of subpages. --JayHenry (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about "...something like AFD where you have a single page where each items is presented in a list and each subpage is transcluded into the main page", so vetting hooks wouldn't change much. The next update could be one click per hook, including saving credits - thanking could also be automated. Yes, it's an added layer of complication - but if you saw how much work I do here every few hours, you would understand why I favor of some kind of automation, whether it's the AfD model or another one. Art LaPella (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Refocus a bit

I'd like to start a sub thread about the original proposal: simplifying for new editors. We should certainly look at the wording of Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions and suggest ways to make it simpler. But I know when I first joined I found these instructions incredibly clear (what's more, I don't see anything that's superfluous), and so I wonder if perhaps we need to make a system for people who are simply averse to or overwhelmed by reading instructions. This is just an idea, but what if we made an extremely simple help center. At the top of the suggestions page, we could have a link "If you are new to Did You Know, and find this page confusing, come to our help center."

The help center could briefly contain the mission statement of DYK at the top of the page, and then say, "If you have an article you'd like to nominate for Did You Know please click here and tell us about it. An experienced editor will be along shortly to help." And have that be it. I think a handful of experienced DYK editors watching the page would be all that's needed to help new editors "graduate" to T:TDYK. Some editors can be very blunt at T:TDYK, but at DYK/HELP we can encourage a culture of patience, kindness and careful explanation. --JayHenry (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That may work provided there are enough people to help out. Maybe a {{dykhelp}} template. I have actually worked on a few things and the first items and will start posting about them soon. spryde | talk 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK selection etiquette

Since I took an interest in this project, I've noticed a couple of things that bother me a tad.

Firstly, some users seem to take their selections from any place over the last five days. But the DYK rules page clearly states (I quote): In practice, to ensure that all suggestions are given fair consideration, the oldest suggestions listed on the suggestions page are selected first, to ensure that they don't go stale before they are chosen.

That seems like a very good rule to me but it appears to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. Every time a hook is picked from a more recent day, it means that a hook that is about to expire misses out on selection. I think users really ought to be sticking to the above rule a lot more closely. IMO the only reason more recent hooks should be chosen is if (a) the available suggestions from the oldest day are probably not worthy of selection; (b) there is not enough variety of content in the oldest suggestions. (And if either of (a) or (b) is the case, users should try to take their selections from the next oldest day, not just any day).

If users stuck to this rule, it would ensure that all submissions get an even chance for selection.

The second point is that I note some users make multiple selections for a given update. I can't help but think this is a tad unfair to other users who might also want to make a selection for that update. Might I suggest that users limit themselves to one or two selections per update? That would ensure that more people get a chance to make a selection. IMO the only reason a given user should be selecting more than one, or at most two hooks for a given update is if the update time is already expired and the update is yet to be filled. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. The first part sounds very reasonable, I always take hooks from the oldest date, or perhaps the second-oldest date, if we need more variability (e.g. material from different countries.)
  2. This second request about not having one individual editor take multiple hooks to the next update - it seems to me that oftentimes T:DYK is not updated in time because the next update has not been done yet, so my feeling is if we have editors that wish to do this, all the power to them. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Well, thankyou for abiding by the first rule Cirt :)
Regarding your second comment, in the couple of weeks I have been hanging around here, I've only seen one occasion when the update was not completed with only half an hour or so to update time. But I have seen numerous occasions when the update was complete long before, and yet the main page still wasn't updated hours after it should have been.
I think if, you know, there's only fifteen minutes to go to the next update time, then there is no reason why a single user should not take it upon himself to make multiple selections to complete the update. But some users are making multiple selections only minutes after the last update has been posted!
I mean, I have my preferred hooks, and it would be easy for me to just paste the lot to the update page, but I don't do it because I think that would be unfair to other people who might have a particular hook or hooks they would like to promote. I limit myself to one selection per update, maybe an extra one if there are a couple of entries I strongly feel deserve promotion. I'd feel very uncomfortable about selecting any more because I'd feel I was hogging the process. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think we need all the help we can get at Next Update. If there is an Administrator Backlog, yes, that's one thing, but getting the Next Updates ready makes it easier for them. As long as you make sure that all the hooks are varied, e.g. a variety of countries represented, topics, not the same types of pictures too many times in a row, etc., I really don't think it's a big deal. Hopefully, all of the acceptable hooks will make it in at some update anyway. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Using recent, unproofread hooks is the main source of typos and such on the Main Page, so be extra careful if you use them. Art LaPella (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Nairobi

I am disappointed that the History of Nairobi was allowed to expire. The article, although originally a fork, was completely rewritten. If you compare it to the original fork, hardly anything is the same. I added much new information and references. I rewrote what was there. Please do compare the versions. It is essentially a new article. Mattisse 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For example, the hook was not in the original article, nor was the photo. Mattisse 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Plus Art LaPella rewrote the hook even. Mattisse 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I still think the hook is chauvinistic. Is the most interesting thing one can say about Nairobi that there was a US embassy bombing there? However, it's a little late to start trying to come up with an alternative now. I've just trimmed a little flab from it instead. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that and thought the same thing! If I lived in Nairobi, would I think "is that what my city is known for?" Archtransit (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know ...

(Sorry, sometimes it's just funny to talk in "Did you know" language.) Cirt (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

The word "sex" in a hook - allowed or not?

Although Wikipedia is not censored, we are more careful with the content on the Main Page. For example, FAs about sexual organs would not appear on the main page. However, would a DYK hook containing the word "sex" be allowed if the article was about a romantic comedy?

Here is a draft of the hook (it can be improved, if I am given the green light to write the article and nominate it for DYK):

...that the Singaporean movie That One No Enough, the directorial debut of Jack Neo, was initially named Sex No Enough, but the title was changed following objections from the Singapore censors?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedia is not censored, but this is another hook you could work with if you wanted to work on creating the article while awaiting clarification. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

I plan my GAs and DYKs weeks (sometimes even months) before actually writing them, so I would rather wait for a clear answer regarding this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear that the word is allowed. We recently had several entries on homosexuality in the animal kingdom, so Sex No Enough should hardly be a problem.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If other DYK regulars (I assume you are one) agree with you, I can start my research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont see anything wrong with the word in this context. if it was describing a sexual act, or something of the sort, I am sure it could be objectionable but it is not.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Second. I agree with Chrislk02 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
Well, we had a DYK item of a Greek vase depicting a sexual act, including an image, not long ago, and there wasn't a single objection (and no vandalism either). athinaios (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Since there is consensus that this hook is fine, I will start my research. Hopefully you will see the article on DYK in a month's time. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbering hooks

Does anyone else think numbering hooks on the suggestions page instead of just using bullets might prove useful?

It would make it easy to see how many hooks there are available for selection every day. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It would also look odd on the main page, next to all the other sections which are bulleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the suggestion was to keep the numbers on the main page, but just on the suggestions. It's not a bad idea, for the reason Gatoclass gives, although in practice I think it might get messed up frequently as some of the longer comments on hooks don't start with the asterisk (*) and I don't think it would continue numbering with images in between. Rigadoun (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just talking about the suggestions page, not the main page. But you may be right about the images, I think they do confuse the counting software don't they? Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports Trivia

Last few days these have been showing up. Some fut bawl thug drops a ball a couple times ten years ago? Why is this appearing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.143.99 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Michigan football

This may just be me, but it seems as if the Michigan football team has been mentioned over several days in the DYK. This is disappointing as it shows a lack of interest in choosing a broader group of articles, and would hope that DYK entries don't continue to have to do with University of Michigan or any other topic for that matter back to back day by day. --71.107.7.108 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See #When Wolverines Attack! above. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When Wolverines Attack!

We've had something like nine Michigan Wolverines athlete articles in DYK in the last week or so. None of them have been for especially interesting people. As a person whose father taught for 17 years at Michigan, I still have to stay: "Don't Go Blue!" Enough is most assuredly enough. (And no, I haven't switched my loyalties to Ohio State.)--Mike Selinker 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible in such cases to look ahead in the noms, and to pull several to be featured as a single line: "...that X, Y, Z, and Q are Wolverines?" That way the new articles are featured without taking a slot away from other articles or getting undue time on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a great idea. Cirt 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
There's another one, Dan Dworsky, in the pipe for tomorrow, bring one user's total of DYKs in the last week to a staggering 12 articles (see the bottom of User_talk:Cbl62 for details). After Mr. Dworsky, I think it might be time for the Wolverines to go into hibernation on DYK, just for fairness's sake. Especially with interesting new college football articles like Platypus Trophy having nominations on the DYK suggestions page.--Mike Selinker 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is unfair to prevent someone's legitimate DYK from being featured on the Main Page because related items have been featured all too often in recent times. Also, you would be surprised to know that this happens quite frequently, but people don't seem to pick it up. If you check the DYKs for the last 2-3 weeks, you will see that there have been a high number of Vietnamese-related topics (kudos to Blnguyen) and India-Bangladeshi topics. Before that, we had a high concentration of Carnatic topics on DYK. There's probably more that I haven't picked up either. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nishkid. Two further examples would be the large number of wine-related entries (Agne27) and those about legislators from Colorado (Sethant).--Carabinieri 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
...and my famed California-New Jersey congressman articles from last year (15-20ish in about a week and half heh). :) I stopped after people started complaining. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK is about rewarding diligent and effective work by users and providing a place to recognize it. We only need to make sure each group of 6-8 articles on the main page is balanced, its not really a long term issue.Bakaman 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the way this is going but I hope that Mike Selinker's point wasn't lost. I have tried to propose double and treble noms where one subject starts creating daily or hourly articles. That mops up excess and hopefully does not dampen enthusiasm. In fact I was wondering if a certain soriety had ever been involved with a Powderfinger song about Vietnamese wine? Now that would be a nom! Victuallers 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly feel my point has been heard. I guess with Ohio State playing for the national championship, Wolverines fans need something to feel good about. A zillion DYKs on obscure players sounds like it fits that bill just fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We have had too many Michigan Wolverine articles. And it seems that they keep coming from some user called TonytheTiger. This boy needs to stop writing them because no one really wants to keep reading a Wolverine fact EVERY single day for weeks! No one cares! Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaddon13 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above comment is very polite. If Tony is writing qualified articles that pass WP notability standards, Kudos to him. They should be featured on DYK. Now I suppose I could be considered bias since, as mentioned previously in this thread, I do write a bit of wine articles. Though truth be told I do try to consciously space this out with different region/wine styles/etc so I don't load up the cue with 5 DYKs about French wines or something. Hmm...Vietnamese wine is currently a red link. :) AgneCheese/Wine 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Agne. If editors are contributing and writing good articles, they deserve to be recognized and have them at DYK. If other editors complain, they should themselves contribute material as well. How does the phrase go.. put up or... Cirt (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
We could make an exception to DYK time standards so that we don't give undue weight and space the articles out, keeping them in a holding area. I am imagining the addition to the criteria would read something like: "At times a single writer will write and submit for DKY consideration a spree of articles on a single subject during a short time span. In order to avoid the appearance of undue weight in featuring substantially similar articles during an abbreviated period, the normal time period restrictions on these articles is waived and the DYK hooks for these articles will be placed in the holding area below so that they may be staggered over a more appropriate time period."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that someone discovers DYK and keeps submitting their favourite articles/types of articles - and due to a relatively small number of contributors, they keep getting featured. Anyone reading DYK over the past couple of months would think everyone in Ireland was a rabid Provisional IRA supporter judging by the number of IRA-related DYKs and the paucity of other Irish-related DYKs, for example. I'd suggest a limit of one nomination to DYK per month per user, and a limit of one DYK per topic per month. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would serve to dry things up no end, since the bulk of DYK is (still, despite constant hope) done by a small collection of dedicated editors. I can also see the risk of what would be a much faster collection of articles (Wolverines players, for example, being a finite if very large number) being written over a longer period of time, rather than more rapidly. There's also the risk of defining precisely what a "topic" is for these purposes - is an article about an IRA member under the "Ireland" topic, the "IRA" topic, the "biography" topic, the "terrorism" topic or something entirely different? As is just about always the case, the cure for there being too many articles hitting DYK about Topic X is to write more articles about Topic Y of an equal or greater standard to those being written about Topic X. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining "Did You Know?"

There is a discussion ongoing about a proposal to change the way administrators update the Did you know section on the main page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Streamlining "Did You Know?". The intent of the change is to ensure that DKY gets updated on schedule; the change should not substantially effect the DKY selection process, or the writing and vetting of the hooks. In the interest of keeping discussion centralized, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DKY? I thought it was DYK? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
After all this time you weren't aware we were contributing to "Did Know You"  ? Cirt (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
Most people contribute to DYK. I contribute to DKY (Didn't you Know, You idiot?) (I'm the idiot not you..see, I don't bite others) I did add constructive comments to the discussion on ANChergles (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Balancing

I don't understand this. Why were eleven items added to DYK on the main page all at once, especially when (1) we are running ahead of schedule, (2) the batch includes two hooks for hockey, (3) the batch includes two hooks for minerals, (4) one of the items did not qualify for DYK, and (5) it left the Main Page really unbalanced? Comments in the edit history suggest the edit was done hurriedly. Please remember that you can always preview how the latest update will look when posted to the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • An Admin should move three or so back to the Next Update page for now. Cirt (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
    • I see that you are an Admin. Just be WP:BOLD and remove the bottom three hooks back to the Next Update page. It's commonly done when the Main Page has too many. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
      • They've been up there for over 4 hours at this point, with less than 2 hours left to go before the next update. My choices are (a) pull them, then later repost them (giving them an unfair 10+ hours on the Main Page, or (b) Leave the main page unbalanced for 2 more hours. Given the options, I chose (b), but also posted the note above to raise project awareness so that we hopefully will not have this happen again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I know it's too late to matter now, but it would certainly make sense to pull the one that's not eligible, regardless of how long it's been up. Rigadoun (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • 11 hooks is a bit much but slightly more is ok, helps encourage editors to write. A sad thing is there are too many hooks with photos and only one photo hook is used at a time. Usually, the opposite is true (not enough photo hooks)! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
            • It can be nice to have additional images to choose from; it means that the people updating have more options to vary the image on the main page. It does sadly mean that they can't all be used, but it does increase our options, which is a good thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Additionally, we had less space available on the main page today, but will have to fill more space tomorrow. So having more hooks isn't always a problem, but using them up before we really need to can be a problem. Hopefully, this discussion will serve as a teaching tool for new people who participate in DYK. There are just so many little things to think about in updating DYK, that often some of them are overlooked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving suggestions

Why don't we archive the DYKs after they're on the main page? (I mean, when the template is to be updated, first copy the current template to the archive and then change the template to the Next Update.) That way, any issues that are brought up while they are on the main page are dealt with before they are in the archives, as opposed to remembering to change the archive as well as the template when something is wrong (especially something big, like an invalid article). The importance of changing the archive was brought up above in some discussion, I can't remember the context, but it seems like this would save everyone some work. Also, should we time-stamp the archives, so that they can be archived automatically by User:MiszaBot II or some such, and also it may be useful for statistical purposes to know when they appeared without checking one of the articles in particular, especially if somebody wanted to parse the data sometime. Rigadoun (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We do archive them. Please refer to the instructions to administrators for archiving DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, currently they are archived _before_ they appear on the main page, I was suggesting changing that procedure to archiving _after_ they appear on the main page, and then I was referring to archiving the archive page itself. Rigadoun (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The instructions on the "Rules" are a bit strange in that regard. The instructions say to check to be sure that last batch was archived before updating, and also instruct the admin updating the template to archive immediately upon update. We could change that, I suppose. It would make more sense to archive the adjusted version from the Main page instead of the version that hasn't had the little mistakes corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stickler for rules over interesting facts?

Hi. I'm new to this whole DYK thing (although I've been editing for over a year) and I've just been told that an article I've nominated for DYK here, (Sai Baba of Shirdi), is not acceptable for DYK because it isn't a new article or hasn't been sufficiently expanded. While the former is true, the article is undergoing expansion but apparently the expansion as it currently stands isn't enough to nominate this particular DYK fact.

I mentioned there to the person who explained this to me that I think those "suggestions" are pretty lame. The subject of the article is famous his for mysterious origins, and it is published on Wikipedia for the first time in the history of the world (apart from the published source) what his real name might be, and this is not acceptable because the article isn't new or isn't expanded enough. Isn't there something pretty wrong with this setup if DYK is a stickler for rules over genuinely interesting facts, which I thought was the whole point of DYK.? Ekantik talk 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a little confusing sometimes, but the whole point of the DYK section actually is to give publicity to newly created or significantly expanded (such as from stub to full article in a few days) Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content. It's also to encourage people to make sure that the new articles are at least somewhat interesting. The hooks are definitely not the most surprising facts in the encyclopedia. It was decided several years ago that general trivia was not the purpose here. I think most of us try really hard to make sure that the hooks are interesting. And most people I've met at DYK are very, very flexible with the guidelines, but Sai Baba of Shirdi was created in 2002, and hasn't been a stub for several years. Sorry to disappoint! Just for fun, here are the the old guidelines from 2005, they've never really changed much. --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I do want to add that I think it does look like a really good and interesting article. You've done some really great work on it! Once you've finished taking care of the {{fact}} templates, you should consider reviewing the Good Article criteria and if you're satisfied the article is ready, you could nominate it to be a good article. --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your nice comments, I will definitely look into GA-nominations when I finish working on it. Possibly FA after that. Ekantik talk 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Padding" the main page

Regarding things like [9]:

I hope we're not into the business of allowing hooks to grow fat and replete with unnecessary detail just in order to pad the Main Page. We could do that better by adding more items to the template. That said almost all hooks need trimming from the version submitted at T:DYKT because most article writers/nominators can't decide what's the most crucial interesting detail and rely on people who know better to trim down their hooks for them. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. "...that, among the medieval cathedrals of England, Winchester Cathedral (pictured) is the longest medieval church in the world?" doesn't even make sense. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the length of the hooks isn't that we are trying to pad the main page. Often, hooks have to be kind of long to be interesting. For example: you removed "(completed in 1515)" from the following hook:
  • ...that the earliest Portuguese description of Malaysia, Tomé Pires's Suma Oriental (completed in 1515), lay unpublished and presumed lost in an archive until 1944?
I think the part in parentheses is actually necessary for the hook to be interesting because it shows that this description was lost for 4 centuries. I think the hooks should generally be trimmed while proposed at T:TDYK since it's pretty annoying to nominate an entry and then have it shortened beyond recognition to the point that it isn't at all "hooky".--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not really an example of anything except a mistake. In its defense, it still made sense. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Then how about the following:
was shortened to:
And:
became
And there are more. Look, I appreciate the work Awyong is doing, especially as far as fixing mistakes on DYK is concerned. But I think trimming these hooks so radically, often just makes them boring. I don't see any harm in hooks giving some interesting details, even if they're not necessary for people to understand the hooks.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, and your examples make your point well. On the other hand, in the past there have been often long-winded interest-dissipating entries. It's a matter of balance and judgment, and I'm not sure the noms themselves always have the requisite distance to phrase their entries to the best advantage.
I must say though that insofar as I've been paying attention, DYK seems much improved of late. Kudos to all responsible. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.

Here's how my ideal bot would work:

An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done. Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world.

In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
  • Support. Great idea, well laid out. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
  • We've decided this several times already. It's just a matter of finding someone to program a bot like this.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the bot actually updating the template, that would take a bot with admin powers which is contentious at RFA. Also the other step would be protecting the image, which only an admin can do too. But doing all the other things would be a great boon, if somebody can make such a bot. Rigadoun (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My thinking of this is that a bot can do all the non-admin legwork (black and white item checking as noted above) but an admin still has to do the protected item work. spryde | talk 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I recommend updaters to use Lar's DYK functions (you can find them on my monobook.js) for crediting. It takes me approximately ~2-3 minutes to credit everyone and talk the talk pages. As for a bot, maybe we could ask Betacommand? Nishkid64 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my, that's fast! I want that script! I'm add it to my monobook. I definitely support any automation that can be done by a bot. I'm sure it would be checked by admins until all of the bugs are worked out. Hopefully a programmer make this bot on. I don't have enough programming experience myself. Royalbroil 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I use User:Daniel/Tools/DYK (feel free to use it yourself if you like) because the .js doesn't work for me, for some reason. Daniel 05:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)