Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

questiion re nom

Hi. I'm not sure I understand how this procewss works. can someone please tell me what happened to my nom for Valley of Peace initiative? irt was created Feb. 15. Appreciate any help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed from the suggestion page because it's been selected for the Next update. It will moved to the Main Page in about three or four hours. Good work and congratulations! --JayHenry (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists?

Is the DYK just for newly created articles, or are lists (which contian little or no content) included as well?Bless sins (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In practice, list have generally been excluded. But if you have a strong hook and a good lead with at least 1500 characters of prose (not counting the list part), you could probably get it featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania was recently featured in DYK - the hook was a new fact (not already found anywhere in WP) about the county seat. The hook fact has since been added to the Laporte, Pennsylvania article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

I did not do the latest DYK update, but somehow all the notices on articles' and editors' talk pages were forgotten. I did all the DYK notices just now except for my own article: Frederic A. Godcharles. Could someone please do the honors for it and my talk page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You could remind User:Blnguyen, who did the update. This is not the first time he forgot to do the notification thing. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

are election articles eligible?

I don't mean current election articles, which are controversial, both for being more WP:ITN's domain, and for their potential to seem like advertisements for a given candidate. I mean articles on elections that are long since past, such as United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2006 (okay there are probably more interesting elections). The problem is, if you look at United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2008 which is of DYK length and quality, I think, it's not exactly what a normal DYK article looks like. So my question is, are these past election articles acceptable at DYK? --Rividian (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Provided they meet all the other DYK criterias (Length, referenced hook, etc) and the general Wikipedia policy of NPOV, I don't think there is any problem with articles on elections that have already concluded. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see why past election articles cannot be on DYK if there is an appropriate hook - I have had Mauritian general election, 2000, Zambian presidential election, 1996 and Indiana gubernatorial election, 2004 as DYKs this year. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has complained about all my Vietnam articles yet, I thought 26 in a week was going to provoke something. Having said that there were only 12 distinct hooks used. I remember in 2006 when there was only about 5 Eurovision hooks per week there was already massive protest. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) —Preceding comment was added at 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have had murmurs at WP:ERROR diff. Woody (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Crazy thought: how to have a cake and eat it

Well... why don't we create a new section for the main page - "From Wikipedia recently expanded articles"? It's not like our current "From Wikipedia newest articles" is not confusing (since it accepts some, but not all, expansions). Selected anniversaries section is currently forced to use only some of it possibilities, we could double it in size - and all would be well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And who would read all this? We don't want the Main Page grow too large. Waltham, The Duke of 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All US hooks

Oh dear, all six hooks today are US ones. I can see that update was thrown together in a hurry! Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It was well past due, but yeah, a little care about the chosen would have been a little nice.--Bedford 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it bugs me a little because I could have chosen most of those hooks myself last night, as they were all ones pre-vetted either by me or Daniel Case. But I chose to go the extra mile and review and select a bunch of different hooks to make sure the variety was there, even though doing so kept me up way past my preferred bedtime. So it is kind of disappointing to get up this morning and find someone has just grabbed all the easy ones and thrown them together in a bunch anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A friendly message on User:Maxim's talk page wouldn't hurt then. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

{{parsed time}}

I've created this template in order to make it easier to update timestamps in other templates. It can be used with {{DYK-Refresh}}. Instead of manually putting in the time if simply write {{subst:parsed time|DYK-Refresh}} it will achieve the same result. josh (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

A recent discussion with Gatoclass is that some admins arrive as a new update is being checked and readied and just load it. This is annoying when you are spending extra time to check it is all ok and you end up with the job 95% done. Can we have an under construction flag? Or even simpler an informal rule that admins should only load updates if they have been untouched for 15 minutes? Is it just us? I know admins can continue to edit the main page but this is a risky procedure. Any other views Victuallers (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a great idea - and favor some sort of a flag/notice. I know RoyalBroil and I stepped on each others' toes doing an upload last week as we both saw the update was way overdue and did not know the other was working on something. A flag would be very helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) that this is a good idea. Obviously would have to be in some kind of "noinclude", so that the tag doesn't show up on the main page previews. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating editors could just leave a note in comment tags like:

<!--
###############################################################################
#                                                                             #
#  Updating still in progress.  Please wait until this is removed to update!  #
#                                                                             #
###############################################################################-->

That'd get the job done, right? --JayHenry (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Be easier with a template. I suggest we just borrow the Inuse tag for now, until someone gets around to creating a custom template. The inuse tag can also be modified to specify a given time, which is handy. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

DYKs for portals

As long as we are on the 'reform DYK' thread, I have a suggestion: why not use some of the DYKs to fuel DYK sections of various - often inactive - portals? Ex. Portal:Poland DYKs haven't been updated in a year despite the fact that we have at least one if not two per week here... Perhaps this could be bot-automated somehow (as portal pages are not protected).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, now how did I manage to guess this post would end up somehow suggesting the inclusion of more EE articles? :) I hardly think we need this Piotrus, as you're practically a one-man EE portal yourself! Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting any change to main page DYKs; I am suggesting we find a way to help update (with minimum effort) DYK sections on various portals (of various scope).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Be BOLD ... I have done this to maybe 15 or so different portals. I just turn up with a new hook and if the portal DYK section hasnt been updated for 3 months (and they usually aren't) then I just add the hook. So far I have had zero feedback so I egotistically hope that it is appreciated. Have a go, it adds to your profile for the maths, arts and basket weavers to see that others exist outside their clique Victuallers (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most users are fairly unaware of portals and they certainly could be better publicized - I found out an FA I am a major contributor was the featured article on a portal for January 2008, but I only found out because I notice the link on a photo they used. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like to randomize DYK sections of portals with {{Random portal component}}, that way all hooks can stay in use and not be cycled out, but things also get more and more dynamic as more hooks are added. I usually have to scour through old archives at WP:Recent additions for relevant hooks for whatever portal I'm working on. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. When you get around to Portal:Poland, I know that myself and User:Poeticbent archive our hooks (I on the userpage, he on his talkpage).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See for example Portal:Oregon/DYK. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would simply make people less inclined to update. TO be honest, I think portals are more trouble than they're worth sometimes, especially with news and DYK. At least the FA and On this day can be randomised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors and archiving

Hello there. If I have understood correctly, the various DYK lists are archived as soon as they appear on the Main Page; if they aren't supposed to, then something is wrong, because from what I have seen this rule is followed. In any case, this system defeats the purpose of the Errors page, as the errors are only corrected on the Main Page and never in the archive. What is the point of correcting the errors in the temporary version and then have the archives retain all the mistakes? It simply makes no sense. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the Main Page is read thousands of times more often than the archives, and fewer corrections would be made if everything had to be done twice. However, a good case has been made for archiving the old hooks as they are removed, not new hooks as they are added. Art LaPella (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a change I would support and which would solve the problem in its entirety. Waltham, The Duke of 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that myself actually. It would make more sense to do it that way. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Sounds like a good thing to do. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I recently updated, but did not add the hooks to the archive, but did add the corrected version of the last set to the archive - my only worry is no one will archive this set. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this page must be modified to reflect the new practice. Then, I think a note in the Administrators' Noticeboard would let most of them know. Can we be sure, however, that there really is consensus here? Can we just say "People, practice has changed, archive differently from now on"? I'd say that no major discussion is required for a procedural change like this, but what if someone objects? Waltham, The Duke of 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more important that the hooks get archived at all than that the revised hooks are archived. The changes are usually essentially trivial. I worry that if we change the procedure sets of hooks are going to get lost. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, but I think the danger is only real for the duration of the transitory period to the new system (and losses can be avoided if someone checks the archive regularly; I can volunteer if no sysop does—it will certainly be less trouble to me than having to edit the archive itself, something which might also seem controversial to some). After all, a set of hooks is normally archived when the list is refreshed under the current system; the only change is which set will be archived. Besides, it makes more sense to archive something after it is retired, in this case from the Main Page. Waltham, The Duke of 01:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also where the hooks come from (next update template versus live template). It's not a big deal, though, if everyone else agrees, and I'm hardly a frequent updater. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. Waltham, The Duke of 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

At present, the updating admin can select the hooks from the next update page and paste them into both the archive and the live template. If the system changes, s/he will have to select the hooks in the live template, paste them into the archive, and then go to the next update template to get the new set. As I wrote, no big deal, but just that little bit more complicated in an already prolix procedure. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just did the last update and I purposely did not do the archive. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The hooks before the previous ones were missing from the archive, so I left a notice in WP:ERROR (non-admins can also do it but I had no time at the moment); when I checked an hour ago, it was in the archives, as was the next set. The problem is that the current set was also there. If we are to agree on this, I think we should make that clear. I do agree with Espresso Addict on the fact that the new process is a little more complex. However, I also agree that it's no big deal, and I think that the easier way to do the archiving is by using two open windows, one for the archive and one for the template page. Think of the benefits in terms of accuracy, and it fully justifies this small complication.

If this really is approved as the new practice, then, apart from updating the page and leave a message at WP:AN, I also now realise that the best way to make sure that nobody archives the wrong set by mistake it to leave HTML comments in both the template page and the archive. I know it will stand out in the archive because there's nothing there at the moment; I don't know about the already over-loaded template, though. Waltham, The Duke of 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So, is this proposal dead, after all? Waltham, The Duke of 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Skittles

Honestly: are we really going to run a DYK about a school student being suspended for breaking the school rules?! In the first slot, with an image, no less!! I refer, of course, to New Haven school Skittles incident. That just about takes the biscuit cookie. -- One pound (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the content, but the image is eye catching. There again, I quite like the Rose bedeguar gall image. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? -- the clock's just ticked over and the template's full. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Joseph Canyon (Image:Joseph Canyon, Oregon.jpg) and Zamość Uprising (Image:Pomnik AK zamosc.JPG) have free images that would be OK. I think the canyon would look better as a thumb. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also like the Skittles pic; its eyecatching, and its only for a few hours.--Bedford 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a load of dingo's kidneys, but whatever. I'd rather read about the only Englishman sent to Auschwitz. -- One pound (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article ought to be deleted, frankly, like Corey Delaney. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to DYK suggestions should be highlighted

I recently nominated an article ("Laurence Fox") and was informed that, according to the DYK suggestions, negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. That appeared to be a new suggestion that I didn't realize had been added to the list. I'd like to suggest that newly-added suggestions should be highlighted for a month by placing them in a box at the top of the list of suggestions, perhaps like this:

Latest update

Articles on living individuals – these must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. — Inserted on 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to bold new guidelines when they come up, although I'll note that in this case the language about BLP has been part of the guidelines for about half a year now after a discussion here at WT:DYK. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. I don't usually watch this talk page and was completely unaware that the rule had been inserted until my recent DYK nomination apparently triggered it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, some admins have had a habit (usually non DYK regulars) of driving by and ripping things off teh DYK template that they don't like. Sometimes that has meant that criminals aren't allowed on DYK at all, because someone deems it to be an attack page. I remeber ages ago someone tried to AFD Martin Bryant - convicted gunman who killed 30+ people, citing it as an attack page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why 6 hours?

Where did the standard for 6 hours per DYK come from? because lately, it seems that it has been going to at least 8 hrs sometimes. Could it be time to extend the DYK time period beyond 6 hrs? or is the main problem going to be that the updates will still be late? The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's basically a totally arbitrary deadline just to keep things moving. The important thing is that we provide recognition to editors who create new content. The 6 hours isn't the point at all. When things get backlogged, somebody will raise the flag here at WT:DYK and everybody will be on the ball, and the updates will come every six hours. Sometimes things slow down a bit and it's perfectly okay to go to eight. It's designed to be flexible. If we moved it to every eight hours, as a rule, then we wouldn't be able to feature as many hooks when we have a lot coming in. The effort takes a lot of manpower and time zones make it tricky sometimes, so I think we need to keep the flexibility in the system (and remember that it doesn't matter at all if the update is an "hour late" every now and then :) --JayHenry (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what JayHenry said. If it was any faster we'd never be able to update it that frequently, and any slower as a rule would make more fine hooks and article have to be cast aside. Wizardman 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had known that before I wouldn't be so scathing in WP:ERRORS about overdue hooks. Although I think I was justified for doing so when the delay reached four hours a few days ago. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 12:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would still encourage updaters to be vigilant about the 6 hours. While it is currently not a dreadful backlog, there is always some overabundance of quality hooks that should be featured in a timely fashion. In an ideal day with prompt featuring of 5-6 hooks every 6 hours, that gives us 20-24 hooks. If we get lax with the updating to where it is more consistently around the 8 hour mark that drops to 15-18 hooks. Compound that over a week period and that is around 40 hooks that do not get featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to regularly go beyond 12 hours, as I recall. I think the current amber–red system on the timer is encouraging more frequent updates. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The box does help, but only if an admin is happening to look at a DYK related page at the time. What we really need is to have the box appear on AN or AN/I where a larger audience of admins would see it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. The uploading admin needs to check several things that require some familiarity with how things work here. I'd be worried that an editor with no previous experience of DYK would not know what s/he is meant to be checking. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of uploading, I've just tried to do the current set but failed becuase my computer doesn't understand svg and corrupts the image file when I try to upload a copy on en.wiki. If someone else can upload the image, I'm happy to do the update. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did the upload - I would make the image a tad wider compared to the current version. Thanks for doing the update, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perennial proposal

I don't know if this will help, or possibly cause problems, but would the system work better if we made is so it was automatically upadted at 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00 on the main page. If we did this, we could wait until we have a few templates created to start, and rather then have the candidates page right now, we can have a future template where they are submitted and once they are fully created, an admin can protect them. IS there any obvious reason that this would fail or we shouldn't do this that I am missing? The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there was general agreement some months back that having a set of full templates would be a workable system, but no-one ever got around to creating the necessary coding. One downside is that the obvious need for protection of the next template before it went live automatically would mean that non-admin regulars couldn't fix obvious typos etc. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UNderstood. For the first point, we need someone who is good with templates and possibly a bot to start each template. For the second point, we have the edit protected template. And we could at lest semi protect up until an hour or two before it goes live. (wow, that plan has a few holes...) The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is such a great idea anyhow, because there may be times when we want to leave an update up longer - when we don't have enough hooks for instance. I'm also leaning toward the idea of updating more frequently when there is a backlog. Not to make it mandatory of course, but if someone wants to do an update more frequently to get more hooks featured, I see no reason why it shouldn't be done. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the length of the front page is dynamic, and even doing an update a few hours ahead as we do now often means having to go back and re-edit the update by the time it's ready to post because the page has grown longer or shorter and the new update no longer fits. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Old article + new image = expanded Wikipedia article?

Does adding an image to an article qualify it as expanded for DYK purposes? Anynobody 06:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Adding images is obviously very helpful in improving articles, but it's only textual expansion that is counted for DYK purposes. Check out the guidelines for more details. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to be sorry :) Anynobody 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to update guidelines

Wizardman has changed one of the update guidelines from "Make sure you have five to eight eligible items." to "Make sure you have the proper amount [of] eligible items so as to balance the main page." While I don't disagree with the change in general, I think it would be useful to include the normal number of hooks in an update somewhere, and also to suggest alternative ways of balancing the page, perhaps by taking an item off the bottom of ITN. There again, I don't want to turn the guidelines on this point into an essay. Thoughts anyone? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I counted the last several updates. They were all 6 to 8 hooks. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When I learned how to do the Next Update I thought the focus was on balance as well, although I'm not sure where I picked it up as it doesn't appear to have been in the rules in the past. Anyways, I think it's a relevant consideration, so I introduced this simple tweak. --JayHenry (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming (renumbering) the archives

We should rename the archive so that each one has a six character name in the format YYMMDD. The dates would correspond to the beginning date of the archive entries. It would eliminate much of the headache of searching the archives. I use a similar technique in archiving my talk page now so that everyone kind find their stuff more easily. We could do this going forward and move/rename all historical pages. Thus, when I look at my User:TonyTheTiger/DYK archive and try to find the official archive record, I can find it by date. Right now I am looking for an entry that was on the main page from 02:30, 14 August 2007-08:31, 14 August 2007. It would be easy if I could just go to a Recent archive 070812 for example to find it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with something like this happening, but I'm sure not volunteering for the job to do it! (and there's still no DYKbot like we always talk wistfully about...) Of course, when you know the time that precisely, you can just as easily look in the history of the T:DYK template, but in general I do agree it'd be useful. --JayHenry (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and size requirements

A basic DYK requirement is that the article "contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." I wonder if there might be a compromise for an infobox. As described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), it is generally good practice to include lots of information in an infobox and not mention all of it in the main body text so as to reduce unneeded and unwarranted duplication. Only key pieces of information should be mentioned in the main body. Doing this may penalize an article and make it unsuitable for DYK (too small). Or it may encourage editors wishing to have a DYK article to ignore the guidelines and put information in both the infobox and the main body, which is not desirable. I would like to suggest that we consider counting 50% (or some other defined percentage) of infobox characters in the character count that determines DYK qualification. Comments? Truthanado (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where does it state that it's "good practice to include lots of information in the infobox and not mention all of it in the main body"? As far as I know, that's not actually true, except on minor technical details, such as (in the case of Infobox Film), runtime of a film. And yes, I'd be opposed to this. - Bobet 01:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've never seen an infobox's purpose to be to avoid discussing that information in the article. I know when I add in an infobox for a baseball player, of course I mention what teams he played for in the article, and if he won an award and I mention it in the infobox, of course it'll be described in the article, I would hope. I see what you're saying but there's no reason to compromise for an infobox. Wizardman 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Double DYK for one article

Theoretically speaking, is it possible for an article to be featured on DYK twice? For example, I create a barely long enough article, get it to DYK, and expand it 5 times its original length, and get it to DYK again. I don't recall any of such instance but I might give it a try if it is allowed by our current rules. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is fine according to the rules because you're creating 5x the amount of new content, making it essentially a new article. It would be ideal if several weeks (or even months) passed between its first DYK feature and this one, just so the topic will seem "fresher". I can see situations where a week after its feature, it being featured again as a expansion striking some folks as fishy. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It would feel a bit like gaming the rules to me if the original article was just barely long enough to qualify. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps it should be "reasonably" long enough? :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If the original DYK was a high-quality article I doubt I'd complain :) Espresso Addict (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Agne on this. I don't think an article should be able to qualify for more than one DYK. Sorry :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am confused. Agne said that she thinks it is fine although it would be ideal if several weeks or months have passed before re-submitting it. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't make that too clear. I was basically agreeing with Agne's last comment, that allowing more than one DYK per article would make it too easy to game the system. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago last year I think. In the archives use "Ctrl-F" for Fanny Durack or "Durack" and that will locate. It did get people thinking a lot; Durack had already been on DYK (in about 2005, ancient history) and is only about 2k in lenght. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember this discussion. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 19#Can an article be on DYK twice? In that discussion, Rigadoun hit the nail on the head, so I'll quote him, "for DYK it shouldn't be allowed, since in order to qualify as a new article, it should have to be a non-stub, and for expansion it should have started as a stub." But I wonder if this attitude is changing, as we growingly encourage expansion of non-stubs? --JayHenry (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the law here is one DYK per article. I also worried about this above: if we started including GA and FA in the DYK section, could an article appear 3 times? I would be against it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be a stub anymore to start with, as long as there's a x5 expansion it qualifies.

My concern is more over the fact that allowing more than one DYK per article will allow users to game the system. Even if you set a time period, say, three months, it would be easy for users to just post the stub and then the full article three months later to get a double DYK.

Not sure if anyone would actually be devious or desperate enough to do such a thing, but one never knows :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not sure if anyone would actually be devious or desperate enough to do such a thing, but one never knows." I understand the concern, but I think the instances of someone truly being devious or desperate enough to "game" DYK for 6 more measly hours of fame would be low. I would wager that the vast majority of cases where a DYK article is featured twice would be due to the good faith efforts and hard work of Wikipedians to create new content--which is really what DYK is all about. An absolute ban on double featuring DYKs seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and would only serve to discourage improvements and expansions on these articles by good faith Wikipedians. Looking at the archives, there are quite a few "early DYK" from articles in 2005/2006 that are in rather poor shape and could benefit immensely from a 5x expansion. I do think some time period would be helpful (and three months sounds fair) to serve as a curb for possible "bad faith gaming" but I really do think in the grand scheme of things that the risk is so low that it is not worth fretting over. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The risk might be low now, but what happens when people start to realize they can do this? Then we may well start to get gaming. The reason I say this is because if the rules are changed, I myself might be sorely tempted to game the system to double my DYK's :p And if I can be tempted, I fail so see why others would not likewise be tempted.

Besides, there are other reasons not to allow this. For one thing, as someone else said, it seems rather unfair that one article might get featured on the front page multiple times. For another, I tend to agree with Ruhrfisch that this is kind of against the spirit of DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the spirit of DYK is to feature and encourage new content creation--via new articles or 5x expansion. I don't see how this would run contrary at all to that spirit if new and better content is being created. Maybe its naivety or an overabundance of good faith but I'm still not alarmed enough at the very few souls who might be so desperate as to try and game the DYK system--especially with a 3,6 or 12 month time period. Plus if someone does "game" the system, how many times do you think they'll succeed before the gig is up? The hooks are still going to be vetted, both first and with the potential second featuring, and I have confidence enough in the DYKs reviewers to be able to notice a trend. While every good rule and guideline always has the potential be ignored or gamed, I do think the potential benefits of encouraging good faith Wikipedians to create new content is truly in the spirit of DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Writing stuff for DYK is really not the worst way to 'game the system' imaginable, and if someone feels like doing that, it'll just lead to better articles (in most cases). Besides, it's not like we could run out of DYK notification templates, or that they were legal tender that people were getting cheated out of. - Bobet 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The reason I used "the spirit" argument above is because the actual written guidelines ("the law") are silent on this topic. While I still prefer one article, one DYK, I can also see Agne's point (rewarding new content). I think in the spirit of being BOLD and ignoring all rules, if someone had a valid second hook and expansion, we could try using it and seeing what happened. If there was a huge outcry at WP:ERRORS and/or here, we don't do it again. If nobody cares (or notices), try it again. If it seems like someone is truly gaming / abusing the system, deal with it then. Is there an article that might qualify a second time? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that we have such article at hand, but I was saying I might give it a try if no one is going to yell at me for that. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated my opposition to this idea. So I don't think you should do it, certainly not when the issue is still under discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your valuable opinion was well noted. I think it would be helpful if we could gather some consensus on this issue (which doesn't seem to be clear to me at the moment) at the end of the discussion, and make a definite statement on it in our DYK rules. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The objective is to improve Wikipedia. Most of the regular contributors are playing the system. You know there is no actual value in the DYK thank you templates (sorry to shock you). The real value is in improving Wikipedia. If we "trick" people into creating articles that are 1500 x 5 characters in length by allowing them two DYK entries then great. By my calculation they are doing 4 times more effort than someone who starts from nothing. Let them play! (if it benefits Wikipedia and doesnt ruin "the game" (or Wikipedia) for the rest of us. Victuallers (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that concerns me is that this could actually end up decreasing the quality of DYKs. Once people realize they can score more than one DYK per article, they might start submitting the bare minimum of 1500 chars for their initial submission so it's easier to expand to a second DYK later. So that is another consideration that people need to take into account. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have your point. What if we slightly increase the minimum? I recall it used to be more than 1500 characters a while ago. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had that debate already. I am opposed to an increase in the minimum size, there are some articles which contain a lot of information in 1500 chars. In particular, I have seen a lot of quality short articles about obscure species of plant, fish and dinosaurs which would probably be quite hard to expand, and I'd hate to see us losing those because of a higher threshold. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, according to your own view, short articles are not necessarily bad quality articles. Then why do you think that people submitting the barely minimum-length articles for their initial submission will lead to the decrease of quality? Barely long enough articles with insufficient quality are being rejected already. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely we want to encourage a good quality of DYKs? Obviously if people started reducing the size of their submissions so they could expand them later for a second DYK, they would be reducing the quality of the original submission. Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Gatoglass: one DYK per article, period. Anything else breaks the spirit of the "rules". DYK has always been about featuring the best new articles, not necessarily the best new content. That's what GA should be used for. The minimum size should be left alone because some interesting topics don't have enough information to be more than 1500 characters. Royalbroil 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates in the archive

This is something I've been thinking about for a while. At the moment all we do is dump the used hooks into the archive so that we end up with an endless list of them. It seems to me it might be more useful and interesting if we added dates to the updates so that people looking back through them can see when they were featured.

So I'm thinking maybe it would be useful to add five tildes to the top or bottom of every archived update. Perhaps an asterisk could be added for a line break, so you'd have something like this:

• 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's a nice idea. Occasionally, when I chance upon articles with DYK template on their discussion page, I used to hope of seeing what the related DYK was. But, scanning through the endless list on the archive page, I was rarely successful. Something like your suggestion would be great! Mspraveen (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fivefold expansion?

For an article to be eligible under the "fivefold expansion" rule, does the whole article have to be lengthened by five times, or is it only the prose that must be five times lengthier than before the expansion? I was thinking about doing a fivefold expansion here but the succession boxes increase the article size enough to make an expansion prohibitive (if non-prose is included in the expansion) Thanks for your help, EJF (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that succession and infoboxes are not counted, and that it is only the prose. Have fun expanding! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April Fools

Well done folks. Thanks for all the laughs. A great read. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was excellent. My expectations are already up with regards to the next update. Waltham, The Duke of 08:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you can get them down again because it looks as though someone used up all the good April fools jokes on the first update. Gatoclass (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you... (Shame on them, grr.) If the previous list got a 10 in terms of funniness, these hooks don't even get a 7. But they're interesting, all the same, as all decent DYKs ought to be. Waltham, The Duke of 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I haven't done so many double-takes in a long time! --IanOsgood (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• The April Fool's hooks were good, but why leave the same hooks up for 10 hours??? Especially when other good hooks are waiting? Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Loss of March 27 entries without use

All of the March 27 entries were moved to expiring noms at the same time as the March 26 entries. This is presumably because the April Fool's hooks were kept up for such a long time. There were a lot of good hooks for March 27. I took the time to write two articles on March 27, and then to submit hooks. Have they now been moved to expiring noms without being considered? If so, this is not a good way to encourage people to write new articles and come up with hooks. Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because they are expiring does not mean they are ineligible. Unfortunately April Fool's has put us a day behind, but the good hooks from March 27 should really be getting used before any others. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand DYK criteria - GA and FA automatically eligible for DYK if recently modified

I read some of the Changing DYK process section above. It was too long and I got lost so this suggestion might already be there. How about expanding the DYK criteria so that any article that has been promoted to GA or FA status can be a DYK candidate so long as it has been increased in the past 5 days (size of the increase doesn't matter). This would encourage people to improve the existing articles and be a form of advertising of good and very good articles so that editors can learn the best ways to improve articles. Comments welcome. Truthanado (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK should be about highlighting new articles, articles improved from stub-class, or articles greatly improved 5x or more. Changing the criteria in this manner would detract from the entire focus of this part of the project. Cirt (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Symbol table

I went and made a table of the symbols used to hopefully make it easier for people to do this, and hopefully get confirmation faster on what hooks are good.

Symbol	Code	Ready for DYK?	Description
	[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]	Yes	No problems, ready for DYK
	[[Image:Symbol question.svg|18px]]	Maybe	Hook or hook's source is unclear, or other issues of wording
	[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px]]	No	Article hook is unsourced or too long or other content issues
	[[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|18px]]	No	Article is ineligible (unsourced, too short, not 5x expansion, etc.)

Thoughts? Wizardman 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on using symbols myself, but if the consensus is to use them, then a standard set seems best. Can I put in a plea for a standardisation of how we mark items where the hook fact is supported by a paper or limited-access online source? For example, I've seen articles supported by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography marked with purely because the editor could not access the online version. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a mistake. Just because a reference is not online does not mean the article should be queried. The only requirement is that an article has inline cites to the hook facts, if we started failing articles just for failing to cite to online sources we would end up disqualifying the very best articles. Gatoclass (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gatoclass on that. Also I guess technically those would fall under the range of the question mark rather than the slash, symbolizing that it could still be used. Wizardman 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual aids are useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• If no one objects to it, or has more questions, I'll put this up on the suggestions page as it is later today. Wizardman 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need the questionmark one? Seems to me it is just duplicating the "possible vote" function, so I'm not sure what purpose it is serving. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the ? should means "I don't know what this means". Also can we not create four templates so I can just type [[DYKtick]] rather than [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]? ... actually it can be [[DYK|ready=tick|author=me|nom=mymate]] and that can be filled out by the nominator. Then copy and paste that complete into the credits session on the update form. Too complex? S'up to you Victuallers (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates is a good idea. Any volunteers? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Having DYK|good, |tick, |fix, and |no, for example as the names. Those were just the ones i thought up, whoever makes them may have a better idea. Wizardman 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

These visual aids have been extremely useful and have saved me a bunch of time! The template idea sounds good too. Royalbroil 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Been bold. The four templates are called DYKtick DYK? DYKno and DYK?no. I'm hoping these will be memorable. Please have a look at them and comment. (Note the old ones still work) OKVictuallers (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make them case-insensitive so I can just type dyktick instead of DYKtick? Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem: , , , . Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that seems to work, thanks Jay :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Substituting the symbol templates

I think the transclusion of all those symbol templates may be slowing down the page after edits (or any other time when the cache is purged). Can they be substituted instead? BuddingJournalist 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the problem was my internet connection! It takes about 15 seconds for the page to load for me. It must be the high number of those small images. They are images, not unsubstituted templates. It looks like we need to go back to text comments only. Royalbroil 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been a bit slower than usual lately but I don't think we should jump to conclusions. Those symbol images are pretty small and simple.

I did suggest a while ago we should move the bot section to a different page which would be one method of speeding up the page. I'd like to see that done first. Another thing we could do that might help is to reduce the size of the symbol images so that the software doesn't have to "shrink" them to the right size. We should also ban the use of more than one image per hook, some users have been posting multiple images lately.

I think we should try these methods first before concluding that the symbols should go. Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that this is being caused by the templates rather than the images themselves. The page seemed to be fast enough before we started using templates for the images, so maybe that is the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Another possibility is that this is being caused by the templates." Yes that's what I meant. I meant the transclusion of unsubstituted templates ({{DYKtick}} instead of {{Subst:DYKtick}}, which just replaces it with an image) might be what's slowing things down. What makes me think this might be the case is that when I visit the page, the speed is manageable (although even on my fast university connection, it still takes a few seconds). It's after I edit the page, and the server has to rebuild the cache that there's a very long noticeable server lag of about half of minute before the page loads. BuddingJournalist 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I substituted all the symbol templates (there weren't actually that many), and removed the transclusion of the bot page. The page is now significantly faster after editing (?action=purge also confirms that purging the cache is now much faster). I have a feeling it might have actually been the transclusion of the bot page. BuddingJournalist 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll have to go back to the images then :)

I still think the other measures I suggested should be taken though. We should be doing everything possible to speed up the loading of this page, it is often too slow even on broadband and on dial-up it's practically unusable. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Past WP:SIGNPOST Dispatches are at {{FCDW}}. Is anyone interested in doing a future issue giving an overview of DYK? (Confession: I have no idea how DYK works, what the requirements are, how one submits, nada. Would like to see a DYK for Dummies Dispatch :-) April 14 is open; please jump in at the talk page of WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I started something at User:Royalbroil/DYK overview, feel free to contribute. Royalbroil 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid essentially reiterating the material that's already under Rules etc. Sandy, what kind of article did you have in mind? Perhaps a historical overview of the way the section has worked in the past, if anyone's qualified to give it, would be of interest. Alternatively, how about an essay on "How to write the perfect DYK"? I seem to recall seeing one around somewhere that we might be able to adapt. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most new contributors seem to be confused about the rules. I remember reading that these signpost articles are intended as basic "how to" guides for new contributors. Sandy put it, "DYK for Dummies Dispatch". We should do 2 articles, with the first one about the rules and what DYK is about and a second one later on "How to write a perfect DYK". Royalbroil 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon updating

I notice that earlier today an IP which starts with the number 74 promoted a couple of hooks to the update page. Now he seems to know what he is doing and it's probably the same "74" who regularly makes comments on this page and generally helps out.

However, I'm thinking that in principle we shouldn't allow IP's to promote hooks as we won't know whether it's someone promoting their own hook. BTW, I would encourage user "74" to register as he or she makes a good contribution here and it would make it easier for others to identify him/her.

Of course, it could be that "74" is just one of our regular users who isn't always logging in, it might help if that person identified themselves :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too and I agree, only autoconfirmed users should be able to update the Next Update. What does everyone think about permanently semiprotecting the Next Update, requiring autoconfirmation to update the Next Update? Royalbroil 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Have you noticed any problems with anons editing the page? Everyone's still free to edit this site without logging in, and that doesn't really have any effect on the quality of their edits. - Bobet 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is autoconfirmation? Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed=any user that's been registered for 3 days or so. - Bobet 13:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd be in favour of that then. We don't have a problem with IP's now, but there is a potential problem there and I see no reason why not to address it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Four days. But anyway, in this case the IP seems to be constructive and I don't see a reason to semi-protect. I understand your concern, but it doesn't seem to be a big deal in this case. If consensus is to semi-protect that's fine though. Wizardman 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some users who stubbornly refuse to create an account, perhaps believing that contributing via their IP address is somehow more "private" or "anonymous" than registering, while the truth is quite the opposite. Strange, yes, but many of them are nonetheless legitimate contributers. If we scare them away it is ultimately our own loss, I think. As for promoting one's own hook, I thought Gato was fine with it..? You are welcome to correct me if I am mistaken. :-) Perhaps I am confusing with someone else's comments in a previous discussion. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to self promotion of hooks in principle, and I've stated my reasons for such previously. I did say however that self-promoted hooks obviously need closer scrutiny. The problem with IP promotions is that we have no way of knowing who the promoter is, so we can't tell whether the hook is self-promoted or not. Basically, I think it's important that self-promotion of hooks, if and when it does occur, remains transparent - that is, we should at least know when it's going on.

Also, I'd prefer that updaters be registered for the simple reason that some are known and trusted and others are not. Whenever you get a new user contributing to updates, you have to check to see that he's doing it right, which one doesn't have to do with known users. So it's more work for someone to do when new users start contributing. In 74's case, I might have been prepared to overlook it except that he has a dynamic IP, which means one can never be sure the 74 who is posting is the same 74 who regularly contributes to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's always 74.13 or 74.14 I think, and he's been contributing productively for at least 6 months. I don't really see the benefit to the project of protecting the template from him. 74.13 is, in my opinion, as trusted as anyone else. I doubt anyone would be as lame as to log out to promote their own hooks. I think he's just someone who likes to help but hasn't created an account. --JayHenry (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did HNoMS Sæl go?

HNoMS Sæl was a DYK on 7 April. Why isn't it listed on the recent DYKs? Manxruler (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's because someone missed updating the recent additions page. Fixed now, thanks. - Bobet 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-automated archiving of hooks

Apart from the already-stated problem of archiving hooks before they are retired from the Main Page and often without reflecting the later-made corrections from WP:ERRORS, there is also the problem of introducing further typos during manual archiving. In addition, the entire process is rather awkward (not least because the archive is huge and takes long to download and edit for editors with slow Internet connections), something which leads to low participation and numerous delays.

A fully automatic process is not a sustainable option, due to various reasons which have already been mentioned, including the need for flexible update times and the frequent unavailability of new hooks.

Therefore, I wish to propose the following scheme:

Wikipedia Patent No. 0102654 – Semi-automated archiving of Did you know hooks

• Description
  • A system which will archive the last version of a given set of hooks and refresh the Did you know clock following its substitution by a new set of hooks
• Components
  • A bot with permission to archive hooks and refresh the Did you know clock
  • A switch in Template:Did you know for the manual activation of the bot
• Sequence
  1. An administrator will replace the old hooks with the new ones in Template:Did you know; before saving, the sysop will also replace an Old hooks sentence in the edit window with New hooks, thus triggering the bot.
  2. The bot will detect the New hooks phrase, read the immediately previous version of the page, and copy the hooks.
  3. The bot will subsequently insert the copied hooks in the Wikipedia:Recent additions page, exactly as they were before their substitution.
  4. The bot will then refresh the clock, showing that everything is in order.
  5. Finally, it will edit the Template page, replacing New hooks with Old hooks. Any subsequent edits to that page by admins will leave it thus until the next update.
• Intended benefits
  • Easier and prompter update of the DYK hooks, as archiving will no longer be a part of the process
  • Less time and labour entailed in the updating procedure, thus ensuring a smoother process with more participation
  • The hooks will be archived in their last form before their replacement, with no errors or omissions, eliminating the need to further edit the archive after the archiving
  • The Did you know clock will be automatically updated, ensuring an accurate counting at all times
• Disadvantages
  • None so far
• Implementation obstacles
  • I do not know if bots can copy text from the previous version of a page, but it seems perfectly plausible

I do now officially submit this patent for consideration by the board, with hopes for approval and subsequent commercial distribution and high monetary profits. I am welcome to merciless criticism and all forms of dismissive sarcasm. Waltham, The Duke of 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I would just comment that I'd like to see the archived hooks automatically datestamped, as I suggested in a previous discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not followed the previous discussions, so I have designed this proposal for the current system; I'd like to believe that it is rather flexible, much so because of its relative simplicity. If there is consensus on any changes, I'd be glad to draw up a new patent application. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 07:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else who'd care to comment? I don't think this is any less interesting than "I agree" / "I disagree" icons... Waltham, The Duke of 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I can come up with too many things that could go wrong. What if someone forgets to change the header? What if they then fix it with their next edit, that wouldn't help at all, would it? What if they're just new at updating and don't know anything about the 'new header'/'old header' thing (difficulty:people don't read the rules on that page)? What happens when someone adds one more hook on the template for main page balance? If you can show an implementation that addresses all the problems, I'd have no problems with it. If you could also tell the bot to read the 'credits' section of the page and paste the templates to the talk and user talk pages accordingly, it would help maybe more. - Bobet 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but one caveat. Since T:DYK is protected, this would most likely have to be an adminbot. I dunno if it would fly over at WP:RFA. I love the idea though, it at least knocks off a little bit of manual stuff. Wizardman 16:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. These are all valid concerns, and they will certainly need to be addressed for any automated system to be viable. Some of the mistakes are due to my relative unfamiliarity with the DYK process; I am only used to dealing with them after they appear on the Main Page. I have now finished studying the various DYK pages, and expect myself to make fewer mistakes. However, I am also unfamiliar with the workings of bots, so I have no idea if the following idea is actually feasible. I just produce ideas; I'll leave it for you to find a way to apply them.

My aforementioned brainchild, if applicable, will fully automate the archiving part and relieve us of both the problem of having to set a switch and that of the bot needing admin functions. It is based on the fact that small changes to the hooks, or even the replacement of one, only alter a small percentage of the page's text, while the update of the list replaces the entire text of the hooks (with the potential exception of a small number of similar words). What if it were possible for the bot to compare two versions of the page and find the percentage of text changed? It could then check every edit of the template and mark as update the one in which a greater percentage than the specified one would be altered (the changing text only takes 25–35% of the page's characters, so perhaps a 20% limit could work). If it could limit the comparison to the part of the hooks instead of the entire page, it could be even more accurate, even fail-safe (a 70–80% for that part, for instance, would cover our bases just fine). If, of course, an error does once happen and the page is not archived, that will be seen in the unrefreshed clock; if the update is done incorrectly and the hooks must be all changed for some reason, that could be done in two or three edits (although I don't really think that kind of mistake ever happens—we're talking about the Main Page here—I thought I'd mention it anyway). Radical idea, I know, but if one could tell me what a bot can and can't do, I could then adjust my ideas to that frame of knowledge.

All that said, there is also the very simple solution of writing update in the edit summary for updates and for no other edits, which would then be detected by the bot, but it's almost as unreliable as the switch idea in terms of whether the updating admins will remember it and correctly apply it. No editing the template by the bot would be needed here as well.

As far as the credits are concerned, I do not find them as important as the previous issue, yet I believe that the whole thing would be much more worth it if we could automate this process as well. If there is no technical impediment, the following simple addition could take care of this: after all the previous steps (the archiving of the old hooks must be taken care of first), the bot shall read the credits, drop off the {{dyktalk}} templates at their talk pages, and then take care of the editors. In order to tell apart the nominators and the other creators/expanders, a standard format (perhaps a template) might be needed for the credits. But again, this depends on the bot's abilites.

One last note: are the hooks also thematically archived at the various portals or has this feature fallen from use? It might be useful for the bot to add not only a date to the archived hooks but also a marker "un-archived", to be changed to "archived" by the person doing the selection. (The alternative would be a complex pre-sorting and tagging.)

(sigh) That was long. I am eager to hear your comments on this. Waltham, The Duke of 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would leave it up to the programmer's imagination to distinguish updating the entire template from updating parts of the template. But I don't think he will use a fixed percentage of changed content. That's harder to program than it sounds. When you look at how Wikipedia displays a specific edit, Wikipedia often mistakes unchanged text for changed text because it was moved around. I think he'll use a trick like this: Add an invisible time stamp to Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear. It will copy to Template:Did you know/Next update, and eventually on to Template:Did you know. If the time stamp on Template:Did you know matches the time stamp on Template:Did you know/Next update, then the program concludes that the whole thing was just copied. The program would then, among other things, copy Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear to Template:Did you know/Next update, so that time stamp would no longer match the one on Template:Did you know. Now the program would no longer consider changes to be total updates, until the next time stamp is copied in. This assumes that the administrator will remember to copy the invisible time stamp with the rest of the update, but the bot could enforce that with an error message instead of copying the text, if the time stamp is missing.

My experience is that the programmers aren't listening to this stuff anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that even the most inexperienced of administrators would attempt to make any change to a template directly transcluded into the Main Page without previewing it first, so the error message is more likely to be seen before the page is saved; this plugs the final hole in the process. Yes, I do find your idea both interesting and usable. And, quite importantly, simple.

You know, I have noted the various errors that are often manifest in diffs, and this could make my comparison idea as unreliable as the rest of mine, although, for the record, I am rather hesitant to believe that this would happen in the particular page, knowing that only a very specific part of it is changed each time. There is no moving around of things from what I know.

The meaning of your last sentence eludes me, Mr LaPella. What stuff are programmers not listening to?

In any case, let us state our revised plan, shall we?

Wikipedia Patent No. 0102815 – Automated archiving of Did you know hooks

• Description
  • A system which will undertake the process of archiving old Did you know hooks, refresh the relevant clock and the Next updates page, and post templates at the appropriate talk pages, leaving to the administrators only the task of updating the transcluded template.
• Components
  • A bot with permission to do the tasks described below
  • An invisible time-stamp in the hook sets
  • Lots of money
• Sequence
  1. On Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear there shall be an invisible time-stamp, which shall be copied to Template:Did you know/Next update every time that page needs to be cleared after an update (see #6).
  2. For an update, an administrator shall replace the old hooks with the new ones in Template:Did you know, copying the time-stamp as well; if the time-stamp is not copied, an error message shall be displayed.
  3. The bot shall compare the time-stamps of T:DYK and T:DYK/N on each edit of the former; when these time-stamps are identical, that will signify an update, and the bot shall read the immediately previous version of the page, and copy the hooks.
  4. The bot shall subsequently insert the copied hooks in the Wikipedia:Recent additions page, exactly as they were before their substitution; the only edit that it will do to them shall be to make the time-stamp visible, in order to aid browsing of the archives.
  5. Then, the bot shall read the credits, locate the new hooks' articles' talk pages and post the {{dyktalk}} template on each. Then, it shall read the hook nominators' and article creators' names and post at their talk pages templates {{UpdatedDYKNom}} and {{UpdatedDYK}} respectively; in order to distinguish nominators from creators, a standard way of writing credits will need to be enforced, possibly but not necessarily by means of a template.
  6. Having finished with the credits, the bot shall clear T:DYK/N, copying the template's empty version from T:DYK/N/C along with the time-stamp, so that it shall no longer be the same as that of T:DYK.
  7. Finally, it shall refresh the clock, showing that everything is in order; if the clock is not reset several minutes after an update, that shall be an indicator of a problem.

Long process, but a bot could take care of it rather quickly, and it would save editors all this work, not to mention all the mistakes that will be avoided. Waltham, The Duke of 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My inscrutable last sentence is about my experience with User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot. Main Page people basically like it, and programmers can whip up something like that in a few hours, except that bot approval seems to be a black hole. Once the programmers find out you want to change a protected page, which could destroy Wikipedia if it ran amok, they just stop responding. Perhaps both my idea and this one will wait until one of us can program it ourselves. When I learned computer programming there was no Internet, so I have yet to learn how one reads and writes web pages as if they were data files on my hard drive. Art LaPella (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that problem seems to have been solved as well; the revised proposal above will not tamper with protected pages, and is generally much more limited than your proposal. I have only changed semi-automated to automated because the archiving itself will be fully automatic; the updates will be conducted manually.

If permission is denied this time as well, we shall simply have to educate ourselves on bot-making. I have always wanted to add this kind of knowledge to my skill set. Although it might be simpler and more effective to simply appeal to any Wiki-friends of ours who might be more knowledgeable than us in this area.

The most immediate problem is different, however... In order to make any kind of proposal, we must first design a process which will work well, and your date idea does not seem to function as you describe. You see, I have added an invisible date-stamp in my previous message (before the last paragraph)... It is still five tildes. Having the bot add a date and time of its own instead of using tildes will also work (probably substituting the tildes when copying T:DYK/N/C to T:DYK/N), but this is different from what you have described. Waltham, The Duke of 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't really considered the detail of whether tildes would be used - (oops,—) if a bot can copy text it can copy the current time. I just noticed that the next update page is unprotected, so you're right, no protected pages are changed. A bigger problem is, what is to prevent the administrator from copying the next update page excluding the time stamp, and keeping the time stamp on the Main Page version? Devising a foolproof way to recognize a total update is probably micromanaging the programmer's job anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We could add comments at the beginning and ending saying "Replace text below this line" and "Replace text above this line" respectively. And we should, of course, properly educate those people who are to do the replacement on the correct procedure. Some monitoring might be necessary at the beginning, but after some time I believe we shall be settled and face no more problems.

Apart from that... I think our work is more or less finished here, do you not agree? If there is nothing else to take care of, we could start lobbying for support. Waltham, The Duke of 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you meant lobbying here, everyone basically likes something like this. Or maybe you meant Wikipedia:Bot requests. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... I suppose we could go to Bot requests straight away. I just like being sure about something in advance, but I'll take your word for it in this case. Waltham, The Duke of 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We could ask DYK regulars for some more ideas, but I think this section already does that. Art LaPella (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no comments, though... I suppose this leaves me with only one option:

(grabs megaphone) DOES ANY ONE WISH TO GIVE THEIR INPUT ON THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE IT LEAVES THIS PAGE?

(pauses and listens intently) Nope, still nothing. The impassiveness of some people... Waltham, The Duke of 05:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Length and references verified...

I must say I am loving this new "Length and references verified..." system - makes updating T:DYK/N much easier, so thank you to those that are working at doing the verifying/checking of the hooks as they creep closer to the 5-day mark. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks too from me. Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. It's been a huge help when their nothing loaded in the Next Update and the current set of hooks should have been changed a few hours ago. Royalbroil 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation

Here's a hypothetical DYK situation that's discouraged me from submitting a number of articles. I wonder if anyone can help me peel the proverbial onion.

Say you've got an article Fred Jones. Two paragraphs of this article are on the multitrillion dollar multinational corporation he founded, Fred Jones, Incorporated. Say furthermore that there's a redirect from Fred Jones, Incorporated to Fred Jones.

Haus makes himself a cup of coffee, declares it's high time there should be an article on Fred Jones, Incorporated and launches himself into the breach. He uses the two perfectly good paragraphs from Fred Jones (noting this fact in the edit summary, of course) and comes up with a lovely little article of, say, 3000 characters.

Now:

1. should this be treated as a 5x expansion or a new article?
2. does the resulting page have to be 5x the size of the two borrowed paragraphs?

My guess is that the way to submit a DYK in this situation is like:

1. Copy existing ("two paragraphs") of content to redirect page, note in summary, save,
2. Replace "two paragraphs" with article developed in sandbox, note in summary, save,
3. If new content size is 5x the content from step 1, submit to DYK

I really don't want to be accused of submitting a happy spoon, or, even worse, a content fork to DYK. Am I overthinking things? Cheers Haus^Talk 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(p.s. for an actual example of what I'm talking about see displacement at Tonnage#Weight-measurements and User:Haus/3.) Haus^Talk 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would treat this as a content fork, requiring 5x expansion on the two paragraphs. I would not look down on the author at all, because there is a lot of new content. Royalbroil 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2000 characters

Template talk:Did you know#Instructions says "...lists should...have 2,000+ character[s]". Did we forget to change that to 1500 like everything else, or did we intend lists to be longer? Art LaPella (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was forgotten. Royalbroil 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Portals

The instructions on Template:Did you know/Next update say "Also, remember to add relevant hooks to the portals, at Template talk:Did you know#Archiving." That link doesn't work any more. Is there any point in retaining it? If so, it needs to be updated; if not, we need to change Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear. Bencherlite^Talk 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We should make it a subpage off of somewhere with instructions about portal conventions, and suggestions about some of the main portals that could use updating, how to update, and also suggestions about navigation to find other relevant portals. I usually monitor T:DYK and add recent hooks to portals I have worked on in the past, but that alone is a good deal of work, would always be nice to have more eyes working on this. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Alex Bakharev#A bot to update DYK sections of portals? for a possible long-term approach for finding portal DYK hook candidates. Checking for and updating hooks manually definitely is a drag. Some bot that combined the finding skills of AlexNewArtBot along with the item updating skills of Wikinews Importer Bot certainly would come in handy here. ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and a good idea if possible. I added a DYK of mine to the Wales Portal, but that now uses a "random selector" function for its DYKs, as some other portals do, making adding a hook much more time-consuming. Frankly, by the time I've tagged 8 pages, thanked 8 to 10 people for their articles/nominations AND added the selection to Recent Additions, adding hooks to portals is just too much. If portal editors want hooks, they know where to find them! Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I update the DYK section on the Germany portal by checking the main page DYK archives every few days. I don't think that's too much of a hassle.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is expecting the admin who updates DYK to update each and every portal is expecting too much. I leave it up to contributors who are interested in the portal to update it. Each portal is different and updating the main page already takes a long time. Royalbroil 13:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that the instruction to the promoting admin to sort out hooks for portals is a dead letter, so I'll remove it from Next update/Clear. Bencherlite^Talk 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility

Suppose, I were to do a 5x on Jesse Jackson, Jr. within 5 days. Would it be eligible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(moved from T:TDYK) Bencherlite^Talk 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why it should not be? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The rules keep getting modified slightly and this is not a current stub, so I asked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar question since I'm still not really sure about this: what counts as prose for the original article length? An extreme example is at Bullet in the Head, which is a 14k article consisting of pretty much nothing except for bulleted lists and other random fluff. Where should one draw the line on a 5x expansion in a case like that? What if someone got rid of all the cruft first and no one objected? - Bobet 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I search by date?

On the talk page of an article I found a template saying it had been mentioned in DYK on the main page on a certain date. So I looked at Wikipedia:Recent additions, and they're listed by some numbering system whose organization I don't know, rather than by date. How do I find the page for a particular date? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the easiest way is to go into the history and look at the diffs from the said date. Looking it up from teh front seems impossible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A while ago, I was working with Jreferee on a tool that would produce index tables like Wikipedia:Recent additions 146/History. This is a project that is far (perhaps very far, and seemingly getting farther every day) from being finished. Depending on which recent additions archive it is in, I can generate an index table on request. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Did You Know also includes that. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the archive listings don't show up under "What links here"? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? This one seems to work fine. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I'd been looking for template and/or DYK/Did you know. That would seem an easy way of finding them then. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hook coming twice on main page.

...that Frank Morse once outsourced the research for a speech on globalization to a company in India?
Hasn't this hook come on main page in recent past? It also appeared today making it twice to the main page. Is this allowed or an error? --gppande «talk» 11:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when it appeared previously? Frank Morse doesn't have a DYK template and doesn't appear in the most recent archive list. To take the general question, it would be possible within the rules for an article to appear more than once, first as a newly created article and then as an expansion. Also it's common for articles to be linked several times in hooks, but not as the highlighted article, when an individual or wikiproject is systematically improving articles across a particular area. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Template:Dyktalk not used by admins?

I find that most of the articles that appeared on today's main page lack Template:Dyktalk on their discussion pages. I thought this template was actively used by admins who update DYK regularly. --gppande «talk» 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this set have been done yet. Sooner or later, someone will no doubt get around to it... Espresso Addict (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this template is still seen as beta version and admins may or may not use it? Is it not good to use it always? I think this should be used always as it helps people know that good work has been done on this page in past. --gppande «talk» 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done, credits were just left for someone else to do instead of the admin that updated T:DYK. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see a set of credits that haven't been done yet (at T:DYK/N), please feel free to help with them. Sometimes the update to the template is overdue but an admin who wants to update doesn't have the time to fill in the credits, and in that case it's still better to change to a new set of hooks and leave a note that the credits haven't been done yet (there's no real hurry to do it: if a page is currently on the main page, you don't need to look at the article's talk page to know that). - Bobet 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding hooks after update

About three hours after the recent update, User:Blnguyen added two more hooks, presumably for the main page balance. But the problem is that those two hooks might not stay for 6 hours since they were added later... Should we reset the clock when additional hooks are added? --BorgQueen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't add them so late so that only get half a run, but we are getting so behind schedule- the set I picked from were 7 days old now. I've started packing the Selected anniversaires again. Also, I'd recommend everyone engage in trying to reword hooks to remove redundancies and extraneous detail relative to the matter. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:UpdatedDYKportal

I have created {{UpdatedDYKportal}} - please let me know what you think. It is to be used to notify article contributor(s) that their article has been added to the WP:DYK section of relevant portal(s) (up to four).

For example:

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walking fish, which you created or substantially expanded, and this fact has been added to the Wikipedia Portal Portal:Science. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Be interested to know what you think. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a second generation notice, I would assume the editor already received the first generation notice, Template:UpdatedDYK. Assuming that, the opening sentence seems redundant and potentially confusing. Here's an alternative opening.

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, [[{{{1}}}]], has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, [[{{{2}}}]].

RichardF (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I like this idea, however, not all portal's DYKs actually uses DYK from main page (at least not me) so it may not be useful to everyone. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are so many new DYKs cropping up these days I try to only use hooks that have previously appeared on the Main Page in the portals I work on, so yeah it is relevant. Cirt (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

The set of hooks starting treasure trove was never archived. Now we seem to have switched to using the archive-after-featuring system, can editors be extra careful to make sure that the outgoing set are always added to the archive, please? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Missed hook?

Why was an article I nominated on April 13 not put up at some point? There are no comments at all below the hook nomination, so if there is a problem no one has said anything. Maybe it was just an oversight? The one I'm talking about is:

• ...that rugby union footballer Farah Palmer captained the Black Ferns to three consecutive Women's Rugby World Cup titles?

Would someone be able to sort this out? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 01:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was put up. As I write this, it's on the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard, featured on DYK

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now kept. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Awkward hook currently on Main Page

Propose change to:

• ...that Oregon’s first Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, O. P. Hoff, was in charge of the first enforceable minimum wage law in the United States?

Fishal (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Poughkeepsie

The town of Poughkeepsie has now been mentioned six times in the past month in the Did You Know section. Isn't that overkill?

Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it? answers it somewhat, although maybe there should be a more specific answer to this perennial question and its variations. Art LaPella (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think this is more to do with the prolific contributions of User:Daniel Case, who has been creating many short and sweet articles about Poughkeepsie recently. BuddingJournalist 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had more than that in a month for both Louisville and Indianapolis, and have seen three different DYKS relating to Kentucky in the same DYK update, so the Poughkeepsie thing is not that big of a deal.--Bedford 06:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DYKs often come in streams. Ideally perhaps we wouldn't do it but regular users often work on "strings" of articles and so long as they meet the criteria and there isn't a backlog there's no reason not to feature them. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd encourage people to write similar articles in groups and multi-hook them to make it easier for everyone on the backlog. LEss frayed tempers too I would assume. I have done that in the past. [1]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK statistics

Are there any statistics on the number of DYK articles ever, in the past year or month? The Signpost article on DYK is being prepared for the next issue on April 28 (Wikipedia:FCDW/April 28, 2008). Royalbroil 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for DYK Archive pages

I had to revert vandalism by an IP address edit on the Wikipedia:Recent additions page ( see here) . Since these are very important pages ,Do you think we should make these pages ( including all the arhive pages like Wikipedia:Recent additions 214) semi-protected  ??

- Tinucherian (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions

What is "Did you know" and how do you get involved with it?? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DYKs highlight our newest articles. Such articles must have 1500+ characters of main prose text, and have citations throughout the text. Write a new article on a subject notable enough to remain on Wikipedia, and then nominate it on the Template Talk page for DYK. If it looks good enough, it will be put on the front page for a couple hours in a couple days time.--Bedford 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I co-wrote an article about DYK for the next Signpost. Let me know on my talk page if there's anything that can be done to make the topic clearer. Royalbroil 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations for multi-sentence paragraphs from a common source

What is the DYK accepted standard for citations for multi-sentence paragraphs? I am accustomed in cases where several sentences within a single paragraph are all referenced to a single source, or to a common set of sources, to placing the citations at the end of the block of text. Comments I have received at T:TDYK seem to indicate that this is not acceptable when a hook it taken from the middle of such a block of text. --Allen3 ^talk 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I ordinarily have no problem with this practice; it's standard in academia. I do look at the note at the end of the nearest paragraph if there isn't one on the hook fact. But one of our rules is also that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which I've seen cited in FA discussions when an extraordinary claim is made from a source cited several sentences later. To be on the safe side, such a claim should be cited where it's made as well as in running sentences. A hook fact offered for consideration as a Main Page DYK hook is going to be extraordinary by its visibility and thus, IMO, should be cited right where it's stated. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your reasoning, it would seem reasonable to add the requirement to go above and beyond what is asked for by Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:When to cite to the The DYK Rules. Otherwise, being told "hook fact uncited" when the hook is in fact referenced in a manner compatible with standard academic practice sure feels like a kick in the teeth. --Allen3 ^talk 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, most submitters don't have a clue what "standard academic practice" is, so we frequently get submissions that are badly or wrongly cited, or not cited at all. So it's pointless to talk about "standard academic practice" in this context.

The citation needs to be as unambiguous as possible so reviewers can see that the submitter actually knows the rules and has properly cited his hook. After the article has gone through the DYK process, you are perfectly free to revert to your preferred citation method, but we simply ask that your cite be unambiguous while the process is under way. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the rules to (hopefully) make this clearer. Royalbroil 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Space required after ellipses in DYK hooks

A Featured Article contributor reviewed the upcoming Wikipedia Signpost article on DYK and added a space after the ellipses. According to the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses, there needs to be a space. I have edited the rules to add this requirement. Please try to get the word out to everyone to change this. Royalbroil 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting the word out to me is probably enough, as I am the only ellipsis space enforcer I know of. But if you want to reverse this practice which has continued for years, would you mind adding a space to each of about 80 hooks at Template talk:Did you know, and to Template:Did you know/Next update? It doesn't matter much if the space is there or not, but people will notice (and have noticed) if it's only there some of the time. Art LaPella (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The extra space looks wrong to me. Perhaps it is the infelicitous combination with the bullet - "Bullet point [space] ellipsis [space] text text text?"

Who created this iron rule that ellipses must always be spaced? Is there some discussion of the issue somewhere?

Is the unspaced ellipsis at the end of "Did you know..." on the Main Page alright? -- One pound (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The iron rule is linked above at Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses, so search Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory for several occurrences of the word "ellipses". If we overturn the rule, I'm not volunteering to change everything back again! What's more important is that all the hooks should either be spaced, or unspaced; that's what people notice. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK Email feature?

hello,

I am suggesting that we start a DYK email feature, similar to FA etc.

I think it would go down well!

Please comment!

BG7 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like that idea, but I don't have a clue how one might go about installing that kind of feature.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NPS

I've noticed how recently there has been an abundance of DYK articles on U.S. National Register of Historic Places. There is no single editor behind these, rather several editors seem to have discovered the wealth of information available on these topics. Now, I hate to complain about these, because they're just the kind of articles I love: showing how much interesting and verifiable information can in fact be produced on seemingly peripheral subjects. Nevertheless, DYK is supposed to display the variety of Wikipedia, and these articles risk becoming what the Eurovision Song Contest articles were a few months ago. Is there any way some restraint can be put on the inclusion of these articles in the future? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 01:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Just realised that the NRHP WikiProject actually has a specific DYK project going on. Nothing wrong with that but...ehm, you know...everything in moderation, right? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See two sections above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but this has nothing to do with national bias, it's simply about one topic becoming too predominant. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do somethng about the US bias in the lead (illustrated) DYKs

The last eight lead DYKs (found by searching 'pictured' on the archive page) have all been to do with, yes, you guessed it, the United States. I'm guessing whoever chooses these might be American, right? There are lots of illustrated DYKs to do with other parts of the world, so it's not just systemic bias. Please do something about it. It's embarrassing for an encyclopaedia that claims to be international. The illustrated DYKs obviously get prominence, so you should be doubly careful to ensure this sort of bias doesn't occur. 86.134.50.59 (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid point. When I update DYK I always try to give non-US hooks prominence whenever they are available, for the sake of balance. Perhaps you could register an account and give a hand in choosing hooks? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who chose a lot of the leads, the problem comes with needing good pictures for the lead, which leads to an American-centric succession of leads. However, the next picture is scheduled to be of an Italian mountain, so the streak should end. Of course, we could see if we coudl extend the streak to nine. ;) j/k.--Bedford 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more DYK articles being written about American subjects than others. Hopefully the DYK article in the next Wikipedia Signpost will give a better balance. Sometimes it's real hard to create a balanced group. I usually give the best pictures the lead spot without looking at where they are from. Royalbroil 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi 86.134.50.59 (talk · contribs), thanks for commenting. We'd love for you to create an account and create/expand some articles on interesting non-US topics, and help broaden out DYK a bit more. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, create an account, write an international article with a pic, and that problem will be solved. :) Wizardman 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think a bigger problem is the number of buildings that get featured. Just look at the current choices for example - we are about to get yet another spate of buildings in the featured spot. Of course, sometimes this can't be helped, but sometimes buildings end up getting featured when there was a viable alternative, so I think it's an issue worth bearing in mind when doing the updates. Gatoclass (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, building pictures often still look good even when shrunk to 100px. I still haven't figured out why my good picture of the Tft house was passed over for a closeup of a book that was rather undistinguished when at 100px.--Bedford 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't look good when they are featured in update after update. Variety is the spice of life and all that. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should allow fair use DYK images. After all, the American free software/free content movement is almost unheard of in some countries. Finding a free image of (for example) a Singaporean actress is thus very difficult, if not impossible. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that fair use images are not allowed on the Main Page, period. This is why some Featured Articles have no image when they are WP:TFA - they only have a Fair Use iamge. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ruhrfisch. I don't put up a fair use image. I don't remember seeing a fair use image on the main page since I started contributing in June 2005. Royalbroil 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A blanket ban on fair use images compounds the already-existing systemic bias. How can we get this policy changed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is based on copyright law, not policy. As I understand it, the US law on Free Use is to minimize the usage and make it as applicable as possible. Having a fair use image on the Main Page, which is the most viewed page on Wikipedia, does not meet these. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nothing illegal about it, it's just policy. The supposed idea is to encourage the use of 'free' images instead of fair use ones. This is something I've been complaining about for a while, but it seems the numbers are fairly split on the issue and Jimbo once made one edit indicating he disliked fair use on the main page (whoop dee doo) thus the status quo gets preserved. Modest Genius ^talk 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jet Pumps

Water jet pumps How they work & where they used —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samehdi72 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed from bottom of 7 May section

This may have been added in error or as a test, so I have removed it and copied it here just in case: it's outside the remit of DYK, and was incorrectly formatted. Added by User:Cadden.

Did you know that if you touch a high voltage electric fence you will fly backwards.
Did you know that if you touch a low voltage electric fence you will stick to it.

It was revision #210812840 at 15:36. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say it was neither an error nor a test. It was a serious but misguided attempt at contributing a Did You Know item, which doesn't begin to qualify under our rules. If you had left it, I would have added my No qualifying article link as an explanation. As it is, I left such an explanation on Cadden's talk page, so he will have some idea how to do better next time. Art LaPella (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks for doing that. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive not being updated

Neither of today's "Did you know" installments are in the archive. The most recent one archived was for last night. The "Did you know" for yesterday afternoon wasn't posted either. I asked about it on the help desk. They said it was updated, but it's not! What's going on?75.104.128.59 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddha's Birthday

Well, Buddha's Birthday is coming up soon (12 May for this year), which is a major celebration in many Asian countries. I think it would be great if we could procure some Buddhism-related hooks for the day. I will see if I can create one or two myself. Any helping hand is appreciated. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I should finally do up Asita. I guess Lumbini could do with a makeover as well....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay! That's great. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I have a few already on teh computer on the series of Vietnamese Buddhist temples I was making. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have those articles loaded and ready yet? I've finished working on Buddha footprint, more or less. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but however many we end up with, I hope updaters will remember not to use them all in one update but to spread them evenly over the four updates for the day. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• ...that Sac Tu Tam Bao Temple was used by Vietnamese revolutionaries as a munitions factory by in the 1916 Cochinchina uprising? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...that the main hall of Tay An Temple contains around 200 Buddhist statues? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Íve got a few more right here. How many Vietnamese Buddhist temples are we allowed in one day? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I think one for each update is fine. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• ...that the Tinh Xa Trung Tam Buddhist temple in Ho Chi Minh City is regarded as the spiritual birthplace of the khất sĩ tradition? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...that the Kh'Leang Temple in Soc Trang, is a Khmer Theravada building from the 1533, predating Vietnamese settlement, incorporates Greek architecture? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added the last two (Tinh Xa Trung Tam, Kh'Leang Temple) to T:DYK/N. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...that Hoi Khanh Temple in Thu Dau Mot was once used as a meeting place by Vietnamese independence activists, including Ho Chi Minh's father? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...that Van Hanh Zen Temple is base of a team of Buddhist scholars who are producing a Vietnamese translation of the Pali Canon? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that went well and I'm surprised there weren't any complaints about 6 Buddhism hooks in one day. Thanks to BorgQueen and Gatoclass and DHMO for putting up with all my patter. There's always next week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who

(Forgive me if I'm posting in the wrong area) What is there a limit placed on the number of DYKs of a single topic? Perhaps its just me but theres been a plethora of Doctor Who article DYKs lately. While I'm a huge fan of DW, it seems too much, and taking up space for other, lesser known topics. Any thoughts? Zidel333 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You could say the same about the U.S. Historic Site DYKs. I personally have no objection for some degree of a single-topic abundance in DYK, as long as we can create a balanced group of hooks for each update, i.e. only one or two such hooks in each run. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to encourage people to make grouped hooks, especially for DYK regulars. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the five-day limit, this abundance is usually due to an editing surge in a particular topic (you should see what happens every year after the Eurovision Song Contest...). Still, there isn't really any problem; most editors only see a set or two a day, and not necessarily every day. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a glut. BigHaz, who was the main writer, hasn't been active in the last year - no DYKs - and even then his career tally was only about 50 anyway. Peeople just notice Eurovision all the time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As Borgqueen said, the most important thing is that there's a balanced group of articles in each update. Other than that, we have no control over what people choose to write about and submit. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What a silly header, I know, but here's my question. I have recently expanded Maya Angelou. It was a long article previously (30 kilobytes). I wrote two completely new sections; its current version is 36 kilobytes, which is far below the fivefold rule. If I were to create a new article instead of adding it to the current one (which I feel is the most appropriate choice), it would be eligible for DYK. Would it be appropriate to go ahead and nominate the article anyway? The hook would be from the new material; i.e., "Did you know that Maya Angelou's six autobiographies, written between 1970 and 2002, "stretch over time and place", occuring between the 40s and late 60s, and span from Stamps, Arkansas to Africa and back to the US?"--Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you create a new saughter article, which is mostly new and not forked content, then it would be fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not updated again

The two most recent "Did you know" features aren't in the archive! What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.59 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I got one. Did we get them both?--Bedford 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add

Since the template Did you know cannot be edited by non-administrators, please add the Finnish interwiki link

fi:Malline:Tiesitkö, että...

into it. That's all, thanks. ---Majestic- (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Credits

So, I thought I'd read and understood the instructions for adding items to the template, but after I added Mary Leonard to the Next Update template Carabinieri removed the article's credit and replaced it with the credits for the articles on today's DYK. Have I misunderstood the process? Shouldn't the credits for tomorrow's suggestions be placed on tomorrow's template? Olaf Davis | Talk 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "tomorrow's template". We only have one. Presumably C. replaced the credits for the current update because they hadn't been notified yet. If you are starting a new update, you have to do all the notifications first.

Anyhow, I've done that now and restored the Mary Leonard hook along with its credit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when I said "tomorrow's template" I meant the Next Article template. Have a bad habit of using "tomorrow" to refer to the next item in an arbitrary chronological list...

Anyway, thanks for your explanation. I'd assumed notifications would happen before blanking the template, but in future I'll make sure to check. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding... I haven't looked at this page in a while. Sorry for removing that, Olaf. I guess I didn't see you had added it.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem Carabinieri, just wanted to make sure I understood the order things happen in before I did any more updates. Thanks for your reply. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not accept DYK nominations from User:RyRy5

It seems the first few that he has submitted in which he was the primary contributor, and that have been accepted for DYK, have been in fact copyright violating material. See his talkpage for further clarification and examples. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The small amount of text for such a big article as that of Climate of North America did make me ponder; I should have listened to my instincts. Although I did not approve the article, I was the one who promoted it, so I do feel responsible. Until I hear otherwise, I won't promote anymore of his.--Bedford 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The blame rests solely on him. I suggest, however, that we do not cease his flow of DYK articles; merely check every one of them, case by case. This way, if he does create a fine article, then perfectly acceptable material will be accepted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been found that every one of his major article contributions, so far, has either been copy/pasted from another Wiki-article, copyvio from another websource, or in some cases, dug out of the page history, copied, and repasted as his own. I would recommend, reluctantly, that you simply not accept anything of his until greenlighted from other editor's that are working with him. Certainly not my place to enforce anything, this is simply a recommendation in order to "not be the one that promoted a copyvio to the mainpage". Thanks for your replies, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons admin?

Anyone an admin at Commons and want to protect Image:Richard_Cunningham_McCormick_-_Brady-Handy.jpg which I've just put in the next update? Otherwise I'll try and copy it to wiki if I have time. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image has been {{C-uploaded}} and protected. --Allen3 ^talk 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

VERY dissapointed!

You, know, today is Earth Day! I'm not some silly "going green" environmental warrior, but come on! At least you people could've posted some things on Earth Day for the DYK. I mean, you people made more of a fuss over April Fool's day, than you did for Earth Day! I just wish more was done. Maybe I'll join DYK to keep you guys from looking totally silly, lol.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only things that get selected for DYK are new articles. If no new qualifying articles were created dealing with Earth Day, then there aren't any articles to select for the DYK. Regarding the comparison to April Fools' Day, that day is currently according to practice the one day each year when silly or humorous content is sought out. For the rest of the year, it often encounters problems. Material related to Earth Day and the like could be included whenever it's created, which isn't quite the same for April Fools' Day related material. John Carter (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think though that in future we could perhaps create some pages for special days and hold over new articles for a few weeks prior to the day in question. We currently do it for April Fool's, so I don't see why the principle couldn't be extended to other special days. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It does tend to create backlogs though. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess we would have to be sure not to go overboard with the idea. Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the question would be "where do you draw the line?" There are so many different traditions throughtout the world. I keep seeing DYK hooks _targeted for certain holidays/special days that I never heard of. I was just thinking about whether or not there are any Earth Day DYK articles for today. Are there any articles on different animals/species that could be advanced early in each round today? Royalbroil 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Next year, write an article related to Earth Day on April 18 and nominate it for DYK. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one thing we definitely CANNOT do is go overboard on holiday reservations. That's when our backlogs get really bad. Wizardman 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could aim for, say, four hooks per special day, so that we can feature one per update for the four updates that day. That wouldn't create a backlog, but it would make us more topical. So I guess the next thing to do would be to come up with a list of "special" days, and decide what's in and what's out. Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, by creating a list of official "special" days and posting it somewhere, we could encourage users to tailor their submissions for those special days, on the basis that topical hooks will get preference. Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I intend to write a couple of Singapore-related DYKs and have them on the Main Page on 9 August (Singapore's National Day), instead of complaining about the Main Page lacking Singapore-related articles on 9 August. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of images appearing on DYK section

OK, there are 26 archives, and no doubt it has been discussed before, but I'd like to ask if there is any way of having more than one picture on they DYK section of the main page.

It is probably policy that there is only the one picture, but there are lots of good pictures that come with nominations, and I'd say that if they are good enough to be used they should be used (free image rules applying in the normal manner). Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides issues of balance (why not have multiple pictures for itn and on this day too), I always thought it was a formatting issue. It's really hard to fit two images in that little box without it looking bad with some resolutions, and it's more difficult here than in most cases, since the template uses html formatting (try copying the dyk template into a sandbox, add another image somewhere in the middle, then change your browser width around). It could probably be done, but adding more arcane instructions makes it that much more difficult to update the template, and in the end it'd just not get updated as often. - Bobet 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus adding another image would take space which would be used for a hook or two - my guess is that an extra picture would reduce the number of hooks by one or even two. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pity, it seems that there are a lot of good pictures that don't get used that deserve to be featured. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are good enough to be featured, you should bring them to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Mjroots meant featured with a small f, i.e. shown on the main page for DYK, not Featured featured. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Garrigus

He was not the youngest U.S. member of the 1968 Olympics. Margaret Bailes was younger. I corrected the info on his page. --Tesscass (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of biases

We already have a rather staggering bias for pictures of dead white men. That's okay, it's often the only thing we can get. Now, I've never done anything like gripe about hook placement in the ~50 DYKs I've done, even when hooks didn't get used, but come on... I found an article with a public domain and historically significant cover of Time Magazine, mentioned the cover in the hook itself, and not only that but the person was a character in what's frequently considered the Great American novel and instead the next update has the grainy image at right instead of an image that's historically significant by itself? Okay. I confess to immense frustration. --JayHenry (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the image. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On a wider note, I've always tried to use images that don't have people or buildings (especially churches, even though there are obviously exceptions) in them, and I don't think I'm the only one who's been doing that. Those kinds of images are over-represented already, and will still get used when there's nothing else. Something more unique is usually better at drawing people's attention. - Bobet 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This bias is caused by Wikipedia's (and DYK's) overly restrictive image policies. Finding free images of dead white men is much easier than finding free images for Singapore-related DYKs. Perhaps we should allow fair use DYK images. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a general prohibition against the use of non-free (not "fair use") images on the Main Page. The Featured Article often lacks an image when a free one doesn't exist. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a reappraisal of that prohibition is in order (especially if most main page FAs are about dead white men)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not going to happen. The free content mission is far more important than the systemic bias issue. (I don't mean to sound to rude while shooting you down, but this was an edict by Jimbo.) howcheng {chat} 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Helpful Counting Link

Instead of having to open MS Word to check character counts (I had to buy a new computer, who's Word or WOrdpad didn't have the feature) I found this link to use to count characters, to see if a DYK article is long enough or if the hook is too long: http://javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml --Bedford ^Pray 09:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be promotional to their website to include this link in the DYK rules? Like Bedford said, some people don't have a character counter. Royalbroil 14:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just slapping the text in your sandbox page and counting it there? That's what I do. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Instructions already links to [2]. As for the sandbox, did you mean using the history page byte count? The previous version of this page is 31,972 bytes when copied to Word, and 42,451 on the history page. I seem to remember getting an explanation for that, but I forget what it was. Art LaPella (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried the sandbox option; it didn't work.--Bedford ^Pray 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone tried the readable text checker here? It is a wikimedia hosted counter. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice; I put it on my extra hotkeys for Firefox. However, DYK counts spaces as characters, and this utility doesn't.--Bedford ^Pray 04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're making recommendations, I always use this: [3]. It has the advantage of updating the count as you type, which makes it easier to experiment with different wordings if you're trying to pull a hook below 200. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried it, and liked it at first. But if you're going for a 5x expansion, it tends to slow down to a crawl, and affects your browser windows.--Bedford ^Pray 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Inline citation fetish

There seems to have developed a de facto enforcement of a requirement for in-line citations even though that's not what the rules say. I can understand a general desire for them, but in a small article based on few sources, they turn the text into a cluttered mess. I noticed today someone demanding in-line cites on an article derived from a single reference. I also noticed in the archives that a recent attempt to turn the preference into a requirement was turned back after consensus was not reached. Can we back down on this a bit? Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the rules. You only have to give an inline cite for the hook statement/s, not for everything in the article. Usually that means only one cite. You can hardly call that a "cluttered mess" or an onerous requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Having inline citations means easier verification of the specific fact in the hook so that incorrect information doesn't get on the main page (it's easier to fix errors in the article itself). Often the hooks don't get looked at before they're about to go on the main page, and if the update is already overdue and the next update page happens to be empty, anyone selecting the hooks will just skip the article in question. In the case you're probably talking about (Crown Point Light), just leaving a note saying stuff about how the referencing is applicable should be enough (in my opinion), and doing that without prompting would be courteous. In a general case, someone in a hurry isn't going to start reading through several pages of references about something they might not care about, and I wouldn't blame them. - Bobet 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Short version:) If you want your hook to appear on the main page, please provide an inline citation. Otherwise, it might get selected, but it would be easier if someone already knows where the hook is verified (you) would kindly point it out. - Bobet 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass is correct about needing inline cites just for the hook. The rules say "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation" (emphasis original), which sounds fairly unambiguous to me. I haven't noticed people demanding in-line cites for non-hook facts, if that's what you're talking about so I can't comment on whether people are taking it to far. Could you link to the archived discussion you referred to? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I took another look at the rules and although the version on WP:DYK says the hook must be inline cited, the instructions on the template's talk page just says the hook should be "preferably cited in the article with an inline citation." I'm guessing this is the (or a) root of the problem: different people have read different versions of the rules. I propose we change the wording of one (or both) so they're more in agreement: question is, which? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think just requiring the hook fact to be inline cited is ridiculous. We should either require articles to be inline cited or not. We should be thinking about the quality of articles not just convenience. The common sense way to deal with this would be to allow short articles based on just one or two sources to go without inline references, while requiring them for longer, multi-source articles.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't doing GA or FA, and we simply don't have time to thoroughly vet every fact in every article. All we can realistically do is quickly check the hook fact and do a quick scan of the article to ensure it's of a reasonable standard. I personally dislike "cite bombing", it disrupts reading, and I don't want to encourage users to clutter up their articles unnecessarily with cites.

As far as articles with only one ref however, I think that the hook fact should have a cite even if there is only one reference, to a page number for example, because users make so many mistakes it isn't funny and requiring a cite forces them to read the text they are citing more carefully . I know that the requirement to cite forces me to double-check my facts, and doing so has often made me realize that my ref doesn't actually support my original hook, so I think it's a requirement worth keeping. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass, except I do like "cite bombing". It helps assure me that things are done right and that I can review the source of each particular statement if I'm researching a topic. I don't feel one bit sorry for anyone that complains about having to cite a single statement, for I have an article at FAC right now. Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions should get changed. Royalbroil 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree with that, but it isn't an issue specific for DYK, so this is probably not the right place to discuss it. I'm personally a big fan of inline citations in every article, since most short articles can be expanded, and the part covered by a references section can get outdated, and a reader might not find a ref for the part they're interested in. Furthermore, having inline citations from the start usually encourages people adding further content to add cites of their own. But for the purposes of DYK, read my previous comment. - Bobet 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The current discussion at DYK re First Congress of Vienna in 1515 raises another issue - Olaf has complained that the fact that the Congress of Vienna took place in 1815 is not inline cited in either article. Firstly this seems way too well known to require citing under WP:REF in any case, as it is one of the most basic dates in modern European history and clearly subject-specific common knowledge, but secondly it relates to another article. It would be rather absurd to cite the fact in the 1515 article, but not the 1815. If the policy is made too emphatic, inappropriate challenges over every fact will be made - DYK should not demand higher referencing standards than normal policy recommends. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that most short articles can be expanded; in any case, I've done a long series of articles of late which are about as big as they're ever going to get. (In any case, nobody else has expanded any of them.) As far as the version: as I said at the beginning of this, an attempt to bring the template instructions in line with this article was recently shot down, which suggests that it is this article which needs to give way. And the issue isn't "having to cite a single statement." If you have to in-line cite one statement, then you have do it for all of them, to achieve a consistent article. I don't know, Gatoclass, but maybe I'm more careful than you are; and I've found a lot of in-line cites where the referenced work doesn't justify the comment, or doesn't even exist. But at any rate, for a short article referring to a short work, fact-checking without in-line cites isn't burdensome. Yeah, if people are going to be obsessive about this, I'm going to not bother to submit articles which I think shouldn't be in-line-cited, because I'm not going to make a mess of what I write just to satisfy the whims of whoever is in control of this template. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained on this page before Mangoe, the cite is only required as long as the article is undergoing DYK. When it's off the front page you are quite welcome to remove any cites you think are unnecessary. We only ask for these cites so that we can verify hook statements as quickly and easily as possible - trying to verify an uncited fact in an article with half a dozen different refs is basically six times the work and nobody here can spare that sort of time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its a question of reputation and the future of Wikipedia, which is fast becoming the first internet resource for references, queries and knowledge on any and all subjects. Anything that makes the main page should be reliably sourced and unbiased. How else will you convince critics who deride Wikipedia for the same reasons? I think and feel that with 2 million articles on virtually all subjects, it isn't just a question of showing the newest articles, but how they can be written well even if they are small, in comparison to the main page FA and thus encourage new editors who may be turned off by the work involved to make it to the main page. I'm a fairly recent addition to the ranks and I've really enjoyed and been thrilled with writing DYKs. Vishnava _talk 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have been carried away in my discourse. The key point is, we can show that well-written articles with reliable information can be achieved even with new articles and those small in length. And the thrill of making the main page with DYK-length articles only encourages new people like me while teaching the responsibility of being reliably informative. Vishnava _talk 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)