This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjanag (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 30 May 2009 (→DYK Templates: another). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:05, 30 May 2009 by Rjanag (talk | contribs) (→DYK Templates: another)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
 |
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 117 minutes ago( ) |
Template:Archive box collapsible
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.
 To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2010-05-05
|
Next update
Why are all the queues filled, but the next update only has two hooks? I am new, so if there is a good reason I'm sorry for wasting peoples time, but it doesnt make sense to me.Smith 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The next update is a place for non-admins to load hooks from the suggestions. An admin reviews the hooks in the next update, and will place these hooks in one of the 6 numbered queues after approval. The hooks are moved from the numbered queues to the template that appears on the main page. So the next update is a staging area early in the process. It was named before the numbered queues existed. It originally was a place for someone to build the next update for the main page, but we needed more storage space so that we didn't have to improvise so much. Royalbroil 11:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see. we should really move it elswhere. the current name is quite misleading.Smith 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The Next, Next update is also oddly named. Suggestions for new names? Royalbroil 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- First and second assembly areas (or queues)? We also have to consider how we'll refer to them in short. Say "Next" or "Next next" around here and people know what you're talking about; "first" and "second" might work. Shubinator (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pending queue 1 and 2? Then Shube (shortened) can call 'em P1 and P2 :) Paxse (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- First and second assembly areas (or queues)? We also have to consider how we'll refer to them in short. Say "Next" or "Next next" around here and people know what you're talking about; "first" and "second" might work. Shubinator (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The Next, Next update is also oddly named. Suggestions for new names? Royalbroil 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see. we should really move it elswhere. the current name is quite misleading.Smith 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've never been bothered by the name "next update", but "next next" is a odd, and both are kind of misleading. I agree that we need a rename.
- How about → "Preparation area 1" and "Preparation area 2"? That's the best I can think of right now, and it seems fairly clear and simple. Our shortcuts could be T:DYK/P1 and T:DYK/P2. Comments? JamieS93 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that works. I'm sure "prep 1" and "prep 2" will also become nicknames. Shubinator (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about "Next to queue"? Prep area 1 and prep area are also good (although I would slightly prefer "Staging area", it sounds cooler), but "next to queue" might be closer to what we have already (and we could keep the shortcut at T:DYK/N). rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like "staging area", but I also don't really care. ;) —Ed 17 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Prep 1 and prep 2 sound good to me. Smith 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Prep A & Prep B because we are using numbers for the queues. Otherwise, we could use Roman numerals: Prep I and Prep II. Royalbroil 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, Prep A & B is best. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Prep A & Prep B because we are using numbers for the queues. Otherwise, we could use Roman numerals: Prep I and Prep II. Royalbroil 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Prep 1 and prep 2 sound good to me. Smith 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like "staging area", but I also don't really care. ;) —Ed 17 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about "Next to queue"? Prep area 1 and prep area are also good (although I would slightly prefer "Staging area", it sounds cooler), but "next to queue" might be closer to what we have already (and we could keep the shortcut at T:DYK/N). rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Prep 1 and Prep 2 sounds good to me too. Paxse (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that works. I'm sure "prep 1" and "prep 2" will also become nicknames. Shubinator (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I was about to boldly do the change myself, but Next Update is move-protected because it has a high revision count. Do we run the risk of bringing down the servers temporarily if an admin did the move? (Even if the answer is no, best to do it at 7 or 8 UTC when everyone's asleep) Shubinator (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ping. Shubinator (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to change it to something better, but to me it's not clear which title will be best, based on the comments: "Prep A" & "Prep B"? Have we dumped the number idea (Prep 1 and 2)? Not a lot of discussion generated, but I guess nobody would really be offended (besides myself ;)) with moving to "Prep A" and "Prep B". I still think that numbers are more orderly, and a short title like "Prep A" might be ambiguous, before one found the "Prep B" page. I don't see how "1" and "2" would interfere with the 6-queue arrangement; switching to letters is an inconsistency with ourselves, in my eyes. JamieS93 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and is it "Preparation area" 1-2/A-B? JamieS93 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's "Preparation area", with shortcut links WP:DYKP(1/2/A/B) and WP:DYKPREP{1/2/A/B). Either way works for me on numbers or letters. At first I though letters would be best, since currently the only way of distinguishing the numbered queues from Next and Next next is by saying the numbered queues, but if we change to prep, we can refer to "preparation areas" and "queues" without confusion. Shubinator (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and is it "Preparation area" 1-2/A-B? JamieS93 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to change it to something better, but to me it's not clear which title will be best, based on the comments: "Prep A" & "Prep B"? Have we dumped the number idea (Prep 1 and 2)? Not a lot of discussion generated, but I guess nobody would really be offended (besides myself ;)) with moving to "Prep A" and "Prep B". I still think that numbers are more orderly, and a short title like "Prep A" might be ambiguous, before one found the "Prep B" page. I don't see how "1" and "2" would interfere with the 6-queue arrangement; switching to letters is an inconsistency with ourselves, in my eyes. JamieS93 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit of planning with the moving procedures (several sub-pages and redirects exist), and will move the pages now. I'll drop a note in a new section on this page once it happens. JamieS93 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK rules
I have question about particular DYK rule - Articles that have appeared on the main page's In the News section are not eligible. Is this applied to the article in general or to specific article's version. For instance one article version (somth like a stub) was on the News section, however later article was expanded far beyond required threshold. So, is this article would be OK for DYk or no? Explanation needed. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I recall, the consensus in that discussion was that if something has already been on the main page in the ITN section, it doesn't get a second promotion in the DYK section. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That means that rule applied to the article in general rather then its version, right? To understand what I mean NEWS version, DYk version (not on the News). M.K. (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is an interesting point you raised. Still, I'm fair sure that it's not the specific revision that counts, but the article as a whole. Following that guideline, it wouldn't matter if the former-ITN article was 5x expanded for DYK. I don't really hold a strong opinion on the matter, but I think this is a possible that this is a point for changing our rules (to allow 5x articles that were featured at ITN). Thoughts? JamieS93 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Being featured in ITN is different from DYK. I wouldn't support allowing a previous DYK featured being expanded 5x and allowed a second pass at DYK. But I can see the merit in allowing an ITN that has been 5x expanded. It is a radically different article with substantial amount of new content that has never been featured before. Agne/ 16:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand the spirit of the rule, it's to prevent contemporaneous appearances by the same article at DYK and ITN. If a pilot lands a plane in the Hudson River, his bio should wind up on ITN without having to worry about a competing hook from DYK about his library books. However, if a suitable amount of time were to pass after the ITN appearance (six month bare minimum, at least) if that same article can be 5x expanded I think a strong case could be made for inclusion at DYK. This would need serious discussion before we consider changing the rule, however. - Dravecky (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, I have to point out that the statement in the rule is unqualified, and as I recall there was a pretty strong consensus last time this was discussed that hooks featured on ITN don't get a second bite at the cherry through DYK, period. I don't think this is the first time that this particular issue raised by M.K. has come up. But you'd have to wade back through the archives to when this rule was first added to confirm it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will look into archives in order to find rationale behind this, in any case I also would support changing rules, in order that former ITN articles, which were expanded to X symbols, would be allowed to take another chance on DYK, if the hook is not the same as News headline. M.K. (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Articles which have featured at DYK have occasionally been updated for ITN so I would offer the opinion that if an ITN article has been expanded X5 (and presumably bears little resemblance to what it previously was) that it ought to be appropriate for DYK too. If my statement is questionable, I have one example of this unusual phenomenon - Talk:Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy. --candle•wicke 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will look into archives in order to find rationale behind this, in any case I also would support changing rules, in order that former ITN articles, which were expanded to X symbols, would be allowed to take another chance on DYK, if the hook is not the same as News headline. M.K. (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, I have to point out that the statement in the rule is unqualified, and as I recall there was a pretty strong consensus last time this was discussed that hooks featured on ITN don't get a second bite at the cherry through DYK, period. I don't think this is the first time that this particular issue raised by M.K. has come up. But you'd have to wade back through the archives to when this rule was first added to confirm it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand the spirit of the rule, it's to prevent contemporaneous appearances by the same article at DYK and ITN. If a pilot lands a plane in the Hudson River, his bio should wind up on ITN without having to worry about a competing hook from DYK about his library books. However, if a suitable amount of time were to pass after the ITN appearance (six month bare minimum, at least) if that same article can be 5x expanded I think a strong case could be made for inclusion at DYK. This would need serious discussion before we consider changing the rule, however. - Dravecky (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Being featured in ITN is different from DYK. I wouldn't support allowing a previous DYK featured being expanded 5x and allowed a second pass at DYK. But I can see the merit in allowing an ITN that has been 5x expanded. It is a radically different article with substantial amount of new content that has never been featured before. Agne/ 16:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is an interesting point you raised. Still, I'm fair sure that it's not the specific revision that counts, but the article as a whole. Following that guideline, it wouldn't matter if the former-ITN article was 5x expanded for DYK. I don't really hold a strong opinion on the matter, but I think this is a possible that this is a point for changing our rules (to allow 5x articles that were featured at ITN). Thoughts? JamieS93 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- That means that rule applied to the article in general rather then its version, right? To understand what I mean NEWS version, DYk version (not on the News). M.K. (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
DYKadminbot
Ok, I think the last run went ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot
Go over it and see if there are any more errors. Post errors as a level 3 header under this section. Lets try to keep all the bot discussion in this one section. —— nixeagle 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Following redirects
Bot does not follow redirects.
The previous was reported on my talk page —— nixeagle 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
DYKnom
Can we use this again yet? I think you said above not to use it, but your last post suggests you may have resolved that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please use DYKmake for the time being... at least until I get home from work today. (AFAIK the two templates do the same thing, at least that is how the code treats it... two regexes, one for DYKnom and one for DYKMake with two different sections of the code (identical!) doing a loop for both.... (with small changes in the loops for the nom/make) its messed up and before I do any changes I gotta test them first. —— nixeagle 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I am not here to complain, but I thought I should report that the DYKadminBot has not given me a DYKnom notice for the Bigeye trevally article. My hook was on Q2 and then MainPage earlier today. I think I am the only person ignored by the DYKadminBot in this round of DYK updating. I'm giving myself the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} on my next edit. Hope it's alright. --PFHLai (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - You should be able to use DYKnom now. On the upside the bot now has 50 fewer lines of code :). —— nixeagle 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, according to Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot, the bot has created new usertalk pages to post both {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}} for the most recent round of DYK updating (from Q3) based on the article's title, rather than posting the notices on the actual users' talkpage. So both {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} are not working properly. Or I should say the bot is not working properly. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those bot-created usertalkpages are now gone. (See Special:DeletedContributions/DYKadminBot.) --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further review, I'd like to report that the bot also made the same mistake in the previous round of DYK updating (from Q2). --PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've given out the DYK notices for the last two rounds of DYK updating (Q2 & Q3). Can someone take care of the next set of DYK credits for hooks from Q4, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Another issue
It looks like the bot gives out nom credits, but incorrectly labels them as "an article you created or expanded" instead of using the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} template , . JamieS93 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- In both cases, {{DYKnom}} was properly used on the DYKQ (, ). I've just put in the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} template on the two usertalkpages to fix the mistakes by the bot. I think the bot needs a little more tweaking. --PFHLai (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've found a third error and fixed it (, ). --PFHLai (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Bot did it again, and I've just fixed the error on the nominator's talkpage (, ). Hopefully, the Bot gets fixed soon. --PFHLai (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've found a third error and fixed it (, ). --PFHLai (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing the text of the updates
The bot took off the leading part of $10,000 to give ,000 in the latest set. Maybe the dollar sign is confusing it? See and . Shubinator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Likely the same reason as the reported issue below. Both will require the same fix. —— nixeagle 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Didn't find hook
This edit shows the bot couldn't find the hook for that article. I strongly suspect it's the + sign that's throwing the regex. It might be more reliable (even if it takes up more lines) to search by indexes of strings... then you don't have to worry about escaping special characters. Very minor bug, low priority, but thought I'd mention it. Shubinator (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- These seem to both be related to how php does regex, a topic I am not really up to date. I'll do some research on the matter and fix both of these and future bugs in this class of issues. PHP ought to have triggers/flags similar to perl's \Q and \E for indicating to the regex engine "take the following as a literal string". —— nixeagle 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done Should be fixed (along with the bug reported in above section), turns out \Q and \E works in php as it does in perl. :). —— nixeagle 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Archiving
Bot doesn't archive. Shubinator (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Special Event idea - Independence Day
July 4th is the celebration of the United States' Independence Day. While that day is particular to the US, the concept of an Independence Day is near universal as evidence by the long list of countries on the Independence Day article. Surprisingly, a good chunk of those other Independence Days don't seem to have articles (and a few have very small ones). How about we have a DYK special event for July 4th that encourages submissions relating to Independence Days across the globe? It would be a good way to counter systematic bias and bring some much needed love and attention to areas lacking coverage. Agne/ 07:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's an excellent plan. It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes! WP:CSB is what I'm all about at the moment. Bigger digger (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- AWESOME idea! If any get submitted too late, they can be used on that country's actual date. Royalbroil 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I really don't think this is a good idea! It sounds kind of chauvinistic to me. The idea of celebrating the independence days of every country on America's anniversary makes it sound as if there was something about American independence day that renders it more important than all the rest. I really can't imagine too many non-Americans getting excited about this one. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I think your reading far too much into this. The benefit of doing this on July 4th is that readers (especially in the US but elsewhere I'm sure) will be "thinking" about Independence Day and familiar with its association with the date when they come to the main page. This way they will be in for an educational treat and chance to learn about independence days across the globe. If anything that makes all those days seem more special because it really hones in on the universal desire for freedom among all humans and how that desires drives brave and heroic individuals to rise up and fight for it--regardless of language and land. It can be a very impactful event and, more importantly, stir interest and contribution in a lot of areas that are seriously lacking coverage. Agne/ 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps what you're missing is that every country is proud of its own independence day. Would it be acceptable to you if we started commemorating American Independence Day on, say, Australia Day? There would practically be a riot. I'm sure your proposal was made with the best intentions, but I think perhaps you ought to reflect for a moment on how this proposed arrangement might be likely to be received outside the United States. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't think non-Americans would see this as some glorification of the US Independence Day. In fact, judging by the sentiments expressed in a recent Village Pump Proposal there would be some non-Americans who would most likely enthusiastically support efforts to bring more non-US centric topics to DYK. It's not like we're commemorating US Independence Day by stacking the queues with US-oriented hooks. In fact we would consciously be doing the opposite and encouraging submissions on non-US subjects that are poorly represented normally at DYK. And that is a bad thing that would somehow offend non-Americans? I think that is a bit of a stretch. But of course it would be worthwhile to hear the view points of non-Americans on this. Agne/ 05:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps what you're missing is that every country is proud of its own independence day. Would it be acceptable to you if we started commemorating American Independence Day on, say, Australia Day? There would practically be a riot. I'm sure your proposal was made with the best intentions, but I think perhaps you ought to reflect for a moment on how this proposed arrangement might be likely to be received outside the United States. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I think your reading far too much into this. The benefit of doing this on July 4th is that readers (especially in the US but elsewhere I'm sure) will be "thinking" about Independence Day and familiar with its association with the date when they come to the main page. This way they will be in for an educational treat and chance to learn about independence days across the globe. If anything that makes all those days seem more special because it really hones in on the universal desire for freedom among all humans and how that desires drives brave and heroic individuals to rise up and fight for it--regardless of language and land. It can be a very impactful event and, more importantly, stir interest and contribution in a lot of areas that are seriously lacking coverage. Agne/ 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I really don't think this is a good idea! It sounds kind of chauvinistic to me. The idea of celebrating the independence days of every country on America's anniversary makes it sound as if there was something about American independence day that renders it more important than all the rest. I really can't imagine too many non-Americans getting excited about this one. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- AWESOME idea! If any get submitted too late, they can be used on that country's actual date. Royalbroil 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes! WP:CSB is what I'm all about at the moment. Bigger digger (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
How about making the Independence Day for each country special by primarily focusing on articles specific to that country (or countries where the day is shared) on the day of its independence? B. Fairbairn Talk 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting thought. But putting together "special events" is a lot of work and probably wouldn't maintain much steam and enthusiasm with having 50+ events over the course of the year. The reason why I thought July 4th was a good day to make an event around was not because the US Independence Day is any more special than any other country's independence day but simply because it presented a theme and an opportunity. And considering that most of the systematic bias is related to US-centricity, what better way to actively counter that bias than by taking a day that is normally US-centric and turn it into a day where the focus is on ALL the world and highlight independence day related topics from across the globe. Agne/ 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are completely correct. Considering there are about 250 nations around the world and that some possibly do not even have internet access ;-) it would be a major undertaking. Okay - let us do it: on the US date of independence there be an effort not to focus on the US, which will be a major shock for the many US citizens who focus on their country 365.25 days per year. B. Fairbairn Talk 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- (a) great idea, Agne. (b) a "major shock"?!? I somehow doubt that...but your anti-American POV (yes, I read that Village Pump proposal you put forth with its related discussion...massive TL;DR) is not needed here. Neutrality, please. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- My point-of-view is definitely not anti-American. You know, it is so typical of people such as yourself to automatically assume that because I do not get down on my knees before Uncle Sam that I must be anti-American. All I am saying is that there are too many pro-americans out there going on and on about their country as if it is the only place of any importance in the world. B. Fairbairn Talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...blarg. I should have not said anything, but it's a little late for takebacks, eh? Well, I will not be commenting in this section anymore after this reply: whatever you want to call your POV, it has nothing to do with DYK and I would appreciate it if you would focus on helping/improving the event that Agne27 (talk · contribs) and company are planning instead of snide stereotypical comments about Americans and what you think they think. Thanks in advance and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the first person to respond in the enthusiastic affirmative (me!) is an American so please don't presume to know how we'll all react or how inward-looking we are. (The editor who wrote or expanded many of the articles in Category:Radio stations in the Cayman Islands? Me again.) I still think this is a great idea. - Dravecky (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...blarg. I should have not said anything, but it's a little late for takebacks, eh? Well, I will not be commenting in this section anymore after this reply: whatever you want to call your POV, it has nothing to do with DYK and I would appreciate it if you would focus on helping/improving the event that Agne27 (talk · contribs) and company are planning instead of snide stereotypical comments about Americans and what you think they think. Thanks in advance and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- My point-of-view is definitely not anti-American. You know, it is so typical of people such as yourself to automatically assume that because I do not get down on my knees before Uncle Sam that I must be anti-American. All I am saying is that there are too many pro-americans out there going on and on about their country as if it is the only place of any importance in the world. B. Fairbairn Talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- (a) great idea, Agne. (b) a "major shock"?!? I somehow doubt that...but your anti-American POV (yes, I read that Village Pump proposal you put forth with its related discussion...massive TL;DR) is not needed here. Neutrality, please. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are completely correct. Considering there are about 250 nations around the world and that some possibly do not even have internet access ;-) it would be a major undertaking. Okay - let us do it: on the US date of independence there be an effort not to focus on the US, which will be a major shock for the many US citizens who focus on their country 365.25 days per year. B. Fairbairn Talk 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you read my comment properly instead of stupidly jumping to the wrong conclusion like you both have, you will see that I said "for the many US citizens" and "there are too many pro-americans out there", not all like you claim. Many and all are two different words in the Oxford English dictionary, though maybe webster's English American dictionary disagrees. I get so tired of people like yourselves who as soon as you see someone who is not pro-american assume they are anti-american. Wake up to yourselves. B. Fairbairn Talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fairbairn and Ed, please take your misunderstanding elsewhere this is a conversation about a DYK project, not who's too POVy (new word, copyrighted to me!). I had to stop and think about Gatoclass's comments but I think Agnes is right. Most[REDACTED] users would be aware of America's Independence Day, so on July 4 it would be nice to twist their expectations and show that there are plenty of other IDs they might want to know about... The non-American Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you to Bigger digger for helping us get back on path after straying erratically. B. Fairbairn Talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus-check So is there general agreement to do this? The only objection I've seen is Gato and I don't know if he still has reservations. If everything is a go, do you think it is good idea to create a special page for the event where we can give examples of articles and ideas or just create a holding bay on the suggestion page? 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems strange to celebrate a country's Independence Day on the date of another country's independence. Add to that the perception of Americans by much of the rest of the world as being self centered, and I don't think this is a good idea. -Freekee (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Rules
You never know if you don't ask. Are the rules unbendable? I ask because I'm working on an article which is already a fair size, but is garbage. The content is being completely replaced with substantial, referenced material as well as images, but won't be any larger (and nowhere near fivefold) than the existing mess. It would be nice when it's done to be able to showcase it somehow. Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- What article are you talking about? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- As per WP:IAR, few Misplaced Pages rules are unbendable. However, I have never seen an occasion when the rule of 'replacing cruddy stuff with excellent stuff not sufficient' has been broken. I think the best thing then would be to not submit this article to DYK yet, until consensus here has been gained to allow a rule-break. Importantly, what article is it? Plus, if DYK doesn't work out, you could always go for GA-class. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The article as it stands is Hugh Evan-Thomas. My work-in-progress is User:Simon Harley/Hugh Evan-Thomas which should be done in the next day or two if I pull my finger out. When I get it done I'll probably just send it to ACR or GAR if DYK will, quite rightly, cause a problem. Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Goodness me, we couldn't possibly give you a DYK for replacing that! If we did, we might as well just throw the entire DYK concept out the window. Yes, I think GA will definitely be the right venue for your project. Good luck, Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even if it is, for want of a better word, garbage? And in a few words is a poor reflection of the subject and an abysmal representation of the one source which is actually cited. After all, the whole point of non-new content DYKs is surely to improve articles. By the time I'm done with Evan-Thomas, the article will have been markedly improved. Never mind, it was worth a shot anyway! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Simon, follow the rules. Remove all of the unreferenced material per WP:V ("Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"). Then history merge/paste/whatever in your new article. I would hope that would be 5x, and it also technically follows all of the rules. For the record, I know that allowing things like these is more work, but we really ought to let these through IMHO... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, now I take a look at the article and see that the article has citations for most of the paras. *Sigh* - no, you probably can't get a DYK for that then. What I meant by the small text above was that we should allow totally unreferenced articles to go through if they've been expanded a bit and totally referenced. :/ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Admins protecting DYK images
We've been very lax at protecting images in the DYK queues so that a vandal doesn't upload a horrible image on the main page. Theoretically, someone could upload a penis image to Commons over the top of an image on the main page. But it has been working out because I've been checking the queues about twice per day and protecting the images on Commons. I've already caught some images just a few hours before they hit the main page. I'm going camping for the next 2+ days, so I don't plan to be available to protect images on Commons. So admins will have to download Commons images locally to the English Misplaced Pages and manually protect them. The template to use is {{C-uploaded}}. So everyone please watch out for unprotected images. I've protected everything currently in the numbered queues plus the next updates. I think we should be sure to protect all images as the hit the numbered queues. All local images (ones on the English Misplaced Pages) in the numbered queues are protected by cascading protection - I worked out the bugs about a month ago. They are protected by User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock. So you actually only need to download the image locally and apply the Template:C-uploaded. You can test it if you don't believe me - the image will have the fully-pink screen to indicate that only admins can edit it. Royalbroil 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Self-published wrestling sources
There are a few nominations right now (1, 2, 3) about wrestling that are sourced almost exclusively to the association's own website. The Professional wrestling style guide says that promotion websites are the most reliable, but is this appropriate when the article is on the promotion? WP:SELFPUB says that an article should not rely primarily on self-published sources. Shubinator (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that it can be sourced from the association's website, but not entirely.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ping? Any further discussion on this? The three hooks in question are now at the bottom of the queue, not getting any younger. If we could get some discussion going and a consensus in the next 24 hours or so, that would be deeply appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll source all three with another reliable ref here in a second. I've been out of town (went to the Indy 500) and just got back so sorry for my late reply. Also solie isn't a fan site just for you to know.--WillC 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've sourced both lists, while the tag title article is difficult. There is not alot of reliable wrestling sites, and only two or three who even mention PWG, let alone their championship's histories. I'll keep looking for something though. But I believe I've shown that there are other sources out there for PWG.--WillC 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is this over yet? Two of the three DYKs have been approved already plus I've added new reliable sources to go along with the PWG sources. They haven't been moved on to be featured because of this discussion and are almost too old to even be DYKs. Can we end this now and someone either approve the last nomination or fail it?--WillC 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still uncomfortable with the articles relying primarily on primary sources. Sources have been added, so the articles are now above the threshold for notability, but borderline for a DYK. The articles, and the hooks, are mostly factual, so it's not so much of an issue that the hooks are sourced to primary sources. Could another editor review the noms? Shubinator (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well I can assure you that all of my work is properly sourced and accurate to the best of my knowledge. All the articles I write are notable, even though they may not seem like they are. I just tend to like to use a low amount of sources since they tend to get in the way and ips like to remove them. There are plenty of sources out there regrading PWG, CZW, ROH, FIP, etc so notability is not really a question.--WillC 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, those hooks have been hanging at the bottom of T:TDYK long enough. Quality is important, but I feel fine with these now, and it's high time they be promoted IMHO. The three noms are decent articles, better than some that come through here. I would move two over to prep1 and prep2 myself, but I seem to be the only other participant in this discussion. JamieS93 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if it helps, I also agree that it's high time, and the articles look fine now. :) CarpetCrawler 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Both bottom hooks have been moved to the preparation areas. JamieS93 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if it helps, I also agree that it's high time, and the articles look fine now. :) CarpetCrawler 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I was getting worried that they were forgotten about. Thanks for the compliment if it was intended (the comment that they are "better than some that come through here"). I'm planning to take all of them to FLC. So I try to make them as good as possible so there is no problems during the nomination.--WillC 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, those hooks have been hanging at the bottom of T:TDYK long enough. Quality is important, but I feel fine with these now, and it's high time they be promoted IMHO. The three noms are decent articles, better than some that come through here. I would move two over to prep1 and prep2 myself, but I seem to be the only other participant in this discussion. JamieS93 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well I can assure you that all of my work is properly sourced and accurate to the best of my knowledge. All the articles I write are notable, even though they may not seem like they are. I just tend to like to use a low amount of sources since they tend to get in the way and ips like to remove them. There are plenty of sources out there regrading PWG, CZW, ROH, FIP, etc so notability is not really a question.--WillC 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still uncomfortable with the articles relying primarily on primary sources. Sources have been added, so the articles are now above the threshold for notability, but borderline for a DYK. The articles, and the hooks, are mostly factual, so it's not so much of an issue that the hooks are sourced to primary sources. Could another editor review the noms? Shubinator (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll source all three with another reliable ref here in a second. I've been out of town (went to the Indy 500) and just got back so sorry for my late reply. Also solie isn't a fan site just for you to know.--WillC 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ping? Any further discussion on this? The three hooks in question are now at the bottom of the queue, not getting any younger. If we could get some discussion going and a consensus in the next 24 hours or so, that would be deeply appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Failure in credit
I feel a bit owny but i nominated and created the article on the Dollis Brook Viaduct. I see it has been on the main page. Yet i did not get any recognition for this. I was not able to see that it was on the Next Update page as for me that was in the middle of the night. The hook does appear in Recent additions. E.g. See here and here Simply south (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- No need to apologize for wanting earned credit for your hard work. Somehow the editor that assembled that queue left the credit template for Dollis Brook Viaduct off the list (accidents happen) and mentioning it here was the exact right course of action. I've tagged the article and put the DYK notification on your talk page. Thanks for creating such great content. - Dravecky (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Approved hooks still in short supply
I know it's the end of the school year for a lot of folks, finals for others, and the Memorial Day weekend for those of us in the United States but we're in serious need of hook review. Especially for the older hooks, doubly especially for non-bio hooks. Many of the older hooks remaining have been poked at once and just need a fresh set of eyes while others have been skipped in favor of flashier bio hooks or "easier" reviews. Not every hook has to be a masterpiece of quirky surprise but every hook does need a thorough review for length, dates, and references. If everybody who read this could just find half a dozen to pass or mark for improvement, we could knock down the backlog in no time. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be back in the swing of things when it comes to editing on Misplaced Pages by tonight, so I am sure I can help with the backlog. CarpetCrawler 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I probably should be sleeping, but I went ahead and approved some of the older hooks, anyway. Also, I have a question about a source for a hook, that I hope someone can answer, here. I hope I've helped clear the backlog a little bit more! CarpetCrawler 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm on it, Dravecky. JamieS93 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just did my half a dozen. Four of them are verified. I'm afraid two of them were biographies though. --candle•wicke 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- You guys can always do a approve-n-move if you're doing a next update, instead of going through the few approved ones. It takes actual work, but it's probabyl a good idea. Wizardman 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've went ahead and approved a lot more hooks. I hope I was able to help a little! CarpetCrawler 22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- You guys can always do a approve-n-move if you're doing a next update, instead of going through the few approved ones. It takes actual work, but it's probabyl a good idea. Wizardman 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just did my half a dozen. Four of them are verified. I'm afraid two of them were biographies though. --candle•wicke 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
An observation
This may be a topic that's been raised here before, and if it has I apologise in advance for raising the issue again.
Out of curiosity I've looked at all of the main page DYKs over the last few days, and with only a few exceptions their quality was pretty abysmal, including serious grammar and spelling errors. Are these the types of articles that really ought to be featured on the main page? Does nobody check them for such basic errors first? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- One of the benefits of DYK is having your page on the mainpage so that people like you can see the errors and then fix the errors. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- "People like me" don't count, as I hardly ever look at the main page, and I expect that rather few other regular editors do either. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know the vetting process only extends as far as the number of characters and that the hook has a reference. Quality is sadly not guaranteed. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not expecting miracles, just an eyeball for basic spelling and grammar. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- We're short on reviewers. You're welcome to propose fixes! There are quite a few sets assembled at the queues right now; take a look. Shubinator (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and are you referring to the hooks or the articles? The hooks are held to a higher standard than the articles; it would take a lot longer for reviewers if we had to give each article a copyedit. Shubinator (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- We're short on reviewers. You're welcome to propose fixes! There are quite a few sets assembled at the queues right now; take a look. Shubinator (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the articles, which were almost uniformly unfit to be showcased on the main page. I'm not talking about a "copyedit", I'm talking about very basic spelling and grammar issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Typically, hooks are scrutinized in minute detail, but the article hardly at all. However they are often improved while featured, which is part of the reason for DYK. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the articles, which were almost uniformly unfit to be showcased on the main page. I'm not talking about a "copyedit", I'm talking about very basic spelling and grammar issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Your own contribs shows it takes 3-5 minutes, which would double reviewing time. If we have enough reviewers, sure; but on the weekdays we're usually running out of oxygen. Shubinator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then don't put so much rubbish on the main page, be more selective. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps once a hook is moved to the next update page, the article should be given a brief run through to check there are no glaring mistakes? That way, the quality of DYKs is improved while minimising the number of articles this would be done to. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- As Johnbod and Ottava said, one of the founding principles behind DYK was that brand new articles were improved while on the Main Page. It isn't rubbish, it's material that could use improvement; exactly what DYK was made for. Shubinator (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't happen though, does it. Not unless I come along. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shubinator - I keep this page watchlisted in order to see when there is anything urgent. I didn't see a notice about needing reviews at the moment. Perhaps we need a better system that has alerts (a subpage with notices when there are less than, say, 40 approved hooks (5 new queues). I tend to jump in only in emergencies, as my standards tend to be high and drama sometimes comes out when I post concerns (thus, I don't want to tempt fate that often). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- #Approved_hooks_still_in_short_supply, #Drama_resolved.2C_approved_hooks_in_short_supply. Shubinator (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably got lost in my watch list. That is why a subpage would be better. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where would we put the subpage so everyone sees it? This page usually has discussions if we're low, and the queue page has the table of approved hooks. Shubinator (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is a way that you can create something similar to the RfA notifications so it shows up as a template. Then people can link it directly on their pages, have it at the top of this page, or watchlist the template and view the updates from their watchlist. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would {{Misplaced Pages:Did you know/DYK hook count}} work? Shubinator (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is a way that you can create something similar to the RfA notifications so it shows up as a template. Then people can link it directly on their pages, have it at the top of this page, or watchlist the template and view the updates from their watchlist. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where would we put the subpage so everyone sees it? This page usually has discussions if we're low, and the queue page has the table of approved hooks. Shubinator (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably got lost in my watch list. That is why a subpage would be better. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- #Approved_hooks_still_in_short_supply, #Drama_resolved.2C_approved_hooks_in_short_supply. Shubinator (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shubinator - I keep this page watchlisted in order to see when there is anything urgent. I didn't see a notice about needing reviews at the moment. Perhaps we need a better system that has alerts (a subpage with notices when there are less than, say, 40 approved hooks (5 new queues). I tend to jump in only in emergencies, as my standards tend to be high and drama sometimes comes out when I post concerns (thus, I don't want to tempt fate that often). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the above an attempt to shove the issue I raised under the carpet? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- No. I have responded to your comments, and there's nothing new for me to add – the discussion had already started covering old points again. Others are, of course, free to give their opinions. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- e/c with Shub. Malleus, I don't know about other articles, but since becoming too active on wp, I've found that DYK does encourage people to improve articles. I've listed two that I created (a third is in a queue and a fourth will be nominated shortly). My standards of spelling and grammar, at least in article space, are (I think) high, but Osaka Maritime Museum still benefited from the attentions of others whilst it was assessed and whilst on the main page - diff. Naniwa Maru also had the benefit of other editors attention and I think the changes show the detail with which people look at the articles. Have you got any diffs to show that even if a "dubious" article gets onto the main page people ignore it?
- I try to ensure all the obvious mistakes are whisked away from articles I assess (and in general in my wp use) but I think the system is fine as it is. Bigger digger (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note that In The News articles are linked from the Main Page about a week, and Did You Know articles are so linked for 6 hours. So I consider spell checking etc. for In The News articles to be a higher priority. But I would have no objection to less quantity and more quality. Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think this observation, while a valid concern, is a blanket statement. I have seen several users at DYK who have pulled articles for copyvio, potential plagiarism, BLP concerns, poor sources and diction. I haven't come across any DYKs that made it to main with basic grammar and spelling errors - perhaps I have just been lucky. Law type! snype? 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- So there's no problem then., , , , --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- If I were to assign a conservative margin of error here, I would still say no - this is not an overwhelming problem. Law type! snype? 02:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- So there's no problem then., , , , --Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think this observation, while a valid concern, is a blanket statement. I have seen several users at DYK who have pulled articles for copyvio, potential plagiarism, BLP concerns, poor sources and diction. I haven't come across any DYKs that made it to main with basic grammar and spelling errors - perhaps I have just been lucky. Law type! snype? 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note that In The News articles are linked from the Main Page about a week, and Did You Know articles are so linked for 6 hours. So I consider spell checking etc. for In The News articles to be a higher priority. But I would have no objection to less quantity and more quality. Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- (out) This is an argument that has been going on for months (at least...but probably more like years) over a more basic disagreement over what DYK's purpose should be—showcasing quality articles, or showcasing 'new' articles. Most of us try to balance (i.e., giving a conditional OK on articles that meet the DYK criteria but not technically accepting them until some minor copyedit-y sort of things have been cleaned up, or rejecting them outright if the entire article has egregious spelling/grammar/copyediting problems), but the basic question of how "good" DYK articles should be is not something that's going to be resolved in one little thread here. rʨanaɢ /contribs 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's clearly not going to be resolved anywhere, as there's no will to accept the fact that there's a problem here. The cold, dead hand of "consensus" will no doubt make certain of that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No-one thinks it's perfect, but then there are no perfect articles on wp. The consensus is that DYK is a good opportunity for new and improved articles to be shown to all users, with the hope that an interesting hook might even get some of them editing a page or bring experienced attention to a new article. Consensus is not a cold, dead hand, but warm, active editors who believe that championing new and expanded articles is worth the cost of a few typos in articles on the main page. But thanks for trying to find a suitable metaphor for us ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the truth is that many (perhaps even most) DYK articles do not get edited significantly either while they are on the MP or later in their life as an article (see User:Rjanag/DYKfuture for the number of former DYK articles that have gone on to be good or featured content; they look like nice numbers, but as a proportion of all DYK articles it's actually rather small), and most DYK hooks nowadays are not "interesting". So the point that people like Malleus often bring up is, if DYK is not doing a good job on t hings like that, why not change its focus to something else, like showcasing more quality articles rather than more new articles?
- There is a perennial debate over whether DYK should also showcase articles that recently achieved GA status, and that debate touches on the same issues as this one does. On the "pro" side, people will say that GAs are better. On the "con" side, people will say that the original goal of DYK is to let the main page showcase both sides of an article's lifespan: FAs show an article towards the pinnacle of its development, and DYKs show articles at the beginning. Of course, DYK is not really the "beginning"—stub-class is closer to the beginning, but most stubs are an embarrassment to the encyclopedia, so DYK could basically be defined as the earliest point in an article's lifespan where it's fit for people to see. The point of disagreement, then, has always been what exactly constitutes "fit for people to see"; people like Malleus, and others who have raised th is point before, simply place the bar higher than DYK's standards often do. On the other side of the spectrum, some people will vehemently argue that DYKs shouldn't need to be "mini-GAs" to be fit for the main page.
- Of course, on the side DYK also has other raisons d'etre that can confound this picture a bit more. Some people will point out that the purpose of DYK might be less about content and more about giving awards and recognition to encourage editors and build the community. Others will point out that it's the only way to get any recognition of peer-reviewing for short articles on weird topics that probably will almost never be looked at again. There's a whole mess of issues beyond just copyediting, and it all boils down to what people think the purpose of DYK should be; as long as we don't all agree on what exactly DYK is for, we will not agree on which kinds of articles should make it and which shouldn't. rʨanaɢ /contribs 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No-one thinks it's perfect, but then there are no perfect articles on wp. The consensus is that DYK is a good opportunity for new and improved articles to be shown to all users, with the hope that an interesting hook might even get some of them editing a page or bring experienced attention to a new article. Consensus is not a cold, dead hand, but warm, active editors who believe that championing new and expanded articles is worth the cost of a few typos in articles on the main page. But thanks for trying to find a suitable metaphor for us ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's clearly not going to be resolved anywhere, as there's no will to accept the fact that there's a problem here. The cold, dead hand of "consensus" will no doubt make certain of that. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be all or none
I don't know why a discussion about improving the quality of content featured at DYK always boils down to "Maintain the status quo vs start accepting GAs (or something close to that)". Improving the quality of DYK doesn't mean abandoning the spirit or purpose of DYK in featuring new content nor is accepting GAs or "mini-GA"s the only way to improve the quality of DYKs. DYKs should never be "Main Page Perfect" because part of functional benefit of DYK is the encouragement of MP readers to edit and improve the article. Nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anybody can edit more than DYK with its ever present encouragement for the reader to became part of the project by improving DYKs. That said, growth and improvement is a vital part of any healthy project and DYK should not be so resistant to reform under the mistaken belief that any diversion from the status quo somehow equates to losing the soul and spirit of DYK. There have been many viable suggestions (such as reconsidering the expansion rules) of ways to reform DYK that still maintain the spirit and purpose of DYK in featuring new content but also lift up the overall quality (and interest factor) of the content being featured. However we will never make progress on this discussion until there is a broad realization that this is not an "all or none" scenario--that we don't have to lose our soul or just feature FA-wannabes in order to better serve our main page readership. Agne/ 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seems sensible. The steps to improvement needn't be large ones, several small steps taken over a period of time could be just as effective. I was only remarking on what I considered to be easily corrected errors (spelling, grammar, etc.) in DYKs, for instance, the presence of which I don't think does the reputation of either DYK or[REDACTED] any good. Rjanag also quite rightly draws attention to the fact that an interesting DYK has become a rarity. Why not focus on "interesting" regardless of "newness", for instance? The "mini GA" argument is of course a red herring. GAs have to be a lot more than free from spelling and grammar errors. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Preparation areas 1 & 2
I've moved the "next update" and "next next update" pages to their new (and more clear) titles → Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. This was based on the loose consensus established in the above discussion (#Next update). I'm still in the process of sorting out the links and redirects, updating all of the pages. If I miss anything, or if there's some big bad problem, let me know. :-) JamieS93 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you. That's quite a feat. Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes it kind of was. :-) I believe I've done all of the major changes, the links, templates and instructions now reflect the new changes. Looks like Art LaPella has handled some of less visible sub-pages that refer to the "next update" page process, too. I'll be heading to bed now, but everything seems to be settled for the most part. New shortcuts are: T:DYK/P, T:DYK/P1, and T:DYK/P2. JamieS93 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Special request for last minute Memorial Day entry
I offer my sincerest apologies for even asking this, but I was searching through recent deaths and found a red link for Newt Heisley, the creator of the POW/MIA flag just about an hour ago. I found a number of sources, created the article and offer it for an extremely last minute review and promotion. I would appreciate any assistance from any DYK admin who might be interested in helping here and would more than understand if it must be placed on the usual cycle for review. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. Because we are total process wonks and would deny this request based on the five day rule. :-P It'll definitely get into a Memorial Day queue, but the 31st hasn't been scheduled yet. But, when they are made up, I think that this should be placed into a U.S.-time evening slot (read: end of 31st, beginning of the 1st UTC time)... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Memorial Day in the US is May 25th (today) Ruhrfisch ><>° 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I started to think I was celebrating a week early. Hiccup. Law type! snype? 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that I'm dumb. For whatever reason I was thinking that it was the 31st? I should probably hit myself with a wet minnow. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had to double check to make sure it was today - I see the article is on the Main Page now, so it all worked out. Ruhrfisch ><>° 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that I'm dumb. For whatever reason I was thinking that it was the 31st? I should probably hit myself with a wet minnow. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I started to think I was celebrating a week early. Hiccup. Law type! snype? 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Memorial Day in the US is May 25th (today) Ruhrfisch ><>° 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Bot late
It's running 25 minutes late. Has it been disabled, or just stopped working again? I will give it an hour or so, and if it hasn't been updated by then and there's no word here I will do it manually. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed nixeagle about the problem. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan, Gatoclass. It's 2:45am here so I'll leave it in your capable hands. - Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've temporarily undone the new redirect from Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to Template:Did you know/Time on the theory that the bot is looking in the old location and not following the redirect. We'll know in a few minutes, I hope. - Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Something weird just happened to the template so I'm not sure what's going on. However, I notice that the bot also failed to archive the hooks after its last update, although it did do the credits. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The bot hasn't been updating the archive for a while but it has been doing everything else so it's been a small price to pay. I think either my experiment didn't give the bot enough lead time or it's not the only problem. I'll try another time a bit farther down the road (20 minutes) and see if that gets a rise from the bot. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No wonder the bot didn't work, someone redirected the Time template! But now it doesn't appear to be working anyway, so I'm not sure what's gone wrong with it now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it doesn't work this time, we will have to manually update and hope it all works properly next time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks for staying on top of this, Gatoclass. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jamie also moved Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours, a page I didn't even know existed, so if the bot doesn't work this time I will move that page back and try again before going to a manual update. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ka-ching! It fired. Looks like its back in business :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, how could I forget that the bot directly relied upon those pages? *facepalm* I just thought it would be best clean up and get the sub-pages of the non-existent "next update" filed elsewhere. Thanks for cleaning up my mess, now I feel like a deficient admin. :/ JamieS93 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you did a good job overall, and this problem was easily fixed :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, how could I forget that the bot directly relied upon those pages? *facepalm* I just thought it would be best clean up and get the sub-pages of the non-existent "next update" filed elsewhere. Thanks for cleaning up my mess, now I feel like a deficient admin. :/ JamieS93 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ka-ching! It fired. Looks like its back in business :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jamie also moved Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours, a page I didn't even know existed, so if the bot doesn't work this time I will move that page back and try again before going to a manual update. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks for staying on top of this, Gatoclass. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- If it doesn't work this time, we will have to manually update and hope it all works properly next time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No wonder the bot didn't work, someone redirected the Time template! But now it doesn't appear to be working anyway, so I'm not sure what's gone wrong with it now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The bot hasn't been updating the archive for a while but it has been doing everything else so it's been a small price to pay. I think either my experiment didn't give the bot enough lead time or it's not the only problem. I'll try another time a bit farther down the road (20 minutes) and see if that gets a rise from the bot. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Something weird just happened to the template so I'm not sure what's going on. However, I notice that the bot also failed to archive the hooks after its last update, although it did do the credits. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, thanks for fixing the problem without my help. Let me know where you want the new pages and I'll fix it to point at the new page. Unfortunately its a holiday weekend, and I was working 10 hours yesterday, and family today. I'll do whatever changes that need doing tomorrow. In the future lets refrain from major changes during holidays XD.
Generally if the bot edits a page, it relies on the page, don't move them without giving me a heads up. Additionally the bot relies on the DYK queues being where they are. That is it as far as pages its dependent on. It does not care about the Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours page (I did not even know it existed). I'll change the program tonight when I get home to use whatever the /time page is. —— nixeagle 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- {{DYK-Refresh}} uses /Hours. Also, I've got a couple more minor bugs above. Shubinator (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
How come none of today's Did you know hooks have been archived yet? There have been at least three sets that haven't been added yet! The most recent one archived starts with William Windsor (goat)! Please fix it!SPNic (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- The bot doesn't archive sets, so we have to manage it manually. Sometimes we aren't caught up on a few batches, though. It's all updated now - I added two sets, and Dravecky got the last one. Thanks, JamieS93 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And thank you.SPNic (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The hooks aren't being archived again. There are now at least three sets that aren't in the archives; the most recent set archived starts with Emily Fowler.SPNic (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And thank you.SPNic (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Archives for the suggestion page
Are the threads on the suggestion/nomination page archived anywhere? I can't seem to find a link.Smallman12q (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. They're in the history though. Shubinator (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a truly atrocious way to do it. Why not have an archival bot? Going through history is a completely unnecessary and last resort pain. There should definitely be an archive of some sort.Smallman12q (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The archives would be massive. We have an archive of hooks that appear on the Main Page; no need to have an archive of failed hooks. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I meant an archive for the threads, not just the hooks. It wouldn't be overly massive, and it would provide a reference of past approved/dissaproved hooks as well a reference for people who wish to view one another's DYK work.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don´t see a need for this. Searching the history might be a bit of a hassle, but I do it all the time and it works perfectly fine to reference old hooks. It would make extra work for people (I don´t see how this could be done by a bot; people remove discussions from T:TDYK manually, and would have to put them in an archive as they remove them) and doesn´t provide anything you don´t already have in the history. --rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of removing them manually, perhaps we could put some type of archival message and then a bot would auto-archive only those with the archival message, or the bot could be set to say 15 days(as the longest lasting dyk thread appears to be 10 days). The current method is indeed quite a hassle, especially for people trying to review someones DYK work. Smallman12q (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don´t see a need for this. Searching the history might be a bit of a hassle, but I do it all the time and it works perfectly fine to reference old hooks. It would make extra work for people (I don´t see how this could be done by a bot; people remove discussions from T:TDYK manually, and would have to put them in an archive as they remove them) and doesn´t provide anything you don´t already have in the history. --rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I meant an archive for the threads, not just the hooks. It wouldn't be overly massive, and it would provide a reference of past approved/dissaproved hooks as well a reference for people who wish to view one another's DYK work.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The archives would be massive. We have an archive of hooks that appear on the Main Page; no need to have an archive of failed hooks. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is a truly atrocious way to do it. Why not have an archival bot? Going through history is a completely unnecessary and last resort pain. There should definitely be an archive of some sort.Smallman12q (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Are the concern's related to a perceived technical difficulty, or rather that there is some opposition to the archives themselves?Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of an archive. We already have an archive page for the hooks actually promoted, and we have an archive page for this here discussion page. If anyone wants to search for a discussion about a particlar hook that's been promoted, it's easy enough to do it from the existing archive pages. In the 18 months I've been contributing to DYK, there have been exactly zero requests for a link to an old discussion about a hook that wasn't promoted, so again, I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- At WP:RFA, when people mention DYK work, the fact that its difficult to follow a person's work here often leads to confusion.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how perusing the article history for the suggestions page is more difficult than reviewing the article history of anything else a candidate for adminship might be. Indeed, this seems like a seriously complicating and time/resources/effort consuming request for a very minor benefit, none of which would actually accrue to the DYK efforts. - Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well in addition to being able to review an editor, we could reference previous hooks to see how to work things out. I don't really understand why it would be so difficult? People already copy paste the hooks, it would take only an extra moment to copy paste the whole thread to a relevant archive. The process can also be automated. I'll gladly volunteer.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- DYK has enough steps as it is without archiving of threads. Judging by the conversation, DYK editors don't see the point of an archive, and are unlikely to archive threads. One of the bot requirements is that the bot performs only tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus in favor of a thread archive here; in fact, there's consensus against a thread archive. Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well in addition to being able to review an editor, we could reference previous hooks to see how to work things out. I don't really understand why it would be so difficult? People already copy paste the hooks, it would take only an extra moment to copy paste the whole thread to a relevant archive. The process can also be automated. I'll gladly volunteer.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how perusing the article history for the suggestions page is more difficult than reviewing the article history of anything else a candidate for adminship might be. Indeed, this seems like a seriously complicating and time/resources/effort consuming request for a very minor benefit, none of which would actually accrue to the DYK efforts. - Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- At WP:RFA, when people mention DYK work, the fact that its difficult to follow a person's work here often leads to confusion.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of an archive. We already have an archive page for the hooks actually promoted, and we have an archive page for this here discussion page. If anyone wants to search for a discussion about a particlar hook that's been promoted, it's easy enough to do it from the existing archive pages. In the 18 months I've been contributing to DYK, there have been exactly zero requests for a link to an old discussion about a hook that wasn't promoted, so again, I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I agree with the consensus, but in this case I'm not going to drop the stick until I get a clear explanation as to why an archive is so unwanted? I always thought that people on[REDACTED] wanted to preserve and showcase their work, but I am beginning to doubt this. I'm not trying to be a dick; all I seek is an answer.Smallman12q (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm proud of my DYKs, yes. Am I proud of the discussion threads? No. Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The answer is, as has been said above, that other editors here don't see a necessity for an archive. It's important to be able to point to specific threads, discussions, noms, etc., but archives don't really make that any easier than the existing page history does (especially now that we use subheaders, which we started doing back in November—they show up in the page history, which makes the history easily searchable). The things said above don't mean we think an archive would be bad; they mean we think it wouldn't do any extra good, and isn't worth the trouble of implementing.
- By now, this discussion is going in circles, and if it continues I might just {{archive top}} {{archive bottom}} it... rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Seam Brewer Hook
I also would like to raise a concern with the Sean Brewer hook currently at Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1#Hooks as it says ... that after selecting Sean Brewer in the 2001 NFL Draft the Cincinnati Bengals discovered he had a cigarette addiction?. I personally have never heard of a cigarette addiction, and the source says Sean Brewer, a restricted free agent perhaps best known for the three-pack-a-day cigarette habit the Bengals discovered shortly after burning a third-round pick on him in the 2001 draft, will remain in Atlanta for a second season. Perhaps the hook should be changed to say: ...that after selecting Sean Brewer in the 2001 NFL Draft the Cincinnati Bengals discovered he suffered from a three-pack-a-day cigarette habit. Comments are welcome=DSmallman12q (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've got no problem with your idea, feel free to make a change.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it. On a side note, Giant, have you considered using WP:Friendly, it has a talkback function=D.Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh...I see you noticed my typo ;) and I have but I've got Internet explorer and like most things it doesn't work with it. :(--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- =D Have you considered installing firefox, (just for wikipedia)? They also have a portable version in which most wiki tools should also work.Smallman12q (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh...I see you noticed my typo ;) and I have but I've got Internet explorer and like most things it doesn't work with it. :(--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it. On a side note, Giant, have you considered using WP:Friendly, it has a talkback function=D.Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding wikilinks into the rules and dyk award question
1) The rules regarding hooks do not mention wikilinks. Perhaps a phrase stating It is advised that relevant words be wikilinked. However, please do not overlink Anyone agree, disagree? Comments?Smallman12q (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2)Do contributions towards the DYK medal also include successful nominations?Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I don't like the idea of encouraging wikilinks because people will get too enthusiastic and overlink. Here's an example, and I only unlinked the more egregious ones.
- 2) Yes, nominations are included. Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to mention wikilinks in the instructions as I would think it's self evident. Anyone who's seen the DYKs on the main page can see that each hook has a couple of links to important terms. Instructions are all very well, but people learn by seeing examples and copying them, such as other nominations on T:TDYK or from the DYK section on the main page. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't explicitly having it in the rules make it more clear?Smallman12q (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to mention wikilinks in the instructions as I would think it's self evident. Anyone who's seen the DYKs on the main page can see that each hook has a couple of links to important terms. Instructions are all very well, but people learn by seeing examples and copying them, such as other nominations on T:TDYK or from the DYK section on the main page. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Template talk:Did you know#Sample DYK suggestion strings states "Do wikilink words in the hook". Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per Shubinator, we don't want to encourage overlinking, and people already generally wikilink relevant words, so I'd say this is a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Currently, it appears that a many words are not being wikilinked, and you could always include a "don't overlink" statement in addition to the wikilink request.Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per Shubinator, we don't want to encourage overlinking, and people already generally wikilink relevant words, so I'd say this is a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Template talk:Did you know#Sample DYK suggestion strings states "Do wikilink words in the hook". Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- The editnotice says to wikilink words in the hook, and more people read that than the rules. If people aren't wikilinking, it's generally not because they're not aware that they're supposed to wikilink, but they think certain things are "common" terms. Reviewers are always encouraged to add or remove links when necessary; if you're reviewing and come across a term that's not familiar, wikilink it (or, better yet, rewrite the hook so that it will be clear to anyone). rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Bot error
This is non-essential but is there a reason why this shows the 24th as having 23 hooks and 25 verified.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Multiple hooks
If there are multiple alternative hooks for an article, and for some we assume good faith, but not for others, do we tag the article with {{DYKtick}} or {{DYKtickAGF}}.Smallman12q (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, those ticks are just a way of getting other reviewers' attention when they populate the update. If you need to be specific, you can consider tagging each hook separately; otherwise, you can either do "
/
" with an explanation of which applies to which hook, or you can just the whole thing and explan which hooks are verified in which way. The written explanation is more important than the kind of tick used, the tick is just a way to make it easy for people to find verified hooks. rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining.Smallman12q (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
B-Day
The time is finally here for the eagerly awaited Bacon Challenge 2009 to reach its thrilling and historic conclusion. Participants are moving their articles to mainspace and we'll be putting up our DYK noms soon. The plan is to group the hooks together so, hopefully, we can have an update or two comprised of hooks that were part of the event.
If there are any questions or concerns, please let us know. Because several people are involved, the hooks may not get put up all at one time, but I'm hoping that grouping them together will be okay and that we can maybe include a special note or banner so people know that they are part of this event and that the intention is for them to be kept together (if possible) for a massive bacon-y update. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here are the hooks so far:
- ... that the peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich would be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's choice for his last meal and was a favorite with Elvis?
- ... that Seduced by Bacon by Joanna Pruess includes a recipe for pecan, brown sugar and bacon ice cream as well as writings by Mark Twain?
- ... that National Pig Day is included in a handbook for first year teachers as a day for activities including cooking bacon, making BLTs, and discussing where pork chops come from?
- ... that angels on horseback are an appetizer of bacon-wrapped oysters that was invented in 1888 and featured in the New York Times in 1896 as a "dish for sultry weather"?
- ... that a Mitch Morgan, bourbon with a slice of bacon as a garnish, served as the inspiration for Bacon Salt?
- ... that Stegt Flæsk, a popular bacon dish in Danish cuisine, has been described as "a dish of pork fat, and only pork fat, in parsley sauce. Mmmm".
- ... that turkey bacon is used as a substitute for pork bacon at Camille's Sidewalk Cafe locations in the Middle East?
- ... that to prepare a bacon martini, bacon has to soak in vodka for 24 hours, before it is strained over ice and served with a bacon garnish?
- ... that miniature pigs are used for medical research and kept as pets, unlike the larger bacon-type pigs raised for meat. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- alt. ...that miniature pigs are bred and raised as pets and for medical research into organ transplant rather than for bacon?
- ... that a maple bacon donut served at a new Wichita, Kansas donut shop is already famous?
- ... that Snake 'n' Bacon is a cartoon duo consisting of a snake and a strip of bacon whose conversations are limited to hissing (on Snake's part) and making bacon-related comments (on Bacon's part)?
- alt: ... that on the cartoon show Snake 'n' Bacon, the Bacon character communicates solely with bacon related comments like, "I am a piece of bacon."?
- The Shake 'n' Bacon article needs to be expanded (it's in User:Drmies userspace right now NOT the short mainspace version).
- There's still plenty of time if anyone wants to check the Bacon Challenge page for ideas or has their own bacon related article that they've been waiting for this special moment to unveil... Bacon vodka anyone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can't say I'm too keen on this idea myself - not unless there is an actual "bacon day" celebration somewhere, otherwise people are just going to wonder why we are featuring a bunch of bacon-related hooks at once. It's also not likely to be met with much approval from vegetarians or animal rights supporters. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, this could have been perfect for National Pig Day but that was on March 1st. Given sufficiently diverse hooks, I don't see why these couldn't run 1 (or maybe 2) per queue over the course of a few days. It looks like my arteries won't be the only things clogged by bacon this week. - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Gatoclass & Dravecky's comments. Spread them out with 1 (maybe 2) hooks per update. Royalbroil 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think an all bacon update would be best, but I'm not sure, and respect the opinion of others more experienced in the process. I think an all bacon update would be fun, and yes I know we missed National pig day, but nobody's perfect. I don't know what protocols apply, and if having a bacon hook in every update for the next week or so is a better way to go, I think that's okay too. There are a couple hooks with good photos, so that might allow for more photo included hooks as well... :) Thanks for your consideration.
- We've tried to be as open and possible and I mentioned the plan a while back in case there were any concerns... I'm not sure what other participants think about splitting the hooks up, but as the BC event has been about fun and collaboration I doubt anyone would mind if it's determined that divying up the bacon is the best approach. I do think we'd get the bacon out of our system faster with a focused update, but I understand why editors want to savor their bacon and spread the joy over a longer period of time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Gatoclass & Dravecky's comments. Spread them out with 1 (maybe 2) hooks per update. Royalbroil 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, this could have been perfect for National Pig Day but that was on March 1st. Given sufficiently diverse hooks, I don't see why these couldn't run 1 (or maybe 2) per queue over the course of a few days. It looks like my arteries won't be the only things clogged by bacon this week. - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can't say I'm too keen on this idea myself - not unless there is an actual "bacon day" celebration somewhere, otherwise people are just going to wonder why we are featuring a bunch of bacon-related hooks at once. It's also not likely to be met with much approval from vegetarians or animal rights supporters. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> So far the feedback on the Bacon Challenge discussion page seems to support keeping the bacon hooks together in an update if possible. Anyone else care to weight in? Could a brief note or explanation in the update be put in to explain it was a Misplaced Pages event?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm slightly biased as I participated, but I think the reluctance of the regular DYK-ers is based on
- Potential to insult vegetarians/animal lovers — I think that this is a potential problem but then there are always hooks that might put someone off (you can't please all the people all the time, etc). If a user actually took issue with it, I'm sure we could have a Vegetarian Challenge or some such balancing measure.
- Lack of comprehension about the reason — Releasing all the hooks in one go would probably make more sense to the average user than about 8 updates all featuring bacon. A hook around "A group of editores collaborated to produce some bacon-themed articles for DYK" would probably draw some more attention to DYK and maybe get some more nominations or some more editors helping out with reviewing hooks.
- We worked quite hard to get these articles up to a decent standard and it would be a nice reward if they could go out all at once, that was the original plan.
- Obviously we won't get very far if all the regulars say, "Thanks, but no." but I don't think there are any major reasons not to, and it makes loading two queues very easy indeed! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think those two things are the main reasons for opposing the Bacon Update. The main reason is the already-existing standard about preparing DYK updates—the precedent is that the update should be varied (we have rules like no more than 50% US-related hooks, no more than 2, maybe 3, biography hooks, etc. etc.). We generally try to avoid having hooks with undue focus on one geographical area, topic, etc. That's why people might not be keen on this.
- That being said, I also recognize that a DYK update is only up for a couple hours and, if we have a little fun with it, what gives. But that's an IAR-type situation, and the fact is that the status quo is to avoid these types of updates. If you do think DYK should IAR and do it anyway, the burden of argument is on the Bacon Cabal to prove why we should ignore the rule, not on DYK people to defend why they shouldn't. rʨanaɢ /contribs 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Rjanag, you make a good point. In fact, if you assume the first 9 will make it into one update, there are 2 articles about food dishes, 1 about a book, 1 about an author, 1 about a particular day, 2 about drinks, 1 about Danish food culture, 1 about an ingredient and 1 about an animal. That's a fairly good balance, it's just that they're all linked by a theme, which actually gives all the hooks a unique extra slant of their own... Bigger digger (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I must say, that is quite a stretch now. All the hooks (except maybe the mini pig one) are about food, fair and square.
- Themed updates have happened in the past, but only on real days (such as Darwin Day), and even then it's often been limited to 4 or 5 themed hooks per update (and regular hooks for the rest of the update) to spread it out through the day. And, as far as I know, this has only ever happened to celebrate a real day, not just to amuse Misplaced Pages editors who thought it would be fun (no offense, but that is just what this looks like to me).
- Now, why not just nominate these normally and let them be spread out across multiple updates? With this number of hooks, you would have 1-2 bacon hooks on the main page more or less nonstop, for at least 2 days; is that not at least as good (if not better) than one big update? (This is assuming for the sake of argument that all your articles are up to DYK standards; I just found some borderline plagiarism in the very first one.) rʨanaɢ /contribs 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Rjanag, you make a good point. In fact, if you assume the first 9 will make it into one update, there are 2 articles about food dishes, 1 about a book, 1 about an author, 1 about a particular day, 2 about drinks, 1 about Danish food culture, 1 about an ingredient and 1 about an animal. That's a fairly good balance, it's just that they're all linked by a theme, which actually gives all the hooks a unique extra slant of their own... Bigger digger (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed hook
I removed the hook for Adam (film) in the current DYK set because at least one section of it was blatantly copied and pasted from the source. Everyone please be careful to check for issues like this when reviewing hooks. rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Recreated articles
Do recreated articles count as 'new articles' when it comes to the DYK criteria? For example Arvydas Novikovas was deleted on 16 December 2008, but was recreated today due to him passing the WP:ATHLETE criteria. If it was expanded to 1,500 characters would a DYK then be valid? --Jimbo 18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Re-creation or UNdeletion? We should go by what's in the current edit-history (ignoring the parts that only admins can see). If after an article was deleted, someone turns the red link blue again and everything in the edit-history of the article is freshly created, the article should be considered brand new. It needs to be 1500 characters long to qualify for DYK. If the article is undeleted and contains pre-deletion materials from more than 5 days ago, it's old. It needs a 5-fold expansion to qualify for DYK. At least this is how I would interpret the DYK rules. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Exempt from DYK?
I'm planning on publishing an article I'm writing, however I'd prefer it if it wasn't "DYK-ed" on the front page. Is there any way I can let my articles be exempt from DYK? Or would I have to post them in stages so it doesn't satisfy the DYK criteria? Thanks, Antivenin 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Like tax law, you would have to legally and purposefully keep your article exempt from the rules. However, others may improve your article, bringing it back into the running. Law type! snype? 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- In stages, then. Cumbersome, but oh well. Antivenin 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but then again, any editor may wish to expand it, or work on it in some way that makes it eligible for DYK. There's not really any guarantee. Law type! snype? 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- In stages, then. Cumbersome, but oh well. Antivenin 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you could just check the page regularly and make a statement saying you don't want it. Most DYK are only added if people run into the page. The chances of that are slim, so don't worry about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Curiosity question, why wouldn't you want them featured on DYK? Agne/ 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Personal preference. I'd rather not be thanked for the content I contribute. I think I'll follow Ottava's suggestion. It'll save me the trouble of waiting for 5 whole days before I can publish the rest of the article. Antivenin 03:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Curiosity question, why wouldn't you want them featured on DYK? Agne/ 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just keep in mind also that no-one can claim ownership of an article. See WP:OWN. --Bruce1ee 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am perfectly familiar with WP:OWN. The point of DYK is to encourage contributors. The two are unrelated. Antivenin 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite. DYK is not solely focus on an article's original contributor but rather on encouraging a broader range of potential contributors by featuring new and (hopefully) interesting articles on the mainpage. As I noted in a previous thread, nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit better than featuring articles that can be improved by the casual reader who notices the article being featured on the mainpage. If another editor comes across an interesting article that you newly created, there is nothing prohibiting them from nominating it and per WP:OWN, I don't think your single objection would merit its exclusion. Now you noted that you don't like to be thanked for your contributions as a reason for not wanting to be a part of DYK. But again, I want to emphasize that this is not about you-it's a broader community project that reaches millions on a daily basis and you shouldn't worry about what other editors do. Agne/ 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- An interesting POV. Noted. Antivenin 16:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite. DYK is not solely focus on an article's original contributor but rather on encouraging a broader range of potential contributors by featuring new and (hopefully) interesting articles on the mainpage. As I noted in a previous thread, nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit better than featuring articles that can be improved by the casual reader who notices the article being featured on the mainpage. If another editor comes across an interesting article that you newly created, there is nothing prohibiting them from nominating it and per WP:OWN, I don't think your single objection would merit its exclusion. Now you noted that you don't like to be thanked for your contributions as a reason for not wanting to be a part of DYK. But again, I want to emphasize that this is not about you-it's a broader community project that reaches millions on a daily basis and you shouldn't worry about what other editors do. Agne/ 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am perfectly familiar with WP:OWN. The point of DYK is to encourage contributors. The two are unrelated. Antivenin 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Queue 4 glitch!
Would an admin be so kind as to sort out a small formatting problem at the bottom of Q4. The HMS Pique (1795) hook is running into the preceding hook (Gunnar Heiberg), and just needs to be put on a separate line. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved – Law type! snype? 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Easy DYK Link Script
Hey everyone, I have been using a bit of custom .js to make my work at DYK easier for the past few months (viewable at my monobook.js) and I have just made a form of the script that I use into a script that can be used by other DYK volunteers, what the script does is it adds links to the main DYK pages (All the Queues, the Prep Areas, the main DYK template, the hook suggestion page, and the Misplaced Pages pages related to DYK) under the toolbox header of your sidebar, also the script does not interfere with any other scripts to my knowledge. To use the script add
importScript('User:Mifter/DYK tools.js');
to your monobook.js :). If anyone has any changes that they would like made or and suggestions, I would be happy to hear them :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mifter! Something that would be nice would be a link in Special:WhatLinksHere, or some place like that, that goes directly to an article's DYK nom on T:TDYK (assuming that article is on DYK) rather than to the T:TDYK page in general. For single articles, the template {{T:TDYK}} creates a link directly to a nom (ie, for an article Example,
{{T:TDYK|Example}}is the same as]), but I don't know if there's any way to work that into a script in some way such that the link will just be there (without anyone's having to type it out) whenever you go to Special:WhatLinksHere for an article that's ok DYK. (If it's not possible, no worries, it's not super-important...just thought it might be handy.) rʨanaɢ /contribs 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus check
Since it has gotten buried on this page up above, do we have consensus about doing the July 4th Special Event on topics relating to Independence Days around the world? Agne/ 07:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.--King Bedford I 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still very much opposed to this. I'm sure it's been proposed with the best of intentions but I think celebrating other nation's independence days on American Independence Day is completely inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Gato. It's a convenient way to feature some national holidays that might not otherwise be featured (since there are not a lot of people on en-wiki who churn out articles on, say, Ghana), but it seems a bit weird to assume that the USA's independence day should be celebrated by the whole world. rʨanaɢ /contribs 14:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gatoclass. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The idea can sound like "equality to other nations in Misplaced Pages that has been favoring US centric views and articles" but it only insinuates that the U.S holiday has to be regarded as international one to the world. The holiday on the day is just for Americans.--Caspian blue 14:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe some of you may have missed the fact that we're not celebrating the American Independence Day here. Rather we are using a themed opportunity to consciously work on promoting topics and articles that are extremely lacking in coverage on both Misplaced Pages and DYK. I have to admit this line of thinking and objection is quite odd. Did anyone think that promoting topics relating to Halloween and Darwin day was offensive to millions of fundamentalist Christians? Or that Christmas related DYK event was offensive to to agnostics and atheists? Under the same lines of reasoning espoused above, I supposed those events are going to be tabled the next time they come around. Agne/ 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Halloween and Darwin Day are celebrated in numerous countries; US Independence Day is only celebrated in one. It's fine to use July 4 to showcase some articles related to US Independence Day, but to showcase articles related to some other country's independence seems a little rude (i.e., "hey little guys, we'd love to celebrate your special day, but make sure you do it on the same day as our special day!"). rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter how many countries they are celebrated in. They are still offensive topics to millions of potential readers and under the line of logic espoused above, by focusing on article creation and promotion of those article topics during those days means we are celebrating those days. Under that same line of thinking, we are rising up the idea of Halloween and Darwinism over the viewpoints and feelings of millions of other readers. That seem rather rude, doesn't it? In fact, those topics are much more offensive and potential drama powder keg than the conscious effort to counter systematic bias and encourage content creation in areas sorely lacking coverage. Seriously, how can we in good conscious support "celebrating" other special topics days when there is apparently this potential to offend so many? Agne/ 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agne27, you've got wrong comparisons. Your idea is like for Christmas DYKs, we can gather all birthdays of various gods, saints, and religious leaders in the world to commemorate them on one day; putting together themes of Christmas, Buddha's birthday, and Muhammad's birthday on December 25 for the sake of equal opportunity. However that would obviously offend not only Christians but also Buddhists, and Muslims.--Caspian blue 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, that would still offend the agnostics and atheists, now wouldn't it? I guess we're dammed if we do. Dammed if we don't. Again, how can we support these special events in good conscious if they apparently have the potential to offend so many? Agne/ 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If people are offended because Wikipedians chose to acknowledge a widely known and acknowledged holiday (such as Halloween), that's their own problem. They know Halloween is out there and that people acknowledge it, they chose to be sensitive about it.
- If people are offended because Wikipedians chose to equate their own national Independence Day with America's, that's Wikipedians' problem—we would be the ones who made an arbitrary pairing and we would be the ones who were appearing (whether intentionally or not) ignorant to the differences between different countries' histories. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious - why does it have to be the 4th of July? We have the independence days of Tonga, Sweden, the Philippines, Iceland, Mozambique, Madagascar, Seychelles and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in June, I see no reason why you want to wait until July if any independence day is good for your proposal. There is nothing special about the American independence day any more than any other independence day, is there? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, that would still offend the agnostics and atheists, now wouldn't it? I guess we're dammed if we do. Dammed if we don't. Again, how can we support these special events in good conscious if they apparently have the potential to offend so many? Agne/ 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Halloween and Darwin Day are celebrated in numerous countries; US Independence Day is only celebrated in one. It's fine to use July 4 to showcase some articles related to US Independence Day, but to showcase articles related to some other country's independence seems a little rude (i.e., "hey little guys, we'd love to celebrate your special day, but make sure you do it on the same day as our special day!"). rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe some of you may have missed the fact that we're not celebrating the American Independence Day here. Rather we are using a themed opportunity to consciously work on promoting topics and articles that are extremely lacking in coverage on both Misplaced Pages and DYK. I have to admit this line of thinking and objection is quite odd. Did anyone think that promoting topics relating to Halloween and Darwin day was offensive to millions of fundamentalist Christians? Or that Christmas related DYK event was offensive to to agnostics and atheists? Under the same lines of reasoning espoused above, I supposed those events are going to be tabled the next time they come around. Agne/ 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Essentially new?
I've been working on Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate recently in the hopes of making it a DYK and eventual GA/FA. As I was doing so, I found that I had a question about the DYK process.
Basically, I rewrote the entire article. All that's the same to when I started working on it is maybe one sentence of the lead, some stuff in the infobox, categories, and the navbox. I'm not sure if I can do a fivefold expansion in the five day requirement, not because I don't have time, but because I don't think that there is enough relevant content for an encyclopedia article on the game that isn't already in the article. I feel like I essentially "created" the article since it has more or less no resemblance—especially when it comes to the prose—to what I started with. I'm basically wondering if a complete rewrite like this counts as a "new article" for the purposes of DYK... it had had a copyvio plot summary, and all of the development had been sourced to unreliable sources and was all about the delays in the game's release. As I worked through the article, all of that was deleted and what remains of it was remade from the ground-up. So although it isn't technically "new", it is essentially "new".
I just thought I'd ask here before actually trying to nominate it. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, we usually only make this kind of exception when the rewritten article was originally all copyvio, OR/essay, etc. As far as I can tell from this, the original article was not like that (i.e., it was blatantly and uncontroversially terrible, it was only somewhat terrible), and so I probably would not make an exception. But there have been several recent discussions about this sort of thing and other editors may not agree, so I'll see what everyone has to say. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK this is still the consensus view. I haven't done a count, but it looked like you weren't far off a 5x expansion, which of course would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)That's a good observation. Right now the article is right around 4x expansion, which is close to the gray area where some editors will accept it as an outright expansion anyway. If you get it over about 4.5x it's a pretty easy IAR; 4x is a bit more iffy. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's at about a 4x expansion right now, and I really don't think that much more can be added with the current sources. Although if you take the one paragraph copyvio (the unsourced plot summary from "an official description") out of the original count, it's only about 200 bytes away from a fivefold expansion, which I could probably do without too much difficulty. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that I can do this... I just took a bunch from one source that I'd been overlooking. Thanks for your help; I hope to nominate this today or tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- AFAIK this is still the consensus view. I haven't done a count, but it looked like you weren't far off a 5x expansion, which of course would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended cycle
I've noticed that the number of available hooks on the Suggestions page has declined sharply since the bot started running again - we are currently down to only 108 hooks, and the queue isn't even full. For the last six months or so we've usually had between 180 and 240 hooks to choose from, it becomes increasingly difficult to put together balanced updates when the pool is small.
I have therefore extended the Bot time cycle to seven hours from six to give the system time to accumulate some more hooks. I guess I could have gone straight to eight hours, but I thought it might be worth trying a seven hour cycle first. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that too. We could decrease the hooks/set too. Shubinator (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've always been a fan of decreasing the number of hooks (not just to spread out our resources, but also because it's more reader-friendly and because it might allow us to eventually become more selective--which is not, of course, something everyone agrees should happen, but it's something I would like to see someday). As far as I can remember, one of the main objections to that in the past has been main page layout: if T:DYK gets smaller, it may leave whitespace on the main page unless ITN or something also gets smaller (although, to be honest, it seems there's often whitespace below On This Day because T:DYK is too big). rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Either way is fine by me - although it will have to be made clear to contributors that we are promoting less hooks per update for a while. I guess I could leave a note on the Prep Clear page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Per the above comments, I've restored the cycle to six hours and left a note on the Prep Clear page so that updaters who miss this discussion will know what's going on. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Either way is fine by me - although it will have to be made clear to contributors that we are promoting less hooks per update for a while. I guess I could leave a note on the Prep Clear page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've always been a fan of decreasing the number of hooks (not just to spread out our resources, but also because it's more reader-friendly and because it might allow us to eventually become more selective--which is not, of course, something everyone agrees should happen, but it's something I would like to see someday). As far as I can remember, one of the main objections to that in the past has been main page layout: if T:DYK gets smaller, it may leave whitespace on the main page unless ITN or something also gets smaller (although, to be honest, it seems there's often whitespace below On This Day because T:DYK is too big). rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I just went and nominated a bunch of articles from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult, but from what I remember during my work at DYK over the last year or so, we seem to go through these cycles from time to time, their have been times when their have been 4 days of expiring verified noms and we have had too many hooks (generally not that bad of a think :P), and there have been times when their are next to no verified hooks and we have had a very small amount of hooks in the pipeline waiting for approval. So, this shortage will most likely pass is a week or so, and we should be fine with just decreasing the number of hooks per update until the number of hooks picks back up again :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK Templates
Is there a reason why Template:DYKalt, Template:DYKre, Template:DYK welcome are listed at Category:Deprecated DYK templates?
Also, I would like to know if I can create a general page dedicated to the documentation and usage two dozen or so DYK templates? I previously wasn't aware of these templates as no such page exsists an believe that other users will find it beneficial.Smallman12q (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- DYKalt really is deprecated; it is never used, and in a discussion here it was decided that the template wasn't needed; it was brought up again here and there didn't seem to be much interest (and another version was created at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/alt, although to be honest I think it can probably be deleted).
- DYKre is a template I created but that I do not believe is used much, and I put it in the deprecated category because I'm pretty sure it's not needed. If anyone does use that template, speak up and let me know. Since it's a template that is always substituted, it's difficult to gauge how often it's being used. If this is a major interest, I could make a tweak that would allow us to keep track (for, I dunno, a week or two) and see if it's being used or not.
- Same with DYKwelcome, after I made it there appeared to be little interest so I listed it there to be on the safe side. Since then, though, I have used it occasionally, and some other people have as well, so it could probably be delisted (just replace that category with one of the other subcategories in Category:Misplaced Pages Did you know templates). rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- As for a page with template instructions and whatnot, you are certainly welcome to make one; any resources for newcomers are helpful. Feel free to leave a link here once you've started it, so people can take a look and offer suggestions. rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)