Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs: Difference between revisions

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:48, 25 September 2008

New referencing scheme...

New referencing scheme needed because it all gets mixed when someone moves up and down. I think we'll make it footnotes like in regular articles, with in line citations? —A • D ^Torque 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea. What is the general consensus on what we are counting - creations, expansions from stubs, nominations? Smee 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The list should really be changed to one column, ref formatting, as suggested above. The two columns keep getting misaligned with changes to the page... Smee 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why not include more?

Why not include more DYK submitters on this list, say, 50 or 100? Smee 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are only 111 people who have DYK contribs that are identifiable. I say top 40 at most. How about that? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no particular qualms with it the way it is now, mind you, this is only a suggestion put out there. But it is called "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs", and not "List of top 25 Wikipedia Did you know? contributors". We have plenty of room, why not give those the option if they wish to list themselves, to list all 111, by number of DYKs? The top 25 or what have you will still naturallly appear at the top. Smee 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. Ok. If they can be listed, then fine. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It's probably easiest to tell where people are, if they can create and refer to their hooks or articles that made it successfully to DYK... Smee 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New awards

-- {{The 25 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (25) or more contributions to DYK.
-- {{The 50 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (50) or more contributions to DYK.
-- {{The 100 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (100) or more contributions to DYK.
-- {{The 200 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (200) or more contributions to DYK.

Hopefully we will eventually need to make one for (200), hehe. Enjoy. Yours, Smee 03:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In the process...

... of giving out the new ones. However, I recently gave some awards to Wetman (talk · contribs), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs), and MeegsC (talk · contribs). They are all deserving of {{The 25 DYK Medal}}. I would most appreciate it if they could get this recognition from a different user, for variety. Thank you in advance. Yours, Smee 04:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done, regards - P.K.Niyogi 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Smee 07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like someone could give {{The 25 DYK Medal}} to Johnbod (talk · contribs), if they so desired, for reaching 25 contributions to DYK... Smee 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Table

If there were a way for each of the listed entries to be numbered in the Table, as they are in the list itself below - then we could do away with the list and just have the neat looking table. Smee 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not know how the users can be numbered in the Table. However, I feel that even without serial numbers or rankings it is okay. Many users are adding DYKs regularly. Therefore, rankings will fluctuate regulalrly. We can reorder the names as per number of DYKs once in two/three months. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. In that case, I will remove the list, and we'll just have the table. But, if anyone objects and puts back the list as well, that will be fine too. Smee 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It looks okay. I hope users will update it regularly. - P.K.Niyogi 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling they will... Smee 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Haha! You think it has become a competition, and you are right. It is ineviatble I guess, but it has corrupted the purpose of this list - which was originally to simply portray how people are going, and how the count sits. Each editor was supposed to be sort of oblivious to it, simply updating it when they made another DYK. Now people have gone on massive creation/nomination drives, and while this is good, it is clear that they want to be ahead of the competition. Oh well. I guess it doesnt matter too much. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way at all. I know for me, I am only competing against myself, in order to create new articles with good, reputable sourced citations. Sure, I'd love to get my own number up, but only in relation to where I was previously in the past... Smee 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When you put it that way...I guess you are right. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose each individual editor has their own personal reasoning, so we are probably both right in some ways... Smee 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Update

I have included Rama's Arrow in the list, and updated the data for Wetman and BigHaz from the data available on their pages. I hope they will cross check. - P.K.Niyogi 12:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the party

I've just added myself to the list after a note on my talk page. It's hard to count exactly how many I've done but a trawl through my talk page archives shows 50 notices. Years ago it wasn't quite so common to inform people and some might have slipped through without a comment, so I've circa'd it. I'm also trying to remember how many DYK entries I had on the Main Page all at one time - I think it's three or four. I love DYK and writing the hooks but only for my own articles - it's amusing to see how quirky and unbelievable you can write the hooks.

Anyway, nice idea for a page. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across your page by chance, and now we have a valuable addition to the list. Thanks a heap for your many contributions. There is something that you deserve however... Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added

No idea this page existed. Added meself. : ) Didn't look like there was a particular order so I added myself below Smee because it looked numerical at first. Thanks for having this page though. IvoShandor 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it is cool eh? However, there is a numerical value, and, because of alphabetical precedance, you come just below me. Thanks for adding yourself though :) Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up me mess matey. IvoShandor 13:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - no problem. Everyone makes mistakes. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame

Someone has created this page, and thinks this should be merged inot it. What is everyone's opinion on this article and the merge? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This way kind of is more straightforward, it seems like the "Hall of Fame", only includes individuals if there is consensus to "honor" them somehow, where here it's just a list by numbers, less to discuss, over time... Smee 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shoot, I need to get cracking....

11 more before I beat out the 25th place holder. lol. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry -- You'll get there someday. Keep up the hard work! Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad one idea I have would be a good inclusion for April Fools Day. Maybe I can work on it more so I can get it to FA status as well. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot one. Now it's 10. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alphabetical Precedence

I do not know where this could be possibly implemented into the List page, but I think the best method to work by is alphabetical precedence: If A has 40 DYKs, and so does Z, A will appear ahead in the list because A is further up in the alphabet than Z. How does this sound? (I know it is pretty hard on people with usernames that rank low in the alphabet, but there has to be some established system). -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:10, 17 June 2007 UTC)

For a user with a username that ranks low in the alphabet, this sounds fine. Smee 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you like constantly refresh your watchlist Smee? Within a single minute this time (!) :). Ok then. So we have one support on this so far. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 10:15, 17 June 2007 UTC)
  - When I'm around, I sometimes do, yes. :) Smee 10:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Incidentally, I have cut my watchlist in half recently though. Smee 10:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
lol - how many pages do you have on you watch now then? -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:44, 17 June 2007 UTC)
Enough. Smee 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Don't care either way--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd go with the the number of creations as being the second sort column, but I don't mind so much. Incidentally, my watchlist currently contains 6,517 articles. It's not really managable any more! violet/riga (t) 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. Well - lets work this way. We shall work by Violet/riga, but if two users have exactly the same on creations/nominations, we shall work aplphabetically. How does that sound? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 06:37, 18 June 2007 UTC)
  - Sounds good to me. violet/riga (t) 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Somewhere the refs have been stuffed up, and I cant see where. Can anyone plkease fix this? Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk

The following discussion is preserved as an archived section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.'

The result was split. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

There should be separate lists by the number of creations and nominations. Nominating an article takes from five to ten minutes; creating an article requires a totally different level of effort. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I agree with Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs). Smee 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Absolutely agree with the above -- hes hit the nail on the head. I propose we do this now. lets think of a layout? Or, alternatively, someone can just create a layout (say, two columns side by side) and we can review it. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk
Support - P.K.Niyogi 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lets do it then. But first, we should discuss how to do it. Two columns? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Three tables:Overall, writing and nomming. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. lets do it. Close as split. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

For my two cents, I would have split the creations and expansions into two columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list manually created?

Is this list manually created and maintained? I'm working on a tool that can produce tables like this from the archive files. Assuming there's a way to figure it out, I could add nominator and main page appearance dates as well. There's a thread about this on my talk page, and another here. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. The list is currently a manual function, but any tool you can create would be great. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating...and then moving upwards

Please, everbody - remember to move yourself up when updating, when you surpass the person/s in front of you in number. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything like this for GA?

I have also been the main editor of over 30 WP:GAs. I imagine many on this list are as well. Is there any list and award system for WP:GAs?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could make one...although GAs can be thrown off as well....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is how do you go about it. Because of the amount of effort it takes to create a GA there are various claims for different contribution levels. I consider myself the main editor of 32 current WP:GAs plus a couple of articles that have become WP:FAs. However, I have nominated Hilary Clinton while only making an edit or two. My 21 edits at Britney Spears rank me about 61st on the edit count list. I have made slightly more significant contributions at Tiger Woods where my 34 edits rank me 11th. Where it is rare for a DYK to have more than 1 or 2 important contributors, this is not the case for a GA. How would you go about such a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. How are these for columns: # Successful GA noms, # of page creations, # lead editor by edit count, # promoted to FA, # GA reviews given, # passing GA reviews, #GA Medal of Merit Checkbox?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions vs creations

When I do an expansion, at WP:DYKLIST I take credit for a creation, but at T:TDYK, I take credit for a nomination. E.G., yesterday for Jon Vaughn, I gave another user credit for the creation and I took credit for the nomination. Is this correct? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For expansions, I'd say you take the credit for the creation (since you technically created over 80% of the article) in both cases. That's what I do. Wizardman 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., so if I take a 250 character article to 2000 characters, should I give the guy who did the first 250 a credit as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a need to do that. Wizardman 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook save

If a nominator is having trouble finding a hook and you write an alternate hook (that uses a completely different fact) so that it is acceptable are you suppose to take a nomination credit. I have when the article was already in expired and my rewrite got it to the main page, but did not get a credit when it was only the 4th day like yesterday at John Bagley, which would have been my 50th. I have one that is my own that may get on tomorrow for my 50th, but I was wondering what the etiquette is for a hook rewrite.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never taken a nomination credit for this. I think nominating is about introducing new articles to DYK, not being the person who writes a final draft of the hook. --JayHenry 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, one does not get credit (that is displayed here, at least), from a hook rewrite. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding myself

I didn't know about this list and I think I've got more than 30 DYKs; is it the done thing to add yourself to the list? Sam Blacketer 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just add and update yourself. if you could find an exact number, that'd be great. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done it. Sam Blacketer 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved you up to the correct position; the list is ascending, after all. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Participation list

Does not list the first DYK medal (for several contributions).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25DYK?

Hi, do I qualify for this now? User:Durova/Did you know? lists the 23 articles I created that ran as DYK entries. I also nominated Short draw (spinning), which ran today (User_talk:Durova#Short_draw_.28spinning.29). And back in 2006 I also nominated Casu marzu, which ran on April 1, 2006.[1] Durova^Charge! 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you qualify for the participation list. Willkommen! In cases of a tie in participation, you may rank yourself by number of creations. In your case that would be between Miss Madeline and Peter Vardy. Congrats! --JayHenry (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had almost forgotten that April Fool's Day nomination and wasn't sure if it would count (does happy dance). :) Durova^Charge! 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered this page...

...Good timing, as well, as I recently reached the 25 "mark" after a recent spurt of activity at WP:DYK. Will add myself in a minute. I find looking through the bot's suggestions for candidate entries is a pleasant (and knowledge-enhancing) way of passing a lunch hour at work, or that length of time between getting home from work and dinnertime, when there's not enough time to do any in-depth editing or article writing. Hassocks5489 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Instead of having 2 separate tables, isn't it a good idea to use "wikitable sortable" and have a single table. It would serve the purpose and would be easier to update as well -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missing verb

There is a very important verb missing from this article. Was there so much debate about what verb to use that it was removed all together?

"If you feel that you enough DYKs to qualify for this list, please feel free to update..."

that you ______ enough DYKs. Created? Edited? Started? Helped with?

Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The missing word is simply "have" and should perhaps read "have enough DYK credits" so as not to give the impression that anyone "has articles", etc., etc. (this got changed 7 months ago with nobody noticing the error until now!) --JayHenry (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

Cplakidas (talk · contribs) and Mspraveen (talk · contribs) are eligible to receive DYK 25 medal according to the list, so is there anyone who can give it to them? (not me, I don't know what to write in the award box) Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 171: / Line 171: @@
 : The missing word is simply "have" and should perhaps read "have enough DYK credits" so as not to give the impression that anyone "has articles", etc., etc.  ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAnonymous_Dissident%2FList_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs&diff=167418321&oldid=167418084 this got changed 7 months ago] with nobody noticing the error until now!) --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
+== Awards  ==
+{{User|Cplakidas}} and {{User|Mspraveen}} are eligible to receive DYK 25 medal according to the list, so is there anyone who can give it to them? (not me, I don't know what to write in the award box) Thanks.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)