Wikipedia talk:Did you know: 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 00:45, 4 November 2008

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Did you know talk archives
Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4
Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7 · Archive 8
Archive 9 · Archive 10 · Archive 11 · Archive 12
Archive 13 · Archive 14 · Archive 15 · Archive 16
Archive 17 · Archive 18 · Archive 19 · Archive 20
Archive 21 · Archive 22 · Archive 23 · Archive 24
Archive 25 · Archive 26 · Archive 27 · Archive 28
Archive 29 · Archive 30 · Archive 31 · Archive 32

Competition

OK, a moral prize to the most notable/vital/core/general article currently a stub (<150 words). List here and we can all attack and expand (NB: Supposed to be fun so have at it :)) I'll try to start the ball rolling in a few hours. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, list the stub here if you found it but haven't the time or resources to expand it, or even better just expand it and put on the suggestion page. I have listed some categories. I was musing on Una's thread above to see how much broad material is still stubbed. Feel free to add another category, this should all be in good fun :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! This could encourage some high-quality collaborative effort. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Don't expand until ready for a 5-day push (or for someone else) - i.e. either go for it, or leave it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweeny-type things

...maybe something in Category:Paranormal stubs or Category:Occult stubs worth checking. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest city/town/suburb/hamlet/village (by population)

Zunil in Guatemala, 14000 people, cool town and 108 words to describe it :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sooo wanted to nominate Wasilla, Alaska, but it has fewer people and too many words. Dayum! :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I found this at random ... Phonsavan in Laos, a provincial capital with 57,000 people, has 85 words.

It's a long time to since I looked into this but I would expect the winner to have a populationf of over 100K (which india, china and africa being the big targets).Geni 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mbabane, 70000 people, 132 words. It also happens to be the capital of Swaziland. Moroni, Comoros is another capital city with a stub article. I thought of expanding of those a few months ago, but ran out of enthusiasm and forgot about it (and I couldn't find any sources for the Moroni article anyway). - Bobet 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most prominent geographical feature

Channel Country - iconic area of outback Australia. a bargain at 79 words. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Kaputar has a mere 145 words, and Mount Kaputar National Park is a one sentence stub.
Ben Boyd National Park and Mount Imlay National Park lovely places on the NSW south coast - 3 sentence stubs

Most notable public figure

Magnus Volk. I have wanted to expand this, but have been too busy writing about Brighton churches ;) ... multi-talented, slightly eccentric inventor and pioneer, one of the most important figures in Brighton's history. His Daddy Long Legs is one of the craziest methods of transport ever conceived. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most important literary work

Falconer (novel) by John Cheever -- classic novel, total stub
Resurrection (novel) -- Tolstoy's final novel
Fern Hill, one of the most well-known poems of Dylan Thomas

Most widely eaten food or culinary-type thing

Pease pudding ~ classic, ancient British ... er, mushy thing.
Buck's Fizz (cocktail) ~ famous drink. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by:francesca vin

Most important plant

*Ageratina adenophora - big weed here in Oz --> only 123 word stub expanded

Tamarix aphylla - weed of National Significance here in Oz,[1] only 62 word stub. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asparagus asparagoides - weed of National Significance here in Oz,[2] only 146 word stub. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nassella trichotoma - weed of National Significance here in Oz,[3] only 30 word stub. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable animal

Large Black (pig) - pig breed of a mere 44 words...found at WP:MABS...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streak (moth) - cool name - only 114 words. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Gerbil - the mind boggles....only 84 words. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highest level biology rank

Question What about unranked levels of classification? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if unranked is allowed, one of my entries would be Hyperoartia. There's also Anaspida, which according to Endeiolepis and Jamoytius kerwoodi is at the same rank and is a class. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoho, I can see a DYK there "Did you know that Anaspida are...and Anapsida are..." hehehe.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - that one is not particularly developed either. We should go for it. ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Tree of Life you ask for stubs of high taxonomic rank. Your 150 word limit may not be suitable - a taxobox takes an article way over that. However if 0 is an acceptable value Corallochytrea must be a contender. (Wikipedia ES has a stub for this - Choanozoa has a redlink to corallochytrid).

Would it be more appropriate to instead create Corallochytrium limacisporum, since that is the only species, and additional, fossil protist species may not be so easy to reconstruct and classify? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox doesn't count as prose (cool, eh?)..Hesperian found Gracilicutes (unranked clade under domain...whoa..), Sphagnopsida (class), and Trimerophytophyta (division(!)). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly high rank, but the stub I put in for order Pythiales to cut down on red links is still remarkably short. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual day pages

What we could do is break each day up into a subpage, so instead of having one talkpage with all the hooks we have Template talk:Did you know/October 17, Template talk:Did you know/October 18 etc. and then transclude each page onto the main Template talk:Did you know page. That way, when someone nominates a hook, they will be more inclined to watchlist the page as it will add a seventh of the edits to their watchlist that adding the whole page did. Opinions? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. Like AFD, yes? The page is quite long and often difficult to navigate. Splitting it up seems sensible. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, like AFD. It may also help if each hook has a section header to keep everything more organised and make it easier to navigate to each article, example: User:Ameliorate!/test2 (doesn't have the subpages). The ToC can be removed and one can be hardcoded to prevent it becoming too cumbersome. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 22:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was thinking just the same thing. So that each hook can be "officially" verified/questioned, without cluttering things up. Yes, I like this idea a lot. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The other bonus is being able to section-edit, both for commenting on a hook and moving it to the next-update. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for each day would complicate my job. My existing system is to proofread only changes to the page since my last edit, to avoid proofreading the same material over and over again. This is done on the edit history page, asking for everything since my last edit. Or if I make no changes, I record a timestamp, so next time I can ask for everything since that last timestamp. If each day had a separate edit history page, I would need a separate edit and a table of timestamps for each page, and I would need the timestamps much more often since many subpages would need no changes. Art LaPella (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a way around that using Special:RecentChangesLinked. I'll set up an example implementation in my userspace later and see if it works. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 04:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:How do you turn this on/DYKtest for an example of individual pages in action. I've messed with the TOC to make it so it only shows level 3 headers or above. It would obviously be higher up, so wouldn't obscure the top day of the page. What do people think? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps just have sections for each article. That would work just as well. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created my own implementation; User:Ameliorate!/DYK/Template talk:Did you know. Art, take a look at this link and see if that works for what you need. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be slower. I believe what you mean is that I should click each of the 2 edits on the top of the list above my last edit, and review each of those 2 edits separately. In a more realistic example, there would be hundreds of edits per day. So I would have to click each edit separately to read it. My current practice is to use the history page, and click the circle that corresponds to my last edit (or the last timestamp on my list, if that is more recent). This gives me over a hundred edits all on one page. So I can proofread through over a hundred edits, reading only the highlighted parts of the page. Most hooks are fine, so I can read through them fairly quickly, until I come to a typo or something. But if I had to click each edit, and then click again to go back, that would take a lot more time, and that would have to be weighed against the benefits of such a change. Art LaPella (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. However, I still think the overall benefits of the change would be beneficial to everyone in terms of organisation and maintenance, but of course the work you do around DYK would have to be considered. Would it be that much more difficult to keep track of additional timestamps that you're completely opposed to it? If so it could be left how it is and instead just implement the section headers only, with no subpages. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with sections. I really can't think of what could be bad about sections. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the example page linked above isn't the time stamp table (I believe that option only requires one timestamp list like the one I use now). The main problem is clicking each edit one at a time. Wikipedia's servers don't always respond immediately, so on a slow day when you wait up to 15 seconds to get a page, that's 200 hooks or comments per day times 15 seconds equals almost an hour per day. For a more normal day, maybe 4 seconds to get a page and 1 second to click the back arrow when I'm done. No I'm not completely opposed, I just want to know that is considered. I would also have to make a separate edit for each minor change, although that might be a good thing because it would show up on a watchlist that way, assuming anyone really wants to know that I have added a space after an ellipsis for the millionth time. Also, a separate page for each hook would be part of – but not all of – what it would take for a program to distinguish hooks (including all ALT's) from comments, so it could automate edits such as the 200 character limit. The table of timestamps is what I would need if each day (not hook) were a separate page, but that wouldn't add more than a couple minutes per day. Art LaPella (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

So is anyone actually opposed to implementing section headers for each suggestion? – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Early history of Turkmenistan from DYK template

Greetings all, I just removed Early history of Turkmenistan from the DYK template. The article was a cut & paste from the LOC Country info site. While LOC is in the public domain, I do not find it appropriate to place cut & paste articles on the main page. I do not find these articles to be consistent with encyclopedic work. While they may be fine as articles, I do not believe they should be featured on our main page. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content . . ." (emphasis added). The copying of work that appears elsewhere may result in a new article on Wikipedia, but is is not the creation of content. It seems that the competition for DYKs may be contributing to a culture where off-wiki content is paraphrased, machine-translated, or outright copied into new articles. Kablammo (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Try to pick articles that are original to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources)." Lazulilasher (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the person who started the article in question.[4] We need to draw a bright line here, and if the rules need to be made more explicit we should do so. Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was already obvious, but just for hte record, PD cut and pasting should not be allowed on the front page. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD cut and paste has always been allowed on DYK, and I would be strongly opposed to any attempt to disallow it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you Gato, DYK is for the best new articles. I don't consider a PD cut and paste job to be new work. It may be the best old articles. Why give someone DYK credit for doing nothing? Royalbroil 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disallowing cut and paste would mean that about two thirds of my own DYKs up to now were ineligible, since a large number came from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships articles. I could of course have put the material into my own words, but it's simply a waste of time when you already have a perfectly good article to hand. And I rather resent your comment that creating an article from PD sources is tantamount to "doing nothing" - I have spent considerable time on some of my PD articles - as much or more time as I have on my original articles at times.

DYK is about rewarding new content, not original content, and if someone goes to the trouble of copying and formatting from one or more PD sources, or translates from another Wiki, or whatever, it is still new content creation that deserves recognition and encouragement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefit in going over the past, nor do I criticize those who in good faith used content from elsewhere in new articles on Wikipedia. But if 1911 EB is not new content (as mentioned above), than neither is content copied from other PD sources. The fact that copying of public domain has occurred in the past is not the point; the question rather is whether articles which are substantially copied from other sources are eligible for DYK. The policies mentioned above indicate they should not. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy simply says original content is preferred, not that it is mandatory.

I wrote something like 160 articles based on DANFS. It was literally months of hard work. I see no reason whatever why my months of hard work on new content creation, which happened to be largely based on PD sources, is not just as valuable and just as deserving of recognition as somebody else's. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be allowed either, and this should be sufficiently clear from the existing rules. But maybe we need to make it clearer. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a bunch of hooks have disappeared again.

I can't find Anne Margrethe Strømsheim and the hooks that was at the Main Page together with it on the Recent Additions list. Has someone forgotten to update the RAs? Manxruler (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Manxruler (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween .. we're breaking the rules!!

There is an article about a pumpkin race that should have gone to the main page today. I (with Lar's support have delayed this in the hope that it gets out on 31st Oct. It could do with expanding and some mates. Its marked with a vampire. Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start creating hooks for Halloween. The problem is that spooky topics tend to get a lot of attention from casual editors, it is hard to find stubs that can be expanded. Good suggestions, anyone? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Halloween 2008. Please contribute there. (This allows for the creation of Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Halloween as a main page for Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2008, Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2009, etc.) -- Suntag ☼ 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be a good idea to collect holiday hooks, e.g. try and get some together for Christmas starting now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold off until at least after Thanksgiving (USA), preferably December 1st, before doing that, although it's still a good idea.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one effort at a time seems a better approach. Maybe one day we'll do an obscure theme, such as a April 27th DYK set for articles related only to the country Togo (having an April 27 independence day). (I'm game for any topic). -- Suntag ☼ 03:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:...maybe something in Category:Paranormal stubs or Category:Occult stubs worth checking. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I've just flipped the template, about 2 hours late, but I'm at work, could someone do the credits. Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many periods........

See this hook: ... that ... the Kennedy Administration positioned John R. Reilly on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial ready to cut off Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech if the rhetoric got too inflammatory?

Two sets of ellipsis'? :) Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fixed. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

OK, I tweaked the clock to go yellow 30 min early - can someone volunteer to flip promptly so we can keep 'em turning over? It will be at 5 am here and I will be asleep (I hope). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminbot proposal

Often when it comes time to update the template there's no DYK-capable admin around so it gets neglected, even though the Next Update was filled hours ago. I therefore propose an adminbot to update the template, the way it would work is thus: Once the next update has been completed, an admin copies and pastes the hooks to a new fully protected page (possibly Template:Did you know/Queue). Every 6 hours (0:00, 6:00, 12:00, 18:00) the bot will run and copy the content from the queue page to the main template. This way the template can be prepared at any admin's leisure and doesn't rely on an admin being around at specific periods of the day. The coding is (almost) done, I have the bot working on a test wiki, but it still needs some minor tweaks. I want to know if anyone has any thoughts, concerns or opinions about this before I try for approval. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great, almost da Vinci-like idea. But I must wonder: if the queue page is not ready on time, the bot will recognize it and will not proceed to copy the empty thing onto the main page template? That will be a total disaster. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would want it to have to check against an update criteria, which might involve admins somehow tagging hooks as "finished", and once enough "finished" hooks were on the subpage, an admin would tag the whole page as "finished", and the bot would proceed. Hazy on the technicalities, but doable I imagine. the skomorokh 14:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. Sure there are some things that will need working out, but it's completely doable. No more late updates! – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My test version only updates if {{DYKbotdo}} is included on the page, which is a blank template on my test wiki. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, my next question is: You said "Every 6 hours (0:00, 6:00, 12:00, 18:00) the bot will run and copy the content from the queue page to the main template." So the bot calculates 6 hours from the most recent update time, I suppose? But let's assume the queue page is not ready after 6 hours, so the bot didn't update. Then do we have to wait for another 6 hours until the bot checks again? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it updates at the times I mentioned, that way if it is late it's up to humans to figure out what to do (like bringing the update time back an hour etc.) but I could change it to work off the DYK clock. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with an adminbot, or any other automated solution, is that it can potentially be used to enable vandalism. The most important function performed when an admin updates the DYK list is a basic sanity/appropriateness test. Currently there is little to no vandalism performed at Template:Did you know/Next update because anyone sophisticated enough to know about the page also knows that a human being with Wikipedia's best interests at heart will look at the page before moving the text to a location that will be seen by a large audience. An automated update scheme changes this schema to allow for a vandal to time his update to just before the bot runs, ensuring maximum disruption with minimal chance for manual prevention efforts to work.

The only way for an automated update scheme to be acceptable is to restrict updates to the Next Update page to administrators. If the community is willing to accept this limitation then there are simpler ways to automate updates than creating an adminbot. --Allen3 ^talk 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The queue page would be protected though. There would be at least one other page other than the one that appears on the front page that would be protected, so vandalism can be avoided. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if updating the queue page can only be done by admins, we're back to where we are now, dependant on the availability of admins. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it will still rely on an admin, but the admin won't need to be online at exactly the right time, just any time in the six hour gap to update the queue. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the difference is admins can update the queue page whenever they're available. The bot will do the update of the actual template. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot will definitely help, but I'm saying we're still dependant on admins in each 6-hour window, and if none are available, the main page won't be updated. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're always going to be dependant on admins, as long as the main template is protected. This is merely a help, not a solution. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could also get the bot to auto-archive the previous set of hooks when it posts the new set? That would be very useful too. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it would also be helpful if you could set the bot to update over time periods other than six hours, because sometimes when there is a backlog, we have to update more frequently. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about other tasks for a DYK bot, archiving the old hooks was one of them. Apart from that, I don't like going into details about what I might do, in case it doesn't eventuate or work out the way I intend. I think I might change it so it checks the DYK clock every 5 minutes (possibly?) and updates based on that but what would be even better is a page specifically designed for the bot where an admin (it would have to be fullly protected I'm afraid) could define a time for the next update. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can go semi-auto first. At least we get the image to auto-upload, auto-archive, auto time-reset. A bit like how Sandy is working at FAC. The admin just only needs to transfer the next update to the template. Does the editors want to keep manual crediting so as to retain the "personal touch" (as {{welcome}} does)? - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The credits should still be done by a human. A bot could tag the article talkpage though. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot now works by checking the next update timer every 5 minutes and if it is past the update time, the bot updates the template. What I need now is a consensus before I try for approval. Are there any other questions or concerns about this particular bot? (There is another bot coming that will archive hooks and do other requested tasks but it won't have admin rights). ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test run: it copied the hooks from the queue, updated the template, cleared the queue and reset the clock. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment to the proposal an to the test run)

I think the advantage of using a bot for this task would be that a queue of several batches can be prepared. If the "queue" only contains one batch, and the credits are even kept separate from the "queue", little is gained, and at the cost of an additional step (and extra complexity). So, here is a suggested workflow:

1. Editors validate hooks and articles on the "Suggestions" page. (Just as now).
2. Editors prepare several DYK sets on the "Next Update" page (moving entries from the "Suggestions"). (Almost as now, except allowing several sets).
3. Admins validate and move ready sets, one set at a time, from the "Next Update" page to the "Queue" page, along with the credits for that set. (May be done any time, as long as there is a ready set. Validation and tweaking is done before moving.)
4. Adminbot moves one set from the "Queue" to the "Main Template" (at specific time intervals). The credit list for that set is tagged for "ready to give out". The set itself is removed from the "Queue" page.
5. Humans give credits, and remove credit entries from the "Queue" page accordingly.

Oceanh (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That's not a bad suggestion and would be quite achievable. I'll code that change later on, the only difference is I will make it run off more than one queue page rather than having all the hooks on one page (easier to code and less potential for errors). Would mean that hooks need to validated more regularly though, pity a bot can't effectively do that, or can it...? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It now works off Template:Did you know/Queue/1, Template:Did you know/Queue/2, Template:Did you know/Queue/3, Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template:Did you know/Queue/5. I'll implement it so that the next queue page that will be used is displayed on the Next Update page. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last test didn't quite work. It reset the clock, cleared the queue and updated the queue counter but never updated the template because the html comments  and  had been removed from the main template, probably when a batch of hooks was copied over manually, which is my fault for not checking, but I rolled all the edits back and ran it manually and it updated fine. If the next batch is added to the queue and done via the bot and it works I'll request a WP:BRFA for it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This work flow and the concept makes sense to me. We've been waiting a long time for a workable bot solution for this problem. Royalbroil 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last test worked the BRFA is here. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of today's hooks in the archive. Does this test have something to do with it?SPNic (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added them, let me know if I missed any. Can hardly wait to code a bot to do that automatically. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the bot do notifications as well? Would it be possible to have the signature of the administrator who moves it somewhere on the page, so that if the bot does do notifications, it uses that signature rather than "DYKBot" (like User:MediationBot1/Accepted case)? Daniel (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean notifications as in the DYK credits on user's talkpage, then no it doesn't. There is another bot coming after everything with this bot is sorted out, it won't have admin privileges but I will be seeking opinions on what that bot will do when I'm ready to code it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Hi guys,
A no-decision does not equal a tie game, but this is what this hook sounds like...

"... that Milwaukee Brewers starting pitcher Steve Woodard received a no-decision when a 2000 game against the Cincinnati Reds was called due to rain, making it the first Opening Day tie game since 1965?"

Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WP:ERRORS is for error reporting, not here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=/ OK then... :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for recognition

Could somebody take a momemnt and award DYK medals to editors I've nominated here? I've also explained there why I'd like somebody else to do so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobiotechnology

Nanobiotechnology is an emerging and nascent product of marriage between nanotechnology and biotechnology. Its uses are tremendous and very precise. With the more advancements in nanomaterial science and nanodevices genetic engineering, particularly of plants, will be transformed to deterministic from its present stoichiostic natutre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhkumaraswamy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you want to nominate this for the Did you know section on the Main Page. The place to do it is at Template talk:Did you know, but please read the instructions at the top of the page. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among those instructions is that Did You Know is intended only for new (or mostly new) articles, so Nanobiotechnology doesn't qualify. Art LaPella (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits please? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems RyanCross is doing it. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm done. Thanks for the note, BorgQueen. Now I've gotta run. – RyanCross (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween

The FA group already has their Halloween article up on the Main Page. DYK's ready and the suggestions are ripe for the picking at Halloween DYKs. It looks like we'll have 22 articles to spread over the 24 hour period. Maybe we can skip from 00:00 to 06:00 since it seems unlikely that people in a 31 October date during 00:00 to 06:00 will be celebrating Halloween (unless I'm getting my time zones messed up). -- Suntag ☼ 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus

The article Cerberus is not new and has not expanded fivefold recently . – Ilse @ 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has. This version on October 16 contained 962 characters, this version on October 21 (when it was nominated) contains 5192 characters. 962 x 5 = 4810 characters. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 08:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I passed that hook, and it was fine. Please note that we ignored the date rule for the Halloween DYKs. Chamal ^talk 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I count the words in the article body, the article has been expanded from 352 words to 845 words. That is not even threefold... – Ilse @ 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The expansions are normally calculated by the number of characters in the prose. The character counts that Ameliorate! pointed out are correct, according to the prosesize tool. I have checked with an external application's word count tool as well, and they are the same. Chamal ^talk 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the original had 167 words of main article prose. The nominated version has 853 words. So it's more than a 5x expansion no matter how you look at it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I flipped a bit early to play catch-up so everyone gets a go (there is quite a bunch of stuff on the suggestions page). I did the creds but can some folks go checking and stacking the next template as I have to do some other stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits please? Thank you. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MPUploadBot

I suppose we don't have to upload the {{C-uploaded}} copies anymore because the bot auto-uploads them as soon as any MP template gets updated? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem with that is the delay before it uploads, sometimes it doesn't do it and other times it doesn't stop doing it. It's alright as a fallback but I personally wouldn't rely on it unless it's necessary. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

~~I just updated, but can anyone do the credits please? Thank you. (I'm still half-asleep...) --BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done by Ameliorate! and Mifter. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum article length proposition

Propose to create a blanket rule of minimum 300 words to DYK articles. It is extremely hard to judge exactly how much text comprises "1.5 kb" (The current mandatory minimum).

This entry is an example of an article that fulfills all DYK requirements, but it seems a little short (at 255 words). Setting a minimum word count will make it easier for reviewers to judge whether or an article is acceptable. Occasionally "borderline stubs" do make it onto the main page. Instating this requirement would eliminate any further length-related problems. --Flewis^(talk) 09:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1500 characters is 1.5kb. 1500 characters is the current minimum; the 1.5kb is an arbitrary figure that we decided to remove but no one got around to actually removing. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 09:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a straw poll (1500 characters or 300 words). That way the guideline will be decided by the community. --Flewis^(talk) 10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word can be of any length, so if there are a lot of long words in the article it may go well above the 1500 character limit but still fail to come within the 300 word limit. But the quality of the article may still be good. On the other hand, if a lot of short words are used, then again it may pass the 300 word limit, but the context of the article may be rubbish (BTW, I'm not saying that quality of an article depends on the length of the words, just trying to point this out). Either way, there seems to be a problem. How about we discuss this rather than go for a straw poll straight away? Then we might be able to spot any problems with the help of others, and hopefully it'll help us to come to some conclusion. Chamal ^talk 10:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "300 words or 1,500 characters of text". -- Philcha (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are talking about it, here's another one: This page, expanded on 25th October is a 5x expansion if you count the words. But it is not if you count the characters, it is short by about 40. Unless we decide on one method to do this, 'borderline' hooks like this are going to be in trouble. Chamal ^talk 10:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) How about: The article itself must contain 300 words (regardless of whether a new article, or one that has been expanded). Other than that, I agree with Philcha: "300 words or 1,500 characters of text" --Flewis^(talk) 10:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article given as an example is fine. I have submitted articles of similar length, e.g. Clipping the church. I don't see what use a word limit would do, to be honest. – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that article pass as a stub? Possibly. Adding a definitive word minimum, will ensure that no definitive stubs will appear on the main page. --Flewis^(talk) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is practically one of what exactly DYK represents. Quality: A well written article that just misses out on GA status? or Quantity: Hundreds of interesting hooks which link to a paragraph of information? --Flewis^(talk) 11:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyk also does two other things: it publicises short articles that the creator has expanded to the limit and others could expand further; and it rewards creators of articles with a little fame and therefore encourages editors to keep working hard for the little buzz that gives them. Both of these reasons are of benefit to WP and therefore too onerous a word/byte limit is undesirable. Malick78 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know is for new, or recent expanded articles. NOT Good Articles. They're there not to showcase our best work, but our newest work. A one-line stub is out, but 1500 characters isn't short. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just "our newest work?" I wish it was as simple as that - because the DYK will easily be automated then. The Main Page is a sensitive place in many ways. (Did you know that even some FAs will never get featured on Main Page? User:Raul654 made this clear himself.) *Any* link that gets bolded on Main Page will have to have certain degree of quality, be it DYK, OTD, or ITN. 1,500 characters isn't short? Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more; actually the minimum length requirement used to be a bit higher than that a while ago. Besides, we already have more entries than we can handle easily - as a result we almost always struggle with backlog. I've never seen any shortage of entries since I started the DYK maintenance; it's been rather quite the opposite. As soon as we eliminate the length requirement we will be overwhelmed with flood of submissions. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just our newest work, as I said, recently expanded articles too. Obviously ones that don't meet criteria aren't included, but what is DYK's purpose, other than to showcase new articles? Adding a length requirement seems a bad idea when articles can still be high quality, but have just 1,499 characters. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) it is also a great way of destubbing and improving the quality of the profusion of short stubs - anything under 150 words for a semi-notable subject is often pretty straightforward to expand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLewis, it's actually very easy to count 1500 chars, there's a little program you can add to your monobook.js page called prosesize, I think you just have to add the string {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/prosesize.js} . It gives you a link in the left hand column you can click which instantly counts the number of characters in the currently displayed article. You can find the full code for the program here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of word processors can do it like Microsoft Word. I'd be happy to give you directions - just ask on my talk page if this works for you. Royalbroil 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.5kb has been removed from the rules. Good riddence. -- Suntag ☼ 07:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Did the next one a bit early, lots to catch up on, can some folks check and stick some hooks in, I need to sleep...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas??

I really enjoyed writing for the Halloween Did You Know. Will we have Christmas related articles over the Christmas period? There's tons of articles out there for that.

Also, some points of how to improve next time: the main one, is start it earlier. I don't think we were well-prepared enough. Also, the actual posting of the hooks to the main page was late to start and end. If we're working in UTC, it would make sense to keep the articles around that time. Obviously, if we have a "Christmas themed" DYK section, it may last a little longer since it tends to last like 2 weeks. Maybe 3 days, Xmas eve, day, and boxing day, but people might be sick of it by then. Ideas anyone? – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it would be a bit too early? I think it'd be best if we start somewhere around end of November or beginning of December. It'd look weird if we put up a load of one month old articles and expansions on the main page, won't it? We can do the planning from now though, because as you said we need to get it organized properly. Chamal ^talk 15:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just suggesting it, so we aren't all rushing around a week before. Now is far too early. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier, let's start this on December 1. We have both the 24th and 25th to run the articles; the problem is getting admins for the updates, as surely most will be busy. Let's hope the adminbot is good then.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry that I missed the halloween, my ISP providor went difficult and Ive only just reconnected. The records look brilliant with so many articles! I tend to agree that the panic helped to create such a success. The General created quite a few (uk humour) and such good contributions from all. I think a last panic is probably right for all those with a Y chromosome :-) Victuallers (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I think I promoted all 4 updates on Christmas and Gatoclass did an awesome job with loading the next update and I gave him a one of a kind barnstar as most of you probably saw. The updates luckily happened to work with my schedule that day. I won't promise so much for this year - hopeful the adminbot will be fully operational. Most admins will be busy like last year so planning early is the key. December 1 is a nice time to be working on it, with thinking happening right now. Royalbroil 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 2008 congrats

Belated congradulations to all those who contributed to DYK's Halloween 2008. We successfully generated 28 new/expanded Halloween themed articles, which lead to five sets of Halloween 2008 posts on the Main Page. The entire Main Page output is at Halloween 2008 Output on the Main Page. -- Suntag ☼ 07:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you created a page for the Halloween 2008 DYK. There's an area for the April Fool's Day Main pages at WP:AFMP. I think that all of these events/celebrations should be grouped together in name space and that there should be an infobox link. Please comment (or implement if you agree). Over the past year, there were some DYKs last Christmas, St. Patrick's Day, and Easter that should probably be added to. Royalbroil 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

Is anyone interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch, per this suggestion? Samples at {{FCDW}}. If so, time is of the essence: please weigh in at WT:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that if someone will hold my hand as I have little experience of the dispatch and its articles Victuallers (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victuallers, I helped write an article on DYK for the Signpost, so let me know what help you need. Royalbroil 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in at WT:FCDW: I don't follow this page. There are samples at {{FCDW}}, some are very short, some are very long, you can just put something in a temp file (for example, WP:FCDW/HalloweenDYK) and put it up at WT:FCDW and others will help. Many of them start out very rough, but others will help tweak it up to Signpost level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed interest in writing this already, on the Signpost newsroom page. I should be able to put something together tonight. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hoax article?

Resolved

– Article speedied as a hoax --Flewis^(talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. None of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? [5]), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source [6]) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . [7]). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources [8][9]. It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis^(talk) 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy/pasted this to AN/I. Hopefully a larger audience will be more capable of establishing the veracity of the article --Flewis^(talk) 09:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: Transit of Venus

Further to the hoax above, the hook for this article - the first on in the template until recently - was a problem too.

... that John Philip Sousa's "Transit of Venus March" (listen) was rediscovered by a staffer at the Library of Congress in 2003 after it had been believed lost for over 100 years?

See the discussion at Talk:Transit of Venus March for pretty convincing evidence that this was not the case. More worryingly, it managed to last for two hours after my post at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors . -- Testing times (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rule change

I suggest we add to Rule 3 the requirement that the hook citation be to a reliable, verifiable, independent third party source, per WP:RS and WP:V.

The previous two sections, and prior discussion at this discussion page (including discussion about a hook for a biographical article was sourced to an unpublished statement by the subject herself), demonstrate the necessity of this change. Kablammo (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided the interpretation of WP:RS is not over-strict - WP:RS is fine for academic subjects, but then quickly runs unto difficulties. Obviously self-promoting sources are out. -- Philcha (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think the "third-party" bit may on occasion be overly restrictive exactly for academic subjects. E.g. a hook for an academic X might say something like "X published an article asserting that ...". In non-controversial cases I don't see a problem with a hook like that even if the source is primary (namely the paper itself). I think that being overly proscriptive here may not be a good thing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key here is that a bit more research and review is needed before any DYK item is posted to the main page. Both the text of the snippit, and the sources used to support it, should reviewed before the DYK item is accepted. I realize that this may require a lot of time and effort, but we are talking about the front page of the entire project after all... it should reflect Wikipedia at its best. We require an extensive review before featuring an article... we should at least double check the facts review prior to accepting DYIs. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with limiting it to third-party sources. A history book published by the Federal Highway Administration may be the best source for a fact about the FHWA. --NE2 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the user who is verifying the hook be able to judge whether the reference used is appropriate for that article or not? Depending on the type of article, the reference type used can also differ. I mean, all articles can't get references from BBC or something like that, can they? Chamal ^talk 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, and since we already require reliable sources, the nominations are at T:TDYK, the templates you need are {{DYKtick}}, {{DYKtickAGF}}, {{DYK?no}} and {{DYKno}}. Start from the bottom. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I fail to see how the previous two sections demonstrate any necessity to change anything. The previous was the result of an error published in the Washington Post, we can't account for mistakes published in highly reputable sources, in fact an error in a publication such as that works contrary to this 'proposal'. The section above that is about a hoax that is now deleted because while Flewis was checking the third-party, reliable sources they found that they didn't support anything in the article, which if anything demonstrates that the current system works. This is not a change, reliable sources are already required, which renders this entire discussion arbitrary. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the need for reliable sources needs repeating, particularly where there is often a rush to create and feature these articles on the main page in a very short time frame. It will not hurt to remind both nominators and reviewers of the need to cite to reliable sources, not sources with a conflict of interest, partisan sources, fansites, or whatever else can be found on the internet. Kablammo (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true, but I think that an explicit prohibition against using primary sources for DYK hooks may be counter-productive. Obviously, primary sources need to be treated with particular care (and WP:V already says that), but there are situations when their use is appropriate and sometimes necessary. I think rather than instituting a blanket proscription against using primary sources in DYK hooks, it is better to leave these things to be sorted on a case-by-case basis (although, of course, all references used in DYK hooks still need to pass WP:V). In cases of doubt there should be a discussion at the DYK nominations page (which I think already happens in practice) to see if there is consensus for using a particular source in a particular case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know Suggestion

Here's my suggestion: I'm kind of annoyed with the Criteria for DYK, so i propse the following: 1 of the DYK (only 1 is needed) should be criteria free, like an interesting fact from any article. Because i find alot of interesting stuff out there, but the right criteria never applies? Any ideas? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 444: / Line 444: @@
 :::With respect, the need for reliable sources needs repeating, particularly where there is often a rush to create and feature these articles on the main page in a very short time frame.  It will not hurt to remind both nominators and reviewers of the need to cite to ''reliable'' sources, not sources with a conflict of interest, partisan sources, fansites, or whatever else can be found on the internet.  [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::::That is certainly true, but I think that an explicit prohibition against using primary sources for DYK hooks may be counter-productive. Obviously, primary sources need to be treated with particular care (and [[WP:V]] already says that), but there are situations when their use is appropriate and sometimes necessary. I think rather than instituting a blanket proscription against using primary sources in DYK hooks, it is better to leave these things to be sorted on a case-by-case basis (although, of course, all references used in DYK hooks still need to pass [[WP:V]]). In cases of doubt there should be a discussion at the DYK nominations page (which I think already happens in practice) to see if there is consensus for using a particular source in a particular case. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
+== Did You Know Suggestion ==
+Here's my suggestion:  I'm kind of annoyed with the Criteria for DYK, so i propse the following: 1 of the DYK (only 1 is needed) should be criteria free, like an interesting fact from any article. Because i find alot of interesting stuff out there, but the right criteria never applies? Any ideas? - -[[User:LukeTheSpook|The Spooky One]]  ([[User talk:LukeTheSpook|talk to me]]) <sub>([[Wikipedia:Barnstars|Share the Love with Barnstars]])</sub> 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)