Wikipedia talk: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}}

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

wikilove

I just wanted to express my love for WP:DYK. It is very heart-warming and encouraging to see one's contributions on the main page (even more so when they're nominated by someone else). Go DYK! :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

...and by extension, kudos to all the admins who keep it updated, and the editors that troll through newpages on a regular basis. *blows kisses* pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Is DYK limited to just articles? If it isn't, I think it shouldn't be. What do others think? RENTA^{FOR LET?} 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling

The string "acqutted" currently appears in DYK. Please add an i. ^L_Wizard @ 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is off main page now. As relatively fewer no. of people track this page, you should try Talk:Main Page for instant results. Thanks for bringing this up, --Gurubrahma 13:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Announcements and proposed changes

• A DYK medal a la the FA medal has been instituted in order to honour excellent contributions to DYK. This is similar in conception to the barnstar system of recognition. It would be worthwhile to honour people who contribute to DYK on a continuous basis through their excellent articles / suggestions (from the articles started by them as well as others). Please feel free to confer this award on deserving people.
• As I write this, the vote for changing the main page design seems to be 579 support to 180 oppose votes in favour of the new main page design. This would mean that DYK would make its appearance on all the weekdays.
• As we have crossed million articles and as we get set to have DYK every day of the week, it becomes important to ensure that the quality of the articles does not drop. Articles need to be of a minimum length and lists would not be considered as articles usually. The current guidelines stipulate that stubs should not be added to the main page. However, the guidelines are confusing because they state a minimum size of 1000 bytes at one place and 1000 characters at another. I propose that we should have a minimum size of 350 words - this should be enough to fill one screen area and would be considerably longer than a stub.
• Updating DYK column (by an admin) and notifying users takes 20-30 minutes. Also, the updating process itself is not straight forward, involving uploads, protects, archives etc. The process has become lengthier for images uploaded from commons as attribution also needs to be done. As a result, the admins who update this on a continuous basis are limited to one to three people at the most. With the increase in number of suggestions, and the attendant need for updating DYK across time zones, every day of the week, would call for more admins updating DYK; this would also imply a need for simplifying the process.
• A suggestion for simplifying the process and its benefits: - Typically, {{UpdatedDYK}} is used to notify the creators of articles on their user talkpages about a suggestion from so-and-so article making it to DYK. Many a time, the person who suggests the article for DYK is not the same as one who starts the article (not a self-nom, in our parlance) - and he has no way of knowing if and when the suggestion has made it to DYK. More often than not, he is also a principal contributor to the article in question. To address these problems, {{dyktalk}}, which is used to update article talk pages has been implemented. As the article itself would be conceivably on the watchlist of all the major contributors to the article, everyone of them would know that the article has made it to DYK. Also, it serves as a more public record than a user talk page and can inspire more people to work on better entries that make it to DYK. I suggest that only the talkpages of articles be updated from now on, with the usertalkpages updation left entirely optional (I am not in favour of deleting or deprecating {{UpdatedDYK}} entirely because this can be useful for motivating newbies on their first DYK entries). I plan to implement this scheme from the coming week. --Gurubrahma 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see how {{UpdatedDYK}} makes the updation process more difficult. I often nominate the articles by newbies in order to show that their work is not lost to us and is appreciated by the community. Many (if not most) of these hardly know how to sign their name, let alone what the watchlist is all about. Therefore, {{UpdatedDYK}} is the only way to make them look at the Main Page. So I'm quite concerned that Wetman, Adam Bishop and the rest didn't get the traditional {{UpdatedDYK}} announcement on their talk page today. I am not an admin but may take responsibility for adding such templates to user talk pages. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I read your proposal more carefully and see your agreement that the template can be useful for motivating newbies on their first DYK entries. If it is used optionally, what is the criterion then? Who is considered a newbie and who is not? As a sidenote, if the template is dropped, the number of nominations may plummet drastically, as most people self-nominate their articles to see the template as a kind of award gracing their talk pages. Given that the nomination page is frequently overloaded these days, this move could be beneficial. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  When I say that it is optional, I expect the updating admin or the nominator to update the usertalk page. I think it is best to leave it to common sense to identify a newbie rather than allow instruction creep. Adding {{UpdatedDYK}} to user talkpage is much more cumbersome and time-taking than adding {{dyktalk}} to article talkpage due to the following reasons: - "Updateddyk" implies that article names need to be entered for each suggestion, then added to user talkpage. Some of the user talkpages take too long a time to load. "dyktalk" means that the same message needs to be copy-pasted in 4-5 article talkpages which are either very short in length (taking less time to load) or non-existent as yet. Most of the articles's original creators may leave them as stubs but I have seen other editors improving these a lot and suggesting them on DYK after I started the "dyktalk" template and implemented it. Most of the user pages (including mine) proclaim the articles they have started rather than they improved or collaborated. An implicit deprecation of "Updateddyk" and implementation of "dyktalk" should hopefully reverse the phenomenon to some extent. Also, please note that, previously, since dyktalk was new, I made it optional. The only change now is that the other template has become optional. Any help in updating usertalk pages by non-admins is highly appreciated. From my experience, I find that more (casual) readers see the talk page of an article and get interested in joining WP as editors, not by seeing user talkpage. Also, AFAIK, for any FA, the message is on talkpage, not on the user talkpage. It makes more sense as a signalling mechanism for collaboration. I sincerely believe that this change is in order for both strategic (promoting collaboration) and tactical (reducing update times) reasons. --Gurubrahma 06:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for your response. I see your point now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

British Rail flying saucer

Would like to suggest that this one be saved for April 1 (with, admittedly, a little DYK rules bending) if possible. See Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page and the talk page... ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This has already made it to the DYK, but let's see - though I wasn't around last year on that day, I heard that there were lot of silly pranks then. I'd rather prefer something genuine like this, but let's see. --Gurubrahma 12:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an archive somewhere of all the stuff done, pretty funny stuff... if you're an insider. This year's idea is to make it funny for those not in the know by using only true items, with the prank being that they actualy are true despite sounding obviously false. Perhaps the DYK rules bending needed would just be to allow this one, and a few carefully selected others, to be "reselected" as it were, on the day... ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo in the current DYK listing on the main page

According to the Manual of Style, italics should be used for television show titles and double quotes should be used for episode titles. Right now the DYK section says, "...award-winning Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Inner Light is..." Could someone please fix this? Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe such concerns should be addressed to Talk:Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Allowing expanded articles?

There was some previous discussion (now in the most recent archive) about allowing DYK to cover articles that have recently been built up from stubs rather than just new articles. It received some reasonably positive comments but nothing ever came of it. I think this would be a positive move because I think at this stage in Wikipedia's development we have more need to improve our existing articles than to get new ones. Allowing expanded stubs to be displayed on the main page would encourage this. Any thoughts on this? --Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is already an implicit policy, and I have myself updated sveral expanded stubs to DYK - caveats: these should have been really stubs (definitely less than 500 words), should not have made it to DYK before (some admin may have put them on DYK some time back inadvertently) and should be at least thrice as long as the previous stub version. --Gurubrahma 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. That's good. I thought I'd recently seen someone reject a request to put an expanded stub on as it wasn't allowed. Should The Rules but updated to reflect this? --Cherry blossom tree 12:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the announcement section above, we have different rules on different DYK pages. I would like to wait for a month or so to address objections to the above proposed changes before standardising them on all DYK pages. That rejection you refer to may have been because it was not a stub before expansion (length rather than tag matters) or it may not have been listed within 5 days of expansion. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the guidelines Gurubrahma proposes (and is defacto using?). They seem very reasonable, after all the point of DYK is to highlight new things that are neat to know more about. If the article was a stub and now it isn't, the new thing to highlight wasn't there before, after all. Thanks for moving this forward. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The rules should be clear on this. I do see expanded stubs there from time to time, but I didn't put mine as I thought it was fobridden.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been more than a month now, and no one has voiced objections, shall we now update the rules to reflect the allowing of expanded stubs? It's a good thing IMO. Kimchi.sg 07:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

World war 1 missile defence?

The assertion on the Main Page that Seacliff, Scotland, was a missile defence base during World War I looked a bit odd to me (who had long range rockets in World War I?), and as far as I can tell the actual article makes no such claim. Too late to fix it? Willhsmit 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article itself seems to have been corrected. I've fixed the DYK blurb. Shimgray | talk | 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Other DYKs

Do the rules for this main DYK apply to other DYKs such as Portal:Music/Did you know? Hyacinth 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Only to this one. --Gurubrahma 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ostrog Bible

The first printed edition of the Bible in a Slavic language can not be Ostrog Bible of 1580 when Prague Bible was printed already in 1488. Qertis 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The talkpage of Ostrog Bible may be the right place to take this up. --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins not checking whether the article is new?

Both Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (From April 5, 2004) and even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which is clearly not a new article (and is in fact from 2002) are currently in DYK. Shouldn't the updating admin actually check if the article is new? --Rory096 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Casu marzu, too, from March 16, 2002! --Rory096 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Main Page - some ppl. want to have fun on April fool's day by putting genuine stuff that sounds unbelievable, hence the old DYKs - this would only be for today (UTC time). --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you care...?

Someone suggested this as the heading for April Fools' once. Shouldn't be too harmful. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It sure has a subtle form of humour in it. It is a good heading ONLY for April Fools' day though. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up

The Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article isn't new. So, um... yeah, it really doesn't belong it DYK. Just thought I'd point that out. MrVoluntarist 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a harmless April Fool's day joke. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Timing of DYK articles

I'm well aware that current DYK policy is not to allow articles older than 120 hours old. Does that mean that an article that gets stranded on the nomination page until it's older than 120 hours is excluded?

Example: I did a self-nom on 2005-06 World Sevens Series on April 11. Another admin commented that it wasn't appropriate yet to be featured on DYK, and suggested improvements. I expanded the article considerably, and he okayed it on my talk page. However, there hasn't been an update to the template for nearly a full day. Even though I'm an admin, I don't consider myself competent enough to edit the template myself. By the time the template gets updated, there will be several possible entries—not just mine—that will be over 120 hours old.

What's the policy regarding stranded noms that haven't received comments, or have been commented but improved? — Dale Arnett 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it on the list under April 11, and see what happens. I just updated the template a few hours ago, so maybe on the next run it'll be in there (depends on the admin doing the update). I put one from April 10 on the main page this time around; for me the 120 hours thing isn't a hard and fast rule. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Selection process

I'm a little unclear on exactly who decides, and when they decide, which articles "make it" and which don't? What proportion of nominations tend to get in? Is there any kind of discussion/consensus/voting process, or does the admin just make a judgment call? Stevage 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly an admin judgment call, but users normally post comments saying that they think the article is too short, badly formatted, etc. As for a nomination success rate, it's pretty high (probably 80-90%). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template update process

The current process of updating the Did you know section on the Main page involves a manual update of the template at the time of change. With the recent introduction of the MediWiki Parser Functions it now appears possible to implement a schema similar to the one used by the Featured Article or Picture of the Day yet still change the section contents several times during the day. On possible syntax to implement this change is to change the template transclusion on the main page from {{Did you know}} to something of the form:

{{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}.{{#expr: ({{CURRENTHOUR}} / 8 round 0) mod 3}}}}

The above syntax would cause the Did you know section to be changed three time each day at 04:00, 12:00, and 20:00 hours. If a simple twice a day update is preferred then {{ #ifexpr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} < 12 | AM | PM }} could be used to cause an update at midnight and noon.

The advantages of an automated update process such as this are that updates could be queued up a day or two in advance of being displayed on the Main page, the transcluded files form an archive that does not need to be maintained after entries are added, and entries receive a more consistent length of time on the main page.

Is this a change that is worth doing? If so, how often should the section be updated and when should the cut over be performed? --Allen3 ^talk 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What happens if the queue inadvertantly is empty? That would be the thing I'd be concerned about. Unlike, say, tips, and FA's, you can't queue these up far far far ahead. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer to your question is that a blank file will be transcluded to the Main page. You are correct that entries could not be queued more than five days in advance (two to three days is probably the realistic limit), but the current system requires an admin to update a template a couple of times each day so overall effort for the updates in comparable to the current system. The real advantages come in the form of a predictable update schedule and simplified archiving. --Allen3 ^talk 00:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of multiple pages like the 'article of the day' I might suggest setting it up as a conditional list. So, instead of having to set up new pages a couple of times per day you would add new items to the bottom of the list. An older (pre ParserFunction) example of this concept can be seen at Portal:Middle-earth/Featured article... when transcluded into Portal:Middle-earth each entry is only displayed if a specific parameter is set, and only one is ever set at a time in the call. For DYK this could be adjusted to use a call like {{Template:Did you know|time={{JD}}}} and then have {{#ifexpr: ({{{time}}}>{{JULIANDAY|2006|4|30|3|30}}) AND ({{{time}}}<{{JULIANDAY|2006|4|30|15|30}})|<list of DYKs>}}... which would display the specified set of entries between 3:30 and 15:30 on April 30, 2006... then the next set would have a different time range, and the next, et cetera. The last entry in the list could then always have 'time < year 2050' (or whatever far distant time) to prevent the queue running out and displaying blank. --CBDunkerson 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that sounds like it would be quite a nifty thing to do. I like the idea of rotating automatically... There's still work to do around protecting pages but that could be done in advance, when the thing was chosen, as long as having things protected longer was OK (now, they are manually protected from when they are manually added to when they are manually removed) ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This implementation appears to introduce extra opportunities for human error without adding any additional functionality. The conditional list requires the admin updating a list to add a considerable amount of conditional code that is can not be easily tested except by reseting the time on the servers. It also adds the effort of striping the conditionals to the task of archiving previously displayed entries. If the "Did you know" section was a long list of items that were cycled over time then your proposed implementation would be viable, but until such an event happens the extra technical knowledge needed to perform updates combined with no savings in the effort to archive old entries suggests that this is not the best solution.

A hybrid solution of having a set of files that are cycled over time (Sunday.AM, Sunday.PM, Monday.AM, ..., Saturday.PM) could be a viable solution assuming the automatic creation of an archive through individually dated files is not considered a significant advantage. --Allen3 ^talk 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the requirement to inform users on their talk pages of updates

This is, without a doubt, the most time-consuming and annoying part of the DYK update process. I'm not sure the effort of going to up to six user talk pages, copying the template, and manually typing in the correct article name (imagine the hilarity if you mix two of them up) is worth it. With a non-tabbed browser or a slow laptop it would be even more painful. There is, after all, a message posted to the talk page of the article which is a far quicker copy-and-paste job, and surely most users who go to the trouble of making an article DYK-worthy will see it.

Thoughts? I think this is contributing to the current backlog for no good reason. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My theory is that it's a neat thing, a fun boost to the recepient (I know I do a little dance whenever I get one of those notices). I'm not convinced it is adding to the backlog (but I can't say for sure, not doing the work) and that it could be automated with a little work. I'd be willing to give it a look at some point. But if something had to give this is less important than putting removed articles in the archive list after they have been on DYK for a while, and I think there might be some of that problem right now, maybe... not sure. the bigger problem is to get more people to do the selecting and updating. Addressing that is done by making it easier, it's true.++Lar: t/c 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't take the notice away, I agree with Lar that it's fun for the article creators. Why not we leave the notification system as what Template talk:Did you know currently says: the user talk notice is optional and can be done by users, the article talk page notice is non-optional and done by the updating admin (or we could modify this so that users can do it)?

However, my ideal DYK process would be: we appoint a group of users (not admins) to paste DYK notices on article talk pages and user talk pages whenever the template is updated. Admins shouldn't have to do anything except update the template itself, and maybe notify someone from the group to do the talk page pastings. If there's such a group, I'm willing to help. Kimchi.sg 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fun, yes... if you get it. Of the four articles where my contributions got them to DYK, I only created two, so obviously didn't get the little sticker. The other two were expanded from stubs. I don't know whether that ratio's any different for people who do more writing than I, of course. Still, as long as it's not actually a requirement... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the updating admin whether he chooses to inform the creators about their articles being featured on Main Page or not. It is highly recommended to inform new wikipedians (you'll know them by red-linked userpages) that their work is appreciated by the community. As for Kimchi's proposal, I always inform the guys whose articles were nominated by me, even when the updating admin doesn't care to do it or put the tags to a wrong user talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notifying article creators is currently optional, although personally I always do it as a courtesy, whether it's a newbie or veteran editor. It doesn't take too much extra time and helps foster a co-operative spirit. I would like to see it become the norm again. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed appropriate to notify article creators about this. This is also another way to give recognition to these article creators who started the ball rolling. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of featured picture candidates is equally tedious, so User:Veledan created a script to semi-automate the process (see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates). You might want to talk to him and see if we can't get something similar for DYK. howcheng {chat} 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, please find an elaborate discussion above on the section titled Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Announcements_and_proposed_changes. I have created the article talk page notification to reduce the work load for admins, but used both the templates for some time to familiarise editors about the new template. --Gurubrahma 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive section needs updating

The archive section at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know is getting very long. Reading the source of that section, it seems that User:AllyUnion used to run a bot that archived old DYKs in that section. Does anyone object if I reuse the code and make another DYK archiving bot? Kimchi.sg 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do, the archive section on the talk page is way too long. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering there's a small amount of bureaucracy to get a new bot in place, I put forth a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Got a hint from Tawker, and dropped a note to Werdna648. Hope his bot can do this task. Kimchi.sg 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Quality of articles?

Ok, despite my bitching above I'm going to do another update. Now it doesn't look as if any worthy articles are going to miss their place in the sun I can make sure I'm doing it right. Basically, I passed over rail transportation in Okinawa because it has no sources. I also passed over Uí Ímair because of its length. Am I being fair in both cases? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK an article being unsourced is not a disqualifying factor for DYK. I wouldn't disagree with your judgement, though. And we could always propose that as another DYK criteria. Kimchi.sg 09:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are about to beat me to it Sam, I'll let you go ahead and update. I note your comments about rail transportation in Okinawa, although I had it "pencilled in". Exposure on DYK often generates useful links and sources. I'll be interested to see your selections though but I'll keep my others under wraps for now :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

{{DYK-Refresh}}

The display of this template on the DYK talk page seems to be broken for some reason, in my browser at least. CURRENTDAYNAME is displaying a broken link to Thirsday instead of the correct day. The template itself doesn't appear to have been vandalised, so does any template-guru have any idea what the hell is going on and how to fix it? --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been alot of adjustments and complete replacements of the templates I originally used to perform all the date calculations for this page. Somebody must have introduced a typo somewhere along the line. I'll track it down. --CBDunkerson 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not have any problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it CBD --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --CBDunkerson 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

DYKs used to be shorter

Have a look at the first archive. They were nice and simple then :) Have the DYK phrasings become too long and tortured? Stevage 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We still do see occasional one-liners, but these are getting rarer now. My feeling is that the increasing pressure to present the best-looking entry for DYK is causing editors to bulk up their entries with more words. Kimchi.sg 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to heartily agree here. A blurb of this type is actually more interesting when it's been reduced to just one enticing factoid. In cases of excess, I think the updating admin should just feel free to trim what's been overwritten.--Pharos 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As a guideline, how about making sure each point is only "one point" (no "that blah, and also that..."), and if examples are given, no more than two are included? Note: guideline, not rule :) Stevage 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've started enforcing it on my own entries from, well, this one. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the admins can always trim the entries. Before the current main page, DYK had much lesser space and trimming was de riguer. --Gurubrahma 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination length is a balancing act between the article length and quality, the nature and interest factor of the facts, and the available space to be balanced out to occupy the main page efficiently. I think adding more rules is unneccessary and we should continue to trust admins to use discretion to achive the right mix. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting started doing DYKs

I am keen to get started doing DYKs now that I have the shiny new admin buttons. I've been a bit swamped at work but hope to get to one this evening, and definitely will do some this weekend. I've read through the instructions and other relevant things but still might want someone to fire questions off to during the process. Also I have a question, how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are? I assume that you do the protections of images and articles first, and actually change the template as the very last thing to do, save that, check the main page to make sure it took correctly, and then go around to article and editor talk pages to leave the notices... that seems like you might get into protecting things, and then find out that another editor already did the DKY template update, rendering your protects superfluous... thoughts? (the backlog right now is really bad... lots of great articles that deserve promotion) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much a good order to do things in. Sometimes there are conflicts in updating, but it's pretty rare - just do a final check of the page history before hitting the save button to make sure. If you've wasted half an hour preparing things it's no big deal, just some learning on new topics - reading the DYK noms is usually great fun. Good to know there's a new updater aboard :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are?" I see this could become a real problem as more sysops partake of the DYK updating work. Maybe we can have a {{DYK-inuse | ADMIN_NAME}} template that says "DYK is being updated now by ADMIN_NAME." and have the updating admin insert it in Template talk:Did you know for the duration of the update, so that other people will know? Kimchi.sg 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Where to put it? behind noinclude tags on the main page? Or as you say on the talk page where the noms are (which is where people start work I assume)? or both?. I'll make one up if no one else does shortly. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can the other DYK admins comment here? I'm not sure how you guys start the updating routine. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy, imo ;). I was almost the sole updater of DYK for over a month. When nixie and I used to update, I used to check for image protections to see if she or any other admin is on the way to update DYK. I've updated DYK for around 4 months and never ran into the problem of other admins doing the update. More common problem is someone adding a suggestion to template talk, just as I am trying to archive and update it, resulting in an edit conflict. It also happened a couple of times on the template when some admin was correcting spelling, grammar or trimming the older DYK just when I was trying to usher in the newer DYK. --Gurubrahma 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts. That suggests the source page where the noms are is the right place. I may create and start using a template. (or just uncomment and recomment a warning box) No one else has to do so if they don't want to... I'm new here though so I'll try it without for a few cycles first I guess. Optional doesn't mean bureaucracy, although I dislike it too. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I just did my first one. I found it rather hard/finicky. I only did a partial, there were 5 articles, I pulled 2 and added 3 (there seemed to be room since the three I added had compact hooklines). Please, anyone that knows what they are doing, check my work. I protected the new image (but I just realised I forgot to unprotect the old one!) and left notices on talk and user pages. Comments, feedback, concerns, all very welcome. I will have to leave Friday to others as I will be traveling. But I will do some of Saturday's ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Looks quite okay. Kimchi.sg 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All looks good to me too, although a full changeover would have been good. It makes the archival process slightly easier. Good job nonetheless.--Cactus.man ✍ 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A full changeover makes archiving easier? I did not know that. I put the 3 articles I removed in the archive myself.... I'll keep that in mind though. (and we have enough of a backlog that there is no shortage of material). However, as it turns out I think I may have messed up a bit... see [1]... I did not look at that image closely enough. Although arguably the copyright symbol is a false assertion, it would have been better not to use that image at all. So whoever does the next rotation... please rotate that image off! There are lots of other good ones. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I find it easier, others may not. The current situation though is that when the next updater archives Mafeking Cadet Corps, s/he needs to remember that particular item previously was at #1 with an image, and they should add that image to the archive page also. I just think it's easier not to miss things like that if they're all done together. But each to his own :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Update, I see the copyright question has caused the allegedly offending image to be removed, so that's that possible banana skin removed. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Requirement for referencing?

I wonder if it should not be required that an article to be listed on DYK has references? I think this would be a sensible thing, because every single article on Wikipedia should cite its sources , and it would encourage more widespread referencing. Also, if references are not added to an article by the person who writes it, it's often much more difficult for a subsequent editor to identify a source to verify the given fact. Worldtraveller 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I think it would cut into the pool a lot. Also there is some controversy around how much referencing is needed... do you need a cite for "the sun rises in the east" sorts of questions? Also that's one thing that people do, add references. I have done so in the past for DYKs I found interesting and others have done it to mine. So... part of the criteria for selection maybe, requirement, probably not in favour. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I object. Although I personally provide refs for my articles, there are many editors who do not care either for referencing or nominating their articles for DYK. The requirement would cut off their superior and lengthy articles from DYK, which may become dominated by stubby but referenced articles. One aim of DYK is to encourage newbies, who seldom use references as well. Furthermore, there is no difficulty in bypassing this requirement, by renaming "external links" to "online references" as some editors do when pressed for refs. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think editors not caring for references, and newbies seldom using them, is a significant problem. One aspect of Wikipedia that is very easy for critics to attack is its perceived unreliability, and citing sources is the only way to combat that. By highlighting new articles that are not verifiable I think we give ammo to our critics. I honestly can't see that making references a requirement would lead to more stubby articles - generally, the shorter the article the less likely it is to be referenced anyway. Perhaps making it a requirement is too strict at this stage, but what about at least recommending it in the guidelines, and giving priority to articles that have references? Worldtraveller 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Lar and Ghirla here. Making it a requirement is too strong and would diminish the nomination pool. There's nothing wrong with pointing it out as being exemplary wikipractice, thus encouraging it, but many articles are by fairly new users who are still "tuning in" to the way things should be done. Exposure on DYK also leads to article improvements in many, many cases. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of forcing articles to be referenced but agree it would diminish the number of DYKable articles. Maybe if someone submits an unreferenced article a note could be added to their talk page asking them to list their sources before it can be put on the main page. There's also the question of whether to require inline references or just a list of sources. --Cherry blossom tree 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A simple remedy to the two concerns expressed here is to bias the selection of chosen articles by favoring referenced articles over unreferenced. A sudden ban of unreferenced article could result in a shortage of acceptable candidates so an immediate rule requiring referencing is inappropriate. On the other hand, if authors of unreferenced articles are consistently rewarded by putting their work on the main page there is no reason for their behavior to change. Consistently selecting referenced articles in preference to unreferenced articles should be a workable balance between the two extremes because it will encourage referencing by allowing unreferenced submissions to be crowded out during time periods with plentiful candidates yet still allow unreferenced articles to be used when the number of submissions takes a periodic dip. --Allen3 ^talk 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a lot of structure/process/rules. Here's my methodology:

• Pick the prettiest/neatest/interestingest picture. Is the article with it halfway decent? non stubby? decent hook? no major controversies or currently listed on AfD etc? Pick that for the lead. Else iterate in neat picture order. If the picture is on commons decide if I want to pick a different one because I'm lazy
• Start at the bottom with the oldest article not yet picked. Is it halfway decent? (as above). Take it.
• Iterate up. Skip articles that are the same topic as one picked so you don't have 2 of the same or similar topics.
• When I get to 6 with short hooks or 5 with long hooks, stop.
• Done. Move the stuff over, protect the pic, commit the changes and start working on leaving notices

Checking references and weighting my pick/nonpick decision mathematically? I don't think so... maybe with automation? ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason DYK has to be from new articles only. It might as well be new referenced facts from any article. We're well past the point we need to be promoting new articles. What we have is a situation were the vast majority of our 1.1m+ articles are terrible. We need to promote accurate content and referencing. Highlighting unreferenced facts/articles is very simply a violation of the verifiability policy. Doing it on the main page of all places contributes to the problem, not the solution. Allowing any newly referenced facts fixes the pool size problem, and the level of referencing is not a problem. The fact just needs to the supported by some reliable source. That's not that hard. The other objection about this being for new users and references not being needed is just misplaced. We're a reference work — very simply, we don't need unreferenced contributions. - Taxman ^Talk 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The current DYK rules are that DYK is for new (or newly expanded from stub/redirect to decent size) articles. Changint that seems a different question than whether the acceptance criteria should be narrowed to introduce a reference requirement. So then:

1. I'd oppose changing the article qualification rules, they're fine as is. Allow old articles and it moves toward FA or GA, and we already have those. See the quote at the top of User:Lar/DYK which I think quite pithy and profound.
2. I also oppose the idea of tightening requirements to encompass references. More than one of my accepted noms saw great improvement in the references area (I do references already when it makes sense, but they got better). Further I have seen references introduced into other DYK noms, over and over. That's the very idea behind DYK after all, bring new articles out where people can see them and are motivated to improve them. Again, see the quote at the top of User:Lar/DYK which I think quite pithy and profound, just as I did in the para right above this one. :)

I'm not against asking people to do better at referencing things. But I'm against mucking about with DYK to achieve purposes that it's not designed to achieve, and suggest that the campaign for better references be taken elsewhere. New editors are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia and I think messing with DYK can wreck that, and wreck it badly. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your whole argument seems to boil down to you want to do it the way you're used to doing it. Maybe the purposes it was designed for are counter to what they should be. Changing the qualification rules was an option to solve the problem of not enough references articles to draw facts from. But with 1000+ new articles a day I don't think there should be a problem getting 5-6 referenced facts a day. As for #2 there is no value in not encouraging the right way of doing things right from the start. Don't you reallize highlighting unreferenced facts is encouraging violating one of our most important policies? Think of it from the positive--can't you see how useful it would be in helping and teaching new editors how things should be done if all articles listed on DYK are referenced? Far from mucking up and "wrecking" anything, it fixes a significant problem and teaches new editors the value of referencing. I cannot see where you're coming from on this being a problem. - Taxman ^Talk 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, my whole argument is that DYK has been done this way for a long time, and you haven't demonstrated clear benefit for either change, absolutely not a change to non new articles, and almost certainly, not a change to the mechanical part of the criteria. I'm a relative newcomer to doing DYKs so its not about how I'm personally used to doing it, I can change (or not do it and leave it to others if new process becomes too onerous) if there is consensus for change. You just haven't demonmstrated it to me. Instead you've parachuted in and said things need fixing. OK: {{sofixit}}... If you guys want to pop by DYK and annotate those noms that have issues for lack of references, (or better, fix them up and explain to the new users (perhaps via subst'd boilerplate) what you did and why so they learn) that would be great, and I and other admins will certainly take that into account but I'm opposed to policy change for how DYK articles are selected. It's instruction creep and makes the process harder. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Again the first idea was just a possibility to ease the objection if needed. Don't focus on that. But yes I do feel we've clearly shown why facts in DYK need to be backed by reliable references. It's a core content policy after all. As to parachuting in, yes I was reminded of a problem that has been brought up before but never fixed. So I'm making the effort to get the process changed to fix it now. See below. - Taxman ^Talk 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that there remains some value in highlighting new articles. We should not, however, be highlighting anything not in compliance with WP:V, any more than we should be highlighting articles not in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I was under the impression that a reference to the DYK fact in the article was mandatory. Jkelly 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reference to the DYK fact cited in the article is one of the selection criteria and I have yet to deliberately select an article that violated it. It's an easy enough thing to check. "not in compliance with WP:V" however does not mean that the article has to use cite.php style references. Giving a source is sufficient, and I already tend to not pick articles that don't cite any sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Taxman and Worldtraveller here. While trying to showcase new articles is always good, trying to showcase articles which meet all of our content policies, particularily WP:V, which is our largest problem, is imperative. While inline citations are gradually becoming a FAC standard, there should be a strong rule completely prohibiting articles which don't have a reference for the article. Additionally, the methodology Lar uses is adequate, I might just add that added weight for inline citations be given (not necessarily by number of citations, because inadequate citations are easy to spot). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the issue? If you already do it most of the time, it just needs to happen every time. It's not feature creep to enforce an existing core content policy like WP:V. Yes the ideal would be every fact on DYK is cited inline to a reliable source. No we don't need to be draconian and require that off the bat, but we do need to require that the article have a reliable reference that backs the fact. And effort needs to be made to move toward the ideal. For now change "Try to select articles which cite their sources." to something like, "Selected articles must cite their sources.", and maybe even add ", ideally inline for the highlighted fact." Certainly facts cited inline should be preferred over those not if there are enough. That way we highlight the right way to do it. In practice, before the fact goes up it's quite easy to ask what source was used and to show the person how to cite it. Yes, I'll jump in to try to help. - Taxman ^Talk 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if it has to happen every time, it's not going to happen every time at least if I do it. There's too much to remember (it is a highly manual process) as it is. Do my best, sure, but I'm not so keen on outsiders parachuting in and dictating process changes because all of a sudden they're thinking they can push their pet peeve, which is what this feels like to me. I'm new so maybe I missed all the updates you did in the past and you already know this, but this process takes 20 minutes each time you do it as it is. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's mechanics that are the problem, that's not too hard to solve. Change the rule as above, then inform everyone so the culture changes and each fact is noted whether it has a reliable source or not. If not, inform the lister it needs one, and either remove it then for them to put back if it gets one, or leave the note for some time to allow them to fix it, but it's still obvious that fact is not suitable for choosing. It shouldn't be too hard to get 5-6 a day that are done properly, and if it is, just slow down the updating, which solves your other problem too. I'm sorry if the process takes a lot of time, but so does good research and we're not claiming we don't need that, so I'm not sympathetic to an argument based on time. Also, you don't have to be the only one that does it, so don't feel like Atlas or something. I have a feeling once people see what is required more submissions will be of the proper type and the work will be reduced. People just need to know what is required before they can do it. And I'm not dictating a process, I'm pointing out what needs to be done to follow one of our most important core policies instead of highlighting violations of it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty simple to me. You wouldn't put an article on the main page if it was blatantly embracing a non-neutral point of view, or if it was about something somebody made up in school one day. Wikipedia has three core policies - NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. To appear on the front page, an article really should meet all of these criteria. The Main page is the most high-traffic area on Wikipedia; if we don't enforce our basic standards there, then where will we? As for encouraging new users to write well-sourced new articles, I agree with Taxman that neither new users nor new articles are really priorities for Wikipedia right now. We have far too many horrible stubby little articles, and I would much rather see the article count shrink rather than grow. If new articles are to be added, then they should be on notable topics which can be sourced. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I agree with Taxman that anything cited under "Did you know?" should be referenced to a reliable source, otherwise what we're showcasing might turn out to be nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Encouraqing referencing is a noble aim, but should not be a mandatory requirement for selection IMO. I think you'll find that the majority of articles selected are referenced (to varying degrees). Very few new articles appear here on WP fully polished and fully referenced, particularly those by newbies who are still learning the ways. And merely having references in an article doesn't guarantee that it's accurate. It is an impossibility to check all the references before selection, particularly if they are not from online sources. A big chunk of references is merely "verifiability by illusion" unless you have access to those sources.

I personally try to select referenced articles, and ensure that the fact mentioned in the hookline does in fact appear in the article itself. I sometimes check online sources if given, but I'm not going to be running around trying to find book and newspaper sources to do any checking. The present system works pretty well, although I would support strengthening the encouragement of better referencing. DYK isn't broken, keep it for new articles, encouraging new contributors and exposing these new articles to improvement opportunities. No rule change is needed, perhaps just more encouragement to cite sources in the guidelines. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is we already have a mandatory requirement for references. That discussion was had and sealed long ago, and we can't set aside a core policy for convenience. We know references aren't a silver bullet, but they are the minimum needed for our work here. We don't expect you to check them all yourself, but they do need to be there. Encouraging someone to go ahead and check every reference for a DYK is a great idea though. Non online sources won't happen quickly, but at least it can be checked that the source exists.Worldtraveller covered the rest. :) - Taxman ^Talk 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but not appropriate for a high turnover, rapid turnaround template like DYK. It is just unrealistic and unworkble. This is not WP:FA which is scrutinised over an extended period by many peers. I'm sorry, but for me, the standards you are trying to apply here are inappropriate to the target. Whether the DYK model is the correct thing for the front page is a different argument. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't really understand how encouraging citing of sources goes against encouraging newbies. Just as we wouldn't highlight something riddled with spelling errors, blatantly biased, or clearly original research, it seems really very counterproductive to encourage the production of articles that are unverifiable. We do have certain standards here - encouraging newbies does not mean just getting any old people to edit, it means encouraging newbies to write articles that conform to the standards. In any case, is it actually true that DYK nominations come mainly from newbies?

No-one's asking for fully polished articles from the word go - just a front page that only highlights articles that conform to our core policies. If requiring referencing reduced the pool of articles available by half, it would actually make everyone's jobs easier - updates every 12 hours instead of every 6, articles get more exposure and interest, and DYK maintainers don't have to spend so much time maintaining it. I don't even think it would reduce the pool by half but if it did, it wouldn't be a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. Worldtraveller 16:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all for both citing sources AND encouraging newbies, and I certainly DID NOT propose encouraging the production of articles that are unverifiable, quite the contrary. Please read what I wrote. I did question the nature of verifiability in this context, because DYK is a rapid turnaround process - in as noms, featured, out again.

Take one current example article on the DYK template. Can you say that, without access to the 6 references given, you can verify that the article is accurate? "Verifiability by illusion". For someone without access to the sources there is no substantive difference if these references are missing for the 10 - 12 hrs the article is on the main page. We should encourage the original author, as well as other readers, to add these necessary references which is what DYK does.

"Encouraging" is the key word here. Yes, encourage newbies, and everybody else for that matter, to write articles that conform to the standards. The erection of prohibitions to selection is a disincentive to all. Best in my view to make the guidelines clear with pointers to relevant core policies, and adapt notification templates to reflect this. Again, encouragement is the key. I am still against making it a mandatory requirement for selection of articles for featuring on DYK. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can say that without further information, an article with 6 references is better than one without. First, by assuming good faith that if they are there, they were probably used correctly. Then apply trust but verify. Because the references are there, someone that does know the topic is likely to be drawn to that if they are used in a bogus manner. Or try google scholar, google books, or just search to see that the sources exist and compare with sources that are available online. Again, anything bogus will jump out. That makes the one with references much more valuable, and does make a substantial difference if the references are there while the fact is highlighted on the main page. That time is critical to the fact checking effort and demonstrating the right way to do things. And you can be opposed to it, but again, that doesn't mean we can set aside the policy. I'm extremely surprised to see people that understand the importance of referencing arguing against applying our policy on it for something on the main page. So yes we encourage it for everything, but for something highlighted on the main page, we need to require it. - Taxman ^Talk 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Throwing my weight behind the fact that did you knows should be referenced. Otherwise, why not allow any article on the main page rather than just featured articles? And as to using new pages, that would be fine if we really did, but I've seen someone use a did you know from a page that was created from splitting a long page into separate articles, and crediting the person who split the page with the did you know. That seems odd to me. Use referenced facts, and widen the pool to all articles. If that creates a paucity, so be it, but let's reward the right contributions here. Steve block Talk 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cactus.man, I didn't say that you were proposing to encourage unverifiable articles - I just said that the system, as it is, does exactly that. I'd like to offer an example of how not referencing from the start can cause significant problems later. Months ago I wrote Ferdinandea, about a volcanic island that intermittently appears in the Mediterranean. I included a mention of a claim that a US bomber on the way to Tripoli in 1986 had bombed the island thinking it was a Libyan submarine. Didn't cite my source. A few weeks ago I revisited the article, looking to bring it to WP:GA standards, so I needed to find the source again. I couldn't remember where I'd got the fact from, and google searches for Ferdinandea were now so swamped by Wikipedia mirrors that it took me days to track it down - time which could have been used for writing more articles.

It seems odd to me to say that because someone might have made their references up, we should not require references on DYK. I think with any referencing, DYK or anywhere else, there has to be an assumption of good faith that people are citing sources accurately. They can be properly checked in due course. Worldtraveller 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to disagree that "the system, as it is, does exactly that" (encourage unverified articles). You haven't shown that it encourages them. Several of us have said we do take it into account, and there is nothing stopping anyone from tagging noms as having the problem. The issue is that apparent outsiders are trying to force change when it's not shown that it's needed or that it will be effective, or worse, that it won't break the entire process.

I guess maybe some {{sofixit}} is required here. At the risk of repeating myself... Those of you that feel strongly that articles should not be selected for DYK no matter how great they are, if they don't have properly verified references, are welcome to so annotate those article nominations so that those of us actually doing the work will see that and take it into account. Also there's a timer in effect, we don't do new DYKs more often then every 6 hours. If you're an admin and feel strongly about it, turn up when the timer's just about to go off, flag that you're doing a refresh (there is hidden text in both the template and the talk) and DO IT. You'll crowd out those of us that think you're a bunch of nstruction creeping process wonks focused on the wrong things, because you'll get to select articles in exactly the manner you think is proper. Select only articles that meet your criteria. Just make sure you do the whole thing, and do it properly, follow all the steps, and do it right so we don't have to clean up any messes.

Heck, right now at this moment I think the timer is at 16 hours or something (I've been busy writing documentation for work and didn't have time to do an update) so... it's not like there are people crowding you out from doing a selection. Do one. Go crazy. Show us how to do it properly. Be WP:BOLD. After you've done a few, I for one will give your comments a LOT more credence than I'm giving them right now.

Apologies if everyone here that I don't recognise is actually an old DYK hand with dozens of DYK updates under their belt and I didn't know it. But that's not the way I'm betting. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to attack people so offensively, or try and institute some kind of 'us and them' mentality. Who's 'outsiders'? Are people who don't actively maintain DYK not allowed to comment on it? Is DYK somehow separate from the rest of Wikipedia? The extra burden a requirement for references would create is on the article writers - it would add about two seconds to your work when doing a refresh to glance at the bottom of each article and see if there's a reference section. That's all anyone's asking the maintainers to do. Worldtraveller 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I reject the notion that I'm attacking anyone, much less offensively. I am sorry but I'm not sure I see how pointing out that any admin can edit DYK is setting up us vs. them (for after all it's saying that anyone can do it, not just the current set of people doing it) or is an attack on anyone. If you take it that way, I'm very sorry and I apologise, but it might actually be your issue, not mine. I do, however, think it's fair to suggest that you try your hand at it before you demand that the process be changed. Yes, if you haven't actually worked the process, comments about how little impact ("two seconds" is clearly exaggerating for effect) your changes would have have less credence with me than if you have. Try your hand at it, the DYK really needs updating now. The article I'd pick for lead at first glance is nicely referenced, by the way. Finally, I have to wonder if suggesting I'm attacking is in itself a way to not address my comments substantively. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Got to say, Lar, I found your words fairly strong and polarising. I've had a go, but I don't see why that should mean my comments should carry any more weight than they did ten minutes ago. It'd be nice if we all recognised that wikipedia is built on consensus and that nobody owns any process. Who knows, I might start demanding people create an article before I listen to them. Steve block Talk 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tags, should help a little. As for carrying more weight, it comes down to this, if you comment about a process you haven't executed, it's not reasonable to expect that your comment gets the same credence as one you have. I would support you "demanding people create an article" if the topic was the finer points of article creation. Yes WP is built on consensus and no one owns any process, but we do give different amounts of credence to different folk based on experience and areas of interest... AfD, RfA, ArbComm elections, Esperanza elections were just 4 I picked off the top of my head, there are lots more. My point stands, people that haven't done an DYK update aren't as qualified to comment on process changes and what effect they would have than people that have. Doesn't mean their opinions have no value but it does mean they may possibly not know what they're talking about, or at least may have missed some nuance. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree Lar. Consensus is consensus, and is formed by the broadest discussion possible. If this discussion is germane to did you know and also to verifiability, it makes sense to engage both sides of the argument, and people who have two different sides to the argument, and no side in that argument should have any greater power. And by the way, I think the discussion has taken new article creation into it's broad spectrum of noise, so I think that's a fair comment. Put it this way, if someone's been editing an article on foo for six months and someone comes in and corrects the wiki formatting to be in line with policy, whose voise carries more weight? And how do you expand out the discussion? Verifiability is a key policy, that's the point I think is trying to be made here; it should not be overlooked by main page content; it's a high profile area and a high profile policy. Kind of a bad precedent thing. I don't think anyone is commenting on the procedures, they are commenting on the requirements. Big difference. Also, your four examples are all areas in which the weight of a person's comments are defined by a neutral party; in the case of an afd the closing admin weighs the comments, in the case of an rfa the 'crat does so, and in arbcomm elections and esperanza elections the conditions for suffrage are set before the vote by the election organising body. What we are engaged in here is not a vote, it is a discussion, and people should recognise that perhaps their closeness to a procedure is not necessarily a good thing. If this discussion involved new users who one could perhaps suggest were trolling after having assumed good faith, I'd have no problem, but we're talking about editors of good standing and I don't think your comments on outsiders or the weight of a comment show much good faith.

• Sure, the people who run the thing can have an idea of how much impact the change might entail, but is that a case of turkeys and christmas? Let's try and keep the discussion on an even keel. I can't see that checking that a fact being used for did you know is sourceable is going to add that much more work. I checked all the ones on the page last night in about ten minutes tops. Perhaps your experience differs? Steve block Talk 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

a bunch of instruction creeping process wonks is not an attack? Wouldn't you take offence if someone called you that? And talking of 'outsiders' is not setting up an 'us and them' mentality? Look at your process that you described above - from point 1: Is the article with it halfway decent? non stubby? decent hook? no major controversies or currently listed on AfD etc?. All you need to do is add got a section at the bottom called 'references'?. How long would that take? Worldtraveller 21:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a process wonk and I refer to myself that way all the time, in fun. But ya, this discussion isn't the place for comments of that sort. I can see how you might have taken that badly and I apologise. As for outsiders, you have to admit, a lot of new voices all turned up here all of a sudden, advocating new process, advocating new instructions, and perhap for some of you, it's because of posts on different pages suggesting that you turn up here and advocate change. To the extent that is true, it is offputting to me, sorry. As for modifying what I do, I already check for references. I'm fine with checking for references being a suggestion or addition to the guideline but I continue to oppose making it some sort of mandatory thing. Until you do a DYK update or two yourself (and by the way as of this writing the timer continues to advance, give it a go, it's only 30 or so minutes of effort...), you're not, in my view, as qualified to comment on how much additional effort mandatory guidelines add as someone who has. No amount of explaining away will change my viewpoint. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, because it's an important issue, it is worth bringing people in to make this important change. I'd be with you more about your outsiders claim if we weren't dealing with something that is on the main page and relating to one of our most important core policies. Because it is on the main page and an issue of very settled policy, we need to decide how it should be and the process should develop around that. The process tail shouldn't wag the policy. - Taxman ^Talk 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The second one was a lot easier than the first

Anyone spot anything wrong please shout! I found that cranking through all the articles, then all the contributors, was a good approach. I kept an older version of the suggestions page open to get the article and contributor/nominator names.... ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The third one wasn't too bad, tried out a different order for things. I meant to do one more before I went to bed but I spent so much time writing Merritt-Chapman & Scott (which I nom'ed) that it's 2 AM so I am going to bed! Can someone else do the next one? (I'll probably remove most of this discussion, it's chatty) ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Format issue

See this diff... what's that all about? Don't we need that leading UL format stuff? I confess I'm not clear why we are using li there instead of *... thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, it's been formatted as an unordered list for all the time I've been editing here. I think it's much better as a bulleted list, easier to read on the main page. A nice bold bullet point is much better for identifying clearly where the next item starts than three isolated tiny little dots. I've always wondered why it was done that way, but I support this change. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I like it as an unordered (bulleted) list, I think it's the way to go. But... in our work area, it's formatted as an unordered list by using "*". In the actual template, there WAS some div code (the diff shows its removal) and the unordered list formatting is done by using <ul> and <li> instead of just using *. My question (perhaps to Flcelloguy??) is what was that div code doing and why was it removed, and (perhaps to people who have been doing this for a while) why use li instead of * ??? ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistake on my part; someone pointed out on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that the formatting on DYK was broken, and I apparently overcorrected by removing that line after checking the diff which broke the formatting (there was an extra asterisk and eclipse). I'm not going to comment on whether I believe that DYK should be formatted with "*" or without, but I'll reinsert that line of code now that I inadvertantly removed. I apologize. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no apology necessary. I thought you were on to something and I wanted to learn from it! I do happen to like bullets... not sure why we have to use raw html, and am curious about that as well. Maybe bring it up on VP... It is a pain always changing it back and forth between * which is how it is on the suggestion page, and li which is how it is on the template, and then back to * AGAIN to archive it... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(Mysterious lack of edit conflict from the previous post). I agree, copy / pasting between "*" and <li> to archive is a pain in the arse. Let's settle on "*" for bulleted lists. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment was perfectly clear Lar, it was the opening unordered list tag that was removed - (<ul style="text-indent:-1em;margin:0 0 0 1em;padding:0;list-style-type:none;list-style-image:none">). Even though the closing </ul> tag remained, the mediawiki software rendered the remaining <li> tagged list items as a bulleted list. Using "*" works just the same. Like you, I think this is better, with bullets, but Flcelloguy has now restored the unordered list to rectify his good faith mistake. Bring back the bullets ... :-) Cactus.man ✍ 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed some interplay between bullets/indents and images. An image on the left plays havoc with bullets that are up against it, they disappear, and indents also disappear. Perhaps the <li> is there to try to correct that? It takes effect even if it's in the middle of a line at render time. Some experimenting may be in order. ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(pictured)

It is rather difficult to associate the pictures that appear on the main page in the DYK section with their articles, especially when the subject is unknown to the reader. Perhaps someone could put a (pictured) note with the entry that the picture is about at every refreshment? Kinda like what ITN and Selected Anniverseries are doing. deadkid_dk 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The image is always associated with the first DYK entry. There should also be an Alt text caption with the image which pops up when you mouseover it. It was missing from the current template but I've added it now. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. But that's not obvious to the readers, I certainly didn't know about it until just now. :) deadkid_dk 07:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your (pictured) suggestion, but was just meaning to explain my fix. Thinking about it further, (pictured) probably has some merit for the reasons you gave, but also for consistency on the main page. I don't feel strongly either way, but would be interested to know what others think. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think adding (pictured) is a good idea, and certainly can't hurt things. I say lets try it out for a few cycles and see whether people complain. The problem is remembering to do it! ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, first-time visitors will not know about our in-house rule of "picture belongs to first entry". This will make a nice cluebat. :) Kimchi.sg 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to do it ... :-) Now fixed. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't in the checklist!!!! LOL. Thanks for fixing it for me. I'll try to remember. Told you it would take a while to remember to do it, but it's still a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone forgot to do it again XD deadkid_dk 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, ya, so I did. Wasn't in the checklist!!!! I think I said! ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for Deadkid who couldn't figure out which article the image refers to. Nevertheless, it seems superfluous to add "pictured" every time. I believe this should be left to the updating admin's discretion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RSS Feed?

I think an RSS feed for this page, and many other constantly updated Wikipedia pages, would be pretty nice. I dont see one available as of yet. Am I missing it, or does it really not exist? ~Andrew, 5/15/06 7:53am

Notification of an update in progress

The thread below has been copied from User_talk:Cactus.man. This is a proposal to implement a mechanism for advising DYK updaters that another editor is in the process of updating the page, thus avoiding redundant effort. I have created {{UpdatingDYK}} to be substed into the DYK template, which places commented out text that an update is underway. Used with an informative edit summary, this could save much wasted effort.

All comments welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another update monday morning

Thanks for another great update. I was going to do it last nite but got to BOS really late and I just didn't feel comfy. I wonder if we should start putting "I think I can do the next update at 1100 UTC but if it gets to be 1200 and I haven't started it, go for it!" sorts of comments in the refresh area (inside html comment tags)? (you can answer here, I watch talk pages) ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I always check the history of the DYK template itself before I start. Something in the template inside html comments with a meaningful edit summary might be useful, rather than on the talk page which is pretty busy. How about a template that can be substed in to provide commented out opening lines, something like:

<!--
*****************************************************************
Update in progress by Cactus.man.
Please do not edit the template if this notice is in place.

Thanks.
*****************************************************************
-->

Subst in the template before you start updating, with an edit summary of "update in progress, please don't edit". Remove the substed code when you're done. Nice and simple, the history page indicates that an update is underway, and the text on the edit page does as well. Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See {{UpdatingDYK}}, seems to work fine. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing it with the commented out thing uncommented because I want it visible on the talk page that it's in process. Last update cycle several noms were made while I was in mid update and it played holy havoc with me I kept getting edit conflicts... made it hard to make sure I correctly removed the selected items and not anything else. So I'd rather see it as not a commented thing? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, reading too fast, I missed that this goes in the template itself. yes, commented out is the way to go! and for it to work it has tobe subst'd or else the comments won't show. I will update in about 60-90 min if you haven't already. Maybe we should move this convo to the wp:DYK talk page? ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Update away my good man. The noinclude text on the template make it clear that it must be substed, but I'll also draft something for the talk page and instruction pages to make this as clear as possible. I'll also post this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know --Cactus.man ✍ 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I made the template a lot bigger. I think it works better now, not sure. I also started putting the warning box in bigger letters and having it be in two places. I got no edit conflicts last time I did an update. Yaay. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Time limit

Why, exactly, can only new articles be included in DYK??

I say this, because there was a recent addition (by me, thanks to the information given me by another user) to the ice dancing page. The ice dancing page itself was created in mid-February of 2002, but the following information:

"Additionally, in international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, ice dancing is the only form of figure skating to allow vocal music with lyrics to be skated to. This, however, does not necessarily apply to non-ISU-sanctioned competitions (see: figure skating)."

Which I was hoping to offer up for DYK? status in the form of:

"Did you know ...that ice dancing is the only form of figure skating to use vocal music in ISU-sanctioned competitions?"

was actually not in the article until recently. As in, until today.

There's also a lot of good information in a handful of other, older-than-120-hours pages that's been recently added or never made it into DYK? before, such as (off the top of my head) in the fan fiction page (the bit about "songfic" being banned because of fears the RIAA would sue over the lyrics being printed? I think that's interesting - heck, it's somewhat more interesting than the ice dancing bit I was considering offering up - and I do not think it's ever been in DYK? before, either, because I believe it's a fairly new addition to the page).

So if there's new information, i.e. it could not possibly have been in DYK? previously, why not allow it? Just curious, since generally, articles DO tend to get more, better, and more interesting information as they grow, and if the bit of information itself is new and has not been in DYK? before, it would make sense to allow it.

May I suggest a vote on it somewhere, and especially, ask why the "120 hours or less old" rule is in place to begin with? Runa27 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If we were to allow older articles for DYK, we would have a pool of over 1 million articles to choose from, which would greatly increase the backlog of articles waiting to get onto DYK. Your move would backfire, because the chance of any article making it to DYK would actually decrease if old articles are allowed. Since we can only allow at most 5-6 entries on DYK each time the template is changed, and they must be on for at least 6 hours each time, updating admins would have to be much more selective when choosing entries. As a consequence, the chances of an entry making it to DYK will greatly decrease from the 80-90% it is now.

To summarise, if older articles are allowed, many more can be nominated, but the chances of any one making it onto the template will drop.

As for the 120 hours limit, this is already quite generous considering that when DYK first started, the time limit was 3 days (72 hours). Kimchi.sg 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Five days was implemented when the featured pic was shown only on weekends. It might be a good idea to move the limit back to three days now that DYK is on the main page every day again.--Peta 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The reason why DYK time limit was extended to 5 days was because under the old system, many articles created on Fridays would be disqualified from Monday's installment. Now we don't have this problem any more. Kimchi.sg 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was updating the template, there was quite a problem with backfilling, so no matter how many time you updated in a day, there would still be people adding 4 and 5 day old articles. I think a move back to three days would keep the content fresh.--Peta 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. I don't think any ordinary reader is going to be unimpressed by an encyclopedia article because it's stale at 5 days old. In my view, 5 days rather than 3 just gives the updating admin a little more space to weed out the stubs and clunkers.--Pharos 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, 5 days is a decent length to settle for - a "working week". Many editors don't even think of nominating their material for a couple of days or more, for various reasons. A 3 day limit would lock out many late nominations. As Pharos says "weeding out the stubs and clunkers" (great expression) will still happen with a 5 day limit. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the 5 day limit applies not only to new articles but to articles that are taken from a stub to something decent... "greatly expanded" is just as good as "brand new", although just adding one neat fact doesn't quite seem like enough "newness" to warrant extending the guidelines to allow it. There's always the FA process to consider although that's a bit more work. As for 5 vs 3 days, I think 5 days is about right. We actually went through a dry patch a few days ago where if we were at 3 days we would have been out. (that was because I got update happy and did several in a row that were very close together, just over the limit...) So I think leaving things as is is the way to go. Oh, and polls are evil! ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to stray too far from topic, but the expanding from stubs and redirects isn't mentioned in the Rules. I'll updaet them. Melchoir 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, update, even! Melchoir 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose any changes of the time limit. 5 days work fine for me. I prefer not to nominate articles the very next minute after they are started but work a day or two before nominating. It takes some time to notice newly created articles by others, too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Current events and Anniversaries for DYK

I received a comment from User:Ghirlandajo that DYK should not be about current events, regarding my self-nomination of Ein bisschen Frieden which is a song which won the Eurovision Song Contest 1982. I thought it would be appropriate to have this on thursday or saturday european evening (about 18-21) as this is when the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 is happening. Personally I can understand perhaps that News/current affairs and DYK should be separate, but is there any reason that timing DYK with sutiable anniversaries, which are not at all current are inappropriate? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see a problem as long as the event is only being mentioned in either one of the templates, but not both. For example, it's quite "boring" if a past World Cup match was mentioned in DYK at the same time that the World Cup is being mentioned in current events. Kimchi.sg 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hm... I remember answering this or something similar somewhere... must not have stuck. I see no problem with this as long as it's not TOO HARD for the DYK updater to do. Leave clear instructions, realise that it's a best effort and your item might not get picked or might get picked at the wrong time anyway and don't worry about it. The basic idea of adding additional twists or tie ins is an excellent one. Anything to increase interest and readership is goodness in my view. I wouldn't even worry about double coverage...++Lar: t/c 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• This example is peripherally related to a current event, I don't think that the updating admin should go out of their way to see that it is put on the main page in conjunction with said event - but it wouldn't hurt if it happened. Sometimes there are DYK suggestions that are "news in disguise", i.e. items not important enough to get on ITN, I never included these in the template when I was updating it, and these are the kind of current event items that I think we should avoid putting in the template.--Peta 04:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Petaholmes here. Blnguyen's entry is harmless but I recollect that some guys, failing to get their pet news to the main page through "in the news" section, would start an article on the subject and nominate it for DYK. I don't think we should play into their hands. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

The archive part of the DYKTalk is getting really long. I don't know anything about what the bots did, or how one archives at the portals (that sounds like a huge job to me!)... does anyone else? It's actually getting long enough that it's hard to add items to the front on a slow connection. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The bot is broken. AllyUnion, the bot's owner is busy in real life. Also, the archiving itself is not properly done with each archiver using different formats and sometimes the same admin (me!) using different formats. The last time it got too long, I created 13 archives manually. Let me try and see if I can get to it in the weekend. --Gurubrahma 13:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Next

I propose we create a staging area for the next DYK. Since its content won't directly affect the Main Page, it won't be as sensitive to edits and could even be left unprotected. Advantages: more people would be able to collaborate, and more time to refine the entries. Less pressure on admins: when the update time comes, their job would be simply to cut & paste. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea. Believe it or not the part that takes the most time, for me anyway, is adding the DYK boxes to the articles and the noms/creators talk pages. I've been thinking about ways to automate the whole process... would people stick to a more rigid format if it made automation easier? I am envisioning a form where you pick the article tags you like and it generates the new page as well as creating the entries and opening the relevant talk pages... a bit ambitious but... might be a lot less work if it could be done. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not let the nominators do it themselves? We could say something like: if the entry you have nominated indeed appeared on the Main Page, please add this box to the nominator's Talk page, that box to the creator's talk page and that third box to your article's talk page? I am sure people will be happy to know that they spared someone else's precious time. But sure, automation is even better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be an admin job to do the tags on the talk pages and the author's talk pages, but I reckon that I could do it myself as a normal user if nobody else cared.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to compile 3 lists: creators, noms and articles and then feed them to a bot auto-slapping the template boxes. I'm not a bot writer, but I think I saw bots possessing such functionality. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so easy for the authors. I put Buddhism in Australia on DYK; prior to that it existed as a redirect, and prior to that it was adspam. So that would have to be done manually, else the bot would message people who put a redirect or put linkspam which was later removed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we leave it up to the nominators, it will only result in revert wars. This sort of thing really needs one individual to make a final decision, just as is necessary for the main page featured article. --BRIAN0918 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nod. However it may be a good thing for admins to do, dunno. Have to think it through. Personally I think writing some semiautomated tool that is on the toolserver and does the presentation of articles may be better. Not sure.++Lar: t/c 21:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What "recent additions" links to

We had a bit of a slow moving revert war recently in Template:Did you know... should "newest articles" link to Special:Newpages as it has for some time or to Wikipedia:Recent additions?? I think it's important to discuss this instead of reverting, and this is, I feel, the place. Myself I think since Wikipedia:Recent additions is WOEFULLY out of date, it's a bad choice... I can see why Special:Newpages may not be ideal either though as it is editor centric... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't realize WP:RA was out of date. Is the bot not working? I would rather it link to that, though, instead of a random list that is likely to include vandalism, one-liners, or other nonsense, and which is presented in a format completely unfamiliar to our readers or new users; it makes us look much less professional compared to the well-formed, lengthy articles on DYK. Why not just move the archive at the template talk page to WP:RA? Then it will be up to date. --BRIAN0918 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the bot also does the archiving to portals... not sure. User:Gurubrahma said he was going to do it by hand when he had a lot of time... that sort of suggests it's more than just a straight copy. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Special:Newpages is worthless in terms of interest to the average reader. I don't see why we can't just do a copy-and-paste update to Wikipedia:Recent additions from the DYK archive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam, Special:Newpages is a poor choice for the target DYK reader. I would suggest a manual copy-and-paste update to Wikipedia:Recent additions now, with a change in procedures to archive DYK entries directly to Wikipedia:Recent additions (instead of the bottom of the template talk page) until such time as the bot is repaired. I would be happy to do the copy-and-paste update if need be. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the portal archives though? I think that's the really hard part? Maybe someone can drop Gurubrahma a note asking him? He seemed to know. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...er, portal archives?? I've obviously missed something. :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

de-indenting Archive link should lead to Wikipedia:Recent additions; Newest articles should lead to Special:Newpages. Rationale - Newest articles are those that have been created new and give an idea to a prospective editor to see what all types of articles are created and then compare them with those that make it to DYK; Archive is for the readers interested in DYK and that shd go to recent additions - let's not mix up the constituencies of readers and editors, plain and simple. Also, imho, it doesn't make sense to link up recent additions twice - once from the archive link and once from the newest articles link. Peta once suggested it may be worthwhile to have a link "suggest" for suggesting a DYK idea from the template but we dropped the idea as (i) we anyways get reasonable no.s and (ii) probly more importantly, ppl may not read all the rules abt suggesting entries. As far as archiving goes, there is no portal archiving as such, unless someone is interested in doing it, that is ;) I shd hopefully get to archiving DYKs to recent additions this weekend but this may happen only on Sunday as I'm busy in crafting an RfA nom in the meanwhile. --Gurubrahma 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name change

I'm suggesting changing the name of this section on the main page from "Did you know..." to "Did you know that..." for the following reasons:

• To avoid the unnecessarily repetitive use of the word "that" in each entry. "...that" "...that" "...that" "...that" "...that"
• Also, if anyone has seen the show Bill Nye the Science Guy, they had repeated segments called "Did you know that..." which were in the same spirit as this template. That is my shred of evidence for how such a segment should be titled.

Any support? --BRIAN0918 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not opposed but not supportive either... I kinda like the "...that" on each one. If it's changed all the archives need to get straightened around i would think. Convince me harder? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like it, the "that" unifies the entries. Did you know? by a phase seach on google gets far more hits than Did you know that?--Peta 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it does. All phrases get more matches on Google than the same phrase with an added word. My Bill Nye example was hard evidence that "Did you know that" is the way such a title should be. --BRIAN0918 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hard evidence of how it should be? or hard evidence that a particular show chooses to do it a certain way? I'd say the latter is all it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's hard evidence, which nobody else has provided. Either way, I don't care. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:26
        • OK, since you admit it's just evidence of how some show chose to do it rather than evidence that it's CORRECT, let's leave it as is then. In general without a clear benefit, things should be left as is, especially in an area where many people have to update, and being able to do things by rote makes things go faster, and lets one focus more on content and less on format. At least you didn't just go change things on this one without seeking consensus first. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
          • There's a difference between changing a slight word that makes no difference, and making a significant improvement to a page by preventing almost everyone from placing entries out of order. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:15
            • There's also a difference between a wording change and a major disruption to the main work page that there was no consensus for beforehand, no consensus for afterwards, and no agreed on benefits to doing, which cannot be easily reverted, which is a more accurate description of the change you refer to. Stop giving the appearance that you are being bullheaded please. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposed - while it would avoid repeating the "that" in each entry, ending the title of the section with the word "that" would be a little clumsy. There are many newspapers that have a "did you know" section, which they title thusly. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Classical music titles

Hello, I'm honored that my article on Stravinsky's Mass was just chosen for DYK! An editor changed the title from Bold Roman Type to Italicized Bold. I'm confused because according to the Wikipedia's Classical Music Manual of Style, generic titles like Symphony and Mass should not be italicized. I changed it back in the actual article but don't believe I have such privelages for the main page. Any thoughts? -- MarkBuckles 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why require articles to be less than 120 hours old?

I don't understand the rationale for this requirement. It's very difficult to find good, non-stub, interesting articles just a couple of days old. I nominated an article I created, Homerun, 4 days after creating it. The next day, when it was 5 days old, someone rephrashed the fact. It was removed from the nominations list the next day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildanknight (talk • contribs)

See the section above titled "Time limit". Kimchi.sg 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I would propose that if someone creates a stub, then 10 days later, someone else turns it into a full article, the 5-day timer should be reset. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansions from stubs are always counted as new articles (or should be), no matter how long the stub's been there. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I'm working on some stubs on websites and TV shows. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing about working on stubs that makes it challenging in my view is that clock starts when you make your first expansionary edit. For brand new articles, I always work in userspace, and the clock starts on my move to articlespace, I can take as much time as I need to get the article nice and beefy, well written, well sourced and illustrated, etc... So work fast but carefully! ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an example, Italo Santelli technically existed as an article for a long time, but my rewrite was judged enough of a "new" article do get DYK featured. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Note however that your article was destubified, nominated, and picked within the 5 day (or maybe 3 day, it may still have been 3 day, I forget) window. So my point is that if you are working on an article in talk space it does pay to work as quickly as you can (within reason) to give it more time to be refined and picked, if DYK is your primary goal. That said, perhaps DYK should not be a primary goal, rather, making the article better is the goal, and DYK a side benefit (the history, unsually, did not show the expected amount of edits after selection that I have seen on so many others... perhaps the article was about as good as it could get already? it IS a nice article) ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone vandalised the links for June 3. The link for "Super-14 Finals" now links to "Masonary Position."

Increasing popularity

Does anyone have any suggestions for increasing the popularity of DYK? This would be measured by an increase in the number of suggestions per day, and the number of edits per article that is featured on DYK. Here are a few possibilities that come to mind:

• Require that the suggested factoid be enough of a "hook" to interest even those who have no interest in the general subject. (subjective of course, but it will allow us to ignore more of the dull factoids than we do now)
• Place a maximum on the length of the suggestion; after all, people are more likely to read shorter, more interesting facts, than long, confusing ones, with numerous, superfluous, commas,, spread throughout, and overtaking the suggestion.

Any other ideas? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 18:00

It's on the mainpage and is pretty popular already. I don't see the problem. The only way to increase the number of edits per article is to leave them on the mainpage longer or get more people to the mainpage. I don't see a huge reason to work on either. Volunteers will work on what interests them. And while I think we need to require DYK factoids to be referenced to minimally follow our core policies, I don't think further requirements would be helpful. People already try to pick the most interesting factoids. I agree shorter, easier to understand factoids are better. - Taxman ^Talk 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's on the main page, but as the main page goes, it's probably #3 or #4 in popularity among the 4 segments. I'd at least like it to contend with the #2 position. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 19:06

I'm not sure I see a problem here, there seem to be more noms than we can pick (I recall when 90% of noms eventually made it, I don't think we're anywhere near that any more)... but the way to get better noms is to have even more of them, not to increase the requirements to make the process onerous on the noms... ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get more noms in order to have better ones to choose from. Any suggestions? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 19:17

Off the top of my head: More publicity that noms can and should be made (question is where to publicise?), better guidelines for first time nominators so they know how to do it better (I think our guidelines are pretty good but they may be a bit obscure where they are now), and more friendliness and guidance so that people want to be repeat noms... (this is where we have our biggest issues if you ask me, reading over some of the current noms the comments made seem very terse and even a bit biting to newcomers... we speak in a shorthand, as WPedians do in so many places, which can be a bit offputting sometimes.) Hope those ideas spark some thought... but the takeaway is that if you want more noms you don't want to make it more restrictive or unpleasant, you want to be welcoming and friendly. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Lar's last point. Is it possible to make the path to adding a nom request easier or more clear? That would help to get more and better nominations. Wikipedia:Recent additions with a link piped as Archive isn't necessarily clear on how to get there from the main page. - Taxman ^Talk 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoid articles on recent events?

I've noticed some nominations have been about articles on recent events, such as a new dinosaur species being discovered, or an article on a recent sport championship. Should we avoid putting these sorts of articles in DYK, when they are more appropriate for In The News? Sometimes it seems like we're turning this template into another news section. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 16:45

I'm fine with articles about recent events. See above, we had discussion on this very topic and consensus seemed to be that what Blnguyen was doing was fine. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather that the nomination be worded in a way that it doesn't refer specifically to the current event, or refers to some other fact in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:28

I am comfortable with the resolution here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Current_events_and_Anniversaries_for_DYK ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of those replies referred specifically to Blnguyen's nomination, not to all nominations in general. In fact, the last 2 replies seem to be saying the same thing I am saying: we shouldn't allow simple news items that may not have been important enough to appear on ITN, as we don't want to turn DYK into another ITN. Now, if the article had some other interesting fact, that would be fine, but not simply "...that X just happened recently?" — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:20

I don't see a problem whatsoever with DYK entries that are about recent events. Provided that the article meets currently agreed DYK guidelines and the listed fact is interesting and will draw readers to look at the article, where's the problem? It achieves exactly what DYK aims to do, regardless of whether the article is about a current event, a recent event or a pre-historic event. I'm also perplexed Brian that you raise your concerns here, then you add the very new dinosaur species article that you cite to DYK just 2 days later, but you still don't seem to think they should be used ?? --Cactus.man ✍ 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I was opposed to the dinosaur entry. I simply raised the question, and cited it. Very big difference. I'm fine if the nominated fact isn't simply "...that X recently occurred". As for the dinosaur article, the discovery was several months old (which I didn't know at the time), and the factoid had more interest than simple newness, as evidenced by the picture that went along with it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:13

I'm with Brian here. Let's not confuse two separate sections of the Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordering

Is there any particular reason why the order has the newer dates at the top? This always results in some people placing their more recent entries at the bottom of the specific date, rather than the top. Does anyone object to reordering the entries so that newer dates and entries are at the bottom? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 04:09

I object. This ordering messes with my methodology for selecting items. I pick the picture by taking the oldest picture out of the top 3-4 that I think are worthy, then I go through from the bottom to the top picking items, which means I take the older ones first as they have less of a chance of getting selected. This ordering makes doing that a lot harder as it reverses the ordering. Please change it back. I would have liked to see more discussion before this change was made, frankly. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. All you have to do is reverse the way you did things before. Now the chronology is top-to-bottom, not just the dates, but the entries under each date. And this prevents the very common practice of sticking new entries out of order (which in the old method occurred regularly, because people just put their entry at the bottom of the date, instead of the top; but now putting new entries at the bottom is fine because it's in order). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:23

No, it means I have to go top down in one list and bottom up in the other (DYK stories are supposed to be oldest at the bottom. The order of noms inside a day is not that important. Again, I think this change should have had a lot more discussion before it was implemented. Changing it back and forth is a fair bit of work. In general I would appreciate more discussion here before big changes are made, or even little ones, despite this being a wiki. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually adhere to putting the entries in their chronological order in the Template itself—there's really no purpose to that, as they're already very close together in time; rather, I focus on making sure topics are evenly spread out (eg, not putting 3 US articles right next to eachother). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:08

That doesn't address my concern, that you've introduced a change that messes me up (and potentially messes up automation I was working on, further) without seeking input and consensus first. I am not sure that's a good approach. I'd like to see it put back the way it was, please, unless a large number of other DYK regulars say they want to see it the new way. I'd do it myself but it's a fair bit of work and I think you should be the one to undo it since you did it without getting any feedback first. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a fair bit of work, and so far you are the only one who has complained, although I don't understand your concern. You don't need to put them in chronological order, and even if you want to, it's not difficult to put 5 or 6 items in reverse order. On the other hand, it's a lot more difficult watching the nominations 24/7 to make sure that the various nominators remember to put new entries at the top, when every other page on the site tells them to put new things at the bottom. I was being bold in updating it, especially since I couldn't conceive of any problems it would cause, and indeed, you are to date the only complaint. I would ask to wait until we hear the opinions of others on this before getting into an unnecessary revert war. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 23:30

(<-unindent) Brian, this change was unnecessarily pre-emptive and done without the benefit of discussion. Why raise a question here on a significant refactoring of the suggestions area, then barge on and make the changes to suit your own personal whim less than 10 minutes later, without waiting for any comments? You are an experienced editor and know full well that concensus for significant changes like this is a crucial part of how things should be done. That you have detrimentally affected the working method of at least one updating admin is sufficient reason for me to think that you should undo your changes until such time as a proper concencus is reached. You affected my working method as well, but to a lesser extent than you did to Lar I suspect. Also, there are many other updaters who are not currently active, have you considered what effect this will have on them when they return to updating? Please undo your re-ordering, and start a proper discussion on this (and other matters) before implementing major changes to the agreed process that may affect others. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was being bold in updating, as I said above, because the benefits outweighed any problems I could think of. So you would prefer that we have to monitor the Suggestions 24/7 to make sure people aren't putting them out of order? Because I was getting sick of doing that. Everyday there were at least 5 suggestions put out of place, usually about 24 hours out of place, because they just assumed "new stuff goes at the bottom", which is the case on every other page on the site. It's much easier to make the process simple for nominators, and do a little extra work on our part; even though it's not extra work. Why should we stick with some ordering that was chosen at some point in the distant past, which was probably counterintuitive then? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 14:17

Maybe I was the only one regularly fixing this mistake, and that's why you two aren't realizing the benefits of ordering the page like the rest of the site. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 14:26

I dispute the supposed benefits of this change, as does Cactus.man. Is it possible that the benefits you see are not necessarily there to others? Further, I doubt that it is the case that you're the only one fixing things with DYK nominations. That reads to me as disparaging the contributions of everyone else and seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational in tone. Now, please put it back the way it was, as you've had two other editors request, and in future, please seek consensus before making major changes, I prefer that DYK be a collegial atmosphere in which we all work together harmoniously instead of having to repeatedly ask that other editors undo disruptive changes. How many editors will need to speak out against this change before you will undo the work? I see it as totally unfair and wasteful to ask anyone else to do it, you disrupted things, you should undisrupt them. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question Brian. Why did you not await some feedback to your own question before "being bold" and reversing the suggestion order? There is no consensus for your major refactoring change to the talk page. Your arguments about items being out of order are groundless. Please be equally bold and change it back, pending agreement to the contrary. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I said I was being bold in updating because of the benefits of the reordering; however, I should have waited for others' opinions, and will in the future. Whatever the current situation, how about we discuss the benefits/problems of the ordering, so as to more productively use our time? OK. Why should it be ordered downward? 1) Because entries for June 5th were getting put chronologically before entries from June 4th, or even June 3rd, etc; between 24 and 48 hours out of order. It happened several times a day, and I corrected it regularly. How often did you correct it? Please don't claim my actions are groundless; I wouldn't go to all the trouble of reorganizing a huge list for no reason. 2) Because the rest of the site is ordered downward, and it makes it that much less confusing for newcomers. 3) Because when they are ordered downward, new entries that are added under June 11th, when they were created on June 12th (there are 2 or 3 right now), can simply be separated with a June 12th header; instead of having to reorder the new entries upward, then cut and paste them up above June 11th, and then add the June 12th header (I've also done this at least a dozen times). 4) There are other benefits, but 3 will do for now. Please expand on the benefits/problems. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 07:59

I have given my reasons above. Please undo it until there is consensus for change, which at this time there is not. This is about the third or fourth request now. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply was to Cactus.man. I know where you stand, though I don't know why you won't go into further discussion about the matter until it's ordered the way you want it. Do you dispute my benefits? If so, for what reasons? Do you believe your benefit outweighs my benefits? If so, for what reasons. You haven't said anything about this, and the discussion has been counterproductive as a result. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:06

There is no consensus for this change. Please change it back, until consensus is reached, instead of insisting that your reasons for the change outweigh other people's reasons for leaving it be. That is not how things are done, we operate on consensus. Right now it is 2:1 against this change. Please change it back. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned consensus in one sentence, and majority in the next. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and neither is Consensus. Numbers don't matter. Rationale does. That's why I'm trying to keep this discussion productive by focusing on the benefits/drawbacks of each ordering. Now, please, list the benefits of the upward ordering, and the drawbacks of the downward ordering. Then we can weigh each, get feedback from others, and figure out what the best choice is. This is how consensus works. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 22:34

(out) Please do not lecture me on how consensus works. Whatever you may think it is or is not, it has not been achieved here, and will not be achieved by uninaterally changing things without first having achieved consensus and then insisting you are correct. Please change the list back to the way it was prior to your disruptive change. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that consensus has not been achieved here, and I apologized for being bold and updating the page before receiving some other opinions, and I won't do such actions again. We are past that. Now rather than waste our time reordering a huge list, can we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each ordering? I'm trying to keep our actions productive. What do you think are the benefits/drawbacks of upward ordering, and what do you think are the benefits/drawbacks of downward ordering? I for one, have not had to move a single misplaced entry since they were reordered downward (versus 5 or more a day, everyday, with the upward ordering), making managing the page much simpler. Do you agree/disagree with that point, and why? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 00:09
  • Please, put the list back in the old order until consensus is achieved. Please. I have had to ask this too many times to be willing to discuss anything regarding it until you do so. I am very sorry but your actions have frustrated me to no end, not just in this matter but in several others relating to the DYK process. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry to butt in, but is there any way that we can go back to having the DYK's put oldest-on-top again? The new method seems a little backwards from most of the by-date ordering on Wikipedia (see the various VfD nominations, etc) and quite frankly made my cute little browser script show all old noms instead of new noms so I know what articles to peek at. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do butt in, that's what this page is for :-) I can see none of the perceived major benefits outlined by Brian for the revised oldest first order. Brian's points in order:

1. The claim is that it will somehow eliminate entries being misplaced chronologically. The instructions are on the page, the suggestions area is split into date sections and people just need to read and act accordingly. The majority of entries make it in correctly. Unfortunately, editors are human and mistakes are made, and will continue to be made whether the order is oldest first or newest first. Yes, I have corrected misplaced entries, but nothing along the lines of the serious chronological misplacement that you claim was endemic under the old order.
2. Parts of the site such as talk pages are ordered downward with new additions placed at the bottom. As Kylu points out above, this doesn't apply to all of the site and some *fD pages (WP:TFD springs to mind), which are much more similar in function to this page than a traditional talk page, are not. New entries are placed at the top and discussion on those entries then proceeds in the "traditional" new comments on each entry at the bottom fashion.
3. For the specific example you cite, I concede this is a small benefit, but how much extra work is it to do a small bit of cut and paste on the few ocassions it's needed?
4. None spring to mind

As far as I can see, the re-ordering hasn't achieved any improvement in the functionality of the process, has only disrupted some updaters working methods, has confused some other users and was done without the benefit of prior discussion and, consequently, consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Rechecking all the *fD pages, apart from WP:AfD which is a unique and peculiar rambling beast, only WP:IFD orders things oldest first. All the others order entries newest first. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Middle path

I'd just like to point to the bold revert discuss essay. I don't think there is anything wrong with a massive reversion to an accepted practice. I do it myself sometimes, without discussion. Maybe I put some notes on talk while I'm doing it, or more exposition in my edit summaries. But I try to make it easy to revert in case someone objects. Because if someone objects then our overall cautios nature says that we talk over the change before we implement it. If it's too complex for someone to revert me, or if intervening edits have messed things up, I do my best to do the revert to restore whatever was the status quo.
brenneman ^{L} 05:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, not quite "legalised revert warring", but also not quite what we have here. We have the first part of the process, but not the revert because of the sheer pain in the arse nature of having to undo it. That pain should fall upon the original "bold" editor if there are enough objections, which is what we have here. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo to give you his speech about experimentation--there's much more to it than you guess. Then you'll know why I did it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 23:24

It is now very clear there is no consensus for this change

It is also clear that it is a disruptive change that is confusing contributors and making it harder to work, and that your reasons have been refuted by others. Please change this list back, Brian. This is the last time I am going to ask, I have asked nicely several times, and I am at the end of my patience. The right thing to do is admit you were wrong to make the change, wrong to refuse to change it back in the face of sincere opposition, and stop being bullheaded. Please, I implore you. Undo the damage you have caused, by changing it back. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the previous order of newest article creation/expansion date first. Please do not revert this restoration to how things were before the reordering without a clear consensus to do so. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not interested in ordering anymore. Feel free to correct the 3-5 misplaced entries that you'll receive daily around 24:00 UTC +/- 5:00, which will be misplaced by 24 +/- 5 hours. Or don't. I'll be focusing on the interest of the factoid, not its place in time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 22:56

Gosh - I have not been watching closely recently, so missed this rather significant change. I appreciate Brian's boldness in an effort to make a positive change, but this kind of singificant change needs rather more discussion before it is implemented.

It is rather upsetting that Brian would make such a major change, and then show such unwillingness to revert and discuss. There is clearly no consensus, and, despite its logical attractions, the change goes against the conventions on other project pages. Even WP:FAC has newest-at-the top, and has done since practially the year dot, but that does not stop the occasional person bottom posting, and there are enough editors around to fix the occasional errors. Blah eyeballs blah shallow blah. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lining things out

I have noticed a recent practice of lining things out. Please do not line things out. It is one thing to remark that there are issues. Please do that. But trust the admin to do the right thing and do not line things out. It is my view that one should NEVER line out words of another, whether it be on talk pages, consensus seeking things like AfD, RfA, etc, or elsewhere. Lining out shows, in my view, gross disrespect for the work of others and is judgemental. I have (or shortly will) reverted all lineouts made recently. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree more. Please discuss nominations of Template_talk:Did you know rather than changing them single-handedly when they are part of the template. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I sometimes get the feeling that some updaters aren't reading the replies to nominations, and I'd rather not put an article that's up for deletion on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 20:29

Address that with the updaters then, not the nominators. We want to be welcoming to nominators, not turn them off by lining out what they say. And when you do address it with the updaters, make sure you do it in as friendly a way as you can because the updaters do a hard and relatively thankless job. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is an updater coming along, not reading the replies, and just using the item; meanwhile I'm on the other side of the Earth, asleep for the next 5 hours. I'd rather prevent a definitely unusable entry (such as an AFD, or one that's months old) from appearing on the main page, than have to clean up after the updater's mistakes, and inform them after-the-fact. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 21:10

On balance, I find lining things out so insidiously bad and disrespectful of a practice that I do not see any reason to use it, ever, on anyone else's words. Ever. That far outweighs the potential risk of an admin selecting a bad nom. You're not the only person that watches the main page. Again, address the problem with the selector, not by alienating the nominator who might be a newb. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Will do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:15

javascript functions for template insertion on talk pages

I've created, and am debugging, some javascript functions here: User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js I know at least Cactus.man uses dropdown tab functions... I load them in my main monobook. you can see my invocation of them here User:Lar/moretabs/monobook.js. These are not very tested yet but I am interested in your feedback. They hopefully might speed things up a bit? Comments welcome (my talk page is probably the right place for now...) I am testing them with this update cycle. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I in fact used them in the current update and they seemed to work for me every time. you do need to have the article name in your cut buffer, or type it in by hand, when placing the user talk notices (I'm not a good enough js coder to determine the article name without prompting for it to be typed in) but you had to do that at some point if you placed templates by hand anyway... ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk to User:Lupin. He's a JS god, and has made scripts almost identical to what you're trying to do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 04:24

I talk to Lupin on a regular basis, do you have a more specific reference? The functions I created aren't exactly like anything else but they are based on code he and others have done. They're just simple insertion functions really since they do not span from one page to another, but they, I think, can speed up the tagging part, which is carried out after you've committed the selections but before you can release the suggestion list for update. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, will add comments to your talk page Lar. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been able to do DYK pretty quickly and easily using Firefox's tabs and Lupin's popup tool. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 18:10

I use those as well to get to the right place, what this automates is not that, but rather no having to type the template invocation syntax into the edit window. Getting to the right place is a much more complex job than what these scripts do. If you do not use additional tabs they may not be much use to you. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of CTRL+TAB, CTRL+C, CTRL+V... not too bad, but there's always room for improvement. Ask Lupin about his new-article source-request script, that's what you're looking for. From that, you could simply go to an article's history, click a link in your bookmarks, and then click one of the newly-created links next to the entry of the "article creator", and their talk page will be auto-filled with the template and article name; you could also get it to fill in the article's talk page automatically in another tab. Then just 2 clicks to submit each of those notices. So, a total of 5 clicks per article, and nothing more. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 23:32

Shortcut

Should there be a shortcut to Template talk:Did you know? It's a bit annoying to have to go via WP:DYK. Perhaps a shortcut like TT:DYK would work?smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget TT:, it seems to link to a foreign language Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. I thought all the language links were lowercase. SOME shortcut to the template and template talk areas would be a savings that I would use all the time, so good thinking. Any other ideas? ... anything short and easy to remember and type would be fine by me. (what about WP:tDYK and WPT:tDYK... the lowercase t carrying the connotation that it's the templates themselves you're going to??? Just and idea, I'm open) ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, T:DYK already seems to link to the template, so perhaps T:TDYK for the talk page. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it was only the TT link that's duffed. Of course that's the one that the most editors want to use, as it's where you go to do nominations... T:TDYK doesn't seem too bad to me. or maybe T:DYKT (or both) ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've set up both of the above; they should work with all capitalisations. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with either (or both). No more double navigation if I'm not on my watchlist page is a good thing. Well done guys. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the quicknav box: Template:DYKbox to include the new shortcuts. Thanks for the improvements. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Has this problem been discussed at Wikipedia:Shortcut? There are two points. First, the use of the WP:xxx shortcuts is hallowed by long usage (although technically incorrect, as it puts Wikipedia project information into article space), and WT:xx links to the talk pages of project pages are becoming more common. I think there needs to be a discussion about extending the process to other namespaces, such as templates and template talk pages. Secondly, clearly T: works (how many templates have shortcuts?) and TT: does not because it links to TT: (Turkish?Tatar, I understand); what if a Wikipedia is created that would have an interwiki abbreviation "wp:" or "wt:"? Is that going to break all of our shortcuts? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not been brought up there that I know of but wow, what a good idea. Thanks for surfacing that! ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, as you have seen. There is no language listed at List of ISO 639 codes with an ISO code of "wp" or "wt" so perhaps it all works... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors and their perogative in making selections, driving away contributors

I think that we should give DYK updating admins fairly wide latitude in selecting things, as long as they were selected in good faith, and as long as they adhere to the guidelines for selection as much as practical. Specifically I do not think that picking strictly the oldest items is necessarily a good approach. Please review the following exchange between Brian and myself, which I found unnecessarily questioning and combative. While I welcome comments and feedback, as any good editor does, I do not think this level of questioning is appropriate, nor do I appreciate being called a dick. I would appreciate comments on this from editors (other than myself and Brian) on whether this level of questioning was appropriate or not. I stand by my picks.

Further, (and this is something I just noticed) I stand by the specific wording I selected for my picks. Note that ANTARES was selected using the "irony" wording, which was disputed by Brian (see the June 10 section in this history version). I did not find the argument convincing (nor did the suggestion nom as you can see from the version and left it selected that way) Brian changed it to his preferred wording shortly afterwards (which I feel is inappropriately owning the template, and further, carried the argument to the article talk page: Talk:ANTARES (telescope). The article author is a relatively low edit count editor who is making significant contributions in esoteric scientific areas, where we need all the help we can get. I do not think that this level of advocacy is the sort of thing that will encourage contributors to continue to contribute DYK article nominations. So I'd like comments from other editors about that as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's not my preferred wording. It's just grammatically correct. Are you seriously suggesting that removing the word "ironically" is going to drive this article-writer away? I think he's more happy that his article was chosen, than what the exact wording of the DYK nomination is, and that has been my experience with nominators to whom I've suggested alternate wordings. Your whole post here seems more like a rant against me than anything. Things should never become so personal on this site. None of us are more important than anyone else, and we shouldn't forget that. Feel free to continue your "discussion", and I may check back occasionally, but I want to write more articles, not have long-winded ego-debates on talk pages. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 16:10
  • It's your assertion that it's correct, but others do not agree (2:1 of those that commented or selected it preferrered it the other way). And if the contributor was happy, then why did he call you a "grammar nazi" on the article talk page in response? I think you're the one getting too personal here, asserting ownership, insisting you know best how things should be done in the face of consensus, being blunt and abrasive and uncollegial and I think you really need to take on board the idea that others do not appreciate your methods. But, again, it's the comments of others I am seeking above, I already know you feel you are right about everything. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugh. My assertion was backed up by hard sources, not conjecture. Did you read the nominator's reply? He called me a grammar nazi because I used the phrase first, and he was trying to show irony that didn't exist, for the same reason irony doesn't exist in that neutrino factoid: because all that is missing from the reader's knowledge is a simple fact. Once that fact is known (that neutrinos easily pass through the earth; or, that I'm a grammar nazi), it ceases to be ironic, simply because it never was ironic in the first place. Feel free to seek replies from others, but stop trying to turn it into gaining support against me (for whatever personal reason you have) by misrepresenting my statements. This is wasting all of our time, and making the process all the more worse for everyone. I'm done watching this page for the next couple days; mischaracterize me all you want. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 16:46
      • You're baldly reasserting you're right about usage as an argument device rather than admitting of the possibility that others might be right. Yet AHD definition of irony gives (as meaning 2b) "incongruity", as was cited in the discussion at the time. That's not "Conjecture", that's from a "Hard Source". When it comes to grammar, I'm descriptivist, not prescriptivist, so if some (22% of the usage panel approve it, per the usage note at ironic and that's "some") people use it, that's fine by me. Being a grammar nazi about stamping out a minority usage is not more important than not alienating contributors, and no matter how you spin what happened, the appearance to at least some other readers is that you alienated this contributor with your remarks here, and by continuing the insistence you are right on the article talk page. You need to stop giving the appearance of being so blunt, so alienating, so anti-consensus and divisive. Now really, in the larger scheme of things this is a minor point, one to laugh about, or it would be if you weren't giving the appearance of being totally bullheaded in this and just about everything else. This is no way to operate. Please change your ways. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with admins getting criticized for their picks, we should look for ways so this doesn't happen. A little flexibility in picking is ok.

I skipped all over the place when updating DYK (last year). Some of the things that influenced what got picked were; finding a good image, skipping below par entries, and having a varied selection- we don't want all U.S. or all science entries, for example. Picks were sometimes scattered over three days. Unused entries always received a polite note of explanation. If another admin wanted to do it differently, I helped instead of complained.

It is a little different now because there are a lot more entries. I'd like to see the bar raised a little on quality, update less frequently with the better enteries (give preference to articles based on size, referencing, images and illustrations...) Maybe this can foster some competition between the entrants? :) --Duk 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused...

I'm slightly confused by the recent changes to Template talk:Did you know. Where do we put new nominations? Jude (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It says on the project page The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on top as the first item. ... it looks like someone's been putting them on the bottom, or just went through and reordered it all for some reason. Can we go back to the old way please? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a change. See this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Ordering. We are currently discussing this and your input would be appreciated. I had feared it would be confusing to users as well as the updating admins, and am sorry for any confusion it may have caused you. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I must've missed that while scrolling down... thanks! I'll check it out. :_) Jude (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reordered it because most people were confused, and putting their new submissions out of place, at the bottom instead of the top (how it's done on every other talk page). However, some user(s) have put their interests above all others, and we're back to the ordering that confuses newcomers. But I'm fine with that now, because the appeal of the factoid is more important than the age of the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 02:30

"most people"? I don't think that's correct at all. You seem to want to have the whole argument over again. That may not be a good approach. Why not look forward instead, and look to how you can do things differently, and less contentiously, in future? ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to I agree with Lar. This change was pushed through without consensus and many people are confused as a result, me included. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not good to introduce such major changes without prior discussion with other editors. I don't really care which kind of layout will stay, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor self-endulgence

I created a subst easy to use insta-template for The DYK Medal. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Singapore entry

Did you know "...that although the Constitution of Singapore had been revised in 1958 to implement self-government for the then British colony of Singapore, self-government was only officially achieved with the Singapore general election of 1959?"

Does the Singapore entry seem obvious to anyone else? A region declares self-government, and then holds elections to determine its leaders... there's not much of a gap between 1958 and 1959... So, what's interesting about this fact? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 01:33

Most countries achieve self government as soon as they secede, using an unelected government. (I can't actually think of a counterexample other than Singapore) I think waiting a year and not being selfgoverned is quite unusual, which is why I picked it. The hook made perfect sense to me, but you may have wanted to speak out about the hook or the article itself prior to it being picked, assuming it was nominated in sufficient time for you to comment. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update period

This has just been updated less than 12 hours after the previous update. What's going on? Jooler 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
comments moved from Template talk:Did you know

It was just over 12 hours, but the minimum period between updates is 6 hours. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Updates - hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Updates usually occur within 6 to 12 hours, or up to 24, depending on the availability of good suggestions. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:34

Update clock issues - Template_talk:Did_you_know#Refreshment section,

Several editors have reported (in the comments block near the clock where we sometimes in the past put "Hey, I intend to update later" or "we're running short, slow down updates" etc. sort of messages) that the update clock: {{DYK-Refresh}} might not be working completely right. The symptoms I saw were that it was claiming wildly wrong times when in preview. I almost didn't save it the first time I saw that, but I did, and it seemed OK once saved. You may have seen that in the edit summary for an update I did a few days ago. I note that this morning (or about 1500 UTC) I saw that Cactus.man had left it unchanged with an edit summary note that it was wonky for him. I went in and tried to correct it and I backdated it to a time that may not be completely accurate but it did seem to both preview and save correctly for me. As of right now it is saying the last update was 4 hours ago, which is what I intended it to say, given that I was guessing at what timestamp to use. Thoughts? maybe this is a transient problem of some sort? Cactus.man said he was going to contact the author so I think it's useful to gather additional input.. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed for now, but the underlying problem still needs to be resolved. This is the strangest error I have seen to date. A few days ago Omniplex made updates to {{CURRENTHOUR}} and {{CURRENTMINUTE}} to mathematically compute these values from the new {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} 'magic word' (e.g. 20240731004948) rather than using a large 'switch' to look them up from {{CURRENTTIME}} (e.g. 00:49). That was a good improvement and the way he did it is correct... but for some reason the actual mathematical computations sporadically produce negative results for no apparent reason. That's why you were seeing the correct result sometimes and bizarre stuff others. Even if you hardcode in the value it seems like one time in five it will come up with a wacky negative rather than the expected result. Some sort of problem in the computation logic behind the scenes. I reverted to the old method of getting the hour and minute until we can identify / fix the problem. --CBD 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CBD! So then it's not preview/save related, but one in five and it was just random that I thought it was preview related, doing another preview would (80% chance) have shown the right value?... Appreciate the fix! ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So it seems. If you check out the Template talk:CURRENTMINUTE page you will see what I mean. I set it up with two examples that show 'minutes' correctly most of the time, but if you refresh the page a few times they will evenutaly show negative results. Sorry this template keeps getting 'improved' into erroneous results, but I'm glad that it has been worth keeping anyway. I suspect that the incidence of problems will decrease as these newer capabilities in relation to time computation become more established. --CBD 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again to CBD for the interim patch. I did apply the usual numerical update to the template but it just kept showing a refresh time a day before the current time when I did it. Way beyond the scope of a mere mortal like myself. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerns and commonsense

After a long time, I got round to updating the DYK as it has been due for over 10 hours. I updated DYK regularly for around 4 months, from mid-Dec — mid-Apr of 2006. I was the sole updating admin for a couple of months and I can't recall an occasion where worthy suggestions had to be passed over due to lack of admin presence. However, I was shocked today to see that 5-day old suggestions are still lying around and older days' suggestion were still cluttering the page. With around 3-4 admins, sincere and competent at that, being involved in updation, why has it happened? Let me proffer some explanations - any chore if it becomes drudgery, cannot be done easily. Don't ask me to provide a cite ;) for my statement. Updating DYK is daunting for any admin - apart from the multitude of technical things (protecting/unprotecting, archiving, resetting the time counter) and political things (balancing the length on main page, ensuring diversity, ensuring that no entry becomes stale), we also have the maintenance things such as updating talkpage and 2 user talkpages for each entry. While it helps in the updating admin's catering to our editcountitis, I don't see practical use. FAs, In the news, selected anniversaries - is there any intimation to the user/suggestor/initiator? No. Why on DYK? Assuming that an average of 3.5 updates are done in 24 hours and each update has average of 5 suggestions with 3 self-noms and 2 others' noms, the no. of talkpages I need to update are 5*3.5 talkpages + 5*3.5 usertalk pages(creators) + 2*3.5 usertalkpages(nominators) = 42 edits. For each update, add atleast an edit to template page, its talk page, image page and protection/unprotection, another 14 edits. So, 56 edits per day to keep DYK running? People may not mind so much if they are not intimated abt their article making it to DYK when compared to their article not making it to DYK, because the entry has become stale. To prevent entries becoming stale, we need to have more admins updating it in a simple way. See the earliest posts on this page about the proposed changes in DYK which I had followed and which were not objected to. Why not keep it simple? Why not have a manual DYK counter, esp. since the updation itself takes 20-30 min and the DYK refresh template would become stale by that much time? Why have a in-use template for admins when the probability of edit conflict on the template page is 0.01 and on template talk page is 0.03 (I quote these probabilities from my experience of ~200 updates, and edit conflicts of 2 and 6 respectively, which were fixed within 2-3 mins)? Are we interested in creating better mouse traps? Why not concentrate on pressing needs like archival bot or facilitating easier updation? Am sorry if it looks like a long-winding rant or if i appear a techno-phobe but I find it difficult to digest that worthy noms just don't see the light despite a longer and a daily DYK section just because it becomes progressively difficult for an admin to update DYK. Please understand that my rant is against the system in its current form. --Gurubrahma 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's simply due to the larger number of nominations that seem to be occurring lately. We don't have to use every nomination; only the most interesting ones should be used, and the template should be kept highly interesting and varied, since that is about all we have to offer. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:12

"Interesting" is subjective. So, unless there are objections on a nom (by any editor, including the updating admin) it should be a shoo-in for the DYK template. How wd ppl know why their suggestion hasn't made it if it wasn't commented upon but still doesn't make it to the template? --Gurubrahma 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree about keeping it simpler. We should probably ditch the in-use templates, both in the template and on the talk page. What else can we get rid of? The DYK-Refresh template, though interesting for checking the time, is just more wasted edits. Why not simply make it clear that you have to wait at least 6 hours, and provide a link to the template history to check when the last update was. Most people know how to add. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:18

How Lar uses time

I have done some thinking about where I spend time and how much. The process for me is:

1. Mark that we're starting. (turn on the hidden box in the template talk, then go and turn on the hidden comment in the template, grab the articles at the same time so they can be archived.
2. Archive. This is a big timewaster due to *mp vs * differences on the bullets... perhaps we should use *mp across the board? The automation that used to make the archive entries for you is broken and I don't know how to contact whoever did it. It's worse the larger the archive is, so keeping the archive emptied helps matters. (3-5 min)
3. Pick a picture. Check it for freedom. Protect it. If it's commons, that means copying it down, uploading etc. (I'm working on uploading enough to stand for commons admin so I can protect there, which will save time) (5 min)
4. By far the largest part of the time is spent on reviewing and selecting candidate articles, (which means checking the article for a number of different things, good length, fact is present in article, good refs/cites) stripping away comments and picking the best version of the hook, fiddling with the wording and grammar to try to avoid other editors making needless edits to fix small things, sorting into the right order, etc. (15-25 min)
5. one final check of the template with the new items, remove the comment block notice, then save it, check main.
6. This part goes fast now that I created js to automate: Plop notices on all the article talk pages. (Now a 2-3 minute job)
7. This part goes relatively fast with automation as well: Plop notices on all the user talk pages. (5 min because I still have to paste article names into the dialog boxes, and you ahve to check to see if there are noms and auths)
8. Double check main to see if there are any issues I missed the first time, see what Brian changed in the meantime.
9. Remove the articles that were nominated. Check each one removed to see that I left the right things on the talk pages (in my contribvutions). 5-10 min
10. unprotect or delete if from commons the most recent previous picture. 2 min
11. Remove the notice from the template talk page and update the clock. 2 min

That adds up to a bit more than the 40 min it usually takes me but gives an idea of proportions.

Zocky's searh box script is ideal for dealing with the {{*mp}} -> * issue. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I love that widget, it's very powerful. Last I checked it was still forcing the edit box width to not resize with the window width though. As soon as that's fixed, it goes back in... ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be fixed now, the talk page intimates it is. Will test later. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be easier just to let the *mp's pile up in the archive, and then put them in notepad and mass-replace. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:11

Good point. Or use them in the archive too? I dunno... they seem to work there OK. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Refresh templates and automation, more thoughts

I find the DYK-refresh template and the normally hidden box warning that an update is in process to be tremendously useful. I was getting a LOT of edit conflicts all the time without these present. I would strenuously object to any change to this part, losing inuse and refresh save LITTLE time and prevent a LOT of problems. Traffic on this page is higher now than it was before.

I support additional automation where it makes sense. I'd love to see the archive processer fixed, it would save some time. I created js funcs that at least for me almost completely automate leaving the talk notices (they were pooh-poohed by Brian as not useful though) and I highly recommend them... I have ideas for more automation as well.

I have a final comment. I think we'll have more people helping out if we have a more collegial atmosphere here. For one, I find the atmosphere a lot less collegial since we had the mandatory reference flap, for reasons I think most of us know but which I will not spell out. Less collegial means less desire to do the work. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to point out where I "pooh pooh"'d your js as not useful? Or did you just assume that I would say something like that? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:44

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#javascript_functions_for_template_insertion_on_talk_pages Reads like pooh-poohing to me. (and others, confirmed offline at the time) ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where? I recommended you talk to Lupin. Then I detailed what I'm currently doing. Nope, no pooh-poohing, no matter what these mysterious "others" have to say. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 00:55

Updating admins are not idiots. I'd trust them to update the time properly when they can do more complex things like c-uploads, protects and archives. Only article talkpage template shd be compulsory, not others, as I mention in the 4th post of this page and the subsequent discussion with Ghirla. Let all other things be optional. --Gurubrahma 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, see above. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, 40 minutes per update and at 3.5 updates per day is 140 minutes, i.e. 2hr.20min., not just worth it. For an admin who is trying to update it first time, he wd be bewildered with the DYK-refresh and all that. I don't know abt ur automation, but overall, it doesn't seem to save much time. For someone who works from a slow internet connection like me, using inuse templates on the template page and talk page take more time. Also, the red box is no guarantee, ppl. can still add while you are updating. --Gurubrahma 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a guarantee but it vastly lessens conflicts. It's very easy to use and is worth the time. The place to find time savings is in the selection process itself which is where the majority is. My automation saves me over 10 minutes over doing it by hand, I find.

Well, everybodys working methods vary. I see no harm in keeping the hidden box warning for the talk page that an update is in progress and the {{UpdatingDYK}} for the template itself, although I seldom use them myself. I also find the {{DYK-Refresh}} useful as well, no reason to get rid of it, although it does seem prone to breaking from time to time. Haven't had time to test Lar's javascript tabs yet, but every time saving device helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

which templates to keep

I'd keep the article-creator-notification templates, just to keep the self-nom folks coming back (it's always nice getting an "award" on your talk page). I think the nominator template is less necessary, simply because most of the nominations are self-noms. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:47

No one prevents the editor from adding the template to his user talk page if he wishes to. I dunno if you read the exchange between me and Ghirla above. DYK medal is a better award, anyways. --Gurubrahma 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would never give myself an award or notice of any sort. We would have to change norms if we want people to put notices on their own pages after their article is selected. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do it just so I can keep track of the articles I nominated, since I've been listing them on my user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:28

Why don't we go back to the old process of simply listing the latest entries under "The following users need to be notified" and let a non-admin or anyone else handle it? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:02

Not where the bulk of the time is spent, see my time above. Maybe yours differs? No savings and worth doing. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I'll simply list them under that section, and you can go through them with your automation and update them as you please. Or don't, and someone else will. Just because it's not the bulk of the time doesn't mean it's not good to save a little time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:26

Let's have one process that we all use, knowing that you do things one way and everyone else another is just a recipe for havoc. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

G pointed out on my talk page that one size may not fit all. If people on slow connections want to do less, or do it differently, and we can come up with a documented and clear alternative process (which doesn't result in confusion about which was and wasn't done) I for one am fine with it, can't speak for anyone else of course. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have something like a Template:Did you know/Next, so that the update can be prepared at a more leisurely pace, and possibly with the participation of non-admins.--Pharos 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I envision Polish/Russian revert wars, among others. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:27
  • my worry too ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(2X edit conflict) Aside from the revert wars issure, that's not a bad idea (permanant semiprotection would prevent most pointless edits); it also stops the influx of posts to Wikipedia talk:Main page/Errors which follow every DYK update. One unrelated point though. Would protecting the image on Commons stop someone else uploading a different image to Wikipedia in the same name as the Commons image? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've noticed people forgetting to temporarily upload the file to Wikipedia in order to protect it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:31

That's not what he meant. Some have claimed that protecting the commons image is enough. I thought it was. I may have been wrong. But if you still have to upload to WP, protecting on commons doesn't help.++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You would have to have some sort of "blue page" on Wikipedia (if only of text) and protect that too. However, you would not have to upload the image locally.--Pharos 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:42

I don't think we should overplay the danger of revert wars in such a situation (though it is a serious concern). Higher levels of technocracy like this tend to discourage the over-zealous; as long as there was guideline against self-promotion, we shouldn't have too much of a problerm. And it would be still admins who make the final decision. Anyway, I think it's worth a trial period.--Pharos 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to try a trial if we can hash out exactly what the process is, and get consensus first, before making radical or possibly disruptive changes. can you bang out what you have in mind? Maybe in a new section? (PS I added a lot of level 3 heads to reduce conflict and make it easier for dialup users to work with) ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brian, keep the article creator notification template, but the nominator one is probably less important. Nominators can always watchlist the article talk page and spot the notice there, but it's good in my view to give the article creators a nice pat on the back with a notice.

I'm not too sure about the idea of a Template:Did you know/Next. Quite apart from the possible revert war issue it would make the updating process too cumbersome and almost unworkable. Getting agreement over which 5 or 6 entries to use could become a complete nightmare. The nomination page already has plenty of comment on many entries, let's continue to trust the updating admin to use judgement and common sense when the time for an update comes around. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

what problem are we trying to solve here

I think we need to step back here... the problem Gurubramhma brount up was too many noms not getting selected. But a week ago we had a drought, and we deliberately slowed the update rate down significantly to compensate... So what's the real problem here? Maybe it isn't what we think it is.

Also... While I'm all in favour of process improvement, one thing I've learned in my 25+ years of professional experience is, don't optimise the stuff that doesn't matter. Find where the bulk of the time is spent, and optimise that. The bulk seems to be in the picking the articles itself process, at least for me. Perhaps others can post their timings to the same level of detail to see if their bulk of time is where mine is. If others can efficiently pick noms faster than 15-25 min, I want to adopt their process. If others spend more than 2 min on posting notices to article talk pages, lothers should adopt MY process, and so forth. Sparring around about what we should do may be pointless without measurements ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

brian0918's time

If anyone cares, my time for this last update was 30 minutes. 3 minutes to add updating notices and archive. 13 minutes to select new entries [including proofreading an article with typos in Word, and adding comments for nominations I didn't use]. 7 more to protect the image, add the entries into the template, proofread, and save. 3-4 minutes to update the refresh clock, download and upload the image from commons to wikipedia (then add the licensing and info). And 3-4 minutes to post notices on the articles'/creators'/nominators' talk pages (5 articles, 5 creators, 2 nominators), and then clear out the "staging area". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 01:11

Thanks Brian! How do you pick the new entries so fast? That's where I dump a LOT of time, I find that it takes a fair bit to read the articles, check to see how they are referenced, etc. And I'm still not getting perfect results, someone pointed out that one of the articles I picked this AM may not be factually correct... The image protection time at 7 min (plus another 3-4 ?... wasn't totally clear) might be a place to look for savings... I can get it done a bit faster, but not much, and it sounds like Cactus.man also doesn't get it done really fast... I think I am going to try to see if that can be automated better... but I have my doubts as it spans two sites, etc. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes quickly because I spend other time looking through all the entries. "13 minutes" is just how much time I spend in updating. When I said 7 minutes, I meant 7 minutes to: protect the image, add the entries into the template, proofread, and save. I had forgotten to upload the image from commons, so I then had to go back and do that. It could still be done more quickly. The only part that goes quickly is the talk page notification. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 16:29

Cactus.man's method and time

As suggested, my method and approximate times follow. I don't use the warning templates or the staging area, I just prepare everything in my text editor (blatant plug) in advance and then bung it in the template, deal with the talk page and fire out the notifications. Typical order and timings:

1. Review articles and images for selection. Check articles for quality, length, date of creation, correct author, stated fact is mentioned etc. Copy and paste to text editor. (15-20 mins).
2. Prepare draft template entry in text editor, paste into template and preview, compare length versus current template content and likely size on the main Page. Paste old entries to text editor for archiving later. (5 mins).
3. Protect the selected image (1 min - 5 mins (if uploading from commons))
4. Save the new items to the template and purge to update the Main Page.
5. Update the talk page refresh clock, add old items to the archive, remove promoted items from the suggestions area, unprotect or delete the previously featured image (5 mins).
6. Place DYK notices on article talk pages, creators talk pages and nominators talk pages (5 - 10 mins).
7. Done, have a cup of coffee (5 mins).

Hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian articles?

I don't know if it's only me, but I've noticed that everyday, there's at least one article that is related in one or another way to Russia; why is it like this?

• ...that although Ernst Neizvestny's work had been denounced by Nikita Khrushchev as degenerate art, he was commissioned to sculpt Khrushchev's tomb?
• ...that Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (pictured) was noted as a patroness of Schiller, Goethe, and Liszt?
• ...that due to protests and financial problems, the Saint Petersburg Dam was one of the Soviet Union's most notorious long-term construction projects?
• ...that the Alexander Column (pictured) on Palace Square in Saint Petersburg, despite its weight of 600 tons, is set so nicely that no attachment to the base is required?

etc... --Shandris^{the azylean cat} 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We pick from the noms presented, and there have been a large number of articles involving Russia (as well as ones involving Poland) presented. I don't think it's an intentional bias, it's just what the pool has in it. (someone else told me in IRC that it was funny that there were so many train articles picked... :) ) If it's a serious problem, let's discuss but my suggestion would be to nominate more articles from other areas... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, because Ghirlandajo finds cool pictures for the main page. :) Note that while there may be a lot of articles on Russia/Poland, there is usually never more than 1 of each in any given set of DYK articles on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 01:43

It's because Ghirla (Russia) and Piotrus (Poland) put up heaps of stuff relating to their country. Back in May when I had more time for article writing, there was about an Australian one up every day or two.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian and Blnguyen are exactly right. Fundamentally, the answer to "too many X" is to add more Y, Z, A, B and C, not restrict X. As long as we aren't overbalancing it's not a bad thing to select good articles. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists in articles

Joseph Krumgold, which is on DYK now, has well under 1000 characters/bytes (if you ignore the list of works). Should we be including such lists in determining whether an article is long enough? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 13:46

I think it's reasonable to evaluate lists as part of the article, as they are kind of content. I saw your comment to that effect on the nom, thought about it, looked at the article, and felt it was a good enough article (including the list) to warrant selection. IIRC we have selected actual LIST articles in the past, but I may be mistaken. I'm interested in what others think, and if it's a bad practice, would be happy to see it added to the guidelines, but I fear instruction creep as it's rather a small point... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Selecting one's own articles

Although I did this, twice, when I first started updating DYK, on reflection, I'm starting to think it's not necessarily a good idea to select one's own articles. As long as we have several different admins doing selection, if the article is good, it will presumably get selected by someone else. It may reflect poorly on the process to self select too many times. Therefore I'd like to propose a guideline modification to suggest (not mandate, but suggest) that admins not select their own articles unless there really is a dearth of nominations. This is, I think, an important enough thing that I'm willing to see it added to the guidelines even if that is instruction creep... thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trusting others will assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, although there's always a limit. Let's wait until that boundary has clearly been crossed to start imposing policies, since I have a feeling we'll never need them. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:24
  • I think it's a bad practice, regardless of assuming good faith or not (not sure who you're looking to assume it). I think there has been a fair bit of self selection lately already, enough to raise concerns among other folk than myself. Do you think it's a good practice? Do others? Do you think no appearance of conflict of interest is given by self selecting? Do others? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem with it, as long as the admin is not clearly choosing his own entries over others (especially others that are about to expire) without providing any reasons on the talk page. I'd know a clear case of abuse if I saw it; for example, an admin making a brand new nomination, and then sending it immediately into the template. We had one example of that not too long ago. Other cases might not be so clear, and should be handled as they occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:50

I agree with Lar on this, especially now that there are a number of admins updating. I think selecting one's own article sends out the wrong message to non admin nominators, especially those few whose entries get passed over for whatever reason. I would support the suggested modification to the guidelines. The example you gave Brian is not really pertinent to this suggestion as it was due to a complete misunderstanding of the process on Brookie's part. He just added it to the template without it even being on the nomination page. A genuine good faith error I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it was just a misunderstanding; that's why I don't see a need to modify the guidelines--there aren't any example of admins knowingly doing such obviously inappropriate actions, and it seems unlikely they would. Have any nominators even complained about their entries not being used? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 17:30

The misunderstanding you speak of was indeed handled well, but is not what I'm referring to. It was way out of process even without a guideline. I'm referring to picking your own noms, in an otherwise within process way, which is something you do quite a bit, and which (so far) everyone else commenting on (here or on talk pages in the case of (at least) User:Gurubrahma) thinks is not a good approach. Even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided, unfair as that may seem when you'd really like to pick your noms, barring extenuating circumstance. I'd like to hear more comments of course but I'm sensing a consensus here that we should add this to the guidelines, and I'll do so within another day or two barring any strong voice in opposition. I hope you'll think about whether you can go along with that consensus, should I be correct that one is forming. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You pick nominations that interest you, I pick nominations that interest me. If someone else wrote about topics in classical antiquity, I would probably pick those as well. It just happens that I am pretty much the only one writing about that entire area. The topic doesn't seem interest you, but it does interest me. I do try to hold off on using mine until they're near the very bottom, selecting them only after all the decent older nominations have been used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:46

I'm not sure I agree with that, I try to pick noms that are generally interesting, not just ones that I myself find interesting. I pick sport noms all the time, for example, but I find sport, in general, terrifically uninteresting. Further I've picked noms by you many times, as have all the other admins participating in the process. I reiterate that avoiding picking noms you have made avoids the appearance of impropriety and except for yourself, everyone else so far seems to agree. If they're at the very bottom and no one else has picked them, perhaps no one else thinks they're of general enough interest... but if there truly are no other good ones, the suggestion (not rule) allows for that. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, note that "everyone else so far" consists of Cactus.man. If nobody thinks a nomination is interesting, they should leave comments to that effect. Not giving someone the opportunity to supply a more interesting fact is unacceptable. As for my practices, I'm trusting other admins will assume good faith on my part, as I do on theirs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:38

It is more than just Cactus.man, and the comments on nominations bit is a side issue to this proposal, take further talk to the next one down (and realise that so far everyone agrees). I'd note that User:Stevage just edited the proposal, and I've invited him here to comment. Since his edit was to tighten, but not change the sense, I'm assuming he's likely to be in agreement with consensus but I could be wrong... ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had some comments about items being passed over, but that was from another admin who thought it inappropriate to pick his own nom as well! Admins are in a privileged position with regards to this process, and as Lar says, any hint of impropriety or self bias in the selection process should be avoided. A bit of self restraint goes a long way, if the article is worthy, it will get featured by someone else. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins are only privileged in that they can actually edit the template. Everyone else still has a definite say, and any complaints they make will be taken as seriously or even more-so than complaints from an admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:49

I'm not sure I see how that's addressing what Cactus.man said. He said he's had people bring him concerns about this issue. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is trying to set admins apart as having more privileges, and I disagree. Just because we can edit the template doesn't mean we don't have to listen to others' opinions or complaints, and take them seriously. We are only privileged in being able to click Edit on the template page, and click Save. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:32

I'll let Cactus.man speak to what he actually meant but the way I read his words is that we can pick, others cannot. Therefore we are in a priviledged position. He is not saying (and I am not saying) that everyone else should not have a say. I strongly agree that we all should "listen to others' opinions or complaints" and that our only priv is to be able to edit. But with that agreement I fail to see the relevance to what Cactus.man said. He said others have raised this concern, that there is an appearance of impropriety. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can pick, but we should make it clear why we don't pick the other ones... we should be held accountable. He didn't say others raised a concern about their suggestions not be chosen; he said 1 admin asked that his suggestion not be used before others. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:53

I have no problem in leaving comments on noms I pass over in future if there are none already. A bit more work, but what the hell, I can live with that. A lot of items we pass over are due to the attempt to achieve a balance of articles. Everybody is welcome to comment on the nominations, of course, and I think we all take those comments into account when making our selections, but the fact remains that admins are in a privileged position because ultimately only they can add items to the template. That is part of the community bestowed trust to act fairly and with discretion. In my opinion, selection of self nominations just leaves too many potential questionmarks about impartiality for comfort. After all, the World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina would be completely unacceptable with a Brazilian or Argentinian referee. And the admin who contacted me didn't ask that his nomination not be used before others, but that he wouldn't select his own, not wanting to let his bias get the better of him. I'll invite him to comment here to broaden opinion and help generate consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving comments, of course, is the subject of a different proposal, below, and one I'm quite willing to give a try too, so lets. Consensus there (since we're agreeing with Brian it gets a lot easier) seems crystal clear. This discussion is about selection of your own nominations, and you've quite nicely restated the issue, it's an issue of perception, which I adjudge everyone so far commenting, except Brian, has acknowledged, either directly, or at least indirectly (saying one would not select one's own nominations suggests awareness of that perception issue to me anyway). ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking personally, I wouldn't pick one of my own.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

change made

I have changed the guidelines under the selection section: [2] in accordance with the consensus I see forming. The wording is very mild, it's phrased as a suggestion and discusses exceptions... this makes it rather wordier than other points, which may be an issue. I also tweaked the wording and formatting of a couple of other points as well. If folk do not agree, please revert and let's discuss further. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a solution looking for a problem. I'm sure over time it will become more than a simple suggestion, as is the case with everything else on the site. (That's probably one of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:53

Perhaps to you it does seem that way but not, I think, to others, who have stated that there is a perception problem here, who have stated they would not pick their own noms. I felt this guideline was appropriate, I discussed it first before making the change, I sought consensus, and I am not averse to it being reverted if consensus is not there for it. It's an easy revert and yet I will be happy to be the person that reverts it if necessary. That's how things should work here, as with everywhere, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply getting yes/no opinions from others as to whether or not they would pick their own nominations is not enough grounds for instituting a guideline that is not necessary. That's just voting, not discussion leading to consensus. It is still a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:29

It is like calling RfA a vote. Here I see four ppl in support of the motion and only one against it. There has been discussion, and it seems to have consensus. I'm sorry if you don't see a consensus forming. Or we should probably try RfC with several of the issues that have been bugging DYK of late? --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I see 2 people saying they'd support the change, one person simply saying they don't select their own nominations, and 1 person saying the addition is unnecessary. In any case, numbers do not matter except in the two broken processes: RFA and AFD. It is the rationale that matters. As Jimbo once said, "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." I don't see the need to go to RFC. That'll just be another month wasted on few or no comments. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:46

What Jimbo forgot to add is that a vocal minority of one idiot does not trump the reasoned opinions of the majority of idiots who are in disagreement. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, that would be ridiculous. But when the majority of individuals aren't even bothering to discuss and argue rationale, and are simply saying "I support" or "I oppose", it ceases to be a discussion leading to consensus, and becomes a simple vote, as is the case here. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:47

I see enough reasoned opinion being set out by enough editors here, I'm not sure why you can't. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "I support as per X" and saying "I support as per X and here is why your argument Y is wrong, and here is why your argument against X is also wrong." We have almost all of the former (simple voting, as you'd find on AFD/RFA/FPC), and very little of the latter (reasoned discussion leading toward consensus). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:40

Are you counting or not? I support, CM supports, GB supports. CM reports other people have raised concerns too. B says he wouldn't do it. You oppose. You're it. That strikes me as rough consensus so far, unless your lone opposition so far means lack of consensus, which I'm not sure I agree. I see no need for an RfC at this point. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Gurubrahma supported; I didn't see him leave a reply in this section until just now.

1. CM doesn't report other people having raised this concern; he said 1 other admin suggested using others' nominations before his. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, we don't even know if that should apply to what we're doing here; specifically, you don't know if that admin would support changing the rules as you did.
2. B says he personally wouldn't do it; he didn't say he supported changing the rules as you did.
3. Gurubrahma's only comment (just now) was an argument based on numbers, and as Wikipedia is not a democracy, Gurubrahma has done little more than to supply a vote.

Read Wikipedia:Consensus, and please try to understand why Consensus is not just a number of people saying Yes/No. Only you and Cactus.man have made an effort to rationalize the change, but neither of you have shown why this isn't just a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:00

If you could stop assuming that I don't know what consensus is, that would be good. I find it rather offputting. I was reaching consensus on things before you were born if I'm not much mistaken. As a consultant, reaching consensus is part of my job. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I support, CM supports, GB supports... That strikes me as rough consensus..." If that doesn't sound like voting, rather than discussion leading to consensus, then I don't know what does. Consensus is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. If its users do not want to argue on rationale, then they should just stay out of the discussion. Please, explain how your addition is not just a solution looking for a problem—as Johntex alluded to below, instruction creep should be avoided at all costs. This new addition seems also to be contrary to AGF. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:21

re-indenting Well, I've commented on your talkpage yesterday and I felt that it was indicative enough of my stance. It is ironic that you refer to Wikipedia:Consensus but are not interested in an RFC as the page clearly says that "Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." I see a talkpage comunication failure, your mileage may vary. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in it because it is not necessary. I think we can still reach consensus without having to go through RFC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:44

I too hope it's not necessary to take Brian through an RfC to get him to see that when everyone else speaks out about something, and it's not a fundamental policy issue that consensus can't override, that he's not on the side of consensus. That was what happened the last time he was on one side and everyone else on the other and so far it appears to be happening here as well, although we don't have as many voices yet. Consensus is not a vote but it's also not one person saying they don't agree and overlooking the reasoned discussion put forth by everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So, please explain why your change is not just a solution looking for a problem. I'm looking for evidence that the change is necessary. We must avoid instruction creep at all costs, and your addition also seems contrary to AGF, in that it sounds as if others will assume bad faith on the part of the admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:16

I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest. However, I am also against instruction creep. In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it. I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it. Johntex\^talk 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen several DYK suggestions getting rejected of late due to various issues. I'd like to know how many of DYK suggestions from Brian's self-noms got rejected ever since he started updating DYK. I believe that an admin updating his own article's suggestion to DYK would not have appeared a conflict of interest if he was the only admin updating DYK or if the acceptance rate of the suggestions was as high as 95% (occurrences from the not so recent past when I was updating). However, now that someone has raised the issue of conflict of interest, I believe that it is best to recuse oneself from updating suggestions from one's own article. --Gurubrahma 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I started nominating suggestions and updating the template at the same time. And as far as I recall, there was at least 1 that went unused. I believe it is better for others to assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, than to demand that the admin avoid any chance of them assuming bad faith. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:25

Brian: several people have pointed out that this is a problem. In fact one is now questioning whether you're passing over good noms in favour of selecting your own. That's not an assumption of bad faith on your part, it's a suggestion that you're human, like we all are, and perhaps biased, or if not biased, at least possibly giving the appearance of bias. This change, to add a suggestion that we not select our own, is not a "solution in search of a problem", because there IS a problem here. (bluntly, since the gentle approach doesn't seem to be getting through to you, you're doing way too much selecting of your own noms for my taste and for the taste of others, including some I know of who choose not to participate here because they don't want to get in a bunfight with you...) I continue to assert there is consensus here for a gently worded suggestion, except (primarily) for your resistance, and it's not at all about voting, it's about your counter arguments having been refuted satisfactorily, in my view and in the view of others. Consensus is not blocked by one person (in essence, paraphrased for effect) insisting "everyone else is wrong about this and you don't know what consensus is and you're not assuming good faith and I understand what Jimbo means better han you do". That's just not a workable, collegial, cooperative approach, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase it however you like; it still looks like an assumption of bad faith. I don't pass over suggestions that are interesting, regardless of who writes them, and not without providing a reason ahead of time (so that the nominator has a chance to fix it), which is more than other updating admins were doing until recently. Whether intentional or not, it really sounds like you're overinflating the issue—you mentioned no problem with my updating practices until this reply. You've invented a solution looking for a problem, and now you're trying to label me as the problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:28

That's correct, I did not mention a problem with you specifically, initially, because I hoped that a word to the wise would be sufficient and that I wouldn't have to point out that it's your recent selections that caused this to come up. I was trying to avoid being specific. But you did not want to take that word to the wise, did not want to let me avoid pointing out that you're the issue in order to remain polite, so I finally gave up and got specific. Make no mistake, your trying to assert I'm not assuming good faith, or trying to assert I've overinflated things, or saying this is a solution in search of a problem do not reduce by one iota the fact that it is a problem, that just about everyone else at least thinks it potentially looks bad, thinks that a suggestion is in order, and that you're the big resister. Twist that around as you like but the consensus here is clear to me, and I suspect to many others as well, this suggestion should stay, whether you agree or not. I'll state it directly so there's no mistake or misunderstanding: Please stop selecting so many of your own nominations unless there are strong extenuating circumstances. It's just not appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, going after me rather than my rationale. Johntex brought up a good point about instruction creep that you haven't addressed. Please don't disregard his arguments when mischaracterizing it as a "clear consensus". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:23

I'm a relative outsider to the DYK process, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth. I approve of the change. At AFD, admins are strongly discouraged from closing deletion discussions on articles that they nominated in the first place. It just looks bad, even if the consensus is overwhelmingly (even unanimously) in favor of deletion. There is always someone else who can close the discussion while avoiding that appearance of bias. Here at DYK, if the nomination is valid, it appears that there will always be someone else who will select it, and avoid that same appearance of bias. Joyous! | Talk 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't it go against AGF to say that one must avoid any situation that leads others to assume bad faith when you are not acting in bad faith? Shouldn't the default assumption be good faith, unless and until a problem becomes significant, or individuals are clearly acting in bad faith on several occasions? Is there an actual guideline on AFD that specifically states that nominators should not be closers? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:26

But why put yourself in that position to begin with? It does look bad to see that whole string of DYK notices on your talk page, and then find out how many of them were selected by...you. And as for AFD, yes. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it states As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put myself in that position. I pick entries that I find interesting, and it happens that some of those are also ones I write. I don't even look at it as a conflict of interest issue; I'm just selecting the oldest entries that are both diverse and interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 01:24

Others, without ascribing bad faith to you, (or you validly ascribing bad faith to them, although you have certainly tried) do see it as a conflict of interest. Seems blindingly obvious to me... Don't do it. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I should pass up suggestions that I find interesting, and hope that one of the 2 or 3 other updating admins will also be interested in the topic? This is exactly what is wrong with this change. I had hoped that AGF would have been enough of a reason for nobody to jump to any conclusions, but jump away. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:07

Correct. If no other admin thinks it interesting, it does not get selected. This puts us all on an even footing with all the non admins, and admins that nominate things but don't do DYK selection, who, after all, don't get to select their own nominations either. Otherwise I'm left with the impression that you're basically saying your judgement is better than ours, that you are better at judging what is interesting than the rest of us. You don't actually mean that, I hope, but that's the impression I am left with. We have started to comment more on suggestions passed over, so you have the same chance as everyone else to improve your hooks and get selected. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying my judgment is better than yours; I'm saying that I have interests that the 2 or 3 other admins do not. You select entries that I would clearly pass up, and I select entries that you would clearly pass up. It is not a level playing field if the updating admin is not free to choose from any of the entries on the suggestion page. Just because some suggestions are receiving comments doesn't mean all of them will. Hopefully you'll get around to commenting on my suggestions sometime before they go past the 5-day time limit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:45

If you feel like replying to Johntex's arguments sometime, go right ahead. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:14

I believe I already have replied to Johntex's arguments, although not directly. But I am happy to do so directly. Here you go, annotated. John's remarks (italicised) are interspersed with my comments, indented:

I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest.

So we're in agreement in principle that there is potential for a perception of conflict of interest.

However, I am also against instruction creep.

So am I. But this has to be weighed in context. Sometimes some small amount is unavoidable if introducing it can get a greaqter good

In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it.

Several people have so described (shown) why this is a significant problem, so therefore in his view a policy or guideline would be appropriate in this case, if Johntex accepts their assertions. But that's not what is on the table, what is on the table is only a suggestion.

I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it.

So therefore, I conclude that Johntex is neutral, that is, he's not opposing the inclusion of a suggestion, but he's not for it either absent such showing that there is a problem. Neutrality == going along with consensus whichever way it turns out to be.

Based on the above, then, I reassert that there is consensus for this suggestion, and that the objections on Brian's part have been addressed; first that Johntex asserts there is no issue is incorrect, and second that Johntex is against the suggestion, have both been shown to not be valid, as Johntex accepts that there may be a problem if others assert there is, and that he is neutral on implementing this suggestion. I of course invite Johntext to extend, expand or correct my remarks if I have erred in my interpretation. ++Lar: t/c 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not been "shown" that it is a significant problem. Johntex was looking for specific evidence, and all you've provided is that "several people" have replied on this page. That is not evidence, and certainly not what he was looking for. Surely if several people have replied, there must be evidence of a significant problem somewhere in their replies; can you list this evidence? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:51

What would you consider "specific evidence" then? Please be specific. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Johntex (although I may have already and hope I didn't mischaracterize his comments), but specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:32

MY evidence of a problem is MUCH simpler to spot. If several people say "there is the appearance of possible impropriety here if admins choose their own noms" there's a problem. Several people have said it. Therefore there is a problem. I am not sure it would be productive to go through all the times you (or anyone else... but you're the one who's doing the bulk of the self selection of late) selected your own noms looking for which ones got passed over and which didn't. I find it completely sufficient that several people say there's an issue with it and the practice should be discontinued. Please stop doing it and please stop trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion. We should avoid even the appearance of impropriety if it is easy to do so. And this is easy. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not how this started out though. It started with a single proposal by you, not a sudden group-realization. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. Feel free to look through my selections. I made sure with all of them that older nominations were used first, or if not, for the reasons stated, or, more often, because the template already had an entry on a similar topic--in which case, I used those passed-over nominations in the next update. I don't understand your reason for telling me to stop discussion on the matter. I would understand if you were telling me to stop reverting something, or stop obviously doing things out of process, but none of that is occurring. You're telling me to stop discussing the matter. That is ridiculous. If you can provide evidence that there is a significant problem as I clearly laid out at your request, then do so. Otherwise, admit that there is no significant problem, and thus the addition was unnecessary, regardless of how much sense it makes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:35

I'm not telling you to stop discussing it, although it seems increasingly pointless to continue. I'm telling you that in my view there's a problem (and my criteria differ from yours, and further I reject your criteria as unnecessarily complex and irrelevant), that in my view multiple people have noted it, and in my view there is consensus for the change, consensus for the addition of a suggestion, regardless of whether you think so or not. I'm not sure I'd characterise any of that as "ridiculous". ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You mischaracterized my actions as "trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion", and then told me to "please stop" doing it--that is ridiculous, as I said. My criteria require actual evidence, not requested opinions. Multiple people have only noted the possibility of a problem because you requested their opinions on the matter. There is still no actual problem, just the possibility of one, and that is not enough reason to add in new guidelines. As I have already shown, there has not been discussion leading to consensus, but simple "support as per X" comments, which are simply votes. Nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing. If you can provide any, please do so. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:02

As long as we have more then one person dealing with selecting DYKs (btw, do we have a list of those people anywhere and info on how to join them?) I think that there is no need for an admin to select his own entry, others will do it for him. I'd discourage people from using their own entries - I am sure there is good faith all around, but why create room for accusations that it is not the case? Let your fellow DYK admin select your entries, and all will be well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• The guideline isn't simply "be in good faith", it is "assume good faith" on the part of others' actions--so in this case, it's a guideline not for the admin, but for those viewing the admin's actions. The default is to assume that the admin is acting in good faith, unless the problem becomes significant or the actions are obviously repeatedly in bad faith. I don't see it as being up to the individual to make sure that others will assume good faith on his part, but up to the others to default to an assumption of good faith in all but the obvious cases. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 22:04

I also support the change. Assuming good faith is a red herring: this is about avoiding a position where good faith has to be assumed, because the actions, prima facie, raise the issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The change, as it is currrently worded, reads:

A suggestion rather than a rule: Admins, try to avoid picking your own nominations. Use common sense here.

I think from reading the discussion on this matter that there is consensus for this to be included on the page. It is entirely misleading to attempt to portray this as instruction creep, there are no instructions, only a suggestion. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All policies started out as guidelines, and all guidelines as simple suggestions. This is exactly what is meant by "instruction creep". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:40

But as things stand, there is consensus to include this suggestion, instruction creep or not, whether you agree with it or not. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "consensus", so you and Lar have said from the very beginning, before the rationale were even debated. And now you have a few more votes, and very little actual discussion, and you are again calling it "consensus". And by doing so, you are avoiding any actual discussion on the matter. It is instruction creep, and there is no evidence that the change is necessary. If you disagree, you will have to provide more than simply saying "N people disagree with you" or "it is us versus you all alone". That is not a valid rationale until you've provided evidence that the change is necessary due to a current significant problem, in order to avoid unnecessary instruction creep. You have not shown that there is a problem, just that you have a solution. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:10

There is a significant problem, as we have stated before but which you haven't accepted. It gives the appearance of impropriety which is not a good thing, and should be avoided. This change avoids it, and avoids it at little additional cost and little additional process. Therefore the change is necessary. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of a problem is not the same as an actual problem. I'm looking for actual evidence, as I clearly laid out at your request above, and which I have copied here as a reminder--specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:46

There is no problem

As I have said repeatedly, nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing.

Going back to Lar's first comment: he described a possible problem (one of the countless possibilities that we may one day face in the future), and proposed a solution to that possible problem. He then asked for opinions on whether the possibility does exist (which of course it does). He received several opinions stating that the possibility does exist. What he did not receive, and nobody has provided, is evidence that the problem actually exists now.

There is no actual problem. If and when the problem does occur, we can address it with the proposed change, as would make sense. It does not make sense to start addressing actions that there is no evidence are currently significant problems. That leads to needless instruction creep. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:11

If you want to act dense, feel free, but don't expect that it would be the consensus. As one editor has remarked above, it is surprising to see how many of your suggestions have made it to DYK and how many of them were updated by you. Also, given your own admission that you've started nominating suggestions and updating DYK at almost the same time, it appears too much of a coincidence (given the age of your account). Since you are intent on wikilawyering and can't/won't understand discussion couched in niceties, let me put it as bluntly as I can. You have been updating suggestions from your own articles with alarming regularity and I see it as a problem. Since you don't see consensus and won't be ready for a RfC, the best we can do is what they tell us - WP:DFTT. The sad part is that an admin is acting this way. --Gurubrahma 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback improvement

I suggest an addition to the rules, stating that any nominations that are passed over for newer ones should be provided an explanation of why they were not chosen. If the admin believes the nomination isn't interesting, the admin should request an alternate nomination. A nomination shouldn't be removed from the page without having comments on its most recently suggested fact. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:01

I'd support the idea behind this, as a suggested practice, if it were done collegially and not confrontationally. I think admins, and noms both, would benefit from feedback. Perhaps a place to discuss it for the older ones? ... because noms that are passed over and fall off the bottom are gone and there is no where to hang the comment. I do try to comment when I can. There is a tension here between wanting to include every nom, and trying to pick only the best. Some noms may not get picked, for valid reasons. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create an "Unused" section at the bottom, and place unused ones there. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:35

Ok with me except that part-time admins wd find it too much of instruction creep. No reason needs to be given if it is over 5 days old. --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If it has been on the suggestions page for 5 days and has not received a single reply, then there is something seriously wrong with the process. The nominator should always be given the chance to supply a more interesting nomination, or fix whatever complaint the admin has. Without getting replies, nominators may not even realize that their suggestion isn't going to be used, until it suddenly disappears from the suggestion page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:49

Brian: (4x edit because of fast moving edits by one editor) If they would have fallen off you mean? Then leave them there for a few days? For ones still eligible just annotate in place perhaps, with a "I didn't pick this one because..." ??? that would work fine for me. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Nominations should be given comments well before they are going to pass the 5-day mark. Once they are 5 days old, they could be placed in an Unused section so that nominators can see why their suggestion wasn't used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:52

I'll do my level best going forward to comment on every nom that clearly doesn't already have showstopper comments on it that I pass over. I support the idea of increasing feedback to noms and writers and admins... I do want to be sensitive to GB's concerns that the process gets harder for him if too much is added but I think this is worth trying to do. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that non-admins can do too. Unlikely that an admin is going to not pick something with a reason that isn't obvious to non-admins. Stevage 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave this a whirl for my latest update (which had some problems for other reasons, I missed that a couple of articles were NOT eligible and one was on the front page briefly, caught the problem as I was about to update the talk page...). I commented on every non picked article I felt wasn't obvious already from the bottom to where I stopped evaluating as I had enough articles at that point... I also commented on every non selected picture from the bottom to where I stopped evaluating pictures because I had the picture at that point... It was an interesting and useful exercise. I do not think it added a LOT of time. I'd like to keep trying to do this and see if noms and authors like the extra feedback. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section called "Unused suggestions" where unused suggestions should be moved after 5 days. How often should the section be cleared? after the nominator is fine with the reasons? or 5 days? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:42

So, to be clear, it would be 5 more days after they fall of the bottom then? unused ones before timing out could of course still get fixed, used as is, or whatever. That gives the users plenty of time. I don't think waiting till they agree is workable, they may never agree, or never even come back to see... I'm willing to give that a try as well... why not! ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean wait till they agree, or after 5 days, whichever comes first. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:58

I wonder if this will not create too much work. What about if instead of explaining why an admin has chosen a nomination, make them explain why some nominations were not chosen (and expired and were removed from the page)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't follow you. Isn't that what we have been saying? Admins should leave replies to nominations they passed over, explaining why, ahead of time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:58

I see no need for this section at all, this is a good example of needless instruction creep. Once the 5 days is up, the 5 days is up. Why keep them hanging around for another (up to) 5 days? This is unnecessary and further bloats the page. The rash of commentary on nominations that has sprung up recently is perfectly adequate to inform nominators of what is going on. If we adopt the further commentary on passed over nominations that has been suggested, the whole process will become far too unwieldy with this as well. Ditch this "Unused suggestions" idea now. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's simply to give nominators a chance to see the comments before the suggestions are blanked from the page. I don't see how it is difficult; non-admins can do it as well. As you point out, the large amount of commentary is relatively new, but not all nominations are receiving comments, and might not receive them (as has often been the case) until right before they are blanked from the page. This seems unfair to the people who do the hardest work of all around here: those writing articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:28

It's just unneccessary bloat and, a clear case of instruction creep. The history of the page is always there, and people are always welcome to ask why their nominations were not accepted if they feel the need to do so. I am always happy to respond to queries about suggestions that I have passed over, as I'm sure all other updaters are too. There is no need at all for this section IMO. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem? Rather than delete everything under a date, you just move it down a section. That hardly seems difficult, and anyone can do it. It's unfair for a nominator's submission to be deleted without him getting a chance to reply to the specific reasons (if any) that were given. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:05

It's not difficult, I agree, but it's totally unneccessary and is instruction creep, which you are so utterly opposed to elsewhere on this page - explain?. The "problem" is that it's not needed, the process works well enough without this. Seems to me like this idea is a "solution in need of a problem" :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem, though, as I've seen several nominations be deleted from the page without a reply, or if a reply was given, it was only moments before the nomination was deleted--certainly not enough time for the nominator to have seen the reply, let alone attempt to fix his nomination. Is it really so much harder to move a section down one, than to blank it? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:40

I don't see that as a problem, for the reasons given above. People can reply or query as neccessary. Why do you feel the need to add more process steps for the sake of it, when you say you are against instruction creep? Your position is at best untenable, and at worst, bizarre. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against instruction creep when it's unnecessary. It is necessary in this case, for the reasons I've listed, which you have not specifically addressed. Are you suggesting that a nominator sift through the constantly-changing history of the talk page, looking for the replies he received. If/when he finds them, how does he reply to them? They've been blanked from the page, essentially ceasing any discussion on the matter--very unfair to someone who puts a lot of work into the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:18

Dutch language entry

...that the Dutch language was first recorded in the 6th century AD and therefore is over 1400 years old?

Just curious, but how did this get on DYK? I thought it was only for new pages, and the Dutch language certainly isn't a new page, nor are either of the other two links. SnowFire 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a diff? I was not able to find it as a selected article in the T:DYK history, but I may have missed it. I agree it doesn't at first glance appear eligible. It's usually good to raise this at nom time if you catch it. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw it on the "Recent Additions" archive, and mystery solved. Seems it was just added by a random user User:Rex Germanus (who, incidentally, is getting 3RVV warnings for the Dutch page on his talk page). Here's the diff. Seems like the latest admin update cleared it, but it was right at the top before and very visible. SnowFire 17:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I don't think that actually REALLY made the front page but i could be wrong. As GB says, maybe we need to sprotect if we're getting a lot of spurious adds? Or more of us need to watch it... I confess I did not have it on my watchlist till just now. Thanks for clarifying! ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the template history either, so I removed it when moving the items to Archive 71. Sprotection wouldn't work because most of these spurious additions seem to be added by registered users who would still qualify to edit. Full protection in line with the template would fix the problem, but is OTT in my view. I think we have enough poeple to watch it now, and that the few rogue additions can be easily reverted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate reason for a non-admin to want to change that page, though? Even if it's easy to fix, there doesn't seem to be much actual use from allowing users to edit it. SnowFire 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If an admin messes up the formatting on one of the entries, a non-admin can fix it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 21:18

Additional DYK updaters

Above, Piotr asks if there is a list of who updates or a process for becoming an admin that updates DYK. This is my view only, but there is no list, and no process to "become one". Just jump in. If you're an admin and you're interested, read up on the update process and the suggestions, guidelines and so forth... then maybe use history on the template and the template talk to see what edits are made in what order, and then just do it! Other admins will be happy to help you out or offer suggestions. I was in IRC the first time I did it but ended up not really needing to ask anyone anything, it went smoothly... That's how I started, it's no big deal per se. Anyone else have a comment? Hope that helps! Another pair of hands would always be welcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)