Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

Error reports

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

DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 21:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 21 hours ago(

)

Template:Archive box collapsible

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

Hook candidates reaching 5 days old

My proposal for a hook for Arrival of the Hungarians was posted on January 1, and it was first reviewed today. It was asked to give more references. I cited more, but now the 5 day deadline is coming, so what if it doesn't get reviewed again? How does it work for hooks that don't get reviewed in time? Qorilla (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be fine. Hooks don't really ever get removed without being reviewed, and hooks are quite often promoted after 5 days. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you haven't provided references as asked (at least one per paragraph), though Esemono suggested that those refs can be found. Maybe it would be worth working more on the article before posting this thread? Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll cite them in, but in fact most of the data can be found in any of the sources, so one doesn't have to puzzle it from multiple sources, so most inline citations - even if we have many - will point to the same page. Qorilla (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DYK/Prospects

It occurred to me that it might be good to have a prominent, dedicated page where people who are not willing or able to make nominations themselves can drive by and make suggestions for good article prospects from places like newpages, WP:FEED, the various help desks and other places where new articles are stumbled upon that are ripe for a DYK nomination (creators unable to make a nomination themselves could post there as well of course). It would just be a list of article names by date with a few instructions up front. It would be simple to set up and simple to deal with. Does this exist already and I missed it? If not, shall I create it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult, which is updated most days by AlexNewArtBot. Is this what you're thinking of? --Bruce1ee^talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, something like that; thanks for the link. That renders this somewhat redundant. The problem with that page is that its existing all on its own, with only regulars in the know. I would think a redirect from Wikipedia:DYK/Prospects would be appropriate, and then it would be a linked through {{DYKbox}} and would get some instructions on it for humans to contribute their links in a separate section of the page. Of course, if someone tells me this is a problem in search of a solution, i.e., you get more decent nominations that you know what to do with, year round, this would be a rather pointless exercise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the page Wikipedia:Did you know/New article announcements that is located at Category:Wikipedia Did you know that exist. The beginning of the Wikicup has definitely had an impact on the number of articles submitted recently. IMO when and if hooks start to drop back to subnormal levels (empty queues and under 200 hooks) we could more actively promote these pages mentioned in this tread on this discussion page, as it is most likely on many editor's watch lists. Calmer Waters 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jairam Ramesh

Can someone here please give a third opinion on this removal of article from DYK nomination list?

I think it should be advanced to queue as it was improperly removed from nomination list without any discussion beforehand. Thank you. Marcus334 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus334 said:

I see that my Dec. 31 DYK nomination was removed by you: :23:45, January 7, 2010 Wizardman (talk | contribs) (281,762 bytes) (→Jairam Ramesh: rm; not long enough).

Please double check this rm as the article is: :03:46, January 8, 2010 Marcus334 (talk | contribs) (37,678 bytes)

Someone had inadvertently noted that it was expanded only 2 1/2x when it was actually expanded over ~~12x~~ 5x. ThanxMarcus334 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you calculate this article was expanded only 2.5x?

It was 5,653 bytes when I started working on it Dec.27 and it grew to 32,285 bytes when I nominated it on Dec 31. (32,285 ÷ 5,653 = 5.71) It is now 37,678 bytes. Please explain or restore to DYK nomination queue. Marcus334 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using prose definition, article minus infoboxes, references and categories, with this tool, (I did not use this script as it excludes quotes, which are important part of the article) I calculate 20,374 prose bytes on Dec. 31 divided by 3,229 prose bytes on Dec. 27 before I started working on article (same as Dec. 19 number) = 6.3x, Correct? Marcus334 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman said:

I double checked and the removal was correct, it was only expanded 2.5x. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK calculates solely prose, not the entire article. So, before expansion started, there were 3079 characters of prose. Now the article is 11kb of prose, nearly a 4x expansion (so not a 2.5x as it was written earlier). It's closer to the requirement, but it's not quite there still, and seeing that the 28th has long been cleared, it's not going to be placed back up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now, you counted the large number of quotes. You can ask for a third opinion on the DYK talk page, but at this point I can't guarantee it getting promoted even if it is accepted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinions:

Agree with Wizardman- the rules are quite clear, blockquotes do not count as prose. However, if you could expand it quickly, this might be a case for ignoring all rules and letting it run. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realize block quotes do not count. Thanks for keeping the article under consideration. I have expanded it so it is now 9,348 bytes more than on Dec. 31 nomination date. That should make it 5x. You please count. Marcus334 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I figured out how to use this script, and now get 5.13x expansion. That should do it. Marcus334 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quotes are not counted. It's a a few thousand characters short. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains an unusually large proportion of block quotes. I converted one short block quote into prose. The article would be easier to read, IMO -- and might possibly meet the DYK threshold -- if more of the material that is now in boxed-off quotes were rewritten as "prose." --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I followed your suggestion and converted many quotes to prose. Kept those stating most important policy positions. Expansion is now 6.56x. Marcus334 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the current article to the version that existed on 18 December 2009 (before expansion began), this is more than a 5x expansion now. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Current count is 20366 characters of prose; the version on 18 December was 3079 characters of prose. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This got bogged down- we have a fivefold expansion; for everyone's sake, can we make a final decision quickly? I'm in favour of ignoring the rules in this case and letting it run. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No review?

Apologies if this is in the wrong section or area, but I'm wondering how I can get a review of an item I nominated on Jan. 7 (St. Michael's Cathedral)? The items before and after it have been reviewed. What does it mean if nobody reviews your item? That nobody likes it for DYK? I read the documentation but didn't see anything regarding this situation. Thanks, ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means absolutely nothing. Basically, no one has gotten around to your article yet. Don't worry, it won't expire or anything even if it goes over seven days :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means DYK is a perpetual backlog. I don't mean to sound flippant, but hooks get reviewed when they get reviewed. 7 January is still near the top of the page, so have patience. Hooks never are removed because they haven't been reviewed. (Now, in a completely contradictory message, because I know how anxious waiting can be, I'll go review your hook ;) ) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means you had trouble finding A2. Art LaPella (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with hook in queue 6

The lead hook in queue 6 (for an article I worked on :-) reads "that the Orange Bowl stadium was the first to host the college football bowl game of the same name in 1938?" The problem with this is that there was only one Orange Bowl that year, so the hook is misleading. I intended the hook to revolve around the fact that this was the first Orange Bowl played in that stadium (I recall writing "first hosted"). When the hook got moved over to the queue, some copy-editing must have taken place that caused this issue. If someone here has a minute, please take a look at it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you write exactly what it should say I'll be happy to update it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Great gosh-a-mighty. I have never seen such a huge backlog! If the number of submissions doesn't slow down soon, we are going to have to do something. We can't let hooks continue to pile up at this rate. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps further increase the update frequency? Ucucha 07:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may be able to pull off a 4 hour update with continued admin support. I would support moving the queue to an even 4 hour update until such time as the nomination page returns to the regular average 32-36 nominations with approx 200 nominations. DYK is nominations are fluid with demand. I suppose so should the update times. The 20+ day 8hour update was very helpful as this too might be. Calmer Waters 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a 4-hour update doesn't give people much chance to see the articles. But the Suggestions page is so slow for me right now I can barely even use it. Does anyone else support a 4 hour cycle? Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-hour cycle would cause us more work, but so would the alternative (selecting hooks for interestingness). If T:TDYK is too slow, we should perhaps think again of creating subpages - I know it's not ideal for Art, but it may relieve some of the problems with load time because you no longer have to load the entire page if you don't need to. Ucucha 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could try subpages. I wouldn't know how to do it though, and since the dates change all the time, I don't know what process could be used to change them. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start with new nominations / older nominations subpages and modify the earier script from last month to move the remaining date onto the older nom subpage when an editor does the normal maint of moving up the older noms. The Queues verified hooks counter would somehow need modified. Does that make sense how I explained it? Calmer Waters 10:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I don't know, it seems to me if we are going to try subpages we might as well try a complete breakdown. It does sound as if it will need programming skills to figure out how to do it though. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We would need a bot for that, I think. Something similar happens at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Below, I have started some specifications to detail how it might work. Perhaps we can also recruit User:Mathbot here. Ucucha 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a four-hour update cycle for now, to help burn off the flood of nominations we're sitting on right now- 305 sitting on the suggestions page. This would let us get caught back up in a spurt, rather than establishing the precedent of checkers making judgment calls on borderline-interesting hooks, which could be problematic after the WikiCup slows down and we go back to normal. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to squeeze an extra hook in per update, perhaps by picking the shorter hooks rather than the longer hooks? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's problematic, because then we'd be left with bunches of longish hooks, and tons of those can't run together because they unbalance the main page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think moving it to six hours for a while would be a better solution. It gives the hooks enough time on the main page, and finds a happy medium between work for admins and cutting down the backlog. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are using six hours now. Ucucha 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I thought we were at 8 for some reason. Yes, we need to either increase the update frequency or the number of hooks in the queues, so going down to 4 wouldn't be unreasonable The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Returned to 6 hour updates on 1 January of this year. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate view:

I have a hunch that the number of submissions will drop off soon, as universities start their new term and students have less time on their hands. If we speed things up now (or increase the number of hooks in each queue), we are likely to find ourselves with a shortage of hooks in just a few weeks' time. On the other hand, if we hold things steady, we'll work off the backlog a few weeks from now after the pace of submissions drops. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a temporary "PrepExtra" page to the Queue page so we can at least get as many verified hooks off the suggestions page as possible. See the new header below. Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to rescue more of the old ones. Actually, I'd like to get to them before they get so old; the longer they stay, the more time we all waste (or at least I do) looking at them and thinking they are just too boring to deal with. --Una Smith (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Subpages for every day: Template talk:Did you know/2010 January 11 etc.; and Template talk:Did you know/Special for the special occasions.
Template talk:Did you know transcludes all day pages and the special page with open nominations. A bot adds a new page every day and deletes every page from this page that no longer has any open nominations. (Of course old day pages remain, they're just no longer transcluded.)
Template talk:Did you know/Links only links to days with open nominations, but does not transclude them. Also updated by bot.
Template talk:Did you know/New transcludes the first six days of open nominations (like T:TDYK#Current suggestions).
Template talk:Did you know/Old transcludes other open nominations (like T:TDYK#Older nominations). Updated by bot.
Template:Editnotice/Group/Template talk:Did you know is used to give the same editnotice for every subpage.

Ucucha 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a four

This would be something completely different then how the TT:DYK is currently setup; but, what if we used Transcluded subpages for each hook? In theory, the page would look the same; however, each hook would be located on a different small page. The TT:DYK nominations page would be maybe 10000 bytes instead of loading the 100000+ we currently get. As noms are promoted the pages would empty. A bot could be developed that would maintenance delete the blank pages or a cat can be setup. Very different, but sense we are throwing around ideas. It works well with here. Calmer Waters 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't really help matters. We do that at FAC (one page for each nomination), but it loads just as slowly as if all the information were on one page. You also run the risk of reaching the template limit - there are only a certain number of templates that the page will evaluate when it loads (and then it just stops), and each subpage would count as one template. With those plus all the hook verification templates, it is possible that the limit would occasionally be reached. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CW: that's something I also thought about, but template limits may indeed be detrimental to that. Do you know what the template limit exactly is? Here, we'd be loading potentially 600+ templates. (The confirmed templates should not be a problem, as they are subst'ed, but {{*mp}}, used in every single hook, is, as is the occasional {{-}} and perhaps {{DYKmake}}, which is however always commented out.) Ucucha 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the day-by-day page would be something I'd support- I'd oppose this present form of the proposal. The old pages should not be deleted as a matter of course. They're always going to be in the database, so for the rare times someone would need to go over the nomination, it should be left in public view- even if empty, anyone who needed to see it could do it in the history. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was an error on my part. The old day pages are to be just "deleted" from T:TDYK, so that they are no longer transcluded there; I don't mean to delete the actual pages like Template talk:Did you know/2010 January 11. Ucucha 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule M5

Rule M5 reads:

M5: Articles that have appeared on the main page's In the News section are not eligible, nor are items that have been rejected for In The News (?) or that have already been on DYK once before (pre-expansion, for example).

I fully support rejecting ITN items- but why are items that were rejected for ITN also rejected here? ITN will reject items for no fault of the article- because they don't believe the subject is important enough news. If it's written, rejected over there, and submitted over here within five days, and otherwise meets all the DYK rules, where's the problem? Am I missing something? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning maybe to discourage "forum"-shopping--DYK shouldn't get the stuff ITN doesn't like. But really, I don't see that much of a problem there, and I think it'd actually be good if DYK has hooks related to current events. I would be in favor of striking the part about articles rejected for ITN. Ucucha 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. As long as an article meets all other DYK rules, its rejection by ITN should not disqualify it from DYK. If it gets picked for ITN then it is disqualified from DYK but that is no hardship. ITNs are very hard to get. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me right, it wasn't necessarily "forum-shopping" but rather problems with the 5-Day rule for rejected ITN items since it normally took more than 5 days for an item to go through the ITN system. I don't remember all the details (probably about 2 years ago) but I think it was something along those lines. That said, I personally have no problem with striking that particular rule about rejected ITN but we should probably discuss whether the 5-Day rule will still be applied. If an item gets "quickly" rejected by ITN, it shouldn't be rejected for DYK outright simply because of that but we may have some WP:IAR cases with most rejected ITN items. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really enforce that five day rule that strictly, though do we? I think the rules already give us latitude to accept hooks that were added to the suggestions page while that day still existed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Looking at queue 2, I don't believe the DYKBotdo template is currently on the second queue. Assuming it's an oversight, could an admin fix it? Thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue was prepared by Materialscientist (talk · contribs), who seems to have forgotten to add the template. The queue looks all right, so I have added it now. Thanks :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary "PrepExtra" page

I have added a temporary "PrepExtra" page to the Queue page. The new page contains ten DYK Prep templates. The idea behind it is to allow updaters to promote articles ahead of time so that we can remove as many hooks as possible from the Suggestions page, which is very heavily backlogged right now. We can dispense with the page when the backlog is fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Gatoclass. Calmer Waters 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the top of the page on how to handle moving updates to the queue, so they don't get out of sequence. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multi nomination credits holding pen

As we have seen in the past, long credit templates on occasion crash the bot. Two questions. 1) Does anyone know what the arbitrary max number is and 2) would anyone be against a "holding pin" for instances such as this, with the credits done manually after the hook as appeared? I understand that we try to breakup queues by not having too many DYKnoms in the same prep, but what about the multi-nominations (ie. 3 more nominations within the hook or multi contributors and nominators). Don't see this as a constant case; however, knowing what the "crash limit" of the credit template would be helpful. Calmer Waters 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second this observation, but have no numbers on when the bot will crash - it either does or it doesn't. I often put multiple credits at the end, so that if bot crashes, there is less to complete manually. Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hook in Prep Area 1 needs a tweak

The hook states "... that Slovakia recently sent a bomb to Ireland on Danube Wings Flight V5 8230?"

This is not accurate, as to be a bomb a detonator is required. There was no detonator. A more accurate hook woul be "... that Slovakia recently sent explosives to Ireland on Danube Wings Flight V5 8230?"

Is there consensus to change this hook? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Trout me- I'm the one that signed off on that hook and didn't think about that. Yeah, I'd say do it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a trout, anyone can make a mistake in good faith. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't like this hook as currently formulated--it sounds like Robert Fico didn't like the Irish and resolved to bomb them. What about passivizing it to "... that explosives were recently sent from Slovakia to Ireland ..."? Ucucha 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New nom in the special occasion area

Hi all. i've just put forward a new 26-part nom~~in the special occasion holding area~~. With so many components, I realise questions may arise - please don't forget to leave a {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} tag on my talk page if there is a query. I will work hard to ensure any points are addressed. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colitis-X

Please look at this and tell me do you agree? --Una Smith (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention in engaging with that, as i don't know the history that Lar appears to be aware of. I've cleared the nom for use at DYK, have recommended one of hte ALT hooks to avoid a hook with two sentences, and have corrected some misapprehensions on the part of both parties regarding policy at the MOS and at DYK on the article talk page. I'm guessing that these two editors might best steer clear of reviewing each others contribs, just for their own sakes, but that is up to them. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it is relevant to drag this talk page/user drama to DYK. The hook and article can be evaluated on their own merits without this extra-curricular drama. At best the most that can be gleamed from this section is Hamiliton's advice that it is generally a good thing for editors with previous history to avoid dealing with each other's noms on DYK (even if they only have good faith intentions). It is better to let an univolved editor review the hook. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I did not review the nomination, I improved the article. --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've briefly looked at this and stand with Hamiltonstone: the nomination is appropriate for DYK, and ALT1 is a good choice for the hook. IMO, Montanabw is exaggerating the dispute, and for some reason, Lar is overly negative about this - he might know what I don't though. I do not see anything serious to quarrel about. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]