Template talk:DYKsuggestion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following is an archive of discussion threads posted at Template talk:DYKsuggestion Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on Template talk:NewDYKnomination, the template talk page currently in use. The information is an historical record of lessons learned! and is maintained to preserve this value. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS

Section editing[edit]

Resolved: with shell-core design by User:Ameliorate!. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So the way the template is right now, if you transclude it into the page it creates a new subsection with an edit link...unfortunately, when you click on that edit link then it wants to edit the template itself, rather than editing the subsection of the page where you transcluded it (ie, editing the DYK nom). subst-ing the template gets around that, but as I mentioned at WT:DYK, subst-ing opens up a whole other can of worms.

Does anyone know enough template stuff to figure out how to make the section edit link in the transcluded version edit the page where it's transcluded, rather than editing the template? —Politizer talk/contribs 06:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: as far as I can tell, we have three options:
  1. Somehow manually change the way the section edit link in the template goes (I don't know how or if this can be done);
The only way I can think of right now to accomplish this would be the have a template within a template...the inner template would be basically what we have here, except without the "article=" and the section heading; that would be included within an outer template that has the "article=" stuff but is really nothing more than a section heading and a call to the inner template. The outer template would be subst-ed, and not the inner template. Maybe that would work. Although it's not as elegant as doing some real syntax-y sort of thing. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Settle for subst-ing the template, and try to figure out a way to make the subst-ing less ugly.
  2. Scrap the section heading from the template altogether and just have instructions for nominators saying "create a new section like 'bla bla bla' and then copy this template into the section). Of course, that kind of defeats half the purpose of having the template, which was mainly to avoid typos in the section heading.
Out of these options, my favorite is #1, of course, if that is something that's possible in wiki syntax. Who knows... —Politizer talk/contribs 06:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried subst-ing the template? That might fix it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, substing it works, I tried on the test page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem with substing is, while it leaves the hook nicely formatted (I mean in the edit window, not in the page itself), it buries the creator/expander/nominator names under a mountain of syntax...that's not a problem for viewing the edit window, but it may be a problem when a reviewer wants to move the nom to Next, since (as far as I know) we generally copy and paste things from the edit window. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest the amount of syntax is cut down. Substing is the only way AFAIK. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've made some additions (of <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>-s), and it looks okay when substituted now. Apologies for making the code uglier, but this a relatively simple fix. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That looks much better. Does <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> just make it subst every #if: statement within the template?
I did notice that now if you DON'T subst the template, it looks terrible. But that shouldn't be a problem, since there will be a thing for people to copy-and-paste it in to the nominations page and that will ensure they subst it. Regulars might get in the habit of typing it by themselves if they're nominating something without a lot of extra stuff, but regulars will probably know to subst it.
Thanks for the help, —Politizer talk/contribs 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Only the ones you put it on, and only when the template is used. That way you avoid substituting the #ifs in the code itself, but it will substitute when substituted onto a page.
Oh, I hadn't tested that. I suggest adding <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>empty template|1={{error:not substituted|newdelrev}}}}</includeonly> to the beginning, so that it'll display a nice warning message in that case, other than just looking terrible (and will tell people how to fix it too). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ameliorate just created a template that can call this template (as per my idea #1 above, which I had all but given up on). I'm going to try to get this template ready for sticking inside that one. In the meantime, I'm going to move the current version to User:Politizer/DYKsuggestion so it's there just in case we need to go back to it. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Date updates with each purge[edit]

Resolved: Suntag moved date from {{DYKsuggestion}} to {{DYKsug}} —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got a live test run of the template at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Tom_Collins. The date of the nomination updates with each purge of Template talk:Did you know. Also, the time should come before (not after) the date. -- Suntag

I moved the date feature to the Template:DYKsug template, which seems to have fixed the problem. -- Suntag 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alt user name[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tirin actually pipes his signature into Takver, as in [[User:Tirin|Takver]]. See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Convincing Ground massacre. The template should include an |altusername= parameter to account for this. -- Suntag 18:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a common thing to do? – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think people commonly pipe in a name different from their user name, but when I went to use the DYKsug template for the Convincing Ground massacre, it red linked Takver. When I used creator=Tirin, it fixed the red link but left a different name not intended by the creator/nominator. I think we should allow editors to display the name of their choosing as it is not really a DYK issue. -- Suntag 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point...BackslashFowardslash and David Fuchs do that, as well as some other people I see around. Of course, most of the people who pipe in different names also have crazy signatures with flashing glitter and all sorts of stuff, so even if we give them an altusername= field then it won't show the signature they're used to seeing. Personally, I think that's fine, as what the template displays now is how their username shows up in edit histories. If you think we should allow for alt usernames, though, one thing we could do is totally remove the formatting that the field currently does and just tell the user to put —Politizer talk/contribs in the field when they're putting in their own name. But then, of course, it doesn't work if they're nominating for someone else (although, again, if they're nominating for someone else they probably don't care as much about that person's signature). In general, I would assume that people nominating for one another know what the person's real username is, from seeing revision histories and stuff, so I think problems like accidentally entering Takver for Tirin will be rare, and when they come up the nominator will see the redlink right away and notice what's wrong and (hopefully) go back and fix it. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we need only worry about giving an alt name option for the person posting the nom, not the names s/he chooses to add in the nom. Once this is implemented, I think we can go live. -- Suntag 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
|altusername= is working now. I'll add it to the documentation. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Successfully tested |altusername= on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Convincing_Ground_massacre. I think we're ready to go live. -- Suntag 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice. Whenever you're ready, I think the best thing for us to do is leave a note at W:TDYK and another one at the edit notice, asking someone to add instructions and a copy-and-paste template into the edit notice. Maybe I can get to work in a minute on writing up the instructions to be added to the editnotice. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Update - Since going live, I think this altusername thing turned out to be a non issue since no one has complained one way or another. -- Suntag 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • The way I have it now is, altusername is still in the template but it's not in the example...so it exists if people want to use it, but otherwise it stays out of sight. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{-}}[edit]

Resolved: Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If an image is added to the DYK nom, it may help if the template adds {{-}} after the nom. See, for example, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Shigeko Higashikuni. This will prevent the image from overlaping the DYK nomination below it, making for a cleaner, easier to scan DYK suggestion page. Also, I just revised the image size from 100px to 100x100px. -- Suntag 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, Per Wikipedia:Images#Image_preferences, image size should be 100x100px rather than 100px100px. Using 100x100px should work to resize the image. -- Suntag 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, {{-}} is substututed in all cases, not just when an image is used. Also, this puts a big gap between the user name and the time stamp. It could go in Template:DYKsug, but may not be needed if we use 100x100px for the image size. -- Suntag 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I stuck the {{-}} in. As for 100px100px, I've been having problems with that since I started...the original version of the template put that in, but I found that for some reason the images weren't getting resized at all (they were showing up in their original size, which was quite big for some of the test images I was using). When I changed it to just 100px, the resizing works, but of course that only scales down the width and might leave the images too tall. I don't really know what to do yet about that...we might need to fiddle around more to find out why 100px100px isn't working. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The 100px100px is not working because it needs to read 100x100px. The first "p" is not needed. -- Suntag 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohhh, got it. I didn't even notice that in your message (when you wrote "100x100px rather than 100px100px," I just assumed they were the same and it was a typo). —Politizer talk/contribs 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Image works now. On the meantime, though, we must have gotten an extra space or newline into one of the templates, because the timestamp got messed up; see the bottom of Template:DYKsuggestion/Test. I'm gonna go see where the extra space is. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it looks like you already fixed it. I'll put {{-}} in DYKsug and see what happens...even when the image is resized, I think it still sticks down a bit (in my browser, at least) when the nom is very short. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Update Since going live, I've realized that the {{-}} is only needed when |image= is filled in. May be the template can be revised to post {{-}} only if the |image= is filled in. -- Suntag 13:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's already doing that? Hm...have you been noticing image-less nominations that have it? —Politizer talk/contribs 15:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Showing the fields that people actually filled in[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I considered revising the template to only show the fields actually filled in by people. However, there may be reasons later to fill in the other fields (such as |alt=) as the nomination is reviewed. -- Suntag 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that too. As for the alts, I decided it might be confusing that way because when people put in a later alt it would get placed at the top of the discussion (where the template is), which could make it confusing for people to follow when the alt was proposed in relation to the discussion. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing...on one hand, there may be some merit to grouping all the alts at the top, but on the other hand, who knows. As for leaving the fields such as expander and yada yada in, there may be instances where someone wants to add that stuff later (for example, when the original nominator forgets to mention someone and then a reviewer chimes in "so-and-so should get credit too), but I guess I was kind of hoping that once people are familiar with the template they would be able to type that field back in manually.
All in all, I would really like to be able to get rid of the fields not filled in, but I couldn't get it to work (in the template history you will probably see tons of messing around with <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: stuff). If it could be done, I think it would be worthwhile (mainly because it reduces the amount of clutter at T:TDYK). —Politizer talk/contribs 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Update Since going live, having the blank fields has helped. It makes the nom very modifiable as things progress, such as if someone fogot to add a name for the credits or wanted to add an image. Showing all the fields has worked out well. -- Suntag 13:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief! One less thing to worry about :-D —Politizer talk/contribs 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Vetting new noms[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue; Suntag's idea to transclude queues has solved the problem. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We could include a parameter |promoted= that defaults to no (promoted=no). When marked "yes", that will puts a Symbol confirmed.svg in the section heading. A bot can be developed to constantly read Template talk:Did you know, scanning for promoted=yes. Once read, the bot then could send a notice about the promotion to the nominator, creator, etc. I think we should attempt this after the system is up and running. -- Suntag 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to do this now, but anyway, if you insert the code <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #FAFAD2; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> above the section heading in a sample template, and </div> at the end, it makes a pretty box. I think it would be pretty easy to incorporate that stuff into {{DYKsug}} inside an #if: expression that only turns them on once |promoted= is switched to "yes". —Politizer talk/contribs 20:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of what it would look like:
It can really be any color, I just happened to like #FAFAD2. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As for putting Symbol confirmed.svg in the section heading, it might be better if we use a different symbol...just because a couple reviewers and I have been playing with putting Symbol confirmed.svg and Symbol delete vote.svg in the section headings, off and on, when we accept or reject an uncontroversial hook (with the idea that it makes it easier for vetters to find those when they scroll down the page). —Politizer talk/contribs 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving it a shot now. I realized an obvious problem with my earlier idea, which is that DYKsug gets substituted, so there's no point having |promoted= in that. I tried a version that has |promoted= in DYKsuggestion, and here's what it looks like before and after:

====[[Example]]====
{{User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev
 | article = Example 
 | hook = ... that this is an '''[[Example]]'''?
 | creator = Politizer
 | promoted = no
}}
:*a comment
::*another comment
:::*more comments

Example[edit]

User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev

  • a comment
  • another comment
  • more comments
====[[Example]]====
{{User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev
 | article = Example 
 | hook = ... that this is an '''[[Example]]'''?
 | creator = Politizer
 | promoted = yes
}}
:*a comment
::*another comment
:::*more comments

Example[edit]

User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev

  • a comment
  • another comment
  • more comments

Of course, it would be nicer if we could blank out the whole section,rather than just the part within the original nomination. Unfortunately, merely removing the closing </div> tag at the end of the template would be very bad, because it would blank out the entire page beneath the nomination. So I can see two options...one is instructing vetters to delete the discussion below the template and set |promoted= to "yes"...the other is not including a closing </div> and instructing vetters to put one at the end of the section when they set |promoted= to "yes." The second option is very dangerous, as if any vetter forgets or makes a typo then the tons of noms would disappear until someone notices the mistake...so I think the first option is the only acceptable one.

(The other option, of course, is to make the code that produces this easily available to vetters and instruct them to put the div tags in when they promote. But I think that would be a bit complicated, as it requires two sets of tags...one div that opens right before the header and is closed right after, and a separate div (the one that blanks out the discussion) that begins after the header and is closed at the end of the section.) —Politizer talk/contribs 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Come to think of it, I would maybe prefer if if the hook and yada yada weren't blanked out, but just kept in the pink box. Or not. I dunno. I think what I need to do is figure out if there's some div attribute that can tell the div to automatically close itself when it encounters a new section header. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Going live[edit]

Resolved: template is live. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the ALT hook parameters might be a problem since there is no way to post comments between the original hook and ALT hook. Also, it enourages more than one hook. Two or more hooks will add to our review time. Maybe the ALT parameters should be removed for the moment. -- Suntag 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Users can always type in their own alt hook beneath the template. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What we can do is leave the ALT functionality in, but not put the ALTs in the template sample that will go in the edit notice. That way the template can still handle that, but we won't be encouraging it. Also I think we should specify that those fields are only for the nominator to suggest multiple ALTs at the time of nomination, and that future alts that come up after discussion should be suggested as normal (ie, not inside the template). Of course, that still leaves the problem of not being able to type in between the nominator's original and alt hooks...but in my experience, not many people seem to do that anyway. It seems to more often be the case tha tpeople leave a message below all the alts saying "I like ALT2...ALT1 needs x tweaked" or something like that. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what if we leave the ALTs in (although, of course, keeping it hidden from the main sample template that nominators will be copying and pasting them they nominate), but only in DYKsug, not in DYKsuggestions? Like the article header, they would be subst-ed in, only they would be subst-ed in below the DYKsuggestion template. That way, users really would be able to leave comments in between the main hook and the alt. I'm mainly thinking of this because, if we remove alt functionality from the template, then users who do want to suggest an alt while they nominate will have to do so by typing below the template...but that will cause some problems. First of all, the indentation could get weird, since the template already has an indented :* built in (and, the way things currently are, that will show up above alt hooks that nominators write manually). And, perhaps more problematically, right now manually typed alt hooks will appear below the {{-}} that's in the template. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Using the ALT split the user name and the time stamp. I just assumed that the editor would use the :* to add the alt hook. After testing the ALT parameter on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Nights in Rodanthe (novel), I added the alt to the the :*. Please feel free to all the ALT parameters back in as it might be a good way to fix any bugs. -- Suntag 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, true...but I think when I put the alt in DYKsug instead of DYKsuggestions, that won't be a problem (as the ALT will appear after the timestamp). And I think some users might want to be able to suggest their own ALT in the same edit as they nominate a hook, rather than having to nominate in one edit and then go back afterwards to suggest an alt. Anyway, I'll try it out now and see how it looks. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. -- Suntag 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Before going live, we probably should try revising the DYK noms near the bottom of the page to be inside the template to get feed back from the DYK next up date movers. Maybe you and I should manually switch in the template for each existing DYK nom to see if there are any more bugs. -- Suntag 20:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As my last act before heading out for the afternoon, I copied both of the templates to User:Politizer/DYKsugdev and User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev. That way once the template goes live, we can still use those to experiment (for example, with trying to integrate your suggestions for adding |promoted=) without breaking stuff at T:TDYK. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Need to add a link to the nominator's talk page to make it easier to get ahold of them. -- Suntag 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The template could use a |comment= parameter. For example, Alansohn noted in his nom "Article expanded from redirect". -- Suntag 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've come across several signatures that have altnames and alt talk page links. The best I could manage is exampled at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Henry C. Wayne. I used altusername for the alt user name and used the |comment= to bring out the particular talk page link. TO get the true sig, we would need an |alttalkname= parameter. The template doesn't really display a "signature" so there may be no reason to meet people's expectation to have their unique signature displayed. -- Suntag 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I don't think there's any need to add extra functionality to the template to cater to everyone's unique signature. If users want their fancy signatures bad enough and are clever about it, they might figure out to use the comment field (although that still won't suppress the (talk) link). —Politizer talk/contribs 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • {addendum) The most important thing is just that we're able to get to people's talk easily, if they need to be notified or anything. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I looked over the current DYK noms and don't see any that the template couldn't handle. Great job on the template system. -- Suntag 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue, per above. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got something working! take a look:

BEFORE PROMOTION

Example[edit]

User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev at 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • a comment
  • another comment
  • more comments

AFTER PROMOTION

Example[edit]

User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev at 02:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • a comment
  • another comment
  • more comments

How does that look? —Politizer talk/contribs 02:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I noticed is that it blanks out the date and time of nomination. But oh well. I can live with that if you guys can. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I added the queues to the bottom of Template talk:Did you know to make it easier for people to follow the location of their DYK nom. I also reformatted the Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions to make them more reader friendly. -- Suntag 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Promoted noms are deleted from the talk page. Where does or would the template continue to be used? Orlady (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right. This was an old idea to keep promoted noms on the talk page so people wouldn't be confused when their noms disappeared. But Suntag's solution of transcluding all the queues at the bottom of the page seems to have fixed that problem, so as far as I know this idea has been scrapped. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hookref[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue at this juncture. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a |hookref= parameter. It can be used by the nominator to say something like "hookref=This hook is referenced by footnotes 3 and 13 in the article." or "hookref=[1]". A completed |hookref= may help shave off a some of the time needed to review the hook. -- Suntag 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That could be nice...although, personally, I get kind of annoyed when I can't find a ref for the hook in the article and then the nominator says to me at T:TDYK "well, you can find the fact referenced in [some other random ref three paragraphs away]." I wonder if giving the nominators this option will imply that they don't need supply a clear reference in the actual article. In my opinion, the more difficult it is for a nominator to prove at T:TDYK that the hook is well-referenced, the more effort the nominator will spend in the actual article making the references clear...and, of course, the actual article is what matters. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Update - Since going live, this hasn't been an issue. It might be something to try in the future (in a few months) when things are all settled and in need of someone upsetting them in an attempt to change things. -- Suntag 13:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Alt user name issue[edit]

Resolved: decided not to pursue. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Walter Schmidt (SS officer) nomination, Jim Sweeney is the creator and Backslash Forwardslash is the nominator and displays \/ as his user identity. Putting \/ into altusername now makes Jim Sweeney's name appear as \/. We probably need |altcreatorname=, |altnominatorname=, and |altexpandername= parameters instead of just one |altusername= parameter. -- Suntag 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We could add those all to the template if you think it would be helpful, but I don't think they should be in the version that nominators see in the edit notice...it's a lot of extra stuff that's relatively esoteric and few people will need, so I think it's best to leave it to the people who take the time to figure out the template and stuff, rather than making it available to everyone, since most of those people won't need it.
Also, it will take up extra space when the template was called; I think maybe we shouldn't implement it until we figure out how to get the subst-ing in DYKsug working so that it only copies over the fields that were actually filled in, rather than copying in lots of empty fields. (I played around with that a lot but I've hit a wall, I think I need to just leave it alone for a while and see if anything inspires me.) —Politizer talk/contribs 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Update - Since going live, there hasn't been any complains about someone not being able to post their flashy sig to the nom. This seems like a non issue. -- Suntag 12:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it's late, but I think I can handle my name being in word form. (But \ / saves a lot of typing! :P) \ / ( | ) 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

|collaborator= parameter[edit]

Resolved: Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a parameter called |collaborator=. This is because of a problem a nominator pointed out at the current Irving P. Krick nom. The nominator created the article and had some help expanding it from another editor (pretty common at DYK), but listing the helper as |expander= would cause the nom to say that person did a 5x expansion (implying that he did that a while after article creation, rather than pretty much concurrently). So anyway, I added |collaborator= for situations such as that.

And while we're here, I've been noticing that the list of parameters here in the template is growing (and I might be forced to make a |collaborator2= parameter soon), and I don't really like having all those empty parameters sitting around at T:TDYK. If we could figure out a way to make {{DYKsug}} only call the parameters that actually get filled in (when it called {{DYKsuggestion}}) that wouldn't be a problem, but I've been stumped on how to get that working (maybe I can drop Ameliorate! a line). Barring that, though, this might be a good time to start considering which of the parameters we still need, and which we could drop. Here are my thoughts:

  • |movedtomainspace=
    • Users could specify that themselves using |comment=, so this might be redundant. I don't know how often people use it anyway.
  • |altusername=
    • I know Suntag is in favor of expanding this, but personally I still think the altusername thing is making us bend over backwards for people with flashy signatures, and I don't know if we need it.

There it is. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

|movedtomainspace= is redundant with the actual posting of a hook below a date and can be explained using |comment= (as you point out). Now that things are up and running, it seems we were overly concerned about *|altusername=. I don't think people really care about having their flashy name appear. Maybe we can have a bot read TDYK and summarize the times each parameter is used to determine whether to keep or remove a parameter. The Train melody article had four creators, so I think there should be |collaborator2= and |collaborator3= options.
I can add those parameters tonight; should be pretty simple. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Also, I think we should really make it clear to people that there's the |comment= parameter, because I think that can save us a lot of hassles without needing to build extra functionality into the template...people with really crazy noms can add comments to explain what's going on. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Alt hooks?[edit]

Ok, thanks to Ameliorate's template, I think the section editing and subst-ing problems have been solved. Now on to the new question:

I've set it up to take as many as 7 alt hooks. But this makes the template become really huge in the edit window, with lots of parameters that will probably never be used. One thing I'm thinking is to remove all but two of the ALT hook parameters from the shell template (Ameliorate's), and assume that when people want to add alt hooks in the future they can manually add a new ALT3= parameter when they're in the edit window...but it's probably still good to have two ALT hooks possible in Ameliorate's shell template, since sometimes people suggest alt hooks at the same time as they're nominating (and for anything to show up at the moment it's nominated, it has to be in Ameliorate's template).

But anyway, my main question is, is it even worthwhile to bother having alt hooks in the template? Will it be useful for anything? —Politizer talk/contribs 08:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that many are needed. One perhaps, but it's normally others that come along who add alternate hooks, not the nominator, so there would be no need to have it in the template. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I think Art was suggesting at WT:DYK that we put all alts into the template (ie, later people suggesting them would also put them there) if we eventually want to automate things like counting hook length and standardizing the format...but I don't know if that is ever going to happen, or is worth the trouble. Also, I just thought, if alt hooks are all bunched at the top then it would make it hard to follow when each one was suggested in relation to the discussion that was going on about the nomination... —Politizer talk/contribs 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am confused. I nominated an article using the {{DYKsuggestion}} template and included one ALTernate hook ... I actually copied another suggestion and changed the contents of the template, which is what most people would do. The ALT hook did not appear. There seems to have been a lot of discussion about ALT hooks on this discussion page, with the result apparently that 2 ALT hooks can be proposed by the nominator in the template; the template has been modified to remove all ALT hooks. What is the correct way to handle ALT hooks? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the ALTs were taken out. I'm reverting back to the version that had ALTs in... but, as per the above discussion, for now at least we might not include the |ALT1= and |ALT2= parameters in the example (in other words, it would be good to keep the template able to handle them, but not necessarily encourage people to use them a lot). Anyway, the ALTs should appear after this. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

alt attribute[edit]

How to suggest alt attribute for pics? Pls add such an option. --74.14.18.55 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to add, but is it necessary? I've never seen a DYK nominator in the past submit a picture with |alt= specified. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, people keep forgetting. Sigh... That's why DYK is consistently the only section on the main page where the picture doesn't have a proper ALT text. Go and mouse over to check. --74.14.20.24 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I always was under the impression that it's the responsibility of the promoter to add alt text when he moves an image to Next. At least, that's what I always do. —Politizer talk/contribs 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I had set up the "next update" before BorgQueen clued me in that "ROLLOVER CAPTION GOES HERE" means "caption to be used in the ALT tag". I had no idea what "ROLLOVER CAPTION" meant. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
So |alt= is how that is done. I think adding an |alt= would be useful. -- Suntag 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can put that in. I imagine the majority of nominators won't use it, though (even before the template, I don't think most people specified the alt...although I might be wrong), so we reviewers will have to continue being wary for it.
And I'm not sure if it would really help anyway, other than serving as a reminder to the promoter that they need to add an alt. Because the image is retained within the template, it's not like the past when we could just copy and paste the whole [[Image:____|100x100px|image of an image]] in in one fell swoop...with this, you would still have to paste the image name over, come back to T:TDYK, and paste the alt text over separately...and at least when I do promotions, the alt text I make is pretty much a no-brainer. If you guys think it would help to have it there as a reminder, then I can still add the parameter, but I don't think it will actually make promoters' lives any easier...
I could try having the image be inserted by {{DYKsug}} instead of {{DYKsuggestion}}, in which case the image would get subst'ed in and then a single cut and paste would be possible. I don't know if there are any drawbacks to that that you guys can think of. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification parameters[edit]

Perhaps working with DYK bot developer Ameliorate!, this template could include notification parameters (e.g. |N1=, |N2=, and |N3=). The bot would continually scan Template talk:Did you know. If someone commented on the nomination and felt that the nominator needed to respond, they could set N1=yes. If N1=yes, the bot would set N1=Done and then place a notification template (such as {{DYKproblem}}) on the nominator's talk page. If the nominator replied and another non approval response was given that needed the reply of the nominator, N2 could be set to yes. The bot would read N2=yes, change N2=done, and place another DYK notice on the nominator's talk page. -- Suntag 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm sounds pretty complex. But maybe if Ameliorate! can do it, perhaps. We really should have stuff like this added to the system header. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Might be useful; first maybe we should do a little survey and see how often people use {{DYKproblem}} or some other notification strategy as is, to gauge whether or not this is needed. Personally, I notify people a lot anyway, so I don't need a bot for this (although maybe it would help); but if a lot of other reviewers are discouraged from notifying because it's tedious, then this might be useful. Really, overall I don't think there's any way this idea could be a bad thing, but it mainly is just a question of how much payoff we'll get for the work that would go into making a bot (which I assume would be a lot of work) and whether or not that would make it worth our while. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Markup in creator, expander, nominator fields[edit]

Some nominators have been placing their signatures in the |creator=, |expander=, or |nominator= fields, which creates a lot of ugly markup at T:TDYK (since the template is currently built to put that markup in on its own). We should probably look into making the template recognize when there are tildes or markup'ed names (in the form of [[User:Example|Example]]) and not insert its own markup when those show up. I haven't been able to look into that lately and probably won't have enough time for a little while; I'm not necessarily saying one of you guys needs to do it for me, but if you could at least keep it in the back of your mind and try to think of ideas for how to do it, that would be nice! —Politizer talk/contribs 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The current string is

    {{#if:{{{creator|}}}|Created by [[User:{{{creator}}}|{{#if:{{{altusername|}}}|{{{altusername}}}|{{{creator}}}}}]]

    If creator=~~~~, then the template should output ~~~, which is just the person's name bolded. How about modifying it something like

    {{#if:{{{creator|}}}|{{#if:creator=~~~~|Created by ~~~|Created by [[User:{{{creator}}}|{{#if:{{{altusername|}}}|{{{altusername}}}|{{{creator}}}}}]].

    Alternatively, you can change the name of the parameter to |creatorNot~~~~=. That way, the parameter itself says Not to use ~~~~. -- Suntag 12:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try out your code; I figured it would be doable, I just never actually got up the gumption to do it. I think the only thing we need to add is {{#if:creator=~~~|Created by ~~~}} , for people those tilde masters who know to use three instead of four.
    • As for |createdNot—Politizer talk/contribs 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)=, that could also be useful and I could change if if you think it's worth pursuing. I might try to do it at a weird time, since {{DYKsuggestion}} transclusions at T:TDYK could be broken for a minute while I'm doing the busy work of changing all of them by hand. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Need to define "creator"[edit]

I notice that some nominators are populating the "creator" field with the name of the user who created the article as a stub an eon ago. There should be an annotation that the creator, collaborator, and expander fields are only for people who should get credit if the hook is featured in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll see what I can do. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: While I agree that that stuff needs to be specified, I don't know if updating the template documentation will solve the problem. (I'm going to update the documentation anyway, of course, but that's not enough.) I doubt many people actually look at the template documentation before they make a nomination. As far as I can tell, the only real solution is to create an edit notice that gives nominators much more specific usage information; the edit notice right now basically just gives examples of the parameters you can use, but it doesn't say what to put in them. Some of those problems can be fixed by more work on the template (for example, the issue of people putting signatures instead of plain-text names...if I can figure out what the heck I'm doing, I should be able to program the template so it recognizes that stuff and doesn't fail when it gets signatures in it), but some can't—whether or not to list the article creator, for example, isn't something the template can solve for itself, it's something nominators just have to know. Maybe changing the parameter name to something more expressive would help (although I can't think of a good example right now...but something to express "creator if this is a new article = "). —Politizer talk/contribs 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's an example of what I have in mind when I talk about making an edit notice with instructions:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; b
  • We didn't seem to have this problem before the template, so people do understand the difference between creator, expander, etc. I think they see a parameter and fill it in without concern of how it is used, thinking that the more parameters filled in, the better. The examples provided in the metadata page already do not use a creator parameter for not self-noms. More instructions probably won't help. The first thing we should try is to modify the template. The template can be modified so that the creator parameter only shows up if the expander parameter is not filled in. If expander=anything, then creator parameter=blank even if filled in by the editor. And I'm not sure how big a problem this is. If the expander parameter is filled in, then the credit poster should know to not give credit to the creator and the next update poster should know not to carry forth the creator's name. -- Suntag 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • As I see it, when people nominated DYKs free-form, they provided the information that they thought was relevant. Now that there is a template resembles a form to be filled in, some people conscientiously fill in all of the items for which they have information. Upon reflection, I think the clarification I'm looking for should be on the suggestions page and not in the template itself. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, I think people are filling in as many fields as they can, which is why I thought adding a clearer example would help. I don't see any problems with Suntag's suggestion of causing the expander parameter to override creator, unless some people are using |expander= when they should be using |collaborator=, but I don't know how often that happens. It should be pretty simple to code...the only problem is that then, of course, people aren't learning not to use that field, since it makes the correction out of the nominator's sight. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I just now added text to Template:DYKsugstrings to explain what these fields are for. I think that will serve the intented purpose. I dislike the idea of making fancy changes to the template to cause the expander parameter to override the creator parameter -- it's that kind of well-intentioned feature that causes templates to misfire, and that leads users (me, for example) to curse all templates. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops...as you were doing that, I was making the fancy changes to the template! It seems to work fine for now (I tested it with several different thinks using User:Politizer/DYKsugdev so how about we leave it like this for a day or so, and if anything happens we immediately revert to this revision of the template. (Just follow that link, click "edit," and then save the edit without doing anything.) I will try to keep an eye on things, but I will be in class for a couple hours, so if anything is going wrong and you don't see me taking any action then don't hesitate to revert back to that version. Thanks! —Politizer talk/contribs 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we missing closing brackets?[edit]

The |creator= and |expander= codes, as Suntag pointed out, are pretty much like this:

{{#if:{{{creator|}}}|Created by [[User:{{{creator}}}|{{#if:{{{altusername|}}}|{{{altusername}}}|{{{creator}}}}}]]

I have looked at this 5 times now and I swear it looks like the closing brackets are missing...I didn't even notice until I tried adding the signature functionality and getting lost. How is this template still working? I can't figure out what's going on anymore. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The template probably is drawing a closing }} brackets from one of the rarely used parameters, which may be why we never notice the problem. -- Suntag 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Signing noms[edit]

I notice a lot of people placing their signature at the end of a nom, like this:

{{subst:DYKsug | article = .... stuff..... }} ~~~~

And when that gets saved, since the template already creates that stuff, it yields something like this:

at 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Badagnani (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we just do away with the automatic timestamp and make all users sign? As far as I can tell, most users seem to want to sign anyway.

For some background...the original reason we made the template automatically stamp and sign was because of |nominator= ... since the template already says "nominated by" it would be redundant to have that and a sig, so I just made the template default to "Self nom" + time, and do "Nominated by X" + time when |nominator= is specified. If you guys think we should bring back signing, I think it would be pretty easy... we could just make |nominator= a dummy parameter that sits there and doesn't actually do anything in the template (since the nominator's ~~~~ already tells you who nominated) other than be nice and easy for the promoter to grab when he's moving the hook and credits to Next. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most templates leave out the automatic signature/timestamp. Remove the timestamp from the template coding and revise the instructions to use

{{subst:DYKsug | article = .... stuff..... }} ~~~~

and we'll see if that makes things better. -- Suntag 13:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change in the instructions. I'm hesitating to remove the auto-timestamp just yet, though, because it means if people are doing it from memory (rather than copying and pasting the template that's in the instructions) we might end up with several days of noms with no signature, and therefore no record of when they were nominated. I'm trying to think of a good way to handle that... —Politizer talk/contribs 15:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a change of heart and took ~~~~ back out of the instructions. This is because I remembered that {{DYKsug}} automatically generates both the :* for the first comment, and, more crucially for this matter, the {{-}} in image noms... and using a sig with DYKsug will make the signature show up after both of those (and, more often than not, with an extra space in front of it, making it show up in one of those ugly boxes like stuff does when it has a space before it). I can't think of any way around that; personally, I'm thinking people putting an extra sig at the end is less of a problem than this would be, so we might be better off just sticking with what we have. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The {{-}} is only needed if there is an image and then only if there are no comments below the hook. Saying "Please do not ... remove this line" might be a little strong since I occasionally remove the line once the discussion gets going. Maybe revise the language from "Please do not write below this line or remove this line" to read "This {{-}} template prevents this hook from floating around the hook immediately below. Remove if not needed. Please do not write below this line."-- Suntag 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ALT1 and ALT2[edit]

Is the template user supposed to know whether these elements are for (1) alternative hooks or (2) ALT tags for the image? I can see this being a source of confusion. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll see what I can do to clarify. Thanks, Orlady, —Politizer talk/contribs 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Template does not always produce a date[edit]

In my last nomination, I obediently omitted the signature (which I had included previously in order to generate a date and time), with the result that there is no date or time on my nomination. There are several other recent nominations on Template talk:Did you know that are undated. Apparently there is a field somewhere in the template that is supposed to add a date, but that field is not always invoked. Either the template needs to be revised to consistently add a date and time, or nominators should be permitted to sign their nominations. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'll take a look. I'm pretty sure the date thing is independent of all the parameters, but I'll try to fiddle with it this afternoon. Thanks for the notice. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The only parameters I actually filled in were hook and expander, but I included several empty fields in the template for Ken Mink. Some other noms that are lacking dates include the ones for Norfolk Island Pigeon (used hook, creator, nominator, and image), Ron Ben-Yishai (used hook, creator, and nominator), Marc Guylaine (used hook, nominator, and comment), and HMS Artifex (F28) (used hook, creator, and image). --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So you didn't fill in |article=? Does that mean you were typing the header by hand and then using {{DYKsuggestion}}? That would explain the lack of date: the dates are put in by {{DYKsug}}. As things are now, {{DYKsuggestion}} is not meant to be used by humans; the intention is for nominators to use {{DYKsug}}, which in turn calls {{DYKsuggestion}} (there actually is a good reason for this seemingly weird thing, having to do with allowing section editing). I don't mean to say "you're using it wrong" or anything, because you haven't done anything wrong; all this really means is that the template still has design flaws (ideally, it should be clear to users how to use it...my philosophy is that a problem that happens using the template should never be considered the user's fault, but my fault).
I can think of a couple solutions right now (other than totally overhauling the template and changing how everything works, which I don't think anyone wants to deal with). One is to be really in-your-face with people about using {{DYKsug}} instead of {{DYKsuggestion}}...my hope had been that providing the copy-and-paste examples would encourage people to do that, but I guess that now people are getting used to it a lot of people are doing it by hand, and {{DYKsuggestion}} is more mnemonic than {{DYKsug}}. Which leads me to my next possible solution...flip the names. Make {{DYKsuggestion}} be the name of the shell template, and {{DYKsug}} be the core. That would probably drive regulars crazy for a couple days, but maybe in the end we would come out on the other side with a more intuitive system. The third solution is to totally hide {{DYKsuggestion}} behind some totally unintuitive name, such as {{Hibbidy jibbidy}}, that no one in their right mind would ever call at T:TDYK, and then have both {{DYKsug}} and {{DYKsuggestion}} redirect here. IMO, that is not really a solution, because it's just silly, among other things. My preference I think is the second (switching the names), although we would somehow need to make it clear that you must specify the |article= parameter in it.
Or, of course, people can still continue to use {{DYKsuggestion}} the way it is, if they know how things work—if you want to use it the way you are using it (add your own header, then call the template) you can sign it with tildes and everything should be fine. But that's probably not clear to anyone who doesn't know the template inside-and-out, and very few people do, and I certainly can't expect to make everyone read through all the code. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Titles and names[edit]

Not knowing anything about codes, I tried to reproduce what i saw in other entries, so used the wiki brackets around the title and name, which the template takes care of. Also, while it may seem obvious, maybe you should specify that people use "User names". Despite having been on wikipedia for more than a year, when seeing the new template ask for my "name", at first I gave my real one, then realized the mistake. Have learned a lot on here, but there was something about this that threw me off. Also didn't know if I was supposed to delete unused portions of the template. I copied the whole thing from another page.--Parkwells (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments! I think these are both issues that can be solved by having clearer instructions, so I'll try to think about ways to make these issues clearer. Also, there is probably some way to make the template accept both wikified and non-wikified articles (ie, some way to tell it, "if you get Example, write ====[[ ]]==== around it; if you get [[Example]], only write ==== ==== around it") but I haven't figured out yet how to do that. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the instructions should visually mimic the ones for AfD since people seem to substitute templates there all the time. Also, do we need parameters showing up on the DYK suggestion page? I forgot why we did that in the first place. The promotors now have the credit strings already generated for them. By removing the parameters,

====[[Gale Ann Benson]]==== {{DYKsuggestion<!--Please do not copy this code directly for nominating. Instead, use {{subst:DYKsug}} as described in the header.--> | hook = ... that '''[[Gale Ann Benson]]''' being a spy, as portrayed in the movie ''[[The Bank Job]]'', was called "ludicrous" by her brother? | creator = XLerate | creator2 = | creator3 = | creator4 = | expander = | expander2 = | expander3 = | nominator = | comment = | image = | credits = *{{DYKmake|Gale Ann Benson|XLerate}} }} at 11:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC) :*

becomes

====[[Gale Ann Benson]]==== *... that '''[[Gale Ann Benson]]''' being a spy, as portrayed in the movie ''[[The Bank Job]]'', was called "ludicrous" by her brother? — Created by [[User:XLerate|XLerate]] ([[User talk:XLerate|talk]]). Self nom at 11:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC) {{DYKsuggestion *{{DYKmake|Gale Ann Benson|XLerate}} }} :*

On the other hand, I'm not sure that a few people not knowing how to use substitution is a problem. I do like having the parameters on the DYK suggestion page because it spreads things out and allows me to add images and otherwise revise the nom as needed.-- Suntag 12:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I like having the parameters this way just because it makes stuff easy to see, regardless of whether or not people need to use them anymore to grab for the credits. As for the instructions, I'm certainly not averse to formatting them sort of like AfD—that has been a model in the back of my mind for a while now—the only difference is that AfD is a multi-step process across several pages, whereas this is a single step, so instructions will be a bit different. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

You should rename template:DYKsuggestion to make it distinct from template:DYKsug (so people are less inclined to use template:DYKsuggestion, perhaps template:DYKDontUseThisTemplate) and then rename DYKsug as DYKsuggestion. -- Suntag 19:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I considered that as well (above) but then stopped thinking about it for a while. There are advantages, like you pointed out; the main problem I see, though, is that if people are using {{DYKsuggestion}} on their own now (and I'm pretty sure some people are; I've been seeing noms where extra fields such as |expander2= are missing, and the only way to do that is either to use DYKsug and then go back and manually delete empty fields later, or to use DYKsuggestion on its own) they might continue trying to use it, unaware that it has changed to what is now DYKsug. So they'll end up with two headers, two signatures, etc.
Maybe that's not a huge deal...since after doing that once, they'll probably notice how things are all funny and then look into what's going on and hopefully start using the good template. I'm not sure.
The other thing is, from a technical standpoint there's nothing wrong with using DYKsuggestion on its own, if you know to add your own header and your own signature. Of course, there are other little perks to using DYKsug (it creates credit templates, overrides |creator= if a |expander= is specificed, and overrides |nominator= if the nominator is the same person as the creator/expander).
Anyway, I wouldn't be averse to renaming the templates, I just figured we should think a little bit about these issues before we do anything. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If/when we do make the move, here's how we'd have to go about it, to avoid breaking T:TDYK.
First, move {{DYKsuggestion}} to {{DYKDontUseThisTemplate}} (or whatever we decide to name it), leaving a redirect here, so that the translucions at T:TDYK still work.
Second, go to T:TDYK and manually replace every instance of DYKsuggestion with the new name (this will be pretty tedious; it might be doable with AWB if anyone has that).
Third, get one of the admins to delete the redirect at DYKsuggestion.
Finally, move DYKsug to DYKsuggestion (over the old redirect) and leave a redirect at DYKsug. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I just realized, we'll need an admin to make the move, as the template is permanently protected. I think a good name for the new one would be {{DYKsuggestionCore}} or something along those lines. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason I proposed the move is because "DYKsug" and "DYKsuggestion" are too similar in name and that may be part of why some people are not using "DYKsug". I don't think changing "DYKsuggestion" to "DYKsuggestionCore" would address this. As for the switch over, create the new template:DYKPolitizer template using the present coding of "DYKsuggestion". Revise DYKsug to draw from template:DYKPolitizer. Wait about ten days to let the DYK suggestion page update to the new template. Then move DYKsug to "{{subst:DYK1}}" (see subst:AFD1 for name similarity) and then delete DYKsug. Right now, we have the "DYK suggestion page", "template:DYKsug," and "template:DYKsuggestion," which is confusing. -- Suntag 12:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me; the main reason I suggested DYKsuggestioncore was to mimic {{Copyviocore}}, which also is a template called by a shell template and not meant to be used by humans. But yeah, most people are probably not familiar with that anyway so just seeing "-core" wouldn't necessarily tell them not to use it, you're probably right that it's not the best solution. I do feel a little funny using a name like {{DYKPolitizer}}, since it will be transcluded all over T:TDYK and might not make sense...is there a way we can have the template's meaning and purpose be clear through the naming, but also be clar that it's not meant to be used? I'll try to brainstorm a bit. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

End of Archive—for Did you knowDYK comment symbolMy76Strat • talk • email 23:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)