Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs/Archive 1

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

New referencing scheme...

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

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

Why not include more?

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

There are only 111 people who have DYK contribs that are identifiable. I say top 40 at most. How about that? Anonymous Dissident Utter 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have no particular qualms with it the way it is now, mind you, this is only a suggestion put out there. But it is called "List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs", and not "List of top 25 Wikipedia Did you know? contributors". We have plenty of room, why not give those the option if they wish to list themselves, to list all 111, by number of DYKs? The top 25 or what have you will still naturallly appear at the top. Smee 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
Good point. Ok. If they can be listed, then fine. Anonymous Dissident Utter 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. It's probably easiest to tell where people are, if they can create and refer to their hooks or articles that made it successfully to DYK... Smee 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

New awards

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

In the process...

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

Done, regards - P.K.Niyogi 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Smee 07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Table

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

I do not know how the users can be numbered in the Table. However, I feel that even without serial numbers or rankings it is okay. Many users are adding DYKs regularly. Therefore, rankings will fluctuate regulalrly. We can reorder the names as per number of DYKs once in two/three months. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. In that case, I will remove the list, and we'll just have the table. But, if anyone objects and puts back the list as well, that will be fine too. Smee 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
It looks okay. I hope users will update it regularly. - P.K.Niyogi 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling they will... Smee 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Haha! You think it has become a competition, and you are right. It is ineviatble I guess, but it has corrupted the purpose of this list - which was originally to simply portray how people are going, and how the count sits. Each editor was supposed to be sort of oblivious to it, simply updating it when they made another DYK. Now people have gone on massive creation/nomination drives, and while this is good, it is clear that they want to be ahead of the competition. Oh well. I guess it doesnt matter too much. Anonymous Dissident Utter 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see it that way at all. I know for me, I am only competing against myself, in order to create new articles with good, reputable sourced citations. Sure, I'd love to get my own number up, but only in relation to where I was previously in the past... Smee 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
When you put it that way...I guess you are right. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose each individual editor has their own personal reasoning, so we are probably both right in some ways... Smee 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Update

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

Joining the party

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

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

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

Added

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

yeah, it is cool eh? However, there is a numerical value, and, because of alphabetical precedance, you come just below me. Thanks for adding yourself though :) Anonymous Dissident Utter 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up me mess matey. IvoShandor 13:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey - no problem. Everyone makes mistakes. Anonymous Dissident Utter 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame

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

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

Shoot, I need to get cracking....

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

Dont worry -- You'll get there someday. Keep up the hard work! Anonymous Dissident Utter 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Too bad one idea I have would be a good inclusion for April Fools Day. Maybe I can work on it more so I can get it to FA status as well. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot one. Now it's 10. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Alphabetical Precedence

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

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

References

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

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

Is the list manually created?

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

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

Updating...and then moving upwards

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

Is there anything like this for GA?

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

I guess you could make one...although GAs can be thrown off as well....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is how do you go about it. Because of the amount of effort it takes to create a GA there are various claims for different contribution levels. I consider myself the main editor of 32 current WP:GAs plus a couple of articles that have become WP:FAs. However, I have nominated Hilary Clinton while only making an edit or two. My 21 edits at Britney Spears rank me about 61st on the edit count list. I have made slightly more significant contributions at Tiger Woods where my 34 edits rank me 11th. Where it is rare for a DYK to have more than 1 or 2 important contributors, this is not the case for a GA. How would you go about such a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Promotions vs creations

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

For expansions, I'd say you take the credit for the creation (since you technically created over 80% of the article) in both cases. That's what I do. Wizardman 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K., so if I take a 250 character article to 2000 characters, should I give the guy who did the first 250 a credit as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see a need to do that. Wizardman 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hook save

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

I've never taken a nomination credit for this. I think nominating is about introducing new articles to DYK, not being the person who writes a final draft of the hook. --JayHenry 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, one does not get credit (that is displayed here, at least), from a hook rewrite. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding myself

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

Yep, just add and update yourself. if you could find an exact number, that'd be great. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, done it. Sam Blacketer 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I moved you up to the correct position; the list is ascending, after all. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK Participation list

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

25DYK?

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

Indeed you qualify for the participation list. Willkommen! In cases of a tie in participation, you may rank yourself by number of creations. In your case that would be between Miss Madeline and Peter Vardy. Congrats! --JayHenry (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I had almost forgotten that April Fool's Day nomination and wasn't sure if it would count (does happy dance). :) DurovaCharge! 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just discovered this page...

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

Proposal

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

missing verb

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

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

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

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

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

Awards

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

Will do. – RyRy (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, JayHenry (talk · contribs) did it before I was about to. -- RyRy (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

  • If you help out updating at DYK you can add this userbox to your userpage: {{User DYK helper}} Cirt (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sortable

If we make the table sortable for the columns "Creations†", "Nominations" and "Total", we can get rid of the section "DYK Creations/expansions list". Punkmorten (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Won't work; {{nts}} needs to be applied to the numbers in the table first. Gary King (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Too confusing for me

I'm currently showing as 30 DYKs. I think I'm on 47, with two noms in waiting at the moment. I have a really good one in mind for the 50th - just got to write the article first though <g> - so could someone please check and update me? Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, scrap that. I've checked and I've had 48 expanded/created and 2 nominated. Does this mean I already have my 50? I've amended my place in the table. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominating for awards

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good discovery! Can you add them to the list (Nihll will need to wait a bit). I would do it for them but not sure how many are nom or creations. (You do know that anyone can give the medals out?). Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
All of them list only their own creations, as far as as I can tell. I'd prefer for sb else to hand out the medals - I interact with them on a near daily basis, and they know well I respect their work - it would mean more to them to have somebody else officially recognize their work, I'd think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've handed them out. Very interesting articles they have there. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So who's counting?

... which I mean literally rather than rhetorically. Insofar as the count matters, I believe I have 10 or 15 more than I'm credited with here. I presume it would be entirely uncouth to up my own number. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone updates the list sytematically, do they? So if you don't update it, no one else is likely to. See most edits in the history.Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's OK to update one's own count? No wonder I'm lagging. I didn't even know anyone was counting until someone gave me the award for having 25 when I had about 45! - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its a little weird now. I was like you and didn't know about the update counting procedure until I received some "metals". It seems to be very "loose". I would not put much stake in their "counts". —Mattisse (Talk) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

So, I am not sure if I understand exactly how this chart works. I have been keeping track of the DYK articles I have created/expanded/nominated here, including a list of hooks and tags I have received on my talk page. From my own count, I have created/expanded 9 DYK articles, and nominated 16 articles by others that have appeared on the Main Page. I added my name to the bottom of the list (25), only to discover my name was already listed higher in the list at 41. Can someone please explain to me (or direct me to an explanation) as to how this works. I am not sure how I got up to 41. I have been counting just based on the number of DYK receipts I have received. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Just for the record, it is now 27. I will hold on updating my total on the list until this is resolved. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. I am not sure if a mistake was made before, but I went ahead and removed the higher entry and simply updated by entry at the bottom to show 28. Now sure who/why my name was added at 41, but it's all good. I will continue keeping track my my DYK entries based on the number of receipts I receive. Thanks to all the people that help with the DYK project! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Hi there, is there a committee that hands out medals? I ask because the following seem to have qualified without being awarded anything as yet (a couple are quite new but others have been around for a bit - the fact that I'm on the list of course has nothing to do with my interest...!):

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian, you have just been put "on the committee" .... the list of people above all need awards. Any fellow wikipedian can do it. Anyone! You don't need to be an admin or even to have an account. You can just do it. If someone awards 75% of these then someone else might finish the job. I'm sure you are not the only person reading this. If you are reading this and can edit ... then have a go! Ian looks as if he would appreciate it even if done by a first timer. Be BOLD! Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before, but after I added my name to the bottom of the list, I wound up giving most of these people (including Ian) the 25 DYK awards, back in August. I agree with Victuallers, everyone appreciates someone reading through their contributions and giving them the medal. Even me! dm (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Medals

We currently have a medal for 25, 50, 100 and 200 DYKs. I'd like to propose that the next medal should be for 500 DYKs. Currently User:Alansohn is the only editor eligible for the proposed medal, but User:Cbl62 isn't too far off. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just needs someone to design it then! Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Good idea ... if you are thinking about style then why not look at the veteran editor awards as they seem to have worked out what's better than gold in terms of making each one grander than the last. At present the 100 looks much better than the 200, and the 500 should look the best of all. Victuallers (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

500 and 1000 medal needed

Still adding to note that we will soon need a 1000 medal for PFHLai. I know some think that nomming is not really DYKing. However PFHLai has made hundreds of editors happy with their "15 minutes of fame". Moreover (s)he stops the DYK page from being about the same place or same type of motorbike, same churches, etc I have moved him/her? to the top of the list. Actually I know that 800 is a vast understatement but it will do until (s)he gets a tadge closer to 1000.... and its not far off! Victuallers (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My photoshop skills are pretty rudimentary, but here's what I came up with for the 500. Was thinking the 1000 should be something really spectacular, had this idea of photoshopping a picture of the sun as the round portion, but not sure I've got the skills to pull that off...
Did you know 500 medal image.png The 500 DYK Medal
Doo doo doo doo, connect the dots... Geraldk (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we create separate awards for creators and nominators. It's like confusing Featured Article writers with reviewers: both do useful job, but they are significantly different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish between creations/expansions and nominations

Creating/expanding a DYK takes several hours. Nominations takes several minutes. I never understood why they are lumped together...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They should be completely separate. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
They are separated on the top list and the bottom list is exclusively for creations and expansions. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The bottom list is useful, the top one not as much, particularly as it is used for primary recognition of editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
By completely separate, I mean that the authored and co-authored DYKs should be in one list, the top one, and nominated DYKs on another list, with no redundancy. No list should have both types as it makes ranking impossible. The two types should not be treated as equal value.
Or perhaps we can assign a value of one one-hundredth of a point to nominations, and do away with the second list. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The difference. IMO. One takes much longer, but one is done not for yourself, but just to help someone who is trying to help wikipedia. That's why some (eg me) think they are about equal. If you don't agree then don't join the top list, but just add to the second one? Anyone who thinks doing 1,000 successful nominations of a random newbies work is easy, then please have a go... We could do with more people being helped to bring their work to DYK. Victuallers (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to quantify both; as Victuallers notes, clean up and nomination can be quite time consuming as well. But they are sufficiently different that they shouldn't be added together. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a serious issue, that cannot be resolved in an non-binding talk, due to large number of senior editors involved. Perhaps an official vote would be in order, with an announcement at the top of the List? The DYK nominations, even if energy consuming, do not require the same creative input as writing new articles. They should not be added together for many reasons. For example, I have seen experienced contributors indignant about having their new articles snatched by the professional DYK racers, long before they had the time to self-nominate them. There’s no doubt that nominating one’s own article is most rewarding, and in my opinion, it should be given priority. The article creators should be encouraged to nominate their own articles via an official template and given sufficient time to do it, before anybody else is allowed to nominate for them without asking. --Poeticbent talk 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. I'm still confused. If combining these things has no value then why get concerned about it? There is a list for purists below. (Which I have not joined)... I like the way things are.
  2. re. "Snatching" a nomination of an article in preparation. a) put it in a sandbox b) There is only a 5 day window so difficult to be that early and you can always move it back a few days c) I thought there was less value (some say) in a nomination...? If so then why worry? You still get the credit for creating it. There is no prize!
  3. Just realised!.... there is a bit of a prize... I am one of the dozen (or a lot more) who will have to give back DYK medals if you decide not to combine scores as Anonymous Dissident did when he created this list. So I don't feel I can comment any further on this matter until you guys have come to a conclusion. Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The DYK medals are a badge of honor for many of us, awarded in accordance with the existing guidelines. The guidelines might change to better reflect the growing importance of the List, but the new rules cannot be retroactive. The medals, which were already awarded are forever safe. However, in case we agree on a different approach, we would also give a new boost to article creation drive and improve on the existing credit system. The writers not always received the honorable DYK template on their talk page when their articles were nominated by others, especially in the past. Please search the very top of the List for the examples. Some writers have their articles nominated without knowledge even before their articles are finished.[2] --Poeticbent talk 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And I quote: "it makes ranking impossible." You might want to read about Wikipediholism and the related pages on that, as I don't believe we are here for rankings or awards. If you are here for those reasons, then you may be on Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. DYK recognition is a reward, and that's all it is. It is not a race, there are no winners, there are no losers. This list simply helps keep track of where people are at so they can be given the appropriate long-term award when they reach milestones. These are meant to encourage participation, not to be a race. Again, if you are here for a race or rankings, perhaps sign up for your local 10K or marathon. Here is what we are on Wikipedia for. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you agree or not, that the system needs to be re-examined? However, if your intention is to suggest further improvement to ranking, would you support this proposal? --Poeticbent talk 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think the system needs to be examined. My intention is to point out to those who want to change the system because they think one type of contribution is better than another or want to be ranked higher in the lists, that these people might want to re-examine why they are on Wikipedia, and what the goals of Wikipedia are. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely lecture on why we are all here. It makes me think there is a disconnect between theory (generosity of spirit, idealism) and practice (a page of Wikipedians listed in a ranked table.) This existence of this WP:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs "article" is the argument against pure idealism. Sure, by writing and scanning new articles for DYK-worthy bits we are all giving a great deal to our fellow humans. Marvelous. After acknowledging that, we can have a bit of fun with this list of achievement. Personally, I have no need to re-examine my purpose here—I'm doing just fine, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
All studies of editors motivation (WP:ACST) have noted that editors value idealism, but also value being recognized by peers (sure, there are always exceptions). As such, I am all for recognizing DYK nominators, DYK writers, T:TDYK maintenace guys, and everybody else on this project, in as many ways as possible, and as often as possible (positive reinforcement is crucial). The more nuanced the recognition, the better (it shows that somebody thought for a few seconds about you instead of slapping an automated barnstar on you). Thus I think that DYK nominators should be recognized separately from DYK writers. Without saying anything about which work is better (since they are all needed), I will repeat again that they are different enough to deserve different lists and medals. Again, think of it not as "one is better", but "the more nuanced recognition, the better we show we care about what a given editor is doing". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the biggest hurdle to separating the two tables is the counting of the DYK awards. How do you separate these tables and still recognize people's contributions of all sorts? I think DYK medals should be given out separately for nominations and for authored contributions, such that somebody who nominates 24 DYK articles from others plus one that he wrote himself will not get the 25 DYK award until he makes a 25th nomination from somebody else, or authors 24 new articles or 5x expansions that are nominated. This change in policy would be put into place without any past awards being taken away—no retroactive penalties. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding separate tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus was reached—the group decided to award and list DYK creations and expansions separately from DYK nominations, with no retroactive effect on past awards. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Let us determine whether the DYK community wishes to separate the tally of DYK creations and expansions from the tally of DYK nominations. If supported, we would no longer add the two tallies together for an editor's DYK total—each editor would have two unconnected tallies, and would in the future be awarded DYK medals based on each of the tallies but not on the sum of them. Here is a sample of what the tables would look like when separated. Note that already-awarded medals are retained:

DYK creations and expansions list

Table
User Creations &
Expansions
25 DYK Award 50 DYK Award 100 DYK Award 200 DYK Award Article list
Alansohn 506 Green tickY - - Green tickY User talk:Alansohn & archives 4, 6 & 7 and subsequent archives
Cbl62 444 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY DYK Archive
Geschichte 370 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User:Geschichte/Recognition#DYK
Piotrus 300 - - Green tickY Green tickY User:Piotrus, User:Piotrus/DYKnoms
Bedford 262 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User:Bedford/DYK
TonyTheTiger 238 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User:TonyTheTiger/DYK
Ottava Rima 210 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User:Ottava Rima/DYK, User talk:Ottava Rima

DYK nomination list

Table
User Nominations 25 DYK Award 50 DYK Award 100 DYK Award 200 DYK Award Article list
PFHLai 801+ Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User talk:PFHLai and Archives 4, 5, 6 & 7
GeeJo 224 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User talk:GeeJo/DYK and User talk:GeeJo
Piotrus 162 - - Green tickY Green tickY User:Piotrus, User:Piotrus/DYKnoms
Carabinieri 153+ - Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY

User talk:Carabinieri & archives 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

Hassocks5489 147 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY User:Hassocks5489#Did You Know?
Alansohn 145 Green tickY - - Green tickY User talk:Alansohn & archives 4, 6 & 7 and subsequent archives
Victuallers 117 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Victuallers

This format would not attempt to assign a relative value to nominations and creations/expansions but it would acknowledge that, though both important, they are not the same. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Please indicate support for tally separation or oppose for retaining current system.

  • Support as nom. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I took the liberty of simplifying your top lines from "DYK Awarded?" to "DYK Award". We can also commission two new sets of medals with the professional help from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to differentiate from earlier totals. --Poeticbent talk 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As I agree they are different things. What would someone with, say, 12 nominations and 13 expansions/creations look like though? They'd qualify for a 25 DYK medal, yes? Yet they wouldn't have 25 on either table. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • They would have received a medal with the current system, but in the proposed system they would not. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, and if you have 25 DYK noms and 25 creations/expansions is that 1 25 medal, 2 25 medals, or a 50 medal? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be two 25 medals. I would like to see two different looking medals, but let's wait for this RfC to run its course. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. If the tables are separated, we will have to decide what to do about editors who received medals under the old system, but now no longer qualify. --Bruce1eetalk 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to believe that editors who already received medals under the old system, would qualify to receive brand new medals designed by Wikipedia:Graphic Lab when they reach the required level under the new system: one type of medal for their noms only: {{The DYK Nominations Medal}}, and a different one for their top # of creations/expansions: {{The DYK C/E Medal}}, with a chance to double up on the good thing eventually. Old medals (with the distinct old look and the old description) would remain in your personal archives; but, would not be tallied here anymore. --Poeticbent talk 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that would be a good approach. I like it. --Bruce1eetalk 07:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, but weakish; I don't feel too strongly about it. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1. Such an important vote should not take place here. 2. New medals??? This involves more effort - currently no one can be bothered to deliver the current outstanding medals. (Have a look and see if you award one or just go ... "Oh yea"..) 3. They are seperated - This proposal is to award medals in a different way. People who have spent years getting a medal for nominating other peoples work in a spririt of giving will be revalued. (ie you can keep the medal but its no longer one that is considered of value). Victuallers (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Victuallers - I'm surprised you don't support this proposal considering, that you're one of our top contributors, and under the new system you would qualify for instantaneous top medals in both new categories, not just anyone of them. Why don't you want to be showered with prizes? Btw, where would you like to take this vote (per 1.)? --Poeticbent talk 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks Poeticbent, but the reasons stated are the ones I think. And as you can see by the short contribution list above hardly anyone comes here. If this has to be debated then DYKtalk is the place. As for prizes .... its mostly me who gives them out (I think) and I don't keep up with the current system. Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The existing tables already distinguish between creator/expanders and nominators, and I don't see any desirability in adding to or revising the existing awards. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - it makes sense. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separation anxiety

The next steps following the separate tables RfC are to perform the actual separation of the tables and to make new awards graphics. I will place a request with Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the image request: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Did you know? Awards. Next up is the separation of the tables. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Certes has created a dozen awards, six for Creations and Expansions, six for Nominations. Please take a look Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Did you know? Awards and provide Certes with feedback. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think they're great. I like the gold and silver medal distinction between creations/expansions and nominations. --Bruce1eetalk 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have separation

The tables are now separated. Please check your numbers and update yourself as necessary. Some editors with fewer than 25 nominations and fewer than 25 creations/expansions dropped off the list—no harm meant! Your past contributions are still valued, and you are invited to continue adding to your DYK totals to reach 25 entries in one of the categories. All editors with previously awarded medals get to keep them, and new medals will be awarded for the separate categories.

Congratulations go out to Alansohn and PFHLai who have received the first-ever 500 milestone medals. Alansohn was awarded The 500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal and PFHLai was awarded The 500 DYK Nomination Medal.

Special thanks to graphics specialist Certes who created the twelve new medals and guided the color choice of the award templates. Certes was awarded The DYK Medal for significant contribution to the Did you know? project. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work; well done and thanks. It makes more sense now. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work. --Bruce1eetalk 05:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of date?

I just noticed that this page existed (it's new, right?), and of course I immediately attempted to boost my ego my looking for my entry... 39? I think I've done 39 in 2009 alone. Are these stats up to date? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody updates themselves. No one editor has taken charge of updating all the entries. Feel free to correct any of yours or others' totals as you see fit. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the other table?

I have a 100 dyk medal at User:Mattisse/DYK for creating/nominating dyks. Where is the other table that shows this list? I am confused. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Following this RfC Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs#Request for comment regarding separate tables, the tables were split to separate your noms from your creations and expansions. Your 100 DYK Medal is from before the split. A quick look at your own DYK page, searching for the string "nominat", makes me think you have about 16 nominations of other people's articles, leaving the rest as creations or expansions performed by yourself. You appear to have about 107 of the two types combined, so if you split them up to follow the new arrangement here you will have about 91 creations/expansions and about 16 noms, allowing for error in my search of your page. Because of the recent split, you are in line to receive another, more specific, 100 DYK award when you get nine more creations/expansions under your belt. Nine more nominations of other people's articles, a total of 25, will get your name on the second of the two tables. Hold on to your vintage 100 DYK medal and keep it polished, as no more will be given out, making it a rare and valuable commodity. :-) Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I was wondering what happened. Sorry that it removes the motivation for nominating the articles of others. It was through other editors nominating my articles that I learned about dyk to begin with. I never would have known about it otherwise. It seemed magical when I got my first several dyks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it removes the motivation to nominate articles by others. Reaching 25 such actions puts one's name on the second list. I agree that it is rewarding and exciting for new users to get nominated. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am just speaking for myself. Purely a personal opinion, as when I nominated an article I would spend time also ensuring it was properly sourced etc. Although I normally don't go in for trinkets, I did like the numbers on the dyk table after my name. Now there is nothing to keep track of, so the fun is gone for me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I do hope that the new format does not deter folks from nominating articles created by others. I had the same experience as Matisse of being introduced to DYK through someone else nominating one of my articles. I also believe my nomination of Clarence W. W. Mayhew was one of Binksternet's earliest DYK's. There does seem to be a pattern that many of the best DYK contributors have been drawn to the program by others' nominating their work. I know the new format was not intended to reflect negatively on the value of a nomination, and hopefully it is not being perceived that way. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Renumbered?

Haven't run any DYKs in a few months, and while looking up another editor's stats was surprised to see my tally reduced by 12 at one table and removed entirely from another. Is it that hooks are no longer counted at the first table? Then what does the second table represent and why have so many contributors been disqualified from it? Durova412 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the result of the RfC a few entries up this talk page, where it was decided to split nominations of other people's work apart from nominations of your own creation and expansion work. Your nominations of others' work must have appeared to total 12, and your creation/expansion number was determined to be the former total minus 12. Once you achieve 13 more nominations of other people's new articles, at total of 25, you will once again be on both tables, and you will be awarded a new medal. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Renumbered (again)?

I've just updated and amended my figures. I've got a total of 152 dyks, of which 12 are nominations and one is a collaborative effort which I've counted as a nom instead of an expansion. Therefore 152 -12 -1 =139. At least, that is what I think the figure should be. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Scrub that, on a count-up of my DYKs, the total would seem to be higher. 129 created, 21 expanded, 12 nominated and 1 collaborative effort, which I've now decided to discount for these purposes. Mjroots (talk)

UBX needed

There is a UBX for DYKS created or expanded {{User DYK}} - but there doesn't seem to be one for DYK noms. Perhaps {{User DYK Nom}}? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How to count?

I just got an accounting question: I have had one 12x (12 new articles in one hook) and one 5x (5 new articles in one hook) DYK-hook. Out of interesst, do they count as 12 and 5 credits or only as one each time? I can't find an answer to that question anywhere. Calistemon (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They are 12 and 5 credits here on this list, not one and one. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear god! 12?! you might wanna put them here as well: Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. Yazan (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Calistemon (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

I've been told I don't yet qualify for a 25 dyk award because in three of the dyks I nominated, the 5x expansion was the work of multiple editors (including me), rather than a solo effort. My reading of the definition of nomination would be that the nominator do no work on the article, or nearly none. If that's not what's intended, that's fine with me, but then the criteria differentiating the two types of nomination need to be made clear, otherwise it's very frustrating for people new to this two-table thing. Marylanderz (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I put your name back in the list. It had at first appeared to me that you were combining creations/expansions with simple noms of others' work, but I can see now you have been helping to expand the articles, in most cases significantly. I don't wish to spend time policing people's self-entries here by nit-picking percentage involvement of multiple editors in an article to determine who should have gotten credit. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the count is done either. According to the records on my talk page & talk page archives, I've been part of 29 DYK's in the past five years, yet somehow didn't make the list. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It's all manually entered, usually by the editors themselves. If you've got 31 DYKs, go ahead and add yourself to the list. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Non self noms

Hi, do non self nominations count for this list? I have around 40/45, per User:Matty.007/My DYKs. Thanks, Matty.007 19:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, "#DYK creations and expansions list" covers articles you worked on, "#DYK nominations list" is for ones you nominated but did not work on. Chris857 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Matty.007 20:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How this works?

With the Jack Warhop DYK, it is my 25th DYK see here, but I'm not sure if you place yourself in the list, or someone else needs to check and put my name there. Thanks Secret account 03:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally people add themselves to the list. Freikorp (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

GA nominations

Just clarifying - is it ok for articles that have been successfully nominated for DYK due to their recent promotion to GA to be counted towards an editor's 'creations and expansions' count? Freikorp (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well i'll be adding myself to the list in a couple days once my 25th article moves from the queue to the main-space. Two of my 25 articles were nominated after they reached GA, rather than being created or 5x expanded. Apologies if there is any problem with me doing this, but at least I tried to find out whether it was allowed or not. Freikorp (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

50 DYK's Award

Hello guys! How do I nominate myself for the award, since I already have 52 did you know's? Thank you. — Tom(T2ME) 12:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done  — ₳aron 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Longest time between DYK credits?

Did you know ... that I may have just won the award for longest time between DYK credits? My first DYK, Pier 26, appeared on the front page on August 7, 2007. My second DYK, Schmerber v. California, is on the front page today. I am sure no one keeps track of these things, but I thought you might be interested in this fun little piece of information. As you can tell, I took a lengthy hiatus from Wikipedia :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)