Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 24

message: err. Well, I know where Kaysen is, but I mean that I got a note, on my page, saying that my nomination of some info on Kaysen had been included in DYK?. I like to post the hook next to the notification, but for the life of me, I can't see any record of it actually being used. It's not on the recent additions page, though another entry from me a few days ago is there.  A look through the history of the page 'coming up next' page doesn't actually seem to contain it (and while the note was posted to my page, it wasn't put on the article page; I did that myself later when I saw it hadn't been added). Did it actually get used, or did it get lost in an edit? If it was used, can anyone point me at *where* it got used, so I can get the hook that was decided upon? Thanks, --Thespian 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on user's talk page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't find [[Gavin Kaysen]] anywhere. 

message: We may want to semi-protect, or even full protect Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. An anon just recent the counter even though there wasn't an update. I've reverted it, but it made me think that there is no reason for non-admins to have access to that page, assuming that the admin that does the update also resets the clock (which I've noticed some admins not doing). Anyway, just thought I'd bring it up to see what others thought.-Andrew c [talk] 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. How often does a non-admin do it for the updater? I know I've seen it when someone has forgotten to reset it. Maybe a reminder should be added on T:DYK/N, which includes reminders about protecting the image and archiving. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected it for now, since there haven't really been any sensible updates to it by anons for a while. No real opinion on full protection - there hasn't been much of a problem with registered users fiddling around with it when they weren't supposed to so far, but updates to it are usually done by the updating admin. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only T:DYK that's locked to non-admins.  You and I can still edit the time clock.  The problem is that it's actually been 17 hours since an admin updated and the next update is ready to go. --JayHenry 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't update yesterday when the clock was 15 because next update wasn't ready. I just updated now, however I don't have time to thank the users. Since anyone can thank users (non-admins) it would be nice if someone could help be out because I'm leaving my computer now to go out. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  It is largely a thankless task.  It would be nice if some of the people complaining in the WP:ANI section mentioned below did something to help out. -- !! ?? 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know. It's rotten. There should be a rule that admins who submit stuff should be obliged to help. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect time? 

message: I think someone should officially notice that the abovenamed editor has gotten 30 articles on the DYK section. John Carter 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should be a good place to write his name in.Bakaman 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Added. .Bakaman 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Polylerus]] 

message: A discussion about DYK has been started at the Administrators noticeboard. -- Jreferee   t/c 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Did_You_Know.3F|WP:AN]] 

message: In the current DYK, the episode titles "Blind Ambition" and "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" should be in quotes, not italicized.  Also, note that the name of the episode is "The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire" and not "Cleveland Loretta Quagmire" (addition of a "The" and an en dash between "Cleveland" and "Loretta"). Robert K S 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like this should be posted to WP:ERRORS. I've copied this comment there and with luck it will be fixed. Rigadoun  (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Family Guy'' DYK MoS errors 

message: Is there an easy way to determine an article's size in kb?--Appraiser 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These days, it is recorded in the history tab - for example, before this edit, this page was 25,303 bytes. -- !! ?? 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh!  Thanks.--Appraiser 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Easy is a relative term.  The article history tab reports the size of each revision of an article less than several months old (when the new feature was enabled) but does not distinguish between readable text, images, references, templates, and other formatting information.  Scripts such as User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js are able to distinguish between readable text and other information in an articles source, but commonly report information in integer kilobytes.  For checking compliance with the 1500 bytes limit in the current DYK guidelines, a common method is to copy the readable text from a borderline article into a text editor/word processor on your computer and determine the size either through an editor feature or by saving the readable text to disk and checking the size of the saved file. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, sure, I should have mentioned that DYK usually looks at the number of characters of readable text in the body (lead section and text sections, excluding references, infoboxes, formatting, etc).  The number given in the history is usually significantly greater from that.  -- !! ?? 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determining article size 

message: (Two items that were on the copy of the page I loaded but are now moved to Next Update)
:: ...that according to the book The World Without Us radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore will be the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth?
* ALT: ...that the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth will be radioactive waste, bronze statues, and Mount Rushmore, according to the book The World Without Us?
:: ...that 10TP was a Polish tank design, which advanced the Polish armor programme but came too late to provide the Polish Army with tanks of sufficient number and quality before the German invasion of Poland in 1939?
* ALT: ...that Poland developed a new tank from 1928 to 1939, only to be invaded by Germany before it could enter mass-production?
— Komusou talk @ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two last-minute alt hooks for DYKNU ;-) 

message: What would you guys think a proposal to change the image to :Image:Symbol question.svg? I thought it might go along more in the theme of the GA and FA userboxes. GlassCobra 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User DYK|DYK userbox]] 

message: Are we still archiving into relevant portals, as discussed at WP:DYK#Archiving? If so, can there be a better explanation of how to do this? The few I checked didn't seem to have been edited recently by DYK regulars, and don't necessarily follow our usual format. Rigadoun  (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody does it I think. Some portals, like Bangladesh, West Bengal and Karnataka have regular contributors and they just do it themselves. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portal Karnataka DYK Archive - Portal:Karnataka/Did_you_know/List_of_Featured_DYKs_related_to_Karnataka - KNM  Talk 00:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving to portals 

message: Should this issue be addressed, and has it been already? I have noticed that some seemingly-vain editors will continually nominate their own articles in order to gain prominence on the main page. This is quite disturbing to see on Wikipedia. Frankly, many of the factoids mentioned in DYK are uninteresting, and I partially blame this on editors who will create an article for the sake of its creation only, and will often nearly plagiarize other websites online to do so. Now, I know many of you will want an exact example of this, but I must choose not to do so in order to avoid unfair allegations of "not assuming good faith," etc. But I do ask that the DYK community think of this and see who among you are doing this. - Cyborg Ninja 09:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "plagiarize other websites online" - what do you mean by that? Copyright problems should keep a page from being featured on DYK. --W.marsh 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DYK wouldn't work without self-noms.--Carabinieri 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a self-nominator but I wouldn't characterized my reason for doing so as vanity-at least not personal vanity. It's more of an effort to get wine related articles on the front page and introduce more people to Wikipedia's usefulness as a wine-related resource on the web. When we are competing with Encyclowine, Vinismo and to a smaller extent Citizendum, getting as much "coverage" of our wine articles and the Wine Project can be a huge benefit in further developing content. Plus I just like writing articles. :) However I fully understand that what will strike a wine geek as interesting may not tickle everyone's fancy so I appreciate critiques or suggestions for any hooks that I nominate. AgneCheese/Wine 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The English language is ubiquitous. Remember Chinese kids learn the language in high school and southwest of there is India. It is an official language in many African countries. Hooks that aren't "interesting" to one person may be thought provoking to another. All that needs to be enforced is brevity, falsifiability, and article length requirements.Bakaman 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors who frequently nominate their own articles 

message: I'm new to this (DYK that is, not Wikipedia) and i have recently created an article on Clyde Fastlink. Are future proposed developments allowed in here and if so, would Clyde Fastlink pass? I suppose it is a self-nom. Simply south 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's okay for DYK as long as it meets the other requirements (length, recently created, etc.) In this case, the article should avoid being just speculation. It looks a bit short though. But the place to nominate it is T:TDYK --W.marsh 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi - I'm worried that you are put off by the discussion above. Don't be. I have nominated your article. Its currently too short at 1345 characters ... it needs to be at least 1500 characters. Some image would be good but they must be copyright free. You have two days!! Good luck. Victuallers 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry i changed things at the very last 45 minutes or less but after rereading the info, i realised i had got my wording wrong as it seems to be an interim service although it seems certain parts of it, particularly the segregated part (split from traffic) will be used for the tram system. Simply south (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's alright. It didn't go on the main page, so no damage was done.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A future article 

message: This is my first time trying this so I hope I got it right...
*DYK...that John Cartier, Governor of Bengal during the 1770 famine, was eulogized by Edmund Burke? Self nom by Hemlock Martinis 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is eulogy really that unusual a word? Asking the people around me at the moment, they all knew what it meant. Of course, this small sample may be skewed somewhat by the fact that I'm sitting in a library :P GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered the same thing, I wouldn't worry about it. Note you can also link to WP's eulogy, which is not a great article (pretty much a dicdef), but will serve the purposes here. Rigadoun  (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cartier 

message: I've added artists of the Tudor court for the next update, with a portrait of Elizabeth I as the suggested (and very nice) image.  However, I've noticed that tomorrow's main page for this day in history features a portrait of Elizabeth I, since it is the date on which she began her reign.  Should we (1) stick with the choice and have two images of Elizabeth I side-by-side on the main page, or (2)choose a portrait of another person to illustrate the article, or (3) select a different article altogether to feature with an image? ---- EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth I 

message: I was the one who created this article, and Zzyzx11 kindly agreed to let it jump the line to appear on the main page before its time. This has to do with current event issues that are explained in the article. To other admins: please don't replace it, many thanks! Panichappy (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wedginald]] 

message: Hi, I'm new here but aren't almost all the ones in the queue to be posted already posted? Just saying... Benjiboi  —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err repeating? 

message: It seems like the number of hooks that make it to the main page at a time is generally more than the recommended 5-8.  Should we adjust the max at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting ?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason why there are sometime more than 8 hooks is that we are trying to re-balance the main page (see the above discussion). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and that's fine, I was just curious if Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Formatting should be adjusted to reflect changing Main Page tendencies.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 6-10 better reflects reality imho. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of hooks? 

message: It seems that some fact checking and verification is getting lost in the process. Azad Hind Stamps‎ hook was factually inaccurate compared to the one available reference that it did list (i.e. The Indian Postal Authorities considering them stamps rather than their inclusion into a book about India's Independence produced by the Indian Postal System) and now Anti-submarine boom net might have a major verification problem due to one image on the article page. All in the span of less than two days!! Is DYK sacrificing some quality control over pumping out the DYK's to the front page? How many other hooks have had problems that weren't caught before? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlsberg papyrus which appeared yesterday seems to be confused at best (and the hook was nonsensical as a result), but I think the purpose of the DYK section is, at least in part, to pick up on just such issues. A corrected one letter typo, that didn't appear in the hook anyway, is hardly a major issue. Or are you referring to how close the text is to the text shown in the photo, which isn't quoted as a reference even though a sizeable amount of the article is lifted nearly wholesale? Andplus (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, what I was wondering is why it's named on an "Offical" Plaque as one thing, when the article says something else. But if you feel the article is a possible copyright violation, then by all means raise the red flag. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I made two proposals on how to improve DYK's fact checking. Both were ignored. Apparently putting bullshit on the main page is only a problem when it concerns living people. It seems to me that most DYK helpers are unwilling to help improve the accuracy standard.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth I found the entire process a bit confusing from where to post, what to post and what format to put things in; then what to do from there to monitor things. It seems to me several things could be done to simplify the process and thus possibly encourage more newbies to assist. It might also make sense to have an intermediate holding pen for items that have been vetted or add some demarcation that an item has been fact-checked; I would favor something that indicated that the current update was full (and come up with guidelines of what full means - presumably 1200-1500 characters). This might help sort the work load into more readily recognized areas where people could help; the next update needs items or is full; these items need to be fact checked, etc. I found it frustrating to spend so much time copy editing one of my entries down to the 200 characters requested only to have an admin come along and chop off the bulk of it as "fat" after the process had vetted it and no further revisions seemed to be needed. If you wanted 100 characters I could have done that and would have little expectation otherwise. Benjiboi 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the case (not specifically to you Benjiboi), I think that DYK now needs a serious overhaul.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not the perfect fool but i know if I had problems figuring it out (and it took several tries) then others simply gave up altogether and that's not the intent as far as I can tell. If the goal is to find and highlight some of the best new articles wp has to offer then go from 5 to 10 days and increase the vetting process, the editing of hooks and so forth. Shoot for quality not quantity and be honest about that. In this way we aren't encouraging good hooky articles to be written but fostering an environment to better writing not accolades for creationism alone. Also per the "explain urolagnia" verses watersports provide more insight as to non-r-rated content. I'm well used to queerphobic and sexphobic policies, at least be clear about it. Benjiboi 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There has to be a little bit more fact checking. 

message: Why does Template talk:Did you know start out with the words, "After you update the template, please click this link to purge the main page cache, so the update is shown to everyone."? The misnamed talk page (the real talking occurs here) is updated ten times more often than the template (referring to Template:Did you know). And why would anyone updating the template look at the top talk page instruction but not at the template instructions? My guess is that newbies adding a new hook to the so-called talk page, mistakenly click the main page cache purge link regularly, which is presumably a Bad Thing or there wouldn't be a cache at all. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cache 

message: I'm a little confused about why Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was not chosen as a DYK. While initially John Boydell was nominated and hadn't been expanded enough, I know that the Gallery should have counted and I made this clear. Did I anger the DYK gods somehow? This is a good little article and it would have been nice to see it on the main page. I'm sure the nominator, User:Rupert Clayton, will be a bit disappointed as well. Awadewit | talk 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It expired. That happens when people don't update the template on time. I just had to throw eight things on there (and I normally don't do DYK, but I made an exception as it was twelve hours past updating). You'd think with all the names on the template talk, who say they update DYK, you'd think one of them would have noticed. But don't feel bad, one of my DYKs expired too, and unless the template isn't updated immediately after my update, the article I Am Not Homer is going to expire as well. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 18:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it expired (I'm familiar with DYK), but all of the other expired noms had problems with them - this one did not. It seems like a deliberate slight, frankly. Awadewit | talk 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I updated the template, the I Am Not Homer slight wasn't intentional, I sincerely forgot it was there and I thought I had grabbed all of the November 20 ones that didn't have problems. You know what I think it may have been? People may have just grabbed ones that didn't have any comments, assuming those were okay, and saw that the Boydell one had comments and just walked past it, even though the comments were all by you and good ones, not ones that would have ruled it out for DYK. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would seem it is not possible to update DYK as frequently as intended. Until there are more editors willing or capable of updating, perhaps there should be only one DYK template per day, eh? :) Blasphemy, I know. Awadewit | talk 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? How would that help? So more articles can expire and you won't imagine yours singled out? ;)Andplus (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, so there won't be this desperate feeling of always being behind. Perhaps some sort of selection process will have to be implemented? (horror of horrors). I think it is pretty clear that the current process doesn't work. I worked on DYK for a while, but I felt this constant pressure to be updating and there were petty spats over nothing, so I quit. Something either needs to be automated if we want updates every 4-6 hours and we take the errors we get or we have to have many fewer updates, I think, until we have more editors. Awadewit | talk 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I've not been doing the DYK updates for quite some time.  Recently, there has been a long time lag and I've had requests on my talk page to do the update.  When I've gone to the Next update, it has either already been done, was in process, or this last time, there were two of us working on it.  Fortunately, this most recent time, the other admin started after I'd repaired the image and protected it.  I checked back on the Main page one more time and saw it had already been updated.
In order to avoid edit conflicts during admin updating of DYK, I suggested the following:
# Protect the page to admin edits only so suggestion are not added while the update is being done.
# Have a place on the DYK/Next update page for the updating admin to indicate that the update is in progress.  
The protection and update-in-progress can be removed when all credits are complete.  
Comments?
— ERcheck (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin updating 

message: I want to know how this DYK system works. Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) was nominated many days ago. It was unaccepted by an admin, because it was "not unusual" and "not concise". It was eventually included in the Next Update (WELL over 5 days after creation), then was removed because at the time, much of the info was simply removed, making the article too short. This was without the knowledge of any editor/DYK admin (and also I wasn't online at the time which I would have taken action to fix the problem). I would like to know what is going on with this DYK system, and whether it is up to the expected standards. I feel that this system has a number of flaws that need fixing. Please look at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 18. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK rules 

message: This article was listed yesterday on DYK. It was unilaterally removed and now the hook is not in the DYK archieves, the talk page of the article has not been marked, nor has the author's talk page been marked.--STX 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed by User:DragonflySixtyseven, probably for the reasons being discussed in the preceding section. I think this removal was improper. The entry was on the suggestions' page for several, but noone opposed the nomination. Then the editor replaced it with an entry of his own, which was never nominated. Further, the entry was not returned to the suggestions' page, nor was the issue raised on this page. The entry just disappeared.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please archive it, and place the DYK message on the talk page of the article and the editor who nominated the hook?--STX 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone objects to that. I would do it myself but I don't know the DYK system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008]] 

message: Perhaps as proof that the system may be a bit complicated Palladium Shopping Center was nominated incorrectly on the template page at the bottom under the bot generated lists. It would be nice if this could be rescued for DYK if possible. Benjiboi 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has several problems. 1) It needs copyediting according to the template on the top of the article. 2) Most important, it is unsourced. Royalbroil 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've added a wikiproject tag onto talk as well as a google search link. My hunch is this is a new editor who's not familiar with editing processes thus nominated a DYK improperly at the bottom of the nomination page and didn't wikify the article itself enough fro the DYK process. Benjiboi 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains hoax informations, it never collapsed. It definitely needs a proofreading. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Palladium Shopping Center]] 

message: Based on reports to AN/ANI, it seems to be late almost every day recently, I'd be willing to help out with updating but I don't know how DYK works.—Random832 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Random832, help is always appreciated at DYK.  The project tries to update every 6 hours.  It's just an arbitrary ticking clock to create a sense of urgency that keeps things moving.  Delayed updates are really only a problem when there are lots of good expired nominations at the bottom of the nomination page.  Updating the template is pretty simple.  When the  clock turns red, just go to T:DYK/N and copy the new hooks over to T:DYK.  If you have the time, it's good to glance over the hooks once more for grammar/neutrality.  Don't worry too much about making mistakes because people will complain even if you do everything perfect.  Then comes the thanking/archiving part which is explained at the bottom of T:DYK/N.  It's a less scary process than it seems! --JayHenry (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also a more detailed official version which makes it sound more complicated than it is. --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does this work? 

message: Could someone please archive non-active discussions as this page is getting quite long. Thank you! Benjiboi 09:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive old talk items 

message: I would appreciate it if someone gave my hook a chance.  I created the article 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot on November 26, and it is well-sourced to (31) different sources.  I addressed an issue  had with the hook.  Thanks, Cirt 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Cirt 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 26 

message: How do we nominate articles to be on the DYK part?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.158.178 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to T:TDYK. --74.14.20.57 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More precisely here Victuallers 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  T:TDYK 

message: *DIFF - I have avoided adding my own self-noms to Template:Did you know/Next update, and instead wait for others to add them.  But is this considered appropriate, or not?  Cirt 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think editors should be discouraged from adding their own hooks (especially adding your own hook and not sticking around to do any more of the help!)  This hook spent an appropriate amount of time at T:TDYK and so I see no reason to remove it, but perhaps we could drop Pastordavid a polite note?  Make it clear that there's nothing wrong with his hook at all, but if we did not discourage people adding their own hooks we could end up with a free-for-all on our hands and people who would abuse the system. --JayHenry 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to already have the wording and idea down, why don't you drop him the note?  That way it's not coming from the editor that initially picked up on it, but from a third-party.  Thanks, Cirt 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for the note.  My apologies.  I did not see a clear statement one way or the other on whether or not that was appropriate, so I just went ahead.  Now I know for next time.  Again, sorry for going outside of the conventional steps.  Perhaps it would help to have that stated somewhere?  Pastordavid 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding your own self-noms to Next Update ? 

message: Re: the article Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming less than One Hour).  How much of the existing article counts for how much is needed to expand 5x in order to count for a WP:DYK expansion?  Is it just the paragraph-style text at the top, or does the list/bulleted stuff count as well, further down?  In either case, an estimate of what the current character count is for the article, that would apply as a base to need to be expanded upon 5x, would be appreciated. Thanks, Cirt 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK / Article expansion question 

message: Are the three ellipses, the word "that" and question mark included in the character count? I know spaces count. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three dots (one ellipsis) don't count. "That" counts. "?" counts. This isn't documented anywhere except User:Art LaPella/Long hook, which is probably just as well because being too specific defeats the purpose of the "about" as in "about 200 characters". Art LaPella 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining that one "ellipsis" is three dots, and for answering my question. I do not intend to submit hooks that are very close to 200 characters. In future, when nominating articles for DYK, I will include a character count next to each hook. Knowing the answer to this question ensures the character counts are accurate.  --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hook character count` 

message: FYI, there are at least four noms from November 28 that I see, that are acceptable for Next Update, but were never chosen so far.  As one of them is my self-nom, I will refrain from this next update, but I'd much appreciate it if these were considered, they just didn't make it in time.  Thanks, Cirt 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * But of course, good sir.  By the way, if anyone out there is science minded, another set of eyes at Nitrogen-vacancy center would be appreciated.  I lack the knowledge to know if the hook is accurate, though I assume it is and have added it to T:DYK/N. --JayHenry 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 28 

message: Why has my nomination for Bennie Osler on November 29 not been included? The comment was about how the hook was written, and alternatives have been suggested long ago that should fix this. The article meets the criteria for inclusion, was this an over-sight or am I jumping the gun? - Shudde talk 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be picked. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I wasn't sure, because some from 30 November have been up. Just wanted to check. Thanks. - Shudde talk 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennie Osler 

message: I would like to ask the same thing about Trusty system as was asked about Bennie Osler. I did everything I could and would have accepted any more suggestions, other than arguing how Trusty is spelled. I worked hard on that article and feel frustrated!  Mattisse 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will still be picked.  The first reference also uses the spelling "trusty" so the spelling isn't really a problem.  Page is just a bit behind right now. --JayHenry (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If DYK would be updated on time, every good hook would be selected. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Trusty system]] 

message: The next update was set for around 20:00 hours and suddenly it's reset back to 0:32, pushing the update back almost five hours. How did that happen? Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, someone fixed it. Gatoclass (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I had fixed it but forgot to mention it here, sorry.  Cirt (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the clock? 

message: A redirect is currently being featured.  User:Qst created a duplicated article Francis George Anstey, which was inferior to the existing article Frank Anstey, and it was then converted to a redirect by User:Rebecca.--Grahame (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frank Anstey]] 

message: Well, I worked on one a bit and it is finally somewhat stable.. This simplifies the formatting issue a bit and let's experienced editors submit quickly. 
Using  would provide: 
Using  would provide: 
Not sure if anyone would find this useful. It is still rough around the edges but could perhaps be useful. My checking template is coming along as well though I figured with step one of the whole process should be what gets submitted :) spryde | talk 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It "simplifies the formatting issue a bit" only if everyone, including newbies, remembers to omit the formatting that the template supplies, which you yourself failed to remember (notice the "that that" bug). But if we could somehow make everybody use it, the bot could distinguish hooks from comments. "lets experienced editors submit quickly" is puzzling - requiring us to master some previously unrequired template syntax has the bot advantage I just described, but we won't correctly submit more quickly by removing the WYSIWYG factor. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I want to do a bit of string parsing to see if it starts with the correct item, ending with the question, etc. This is a rough draft as such to see if there is interest. The optimal solution is the AfD method with a central main page and subpages that are transcluded into the central page. That allows segregation of each dyk submission and bot friendliness. I need to think about this quite a bit more as I would rather do this right than rush into something. spryde | talk 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you're still thinking, the AfD method is perhaps optimal but consider this easier-to-program compromise: we leave everything on the existing page, but we ask everyone to start each hook with the word "HOOK", and comments with the word "COMMENT". The software would recognize variations such as "Hook", "hook", "hook:", "VERSION" (for alternate versions of a hook), and ::*VERSION (indentation and bulleting) as synonyms for "HOOK", and edit them. Anything that starts with "SIGNATURE", "SIG", "COMMENT", or maybe "NOM" (with similar variations) would go unedited. We get compliance by 1. getting a consensus 2. manually adding the prefixes throughout the page, once only, when we're ready and 3. error messages for anything without a recognizable prefix, or for a hook that includes a time (hh:mm indicating an unseparated signature). Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really think there's no way for the AFD method to work.  It would require dozens of subpages to be created every day, it will be very confusing for people, it would completely mess up the way that a lot of people vet hooks and do the next update.  I hate to just be a naysayer, but I see nothing but negatives in the idea of turning Did You Know into thousands of subpages. --JayHenry (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were talking about "...something like AFD where you have a single page where each items is presented in a list and each subpage is transcluded into the main page", so vetting hooks wouldn't change much. The next update could be one click per hook, including saving credits - thanking could also be automated. Yes, it's an added layer of complication - but if you saw how much work I do here every few hours, you would understand why I favor of some kind of automation, whether it's the AfD model or another one. Art LaPella (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submission template 

message: I'd like to start a sub thread about the original proposal: simplifying for new editors.  We should certainly look at the wording of Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions and suggest ways to make it simpler.  But I know when I first joined I found these instructions incredibly clear (what's more, I don't see anything that's superfluous), and so I wonder if perhaps we need to make a system for people who are simply averse to or overwhelmed by reading instructions.  This is just an idea, but what if we made an extremely simple help center.  At the top of the suggestions page, we could have a link "If you are new to Did You Know, and find this page confusing, come to our help center."
The help center could briefly contain the mission statement of DYK at the top of the page, and then say, "If you have an article you'd like to nominate for Did You Know please click here and tell us about it.  An experienced editor will be along shortly to help."  And have that be it.  I think a handful of experienced DYK editors watching the page would be all that's needed to help new editors "graduate" to T:TDYK.  Some editors can be very blunt at T:TDYK, but at DYK/HELP we can encourage a culture of patience, kindness and careful explanation. --JayHenry (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may work provided there are enough people to help out. Maybe a  template. I have actually worked on a few things and the first items and will start posting about them soon.  spryde | talk 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refocus a bit

message: I am disappointed that the History of Nairobi  was allowed to expire. The article, although originally a fork, was completely rewritten. If you compare it to the original fork, hardly anything is the same. I added much new information and references. I rewrote what was there.  Please do compare the versions. It is essentially a new article.  Mattisse 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. For example, the hook was not in the original article, nor was the photo.  Mattisse 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus Art LaPella rewrote the hook even.  Mattisse 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I still think the hook is chauvinistic. Is the most interesting thing one can say about Nairobi that there was a US embassy bombing there? However, it's a little late to start trying to come up with an alternative now. I've just trimmed a little flab from it instead. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that and thought the same thing!  If I lived in Nairobi, would I think "is that what my city is known for?" Archtransit (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Nairobi 

message: *... that it has been eight hours since the last update, and the Next update is ready?  
(Sorry, sometimes it's just funny to talk in "Did you know" language.) Cirt (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know ... 

message: Although Wikipedia is not censored, we are more careful with the content on the Main Page. For example, FAs about sexual organs would not appear on the main page. However, would a DYK hook containing the word "sex" be allowed if the article was about a romantic comedy?
Here is a draft of the hook (it can be improved, if I am given the green light to write the article and nominate it for DYK):
...that the Singaporean movie That One No Enough, the directorial debut of Jack Neo, was initially named Sex No Enough, but the title was changed following objections from the Singapore censors?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan my GAs and DYKs weeks (sometimes even months) before actually writing them, so I would rather wait for a clear answer regarding this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's quite clear that the word is allowed. We recently had several entries on homosexuality in the animal kingdom, so Sex No Enough should hardly be a problem.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other DYK regulars (I assume you are one) agree with you, I can start my research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see anything wrong with the word in this context.  if it was describing a sexual act, or something of the sort, I am sure it could be objectionable but it is not.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second.  I agree with .  Cirt (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we had a DYK item of a Greek vase depicting a sexual act, including an image, not long ago, and there wasn't a single objection (and no vandalism either). athinaios (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replies. Since there is consensus that this hook is fine, I will start my research. Hopefully you will see the article on DYK in a month's time. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "sex" in a hook - allowed or not? 

message: Does anyone else think numbering hooks on the suggestions page instead of just using bullets might prove useful?
It would make it easy to see how many hooks there are available for selection every day. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also look odd on the main page, next to all the other sections which are bulleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the suggestion was to keep the numbers on the main page, but just on the suggestions. It's not a bad idea, for the reason Gatoclass gives, although in practice I think it might get messed up frequently as some of the longer comments on hooks don't start with the asterisk (*) and I don't think it would continue numbering with images in between. Rigadoun  (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just talking about the suggestions page, not the main page. But you may be right about the images, I think they do confuse the counting software don't they? Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering hooks 

message: Last few days these have been showing up.  Some fut bawl thug drops a ball a couple times ten years ago?  Why is this appearing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.143.99 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #When Wolverines Attack! above. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Trivia 

message: We've had something like nine Michigan Wolverines athlete articles in DYK in the last week or so. None of them have been for especially interesting people. As a person whose father taught for 17 years at Michigan, I still have to stay: "Don't Go Blue!" Enough is most assuredly enough. (And no, I haven't switched my loyalties to Ohio State.)--Mike Selinker 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible in such cases to look ahead in the noms, and to pull several to be featured as a single line: "...that X, Y, Z, and Q are Wolverines?" That way the new articles are featured without taking a slot away from other articles or getting undue time on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea.  Cirt 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another one, Dan Dworsky, in the pipe for tomorrow, bring one user's total of DYKs in the last week to a staggering 12 articles (see the bottom of User_talk:Cbl62 for details). After Mr. Dworsky, I think it might be time for the Wolverines to go into hibernation on DYK, just for fairness's sake. Especially with interesting new college football articles like Platypus Trophy having nominations on the DYK suggestions page.--Mike Selinker 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it is unfair to prevent someone's legitimate DYK from being featured on the Main Page because related items have been featured all too often in recent times. Also, you would be surprised to know that this happens quite frequently, but people don't seem to pick it up. If you check the DYKs for the last 2-3 weeks, you will see that there have been a high number of Vietnamese-related topics (kudos to Blnguyen) and India-Bangladeshi topics. Before that, we had a high concentration of Carnatic topics on DYK. There's probably more that I haven't picked up either. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nishkid. Two further examples would be the large number of wine-related entries (Agne27) and those about legislators from Colorado (Sethant).--Carabinieri 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and my famed California-New Jersey congressman articles from last year (15-20ish in about a week and half heh). :) I stopped after people started complaining. :( Nishkid64 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: DYK is about rewarding diligent and effective work by users and providing a place to recognize it. We only need to make sure each group of 6-8 articles on the main page is balanced, its not really a long term issue.Bakaman 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the way this is going but I hope that Mike Selinker's point wasn't lost. I have tried to propose double and treble noms where one subject starts creating daily or hourly articles. That mops up excess and hopefully does not dampen enthusiasm. In fact I was wondering if a certain soriety had ever been involved with a Powderfinger song about Vietnamese wine? Now that would be a nom! Victuallers 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly feel my point has been heard. I guess with Ohio State playing for the national championship, Wolverines fans need something to feel good about. A zillion DYKs on obscure players sounds like it fits that bill just fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the above comment is very polite. If Tony is writing qualified articles that pass WP notability standards, Kudos to him. They should be featured on DYK. Now I suppose I could be considered bias since, as mentioned previously in this thread, I do write a bit of wine articles. Though truth be told I do try to consciously space this out with different region/wine styles/etc so I don't load up the cue with 5 DYKs about French wines or something. Hmm...Vietnamese wine is currently a red link. :) AgneCheese/Wine 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could make an exception to DYK time standards so that we don't give undue weight and space the articles out, keeping them in a holding area. I am imagining the addition to the criteria would read something like: "At times a single writer will write and submit for DKY consideration a spree of articles on a single subject during a short time span. In order to avoid the appearance of undue weight in featuring substantially similar articles during an abbreviated period, the normal time period restrictions on these articles is waived and the DYK hooks for these articles will be placed in the holding area below so that they may be staggered over a more appropriate time period."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That would serve to dry things up no end, since the bulk of DYK is (still, despite constant hope) done by a small collection of dedicated editors. I can also see the risk of what would be a much faster collection of articles (Wolverines players, for example, being a finite if very large number) being written over a longer period of time, rather than more rapidly. There's also the risk of defining precisely what a "topic" is for these purposes - is an article about an IRA member under the "Ireland" topic, the "IRA" topic, the "biography" topic, the "terrorism" topic or something entirely different? As is just about always the case, the cure for there being too many articles hitting DYK about Topic X is to write more articles about Topic Y of an equal or greater standard to those being written about Topic X. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Wolverines Attack! 

message: There is a discussion ongoing about a proposal to change the way administrators update the Did you know section on the main page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Streamlining "Did You Know?".  The intent of the change is to ensure that DKY gets updated on schedule; the change should not substantially effect the DKY selection process, or the writing and vetting of the hooks.  In the interest of keeping discussion centralized, you may wish to comment there.  Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 09:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DKY? I thought it was DYK? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all this time you weren't aware we were contributing to "Did Know You"  ? Cirt (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people contribute to DYK.  I contribute to DKY (Didn't you Know, You idiot?)  (I'm the idiot not you..see, I don't bite others) I did add constructive comments to the discussion on ANChergles (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining "Did You Know?" 

message: I don't understand this.  Why were eleven items added to DYK on the main page all at once, especially when (1) we are running ahead of schedule, (2) the batch includes two hooks for hockey, (3) the batch includes two hooks for minerals, (4) one of the items did not qualify for DYK, and (5) it left the Main Page really unbalanced?  Comments in the edit history suggest the edit was done hurriedly.  Please remember that you can always preview how the latest update will look when posted to the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing 

message: Why don't we archive the DYKs after they're on the main page? (I mean, when the template is to be updated, first copy the current template to the archive and then change the template to the Next Update.) That way, any issues that are brought up while they are on the main page are dealt with before they are in the archives, as opposed to remembering to change the archive as well as the template when something is wrong (especially something big, like an invalid article). The importance of changing the archive was brought up above in some discussion, I can't remember the context, but it seems like this would save everyone some work. Also, should we time-stamp the archives, so that they can be archived automatically by User:MiszaBot II or some such, and also it may be useful for statistical purposes to know when they appeared without checking one of the articles in particular, especially if somebody wanted to parse the data sometime. Rigadoun  (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do archive them.  Please refer to the instructions to administrators for archiving DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, currently they are archived _before_ they appear on the main page, I was suggesting changing that procedure to archiving _after_ they appear on the main page, and then I was referring to archiving the archive page itself. Rigadoun  (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions on the "Rules" are a bit strange in that regard.  The instructions say to check to be sure that last batch was archived before updating, and also instruct the admin updating the template to archive immediately upon update.  We could change that, I suppose.  It would make more sense to archive the adjusted version from the Main page instead of the version that hasn't had the little mistakes corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving suggestions 

message: Hi. I'm new to this whole DYK thing (although I've been editing for over a year) and I've just been told that an article I've nominated for DYK here, (Sai Baba of Shirdi), is not acceptable for DYK because it isn't a new article or hasn't been sufficiently expanded. While the former is true, the article is undergoing expansion but apparently the expansion as it currently stands isn't enough to nominate this particular DYK fact. 
I mentioned there to the person who explained this to me that I think those "suggestions" are pretty lame. The subject of the article is famous his for mysterious origins, and it is published on Wikipedia for the first time in the history of the world (apart from the published source) what his real name might be, and this is not acceptable because the article isn't new or isn't expanded enough. Isn't there something pretty wrong with this setup if DYK is a stickler for rules over genuinely interesting facts, which I thought was the whole point of DYK.? Ekantik talk 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is a little confusing sometimes, but the whole point of the DYK section actually is to give publicity to newly created or significantly expanded (such as from stub to full article in a few days) Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content.  It's also to encourage people to make sure that the new articles are at least somewhat interesting.  The hooks are definitely not the most surprising facts in the encyclopedia.  It was decided several years ago that general trivia was not the purpose here.  I think most of us try really hard to make sure that the hooks are interesting.  And most people I've met at DYK are very, very flexible with the guidelines, but Sai Baba of Shirdi was created in 2002, and hasn't been a stub for several years.  Sorry to disappoint!  Just for fun, here are the the old guidelines from 2005, they've never really changed much. --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do want to add that I think it does look like a really good and interesting article.  You've done some really great work on it!  Once you've finished taking care of the  templates, you should consider reviewing the Good Article criteria and if you're satisfied the article is ready, you could nominate it to be a good article. --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your nice comments, I will definitely look into GA-nominations when I finish working on it. Possibly FA after that. Ekantik talk 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stickler for rules over interesting facts? 

message: I really think it'd speed up updating if we could come up with some way to use a bot and templates to clear the credits section, flagging up anything it can't deal with somewhere where it can be done by hand.
Here's how my ideal bot would work:
An admin reviews the prepared next update, then pushes a button. This button will only work if an admin presses it. The bot copies the prepared section to the front page template and the archive. It then goes through the credits sections, and handles all of them that are properly templated, then sets up the page ready for the nextt update, keeping only crediting work it was unable to deal with. The admin does any remaining notifications by hand, checks the next update is good, and is done.  Should no admin press the button within an hour of the time it should have been, a message appears at the top of WP:ANI. How close we can get to my ideal, I do not know. But that's how I would work it in an ideal world. 
In an even more ideal world, the bot could also be given a list of trusted non- admins eligible to press the button. 
Adam Cuerden talk 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh my, that's fast! I want that script! I'm add it to my monobook. I definitely support any automation that can be done by a bot. I'm sure it would be checked by admins until all of the bugs are worked out. Hopefully a programmer make this bot on. I don't have enough programming experience myself. Royalbroil 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot