Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 25

message: What's with the new green coloring at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time ?  It's not really needed, really only the Red Color is needed to alert the Admins when there is a backlog/overdue.  Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also be a problem for the color-blind.  I prefer the friendly neutral buff color we used to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  CBDunkerson made the change to  here.  I actually kind of like it.  Part of the idea is to differentiate between an hour or two late (which aren't always a huge program) and really delayed updates.  Some people at the administrators' noticeboards were getting annoyed because some of the requests at the noticeboard were when the update was only a handful of minutes late.  This seems like a fairly reasonable compromise to me.  (We can certainly fuss around for a less ugly color, but I like the three color system of "does not need updating," "could use an update" and "crisis mode." --JayHenry (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've seen a fuller sequence of color change, I appreciate it a little more.  However, I do think that the shade of green chosen is a little intense and may not be visually different from red for the color-blind. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I switched the green for the first six hours back to the original tan color based on comments here and on the template talk page. Feel free to adjust the colors further and/or tweak the times. I assumed three hours for the yellow 'warning period' before going to 'red', but it can easily be made longer or shorter by adjusting the values in the switch. --CBD 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps 2 hours to red would be preferable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cirt suggested the same thing on the template talk page. I re-set the 'yellow' period to two hours. --CBD 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Did you know/Next update/Time 

message: As a matter of curiosity on my part, what happens to Expired noms that aren't used?  Are they simply removed from the Suggestions page after a time, or are they moved to an archive somewhere? The page does not seem to say. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired noms 

message: "Bactrian Greeks led by Demetrius I (coin pictured) and Menander I conquered India and occupied a larger territory than the Macedonians under Alexander the Great"
I have not seen any source that says that the Indo-Greek Kingdom was ever larger than the Macedonian Empire of Alexander. Indeed, looking at the List of largest empires, the Macedonian empire was larger than the Mauryan and Mughal empires at their greatest extent, both of which contained far more territory than the Indo-Greek Kingdom. Seleucus (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom for the controversy surrounding these articles. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Greek Kingdom 

message: I'm not an admin, but as non admins are allowed to help out in DYK areas where possible, I'm just wondering; when the next update page is prepared for the next update, would it be considered acceptable to add the templates to the article talk pages and user talk pages before its update on the Main Page? I don't think it would be much of a big deal, and would save the admin updating it a lot of work. Thoughts, please? Cheers, Qst 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thats what I was thinking, I'll wait and see if I'm still around at the time of the next update. Qst 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest just not taking it upon yourself to do the templates, as many of the administrators like to do "the whole lot" themselves (as is their perojative), and double-templating would be bad. Daniel 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: pejorative prerogative? :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that — it was some ridiculous hour when I wrote the above :) Daniel 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometime the updating admin is short on time and will choose to defer the crediting to a volunteer. They usually note it in their edit summary or on the next update page. Royalbroil 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Images get automatic protection because of cascading protection. Every image on the main page is automatically protected. You just need to add the template  or . There were too many problems with images accidentally not getting protected and vandals uploading over them with something bad. If the image is temporarily downloaded from Commons (to ensure that it get auto-protected), then the previous image should get deleted. Every few days I check for Commons images that should have been deleted. Royalbroil 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating hooks 

message: I followed the comments and it looked like you were using Riggins v. Nevada (originated on December 21) but now it has disappeared without explanation. It is not crossed out on the December 21 page, not in the archives, etc.  Thanks!  Mattisse 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Riggins v. Nevada]] - did it expire? 

message: I've seen a few "expansion" articles recently that didn't seem very close to a 5x expansion. I noticed On Famous Women in the update since it looked like a good candidate for a double with On the Fates of Famous Men. But, the version from 10 December (just before the current expansion began) has 2458 characters (no TOC) by my count, and the current text has 5058 (including TOC and headers, but excluding external links and sources). This excludes the list of names in both numbers, which would only make the ratio lower. What's the standard way the article size is counted? Gimmetrow 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You count the letters in the main text, skipping the citations. What I do is to go to the article as it appears to viewers (not clicking on "Edit" to edit the text). I paste that text into Word and check the properties of the text. I delete the TOC, external links, references, categories, etc. It sounds like you did it right. Royalbroil 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 5x? 

message: Okay, I managed to find a former DYK article, and judging by it's state, I think I can not only eliminate the cruft, but also verify facts, add more info, and maybe expand it abit in time for possible January 1st inclusion (maybe submit it during December 29th). But, it was a former DYK, and given the standards before, I was wondering a former DYK will automatically disqualify it from competing?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you can expand it to five times its current length?  That is what would be required to be considered at all for DYK again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, that I can make it 5 times better (besides expansion). Like I said, most of the work will be fact checking, because there is alot of "claims" in the article not linked to any references whatsoever. And it wouldn't be too hard to grab other facts to improve the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making it five times better will not qualify an article for DYK.  Making the text portion (not counting citations) five times longer would.  DYK is about featuring new articles, including those that have been expanded five-fold, but the article's creation or expansion must have occurred within the last five days.  Improving an article is not a criterion for being featured on DYK; that is the provenance of GA.  If you are not expanding the text portion of the article five-fold, then it will not be considered for DYK.  You can see the rules at Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions, which says exactly this.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second opinion please. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second opinion: --  has it right, it'd be neat to have an article appear twice, but it'd have to be expanded to five times current length, within the last five days.  Cirt (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I third Petey and Cirt for the reasons indicated. Royalbroil 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was a DYK already.....can it be resubmitted again? 

message: We have had a number of nominations come through lately where a question has been raised about eligibility.  In nearly all of these cases, the point appears in "The Rules", but the person who made the nomination either was unaware of the Rules or did not understand them.  Looking at how the Rules have been worded and organized, I can see why.  The Rules have been edited piecemeal for so long that it is difficult to see what is truly important.  I have been BOLD and revised "The Rules".  All the former content is still there, as well as some content that previously appeared only on the nominations page.  I think organizing the selection criteria into three main points will make it much easier both for nominators to see what is required, and for us to explain issues to those with questions. Comments? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising "The Rules"

message: I observed my DYK Vajreshwari temple nomination had just disappeared from the Suggestions page. I traced its disappearance here. . I was curious if this step by the editor involved was valid. (if failed, my nom should go to Expired norms, right????) Also a note was left by the editor at 05.55 today (29 December 2007). When the nom was removed, it was 15:56, 29 December 2007. Isn't too less time to answer the objections ???? Please help. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your nom has been removed because it's been promoted, and will appear in the next update. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Sorry Gatoclass.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappeared DYK noms 

message: I have frequently noticed on AN or ANI that the template is not always updated in a timely fashion.  Has anyone considered auto-rotation?  It could easily be done with switch statements that will rotate per hour or every few hours.   , for example, would give a number that would rotate every four hours.  So  would give you a different did you know every four hours, eg, "" for this hour.  Another switch could be made to include day mod 2 or mod 3 so that they can be setup several days in advance.  The so what of all this is that someone doesn't have to just so happen to be available right at the right time - if you want to setup the overnight DYKs, you don't have to be awake to do it - you can queue up the next day during waking hours.. --B (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autorotation 

message: Piotrus now has 175 DYK articles (written). Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions - I have proposed that this get put in the Signpost and it could do with some more lobbying I guess. DYK needs some good publicity, not just for Piotrus but for everyone at DYK, this is a success. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus blushes. Thanks guys, it wouldn't be possible without help from everybody else here. Indeed it would be great to calculate the number of DYKs and add it to the Signpost tipline to celebrate everybody's efforts, too - I am just a cog in a well-working machine. Also, do we have a way to calculate who puts the most work into tasks such as screening new articles for nominations and updating the templates? Those efforts also need to be recognized (even if just with a normal barnstar) :) PS. I will see about calculating number of my nominations for missing stats soon, they should be in the talk archives. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a special award for it, . Rigadoun  (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus breaks Ghirla's DYK record 

message: Please see Template talk:ArticleHistory#Back to the future. Simply south (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Why is there the text "Look at me!" at the Maxwell D Taylor picture at today's DYK? Is it a sort of a joke?
  
Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "Look at me!" appears at Template:Did you know/Next update to mean that a real caption hasn't been provided yet. Failure to change it is an error that happens every few months. It isn't a joke, and next time it should be reported at WP:ERRORS. Not this time - it's off the Main Page now. Art LaPella (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It just happened again! I can't stay awake all night, just to make sure the Main Page Did you know caption doesn't say "Look at me!" again. I fixed it for now. Art LaPella (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably messed up at least once on that... sorry, I'm new. :( · AndonicO Hail! 19:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad joke at today's DYK? 

message: I know this is a frequent false call but HMS Bonadventure (a jan 2 hook) seems to have "gone". I have made a note on the suggestions page. Is it me? Victuallers (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That hook is currently at the Template:Did you know/Next update Holding Bay, along with a comment by PFHLai. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose Wizardman's reasoning was that much of the information was in the HMS Argyll (1711) article, which is now a redirect. Therefore, it neither qualifies as a new article nor as a fivefold expansion.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2008 
(UTC)
Firstly let me say this is not my article (only my nom), however I feel the process has broken down. Late last night PHLai investigated what had happened to the hook. Reason said for rejection was "length of only 1478" ... no reason given for deleting the nom. I then did further research to add the next 22 chars. I am told the nom is in a "holding bay". I return today to find it is not there and not been published or in the discarded pile. Now there is no point in having a witchunt but surely if an article is below size or lacking in any respect then we comment on it and in time it gets to be a discarded nomination. 'Deleting articles just confuses people'. Nuff said except that I didnt know it was also a cut and paste from a previous article. I understand that we should not encourage that and it should not be published .... but we should have an audit trail. Thanks to all for listening to my rant. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost hook? 

message: For articles that are initially created in the userspace to work on, and then moved to the mainspace, is the date the article created in the userspace used when placing it on the suggestions page or the date when the article was moved into the mainspace? And on that note, would articles that sit in the userspace for more than five days be disqualified? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think they'd be disqualified, it's not really an article until it's in the article namespace for the first time. Even if we did "disqualify" it formally, it's not really a GFDL issue for a user to copy and paste a page from his userspace to the article namespace, if he was the only editor (GFDL mostly just requires authorship info be preserved). --W.marsh 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So even if it was moved from the userspace to the namespace (see history for List of Rental Magica episodes), would the date it was placed under for the suggestions page be January 1 or January 2? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with January 2, since that's when the move to the article space occurred (according to my computer, time zones can get confusing). --W.marsh 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I had been placing articles I've moved into the mainspace by the date I created it in my mainspace (January 1 in this case). I was always badgered by the continual worry of needing to finish the article as soon as humanly possible in order to have it qualify for DYK. This makes it a lot easier. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be specific about the dates when posting the nom, and you'll be fine.--74.13.125.72 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving from userspace 

message: For my own information, could you explain why  a hook for Godinez v. Moran on January 5 was not used. I checked it frequently and would have fixed any problems with it. Thanks.  Mattisse 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Godinez v. Moran (which is piped as a U.S. Court) on January 10  seems to be in trouble. Perhaps it is not possible to do anymore DYK legal articles? Mattisse 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: DYK is just backed up at the moment. In addition to the hook you mentioned, Partially selective school (England) and Adrian Ramsay from 5 Jan, and Traffic in Towns from 4 Jan are also waiting to get on. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Started to do something about these, but someone else is busy at the moment. Maybe next update :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Mattisse 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, DYK is backlogged of late to the point where we've had to skip otherwise good articles at times. We try not to, but with so many articles and so few updaters, it's difficult. Wizardman 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. I won't submit any more for a while. Thanks, Mattisse 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I've stopped myself as well, with how ridiculous the backlog is. Hopefully our new method of reducing it will help. Wizardman 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck out one that was still eligible. The other one has expired. I hate stressful situations as  the nominator is supposed to check back for comments. Time to move on and forget about DYK!  Mattisse 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about article not used 

message: But as a test to see if length can be used to catch up...ok with me. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding more in an attempt to catch up. There look to be a number of good articles that didn't make it into the column last week due to the backlog. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gonna go way over indeed, but I'll pad ITN and SA I can to try. I don't mind 14 hooks in an update since it'll help. Wizardman 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have struck out my remaining hooks and will no longer nominate entries. It seemed before that the complaint was not enough articles but since the case is the opposite now, which I did not realize, I will drop out and no longer nominate. Mattisse 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That is true. It certainly was for me and I am sorry to see it go. I is hard to find a place on Wiki where attacks and arguing aren't common. Mattisse 13:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK next update is a bit long 

message: Copied from the Main Page Discussion:
:...that one of the hackers at the 1984 Rose Bowl who used a remote control to alter the scoreboard to show the game's score as "Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 7", received college credit for the prank? One of the cited references lists it as Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 9, while the other lists it as Caltech 38 - M.I.T. 7. Which one is right?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have such a system; it depends on volunteers like you and me. Thank you for catching that one. To catch such problems before they get to the Main Page, you might want to help us monitor Template talk:Did you know and/or Template:Did you know/Next update. While we're harping on old issues, I would have more time for checking facts like that one if I had a User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks like a really great bot proposal, Art!  Something we should have had in place a long time ago. --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What system would have gotten you to fact-check this article in the 5 days it was posted here for review, before it went to the main page? This is a volunteer process... anyone can do the fact checking. If they don't feel like it... we can't really make them. --W.marsh 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best suggestion I could offer is that there be a "reminder" or "warning" stuck at Template:Did_you_know/Next_update to remind people to check the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As others have said, there are already numerous ways volunteers like you and me can check the article before it appears on the main page. It's not something that admins have to do. Since we already have too few admins involved in posting DYK updates and the associated work (like thanking contributors which admitedly doesn't have to be done by admins but it is the easiest way I guess and ensuring balance and stuff), requiring them to fact check each of the 6+ entries is probably pushing it a bit far Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Checking Lacking Again!! 

message: Why do we have Abani Mukherji hook appearing twice?--IslesCapeTalk 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: If I am working on an article in a sandbox over a long period of time and preserve that edit history by moving it into the mainspace when I am ready to go live, is the article considered "new" at the time of the move for purposes of dyk consideration? Or must I artificially lose that edit history by creating the article afresh to meet the technical requirement?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Moving_from_userspace right above on this page. --W.marsh 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh. So I guess that's a perennial question and I now look like all the rubes at the help desk to whom I constantly say "look two questions up";-) By the way, did you see my post directed to you at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speed of speedies? Thanks for the info.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving into mainspace; old history, new article 

message: A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Main Page#"Did you know" and "On this day" are getting too long. howcheng  {chat} 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK length 

message: I think we've finally gotten out the hole in regards to the backlog. I'm not sure if any of the remaining Jan 11 & 12th noms are useable but we may be just down to a one day backlog. :) AgneCheese/Wine 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, I think the Backlog is under control 

message: Today (at my 9.34, hour of Rome) all six out of six "did you know" in the main page concerned US or UK. Aren't there anything else interesting about other countries, even English-speaking ones? --Attilios (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, other nations whining about nothing...always fun to read. Arguably the largest english  (The United States) and the country of origin of the language (The United Kingdom) naturally get alot of coverage; God help it if they have alot of representation - this isn't "international wikipedia" this is "English wikipedia." Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International encyclopedia 

message: The signpost tutorial series is going to have an article on how to create an article that doesn't exsist yet. Since many people who do that meet here, i figured this would be the best place to ask for help. The two after this one will be on citations and making an article featured, if that helps. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like w worthy project, I will try to chip in.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Enochlau/Signpost tutorial series/Writing an article from scratch]] 

message: The current top DYK item starts with "Dhakis (bengali drummers) allegedly kill..." Allegedly is a WP word to avoid. Can't we replace it with something else, like "according to some estimates"? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allegedly" in DYK 

message: I believe it has been long-established practice that new, long articles that are created as a result of a merge or that are split off from existing articles are not eligible for DYK, correct? Assuming that this is indeed the case, it was brought to my attention that the rules don't specifically exclude this. Am I just wrong, or do we need to address this? Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure splits are generally rejected. If it was just a copy and paste of a section from an overlong article to a new one then there's no actual new content, which seems to be the spirit of DYK. But a split with say, 2X expansion, might qualify. New pagename, new content, new organization... that's enough for DYK. Does that sound reasonable? --W.marsh 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view is that it is all about new content. Justing being a merged article shouldn't disqualify it but there should be a significant introduction of new content after the merge. AgneCheese/Wine 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *This came up due to my nomination of Top Gear Test Track getting some merged info from two different articles. I completely looked at the rules, and found nothing addressing mergers. And frankly speaking, I nominated it to give the originator of the article a DYK nod. I rather the issue be rectified than drawn out into a debate. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Splits are not rejected outright, but the x5 rule applies. I would say if the split article is four parts new, ie a x5 expansion, then it would probably pass for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true. The key is new content, which is why an article that gets expanded simply due to a merger doesn't qualify. howcheng  {chat} 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged content 

message: How harmful and upsetting to the state of mind would it be to contemplate changing DYK policy to accept interesting facts from articles that are older than five days or have not been expanded fivefold in the last five days? - Neparis (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty harmful. Firstly, the current setup acts as a nice incentive for new editors and article writers. If established articles are allowed to get on, we lose a decent reward system for those people. There's also been significant problems just keeping up with articles from a five day period. If the range is extended, hooks'll never make it onto the section. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. If older articles were accepted, how would we "lose" the reward system for new editors and article writers?  Surely, DYK rewards would continue to be available to everybody who participates — rewarding a wider pool of contributors than at present. Isn't that a good thing? Extending the DYK reward system to writers who have worked on established articles? As for backlogs, are you short of admins to help clear them? If so, why not try to get more admins involved? - Neparis (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  There are two issues in my mind.  The backlog is the primary issue.  We can barely handle all the requests from new articles as it is.  If we suddenly made every article eligible we'd be swamped forever.  The secondary issue is that the purpose of DYK is to recognize new content.  Even though we're at  articles, there's still a lot to be written.  If it weren't for the massive backlog, one thing I've thought that could be interesting is allowing one or two hooks on each update from Good Articles.  Currently there's no public recognition system for the GA process.  But since we're massively backlogged, I think it's best not to expand the scope for now. --JayHenry (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A DYK-like system from Good Articles sounds like a great idea. I just don't know if it would get any traction. AgneCheese/Wine 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly might be possible to ask the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles to maybe review their own material and maybe allow slightly longer hooks for those articles, possibly on a subpage of their project, with perhaps placing them on the top. That would probably be the best and easiest way for the GAs to make the main page, and certainly easiest for the DYK people. John Carter (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the GA inclusion idea is a great idea. It seems unfair that GAs are never given a spot on the main page, unlike DYK and FA. We could change the wording to "new or recently improved articles" or something like that. I don't think the hooks should necessarily be longer, as that would unnecessarily aggravate the backlog pressure. I don't see why the GAs couldn't just be added to the suggestions under the date they were promoted, with an explanation like (promoted to GA) like we have for the expansions or new articles. One way we could reduce a potential backlog would be to limit articles expanded from reasonably-sized articles (i.e. not stubs) to ones that were promoted to GA. It used to be the rule that only expansions from stubs appeared on DYK, but that hasn't been the case for a while, as far as I know. Rigadoun  (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old articles have plenty of interesting facts too... 

message: Let's say I created an article a few months back (I created a slew of stubs with maybe 200 bytes of prose). Would they be eligible for DYK if i were to make them 2,000 bytes with a referenced hook? I wasn't sure if me creating the article originally renders them ineligible or not. Wizardman 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you nominate within five days of doing a 5x expansion I think you're okay.  I've done something like this once or twice.  I've always just included a note like "created this in May, but did a 5x expansion today" and I've never had anyone object to that. --JayHenry (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article eligibility question 

message: I was just wondering, if I don't click the "purge" link after updating DYK, how long the Main Page cache will take to display the new update? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should rephrase my question: Is it really necessary to click the purge link after updating DYK? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The purge button is mainly for your browser to show the update rather than the servers, i believe. Wizardman 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's actually to force the server cache to purge. I don't know how long it takes for the cache to refresh on its own, though. howcheng  {chat} 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purging cache 

message: No one has put the templates for the current DYKs on the nominators' pages, or on the article pages.  The next update is in less than a hour.  Shouldn't someone do something?--Bedford 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Problem 

message: I moved the rule back to 1500. 2,000 seemed a reasonable way of cutting down on the number of entries when we had a backlog, but with no backlog I see no reason to continue it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have no personal preference on whether the criteria is 1500 or 2000, I would caution against changing the criteria again so soon. This has the potential to become very confusing and frustrating to editors who do not follow the DYK pages regularly and find that the rules change on them between noms. There should probably be a broader discussion on what the criteria should be (backlog or no backlog) and have that be something that we stick to. AgneCheese/Wine 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, but IIRC the change was originally made with little consultation and a lot of people have expressed reservations about it. I'm fine with a broader discussion but 1500 has been a long established limit that has worked well and I see no reason to change it. Some short articles are very good and very informative, asking people to add an extra 500 bytes is IMO just asking for people to bloat their text with more blather. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was WP:BOLDLY done and now after a little over a week we are WP:BOLDLY changing it again. While I respect the good faith judgement made in both instances to try and improve the project, I still don't think this is a good road to go down. Boldness has its benefits but too much can just be a headache. And then what happens when we get a backlog again? Do we have someone WP:BOLDLY change it once more? I'm a bit uncomfortable with that and what it could foresee. While I was glad to lend a hand in reviewing, I'm not enthralled at the idea of trying to apply what is potentially a revolving door of standards. I  just don't think this is fair to any of the DYK participants. AgneCheese/Wine 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't the easiest way to reduce the backlog be to have the articles rotate more frequently? I don't know how long the average DYK is up at the moment, but surely the best way to prevent backlogs would be to reduce the time spent on the mainpage for hooks on any particular day. E.g if there are heaps of nom's, have a higher turnover of hooks? - Shudde talk 07:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had enough problems with updating every six hours.  It's been averaging 7.5 hours here lately, sometimes going dangerously close to 10.  That won't be feasible.--Bedford 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a good point Agne, we shouldn't be applying a "revolving door of standards" and I think the initial change, while it seemed like a rational move at the time, was not such a good idea. I think in future if we end up with another substantial backlog, then rather than fiddling with the basic rules, it will make much more sense to keep the established standards and just select the best available articles. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I have no tangible preference between 1500 & 2000. I just want one or the other. :) If we could get some sort of consensus or assurance that the standard is not going to change again in a week or two when the inevitable blacklog re-appears, I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable. AgneCheese/Wine 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A year's a long time in Wiki terms :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Might as well leave it at 1500, but leave a disclaimer that it can change according to demand and supply and isn't guaranteed. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I missed that when I changed the rules back to 1,500. I've changed the Suggestions page to conform with the 1,500 now. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to 1500 chars 

message: DYK has been mentioned in an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violation_on_main_page.3F --W.marsh 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on ANI 

message: Yes, we know, hooks that are just fine for DYK stay there even after the 5 days expire. I have just assumed that the purpose of DYK if to show the new articles that come in. If this is the case, is it right to just auto-expire them without looking at them in five days? Example is just now, january 2 was expired though it's th 8th. Makes sense, but there's a bunch of hooks still there. I'm not pointing fingers or anything (since I don't know who to point to), but somethign needs to be done so we can cram through the backlogs and not have them falling three days behind (which i've seen) it's only going to get worse if we don't find a solution.
I guess the first step is asking ourselves which is better, a backlog past five days to cram the hooks in, or just chopping off nominations that have nothing wrong with them, but we're just out of room? Maybe we need to tighten the requirements? Wizardman 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 13 hooks lined up. A new record. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know that much can be done about the basic problem though. As Durova has pointed out, Wiki is still rapidly growing and as it grows, and as more and more people get interested in DYK, we are probably just going to end up with more and more hooks and people are going to have to get used to only scoring an occasional DYK. In a way though, I think that will be better, because it will make a DYK a lot more valuable and more of a thrill for users when they score one. Gatoclass (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. We might have to resort to making occasional cutbacks. We need to become stricter on what we do allow in, and possibly the people that submit a DYK every day can slow down a bit, or not send in every article they touch. We have to make sure that we do it in a nice, communitarian way. We don't need to have a problem like what happened with IvoShandor and Matisse. I'll make sure to take in my own advice as well and slow down a bit on the baseball submissions (though mine are not all that frequent) Wizardman 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need to slow down on your submissions. I don't see why users who create a lot of articles should effectively penalize themselves just for doing so. I'm fine with you or someone else submitting as many articles as they like, just so long as said users realize that not all their submissions are going to be promoted when there is a backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it be much simpler just to up the requirements to 2,000 characters for a new article, or 3,000, and require that all submissions use in-line citations for eligibility?  Cirt (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However, the backlog at the talk page isn't the only issue; it's the backlog of the hooks, the backlog of updaters, etc. Increasing the number of characters from eligibility is fine as a quick solution, but we can't make a habit of doing that everytime the backlogs get bad. As for inline citations, I do support that, however it would need to be enforced a heck of a lot better than it is now. Wizardman 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say they are being rejected as much as being placed lower on the priority totem pole of perspective articles to feature. It really depends on the backlog. Nothing prevents an admin from using their judgement and featuring a strong article with less than 2000 characters. If we get to the point where we actually have a shortage of hooks, they will probably be used more often then not even if they aren't 2000 characters. But when we currently have an abundance, I think it is reasonable to shift priority to featuring more fully developed articles (like the ones over 2000 characters) over smaller one. AgneCheese/Wine 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Agne here, articles with 1,500 characters read as incomplete. 2000 is a good start, especially when faced with a plethora of deserving articles. Personally I always strive for a complete bio, which generally spreads to about 3k at the least.Bakaman 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A serious backlog problem 

message: A number of hooks are being rejected with the new 2,000 minimum size.  How about reverting it back to 1,500?  The hooks of previously selected articles of 1,500 to 2,000 length were sometimes very interesting. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say they are being rejected as much as being placed lower on the priority totem pole of perspective articles to feature. It really depends on the backlog. Nothing prevents an admin from using their judgement and featuring a strong article with less than 2000 characters. If we get to the point where we actually have a shortage of hooks, they will probably be used more often then not even if they aren't 2000 characters. But when we currently have an abundance, I think it is reasonable to shift priority to featuring more fully developed articles (like the ones over 2000 characters) over smaller one. AgneCheese/Wine 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Agne here, articles with 1,500 characters read as incomplete. 2000 is a good start, especially when faced with a plethora of deserving articles. Personally I always strive for a complete bio, which generally spreads to about 3k at the least.Bakaman 00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: partial revert back to old system?

message: I noted that PFHLai left the following comment on Archtransit's talk page:
I thought I could remind you, when updating DYK, to check the layout on MainPage.  Putting in just 5 bulleted items when ITN and SA/OTD are a bit long, as you did in this update, makes a 'hole' on MainPage, at least on my monitor, between DYK and POTD.  
I would like to fully endorse this comment from PFHLai about checking the layout to ensure the number of DYK entries matches up with the length of the "On This Day" column opposite. I've seen big gaps here quite commonly, and it looks untidy. But sometimes the opposite occurs and there are many more DYK entries listed than there should be.
I have no idea who is responsible for this because I don't keep tabs on who is responsible for the updating, so I'm certainly not singling out Archtransit here. But whoever may be responsible, I think it would be a good idea if updaters paid more attention to this issue when organizing the updates. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that sometimes we update at 21:00 UTC. This means that for three hours, there will be a sizable hole either at the start or end. There's no real way to fix this unless we delay the update, which I'm sure we're trying not to do. Wizardman 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched frontpage layout 

message: As a fairly new admin, I recently did the DYK update for the first time (and have done it once more since). I have two suggestions for possible improvements to the update process. 
First, would it be possible to have a "How to Update DYK Guide" for inexperienced admins? I realize there are instructions in various places for the process, but I think it would help to have all the directions in one place. This might also be a place for putting helpful hints, links to scripts used by some editors for updating, etc. (thanks to Royalbroil for pointing me here). My thought is that if there were concise directions, then perhaps more admins would help out with the update process.
Second, would it be possible to have a bot do the notifications (on article, author, and nominator talk pages)? The actual update is not that difficult or time consuming to do "by hand", but I have found the notices to talk at least half an hour. Perhaps the bot could leave a link to the updater's talk page in case there were errors / questions. Users are glad to learn that their article is in DYK, my guess is they would not care if a bot delivered the news. If FAC notices can be done via bot, it seems DYK can too. I also will note that I have not done the update at least once because I knew I did not have time to do the notifications.
Thanks for considering these ideas - I look forward to the discussion, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both good ideas IMO. The bot issue has been raised before but we just need to find someone to write it :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly I can not write bots either. I neglected to say that the reminder to match DYK in your above comment could be part of the directions too. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever filed a bot request for a DYK bot, or has consensus never been reached in these previous discussions? Scripts don't work very well on my relatively slow broadband connection. I like the idea that the bot would "sign on behalf of admin X". Royalbroil 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one, although I didn't find any discussion there of the specific issue here. Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: There have been a few recent cases of people nominating major news story articles for DYK. These article have been featured in the "In the news" section. Our practice has been to not select articles that have been featured in "In the news" (ITN) because purpose for DYK is to give main page exposure to the best new articles to encourage new articles. These ITN articles already have main page exposure for far more than the 6 hours that DYK articles get. We should change the rules to explicitly state that articles that have already had main page exposure are not eligible for DYK. Royalbroil 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a logical proposal to me. People are hardly likely to want to read a news item and then re-read it again on DYK a couple of days later, Front page space is also very limited and I don't think we should be wasting it on recycled articles. We appear to have more than enough noms already anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Cirt (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Greenshed (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Support. Canyouhearmenow 12:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the news" articles getting featured in DYK 

message: Is the clock working properly at the moment? It seems to have just reset itself when it was about to go overdue. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clock reset 

message: I just wanted to note, for the record, that I was never officially informed that Fort Harrison State Park was used on the front page for DYK, even through I was the one who originally created it, expanded it, and nominated it.--Bedford 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the template to your talk page, sorry for the oversight and thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--Bedford 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fort Harrison State Park]] 

message: Hi, under current rules an article must be no more than five days old in order to qualify for DYK. I assume that reckoning of the period starts – when the article is first created (no matter how crappy it is) or expanded. I feel that five days from this date is really too short to get an article properly done, as it doesn't take into account the fact that editors may have other things to do. I would suggest a period of at least 14 days. — Cheers, JackLee –talk–</span> 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy. I could only imagine how big the blacklog would be then. :p While I would love to see more fully developed articles come through DYK, I think the current 5 day criteria is about right. If you are afraid of "running out of time", you could start the article in the sandbox before moving it to mainspace. Recent precedent have been to considered the time frame of a new article from the date that it went "live" in the mainspace and accessible to readers. That way you could have all the time you need. AgneCheese/Wine 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. :) AgneCheese/Wine 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I write everything in Notepad.  It's my favorite word processor.  And being offline stops me from checking my watchlist after every complete sentence. --JayHenry (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Five days old" rule 

message: There's a tool out there that allows you to check page views for articles during Dec. and Jan.  I thought it would be interesting to see how effective some of our DYK "hooks" have been to figure out what works and what doesn't.  If the goal is to draw reader attention to new articles, this type of raw data may help improve future hooks.  The data shows that DYK is working, but to varying degrees depending on how catchy the hook is.  Does anyone keep track of what constitutes the average view rate when something appears on DYK?  This is just a random selection, but it seems to show that the extremes are less than 400 views and more than 4,000 views. Here's what I found at the extremes:
Hooks that worked
*Thomas Trueblood: 6,700 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Thomas%20Trueblood  ...that University of Michigan elocution professor Thomas Trueblood (pictured) received nationwide attention when the Chicago Tribune reported in 1903 that he was offering a new "course in love making"? 
*Mike Vranos: 6,700 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Mike%20Vranos  ...that Mike Vranos, a man considered by some to be the most powerful man on Wall Street in the early 1990s, was known for breaking up business meetings to issue armwrestling challenges? 
*Marco Pennette: 6,500 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Marco%20Pennette  }}...that gay screenwriter Marco Pennette was outed in front of his parents on the People's Choice Awards red carpet by a colleague who asked him about his boyfriend?
*Abani Mukherji: 6,000 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/abani%20mukherji ...that Abani Mukherji, co-founder of the Communist Party of India, died in Soviet captivity in the 1930s? 
*Beaches in Kerala: 5,900 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/beaches%20in%20kerala  ...there is a belief that a dip in the waters of Papanasam Beach (pictured), one of the beaches in Kerala, washes away sins? 
*Frank Steketee: 5,500 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Frank%20Steketee  ...that, though records from the era are sketchy, press accounts reported that All-American football player Frank Steketee once kicked a 100-yard punt? 
* Jeopardy! theme songs: 5,200 views while on DYK  http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Jeopardy!%20theme%20songs  ...that Think!, the Jeopardy! theme song composed by show creator Merv Griffin, earned royalties of over $70 million (U.S.) since it debuted on the show in 1964? 
*Bob Chappuis: 5,000 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Bob%20Chappuis  ...that, after eluding capture for three months when his B-25 bomber was shot down behind enemy lines in World War II, Bob Chappuis was the MVP of the Rose Bowl 60 years ago? 
*King Neptune (pig): 4,300 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/king%20neptune%20(pig) ...that a pig named King Neptune helped raise $19 million in war bonds between 1942 and 1946?  
*Punch-up in Piestany: 4,300 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Punch-up%20in%20Piestany ...that Canada and the Soviet Union were disqualified from the 1987 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships following the Punch-up in Piestany, costing Canada a potential gold medal? 
*Portuguese conquest of Jaffna Kingdom" 3,800 views while on DYK  http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Portuguese%20conquest%20of%20Jaffna%20Kingdom ...that the Portuguese conquest of the Jaffna Kingdom led to all the remaining royal descendants becoming nuns and monks in holy orders? 
*Edwin, son of Edward the Elder: 3,100 views while on DYK  http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Edwin,%20son%20of%20Edward%20the%20Elder  ...that the drowning of Edwin, son of Edward the Elder, half-brother of King Athelstan of England, in 933 was described as an execution and a suicide by medieval English historians? 
*Anton Zamloch: 2,900 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/anton%20zamloch  ...that 19th century magician and vaudeville star Anton Zamloch was accused, and then exonerated, of having "bewitched" a woman's wedding ring from her gloved hand? 
Hooks that flopped
*Thomas Wilcher: 400 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Thomas%20Wilcher  ...that 1985 NCAA hurdling champion Thomas Wilcher won the Michigan High School Athletic Association team track & field championship three consecutive times, both as an athlete and a coach? 
*Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders: 300 views while on DYK  ...that former Michigan Wolverines rushing leader and teammate of Russell Davis, Harlan Huckleby only scored 13 touchdowns in six National Football League seasons, but three were in a single game?
*James B. Craig: 250 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/James%20B.%20Craig  ...that James B. Craig, an All-American football halfback and quarterback, was the brother of Ralph Craig, a sprinter and gold medalist at the 1912 Summer Olympics? 
*Paul Worley: 220 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Paul%20Worley ...that Paul Worley, a Grammy Award-winning country music record producer and guitarist, got his start in the 1970s playing guitar for Janie Fricke and Eddy Raven? 
*Keith Bostic: around 40 views while on DYK http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Keith%20Bostic  ...that former Michigan Wolverines football player Keith Bostic was elected by his teammates as the toughest guy on the National Football League Houston Oilers defense?  Cbl62 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to characterise 400 page views in a day as a flop. I suspect the average specialist article doesn't get anywhere near that many views in a month. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, but it's a flop relatively speaking.  As far as DYK goes, Main Page real estate, 400 isn't that many.  It's not as if the subject matter is different between successful hooks and less successful hooks.  The most viewed and least viewed in this sample are both college athletes.  The stats demonstrate that more interesting hooks draw in substantially more readers. --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Even though featured articles have longer and more prominent posting, it turns out a good DYK hook can be competitive with a featured article in terms of views.  Here are some of January's less successful featured articles as examples:
** Crazy Taxi: 4,500 views http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/crazy%20taxi
** Queluz National Palace: 16,000 views  http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Queluz%20National%20Palace
** Tuck School of Business: 16,000 views http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Tuck%20School%20of%20Business
** John Day (printer): 17,000 views http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/John%20Day%20(printer)Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Stede Bonnet link is actually to the article Crazy Taxi.  Stede Bonnet was viewed more than 60,000 times during its main page appearance. --JayHenry (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  My mistake.Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK Page View Counts 

message: I don't see why the short-lived gambler Dan Allen on 2/7 gets precedence over Anna Wilson, the madame, who did much more for the city of Omaha. A bit of sexism, perhaps?Dale662 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anna Wilson (madam) article isn't newly created or recently expanded, and therefore isn't eligible for DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that it's already been on DYK before. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2/7 Sexism? 

message: I'm as big of a fan of them as anyone, however I do not think their absence should be (in and of itself) a disqualification provided the article can still be easily verified. This is most relevant when there is an article that is sourced to a single reference or link. With a large number of books available on Amazon Reader/Google Books that provide a keyword search, I can normally verify the hook of an article based on that single source-even if there is not an inline cite. It requires little, if any, extra effort and we still end up with the desired verification. However, if there is a laundry list of sources and no cites, I'll tag the particular hook claim and request a cite because it is really not practical to go through that haystack of sources looking for a needle of information. While I certainly want to encourage the use of cites, I think it is reasonable to let articles that can still be easily verified without cites not be penalized unfairly. AgneCheese/Wine 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is to go with allowing single-source stuff without inline citations, then I think the rules should be edited to reflect this, as at the moment they stress heavily the need for inline cites. Allowing some tacit rule breaking only encourages others to whinge that we unfairly applied the rules against them. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't just your notes. There have been other articles, by a variety of reviewers, in the last week that have been "dinged" for not having in-line cites. I agree that in-line cites are certainly a "best practice" and would like to see this encouraged, but I don't know how much we should be focusing on what happens after the hook is featured when folks could come in and add all the inaccuracies, etc. That danger is present even if there are in-line citations. We just have to put faith in the article creator and nominator that they will maintain the article...but ultimately, the DYK process will run itself ragged trying to be a sort of pre-Good article vetting. I will note that the current criteria, as on the suggestion page, states "Articles with good references and citations are preferred."-not required. It is possible for a short 1500 byte article to be throughly referenced by one reliable source. Overall, though, I think it is assumed that the new articles that DYK feature are in their infancy with the expectation that they would grow and expand with more sourcing. While I would love to see GA or B-class quality featured with every DYK, the current reality of the project doesn't make that likely.  We've established a short 5 day time span and 1500 byte minimum criteria for articles. I think our expectations for the type of fully developed article we're going to get coming through here should not be that high-unless we are willing to tighten the criteria to up the character count and make citations and multiple sourcing explicitly required (beyond just the hook). That would be a radical departure from what DYK has been but it would substantially improve the quality of articles that are featured. AgneCheese/Wine 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another salient point is that when the number of nominations exceeds the number of available slots, then some way of differentiating them has got to be imposed; quality (in terms of length, quality of writing, number and quality of references &c) seems to me to be fairer than most. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. AgneCheese/Wine 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citation note 

message: It would appear (diff) that the "Next Update" clock was reset without an actual update. Two questions: First, it seems we are (over)due for an update - can someone double check this (and if you know what happened, explain)? Second, it appears this was changed by a non-admin - should the update clock be protected? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user in question replied on my talk page and said she was away from her computer and somebody used her account to reset the clock. I also see User:Archtransit has done the update now. The question remains, should the clock itself be protected or is it useful to keep it unprotected? Thanks, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update clock problem 

message: Would an article still be an eligible candidate for DYK if it was created and planned out in userspace a week ago, but was moved to the mainspace and nominated. Would that still be considered okay? Qst (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, articles are considered to be "created" on the first day they spend in Article space. Time spent in User space isn't counted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in userspace 

message: Why does the rollover image caption at Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear say "Look at me!"? It does remind the updating administrator to remember to change it. But if he forgets and it survives onto the Main Page, it looks like vandalism, and it happens about once a month. I suggest "Rollover caption not supplied yet. If this is on the Main Page, please report it at WP:ERRORS." Or almost anything would be better than "Look at me!" on the Main Page. Note that saying "Let's just remember to change the caption" is not a solution, unless you can suggest a better procedure that will cause the updating administrator to remember all the details including the image caption. Yes I know, we need a bot, but until then can we change the caption? Art LaPella (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could leave the default blank, so that when admins forget to update it doesn't say anything at all when people drag their mouse over the image.  That would be preferable to an error message, in my opinion.  We could also leave a reminder in  about the caption, and if there are admins who repeatedly update without the caption, we can drop them a friendly reminder. --JayHenry (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at me! 

message: The hook on this is hardly new  ..that in a college prank televised across the United States, spectators at the 1961 Rose Bowl unknowingly displayed the word "CALTECH" in an altered card stunt instead of the nickname of one of the teams on the field? the Great Rose Bowl Hoax has been on wiki for years Gnevin (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose bowl 

message: My suggested hook for the 1860 Oxford evolution debate was edited from "Bishop Wilberforce is said to have asked Thomas Huxley" to "Bishop Wilberforce asked Thomas Huxley" but, as the article notes, we can't be sure of what Wilberforce actually said.  The line is very widely quoted but some reliable sources reckon it's completely inaccurate.  Maybe we could add "allegedly" or "supposedly" or something.
Also, I forgot to link to monkey.  I don't wanna interfere with the next update though.  Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next update