Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 4

message: I just wanted to express my love for WP:DYK. It is very heart-warming and encouraging to see one's contributions on the main page (even more so when they're nominated by someone else). Go DYK! :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and by extension, kudos to all the admins who keep it updated, and the editors that troll through newpages on a regular basis. *blows kisses* pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikilove 

message: Is DYK limited to just articles? If it isn't, I think it shouldn't be. What do others think? RENTAFOR LET? 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: The string "acqutted" currently appears in DYK.  Please add an i. LWizard @ 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is off main page now. As relatively fewer no. of people track this page, you should try Talk:Main Page for instant results. Thanks for bringing this up, --Gurubrahma 13:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: * A DYK medal a la the FA medal has been instituted in order to honour excellent contributions to DYK. This is similar in conception to the barnstar system of recognition. It would be worthwhile to honour people who contribute to DYK on a continuous basis through their excellent articles / suggestions (from the articles started by them as well as others). Please feel free to confer this award on deserving people. 
* As I write this, the vote for changing the main page design seems to be 579 support to 180 oppose votes in favour of the new main page design. This would mean that DYK would make its appearance on all the weekdays.
* As we have crossed million articles and as we get set to have DYK every day of the week, it becomes important to ensure that the quality of the articles does not drop. Articles need to be of a minimum length and lists would not be considered as articles usually. The current guidelines stipulate that stubs should not be added to the main page. However, the guidelines are confusing because they state a minimum size of 1000 bytes at one place and 1000 characters at another. I propose that we should have a minimum size of 350 words - this should be enough to fill one screen area and would be considerably longer than a stub.
* Updating DYK column (by an admin) and notifying users takes 20-30 minutes. Also, the updating process itself is not straight forward, involving uploads, protects, archives etc. The process has become lengthier for images uploaded from commons as attribution also needs to be done. As a result, the admins who update this on a continuous basis are limited to one to three people at the most. With the increase in number of suggestions, and the attendant need for updating DYK across time zones, every day of the week, would call for more admins updating DYK; this would also imply a need for simplifying the process.
* A suggestion for simplifying the process and its benefits: - Typically,  is used to notify the creators of articles on their user talkpages about a suggestion from so-and-so article making it to DYK. Many a time, the person who suggests the article for DYK is not the same as one who starts the article (not a self-nom, in our parlance) - and he has no way of knowing if and when the suggestion has made it to DYK. More often than not, he is also a principal contributor to the article in question. To address these problems, , which is used to update article talk pages has been implemented. As the article itself would be conceivably on the watchlist of all the major contributors to the article, everyone of them would know that the article has made it to DYK. Also, it serves as a more public record than a user talk page and can inspire more people to work on better entries that make it to DYK. I suggest that only the talkpages of articles be updated from now on, with the usertalkpages updation left entirely optional (I am not in favour of deleting or deprecating  entirely because this can be useful for motivating newbies on their first DYK entries). I plan to implement this scheme from the coming week. --Gurubrahma 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcements and proposed changes

message: Would like to suggest that this one be saved for April 1 (with, admittedly, a little DYK rules bending) if possible. See Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page and the talk page... ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already made it to the DYK, but let's see - though I wasn't around last year on that day, I heard that there were lot of silly pranks then. I'd rather prefer something genuine like this, but let's see. --Gurubrahma 12:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an archive somewhere of all the stuff done, pretty funny stuff... if you're an insider. This year's idea is to make it funny for those not in the know by using only true items, with the prank being that they actualy are true despite sounding obviously false. Perhaps the DYK rules bending needed would just be to allow this one, and a few carefully selected others, to be "reselected" as it were, on the day... ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British Rail flying saucer]] 

message: According to the Manual of Style, italics should be used for television show titles and double quotes should be used for episode titles.  Right now the DYK section says, "...award-winning Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Inner Light is..."  Could someone please fix this?  Dismas|(talk) 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe such concerns should be addressed to Talk:Main Page. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in the current DYK listing on the main page 

message: There was some previous discussion (now in the most recent archive) about allowing DYK to cover articles that have recently been built up from stubs rather than just new articles. It received some reasonably positive comments but nothing ever came of it. I think this would be a positive move because I think at this stage in Wikipedia's development we have more need to improve our existing articles than to get new ones. Allowing expanded stubs to be displayed on the main page would encourage this. Any thoughts on this? --Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already an implicit policy, and I have myself updated sveral expanded stubs to DYK - caveats: these should have been really stubs (definitely less than 500 words), should not have made it to DYK before (some admin may have put them on DYK some time back inadvertently) and should be at least thrice as long as the previous stub version. --Gurubrahma 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right. That's good. I thought I'd recently seen someone reject a request to put an expanded stub on as it wasn't allowed. Should The Rules but updated to reflect this? --Cherry blossom tree 12:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the announcement section above, we have different rules on different DYK pages. I would like to wait for a month or so to address objections to the above proposed changes before standardising them on all DYK pages. That rejection you refer to may have been because it was not a stub before expansion (length rather than tag matters) or it may not have been listed within 5 days of expansion. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the guidelines Gurubrahma proposes (and is defacto using?). They seem very reasonable, after all the point of DYK is to highlight new things that are neat to know more about. If the article was a stub and now it isn't, the new thing to highlight wasn't there before, after all. Thanks for moving this forward. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing expanded articles? 

message: The assertion on the Main Page that Seacliff, Scotland, was a missile defence base during World War I looked a bit odd to me (who had long range rockets in World War I?), and as far as I can tell the actual article makes no such claim. Too late to fix it? Willhsmit 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself seems to have been corrected. I've fixed the DYK blurb. Shimgray | talk | 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World war 1 missile defence? 

message: Do the rules for this main DYK apply to other DYKs such as Portal:Music/Did you know? Hyacinth 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only to this one. --Gurubrahma 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other DYKs

message: The first printed edition of the Bible in a Slavic language can not be Ostrog Bible of 1580 when Prague Bible was printed already in 1488. Qertis 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talkpage of Ostrog Bible may be the right place to take this up. --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ostrog Bible 

message: Both Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (From April 5, 2004) and even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which is clearly not a new article (and is in fact from 2002) are currently in DYK.  Shouldn't the updating admin actually check if the article is new? --Rory096 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Casu marzu, too, from March 16, 2002! --Rory096 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Main Page - some ppl. want to have fun on April fool's day by putting genuine stuff that sounds unbelievable, hence the old DYKs - this would only be for today (UTC time). --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins not checking whether the article is new? 

message: Someone suggested this as the heading for April Fools' once. Shouldn't be too harmful. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure has a subtle form of humour in it. It is a good heading ONLY for April Fools' day though. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you care...? 

message: The Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article isn't new.  So, um... yeah, it really doesn't belong it DYK.  Just thought I'd point that out. MrVoluntarist 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually a harmless April Fool's day joke. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a heads up 

message: I'm well aware that current DYK policy is not to allow articles older than 120 hours old. Does that mean that an article that gets stranded on the nomination page until it's older than 120 hours is excluded?
Example: I did a self-nom on 2005-06 World Sevens Series on April 11. Another admin commented that it wasn't appropriate yet to be featured on DYK, and suggested improvements. I expanded the article considerably, and he okayed it on my talk page. However, there hasn't been an update to the template for nearly a full day. Even though I'm an admin, I don't consider myself competent enough to edit the template myself. By the time the template gets updated, there will be several possible entries—not just mine—that will be over 120 hours old.
What's the policy regarding stranded noms that haven't received comments, or have been commented but improved? — Dale Arnett 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it on the list under April 11, and see what happens.  I just updated the template a few hours ago, so maybe on the next run it'll be in there (depends on the admin doing the update). I put one from April 10 on the main page this time around; for me the 120 hours thing isn't a hard and fast rule. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of DYK articles 

message: I'm a little unclear on exactly who decides, and when they decide, which articles "make it" and which don't? What proportion of nominations tend to get in? Is there any kind of discussion/consensus/voting process, or does the admin just make a judgment call? Stevage 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly an admin judgment call, but users normally post comments saying that they think the article is too short, badly formatted, etc.  As for a nomination success rate, it's pretty high (probably 80-90%). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selection process

message: The archive section at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know is getting very long. Reading the source of that section, it seems that User:AllyUnion used to run a bot that archived old DYKs in that section. Does anyone object if I reuse the code and make another DYK archiving bot? Kimchi.sg 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, the archive section on the talk page is way too long. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Got a hint from Tawker, and dropped a note to Werdna648. Hope his bot can do this task. Kimchi.sg 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive section needs updating 

message: Ok, despite my bitching above I'm going to do another update. Now it doesn't look as if any worthy articles are going to miss their place in the sun I can make sure I'm doing it right. Basically, I passed over rail transportation in Okinawa because it has no sources. I also passed over Uí Ímair because of its length. Am I being fair in both cases? --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK an article being unsourced is not a disqualifying factor for DYK. I wouldn't disagree with your judgement, though. And we could always propose that as another DYK criteria. Kimchi.sg 09:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are about to beat me to it Sam, I'll let you go ahead and update. I note your comments about rail transportation in Okinawa, although I had it "pencilled in". Exposure on DYK often generates useful links and sources. I'll be interested to see your selections though but I'll keep my others under wraps for now :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of articles? 

message: The display of this template on the DYK talk page seems to be broken for some reason, in my browser at least. CURRENTDAYNAME is displaying a broken link to Thirsday instead of the correct day. The template itself doesn't appear to have been vandalised, so does any template-guru have any idea what the hell is going on and how to fix it? --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been alot of adjustments and complete replacements of the templates I originally used to perform all the date calculations for this page. Somebody must have introduced a typo somewhere along the line. I'll track it down. --CBDunkerson 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did not have any problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for fixing it CBD --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. --CBDunkerson 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|DYK-Refresh}}

message: Have a look at the first archive. They were nice and simple then :) Have the DYK phrasings become too long and tortured? Stevage 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We still do see occasional one-liners, but these are getting rarer now. My feeling is that the increasing pressure to present the best-looking entry for DYK is causing editors to bulk up their entries with more words. Kimchi.sg 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to heartily agree here.  A blurb of this type is actually more interesting when it's been reduced to just one enticing factoid.  In cases of excess, I think the updating admin should just feel free to trim what's been overwritten.--Pharos 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a guideline, how about making sure each point is only "one point" (no "that blah, and also that..."), and if examples are given, no more than two are included? Note: guideline, not rule :) Stevage 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've started enforcing it on my own entries from, well, this one. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nomination length is a balancing act between the article length and quality, the nature and interest factor of the facts, and the available space to be balanced out to occupy the main page efficiently. I think adding more rules is unneccessary and we should continue to trust admins to use discretion to achive the right mix. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DYKs used to be shorter

message: I am keen to get started doing DYKs now that I have the shiny new admin buttons. I've been a bit swamped at work but hope to get to one this evening, and definitely will do some this weekend. I've read through the instructions and other relevant things but still might want someone to fire questions off to during the process. Also I have a question, how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are? I assume that you do the protections of images and articles first, and actually change the template as the very last thing to do, save that, check the main page to make sure it took correctly, and then go around to article and editor talk pages to leave the notices... that seems like you might get into protecting things, and then find out that another editor already did the DKY template update, rendering your protects superfluous... thoughts? (the backlog right now is really bad... lots of great articles that deserve promotion) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, pretty much a good order to do things in. Sometimes there are conflicts in updating, but it's pretty rare - just do a final check of the page history before hitting the save button to make sure. If you've wasted half an hour preparing things it's no big deal, just some learning on new topics - reading the DYK noms is usually great fun. Good to know there's a new updater aboard :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: With regards to "how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are?" I see this could become a real problem as more sysops partake of the DYK updating work. Maybe we can have a  template that says "DYK is being updated now by ADMIN_NAME." and have the updating admin insert it in Template talk:Did you know for the duration of the update, so that other people will know? Kimchi.sg 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Where to put it? behind noinclude tags on the main page? Or as you say on the talk page where the noms are (which is where people start work I assume)? or both?. I'll make one up if no one else does shortly. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the other DYK admins comment here? I'm not sure how you guys start the updating routine. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I hate edit conflicts. That suggests the source page where the noms are is the right place. I may create and start using a template. (or just uncomment and recomment a warning box) No one else has to do so if they don't want to... I'm new here though so I'll try it without for a few cycles first I guess. Optional doesn't mean bureaucracy, although I dislike it too. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I just did my first one. I found it rather hard/finicky. I only did a partial, there were 5 articles, I pulled 2 and added 3 (there seemed to be room since the three I added had compact hooklines). Please, anyone that knows what they are doing, check my work. I protected the new image (but I just realised I forgot to unprotect the old one!) and left notices on talk and user pages. Comments, feedback, concerns, all very welcome. I will have to leave Friday to others as I will be traveling. But I will do some of Saturday's ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job! Looks quite okay. Kimchi.sg 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All looks good to me too, although a full changeover would have been good. It makes the archival process slightly easier. Good job nonetheless.--Cactus.man ✍ 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A full changeover makes archiving easier? I did not know that. I put the 3 articles I removed in the archive myself.... I'll keep that in mind though. (and we have enough of a backlog that there is no shortage of material). However, as it turns out I think I may have messed up a bit... see ... I did not look at that image closely enough. Although arguably the copyright symbol is a false assertion, it would have been better not to use that image at all. So whoever does the next rotation... please rotate that image off! There are lots of other good ones. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for myself, I find it easier, others may not. The current situation though is that when the next updater archives Mafeking Cadet Corps, s/he needs to remember that particular item previously was at #1 with an image, and they should add that image to the archive page also. I just think it's easier not to miss things like that if they're all done together. But each to his own :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Update, I see the copyright question has caused the allegedly offending image to be removed, so that's that possible banana skin removed. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting started doing DYKs