Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 23

message: I haven't read the manga in question, but is this a spoiler of some sort?
*...that Den, a fictional character in the Battle Angel Alita, is actually a giant remote-controlled slave unit run from a transmitter embedded in the chest of one of the story's main characters? Kelvinc 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but it's been well-established that Wikipedia contains spoilers. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia itself, or at least certain editors, have a policy that essentially prohibits spoiler notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: I'm not a DYK admin - but some DYKs lack context and such - is it okay for me to make comments to that affect on the suggestions page? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd be commenting on proposed hooks while they're still being considered? By all means, weigh in there. The more eyes look at each hook the better. If one fetches up on the main page still without sufficient context, you're also most welcome to comment on the Main Page Errors page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - thanks for the response.  If you see me doing something wrong - just let me know!!! :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what exactly you mean by 'lack context' -- the hooks are limited to <200 characters, which often makes including full context there impossible, or are you referring to the articles themselves? Either way, more scanning of the suggestions page is helpful. Espresso Addict 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, i wasn't sure how to phrase this - but there were a number of DYKs that seemed somewhat trivial in nature (and i'm talking about for things i am familiar with).  I'll just keep an eye out Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What is trivial to some may be monumental to others... what's the rule here, for clarity? – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Problematic" DYKs 

message: I just reverted a change at WP:DYK that would have made 1.5 kb the minimum rather than 1,500 characters.  I feel that 1,500 characters of main body text is important to preserve.  1.5 kb could be achieved by infobox, external links, see alsos and a list -- you could end up with 1.5 kb and maybe a paragraph of actual content.  1,500 characters of main body text is a guideline on the amount of encyclopedic content, and I think we should stick with it, or have further discussion justifying why 1.5 kb is better. --JayHenry 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw that change, first thing I did was go to the suggestions page and look at a few comments that said "The article is a little short", then go to that article and look at the raw bytes. They were all over 2,000 bytes (1.9 kB), yet editors still thought they were "too short". I agree that main body text is what we should be looking at, not raw byte size.-Andrew c [talk] 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree as well; maybe this is more of a pump question - but is there some way to analyze what accounts for an articles length? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I just use cut and paste of the main text into a word processor. I'm not aware of a Wikipedia-specific word count facility. Espresso Addict 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,500 characters vs. 1.5 kb 

message: I just moved this hook that had some objections to T:DYK/N.  Just want to explain why I did so real quick.  User:Espresso Addict and User:Carabinieri reckoned that the article had only been expanded three fold.  Nom said five fold (he was counting all characters it seems).  I counted and actually got right around 4.  Now, I'm aware this is under our suggested guideline, but we have a shortage of hooks before August 26.  Most of the hooks there are either ineligible, or nominated so recently they haven't yet sat for 24 hour review.  Even in the 26, a lot of the hooks come with images, and I didn't want to dump any images, since we're close to running short.  So because of the circumstances, I took All the Year Round  anyways.  It was a pretty lousy stub before, at about 1,300 characters, and the nominator did a substantial expansion, a huge improvement in sourcing, and also it's on Dickens...  We don't often get to use a hook regarding an author that important.  Hopefully that's enough to make an exception?  Certainly no disrespect to Espresso and Carab -- two of our best -- but if anyone strongly feels it was wrong for me to move it, please let me know!  Cheers! --JayHenry 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The expansion ratio depended a bit on precisely what was counted as lists in each case, but I couldn't make it come to more than around 3.5-fold. However, it's an interesting article which has been significantly expanded in the period, and I certainly have no objection to including it. Espresso Addict 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All the Year Round]] 

message: So the DYK hook I posted just made the main page! YA'AH.  Has anyone thought of developing a bot that would post "successfull" edits to a users talk page? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate "banner" 

message: Together - with another user - we have created Takehiko Bessho.  The article resided in my userspace until just recently and then i elected to move instead of copy and paste.  Because of the number of days that have passed since we first started editing it - is it really no longer eligible for DYK?  Also, can we somehow both receive credit if this article is submitted to DYK and is accepted? JmFangio| ►Chat  06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's okay to consider the creation date the day that it was moved into article space.  That seems to me to be the consensus about drafting articles in user space.  When writing your hook just say something like: created and expanded by User:Jmfangio and User:Aphaia and you will both receive credit. --JayHenry 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, we have to do a little more citing - I'll do that tomorrow and then nominate it! Thanks for your help.  The real question is - what information should we hook?  :-) Oh the choices! JmFangio| ►Chat  06:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you nominate for DYK, make sure you mention that fact in the nomination.  OTherwise somebody may not realize it.Balloonman 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual DYK and eligibility 

message: Instead of DYK encouraging new articles, the trend seems to be for editors to keep the article in their sandbox and then bring out a full fledged 16,000 kilobyte article (hope I am using the right terminology) for DYK so that their full-fledged article will get advertising space on the main page.  Easier than FAC or some other means of drawing attention. Is this the intent of DYK?  --Mattisse 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point. Doops |  talk 00:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We just had this discussion a few weeks ago #Question on rule.  Consensus seems to be that it's fine to write articles in the sandbox for all the reasons mentioned in that discussion.  Not sure what exactly is "counterproductive" about users making their new articles higher quality. --JayHenry 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the previous discussion, but I have no problem with that.  If we start saying "time spent working in sandbox" counts towards the 5 day rule, then we'd end up with people working offline.  DYK IS a motivation to write new articles.  I'd rather have somebody spend a month making a better quality article that qualifies for DYK than for the person never to write the article in the first place.  I've written articles specifically with DYK in mind... articles that I might not have written otherwise!Balloonman 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Mattisse, but as far as I'm concerned the trend towards 'mini-masterpieces' is a little sad. The wikipedia is all about collaboration and gradual growth -- not Athena-style parthenogenesis. And (although I have no statistics to support this) my sense is that in the old days more new-to-Wikipedia editors woke up to find (surprise!) that an article they'd started was up on DYK; today DYK seems more about the ambition of established editors. (Not that I can think of any solution, mind you.) Doops |  talk 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  DYK is getting as bloated as FAC. Editors would be writing these big splash articles anyway. They certainly do not put all that effort into polishing an article alone for months, without true collaboration, for DYK; they just take advantage of DYK by keeping them in a sandbox and then getting the big splash and high profile of DYK  advertisement. Collaboration is no longer desired. The modest little article that is actually authentically created in the time frame designated has seen its day.  I think this new trend  actually discourages people from creating the small modest article. It has for me. My small articles look ridiculous now. And I am embarrassed for having submitting them.  --Mattisse 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just totally disagree that mini-masterpieces are bad.  If, when this project had first started 6 years ago, everyone had taken a little time to plop down more than a sentence or two, we'd be in much better shape.  You can always expand any mini-masterpiece (I've never ever seen a DYK that was anywhere near perfect!) you just have a superior foundation on which to build.  What could possibly be wrong with that?  As for the other bit, about new editors getting recognized, I do agree with that.  We have a project to assist with this at T:TDYK#See_also, but it takes a lot of man hours to comb through all the new articles.  It's a good part of the project, and we'd love to have you helping out, Doops! --JayHenry 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "mini masterpiece" feels like one person's work. And I have noticed that if you attempt to enter into a collaboration on one of  those mini masterpieces, the collaboration is not welcomed. The editor feels ownership and is not open to new ideas (quite understandably after having months of privacy). So no, I do not agree with  JayHenry's comment. I think the effect is quite the opposite.  --Mattisse 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is about the most ridiculous complaint I have ever seen. Part of DYK is to get an article exposure, and collaboration. It doesn't matter to me if an article is on DYK, I will still work in my sandbox, and if the criteria for DYK change, then I won't submit, not my loss. My article still gets posted to Wikipedia, the things I know, and have learned I am still able to share with everyone for free, DYK isn't advertising in my mind, not sure what the hell that means anyway, God forbid that someone share their time, and research skill to submit a quality article to DYK. I have no idea why high quality submissions would discourage submissions of smaller, well referenced articles. IvoShandor 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, by mine, I mean yours. IvoShandor 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't remember seeing editors acting like they own articles that they created on their sandbox. If they are, then they are acting explicitly against policy and should be confronted about it. Starting one's article in a sandbox, however, is different; it is about creating a good first-draft that may be difficult to do in one sitting. I myself often create articles on my home computer, and then paste them in, quasi-parthenogenetically. because they would be uselessly incomplete if completed in shorter editing sections. However, once it is in mainspace, of course I encourage others to contribute. In fact, one of the reasons I like getting articles I wrote on DYK is that it is more likely others see them and read them, and offer constructive criticism, copy-editing, or even significant expansion. (The vandalism that sometimes shows up is less helpful.) I don't think shorter contributions (as long as they meet the basic minimal standards) look ridiculous...for one thing, some topics have a lot that can be said, or are much easier to find information, and shouldn't be compared with others. When I've done next updates, I'm not concerned about some being far grander than others, but more that a variety of topics are covered (see complaint below) and that they aren't POV and so on. I encourage you, Mattisse, to confront people who act like they own the articles they wrote, and to continue writing articles for DYK that are less than grand. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And, FWIW, I thought dougong and zaojing, which I remember reading when they were suggested here, were both interesting articles, and nothing to be embarrassed about. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the way the tide is going so I'll stick to stubs from now on. Much easier. No point in putting all that work in a measly little article with no splash. The joy in creating the little articles is gone now that DYK has become big time.  --Mattisse 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I have no idea what the complaint is here. The only DYK I ever submitted was one that I created and expanded over 5 days (not in a sandbox) and was far longer than a stub at the end. Others made minor corrections and good suggestions due to its appearance in DYK. Nothing hindered me in this process. Leebo T/C 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This complaint is like saying a home run was hit too far. IvoShandor 13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this concern is misplaced. Obviously there are many reasons editors submit hooks to DYK. I can be categorized as part of the group that works on an article in my sandbox and then posts it whole, but as with all writing, that article is a draft, not a "mini-masterpiece". (There are many reasons why I do this which are not relevant to this conversation, but which I would be happy to discuss elsewhere.) There are two reasons I post hooks to DYK: 1) frankly, I want to draw attention to the articles that I am working on. I would love to garner a review, a copy edit, or a collaboration out of DYK. This hasn't happened, yet, unfortunately, but I am hopeful. 2) I genuinely believe that the articles I write have important things to say and I would like people to read them for general enlightenment. For me, DYK serves a dual purpose: a selfish, editorial one and an altruistic, educative one. (Also, I would also like to mention that I hardly feel that DYK has become the "big time". Most of the articles here are pretty small and have only a smattering of sources. Perhaps this reveals my ignorance of "ye olden days", but, to me anyway, five to six paragraphs referenced to a few websites is not really the "big time". Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against starting small and building, but I do think that a spade should be called a spade.) Awadewit | talk 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said, I agree. I too work in my sandbox for many reasons, and the result isn't always a "mini-masterpiece" and I certainly have no problem with others coming in on an article. I posted Mendota Hills Wind Farm here and it resulted in factual inaccuracies derived from source material to be worked through. DYK is definitely a window to collaboration, rarely does an article I submit not get a copy edit or other minor fixes during its time on the main page. I don't understand what Matisse is so up in arms about. I read the article submitted by Matisse on DYK, which the editor now wants withdraw, and found it interesting. Its a good thing for the project as far as helping to counter systemic bias. Absolutely nothing to be "ashamed" of in that. Even the longest, most seemingly filled out articles on DYK have improvements that need to be made, rarely is a work "done." IvoShandor 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: inserted comment - I would welcome a 30 day limit, not 5.  Possibly 25-30 days to polish the article and listed for 5 days for comments and deliberation. Chergles 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A skilled writer could have an FA done within a month...  and  come to mind. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I still can't believe this complaint. I can solve the whole problem with any of my articles by just not submitting them, I couldn't care less. I am still going to work in my sandbox, and do my best not to publish and incomplete article. I think the DYK rules say something about sources, most wiki articles could use expansion and "widespread notoriety" is a totally subjective crieria. As for your first points, I don't think any changes in the rules will stop editors from working offline or in their sandboxes. And this: For a botanical article, the article name alone is almost sufficient, seriously, two words is enough for an interesting DYK? No way. X is a plant, is not interesting in the least. Just my two cents. IvoShandor 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is DYK becoming counterproductive? 

message: Five out of seven DYK items today are from the US; the other two are from the UK. This isn't the "US Wikipedia" - surely some effort can be made for a more international tone? ArzelaAscoli 10:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I write about what I know about. (and in some cases, what I can easily get pictures of...) which makes MY articles somewhat "michigan" centric! I expect that pattern of behaviour may be the case for others, but it runs in fits and starts, we have some quite prolific contributors from India, from Oz, from Singapore, and even from countries that don't officially speak English as one of their languages. So not to worry, I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you, Arzela. I never include more than two entries related to the same country in my updates. The same goes for topics (no more than two sports or pop culture-related entries, for example). I would encourage all DYK admins and other editors who add hooks to "next update" to do the same.--Carabinieri 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DYK has been political for a long time. There are over 75 recent DYK's from the state of Karnataka  in India alone.   Mattisse 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Having 75 DYK's on the state of Karnataka is not political. It just shows wikipedians from this state have been spending lots of valuable time trying to contribute to wiki. It is something to encourage, not put down. Please take your axes and grind them elsewhere.Dineshkannambadi 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget. I have witnessed how it works on the India articles.  --Mattisse 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that is long enough, doesn't have a trivial hook, has references and has no clear NPOV OR type problems will get on. The supply isn't at the stage where people are arguing about the juiciest hooks or where the supply is so large that only the 2.5k+ main text articles get scooped up. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I occationally do it, but for the latest canditates that aren't stubs. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always tried to follow the guideline that Carabinieri mentions, but sometimes the profusion of US articles in the suggestions makes it honestly difficult without using substandard articles or ones that have been suggested too recently to have been thoroughly checked. Espresso Addict 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Carabinieri suggests is good, but it may not always be possible.  At the extreme, I would not want us to overlook good US centric articles in order to include truly marginal non US ones. That's rarely a risk but it is one to also watch out for, balance in all things (even not always being perfectly balanced) is good. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time there is no more than two articles from the same region or same topic. Usually if there is a whole stack of the same topic, then just go out of sequence and come back to the same topic next time. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay - well, it's good to know that people are thinking about it. A much better mix today: maybe I just caught it on a freakish day. ArzelaAscoli 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't update often but try to get a good mix when I do add to next update (can't actually update template). I would also note that this is a project wide problem, there is even a WikiProject dedicated to combating it. Not sure how active it is but I know many editors are trying to help address this problem. IvoShandor 10:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive US focus 

message: I nommed Jane Addams Burial Site and included two images to choose from but for some reason they won't show up, I have had the issue before. Odd. Any thoughts? IvoShandor 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Loads of images (particularly flag images) not showing for a discussion on the current technical issues regarding images. --Allen3 talk 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird image issue

message: On the article Songyue Pagoda , may I ask what hook you ended up using? (I almost never see the DYK of an article I wrote on the main page, I guess because of the time difference.)  --Mattisse 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can still see how the template looked by checking back in the T:DYK history. Songyue Pagoda made the lead in this template. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK appearance 

message: I have always been told, time and again, that my noms were too short if the 1,500 characters included the lead or references or other material not associated with the article's "body." I assumed this to be a correct interpretation of the DYK rules. Is it? IvoShandor 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always include the lead when I do counts. The rules say "ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables", though now I look I realise they also refer to the main body text. Excluding the lead seems a bit arbitrary to me, especially as in some suggested articles the material preceding the table of contents isn't actually a lead as Wikipedia defines them. If the article's long enough to have a proper summary lead, it's almost certainly far in excess of the minimum! Espresso Addict 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it's not, take the nom for J.M. Van Osdel, if it's just a stub with a summary lead for the purposes of meeting the DYK length requirment, then I assume it would be correct to exclude such an article. IvoShandor 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd tend to be generous and count it, even where it appears a little repetitive. I'd note against the suggestion that it only just meets the minimum, and personally, I only use such just-over-the-minimum articles if they're exceptionally interesting or unusual, or if there's nothing else to hand that is suitable. In this case the article seems to be currently marked as a stub. Espresso Addict 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the lead the article is almost 600 characters short, that's all I am saying. That's not anywhere near the minimum. IvoShandor 01:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will never understand this "marked as a stub" nonsense. That is really just about the most arbitrary thing and I hear it all the time, everytime I see that comment (and this is in general--not directed toward you) on an article that meets the other criteria, I want to say, so unmark it. That should never be a reason to stop a DYK, unless it is actually a stub and shouldn't be unmarked. IvoShandor 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially there seems to be a bit of confusion in applying this anyway, as I have said, my noms have been opposed because apparently the lead doesn't count (for me, this was awhile back, but it happens). This should be applied across the board or not at all. I would like to see some clarification by consensus on this myself. IvoShandor 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the J.M. Van Osdel lead is not really a regurgitation of the main body.  I could easily beef up the article with a better WP:LEAD that does summarize the article.  However, I would consider the current article long enough and sufficiently interesting.  I will add a few hundred by revising the lead.  Nonetheless, I would without further editing (except removal of stubs) put this article on the main page.  This article conveys a lot of information.  The Chicago first section is quite interesting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  01:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, in general, I'd remove the stub tag rather than complaining if I had enough familiarity with the subject area to assess the article and I believed it to have attained at least Start. Espresso Addict 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be counted in my view. Further, I would not be happy if we missed some really nifty articles that had a lot of non text material in them (diagrams, tables, pictures, etc) which were just short of 1500 chars of text... let's not get too crazy on applying this, rather let's use common sense. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was one of the ppl who lobbied for the 1500 char "main body text" and I never thought of the ambiguity of the lead not being part of the "main body", since a lot of DYK articles are not long enough to have a separate lead and TOC. But although I lobbied for this "main body text" to be 1500 I did not have it in mind to exclude the lead. The point was to throw out tables, infoboxes, refs, headings, picture captions and see alsos. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before I think even the throwing out of tables, infoboxes etc is something that I think sometimes ought not to always be a strict requirement, there ought to sometimes be exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear on my position, the only reason I brought this up is because I would like to see it applied consistently, so as to avoid the perception of DYK playing favorites or whatever the next token complaint of the week is. I don't care if we include or exclude the lead, like Blnguyen, my DYKs are rarely the minimum, and if they are you can bet it's an obscure topic. Infoboxes should always be excluded in my mind, as they provide no new information, and are essentially used to summarize an article and introduce some level of consistency to a given topic. Tables, however, provided this is not the only content to an article, have an argument for inclusion as they can and often do provide information, usually very detailed info inappropriate for text, that is unique. IvoShandor 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the issue is that everyone should be applying the same criteria. I'd also agree that some of the non-text items can include unique information (eg tables, lists), but in my opinion an article whose text falls substantially below 1500 characters looks stubby even if tables and lists are present. Espresso Addict 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So, in general we are going to count the lead, body text, and important tables? Awadewit | talk 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. The lead is prose, and in any case talking about the "lead" assumes there is one. The value of a lead to an encyclopedia article grows (from zero, IMO) with the length of the article. DYK is generally dealing with shorter articles, so this lead distinction strikes me as unnecessary. –Outriggr § 06:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leads

message: I must have been away from my computer too long to get an answer to my question on the nomination page: are we requiring inline citations, because the DYK rules currently say that inline citations are not required. However, I keep seeing people ask for that. I just want to know for sure, so that we are looking for the same things. Awadewit | talk 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my selection stints, I tend to not bother...although it's nice if regular submitters hold themselves to higher standards imho. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the rules: "The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and preferably cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article." I tend to interpret this as meaning it is strongly preferred that the facts in the hook be explicitly (ie inline) referenced. Otherwise, unless all references are to online documents and the facts are readily found therein, I can't see how one can tell whether the hook fact is reliably referenced or not. Espresso Addict 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially since Wikipedia in general is pushing for proper referencing. That one little standard for DYK sends out a big, important message that verifiability counts. --Mattisse 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing the wording to something like: "All facts and theories mentioned in the hook must be supported by reliable sources using inline citations; editors are strongly encouraged to include citations throughout the rest of the article as well." That way, there is no ambiguity about the hook and we are inline (terrible joke, I know) with policies such as WP:V. Awadewit | talk 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this proposal. DYK slogans take many forms, ranging from a very specific fact within an article to a defining feature about the article subject. We don't want to force someone to stick an inline citation beside the equivalent of "the Thames is a river in England". Or, if a DYK article uses one source, there is similarly little point in planting a number beside one sentence. The need for an inline citation should be discretionary based on the "fact" being DYKed. ¶ I'll illustrate from personal experience with DYK: I added, upon request, an inline cite to Hirschvogel about him being the "first surveyor" because it's a strong claim. However, my DYK about the painting Ex-Voto de 1662 said it was a votive offering in gratitude for the cure of the painter's daughter: an inline cite for this statement would be silly because it is a broad, basic statement about the subject. –Outriggr § 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anything so general as to not need a citation be interesting enough for a DYK (Thames example would not pass muster here)?  I would have cited the other statements you provided simply as a courtesy to the reader, but I tend to cite a lot because I write literary articles and almost nothing in them is "non-controversial". Even those statements to me look like they could be challenged. Perhaps we should adopt the language of WP:V and WP:CITE? I do think that anything that appears on the main page should adhere to those basic policies. Awadewit | talk 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new article subjects used on DYK are themselves obscure—what with wp having over two million articles now. That obscurity is such that stating a basic fact about the article subject may constitute a useful/interesting "Did you know?", without being a statement that has any particular need for (inline) attribution. Extending my last example, I could not have written that article on the painting with mentioning the reason for its existence, really; and the reason for its existence is documented in the title itself and in any ref that one is going to consult on the matter. I fear I may be using an exceptional example, but I still don't think we need more musts and instruction creep. –Outriggr § 05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that instruction creep is a problem on wikipedia. I certainly don't want to contribute to it. I was simply trying to clarify the issue. I think it is more of a problem to have ambiguous rules that people only sometimes apply. Personally, I am not invested in either side of this debate - I have an opinion and have voiced it, but this is not something I am going to fight to the death over. I would just like these questions clarified - whichever way people decide is fine with me at this point. I think that one of wikipedia's biggest problems for its editors is its ambiguous and contradictory policies. A lot of policies is one thing - a lot of vague policies is even worse. That is why I wanted the policy of what a DYK should be to be as clear as possible. That does not mean I am unwilling to see exceptions made, but I think that the original guidelines should be as clear as possible. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood. I don't see any contradictory policy in this case though. I wouldn't want to fight about this either, either way, and I hope you don't think I'm fighting with you. I rarely open my wiki-mouth on matters on policy. –Outriggr § 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the policy is contradictory - just ambiguous. I think we should either say we want inline citations for the hook or not. I certainly didn't think you were fighting! I just wanted to make clear that I didn't want this to escalate into entrenched camps - it's definitely not worth it. Like you, I rarely discuss policy. I don't have the time! Unfortunately, I think that no consensus has yet been reached on this point. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll retract my strong disagreement. I think it's generally a fine guideline to ask for a specific citation, but if an article is short, lists one or two sources, and/or the author contends that the sources consistently support a rather "uncontentious" hook, I don't think it should be required. I guess this ultimately comes down to a more general concern of mine—echoing editors who are wary  about every new instruction being fodder for literalists who argue "100% required" or "no exceptions" or "this is the way it's done" in place of due consideration. –Outriggr § 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: Waste of main page space: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=156686336
--1ws1 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize grabbing versions of the Main Page isn't that informative, since it's just composed of transcluded templates which won't remain static in the permanent URL? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste of main page space 

message: I just noticed that (IMO) a wonderful hook is now on the list for the next update in a much less intriguing (IMO) form. Where do the old suggested hooks go when they have been renovated and the wording changed? I'm just curious as I wanted to reread the old one again. --Mattisse 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just have to check the history of the T:TDYK page unfortunately. --JayHenry 16:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do old hooks go? 

message: ...has retired.... In around 14 months of editing, he wrote 14? FAs and 130 DYKs....and saved about another 10 FAs from the axe..... :( Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yomangani... 

message: DYK rules weren't followed to the letter, just in spirit. If an item has made its way to expired noms it has always been tradition that the five day rule be ignored if the nom was up for days and days and no problems were raised with it. So the fact that expired noms are on the next update page shouldn't matter. I am correct, am I not? IvoShandor 12:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being, DYK noms that are fully qualified to appear on the main page shouldn't be skipped over because of a backlog. If this is what we aim to do from now on, there is utterly zero reason for keeping expired noms on the page. IvoShandor 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, whoever User:74.13.129.163 is doesn't seem to think so, judging by this person's only edit. I assume its a DYK regular who forgot to log in, not sure why an IP would clean up and comment on DYK in the edit summary otherwise, just disregard if I am totally off here. IvoShandor 12:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, well, that's apparently not the case. Fuck Did You Know. This place is more bullshit than I ever thought imaginable. I will not be submitting any more articles here or helping out here in anyway. Good-fucking-bye.IvoShandor 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's okay to use the expired noms in this case. The U.S. one was probably skipped because there's been such a glut of U.S. entries that it was hard to maintain diversity. The Australia one I wrote the hook for yesterday, and I didn't want to add it to the update then so that others could comment on it. Rigadoun  (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I won't edit war, I don't want to, I don't do that, change, revert, discuss or something like that. I have had it up to my teeth with editors blindly enforcing rules because it gives them jollies or because their lives aren't fulfilling enough IRL, or whatever the reason. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, no matter how much all the idiot directors and rule enforcers want it to be. Rules on a collaborative project like this were meant to be broken and bent as necessary. Any editor that thinks they are helping the project by posting stupid ass hidden warnings, and making stupid ass edit summaries about how "most" noms in a particular update are expired and thus we must protect the world against the dangers of using expired noms on DYK are sadly fooling themselves. Let's see, what did this accomplish, nothing, pissed me off. Stupid, this entire conversation is stupid. I am done with DYK and the rule barons who lurk here, run for freakin' office, or better yet RfA here, it's about the same thing.IvoShandor 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i didn't mean to piss you off like that. Sorry, IvoS.  pls don't go.  U do good work at DYK. --74.13.129.143 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I needed a break. I have been having trouble sleeping, I am sorry for lashing out like this, it is uncharacteristic, and uncalled for. My apologies to Petey and Espresso and the anon for anything I said or did that implied hatred and/or disrespect. IvoShandor 04:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As in if there were lots of noms which necessitated a selectiveness. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last time I checked

message: As I was looking through the list of admins to find somebody to update the DYK, I noticed many of them have not edited in a while (a month or two), and perhaps they should be removed from the list. They could always add themselves back if they expect to be active in WP again, but it makes it harder to find somebody online with other inactive people on the list. (Or at least mark them as on break, like  has.) In particular I'm thinking of , , , and . What do you think? Rigadoun  (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I always ended up asking the same people having encountered the same problem. Espresso Addict 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin list 

message: Maybe it is just me, but it seems like the quality of the hooks has suddenly plunged in the last few days. (Not my hook, of course!) There have been several that did not make any sense to me. The current one has several (pictured) when there is no picture. Also, the hooks seem to have grown much longer with too many links (so many links  that  all the blueness runs  together) and this may be part of the reason why so many seem confusing. --Mattisse 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problem is that there are just so many suggestions and only so many people to screen them, we need more people! Maybe a note at the Community Portal or something. IvoShandor 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably my fault for proposing too many bot suggestions.  And I (and the updating admin) failed to spot the multiple "pictured" tags.  Sigh. -- !! ?? 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 2 major distractions today & tomorrow. Art LaPella 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I, for one, don't see it as a fault to nominate the bot proposed articles, I still remember when I got my first DYK, I thought it was pretty cool, as a new user then, it made me want to stick around. IvoShandor 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps my imagination  

message: When a mini stub has been expanded to an article, with half the new prose posted on 5 October and the second half posted on 10 October: is it to be listed here at 5 or 10 October? (I've conservatively added mine at 5 October, but since it's so late I had to ask). — Komusou talk @ 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this a couple of times, started a stub and not finished de-stubbing it for several days.  When I do this I usually just leave a note with my hook.  "Started this stub on October 7 and finished destubbing on October 10" and I leave it up to whoever is doing the update to decide if it's appropriate.  It's probably best, however, to put the hook in when you start the article and leave a note saying "I know this is too short at the moment, but I am in the process of expanding."  Either way, as long as your nomination is transparent and you're not trying to game the system, I don't think there will be any problems. --JayHenry 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But in your example, did you list your self-nom at October 7, or at October 10? That's my problem, I've read the rules and can't decide if I can list my article at October 10 (I've dumped 3KB of material on October 5, then 5KB of material on October 10, but I don't want to look like cheating if I self-nom it on October 10). — Komusou talk @ 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I try to put the hook on the day that I added most of the information.  You won't look like you're cheating if you just explain the situation.  You could nominate on the 8th, say you're splitting the difference, hopefully nobody will get all bureaucratic about it. --JayHenry 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which date counts for insertion? 

message: Could I urge people to make sure that articles going onto the main page are at least reasonably free from typos etc? I've noticed a few exceptions going through the current upcoming selection and the suggestions from 7 October. Espresso Addict 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the rationale for featuring new articles on DYK is to increase their eyeball, so they can be improved.  Clearly we don't want any old rubbish, but I hope most of them are adequate.  I suspect you are thinking of the bot nominations I have been adding, which, I will admit, I only give a cursory examination for form and content - are you thinking of any ones in particular? -- !! ?? 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two in the update template, which I think were both self noms, plus I think John Sands, which I did a cursory edit on rather than flagging, and several that I flagged under Suggestions as needing it. I realise it seems a bit hands off to just say "Needs a copy edit" rather than digging in and doing one, but there are often ten or so articles per day of suggestions that need copy editing to some extent. Whilst I try to do some, I lack both time and expertise to run through them all. Espresso Addict 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - after my comment above, I saw you had left notes by some of the nominations that you thought needed attention.  I also lack the time to copyedit them all - even the ones I write tend to get copyedited to some extent when they appear on DYK, and that, as I mention above, is one of the purposes of DYK, in my opinion. -- !! ?? 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: I am sorry and I apologize to you. I did not realize that rewriting problem   hooks was so intrusive. I tried to do it primarily for non United States articles, since the complaint has been that there are not enough appropriate article hooks from other parts of the world to choose from for DYK to balance the overwhelmingly U.S. bias, and for articles where the nominator had difficulties with wording. 
Also, I always screened the article for proper reference citations, etc.  However, I will stop doing any rewriting of hooks.  I also try to nominate articles from other parts of the world. If you see that as intrusive also, please let me know.  I do nominate my own articles when the bot does not pick them up -- which mostly the bot does not -- if I think there is something truly unusual in the article. Hope that is O.K. --Mattisse 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite away. If the way you approach a nominator about rewriting their hooks is "I think you should stop doing _____ stuff." expecting a good reaction is a bit of wishful thinking I do believe. (edit) I don't want an apology, I don't have any problem with you, what you are doing or your work. THe multiple nominations are to avoid topic stacking or the "Orangeville edition of DYK in five volumes." Not for personal glory, not really possible on Wikipedia anyway. IvoShandor 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole reason for the muliple article hook is to avoid what you are trying to prevent in the first place! Maybe I am misunderstanding you but what, exactly, is your complaint. I don't really want to write a bunch of extra hooks only to have them ignored (this happened when I proposed a two article hook with two alternates for each article as individual article hooks), so if I am writing up five new hooks, I would like them to be used. IvoShandor 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was improving other people's hooks in an effort to be helpful to the DYK. Clearly, it was not experienced as helpful by others but rather as intrusive. I have no need to cause trouble on DYK by interfering. So I will stop my misguided attempts to be helpful.   I do like to copy edit, but certainly there are multiple alternatives to copy editing the hooks of others on DYK. --Mattisse 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have no complaint about that. Do you want me to post alternates for that one? Will they be used? IvoShandor 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what one? I am unclear what you are referencing. I am not understanding this discussion. My goal was to get more variety on DYK -- more parts of the world, more subjects than just the usual. That is all. Nothing more complicated. Plus, as I said, I find it challenging to copy edit hooks because I get to go read the article and try to figure out what the hook was about. I have no control over what is used. Most of mine are not used.  --Mattisse 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Orangeville one, the whole reason you have some big problem with me. If your concern would only be cleared up by me not nominating any more articles that I work on, forget it. IvoShandor 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are basicing you trashing of me, your personal attacts, or obscenties toward me on approximately three words said in innocence once. For this you refuse an apology, for this you refuse to let me post on you talk page, for this you turn all your friends against me, for this your friends will not answer my emails, for this you stage a dramatic farewell, and when you are sure you have driven me off, you return.   --Mattisse 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologize to User:IvoShandor 

message: The whole reason I ever include multiple articles in one hook is so that other nominators get more slots than I do, that being said, the current hook with Orangeville, Illinois as a topic has five articles in it and has spawned some rigorous, and at times completely confusing opposition. I am happy to break this into separate hooks if people would prefer but I want to know this is what people would prefer, so as not to waste a bunch of time writing extra hooks that won't be used (which has been the case many times in the past) Thoughts?IvoShandor 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current backlog, the more DYKs that can be combined in short hooks the better! That said, the original Orangeville hook was a bit confusing, and I think care needs to be taken to make sure multi-hooks remain readable with all the boldening. Espresso Addict 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, but that's why they are posted here in the first place, I think, and that problem was fixed, one I will be more mindful of in the future. IvoShandor 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mulitple article hooks

message: ...we currently have a large backlog, which shows little signs of diminishing despite the efforts of various admins to update the template promptly. I'd like to suggest that we either increase the threshold length to, say, 2000 characters, or increase the frequency of updates to every 4 hours. Other slightly more off-the-wall possibilities that I brainstormed include turning off the bot suggestions (seems a shame, as it widens the pool and draws in new editors), limiting the number of DYKs per week that one editor is allowed (can't see that being popular!), negotiating to shorten the Featured item paragraph (can't see that working, somehow) or swapping our mainpage space with "On this day..." as ITN is usually shorter than the Featured item. Thoughts, anyone? Or am I just overreacting? Espresso Addict 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the 6 hour limit as the problem; the problem is that it's slipped to 8 hours lately, so that only 3 listings are featured in a day instead of 4.  Many of the active people here are not admins and can't (and don't know how to) push the next update through.  Sometimes recently I have seen the update more than 2 hours overdue but could not find an admin online to help. --EncycloPetey 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's kind of frustrating to have noms that meet the requirements get passed on anyway... I really like getting the 1-10 useful edits the average front page DYK listing brings to articles I'm interested in, but I only write a few new articles a month long enough for DYK. Maybe people can voluntarily pace themselves to just a nomination a day or something like that, or even lower when there's a real glut of nominations. --W.marsh 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marsh's comment hits on the head why DYK is so great, especially for those of use who work in obscure areas of Wikipedia that greatly benefit from the front page exposure, let's face it articles can go years without edits if they are obscure (indeed many have). I would have no problem limiting nominations if the backlog were that out of control, but I really don't see anything on the page now, that hasn't usually been the case, I think updates at the 6 hours as they are supposed to go would help. I would also note that selectors can use their discretion in selection, if it looks like articles might be passed over because of a glut of noms then the selectors should pass over frequent DYK particpants before they pass over less frequent ones. IvoShandor 22:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution would be to protect the Next Update page and get a bot to move it over right on the dot. There'd be a few problems doing this though. Firstly, it'd return the interaction between the average editor and the feature to how it was before the Next Update scheme was launched (almost a year now!). Secondly, it'd mean making absolutely sure that there was content every time, unless a marker could be added to the page to let the bot know whether there's a new batch to move or not. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how a bot could be made to work, as just having a certain minimum number of characters in the template is no guarantee that the hooks have been checked and copy edited, and that there's a reasonable balance of subjects/geographic locales. The need for an admin to upload, while a bottleneck in the current process, at least prevents it from being abused by vandals, while still allowing mortal editors to contribute. I do think it would help if there was a clearer step-by-step set of guidelines for inexperienced admins to follow -- I've updated it twice now and each time got something wrong. Espresso Addict 23:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the rolling templates idea, as long as there's still some mechanism for non-admins to select hooks. I don't think there's likely to be a problem with running out, as if supplies are low it could just run with 5 hooks instead of 6–9 (which might please some DYK critics who don't like us including more than 6 hooks). Espresso Addict 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking maybe just a catch-all queue of selected hooks... added by anyone, then admins simply pick the top items from the list when updating the rolling templates. This could further help speed things up, since people could select hooks any time, not just when the "next update" template was empty. --W.marsh 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to help, if someone would explain to me a way I can help without being troublesome or disruptive.  --Mattisse 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All the admin bots in the world won't help if the update template isn't filled. Espresso Addict 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I updated it this time, it must be because of my 2-year wp-birthday. Sorry I've been a bit lazy recently. October is the annual reporting season for PHD students in Australia. I suspect that's why the Australian daytime is a bit unattended at the moment. PDH is also doing a PhD so I suspect that is why she is away. Apart from that, end of year exams are coming up for high school and uni students as well, so the 0-8UTC shift is way off colour. Aplogoies, recently, I have been updating without doing the messaging. PLease bear with me. Sometimes I have been offline and logged in only to do a quick update and leave without the notes. Sorry about that. Blnguyen  (two years of monkeying) 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In case anyone's failed to notice... 

message: Why does DYK only list articles that were created in the last 5 days? Melsaran (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's designed to feature new articles.  The choice of a 5-day cutoff keeps the listing fresh. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how it's designed to feature new articles; it merely tells an interesting fact about a certain subject with a Wikipedia article. What does it matter if the article was created 5 days ago or 2 months ago? Melsaran (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the articles featured are new, there is an allowance for expansions of short articles but basically the DYK section is not meant to be a general trivia section, if you pour through the archives you will see that DYK does indeed feature new articles. IvoShandor 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Featuring new content is the purpose of the project.  Sharing an interesting nugget is simply the method that is used to feature fresh content.   Remember, the full name is "Did you know... from Wikipedia's newest articles" --JayHenry 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's already de facto 7 days, since hooks still get fished pretty often from the two-day "expired noms" bin. I don't really see that habit changing if we expand the primary pool to 7 days, so we'll likely end up with 9-day old articles hitting the Main Page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 days 

message: Did you know...<BR>
...that the WikiProject Karnataka, an Indian state, has now hit a century of featured DYKs and 
the list of all the featured DYKs are maintained here?  <BR>Thought it might be of interest to some people here. Thanks, - KNM  Talk 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Karnataka Wikiproject hits a Century of DYKs

message: ...that no one at Wikipedia's did you know pays any attention to anything,
..."that the science of human chemistry, the study of reactions between people, was founded with Johann von Goethe’s 1809 novella Elective Affinities?"
...that, prior to English physicist C.G. Darwin’s 1952 conception of man as a human molecule, in 1813 British chemist Humphry Davy had compared man to a "point atom"?
Did anyone even read those bullshit articles? Good job.
67.173.131.28 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments.  The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry was not entirely one-sided, and I suspect that the DYK drew more attention to these articles than they would have had anyway; so everyone is a winner. -- !! ?? 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know...

message: *Is this new article an acceptable candidate for this project?  South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today.  Thanks for considering it.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can nominate it yourself if you want. Just go to this page and add it (with a "hook", like the ones you'll see there) to the relevant section for the day. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate? 

message: My understanding was that we had agreed to not include more than two entries related to the same country at the same time in this discussion. Yet time and time again, there are three, four, once even six entries about US topics. If this is consensus, then we should make sure we stick to this rule, and also to include two US entries in every update so that all eligible entries can be included.--Carabinieri 13:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better that the template be updated on time, though? I think that update you link to might have been during the big backlog... where just getting every update in was important. I'm all for balance, but maybe this is a symptom of having a system that gets backlogged easily and admins are reluctant to tackle because it's so time consuming... so the work that does get done is much more likely to be subpar. Not to harp on the same thing in every comment I make here, but with a less cumbersome update process, I think everyone could have a lot more time and energy to focus on balance. The one thing I'd add is that maybe just 1/3, rather than a flat limit of 2, items in an update should be from a given country. 3 items in a 9-item update doesn't seem that bad. But that's in a perfect world... with the way things are right now, I'm just happy when the template is updated on time. --W.marsh 14:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety of entries 

message: Regular DYK contributor  has passed away.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. After reading his obit, I wish I knew him. Too many good people die. - Cyborg Ninja 05:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good people die, lol. Fortunately, the evil ones do too. --Dweller 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYk contributor passes away 

message: May I participate on this page again? I really would like to help and I am not a bad person, I don't think. I'm just an outsider here so I don't always do the right thing. I wish you would reconsider  how you feel about me. I do think I am a good contributor on Wikipedia.  I wish you all would let me become part of this DYK. I used to feel I helped out on the hooks, but maybe that was delusional.  Sincerely,  --Mattisse 04:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your sarcastic, passive-aggressive remark to another user here and your continued denial of your intentions should prevent you from contributing here. But if your behavior changes in the future, I would be open to your additions myself. But for now, you need to learn how to be civil, not disruptive, and work together with other Wikipedians. DYK is in a powerful position, and unfortunately open to vandalism, so it's much too early to ask to expect to be let back in. Keep in mind I am just your average Wikipedian, not a special project member. - Cyborg Ninja 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So as User:BigHaz, saids, more or less, although he hasn't be following closely, there must be a lot of people I have irritated. Cybor Nina's campaign is very effective. Why bother to find out the true when someone, probably one of you ingroup people, from the same country as you or something, says it's true and that is good enough. Yes, wikipedia assumes bad faith on this page. I really have been surprised that there are no attempts to keep things civil and avoid personal attacks. Rather there is a pile on instead. Very ugly situation. And asking forgiveness is bad, you say. I asked forgiveness of Ivo via a friend of his because I was no longer allowed to post on his page because I congraduated him. I did stay a was for two or three weeks. What do you recommend - a year? Why not a year for Ivo to who was much more gregarious in his offensiveness and personal attachks.  Well, there is always a clan of ingroup favorites on wikipedia that runs things. Same here. I am note illegible. I am sorry.  --Mattisse 09:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I forgiven ? 

message: I count 9 DYK's right now: Qoyllur Rit'i, New Zealand Journal of Forestry, Iao Theater, Julio Cervera Baviera, Tom Bolack, Wilhelm Koppe, Will Wright, Traian Demetrescu, and Darren Heitner. Kinda stuffing the ballot box much? --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I got 11 once, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare you to get 12 then. lol. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How oome it is ok to brag here, but if I conpliment someone I get trashed?  --Mattisse 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Blnguyen, you should find the dif, then list your record at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Hall_of_Fame. -- Jreferee   t/c 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we are. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I added it here. It will be interesting to keep track of the extent of DYK. -- Jreferee   t/c 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats the limit on DYK's on the frontpage? 

message: I'm with !!. I'm new here ... I left another area of wikipedia that started talking more about "who did what" than "what to do next". Its only a suggestion. And you spoil it if you discusss this suggestion. My suggestion is. Return here Matisse on Wednesday. If you and any others can resist making a comment about "who did what" then it can be ended here. I'm hoping that the only name to appear after this is Victuallers 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: read what -- that nastiness about?  --Mattisse 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  also, the problem is they ignore me, they pretend I am not here. They do not respond to my question, posting etv. They act are if I am invisible. I should give up trying to communicate with them.   --Mattisse 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a final? suggestion. Read - do not write if you agree that enough has been said

message: I was about to add two new alt hooks for Peirol and found it already in the DYK/N pipeline. Nonetheless, just in case (or for the fun):
* + ALT : ...that Peirol, being a 12th century knight unable to support himself as a man-at-arms, became an itinerant troubadour and jongleur?
* + ALT : ...that Peirol, 12th century troubadour, is still being recorded nowadays on dozens of CDs of medieval music?
— Komusou talk @ 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last-minute alt hooks for Peirol in DYK/N