Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 22

message: I think hooks that have not been on the suggestions page for at least a day or so really should not be moved to next update. Having that page doesn't really make any sense if the entries are moved to next update right after they are suggested. I regularly pass up older noms if they haven't been on the page for 24 hours. I think doing it this way could save us some unpleasant embarassments, since people get the chance to look at and comment the nomination.--Carabinieri 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key for the first page is to have somebody else to look at the hook before moving it to the next updates page.  Does somebody other than the nominator think the hook works?  Does somebody other than the nominator think the article qualifies?  If so, then they can move it to the next page.  If you have to wait 24 hours, taht may eliminate some great hooks (the one that I did recently would not have been eligible if we waited 24 hours.)  It also becomes problematic.  I submit a hook on the day the article is written.  It's not picked up.  On the last day that the article is eligible somebody proposes a new hook.  Can we not use that new hook because it was just submitted?Balloonman 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is just that it's a good idea to check the time stamp on the nomination before moving it to the next update. If it was put up less than a day ago, then the article and the hook probably haven't been sufficiently vetted. It probably doesn't need to be a policy or anything, but it's a good reminder for people doing the next update to consider the time factor--one should be especially cautious with newly submitted hooks just making the five-day limit, and carefully look at the article to consider if it meets the usual criteria (good, independent sourcing, npov, etc.). Rigadoun  (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of newly nominated hooks 

message: How on earth do we find a DYK by the date??  This is impossible! -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know the date, go to the History of the DYK template and scroll back til you get to the right area, then check the diffs to see the various hooks that appeared on the day. If you don't know the date, search for "Foo site:en.wikipedia.org" on Google (or use the What Links Here function on the page in question) and look for an entry on a Wikipedia:Recent Additions section. Check when the archive was created, and perform the history search on the DYK template as above, checking template versions for any hooks that appear on the RA archive til you're in the right area (since Recent Additions is archived fairly irregularly, and it may be a fair ways back). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a tool that will produce date ordered lists of DYKs with nominator and creator, sort of like Wikipedia:Recent additions 23/hist (this version does not include the date or nominator, but it's enough to get the general idea).  Searching by date, creator, or nominator will become much easier when this is finished. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrgh!

message: What if you propose a DYK, but it gets zero replies or queries? Does it simply get ignored? Davnel03
:Generally, the only time that you are going to get a reply/query is if somebody has a problem/concern with the DYK suggestion.  Usually, they don't get posted on the main page until the last day or two that they are eligible.  If you get to that point and nobody has posted anything, however, I advise revising the hook... sometimes hooks are ignored and simply die.  IF somebody does make a post, listen to what they say (even if you don't agree with it.)  Generally, if there is ANY controversy over the subject it won't make it to the front page.Balloonman 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: revising the hook, what does that mean?? Aah, OK. Davnel03 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;-)  Yeah... if there is no response by the last day or two, it might be because the hook hasn't caught anybody's attention.  It might be of interest to you, but might not be interesting to anybody else.  Also, ask "Why is this special?"  I see a lot of hooks where I ask, "So what?"  If you can give a spin to the hook it is usually better than just boring the facts.Balloonman 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No replies is often a good sign, it means that there's nothing obviously wrong with the article and it should go ahead. There again, there are so many entries that most people don't look more than a day or so ahead when browsing, so often problems are discovered rather late to fix. As well as the hook, you need to check that the article is well over the character minimum (I tend only to go for ones over 2500 characters unless there's something compelling about it), definitely fits the creation rules, is in reasonably good shape (not too many mistakes, no PoV or copyright problems) and has inline reliable references which at minimum include the fact in the hook. Espresso Addict 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Did DYK rules change so that larger articles (greater than 1500 characters) can be expanded 5fold for inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up a little.  #1500 characters -Bbik★ 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There should be reasonable exceptions to every rule. I'm flabbergasted that such magnificent article as Villa del Poggio Imperiale was ignored on a purely formalistic basis. My own Vladimirka was also passed by as "too vague", but this is of secondary interest in the present case. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that Italian one was skipped because it was only 2X....hmmmm, but the 1500 rule doesn't exist and good thing too, otherwise Thich Quang Duc would have never made it. Only the 5X exists. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above so far would indicate that you're in the minority there...Balloonman 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 1500 rule 

message: The picture :Image:Replacemenow.jpg was a very inappropriate choice for a main page pic. It's not even possible to tell if it's actually a photo or merely a 3D-animation of some generic video game scenery. Using such a miniscule pictures in such a prominent place strikes me as being very pointless.
Peter Isotalo 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless miniatures 

message: Do we accept lists where the non-tabulated information is significantly below the minimum? I'm referring to List of Dartmouth College faculty, which is a superb resource but fails a strict application of the current rules ("ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables"). Espresso Addict 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a little flexibility below 1,500 characters seems reasonable on good lists.  I think the most important thing might be making sure the list is on a clearly legitimate topic.  I think the Dartmouth Faculty list is good, but it's worth remembering that AFD is currently very opposed to all lists, and we don't want to make DYK a hunting ground. --JayHenry 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on lists 

message: One of the rules for a new article to be selected for DYK is this:
* be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
Does this rule also apply to articles that the users may have been writing in their sandboxes? As a hypothetical case, can I write an article for a month in my sandbox and then move it to the main space and suggest a DYK? In this case, my article was in mainspace only for may be a day (satisfying the 5-day criterion) but I circumvented this rule by working on this article in my sandbox for more than a month. Would my nom still be accepted? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits08:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand it, yes. Time in a sandbox doesn't count. It's wise to mention it in the nomination, though, in case it gets passed over by accident by editors just looking at the earliest date in the history. Espresso Addict 08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I feel we shouldnt hold it against editors if the article spent a week or a month or a year in the sandbox.  Because, you could as well work on notepad for the same duration and nobody is going to hold it against you.  Sarvagnya 08:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if I made fifty edits in my sandbox and uploaded it in one go, I'd have only one 'mainspace' edit to my credit.  So, people working in sandboxes arent really circumventing anything.  If anything, I feel that working in one's own sandbox or notepad is a good practice. Sarvagnya 08:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A side note, the rules section of this page actually specifically says it's ok (For those workpages first developed in user space, the date the workpage is posted to article namespace may be counted as the first day towards the DYK 5 day rule.), though it doesn't appear to be in the rules on the suggestions page.  Perhaps a short note should be added over there, as well? -Bbik★ 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Bbik for pointing that out. I guess this should be mentioned in the suggestions page as well. Did any discussion happen among admins on whether this should be allowed or not? Any summary available on such a discussion that I can read? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this has been discussed more than once, as a crawl through the archives will show, and the consensus  has always been to allow it, or at least there has not been consensus to disallow it. I'm sorry I don't have links to point to particular discussions though. I admit bias, keeping things in sandbox until they are ready is a technique I use a lot. I'd note that the April Fool DYK articles this year were done that way as well, or at least some of them were. Keeping an article in a sandbox has the advantage of being able to release a well written, well sourced, polished article, that is not likely to be the case if you start writing in article space. For example Antonio Bagioli spent months in my sandbox before it went live. It might even get tagged for deletion while a stub. On the other hand, a sandbox article might well get written by someone else in the meantime. (which has happened to me more than once, for example Chicago Bridge & Iron) In that case, merge your article in and be happy. :) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me, sometimes I just work on a text processor and dump it in. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on rule

message: I really think we ought to include this one, previously excluded because of an AfD which has now closed as 'Keep'. It's an unfortunate glitch that the AfD turnround being 2 days longer than here means that no article nominated for AfD, however much in error, can ever be featured on DYK. Unfortunately, I had a double edit conflict trying to add it to the template, so it's now on the margin of too long, but I don't think we're exactly swimming in suitable articles at the moment. Espresso Addict 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support bending the rules for this one but I'm no regular :) ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought this was handled perfectly.  A note accompanying the nomination that the item is at AFD, and a couple days leeway to use it if it survives the deletion attempt. --JayHenry 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Happy Slip]], now [[Christine Gambito]] 

message: I notice both the items with images for the 21st (bullaun and animal testing on invertebrates) do not meet the eligibility rules, and there is only one image in the set for 22nd August (Howe Yoon Chong) & another one in 23rd (Shortnose sturgeon). I don't know if it's worth seeking out some more items with images or just using up the 24th & later in the hope that other ones will be submitted? Espresso Addict 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found images that are decent and usable in DYK noms that didn't include an image submission before, and I have moved them to next update in the past. That's one source, usually I submit images with mine but I don't have any noms up right now, my last two were posted but one of the images wasn't included, so one got scrapped two updates ago. May want to note not to do that if we are short on images, it wasn't the greatest image but it was a good photo of a guy that had been dead 140 years. (Not complaining about not getting an image slot or anything just noting that when we are low on images we shouldn't scrap usable ones). IvoShandor 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree a bit more forward planning might be in order (hence this note), though if items are left to expire so as to keep the image for later use there is potential argument over putting them up at all. I've looked through the 21st articles and there might perhaps be one or two usable images; will have a more careful comb. Espresso Addict 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A more careful look at the 21st reveals the two images I'd seen either have potential copyright problems or the image looks rubbish at 100x100. Espresso Addict 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another option, if we're really desperate, is to grab images from the secondary items in a DYK hook.  For example, I have a hook right now about Ralph Ellison's book Three Days Before the Shooting.  There are no images of the book, but the Ralph Ellison page has an image.  (This is just an example of the idea, there appear to be copyright status problems with the Ellison image, so don't use it!)  We get a lot of hooks where this sort of thing is okay. --JayHenry 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've tried one of these in the current update, unless anyone can come up with something more appropriate. Thanks, Espresso Addict 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running low on images