Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 17

Expansion of largish stubs, eg Irfan Pathan
(retrieved from Blnguyen's talk page)
 * Hmm...for some reason the DYK articles seem to be getting worse and worse. I think Irfan Pathan is a good article but in the last couple of days ive seen a bunch of stubs get on. Its sad to note that some of us spend time writing articles like Mangalkavya while we could merely get away with a Var (poetry). In this instance, I wouldnt even complain if u, geejo and nish pick ur own DYK's. At least u guys make good picks. Look into the stubs thing though, if something is going to show up on the main page, it might as well look like a B class article. Baka man  04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we have different concerns, mine is that DYK is for new articles, or ones very recently expanded from stubs. The point of DYK has never, afaik, been to showcase "good" articles, but to inspire editors to start new ones.  Dei zio  talk 14:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should discuss on DYK page itself. Baka man  18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it was 5kb before the expansion, and was 29kb afterwards. So effectively it was 80%+ new content, so the article was mostly new and I threw out most of the 5kb that was already there so even more than 80%. Personally I don't mind having expansions of non-stubs if the vast majority of the article is new, and in this case it is, as the article is effectively "new". I decided to use the Christmas lack of supply to see how it would be received....Personally, I would say that 80%+ new articles should be allowed even if the 20% old stuff is already non-stub, as it is a proportional thing... Let's see what people think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Discussion orginally from User talk:Blnguyen Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I read Bakasuprman's comments correctly, no complaint was made about stubs that were expanded, only about articles that are still stubs (or, I assume, almost stubs). Bakasuprman, I concur with your point; taking an overly prescriptive view about what qualifies as new can only hurt the DYK selection by reducing our pool of choices. The less choices we have, the more likely we are to feature DYK articles that are overly short, poorly written, or worst of all, dull and lacking the "oomph" a DYK article should have. House of Scandal 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of my 14 DYK's in the last two weeks, two of them were expansions. One of them, I expanded from a two-sentence stub to around 8KB of material. Another, Fred A. Hartley, Jr. was around 3KB, but I expanded it to 11KB and added 21 references. I personally think that we should be more careful in our DYK selection. Watch out for referencing, length and other stuff like that. I've seen some DYK's make it that really didn't qualify.  Nish kid 64  15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Next update... an experiment that has succeeded?
I think this works great. I find it much easier to know that things are going to work well and can do the actual update much more quickly when I am in update mode. Also, the credits section, while taking a bit of time to construct, makes crediting easier, especially if you use javascript functions like I (and nishkid, who is now using mine) do. So I think we should move this from experimental process to new standard practice. Anyone disagree? ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just voicing my support: This is an excellent program, and it's a definite success for DYK. It makes things so much easier, and it lets non-admins and admins alike to work together to pick appropriate DYK's for the Main Page.  Nish kid 64  19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was worried when I first went ahead and created the trial that it would end up just increasing bureaucracy, but it seems to have worked fairly well. I guess it may be time to think about getting rid of the big yellow box. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not get rid of the box... it's nice and big and bold. I'd just edit it to say this IS the process many use and remove the experiment bit. Kudos to all who helped refine this. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So I did that. Revert me if sussed about it. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed out picture for next update
I changed out the picture from a plane flown by Alejandro Maclean to that of Rosersberg Palace. The image of the palace directly illustrates the palace, while the image of the plane neither directly illustrates the biographical subject (specifically is not his portrait), nor the hook ("Matador"). Comments? &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a perfectly acceptable change. If it's not the focus, then it really shouldn't be the picture. There was a similar problem with Image:Laurel1.jpg appearing on DYK when it had no direct relevance to the subject.  Nish kid 64  04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Deepujoseph pushing stupidity
Please note that user:Deepujoseph is pushing stupid DYK entries to move up the ladder. One of his recent entries featured is utterly wrong. See the following discussions. Did you Know? Malayalam_type Stop_your_prank Also note that he had the person who pointed out his blunder banned as a sock of a well-known troll by another admin. The ban came without any checkuser confirmation and was based solely on external information known only to Deepujoseph and the banning admin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.88.135.117 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stupid may not be the best term to use here. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plz note that these accusations are most probably coming from a banned troll. Baka man  03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably Kuntan. He's a known troll -- Samir धर्म  03:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Did you know" article simultaneously under AfD and on main page
Misunderstandings about evolution seems to have been selected for listing on the main page at the same time that its editors were discussing the possibility of deleting or moving the page because of concerns about its scope and NPOV. I recommend that it be replaced on the main page with great haste. -Silence 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, removed and replaced. Thanks.  Nish kid 64  00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Add hook to the talk
When we are adding the template 'An entry from ... appeared...' to article's talk page, it would be nice to list the hook (as it appeared on the main page), too, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK template
There has been some talk about changing the DYK template. I thought the design on my user page could be of interest as an example of another direction it might go. House of Scandal 09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the current DYK talk message, but I do like the overall look of this new template. It would be great to incorporate the previous DYK talkpage message and the actual DYK seen on the Main Page.  Nish kid 64  15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nish. I didn't want to include the "If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page" part of the message ad naseum in my "stamp collection" but think its a good part of the notice. House of Scandal 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How much extra effort, in terms of cutting and pasting the DYK entries, will this involve? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to paste the hook in when I do these, sorry. Too hard to find it. I am fine with the template itself changing, and i like this icon better than the plain ?, but if you change them, change all three at the same time please, and don't break my automation if you can manage it (see User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js), thanks! (note, I'm lazy. I also don't archive older selections, I leave that for someone else to do. I spend a half hour each time as it is) But this template looks nifty! Very fresh. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice template! I think it's great for two reasons: (1) looks funkier than the old question mark and (2) references the tagline as well as the article name. -- Samir धर्म  05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Chroogomphus – boy, that got mangled!
For the Chroogomphus DYK, I suggested:

"...that the pine spike (pictured), an edible mushroom found in pine forests, is now thought by many scientists to be a parasite on certain other mushrooms with which it grows?"

What ended up:

"......that Chroogomphus (pictured) is an edible mushroom that grows as a parasite in pine forests?''

I know it should probably have been shorter, but the above statement doesn't even mean anything. "A parasite in pine forests?" What the heck is that? Peter G Werner 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm - I see what you mean. I have added "...on other fungi..." Clearer? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Please could I remind updating admins to archive the updates, and also to check whether he previous DYKs have been archived - I have had to go back and put a couple of old ones in the archive over the last couple of days. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Updates
It may be a bit late now, and I don't feel so strongly about it to change them, but some of the articles on the current update page are not ideal. Some are a trifle short (Hassmyra Runestone, GWR Charles Tayleur locomotives, Bombing of Rome in World War II) and some are a bit too old (Hassmyra Runestone was largely created on 5 January not 7 January; Don Moye has not been edited since it was created on 5 January). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I agree with you on Hassmyra and GWR being too short. The Rome bombing article seems decent, to say the least. Anyway, Next Update editors please look at article histories before adding to T:DYK/N! Sometimes people get confused as to what the date is supposed to be written as, so they may post at the DYKT much later than they created the article.  Nish kid 64  00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is 2007, right?
I just noticed that Jarlabanke Runestones is listed on its talk page as having been a DYK on 11 January, 2006, that is, yesterday. Yeah, I know, I have trouble getting the year right for the first three months or so myself, but it does throw off the recordkeeping. Badbilltucker 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed. It appears Blnguyen is still in 2006 mode, hehe.  Nish kid 64  00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A template that might be of help
I created a new template to use on talk pages of articles that have been on the Main dyk. It's
 * Maindyktalk

I kept seeing all that coding on the talk pages, and thought, "Geezly, there's gotta be an easier way." There's a (very brief) explanation of it's use on the talk page, but I made it simple; didn't need to be complicated. Should anyone want to tweak or enhance any part of it, please feel free. I'm sure there's improvements of all sorts that can be made to it about which I've not thought. This was just a quickie, if you will. :) --Ebyabe 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You realise that updaters don't type up the code themselves each time, right? We just paste 13 January onto each of the talk pages. We don't even have to fill in the date fields ourselves if we're feeling lazy, they're updated in the nowiki'd area at the bottom of the Suggestions page every day automagically. Control-C, Control-V x5, done. Maybe I'm missing something; does Maindyktalk have some advantage over dyktalk I'm not seeing? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It did seem like there should be a template like that which already existed, but I couldn't find one. Color me embarrassed. Live and learn, doncha know. :( --Ebyabe 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"I object so nerr"
Sorry but since when has it been possible for someone to think "nah, I don't find that interesting" and thus prevent an item appearing on DYK? An objection stating "this is obvious" is not acceptable. The user in question did not respond to my reply (inability to do so is not valid as we're talking about a time-scaled process here) and I have no doubt whatsoever that the hook would gain a lot of interest from readers. That's the point, isn't it? How can including a link to a good new article be a bad thing? violet/riga (t) 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not reverting back anymore, but can you please use a different hook? (tell me if you like my suggestion) My only concern was the hook from the start, and I even told you that I would approve any change that would make it more appealing.  Nish kid 64  02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I say again though, I see no problem with the hook - I've written and seen enough of them to know what works. violet/riga (t) 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember you objecting to some being boring, and it wasn't put up there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a better memory than me, then, as I can't recall a single instance of that. Even if I did think that a hook needed changing I always suggested an alternative and didn't skip over an item merely because of my own interests.  violet/riga (t) 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be nice, guys. Blnguyen and violet/riga, both of you write some of the finest DYK articles we've featured, and it's not good to see you arguing over this.  We've discussed the self picking of noms twice before (to my recollection) and the consensus has always been that it's discouraged.  That being said, I enjoyed reading toy safety, which looks like another of violet/riga's gems-in-the-making.  It would make a great DYK feature and probably would benefit from the exposure.  I saw nothing wrong with the hook myself, but I've often been criticized for bland DYK hooks -- Samir धर्म  04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peacock terms make good noms. Baka man  02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! If we can provide a cite in the article for them, that is. Normally these are to be avoided in the encyclopedia proper, but the DYK box is, to put it bluntly, a sort of advertisment. We want to, within certain bounds, trumpet why the article is worthy of a closer look by the readers who turn up on the main page (in the hopes that they will read, be educated, and contribute improvements... which makes the article better, and broadens our base of editors). ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Self Selecting?
I see a bit of churn on the template right about now, (look at the top few history entries here) and some threats of blocks and wheel wars... and a comment to the effect of "22:27, 14 January 2007 Violetriga (Talk | contribs | block) (please don't wheel war; self-selection is acceptable)"... um, I am not sure self selection is acceptable. We've had discussions about this in the past and as I recall the convention, self selection just isn't done. Almost every participant had very strong feelings about it, excpet for those few people that did self select. It is ok to move your own item over from T:DYK/N, as long as SOMEONE ELSE picked it, but that's the edge of what's OK. no selecting your own item, even for T:DYK/N.

I could be wrong but that's the consensus as I recall it. I'd strongly prefer that it stay that way if at all possible. Thoughts?

That said... We should all do our best to pick good selections, including recognising long term valuable contributors. The best way to make sure more selections are picked is to do an update every 6 hours, without fail. Too many good suggestions is a nice problem to have, I must say. ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In any other circumstances I would agree that avoiding self-selecting is the best option, but given that my item was ignored for what I see as a nonsense reason (and my reply also ignored) I saw it as the only real available step. violet/riga (t) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the real available step would be to discuss why the item was ignored and gain consensus on it getting picked. I wasn't around so I don't know the background. Presumably you had most of 5 days to resolve the issue? or was the item about to time out? If so, why? Why did it wait till now? I strongly feel that we should not ever self select. Self Selecting for "justifiable reasons" opens the floodgate to this being an in club where no one else gets selected, which seems a bad precedent. And editwarring over it? Even worse form, I fear... I just think everyone involved should take a deep breath... ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was created on the 8th and the nomination was made immediately. On the 12th an objection was made, to which I replied on the same day.  No further response was given and thus I assumed that the objection was not held by others nor was the original objection enough to keep it off the main page.  I then find it in the expired section today with no further comments.  Me raising further discussion about it would push it further into the timeout period, so I placed it onto the "next update" section, replacing one that existed there and putting it back onto DYKT.  When DYK was updated (by the person that objected to my nom, I note) that change was missed with no further comment, so I merely put my nomination onto the DYK page.  My change should've been discussed and not reverted (which then turned into a Main Page edit war).  violet/riga (t) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to myself. That Toy Safety hook is not the best it could be. I think that we should not replace other selections but let the work of other admins stand except in extremis. I did not realise this wasn't just a self selection but was actually changing out what had ALREADY been selected. I have reverted back to the Dard Hunter version. and further... I am about to place a Toy Safety hook into the T:DYK/N that I would ask get selected. Despite any timeout, in the interest of harmony, I ask that it be selected... ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (that was posted during an edit conflict) I wasn't involved in this prior to being asked to voice my opinion about self selection. I do agree that the communication of the issues in this could have been better, and regret that things weren't as smooth as they could have been. But I would reiterate that communication is key, and further, that as admins we should not revert each other, we should not give even the appearance of impropriety and we should strive, always, to be collegial and to set a good example for our fellow admins. I hope this compromise will be satisfactory, and further, I hope no one does any self selecting, or reverting on the main page over DYK, ever again. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lar that toy safety should be put on DYK for the same reasons. It's a nicely written (and topical -- see right) article that would benefit from the exposure.  I'd also like to emphasize the same caveat that self-selecting DYK noms is generally discouraged -- Samir धर्म  04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I have bent the exhortation against self-selection a few times today. A couple of my suggestions (Colin Figures and Arthur McIntyre) from 10 January were in danger of timing out, so I moved then to the Next Update, and they were later posted to the Main Page by User:Nishkid64 (for whicih thanks!). I have also copied across a couple (Ken Cranston and Francis Cockfield, Baron Cockfield), also from 10 January, which are now in the "Next Update" queue. There are only 5 from 10 January left, a couple of which have comments.

I still think it is best practice to avoid tranferring your own nominations from Suggestions to Next Update, or from Next Update to the Main Page. However, I think it is OK to do the latter if someone else did the former (i.e. someone has already "picked" it), and slightly less good to do the former if someone else eventually does the latter (i.e. you "pick" it but someone else does the final review). Doing both is bad, IMHO. Unless there are extenuation circumstances, of course (no other admins appear to be around and the current DYK is well over 6 hours old). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try not to do that again ok? If we can get ahead of the backlog so we are not always picking at the very last minute, that is, if we can do a bit of grading and commenting, maybe there won't be a need to either pick your own or hav it time out.. I don't know. but picking your own just seems wrong to me. Moving from Next to live, not so bad, but the move from nominations to next... should never ever be done on ones own behalf. Ever. At least IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ALoan, tomorrow's Main Page is going to look really imbalanced (extends out by two DYKs), so I had to replace yours and another entry with two smaller entries. We'll try to get it in with the next update, even though it might be expired by a day.  Nish kid 64  22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel suitably admonished, Lar. The key, as you say, is for there to be enough people checking entries, copying them to "next update", and copying then to the live template.  There are substantial gaps fairly often even now. FWIW, if you check the edit history, I did two of the "next updates" yesterday, so there was not much choice (either the articles would have run out of time, or one DYK would have ended up containing four of my articles!).


 * Nishkid64: if you check the edit history, you will see that I added in five sensible articles, and then had to pick one with an image. I forgot to check again that the balance would work properly.  Sorry.  No damage done.  -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Long hooks
Long hooks, to put it inelegantly, suck. If it takes up four lines of text, its a paragraph not a hook. The hook about to appear about the cricketer is ridiculous and the one about the U.S. Congress that was bumped is worse. Hooks should be like sniper bullets that either hit or don't. They shouldn't be rifleshot. House of Scandal 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This time, I agree. In times when we're backlogged and need 7-8 items on DYK, it's best if we had short and to the point, rather than long and tiresome.  Nish kid 64  23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see a way to make a hook smaller, DO IT! I saw one that I got at least a line out of, so I proposed a revision. But I'm not sure we should be doing 8 items unless we can retain balance. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my most recent DYK (Columbian Exposition half dollar) did suffer the bane of a "paragraph" edit.
 * My original hook was: ....the first struck half-dollar proof was bought by the Remington Typewriter Company, in a publicity stunt for $10,000. Someone felt that it wasn't "worthy" enough, and instead went copypasta: unknown quantity of half-dollars were used as collateral against loans made to the Exposition by banks, but were dumped into circulation when the Exposition failed to repay debts. I didn't say anything, because I didn't want to come off as a snob. But I do support the clause/notion/rule/suggestion/whatever about keeping hooks as short as possible.--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone recall any Nigeria-related DYK entries?
Does anyone recall any Nigeria-related DYK entries? I've only been active in this area for a little under a month, so the only two Nigerian DYK entries that I know of are Bayajidda and Iya Abubakar, both of which already at Portal:Nigeria/Did you know (the page I intend to list them at). I'd be much obliged if anyone could point me to any Nigeria-related articles that have been DYK's before - I can hunt down the actual entry from there based on timestamps. Thanks. Picaroon 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * African DYKs in general are rare. The guys that are active in African content seem to be and  and . They might be the most useful. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And of course BrianSmithson, who always brings good stuff on Cameroon. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sharps-Island-Light.jpg Copyright tag
The main article body says it's a National Park Service Photograph, but upon checking the Image page itself, there are no tags nor links to "verify" the status if it's PD or Free License. What gives? Thought the rules says the image must be PD or Free Lic, or it doesn't go on?--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is listed as PD at commons: commons:Image:Sharps-Island-Light.jpg. It has been uploaded here temporarily while it is on the main page and the tags didn't make it across. --Cherry blossom tree 21:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also you can go into either the en or commons channels and yell for a commons admin to protect it there, then you don't need to cross upload it and the commons tagging info will shine through. Just edit and protect the info page. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Do You Know tag
On the front page, the following appears:

that in the 1950s, civil rights activist Virginia Foster Durr published the names and telephone numbers of women who attended Ku Klux Klan meetings?

But when you go to the link it says that the Ku Klux Klan published the info on people that came to her meeting. In short, it got it backwards. Merrily 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Looks like someone reported it and it is now fixed. People are so quick! Merrily 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Erk. That's bad.  House of Scandal 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper place to report such things is WP:ERRORS. After seeing the error there, I fixed up the DYK entry, and also expanded the article (it shouldn't have made it; it was 2.1 KB) so it would qualify for DYK standards.  Nish kid 64  02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. This was partly my mistake, as I put it into next update: the nomination text from Carabinieri was:


 * ...that in the 1950s the civil rights activist Virginia Foster Durr kept records of women who attended Ku Klux Klan meetings, and then published their name and telephone numbers causing them to receive harrassing calls?

Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification templates and substing of same
For an awf'lu long time, I at least (and possibly many others) have been subst'ing in the notice templates on article tallk, and user talk pages. Substing has advantages, vandal resistance ,resistance to change and so forth. But see Talk_page_templates. There is a movement afoot to have templates commonly used on article talk pages take this "small" parameter to reduce clutter. So... should we change our notice templates to take the parameter? (at least Dyktalk already has it... but I think the editor page template UpdatedDYK doesn't. Adding it does no harm, so I think I shall.) And should we stop subst'ing? Heck maybe everyone else already did stop subst'ing and I missed it? ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As an example: author page to left (yes I converted it, although it could use thrifting in the wording, it's wordy...) vs normal size ++Lar: t/c 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the normal size better. If an article talk page has a lot of tags in the future, then it would be appropriate to make all the templates smaller.  Nish kid 64  18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about rhe initial state we leave the box (as small vs large), it's about making sure that if an article ends up with a lot of templates (and some do), that the people who are frequenters there can change the DYK template to small size. We certianly can and should leave it normal to start with... after all we may be leaving the very first message there, or maybe second (after the project it's in or whatever). My point is that when we subst, we make it hard to change to small size without a fiar bit of work. So I have changed my automation to not subst on article talk pages at least, and suggest that others also not subst. A larger project would be to go back to older articles and "unsubst" them. I am thinking about automation to try to do that but it's a bit daunting for me at my current level of expertise. Hope that clarifies. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Crediting at DYK/N
Lately, there's been some alterations in the crediting style. Just to inform new DYK updaters, the crediting should be done as follows:
 * Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, self-nom by

If you have a collaborative credit, then do:
 * Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, self-nom by and

If you're doing a DYK that was nominated, do the following:
 * Gordon Canfield - Jan 17, article by, nom by

Thanks!  Nish kid 64  21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just remember, it's, not . GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this required? I don't need this format to leave credits when I leave them, I can work with much less rigid formats... I hope it's not too rigid to ask people to do it this way! I just take the hook and delete stuff to make the credit line, I don't reformat talk page refs, etc... ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Misner space
Misner space space appeared in yesterdays DYN. When this was brough to the attention of |WikiProject Maths, we found that the there were big problems with the article and its definition might be competly inaccurate. Its kind of worrying that articles like this which have not had time for the community to check get such high profile coverage. Is there anything which can be done to prevent reoccurance of this sort of problem. --Salix alba (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea is that DYK entries are new articles. We have to hope that contributors don't make mistakes, and that someone who knows something about the topic reviews the article within the 5 days or so that they typically sit on the suggestions page and picks up any errors.  I'm not sure there is any way for us to guarantee that articles, particularly new ones, are completely accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only real way to prevent it happening is for experts to check the nomination page beforehand. The people updating the pages can't be expected to be authorities in every subject, and I don't expect people are going to continuely check the noms on the off-chance that something in their area comes up, so we are going to see this sort of thing happening occasionally. The damage can be minimised if the mistakes are reported at WP:ERRORS: we can then replace or correct the offending article's entry in DYK. Yomangani talk 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One possibility is that relevant wiki project be informed, we do occasionally get notices posted on the project talk page when featured articles are going to appear on the main page. --Salix alba (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps fifteen or more articles are suggested every day. Alerting a Wikiproject about each one would be a lot of work, in 99% of cases for no benefit. Also, in many cases the relevant Wikiproject would be no more qualified to spot errors than anyone else. --Cherry blossom tree 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One easy thing which would help the maths project would be if the DYN candidate template placed the articles in a category. We have a bot which generates WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity which is a page many of us look at regularly, if the articles were categorised then we could easily modify the bot to include it in the list. --Salix alba (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No template is placed on the article until it actually appears on the main page, which is possibly too late. I suppose it might be possible to add a template when the article is nominated (possibly could be done by bot?) and then add parameters if it appears on the main page, but I don't know if this would work on a technical level. You should probably start a new section if you're interested in pursuing this. --Cherry blossom tree 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we all try to screen articles for inaccuracies before they go to the main page. But in one respect, appearance on the main page is a final screening process before the article drifts unchecked in “Wikispace” for time undetermined. Occasionally, after an article of mine hits the main page, someone corrects a point within. Such may never have been found had the article not been featured on DYK. Better to find an error in an article after it has appeared on the main page than not at all. House of Scandal 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But what if the entire DYK article is deemed to have errors and subsequently is deleted? How do we prevent the situation that presently is going on here? I think a deleted DYK article makes Wikipedia look bad on some level.-- Jreferee 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to be an optimist. It's not something I'm very good at either. House of Scandal 09:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Mail Page DYK
There is discussion here that could use some input from a DYK administrator or two. For example, can the DYK rules be bent for the April Fools Main Page (e.g. use an article of well greater than 1,000 characters or an article more than five days old?). If they cannot be bent, does creating a new article on user space now (e.g. in January or February) and waiting to within five days before April 1st to move the article to mainspace so that the article can be used on the April Fools Mail Page DYK violate the spirit of the DYK rules? Is it permissible to reduce an article by removing copyrighted material so that the article becomes a stub and eligible for DYK if expanded properly? There are other DYK issues raised at different places on this page. It is the requirement that the DYK posts appear on April 1st that is creating the difficulty. Any input you can provide would be most appreciated. -- Jreferee 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of information on how the DYK April Fools Mail Page 2006 came about. These April 1st DYKs should be developed in less public place than DYK nom space to help keep secret the surprise.  There probably should be some approval and agreed upon cooperation from those running the DYK main page section.  April Fools Mail Page 2007 needs some guidance on the mechanics of getting its DYK content to appear on April 1, 2007.  Also, it would be great if at least one of the DYK administrators agreed to be a point person for the DYK aspect of this project.  Please respond here.  Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to bending the rules for a day. There's no great art to getting the content on the main page come the day - that isn't really an issue. I do think you're vastly over-estimating both the need for absolute secrecy and the number of people who read the DYK nominations page, though. --Cherry blossom tree 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We bent the eligibility rules a bit last year, IIRC (I was in on it). The key point was that every article's hook was actually TRUE (to the best of our ability to verify it as true), that is, QE II was actually an ambulance driver, a service did try to develop and patent a flying saucer, etc.... they just read like they were false. I do NOT want to see false articles, just ones that seem false (That's the meta joke!)... let's not bend that!!!!

What we bent, IIRC, was the origin date requirement, a bit. I'm willing to be (one of?) the point persons, I love April 1, and yes, working in semi public worked out fine last year, no need for deep dark secrecy or special pages etc... As for creating articles in userspace, I do that all the time!!!! I have several articles partly developed right now, you can see them all if you know where to look. We've discussed this in the past, and it's fine, IIRC. You run the risk that someone else might write the article you're keeping iced. Oh well. If so, merge your stuff in and be happy. It's a wiki, and you don't own the article. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lar - I added your name to the AFMP 2007 project as a mainpage administrator coordinator. Thank you for volunteering! -- Jreferee 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I volunteered to coordinate DYK's part in this important(grin) project. It looks like a more organised effort than last year is brewing. If anyone else wants to be the DYK-AFMP coordinator that's fine by me, just usurp me, but if no one does I'll carry on, assuming I have the concurrance of all of you. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lar, if you need any help with managing the DYK section for April 1, let me know. I'll add my name as a second DYK-AMFP coordinator, but I'm just doing so, in case you need some assistance or something (which I most likely doubt).  Nish kid 64  15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mos Def can use another pair of eyes on which ones are funny/implausible/too bizarre to be true or not, so good deal! Also there's a proposal to freeze the DYK noms for the entire 1 April timeframe, suspending the normal replacement process (maybe we could do one update if we have 2x the normal number of "funny" ones ready to go). So by then we should try to be way ahead of the backlog so that we don't slight any regular ones by freezing a bit... ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say... need people's thinkiing on that, are people OK with a lockdown for the whole day and suspension of normal process? it would be via automation, we'd get the entries all ready to go, everything protected, and they would switch over automatically at midnite UTC, just like Featured article etc do... Discuss here and if we really need to, start a new thread downwards? ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me, although we'll have to make sure the clock is set correctly for the next refresh: we don't want a normal update 5 mins before the switch over at midnight, just because that is the way the refresh time worked out (not that there are enough of us updating for that to be a problem). Yomangani talk 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eligible?
Craignethan Castle has just been moved to the Next update page (for January 21, 2007). I wonder whether or not this article is eligible. See its history. I was created on January 1, 2006. The major expansion (5x) occurred on the 12th. Is this article still eligible? &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2006, January 4: 163 words (783 characters, w/o spaces);
 * 2007, January 12: 643 words, 3246 characters &mdash; qualifies as major expansion (~ 5x)
 * 2007, January 15: 1333 words, 6578 characters &mdash; about doubled
 * I would say no, feel free to move it back and comment that way when you put it back (this is why leaveing the tagline alone instead of reformatting it sometimes is a good idea, you preserve the orginal datestamp without having to muck about in the history). if something is in /N it's not Sancrosanct! It's just Suggested. Unsuggest it, just explain why. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Updates taken from newest noms
There have been a few edits recently to Next update in which the editor is moving from the newest nominations rather than the oldest, about to expire nominations. To be sure that articles get a chance for consideration, Next updates should be done from the "bottom up" (oldest first). &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! Especially when we are backlogged, let's make sure we do this. Do we need to extra super double bold this in the guidelines? It's already in there.. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we do need to bold it, capitalize it, emphasize it. There are some cases, when for balance, we might need to reach forward by a day; but, I think if we find that someone has put something on Next update days ahead, then it should be put back &mdash; and perhaps, inform the updater that we need to consider the oldest before they expire. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted)It's best to confront the user(s) and yell at them. Then wag your finger at them. Seriously, just inform these user(s) of what they're doing.  Nish kid 64  01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing nominations
Just today someone changed my nomination from "...that Hortus deliciarum was a medieval illuminated encyclopedia created to teach young novices about everything, including the torments of hell? " to "...that Hortus deliciarum (pictured) was a medieval illuminated encyclopedia created to teach about the torments of hell?" In my view this is a vastly different statement, and the one which was on the main page for a while was simply not true. I understand the need sometimes to edit noms to make them fit, but it would be lovely if that hadn't happened. I'm not sure what the answer is, perhaps noms could be copyedited before they're put on the template, and put up for the nominator's review somehow? Thanks, Mak (talk)  15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the change and must take responsibility for it. I do respect your feelings in this matter and know we all feel a little funny about being edited, no matter how much we expect it.  I must, however, point out to you that the abridged hook is 100% accurate, just as the unabridged version was.  The differences are (a) it doesn't say who it was designed to teach and (b) it doesn't say what else it was designed to teach besides about hell, although it does say its an encyclopedia and that says a lot.  Note that it doesn't say it concerns only hell - that would be false.  There has been a good deal of discussion in the last month or two about long versus short hooks.  While I think we all acknowledge that one can cut away too much, everyone who spoke on this subject spoke in favor of brevity.  The hook in question would have lost interest short if it was changed to "...that Hortus deliciarum was a medieval illuminated encyclopedia" but I think its excellent as is.  Regarding the classic "who, what, when, where and why", a hook needs only two or three of these.  In this example, I don't think many uninterested in the current hook would change their mind if they saw the words "young novices".  The "about everything" part has interest, but I felt it's inclusion waters down the much more striking bit about "torments of hell" and is somewhat redundant with "encyclopedia".  The metaphor I use in this regard is "sniper bullet, not bird shot."  Regarding your suggestion for people okaying their work, we don't need to and mustn’t complicate the DYK process.  Besides, respectful editing is the spirit of Wikipedia, asking for permission to edit is against the grain.  I have had to live with hooks that make me wince; I'm sorry this one made you do that but that to be edited is the nature of the Wikipedia beast.  I hope at least a little of this makes sense.  スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the process of rewriting the noms on the nominations page is a good practice. The nominator then gets a chance to look at what changes have been made before it gets pushed to a page that they may not be able to edit (which is where DYK differs from editing article pages where we can be bold). I agree noms don't need to be long, but we shouldn't put brevity before clarity. While the new hook in this didn't say "only" the implication was that that was its main purpose.  Yomangani talk 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * House of Scandal, I strongly disagree that what was on the main page was accurate. "Created to teach about the torments of hell" implies that, well, the purpose of the encyclopedia was only to teach about hell, which is very far from the truth. I understand the need for clarity and concision, and I don't mind my work being edited, as long as it is not made to be false. The problem is not that the work was edited, it was that it was edited at the same time as it was put on the main page, so that there was no opportunity for discussion between the editing and a very public viewing of that editing. The nomination was on the nominations page for quite a few days prior to being used. I think it would have been better if a suggestion for a shorter hook was made during that time period. I already see this being done, I would just suggest that people keep it in mind. I agree very much that complicating the DYK process should be avoided, and I think that it's a testament to the editors involved that it has remained so streamlined. Thank you all for your work. Mak (talk)  17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect no harm was intended. I know I've edited hooks in the process of making them go live and i try my level best to shorten/clarify/reword without changing the sense or meaning, but it's hard... Sure, in a perfect world, we'd propose shorter hooks earlier in the process, but there isn't always time to do that (sometimes we just don't catch that it needs shortening). I agree with your points, but would you rather your nom would have fallen off the end due to time, Mak? I suspect not (at least I'd rahter have a bad hook than my article go unselected). Raising it as an issue to remind people to try to watch out for this is goodness though, so thanks for that! Finally, you're an admin, you can change the hook even after it went live, to make it be as short but more accurate... did you do that in this case to correct the error? there's still time I think. Hope that helps. AND don't be shy from actually picking some noms and getting involved in the process etc. (heck, start by shortening some hooks as proposals, there are a bunch now that need it) ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC) House, don't be discouraged, Mak was just giving some feedback. I don't think Mak was implying that the practice of improving hooks, even at the last minute, is a bad practice. Just that maybe there was a small issue this time. You are right, your hook didn't suddenly become untrue. And Mak is right, your hook changed the point. So, just something to keep in mind... All will be well, trust me. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewriting the noms on the nominations page is a good practice. And we do it.  Is anyone actualy implying that changes shouldn't be made to hooks as they go to update or while they are at update?  We do it there as well as was just pointed out, and with good reason.  This whole business today is about the elimination and subsequent addition of two words ("everything, including") from the hook.  And the hook was NOT made to be false.  If you eat apples and oranges and say "I eat apples" that is not false.  And someone else moved it to the main page after the edit, not me.  I am saddened that something so minor would generate a critique of the whole process.   Even when my hooks have been changed so as to give the wrong implication, once it goes to main page I let it go so as to not disrespect the efforts of fellow editors.  I'm very discouraged by this reaction.   スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure that no harm at all was intended. I was just pointing it out so that it was more likely to be avoided in the future. I was not trying to criticize anyone harshly, just give some feedback. I don't think it is disrespectful to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the hook was inaccurate. Mak (talk)  18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)