Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 6

The second one was a lot easier than the first
Anyone spot anything wrong please shout! I found that cranking through all the articles, then all the contributors, was a good approach. I kept an older version of the suggestions page open to get the article and contributor/nominator names....  + + Lar: t/c 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The third one wasn't too bad, tried out a different order for things. I meant to do one more before I went to bed but I spent so much time writing Merritt-Chapman & Scott (which I nom'ed) that it's 2 AM so I am going to bed! Can someone else do the next one? (I'll probably remove most of this discussion, it's chatty)  + + Lar: t/c 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Format issue
See this diff... what's that all about? Don't we need that leading UL format stuff? I confess I'm not clear why we are using li there instead of *... thoughts?  + + Lar: t/c 20:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure, it's been formatted as an unordered list for all the time I've been editing here. I think it's much better as a bulleted list, easier to read on the main page. A nice bold bullet point is much better for identifying clearly where the next item starts than three isolated tiny little dots. I've always wondered why it was done that way, but I support this change. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I like it as an unordered (bulleted) list, I think it's the way to go. But... in our work area, it's formatted as an unordered list by using "*". In the actual template, there WAS some div code (the diff shows its removal) and the unordered list formatting is done by using  and  instead of just using *. My question (perhaps to Flcelloguy??) is what was that div code doing and why was it removed, and (perhaps to people who have been doing this for a while) why use li instead of * ???  + + Lar: t/c 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistake on my part; someone pointed out on Main Page/Errors that the formatting on DYK was broken, and I apparently overcorrected by removing that line after checking the diff which broke the formatting (there was an extra asterisk and eclipse). I'm not going to comment on whether I believe that DYK should be formatted with "*" or without, but I'll reinsert that line of code now that I inadvertantly removed. I apologize. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, no apology necessary. I thought you were on  to something and I wanted to learn from it! I do happen to like bullets... not sure why we have to use raw html, and am curious about that as well. Maybe bring it up on VP...  It is a pain always changing it back and forth between * which is how it is on the suggestion page, and li which is how it is on the template, and then back to * AGAIN to archive it...  +  + Lar: t/c 16:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Mysterious lack of edit conflict from the previous post). I agree, copy / pasting between "*" and  to archive is a pain in the arse. Let's settle on "*" for bulleted lists. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  16:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment was perfectly clear Lar, it was the opening unordered list tag that was removed - (  ). Even though the closing  tag remained, the mediawiki software rendered the remaining  tagged list items as a bulleted list. Using "*" works just the same. Like you, I think this is better, with bullets, but Flcelloguy has now restored the unordered list to rectify his good faith mistake. Bring back the bullets ... :-)  Cactus.man   &#9997;  16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have noticed some interplay between bullets/indents and images. An image on the left plays havoc with bullets that are up against it, they disappear, and indents also disappear. Perhaps the  is there to try to correct that? It takes effect even if it's in the middle of a line at render time. Some experimenting may be in order.  + + Lar: t/c 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(pictured)
It is rather difficult to associate the pictures that appear on the main page in the DYK section with their articles, especially when the subject is unknown to the reader. Perhaps someone could put a (pictured) note with the entry that the picture is about at every refreshment? Kinda like what ITN and Selected Anniverseries are doing. deadkid_dk 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is always associated with the first DYK entry. There should also be an Alt text caption with the image which pops up when you mouseover it. It was missing from the current template but I've added it now. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. But that's not obvious to the readers, I certainly didn't know about it until just now. :) deadkid_dk 07:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your (pictured) suggestion, but was just meaning to explain my fix. Thinking about it further, (pictured) probably has some merit for the reasons you gave, but also for consistency on the main page. I don't feel strongly either way, but would be interested to know what others think. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think adding (pictured) is a good idea, and certainly can't hurt things. I say lets try it out for a few cycles and see whether people complain. The problem is remembering to do it!  + + Lar: t/c 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, first-time visitors will not know about our in-house rule of "picture belongs to first entry". This will make a nice cluebat. :) Kimchi.sg 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You forgot to do it ... :-) Now fixed. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't in the checklist!!!! LOL. Thanks for fixing it for me. I'll try to remember. Told you it would take a while to remember to do it, but it's still a good idea.  + + Lar: t/c 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone forgot to do it again XD deadkid_dk 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, ya, so I did. Wasn't in the checklist!!!! I think I said!  + + Lar: t/c 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for Deadkid who couldn't figure out which article the image refers to. Nevertheless, it seems superfluous to add "pictured" every time. I believe this should be left to the updating admin's discretion. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RSS Feed?
I think an RSS feed for this page, and many other constantly updated Wikipedia pages, would be pretty nice. I dont see one available as of yet. Am I missing it, or does it really not exist? ~Andrew, 5/15/06 7:53am

Notification of an update in progress
The thread below has been copied from User_talk:Cactus.man. This is a proposal to implement a mechanism for advising DYK updaters that another editor is in the process of updating the page, thus avoiding redundant effort. I have created UpdatingDYK to be substed into the DYK template, which places commented out text that an update is underway. Used with an informative edit summary, this could save much wasted effort.

All comments welcome. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another update monday morning
Thanks for another great update. I was going to do it last nite but got to BOS really late and I just didn't feel comfy. I wonder if we should start putting "I think I can do the next update at 1100 UTC but if it gets to be 1200 and I haven't started it, go for it!" sorts of comments in the refresh area (inside html comment tags)? (you can answer here, I watch talk pages)  + + Lar: t/c 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I always check the history of the DYK template itself before I start. Something in the template inside html comments with a meaningful edit summary might be useful, rather than on the talk page which is pretty busy. How about a template that can be substed in to provide commented out opening lines, something like:


 * Subst in the template before you start updating, with an edit summary of "update in progress, please don't edit". Remove the substed code when you're done. Nice and simple, the history page indicates that an update is underway, and the text on the edit page does as well. Thoughts welcome. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See UpdatingDYK, seems to work fine. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been doing it with the commented out thing uncommented because I want it visible on the talk page that it's in process. Last update cycle several noms were made while I was in mid update and it played holy havoc with me I kept getting edit conflicts... made it hard to make sure I correctly removed the selected items and not anything else. So I'd rather see it as not a commented thing?  +  + Lar: t/c 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, reading too fast, I missed that this goes in the template itself. yes, commented out is the way to go! and for it to work it has tobe subst'd or else the comments won't show. I will update in about 60-90 min if you haven't already. Maybe we should move this convo to the wp:DYK talk page?  + + Lar: t/c 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Update away my good man. The noinclude text on the template make it clear that it must be substed, but I'll also draft something for the talk page and instruction pages to make this as clear as possible. I'll also post this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I made the template a lot bigger. I think it works better now, not sure. I also started putting the warning box in bigger letters and having it be in two places. I got no edit conflicts last time I did an update. Yaay.  + + Lar: t/c 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Time limit
Why, exactly, can only new articles be included in DYK??

I say this, because there was a recent addition (by me, thanks to the information given me by another user) to the ice dancing page. The ice dancing page itself was created in mid-February of 2002, but the following information:

"Additionally, in international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, ice dancing is the only form of figure skating to allow vocal music with lyrics to be skated to. This, however, does not necessarily apply to non-ISU-sanctioned competitions (see: figure skating)."

Which I was hoping to offer up for DYK? status in the form of:

"Did you know ...that ice dancing is the only form of figure skating to use vocal music in ISU-sanctioned competitions?"

was actually not in the article until recently. As in, until today.

There's also a lot of good information in a handful of other, older-than-120-hours pages that's been recently added or never made it into DYK? before, such as (off the top of my head) in the fan fiction page (the bit about "songfic" being banned because of fears the RIAA would sue over the lyrics being printed? I think that's interesting - heck, it's somewhat more interesting than the ice dancing bit I was considering offering up - and I do not think it's ever been in DYK? before, either, because I believe it's a fairly new addition to the page).

So if there's new information, i.e. it could not possibly have been in DYK? previously, why not allow it? Just curious, since generally, articles DO tend to get more, better, and more interesting information as they grow, and if the bit of information itself is new and has not been in DYK? before, it would make sense to allow it.

May I suggest a vote on it somewhere, and especially, ask why the "120 hours or less old" rule is in place to begin with? Runa27 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If we were to allow older articles for DYK, we would have a pool of over 1 million articles to choose from, which would greatly increase the backlog of articles waiting to get onto DYK. Your move would backfire, because the chance of any article making it to DYK would actually decrease if old articles are allowed. Since we can only allow at most 5-6 entries on DYK each time the template is changed, and they must be on for at least 6 hours each time, updating admins would have to be much more selective when choosing entries. As a consequence, the chances of an entry making it to DYK will greatly decrease from the 80-90% it is now.
 * To summarise, if older articles are allowed, many more can be nominated, but the chances of any one making it onto the template will drop.
 * As for the 120 hours limit, this is already quite generous considering that when DYK first started, the time limit was 3 days (72 hours). Kimchi.sg 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Five days was implemented when the featured pic was shown only on weekends. It might be a good idea to move the limit back to three days now that DYK is on the main page every day again.--Peta 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. The reason why DYK time limit was extended to 5 days was because under the old system, many articles created on Fridays would be disqualified from Monday's installment. Now we don't have this problem any more. Kimchi.sg 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I was updating the template, there was quite a problem with backfilling, so no matter how many time you updated in a day, there would still be people adding 4 and 5 day old articles. I think a move back to three days would keep the content fresh.--Peta 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. I don't think any ordinary reader is going to be unimpressed by an encyclopedia article because it's stale at 5 days old.  In my view, 5 days rather than 3 just gives the updating admin a little more space to weed out the stubs and clunkers.--Pharos 06:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, 5 days is a decent length to settle for - a "working week". Many editors don't even think of nominating their material for a couple of days or more, for various reasons. A 3 day limit would lock out many late nominations. As Pharos says "weeding out the stubs and clunkers" (great expression) will still happen with a 5 day limit. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the 5 day limit applies not only to new articles but to articles that are taken from a stub to something decent... "greatly expanded" is just as good as "brand new", although just adding one neat fact doesn't quite seem like enough "newness" to warrant extending the guidelines to allow it. There's always the FA process to consider although that's a bit more work. As for 5 vs 3 days, I think 5 days is about right. We actually went through a dry patch a few days ago where if we were at 3 days we would have been out. (that was because I got update happy and did several in a row that were very close together, just over the limit...) So I think leaving things as is is the way to go. Oh, and polls are evil!  + + Lar: t/c 10:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to stray too far from topic, but the expanding from stubs and redirects isn't mentioned in the Rules. I'll updaet them. Melchoir 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, update, even! Melchoir 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose any changes of the time limit. 5 days work fine for me. I prefer not to nominate articles the very next minute after they are started but work a day or two before nominating. It takes some time to notice newly created articles by others, too. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Current events and Anniversaries for DYK
I received a comment from User:Ghirlandajo that DYK should not be about current events, regarding my self-nomination of Ein bisschen Frieden which is a song which won the Eurovision Song Contest 1982. I thought it would be appropriate to have this on thursday or saturday european evening (about 18-21) as this is when the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 is happening. Personally I can understand perhaps that News/current affairs and DYK should be separate, but is there any reason that timing DYK with sutiable anniversaries, which are not at all current are inappropriate? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see a problem as long as the event is only being mentioned in either one of the templates, but not both. For example, it's quite "boring" if a past World Cup match was mentioned in DYK at the same time that the World Cup is being mentioned in current events. Kimchi.sg 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm... I remember answering this or something similar somewhere... must not have stuck. I see no problem with this as long as it's not TOO HARD for the DYK updater to do. Leave clear instructions, realise that it's a best effort and your item might not get picked or might get picked at the wrong time anyway and don't worry about it. The basic idea of adding additional twists or tie ins is an excellent one. Anything to increase interest and readership is goodness in my view. I wouldn't even worry about double coverage... + + Lar: t/c 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This example is peripherally related to a current event, I don't think that the updating admin should go out of their way to see that it is put on the main page in conjunction with said event - but it wouldn't hurt if it happened. Sometimes there are DYK suggestions that are "news in disguise", i.e. items not important enough to get on ITN, I never included these in the template when I was updating it, and these are the kind of current event items that I think we should avoid putting in the template.--Peta 04:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Petaholmes here. Blnguyen's entry is harmless but I recollect that some guys, failing to get their pet news to the main page through "in the news" section, would start an article on the subject and nominate it for DYK. I don't think we should play into their hands. -- Ghirla -трёп-  05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
The archive part of the DYKTalk is getting really long. I don't know anything about what the bots did, or how one archives at the portals (that sounds like a huge job to me!)... does anyone else? It's actually getting long enough that it's hard to add items to the front on a slow connection.  + + Lar: t/c 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The bot is broken. AllyUnion, the bot's owner is busy in real life. Also, the archiving itself is not properly done with each archiver using different formats and sometimes the same admin (me!) using different formats. The last time it got too long, I created 13 archives manually. Let me try and see if I can get to it in the weekend. --Gurubrahma 13:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Next
I propose we create a staging area for the next DYK. Since its content won't directly affect the Main Page, it won't be as sensitive to edits and could even be left unprotected. Advantages: more people would be able to collaborate, and more time to refine the entries. Less pressure on admins: when the update time comes, their job would be simply to cut & paste. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an idea. Believe it or not the part that takes the most time, for me anyway, is adding the DYK boxes to the articles and the noms/creators talk pages. I've been thinking about ways to automate the whole process... would people stick to a more rigid format if it made automation easier? I am envisioning a form where you pick the article tags you like and it generates the new page as well as creating the entries and opening the relevant talk pages... a bit ambitious but... might be a lot less work if it could be done.  + + Lar: t/c 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not let the nominators do it themselves? We could say something like: if the entry you have nominated indeed appeared on the Main Page, please add this box to the nominator's Talk page, that box to the creator's talk page and that third box to your article's talk page? I am sure people will be happy to know that they spared someone else's precious time. But sure, automation is even better. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems to be an admin job to do the tags on the talk pages and the author's talk pages, but I reckon that I could do it myself as a normal user if nobody else cared.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be easier to compile 3 lists: creators, noms and articles and then feed them to a bot auto-slapping the template boxes. I'm not a bot writer, but I think I saw bots possessing such functionality. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be so easy for the authors. I put Buddhism in Australia on DYK; prior to that it existed as a redirect, and prior to that it was adspam. So that would have to be done manually, else the bot would message people who put a redirect or put linkspam which was later removed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we leave it up to the nominators, it will only result in revert wars. This sort of thing really needs one individual to make a final decision, just as is necessary for the main page featured article. --  BRIAN  0918 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nod. However it may be a good thing for admins to do, dunno. Have to think it through. Personally I think writing some semiautomated tool that is on the toolserver and does the presentation of articles may be better. Not sure. + + Lar: t/c 21:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What "recent additions" links to
We had a bit of a slow moving revert war recently in Template:Did you know... should "newest articles" link to Special:Newpages as it has for some time or to Recent additions?? I think it's important to discuss this instead of reverting, and this is, I feel, the place. Myself I think since Recent additions is WOEFULLY out of date, it's a bad choice... I can see why Special:Newpages may not be ideal either though as it is editor centric... Thoughts?  + + Lar: t/c 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize WP:RA was out of date. Is the bot not working? I would rather it link to that, though, instead of a random list that is likely to include vandalism, one-liners, or other nonsense, and which is presented in a format completely unfamiliar to our readers or new users; it makes us look much less professional compared to the well-formed, lengthy articles on DYK. Why not just move the archive at the template talk page to WP:RA? Then it will be up to date. --  BRIAN  0918 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the bot also does the archiving to portals... not sure. User:Gurubrahma said he was going to do it by hand when he had a lot of time... that sort of suggests it's more than just a straight copy.  + + Lar: t/c 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Special:Newpages is worthless in terms of interest to the average reader. I don't see why we can't just do a copy-and-paste update to Recent additions from the DYK archive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sam, Special:Newpages is a poor choice for the target DYK reader. I would suggest a manual copy-and-paste update to Recent additions now, with a change in procedures to archive DYK entries directly to Recent additions (instead of the bottom of the template talk page) until such time as the bot is repaired. I would be happy to do the copy-and-paste update if need be. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the portal archives though? I think that's the really hard part? Maybe someone can drop Gurubrahma a note asking him? He seemed to know.  + + Lar: t/c 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...er, portal archives?? I've obviously missed something. :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

de-indenting Archive link should lead to Recent additions; Newest articles should lead to Special:Newpages. Rationale - Newest articles are those that have been created new and give an idea to a prospective editor to see what all types of articles are created and then compare them with those that make it to DYK; Archive is for the readers interested in DYK and that shd go to recent additions - let's not mix up the constituencies of readers and editors, plain and simple. Also, imho, it doesn't make sense to link up recent additions twice - once from the archive link and once from the newest articles link. Peta once suggested it may be worthwhile to have a link "suggest" for suggesting a DYK idea from the template but we dropped the idea as (i) we anyways get reasonable no.s and (ii) probly more importantly, ppl may not read all the rules abt suggesting entries. As far as archiving goes, there is no portal archiving as such, unless someone is interested in doing it, that is ;) I shd hopefully get to archiving DYKs to recent additions this weekend but this may happen only on Sunday as I'm busy in crafting an RfA nom in the meanwhile. --Gurubrahma 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)