Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Should this topic be allowed on the main page? Today Featured Article (TFA) director User:Raul654 won't let the Jenna Jameson article on the main page. Now the adult transexual Miki Mizuasa is nominated. Should pornography-related articles be allowed or not? Here's the discussion so far: Royalbroil 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We decided last week to not feature pornography-related articles on DYK in the case of Who's Nailin' Paylin?. Royalbroil 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand the decision on the Nailin' video, given the use of a slang term for sexual intercourse that many consider crude. But was there really a consensus that no hook involving the adult film business can ever be featured on DYK? I have not nominated such an article before, but this individual's nomination for a "Best Actress" award despite being a man (pre-operative), is pretty extraordinary and unusual. I intentionally avoided a hook that uses any crude movie titles or the like. And we have had transsexual hooks before, e.g., the hook in July about Bethany Black being "Britain's only goth, lesbian, transsexual comedian." I don't think there should be a blanket rule about someone truly interesting just because he/she's an adult film star -- or a transsexual. Cbl62 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I definitely think it was right to avoid "Nailin Paylin", but this hook is very modest in comparison - not crude or offensive at all (IMO). It does seem unfair to "disqualify" the hook simply because of the nature of the article (assuming that is does satisfy all WP policies and guidelines such as verification, tone, NPOV). —97198 (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Jenna Jameson article could have a summary that wouldn't be crude either, but it won't be going on the main page as the TFA. I'm not questioning the notability of the subject. I'm questioning whether or not we want to see a porn article on the main page. I ticked it "no" so there's time to do a discussion instead of a last minute knee jerk reaction. I don't think it belongs. I hope others will see it and comment with their opinion. Copied to talk page - let's discuss it there. Royalbroil 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone give me a link to the Jameson debate? It might be useful to see what others have already said on this issue. Basically though, I'm inclined to think that this might be too big an issue for just the DYK regulars to try and decide for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You can find the previous discussion by searching for "Who's Nailin' Paylin" on this diff under the November 3 nominations. Royalbroil 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) DYK only determines whether something is or is not ready for DYK. See Symbols. Things that make it onto the Main Page require admin tools. This means that Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct is the standard to apply when determining whether something infact is added to the Main Page. It was not Raul654 that kept the Jenna Jameson article off the main page; it was the application of the Wikipedia:Administrators policy. DYK cannot overrule the Wikipedia:Administrators policy and DYK as a WikiProject should not override individual administrator judgment by censoring content. I don't think DYK is in any position to say that featuring a pornography-related article on the Main Page is an exercise in poor admin judgment that violates the Wikipedia:Administrators policy in all cases. As Gatoclass points out, this might be too big an issue for just the DYK regulars to try and decide for themselves. -- Suntag ☼ 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While that may be true, we still have control over which hooks we offer up don't we? I'd like to find out if the administrators have a policy against porn related articles on the main page. If they do then fine but if they don't I would still like to establish a policy that we decline porn related articles here at DYK. I know we can't get rid of all objectionable material at wikipedia and I would never atttempt to do so, but the main page attracts a lot of kids.Nrswanson (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. One way to reduce the excess flow of articles too. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The adult film business is a legitimate business and one of the largest employers in the San Fernando Valley. The references to "porn" (as opposed to adult video) as "objectionable" is a matter of opinion. The hook is not explicit or crude, and those who are morally opposed to adult content can choose not to click on the link. As for the "the kids will see it" argument, I think that's a bit naive in this day and age. Kids who want to find adult content will find a way. It's all over the Internet and cable TV. Do we really think a non-explict hook mentioning a transsexual adult video actor/actress is going to turn our kids into freaks or persuade them to become transsexuals? If the hook were overtly crude, I'd agree it shouldn't be on the main page, but this is about a transsexual who accomplished something remarkable in being recognized as a "Best Actress" nominee. The hook is more about a person with a gender identity problem overcoming prejudice and being recognized for who she is than it is about "porn." Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with banning such hooks. While the hook is not crude or anything, and all notable subjects should be covered on WP, we should remember that the main page is for things we show people unsolicited, rather than something they have to search for, so caution should be used with porn for the sake of kids. Malick78 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You can start a wider discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump. I'm not sure which category - policy or proposal. Royalbroil 18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about an internal "DYK policy", I see no reason to take this to the village pump. We're perfectly capable of establishing a policy not to approve porn related hooks right here in this discussion. Nrswanson (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But we don't want to be taking a harder line than we need to, nor I think can we approve the use of such hooks without wider community input. I do think this is one debate that is better handled by the community as a whole, there's no point in us deciding on a policy here only to have the community at large reject it. Gatoclass (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point and very well put. I guess we should take it to the village pump then. In the meantime, as Gatoclass has suggested, I agree that we can not approve the use of such hooks without wider community input.Nrswanson (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED - we already have a policy which covers this. Porn-related stuff has already been on the Main Page several times before. Whether Raul654 would put the topic up as Today's Featured Article is irrelevant. - Mark 09:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Censoring it would mean not including it in the encyclopedia. Putting it on the main page is, in effect, promoting it. We can include it without promoting it. Royalbroil 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Censoring means DYK as a WikiProject taking the decision to include or exclude content on the Main Page out of the hands of Admins because of that content being objectionable. Being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content from DYK's consideration. DYK needs to gain a community consensus beyond DYK before DYK can outright censor such material from the main page. DYK is not going to decline all porn related articles based on the topic. That would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Since admin tools are needed to place items on the Main Page, the decision to place items on the Main Page is an individual decision of each admin that is governed by the policy Wikipedia:Administrators. As an admin, User:Royalbroil can apply personal judgment under Wikipedia:Administrators to keep DYK length-date-hook approved suggestions off the Main Page and do so without violating WP:NOTCENSORED. Wheel warring will back that action. However, DYK itiself cannot come to a consensus that overrides WP:NOTCENSORED. The distinction is important because it treats everyone fairly and utilizes policy (rather than override policy) to make decisions. -- Suntag ☼ 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Suntag -- It sounds like you're saying we can't and won't censor, but if all the admins just silently use their discretion to decline to promote a hook on an objectionable topic, that's perfectly fine. If that is what you're saying, it's a distinction without a difference. It's censorship either way -- the former would be de jure censorship, the latter is still de facto censorship. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but you can't force admins (or any other editor for that matter) to do something they aren't comfortable doing. The fact is that admins aren't likely to add controvercial material to the mainpage without strong community consensus that its ok.Nrswanson (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we can and should ask admins to put aside their personal likes, dislikes, prejudices, and moral/religious preferences in performing their work as an admin, to act neutrally, and to follow the policy against censorship. I thought the hook was interesting, perhaps even inspirational to the transsexual community. There is nothing graphic, disgusting, or vulgar about the hook. I hope all the DYK admins do not choose to engage in de jure censorship of the hook due to its subject matter, but if they do, so be it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Up to now, I haven't seen an adult article on DYK. What adult articles have appeared on DYK? A few stragglers don't necessarily make a strong precedent anyhow because they may have slipped undetected under most people's radar. The only precedent that I'm aware of it that TFA won't feature an adult article. So precedent says that adult articles aren't normally featured as far as I can tell. Things are gray on how to proceed. Administrators are allowed latitude in gray areas. What you need is black or white so that it doesn't come down to someone's interpretation. The only way to get black or white is to start a discussion. I am certain will be a very ugly discussion if you do and a lot of people on both sides will be hurt and offended. While WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, it doesn't talk directly to this case, which is why a precedent/discussion is needed if you want to be certain to see the article on DYK. WP:NOTCENSORED is very gray: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive". Yes, Wikipedia does contain content that some people would find objectionable. Believe it or not, I don't find the content objectionable. A serious encyclopedia needs to have content of all types. I object to promoting adult content by placing it on the main page. WP:NOTCENSORED then talks about removal of content, which no one is questioning. Nothing in the policy applies to this situation at all. Royalbroil 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether the content is objectionable is irrelevant. As WP:NOTCENSORED says, discussion should focus "on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article". The hook in question satisfies the Did You Know criteria, and should be treated no differently to any other hook. WP:NOTCENSORED would come into play when someone adds this article to the next queue, and someone subsequently removes it. Then the removal of content bit would/will come into play. If you're unhappy with the WP:NOT policy, you should bring it up on its talk page or WP:VPP. - Mark 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Royalbroil brings up a good point. There is already a policy that the Feature Article on the main page won't feature an adult article. That seems like a precedent that would reasonably carry over to DYK. Also, I don't necessarily think WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. We aren't talking about the inclusion of content within an article which is what WP:NOTCENSORED was written to address. It's application here is tenuous at best, particularly when one considers the precedent set by TFA policy.Nrswanson (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the policy against adult-content articles appearing as Today's Featured Article on the Main Page? - Mark 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no "policy that the Feature Article on the main page won't feature an adult article." There's just a statement by Raul that he won't schedule the Jenna Jameson article because he doesn't want to deal with the complaints that he believes would ensue. Note that many editors (including me) disagree with this stance, but the fact that Wikipedia has far too many featured articles for all of them to appear on the main page renders it difficult to argue that any particular article must.
In no way does any of this establish any sort of "precedent" against listing a pornography-related article in DYK. —David Levy 11:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about my position vis-a-vis Jenna Jamison as daily FA. As David said, I'm not planning on scheduling it, because I don't want to deal with the inevitable controversy that would erupt. The decision is mine, and it is discretionary -- I decided of my own volition not to run it, not because of any particular policy. Nor is my position set in stone -- I may change my mind at some point in the future. But for the time being, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Raul654 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other commenters about this? As this stands, I see no consensus for the formation of a new rule against adult-related articles on DYK, and none of the opposers whose arguments were built upon a nonexistant policy over at TFA have responded since Raul654 set the record straight. - Mark 10:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Porn DYK proposal for compromise for uninvolved editor

People don't propose a lot of porn articles for DYK, featured pictures, GA, FA, etc., so how about a temporary compromise to test the reaction? I think almost everyone agrees a DYK from hardcore pornography would be gauche and create a lot of time-wasting debate and ire, and be bad for our image. Here is the compromise: If a pornography-related topic goes beyond the bounds of pornography, then it is suitable. Under that, Jenna Jameson would qualify since she has a very diverse career, and possibly may crossover completely, and more successfully from another person whose career would qualify them for DYK - Traci Lords, or Sasha Grey). I learned a lesson when the right-wing media launched a campaign against my photographs for the pornography-related topics. It went nowhere. Nobody cared, despite the best efforts of Concerned Women for America (whose spokesperson is ironically a man). A conservative blogger who received an e-mail from a certain someone railing against me even responded that it should be no surprise to anyone that an encyclopedia article about pornography would have an example. Then he wrote me to let me know. Then that conservative sought me out and expressed his feelings that it was censorship. This Los Angles Times article confirms what I learned from the experience with the 14 photos (out of thousands) I took to illustrate the topics (Fluffer received the most attention, surprisingly). The same trend of porn going mainstream is reported about in the UK. Reasonable minds could differ, but porn is free, widely available, and widely watched over the net. So...the compromise:

If a person or topic is primarily porn-related, but that person or subject has also gone to be notable beyond pornography, the article is acceptable for DYK, but only if the non-pornography aspect of the subject is featured.

The non-porn trivia is likely less know, and it may be problematic with WP:NPOV to tar people who have done multiple things outside adult film as unfit to ever be on the main page because of that work. Jameson has a mainstream career. She has also I do think both sides have valid views, but I think the pro-Jameson side has to be particularly careful how they present it if it's decided it's suitable. Baby steps. --David Shankbone 09:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • If a person or topic is primarily porn-related, but that person or subject has also gone to be notable beyond pornography, the article is acceptable for DYK, but only if the non-pornography aspect of the subject is featured.

    -- So, what you're saying is, that we should have an innocent hook about a person, then when a kid clicks on it they will find out about the surprising porn career of that subject? I think that idea has to be a non-starter IMHO. Malick78 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Is your concern that a kid in a classroom will discover that porn stars exist, and Jameson in particular, who is very well known - didn't she used to date Marilyn Manson? I understand your objection when you're talking about most porn-related topics; with a subject like Jameson, I think it shows where a blanket ban fails to be fair, and is harsh. Jameson has excelled at many other pursuits. --David Shankbone 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Your thinking of Dita Von Teese; Jenna claimed she was a boyfriend (not dating) to him thru her autobiography. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I was right, and Jameson even supposedly wrote about Manson in her book. --David Shankbone 12:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Objectionable" content

Many people are offended by religious beliefs that differ from their own. Will we therefore be banning religion-related articles from DYK? Won't somebody please think of the children?! —David Levy 11:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I'm an Agnostic, and I don't care either way.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That was a rhetorical question, I think, to show why the suggestion to not mention port related topics may not be a good/viable/reasonable suggestion. At least I'm pretty sure it was. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing hooks?

I had nominated Operation LAC and Operation Steel Box yesterday but don't see them on the suggestions page anymore, and it doesn't appear they were used. I know they are close to expiring and I didn't nominate them right away, so maybe you didn't want to use them, but I was curious as to where they went, perhaps accidentally deleted? --IvoShandor (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the staging pages. Use the history of the T:DYKT page. If you see an editor removed them, check their nearby edits to see which staging page they went to.... check Template:Did you know/Queue/1 through Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. LAC is on #5 and Steel Box is on #4... they've both now been queued to be added to the main page by the bot. Nice work. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, things work a bit differently around here than they used to. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea very different. We are in the midst of a 14 day trial with an adminbot to update the DYK automatically right at 6 hours. It has helped significantly decrease the backlog. Royalbroil 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd word it a bit stronger than that. This innovation is totally kick, and the folk who pushed it through and made it happen (proponents, thinkers, bot coders, etc.) need a lot of kudos/barnstars/beers/glory, etc. because it is a huge help. They all rock. No more missed updates. How cool is that? ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Protest over removal of Miki Misuasa hook from Next Update

This hook has taken on a life of its own. Wizardman promoted it to the Next Update, and Nrswanson, who has been opposed to it from the outset, immediately removed it from the Next Update. See [1] Based on the discussion above, consensus seemed to be there is no rule that would support blanket censorship of the subject matter. Yet, as soon as one DYK admin nominated it, another removed it. Having said there is no rule supporting blanket censorship, one user is now imposing his own will on the community. That is wrong. Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but people have gotten away with it before.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see a consensus one way or the other above. It's pretty much divided. Nor have we drawn a definitive conclusion yet. Nrswanson (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe there was consensus that a blanket ban based on content would violate the anti-censorship policy. Seven persons have spoken up in favor of the hook (cbl62, 97198, Mark, Politizer, David Shankbone, David Levy and Victuallers), an 8th (Wizardman) promoted it, and another (Suntag) agreed there should be no blanket policy against such topics. Further, it is unprecedented in my experience here for the decision of an administrator promoting a hook to Next Update to be unilaterally overruled by another user. If you wished to re-open the discussion, the proper course would be to do that, not to unilaterally reverse the promotion. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I removed it becuase I thought the discussion wasn't done here and we hadn't made a definitive decision in the above conversation. (Would you care to point out where a decision was definitively made?) I didn't view my actions as a unilateral move but a reasonable decision to wait to add that hook until we are done discussing it. Further, I don't believe WP:Censorship applies here. We aren't ruling on keeping or removing content from an actual article which is what that policy was written to address. It's application here is tenuous at best. And I don't think that conversation ever "closed" so there is no reason to "re-open" it. Further, I don't think DYK can reasonably place an article like this on the main page without getting a broader consensus at the village pump or centralized discussions because I think this issue is bigger than DYK. I think we need an organized vote/poll to make a decision. Many editors are staying away from the conversation on purpose. I think your side is just a bit more vocal.Nrswanson (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The "decision" was made by Wizardman to promote the hook. That decision was supported by a lengthy discussion here and on the "Suggestions" page. Your advocacy of a blanket ban on any hooks having to do with anyone involved in the adult film business, even those that do not focus on crude or graphic content, was not adopted, and you then acted unilaterally to revert the promotion. I don't think that's how Wikipedia should work.Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Three points. 1. I didn't make the decision to not include the hook ever. I made a decision to not include the hook right now until the above conversation is resolved. 2. I don't think that a discussion limmited to DYK can make a decision a like this. 3. Assuming we disregard point 2, I don't think we made a clear decision yet. I think we would actually have to propose a course of action and then vote on it before making a policy here at DYK. As it is, all we have done is debate without making any clear decisions.Nrswanson (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to which basis the hook is being disallowed, what policy or guideline does its inclusion on the main page violate? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Its not a violation specifically spelled out but nor is it policy anywhere either. We are in uncharted waters so to speak. What we decide will set a precedent. Hence why I think this needs a broader participation. Personally I think it violates Wikipedia:Common Sense and Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule. Those who advocate that WP:Censor covers it are extending that rule beyond its scope. That is instruction creep and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.Nrswanson (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
What is different about this article that it needs discussion and precedent before it will be placed on the main page? There hasn't been any discussion about putting religious topics on the main page, or about wars, conflicts etc. all of which can be controversial. So just because this person is involved in the adult film industry they need discussion and precedent for their inclusion? Take a look at the next update for example; Li Ximing: a communist party boss and supporter of military action in Tiananmen Square, where is the discussion or precedent about whether that is acceptable? Or Cannibal Holocaust, which was featured as an FA? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I think the issue here is a matter of taste and sensibility and common sense. Most editors in the past have used common sense about which articles they offer up at DYK so we haven't needed to spell out what's ok and what isn't. I wish things were still the same. I don't like having to put a restriction on things, but at the same time I think there should be some discretion as to what goes on the main page. In my view we have crossed that line of common sense with Miki Mizuasa. It's a hard thing to define. I guess you could say, there's a difference between censorship and discretion. I oppose censorship but am for discretion and common sense.Nrswanson (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
So anyone who would put up the Mizuasa hook lacks "taste and sensibility and common sense"? Obviously, I and others disagree. As for wishing "things were still the same," there always has been and will be controversy and debate. That's a healthy thing. This is not the white picket fence 1950s. Cbl62 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Next update updating etiquette

If a third-party independent editor has already reviewed someone's hook and marked it with verify with the tickmark as appropriate, is it okay for the hook-nominator to themselves then add their verified hook to Template:Did you know/Next update? Cirt (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not okay. Someone else needs to do it. Hooks from DYK regular admins/loaders sometimes wait a while. Other admins/loaders should be taking this into consideration when they load. Royalbroil 13:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I would think that if something has already been verified with {{DYKtick}}, by an independent reviewer, that means that an editor other than the nominator has reviewed that hook and signaled that it is ready to be moved to Template:Did you know/Next update. Cirt (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cirt. Can you give us a good reason why it is not okay, Royalbroil? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If it is reasonable that a hook would have been added then anyway (ie. hooks above it have to be used instead) then I can't see why not; WP:BURO applies. I wouldn't advocate selecting it for the top pictured spot, but as an ordinary hook it shouldn't be a problem. Especially if a single editor is filling multiple queues, where articles created substantial periods of time after it would end up being used, and we hardly want to deter Cirt from keeping the bot happy. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ameliorate! (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Cirt: That's technically true but we still in the past tended not to move our own hooks... it has in the past caused incidents where other folk thought it was bad form. Personally, I've recently been trying to pass/downcheck at least 5 hooks (usually quite a few more, actually) for every hook I myself nominate, but have stopped moving hooks. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Lar: I think the "in the past" you refer to was probably before we did reviews using {{DYKtick}} on the T:TDYK page with the current process we have now. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. However, in any case I still think there are those (including myself) who would just view it as not really good form unless there was a pressing reason. With the new system, time pressure is lessened, yes? ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we do away with the {{DYKtick}} system? Cirt (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Do away with the {{DYKtick}} system? !!! ??? !!! Absolutely not. It's highly useful, very efficient, fairly easy to use (I just can't remember the names of the things without a cheat sheet :) ) and adds a great deal of clarity compared with just using words to give readiness assessments... X means no ? means something to fix and V(check) means good to go. Whoever helped bring it about deserves shedfuls of thanks. Not moving your own hooks (or in other words, avoiding the appearance of impropriety) and not using DKYTick (or in other words, avoiding the use of a great system that reduces error and speeds things up) are two completely different topics, and should not be conflated. I'm confused as to why you think we should. Or why you think I think we should. We shouldn't. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think we should. Under the old system before {{DYKtick}}, suggested hooks would simply remain on the T:TDYK page for five days, and if no one objected or commented on them, someone would look them over, check the hooks against the criteria, and move them one by one to the Next Update page. Now that we have the {{DYKtick}} process, the review process and discussion takes place on the T:TDYK page itself, and is not instead an independent evaluation by the person moving the hooks to the Next Update page. That is my thought process, that is what occurs, and that is why, once an independent reviewer has marked something as okay and confirmed using the {{DYKtick}} process, anyone should feel free to move that hook to the Next Update page, because that symbolizes it has been independently reviewed. The next step, moving hooks to the Next Update page, no longer itself constitutes a review (that is the {{DYKtick}} process) - it merely is stylistic and a way to populate the Next Update template with a variety of hooks, but it itself is not the review process - the {{DYKtick}} process is now. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
While not disagreeing with ANYTHING you say about the virtues of the tick system (is that at all unclear???) I disagree that we should pick our own noms.. There is still an element of "choice" in picking hooks, it's an art to pick several that go together well. Therefore I still think unless there is a dire emergency, we should avoid picking our own articles/noms. Avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Sorry to belabor this point but I don't think you've yet gotten what I'm driving at. It's not at all about the tick system (except to praise it) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought that we (consensus} had decided against it. I've passed over my hooks which had already been approved. I don't really care either way as long as others don't think that it is gaming the system. What about image selection - some might question if a person adds their own hook to the top spot with the picture. For instance, two weeks ago was the first time that I took a picture that appeared on the main page (FINALLY!) after many image noms. Had that option been available and within my discretion, it would have been tempting to add my own hook along with the image. Royalbroil 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the 'not even an appearance of a conflict of interest' school of thought. Also as Royalbroil points out, since many pictures end up getting dropped for lack of space moving hooks with images does actually constitute a choice and so could lead to contention. Anyway, do we lose much by avoiding it? Since there's a largish group of people involved in constructing updates, the worst that's likely to happen is that the hooks sits waiting for a few more hours than the week or so it's already been waiting. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When Cirt is loading the entire queue, as she has done on two occasions now, I think it would be unreasonable to expect her to bypass her own hooks. I think the system we have now works fine - promotion of one's own hooks is discouraged, but not absolutely prohibited. If a problem arose whereby someone was continually promoting their own hooks in a questionable manner, we might have to review the rules, but that has never been the case. Possibly we could make a rule that promotion of one's own hook is not prohibited, but if you do it you are obliged to prepare the entire update. That would discourage drive-by promotion, and ensure that people promoting their own hooks were also making a larger contribution to the project. Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read these latest points by Lar (talk · contribs), Royalbroil (talk · contribs), Olaf Davis (talk · contribs), and Gatoclass (talk · contribs), and I have to say I agree with everything you have all said. But Gatoclass brings up a good point. Sometimes there is no one else around, or no one else actively preparing the next update, and there will be times where I have self-nom (and verified) hooks of my own sitting at T:TDYK, and I will, under this notion expressed above by Lar, have to pass over my self-nom hook(s), perhaps even looking ahead a few days, whilst in the process of filling the 5 Queues (because it is neat to see these all active and working quite well with this process established by Ameliorate! (talk · contribs)). If consensus is determined to oppose this, given this rationale as pointed out by Gatoclass, I will respect that and not object. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Ideally, each DYK step should be made by a different person to keep troubled article content from being linked from Main Page. Pressing need exception - However, if the hook-nominator has not made any edits to the article (has no vested interest in the article content), then it doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest if the hook-nominator adds the verified hook to Template:Did you know/Next update if the hooks is in expired noms, no one has picked it up, and Next update is in need of hooks. As for picking up the image as well, probably not. -- Suntag ☼ 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I haven't been paying attention lately and I missed this whole discussion, but I just wanted to add that, in addition to other reasons that have been given in favor of having separate people do the uploading, there is also the issue that the person verifying the hook maybe shouldn't have verified it, and having a third person do the uploading is a good way to guard against that. I'm not meaning to imply that reviewers suck...rather, for me at least, I often get involved in a situation where I'm negotiating a hook with the nominator for some time, exchanging messages and discussing things, and by the time that is over I still verify or reject it but I might be a little too much involved then for my verification to be as trustworthy as usual; in cases like that, it really benefits to have an outside person do the uploading, rather than letting the nominator do it, since the nom wasn't really verified by a "third-party independent editor" but by an editor who is only human and tries real hard but sometimes does stupid stuff anyway. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need to continue allowing self-promotion. Putting together updates can be hard work and when you're short of time it can be very convenient to use your own hook, saving you who knows how much time trying to find a suitable alternative. Also, sometimes your own hook just happens to be the one which contributes best to the update's overall balance. The last thing we want to do is discourage participation in DYK, and if Cirt or someone else is discouraged from preparing updates - or in Cirt's case, uploading the entire queue - because they can't promote their own hooks, then DYK as a whole will be the loser, and it just means more work for the rest of us. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to put it to a vote

Let's just vote and move on with respect to the Mizuasa hook. Nrswanson suggests a vote. Accordingly, I propose that Wizardman's promotion of the following hook be reinstated, and that in so doing that it sets no precedent, and does not limit DYK discretion to reject future hooks if they are deemed to be crude or inappropriate. I deleted the word "pre-operative" in case anyone considers that objectionable.

  • ... that transsexual Miki Mizuasa was nominated for the Best Actress award at the 2007 Adult Broadcasting Awards even though she was born a male? Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support --Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose this vote. This conversation really should be postponed until a broader and organized discussion regarding adult content on the main page is discussed at either the village pump or centralized discussions. Going ahead without such a decision in place is only likely to cause further conflict in this area here at DYK and elsewhere. Let's do this the right way and get a difinitive policy set in place so we don't have to talk about this anymore. I don't think that DYK can reasonably make policy in this area since the main page involves the whole community. Until then, discretion is the better part of valor. My suggestion would be to hold this hook (and any similar ones), disreguard the time limmit, and wait for the outcome of a broader discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    Less than two hours ago, you wrote, "I think we need an organized vote/poll to make a decision." See this diff. And four days ago, you wrote: "If we are talking about an internal 'DYK policy', I see no reason to take this to the village pump." See this diff Cbl62 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    I know it. But as we have gotten further into this I've got a better picture of the scope of what we're doing here. We're basically making a decision for the whole encyclopedia without involving them. The main page is everyone's page. It's not DYK's page. I wasn't thinking about it that way four days ago. I've been pondering similar comments about the need for a broader discussion by others, and I didn't get it at first. I get it now. I know I personally would feel better about putting up controvercial material if I knew that the community was behind it. Also when I said an "organized poll" two hours ago look at the sentence before that which advocated a broader discussion. I meant a poll at the village pump or some other broader discussion. This is what I wrote: "I don't think DYK can reasonably place an article like this on the main page without getting a broader consensus at the village pump or centralized discussions because I think this issue is bigger than DYK. I think we need an organized vote/poll to make a decision." Seems I meant a poll in a bigger discussion than at DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support immediate restoration of the hook. WP is not censored, and the hook should not have been removed. If there were issues, they should have been discussed pre-promotion. GlassCobra 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - There is no reason for a policy or guideline about this to be implemented, as currently nothing prohibits it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Each project that is given main page coverage creates its own policies and guidelines as to what to include, Raul who co-ordinates FA has decided not to include one particular article and it just happens that the subject of that article is an actress in the adult film industry. As he explained in the other section related to this, that was a personal decision by him to prevent "headaches" that he sees will arise from it, I agree to a point that having an article about a porn actress displayed prominently on the main page would cause issues, however a simple hook in DYK will probably not even garner attention; chances are no one will even notice. If we start rejecting hooks on the basis that they may offend or "common sense says no" then we are going to be rejecting a lot of hooks. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support on this occasion While I generally do agree that we shouldn't be crass on the main page, and I think the "not censored" argument doesn't apply as that relates more to whether we have an article on it or coverage of it on the encyclopaedia more broadly rather than whether we feature on the main page, this hook is not crass and is simply factual. Porn is an industry, people are transsexuals, neither are in and of themselves sexual in character. However we do need to think about how we are seen by the wider community, especially given the growing tendency towards religious or other censorship of the Internet by national authorities around the world (even in developed Western nations). Orderinchaos 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hooks are promoted based on the judgement call of one admin. That's how this process works. I would not myself have picked this hook. But another admin did. I think removing it without first gaining consensus to do so was incorrect, and so, even though I would not have picked it myself (for my own reasons) I support putting it back, thus validating and affirming the decision of the admin who chose it. We're all working for a common goal here, let's not edit war. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Nrswanson makes a persuasive point about involving people at the VP or elsewhere, and in a more obviously controversial case I'd oppose the hook until that had happened. But the hook presented here seems so benign that, in my opinion, it falls within the area that DYK can reasonably make decisions about on its own. Perhaps a general discussion of the issue should be brought up at the VP for future cases, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support I have to agree with Ameliorate here. Even if we bring up a rule saying that pornography related articles shouldn't be displayed in DYK (which was the problem we had recently, I believe), I don't see how that would apply here (striked out - that was a stupid comment..) I think articles like this are OK, since they're not exactly promoting or encouraging readers to watch porn - it's just about the actress and nothing umm.. bad is included there. If we are going to remove this one, we might just as well remove all sex related articles from DYK. Chamal talk 11:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support restoration to queue. There seems to be a consensus forming here that this hook is not on the wrong side of whatever line there may be in relation to what goes on the Main Page, and that it should be restored to the next update. The dicussion about whether there should be a rule, and if so, where that line should be drawn, can continue here. - Mark 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose I've said why enough times already. I will abide by consensus - I'm not interested in wheel warring. Royalbroil 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Common sense is required. But, this is factual and not sensational. Victuallers (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support restoration into a non protected DYK page such as Template:Did you know/Next update, but if any admin decides to remove it from a protected DYK page (e.g., the queue), then keep it out. Once an admin removes a DYK hook from a protected page, that raises whether their use of their admin tools to remove a DYK hook from a protected page is justified under Wikipedia:Administrators. And resolution of that should be held at WP:AN or some location other than Wikipedia talk:Did you know. -- Suntag ☼ 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Alot more objectionable items have been put into DYK (I can cite the Confederate Monuments DYKs that have popped up in the last few months), so why is this no more different?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it's valid to deny coverage of a topic because it is about an organisation that one regards as inappropriate, otherwise, a lot of politicians and world leaders would have to be deleted. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Elf and writing

    wth happened to the suggestion page?

    Simply south (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Someone accidentally transcluded somebody's talk page over the top of it. I've made the same mistake myself. Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Several chunks of Tata Corus acquisition seem to be copied almost verbatim from here, particularly the second section ("The Tata Corus deal, once through, will bring Tata Steels to fifth position ..." to "... Jindal of Jindal Steel and Power Limited made initial plans to acquire it.") third section ("...beat notorious cyclical nature of steel industry..." through "...by bringing down the cost structure company plans to raise its bottom lines" to "Another crucial aspect of the deal was the product mix" and "thus giving thrust to the bottom line, in a highly competitive industry.") and the first paragraph of the sixth section ("Tata Steel had decided that the acquisition would be financed through "own funds and debt" " to "Tata Steel’s debt-equity ratio is currently 0.3 thus giving enough room for the company to raise debt").

    The article itself is pretty poor, with obvious typos in the first sentence, and includes parts that were clearly written before the offer was completed in early 2007 (see above - "once through"). I suspect some other parts may be lifted from press releases and the like.

    I found the copyvio by putting a couple of sentences into Google. Shouldn't the DYK approval process include such simple checks? -- Testing times (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah it isn't a great article I must say. Whenever I check hooks (which I don't often due to my busyness IRL currently) I always check the validity of the sources, and glance over them to make sure they aren't copy and pasted. A brief Google search is great for spotting copyvios as well. Is this kind of thing written into the instructions? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out the problems with that article, Testing times.
    As for including plagiarism checks in the DYK vetting process, this is something which comes up every so often. The answer is usually that, yes, plagiarism is unfortunate, but that a) it affects a small proportion of articles and b) requiring people to check entire articles against every source would take such a huge effort there's really nothing we can do to stamp it out completely. Not without drastically reducing the number of articles we process in a day - currently something in the region of thirty which make it to the main page, plus numerous failures. You can find many arguments on this in the archives of this page - for example, Gato's first comment here sums it up pretty well.
    Of course, everyone at DYK remains grateful to any work done in fighting plagiarism, like yours on Tata Corus acquisition. But doing so for every article we process just requires more man-hours than we have. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    agreed Olaf. But just to underline... people who find copyvio problems are heroes. Well done. I personally do check articles that I think are suspicous and I guess others do too. You are a hero, those who present copyvio articles to DYK are ......not Victuallers (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 23#DYK Copyvio bot. Perhaps they can come up with something to assist us. -- Suntag ☼ 08:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      It's conceivable, but a bit on the tough side because the DYK suggestion page is not in a format that's very amenable to automated parsing and editing. There is a possible trick that could be used, however: if you add a wikilink to a suggested article to User:CorenSearchBot/manual, CSBot will do a one-off check using the same algorithm it uses to ferret out obvious copies as articles are created. It doesn't tag the article, but it does post a result usually within a minute or two that can give you better confidence about the text or a likely source to look up for direct copies. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps this would be worthwhile step while putting together the "Next Update". When you move an article over, place a wiki link on CSBot manual page for a check. That would be one extra layer of protection before a possible copy vio hits the mainpage and probably would be that much extra work. AgneCheese/Wine 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hi, all. Suntag asked me to post here regarding CoBo. I do have the code for CoBo lying around somewhere; I never actually implemented the bot as Google changed their API shortly after I wrote it, and the new TOS specifically disallows usage by non-web applications. I did try to contact them regarding this, but they never got back to me, which was a shame. If anyone knows whether or not there is another Google API now (this was a good year and a half ago at least), or they've changed their TOS and removed the requirement for a URL to activate the licence, can you please let me know, as it means I can get CoBo back up and running. --Veratien (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Section 5.3 of their Terms of Service states "... You specifically agree not to access ... any of the Services through any automated means ...". However based on the code for CorenSearchBot, it does search Google for copyvios, that said at its BRFA it appears a member of the Foundation contacted Google about it, so perhaps something came of that contact? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing did, this is why CSBot is not set to use Yahoo instead. — Coren (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Most viewed DYK update and proposal

    Last summer, I started a sandbox page User:Cbl62/sandbox3 to track the most viewed DYK hooks on a month-by-month basis using Henrik's page view tool. Though I've neglected it in the last couple months, BorgQueen has been diligently updating it. The Top 10 all-time are set forth below. I continue to think a permanent page, which other could help maintain, would be useful in demonstrating the types of hooks that work best in drawing readers to new articles, and would also to serve as an incentive for nominators to come up with more interesting hooks. Do others think that a permanent page would be helpful? Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Seems nifty to me. Would this get placed somewhere? Is it updated by hand? The page seems to have a lot more on it than what you shared below, so I'm not sure what it would look like or where it would go. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    That's a nice idea. The only thing I can think of is that, naturally, the vast majority of most-viewed DYKs are the ones with pictures, so it might skew the demonstration of what kinds of hooks are good (ie, there may be lots of hooks that were probably more interesting, but didn't have pictures and therefore didn't make the hall of fame). Can you think of any good way to rule out the image variable (such as by making, just for experiments' sake, a similar list of DYK hooks but excluding all the image ones), just to get a better idea of what factors other than the image contribute to a good hook? —Politizer talk/contribs 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, hooks that are not the image hook occasionally get massive hooks -- e.g., the Todd Palin and National Cleavage Day hooks below. Lar is right that there's a lot on the page, month by month stats, the Top 10 was just an example. My thought was to put it on the menu above along with Next update, Suggestions, List, etc. I find it at least as interesting as the "List." Another idea would be to set up an award system so that anyone who nominates a hook that gets 10,000 views (maybe happens 15 times a month) or who nominates one of the Top 10 hooks of the month gets some sort of DYK medal (sort of like the 50, 100 DYK Medals). It would encourage people to come up with enticing hooks.Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Another factor that skews the view count is the time of day it's on the Main Page. Based on my non-scientific review, hooks that go on the Main Page during the middle of the night in the USA generally don't get nearly as many hits. Sorry, forgot to sign before.Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    The mysterious commenter above me (I believe it was Cbl62) also brings up a good point: especially with these 4-hour periods (or are we back to 6 now), some hooks go up when most of this continent is asleep (by "this continent" I mean America...I don't have any stats but I assume we spend more time on Wikipedia than the rest of the world) and having awards for how many hits a hook gets might eventually lead into a bunch of politics over when and where hooks get placed (i.e., "so-and-so put my hook in the queue that he know wouldn't go up until night, and he put it 3/4 of the way down but not quite at the bottom so no one would see it!"). Of course, everyone knows it's just a fun award and not worth getting all riled up over, but that won't stop people from getting riled up, we're only human. That issue aside, I think having some sort of informal recognition for top 10 hooks is an excellent idea and would be a lot of fun. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Should we try it out and see how it goes over? Who has the know-how to move User:Cbl62/sandbox3 to a permanent page and add a link in the Menu above (probably just below "List"? Cbl62 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Per Politizer's suggestion, here's a list of the all-time top hooks that were not featured in the main photo slot.Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    I deleted the charts since they are now on the permanent Wikipedia:DYKBEST page.Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    History

    I was wondering whether history links from Template:Did you know should be added to all subsequent templates which inform users (both on their user talk pages and the artcles' talk pages) which fact was added to the DYK area. I know that this might be a lot of work oh no not pasta but it may be useful to people. Simply south (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Queue 5

    Just a quickie ... on the current Queue 5 (the one with the siphon), would an admin be so kind as to put a non-breaking space between the "Art" and the "Deco" of "Art Deco" in the Crawley buildings hook? It goes across two lines on my browser and looks peculiar. I should have included it when I typed the hook originally – sorry! Danke, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Template

    Please see the discussion. Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Credit bot is now enabled

    DYKBot (talk · contribs) is now in a 7-day trial to do the credits (BRFA #2). I've gone through all the queues and got them ready for the bot and added instructions inside hidden comments on the clear page. I've created more in-depth instructions at User:DYKBot/credits, mostly its not that big of a change just a few things that have to be remembered. The bot is not adding hooks at this stage though as it's too unreliable. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Not sure what you mean about the bot "not adding hooks" but one thing I have noticed is the bot leaves an automessage which includes the phrase "on behalf of x". I'm thinking that perhaps the "on behalf of x" phrase should go because it only emphasizes that the credit has been done by a bot, thus depersonalizing the contact. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    At the BRFA it was suggested that it add the hook to the credit which I said I would do but now I don't trust that it will work reliably. The edit summary is to clarify why a bot is posting to the talkage but signing using a different signature, I feel that it personalises the contact more (rather than the reverse), as if someone looks at the history of their talkpage and sees DYKBot posting a nomination credit and spoofing a signature with clarifying what is going on it looks like the bot is trying to deceive the user, while if it states "on behalf of X" then it asserts that yes a bot is doing the credits but it was specifically instructed by another person to do it. Would be interested in other views though, it's no problem to change it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Congrats on the credit bot. I recently received a DYK credit on my talk page from BorgQueen. I just looked at my talk page history and see that the credit was posted by the bot. Until then, I had no idea that the bot did it, even though I was aware of the DYK changes to take place. The bot has been implemented seamlessly without any noticeable change to the credit posting system. Good job! -- Suntag ☼ 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    WP:DYKBEST

    OK, I decided to be bold and move the Best of DYK to a permanent spot here: Wikipedia:DYKBEST. I also tried adding to add it to the Template, but it doesn't seem to have taken. If someone can fix the template to make it fit right after DYKLIST, we can give it a try on an provisional basis and see what people think. I also manged to add it to the Template on a trial basis. If there's a consensus that it's not helpful, we can always dump it.Cbl62 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    As noted above, we probably can make some awards and contests out of Wikipedia:DYKBEST, which would be a good way to help us better understand what the public wants. Aside what is in the news, sex and religion seem big audience getters. -- Suntag ☼ 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    In addition to the topics noted by Suntag, articles on technology, weapons, ships, tanks, all things military, and "oddities" seem to get a lot of views. Cbl62 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Cbl62. Since a goal of DYK is to make the Main Page the most effective, I started Wikipedia:DYKBEST#Features_of_an_effective_DYK_hook. Over time and with study, I think we can come up with factors that may result in articles likely to receive significant viewings. Please add your initial thought to that section. There are Wikipedian experts in everything. Perhaps we can solicit help from Wikipedian stat experts to look at the data and come up with such factors. I'm not sure if it was the right place, but I posted a request at WikiProject Mathematics. It might help if each entry in the table also included the date and UTC time range that the hook appeared on the Main Page, as well as the position (1, 2, 3, etc.) of where it appeared in the group. Also, maybe we should keep a count for all DYK articles. Perhaps that will reveal topics that are pointless to put on the Main Page because no one clicks through. -- Suntag ☼
    It would be interesting to have some tips for how to write a good hook. I have had two articles on DYK and honestly, neither of my hooks were very exiting.
    On the other hand, if we try too hard to have DYKs that draw visits, we would end up like a bad tabloid. Just cram in sex, guns and anything that would fit in the Weekly World News. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Two thoughts. First, I don't think it's a good idea to focus on the "Best" page on which time slots (day, night, weekend, etc) draw the most views. I think that focus will lead to interminable griping by authors about when their hook goes on the Main Page. I've sometimes been disappointed when a hook I thought was really good gets the graveyard shift, but I don't think we should include such comments on the "Best" page, as it will inevitably lead to complaining and lobbying about time slots. Second, I agree with Apoc2400 that "Best" should not become a "race for the bottom" turning DYK into a tabloid. But the best hooks show how an interesting, intriguing, catchy hook can draw subtantial attention to a seemingly dry topic -- e.g., "cusion plant" and "Millard house." Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Here's my read of "Hooks with over 20,000 views": 1. In the news. 2. Sex. 3. In the news. 4. Mystical healing. 5. In the news. 6. Mystical landscape (Scowle) 7. Music band oddity. 8. Sex. 9. Spider oddity. 10. Military. 11. Boidly fluid (People sniffer). 12. Old German outlaw. 13. In the news. 14. Riches. (Nassak Diamond) 15. Mystical ghost. 16. Military. 17. Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. And to my complete shock, my Nassak Diamond article that I just wrote is number 14. Wow! -- Suntag ☼ 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    It really beats me that the F.L. Wright building hook got so many clicks. I know he's a famous architect but the hook itself isn't that fascinating, in my view... but then perhaps it's just me. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    In addition to F.L. Wright, The Trons were another one that seemed surprising. It would be interesting if we could figure out why the big hits. -- Suntag ☼ 23:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Bug with DYKBot?

    Talk:17th Panzer Division &....? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm guessing it was supposed to give the credit to Talk:17th Panzer Division (Germany)? – RyanCross (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry, I forgot that link. But that's what I was wondering... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Why is DYKBot inserting % instead of brackets? Eg: this one, in BorgQueen's signature. Chamal talk 14:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    My guess would be because the person who programmed it is incompetent, has very limited time and doesn't test their software properly. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm... that person is a bit like me, blaming themselves for everything that goes wrong ;) Chamal talk 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Isn't it frustrating when a program does exactly what it was programmed to do, instead of doing what is in the programmer's mind, even when that means it does the wrong thing!? (I have a computer science minor). Royalbroil 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Gothatmist sources

    I had a question about a nom I just reviewed; I'll copy it here just for fun:

    WP:RSN is probably a better place to get feedback on this sort of thing. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks, I'll check there. —Politizer talk/contribs 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a gothamist cite, but the statement for the nomination about the "authority" of the a ward committeeman seems a bit misleading. In fact, I don't think the article asserts such a statement. The article uses the term "influence". The one place that the article uses the word "authority" is not entirely correct anyway. There is no defined structure in the city charter or the party by-laws that says a committeeperson controls Ward X while the alderman controls Ward Y. Frankly they can be the same person. The committeeperson's "official" authority is pretty much always the same. They vote to endorse candidates and work for the party. The alderman is a member of the city council and has the authority as befits that office. I guess this sounds a bit nitpicky, but now that I have written it, I might as well post it. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 23:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Changes to {{DYKproblem}}

    Just in case anyone out there is using this template a lot, I just wanted to let you know there have been some changes that will affect how you use it. First of all, it no longer includes a section header automatically, so now when you use it on a talk page you'll have to either create a section header or use the "new message" button (rather than "edit this page"). This has the annoying side-effect of making you have to type out a section heading, but the benefit of making you not have to type an edit summary if you use "new section" (although personally I find making an edit summary faster and easier than making a section heading, but oh well). Also, it doesn't automatically sign anymore; you have to type ~~~~ like you would when calling a warning template or (as far as I know) just about every other usertalk namespace template.

    Also, the way it links to the DYK nomination is different. It used to link to the section for that day; now that How do you turn this on has been implementing level-4 section headers for each entry, the template now links directly to the individual entry (assuming that you type the article name in the template call exactly as it appears on the DYK suggestions page). Of course, for the old noms that don't have section headings this means it won't link anywhere, but oh well, people will survive.

    If you've been calling the template without parameters anyway, this last thing won't really effect you. But if you've been using parameters, it's nice because you don't need to enter the date anymore; {{subst:DYKproblem|Article name}} does everything (and there's still a 2nd parameter for an optional message to replace "thank you for contributing to DYK," of course). I'm working on adding an optional "date=" parameter for if people for some crazy reason want to link to the date subsection on T:TDYK instead of linking directly to the nomination, but I'm having issues with it right now. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Use of ancient sources

    (Jumping into the discussion since I was mentioned) I don't know why there should be skepticism about ancient/medieval Chinese sources other than on the issues of historians' biases. We don't "unreliabilize" information that we get from Tacitus or Suetonius even though they are clearly biased. To the extent that someone may disagree with my reading of the original, people can put in alternative readings where justified. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    An additional thought (which I noticed it now): Based on Wikipedia's definition of primary sources, the sources that I cite are not primary sources, since they're compilations, generally from the succeeding dynasty. In the case of Tang Dynasty, the two main official histories, the Book of Tang and the New Book of Tang, were compiled in the Later Jin Dynasty and the Song Dynasty respectively. They're not primary sources, nor can they be truly called contemporary. We wouldn't consider 21st century sources about 19th century events to be "contemporary," and there was basically just as much time apart from the events and the compilation about the events. Yes, they were based on writings that were made near or at the time, but that should make them more reliable, not less, particularly since in both cases groups of historians were gathered to collect, rewrite, and compile the raw Tang records. --Nlu (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    They are still ancient sources though. You mention Tacitus and Suetonius but no modern historian takes the word of these classical historians at face value, their work has to be analyzed from a modern perspective and placed in context with what else is known. As an obvious example, it would be absurd to uncritically reproduce Tacitus' ignorant comments about Christians as "cannibals" in the light of the last 2000 years of history. That is why ancient historians are considered primary sources and why history articles should be based on reliable secondary sources from modern scholars. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    As an aside, there are a few japanese speaking editors who could help out, I recall Kww I think being one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    "Japanese speaking editors"...? You must be confusing Chinese and Japanese. They are very different languages. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    But based on Wikipedia's definitions, they (the Book of Tang and New Book of Tang, that is — not Tacitus or Suetonius, who were observers of the events) are still not primary sources since the authors did not observe the events in question. Regardless, you're still effectively proposing we throw away highly analytical works of groups of historians (these are never individual works in practice) whose works, effectively, are often the only reliable sources that we have to work with, in favor of far less reliable works. I think that's simply counterintuitive. To the extent that you are effectively proposing a revision of policy (since under the current policy they are not considered primary sources) I also believe that it increases the systematic bias. --Nlu (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm aware of similar issues in Greek and Roman history. For example Herodotus recorded accurately the information available to him, often by word of mouth, but even his near contemporary Thucydides was sceptical of some of Herodotus' reports. These Greek historians seldom had alternative accounts or hard evidence about the events they described, and simply had to make up their own minds about the credibility of what they were told. Ancient Chinese historians may have been slightly better off, e.g. they may have been able to consult other written records, but then one has to evaluate the accuracy of their sources. In addition ancient Greek and Latin historians were, by modern standards, excessively keen to draw morals, and this slanted their presentations. One would have to examine whether ancient Chinese historians had similar failings, especially about events leading up to a regime change. So while ancient Chinese historians may have been secondary sources, they need modern confirmation as much as a 19th century aritcle on science. --Philcha (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Do any of Wikipedia's Reliable sources guidelines address this (certain ancient historians are considered primary sources)? What does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard say on this matter? DYK can act on either of these. If an article only uses sources that are not independent of the topic, DYK usually rejects such articles. -- Suntag ☼ 07:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    T:TDYK edit notice

    Since we seem to be phasing in Hdytto's thing of having each DYK nom in its own 4th-level subsection on the suggestions page, could we modify the edit notice (which currently has a message about the queue system and not re-adding your hook) to say something, in big letters, about the new format and how nominators should put their new hook in a section? I tried Template talk:Did you know/Editnotice but that doesn't exist, so I guess the T:TDYK edit notice works differently than user talk edit notices.

    And while we're at that, this may be a good time to think about implementing something Ameliorate (I believe) mentioned above when discussing a credits bot...a template for DYK noms. (It could have numbered parameters for the article name and hook, and named parameters for creator/expanders and nominator.) That would help with the new layout of the suggestions page because, as we know, sometimes people are dumb (or just human) and format things weird when they nominate their hook...I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people nominating their hooks under the new layout accidentally make a 3rd- or 2nd-level section heading instead of a 4th, or just make a typo that screws up the sections, or something like that...and it would be a lot of extra work for us to clean up after it. So having a template to avoid that stuff would help...and it seems like having that in a template would be useful anyway for automating things (although I can't remember exactly what...actually maybe it wouldn't be useful for automating things, since it would probably be subst'ed).

    As a side note...I know setting this stuff up would be extra work now, but I think it's worth it, because I think Hdytto's new setup is nice. For one thing, it makes it easier for us reviewers to comment on an individual nom (before this, I was doing a lot of scrolling up and down to get to the section edit button), and will cut back on edit conflicts...and it just makes things tidier. Also, this is somewhat selfish, but it makes {{DYKproblem}}, my baby, work a lot more nicely. (addition) And it makes the history more easily searchable, if you're trying to find when a particular hook was deleted or something like that, assuming that people use section editing. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    What about for people like me? Will this be so complicated that a regular editor can not submit a DYK? I am intimidated just by reading all this. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, this is only a proposal...but for the template I am working on now, I am giving it parameters that you can cut and paste in, similar to when you use a template to nominate an image for deletion, or to report a vandal, or to use a cite template: Right now it looks something like this:
    removed'
    And of course it will have instructions noting what goes in each spot and which are optional and which are required. But if people think it's too complicated, we don't have to do it. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Here's the editnotice link: MediaWiki:Editnotice-11-Did_you_know ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks. By the way, I've been fiddling around with a template ({{DYKsuggestion}}); it's still very tentative now and a lot of stuff will have to be tweaked, but for an idea of what it looks like (to help you guys decide if it's worth pursuing or not), here is an example of a simple template call and the result:
    {{subst:DYKsuggestion
 | article           = Example
 | hook              = ...that '''[[Example]]''' ''(pictured)'' is an article being used to try out a [[WP:Template|template]] called {{tl|DYKsuggestion}}?
 | creator           = Politizer
 | expander          = 
 | expander2         = 
 | expander3         = 
 | nominator         = 
 | movedtomainspace  = 
 | image             = Example.png
}} ~~~~

    Example


    As you can see, what the nominator actually has to type is basically the same as what they have to type now...but I admit that seeing it as a template might be intimidating. Also, I wanted to bring up the issue of subst'ing...if you subst this is gets REALLY ugly (lots of stuff like {{#if:{{{creator|}}}| [[User:{{{creator}}}|{{{creator}}}]].}})—fortunately the hook itself doesn't get messy, but still the nominators and creators and yada yada get buried under all that syntax. If you don't subst, stuff stays pretty neat, although it will take up a lot of room in the edit window (although that shouldn't be a huge issue if people will be using section editing). —Politizer talk/contribs 05:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, and another thing that I still need to do is figure out how to set it up to handle double and triple noms. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    This is an excellent idea. Might be a bit confusing at first, but in a week or two I think it'll be going as smoothly as you can wish for. The regulars will get familiar with it pretty quickly, and I don't think there'll be too many errors on the part of others as well. If there are any, I don't think it'd be too much, and the reviewer can do the corrections pretty quickly. Chamal talk 06:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    And we'll need to fix it so that it can handle hooks with multiple articles as well. Chamal talk
    I just set it up to take as many as 5 articles in the hook (it just has five different paramaters, up to "article5="...not the most elegant solution, but it seems to work ok). I've never seen a hook with more than that many, and I presume that if someone ever does do a hook with more than 5 articles then they're probably enough of a DYK superstar to be able to figure out how to do the nom manually. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Someone once did seven in one hook.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 06:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds like I killed seven with one blow!. -- Suntag ☼ 07:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Another issue is that the section edit link this template creates, is a link to edit the template itself, not to edit the section you want to edit. That is a really huge problem, as it basically defeats the entire purpose of the suggestion page's subsections. See Template talk:DYKsuggestion for more detail (and especially see there if you're good with templates and now how to fix this problem!). —Politizer talk/contribs 06:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think we need a message in the notice. People so far are all following the format fine, so I don't think it's necessary. I love the template - I left a message on the talk page suggesting why it edits the template and not the section when it's posted.

    We would need to put this template in the edit header at least for a while - it's quite big, and should be there to easily copy, as Mattisse says, it can be quite complicated. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, definitely. And it would also be on T:TDYK in the instructions for adding new noms, in a format that can be easily copied-and-pasted (just like the template in the AfD instructions), and I presume we would leave it there forever．　—Politizer talk/contribs 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    If the purpose is "automating things" like checking for hook length, question marks, bolding, and a dot-dot-dot-space ellipsis, then remember it won't help much unless all the ALT suggestions are formatted in a similarly predictable way. Art LaPella (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    I added some examples to the documentation template. If someone wants to neaten them up and make them pretty, go for it. \ / (⁂) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Building functionality into the template for ALT hooks is easy enough, but it will make the code on the T:TDYK edit page look messier when the template is subst-ed. The same goes for question marks and the dot-dot-space ellipsis...I could easily set the template up to take whatever the user types for the hook and standardize it to our format, but it would create a lot of #if: markup in the edit page that would be annoying for reviewers moving stuff to Next. So far I've tried to design it in a way that the hook isn't touched at all by the template, it just gets put in the exact same way the user typed it and any modifications or corrections to it are done by hand later (just like we do now) to avoid having all sorts of weird syntax get plopped in the middle of it.
    Anyway, if you think ALT hooks should be built into the template, I can do that but I think it's not worth doing unless we can figure out a way to use the template without subst-ing it (more on that problem at Template talk:DYKsuggestion); as it currently stands, the template is very neat when not subst-ed but also patently useless because of the fact that you can't section-edit it from T:TDYK unless it's subst-ed...I'll have to keep soliciting suggestions from people who know a lot of wiki syntax and see if there's a way to deal with that.
    I don't know how much use the template would be for automating stuff anyway, now that I think about it.... My main motivation for creating it was to preclude errors nominators might make in the future (such as using the wrong subsection levels), but it seems to me like there haven't been errors like that anyway, so maybe the template isn't even worth pursuing. But I'll keep trying to see if we can find a solution to the subst-ing problem. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    Lifebaka just had a novel solution, and now that he has tweaked the code, the template can be subst-ed without making a mess. The only thing now is, it must be subst-ed, or you will pretty much ruin the Internet. But I don't think that's a big problem, as people would be directly pasting in the template from above the edit window, and we can make sure the subst: is there when they paste it. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hittin?

    Hi all. Thanks for all the great work you do in keeping DYK up and running. I was wondering if someone could help me figure out a bit of a puzzle. Hittin was nominated for a DYK (a co-nom of myself, User:Huldra and User:Al Ameer son. I think it did actually appear ont he DYK page sometime in the last 24 hours. But ... no tags were distributed. Not to the article page and not out to the co-noms. Is there a glitch in the new system when it comes to multiple notifications? Anyone know what happened or how to find out? Your help is appreciated. Tiamuttalk 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hi! Hittin is still on the Next Update page, which funnily enough, does not mean that it is on the main page now, or that it will be next. The new system means that your hook will be added to Queue 4, and credits will be distributed when it makes it to the main page, probably in about 21-27 hours. \ / (⁂) 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for explaining. I saw it on the next update page a while ago (this morning? or yesterday night?) which is why I thought is had already appeared. Not used to the new system I guess. Thanks for the quick response. Tiamuttalk 23:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    New Queue Shortcuts

    I just made some redirects if we need to link to the queues currently waiting. At the moment the normal address is a bit long. (might be useful in cases such as above). T:DYK/Q1, T:DYK/Q2, T:DYK/Q3, T:DYK/Q4, T:DYK/Q5. If they are useless, feel free to destroy them, I just thought it may be useful. \ / (⁂) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    I added them to Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects. -- Suntag ☼ 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus

    I am not sure that this is the right place to report this, in that case, please tell me where to go.

    Currently there is a reference to Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus in Template:Did you know/Queue/5, whose text is "that enraged plebs burned down the home of Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus because of a rumor that he was "slak[ing] lime with wine"?" This is however incorrect, as the rumor was that he (had) said that he would have rather preferred slaking lime with wine, rather than selling it (the wine) at the price the plebs wanted.

    I hope someone could fix this.

    Bye, --TakenakaN (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, I was just about to report the same thing. Good catch, —Politizer talk/contribs 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed. Thank you. Should we change the instructions at WP:ERRORS to direct such reports there? Art LaPella (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    If the error is in a queue, then the error should be announced here, the queue isn't exactly an urgent medium, and an admin is needed to clear the queue anyway. If the error is on the main page, however... \ / (⁂) 04:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Billy Hathorn

    I'm a bit concerned about several of the recent DYK's created by User:Billy Hathorn that have been allowed on the main page. Take a look at these The Californians (TV series) (not a single good resource), The Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Show (several shady refs), The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series), (more of the same issues), Roger Mobley (the main source is the subjects own website), Window on the Plains Museum (resource 3?), and Don Collier (similar issues). I investigated this because I have declined DYKs for this user before for using IMDB and I was wondering why he kept on submitting articles with that as a source. Now I know. Although I think we need to have a talk with Billy, the more pressing concern here is a lack of consistancy among our reviewers. How can we expect good submissions from regular contributors like Billy if we don't enforce our own policies?Nrswanson (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with Nrswanson's concerns, and think we all (myself included; God knows I've let some bad noms slip through the cracks, and thank goodness other reviewers have usually been able to notice and chide me for it) need to be firm about the quality of refs in an article. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am extremely concerned about his noms and I am automatically skeptical when I see one of his noms. I did some independent research on some of his earlier DYK noms in 2 television books that I have and I was able to find most of the content in the articles. I won't review every one of his new articles and cite it for him. I can't save his noms. I left him directions on how to find a reliable source at google books and other web sources and it didn't work. I'm tired of leaving him a polite message each time I find problems. A regular nominator shouldn't need this amount of hand holding. Royalbroil 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. As a reviewer you really shouldn't be editing his articles anyway beyond little typos etc. That is not your job its the noms job. I think the question I'm asking though is what are we going to do about it? I think we should say something to Billy for sure. Possibly a ban from DYK is in order, although I'm inclined at this point to go with a stern warning from DYK project as a whole. As for these articles getting onto the main page... I'm not sure what we can do to improve the radar so to speak. Anyone got any ideas on that?Nrswanson (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    It's not just his TV series/TV personality articles. It's also his articles on politicians and other public figures, who are frequently of questionable notability. Billy's lack of concern for certain basic policies has been known about for a long time, there was an RFC on him ages ago about these very issues, but nothing came of it. I've generally taken a harder line on his articles but frequently found myself overruled by other updaters.
    Billy is not the only regular contributor we have who submits lots of questionable articles however, there is also Nlu, for example, who submits a lot of articles on ancient China based solely on contemporary chronicles - in effect, primary sources. When I brought up this problem long ago I got little support from other users, but I did notice that user Lampman recently brought up the issue again. I did intend at one time to start a thread about Nlu's sources on an appropriate policy page, but never got around to it.
    We also have a contributor ATM submitting articles on Japanese pop culture products like comic books and Manga films that are quite difficult to assess because of their Japanese language sources but which often seem to have little if any independent sourcing to confirm notability. As a general rule I try to avoid reviewing such articles because others decide to ignore my concerns, but if we are going to enforce these policies more firmly then I think we need to be consistent. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think the fact that we're all talking about this and acknowledging the problem helps a little, because it will be easier for everyone to shut down his noms if we all agree that there's this pattern. For example, I have reviewed some of his noms and wanted to break my computer in half, but was always hesitant to unilaterally reject them because of how we are generally supposed to be nice to nominators and help improve the articles, so I would usually leave a less stern "please bring in better sources" and ; if we all agree that a particular user has a disruptive pattern of nominating, then we can be more stern about rejecting their noms immediately (after a cursory glance at the article to see that the references are all lousy, for example) and not having to waste time arguing over the references all over again with every new nom.
    On a side note...you make a good point about Nlu's noms. I know I am guilty of verifying a lot of them because, at first glance, all those Tang dynasty sources in his articles make it look awfully fancy and academic...but now that you put it this way, I agree, it would be nice to have some other sources. I will try to be more critical when evaluating his noms in the future, and hopefully other reviewers will do the same. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Based on my experience with Billy Hathorn and hook length warnings, he doesn't so much need someone to read him the riot act, but he needs more re-explanation than most. Art LaPella (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    I too avoid reviewing poorly sourced articles since I would reject them but others seem to have no problem DYKing them. I don't want to drive DYK reviews away since it is a lot of work and we need all the reviews we can get. I've considered the idea that Billy Hathorn is vandalizing Wikipedia by posting articles that make little effort to comply with article content policy. But that didn't and doesn't make sense. He has written many new article and puts a lot of effort into each one. He has a sincere desire to contribute to Wilikedia that may be misdirected, but it still is a lot of effort. I revamped his B.P. Newman article, which was listed for deletion. I even developed Template:SSDI rootsweb for his cites to the Social Security Death Index. B.P. Newman was written like an obituary and that is where the information came from (along with rootsweb and Net Detective, People Search), but he posted a note on my talk page indicating that he did not understand why people objected to it so much that they wanted to delete it. His talk page is filled with editing comments from others, but that don't seem to have much impact. I agree with Art LaPella that he needs more re-explanation than most. We haven't yet banned anyone from DYK (as far as I am aware). Also, we're not here promarily to help improve the editor or an article. A main effort of DYK is to protect the encyclopedia from embarrassment. So long as this thread remains unresolved, I think it would be OK to post a note under his DYK noms (as well as ATMs and Nlu's) mentioning that

    An unresolved discussion was started on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about this editor's recent DYK post.

    using a link to the discussion. That might motivate him to resolve the discussion or at least clue the DYK reviewer into looking into the article more thoroughly. Perhaps we can have a bot programmed to make such posts, with an admin adding and removing names to the bot post list as needed. -- Suntag ☼ 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    Some very great comments! I think it's important to encourage submitters AND to encourage reviewers... so there's a difficult balance here. There's also WP:AGF to keep in mind! That said, if we have nominators that we agree are consistently producing (or at least have a tendency to produce) problematic nominations, I wonder if it makes sense to note that somehow, as an aid to reviewers. We want to do it in a sensitive way, but maybe a list of "currently on probation" at the top of the nom page or something? Because I agree... Billy's enthusiastic but some of his noms are problematic, take significant time to resolve, and sending mixed messages (which can confuse the issue) may not be the best way to proceed... all reviewers need awareness to reduce that, as improving our consistency in applying standards is goodness. Balance that against WP:BURO of course! ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    While I agree with Suntag that the primary goal of DYK is not to improve editors, it's still a little bit disturbing that such long-standing contributors haven't caught on yet. Billy has been on WP for over 2 and a half years and has over 40,000 contribs; it's not like he's a newb that we're biting. I think somewhere we have a guideline that newbies aren't required to have their refs formatted all prettily with author, title, accessdate, etc, but once someone becomes a regular we can start expecting them to be able to do that stuff (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#Reference section). If we expect regulars to get better at formatting, shouldn't we also expect them to get better at recognizing reliable sources? —Politizer talk/contribs 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Politizer. Also if you look at his talk page right now and in the archives you will see all sorts of reminders about these things. He's been told over and over. I don't think the talking to him is working. Didn't someone once say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? I think we may need to try something else.Nrswanson (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Jumping into this a bit late. I came across the John C. Fleming DYK nomination when I was posting a nomination of my own. I took a look at the article and was not only concerned about the state of the reference formatting, but also the references used — such as his own websites, which do not fit with WP:RS. Also of great concern was that it read like campaign literature, where much of it was taken. Which would make Wikipedia a tool for a candidated promotion — certainly in violation of policies and guidelines — WP:NPOV , WP:NOT, etc. There seems to be reasonable notability for this subject, so I spent considerable time cleaning up the article — not to take away what BH should be doing, but in the interest of having an article on Wikipedia that met with policies and guidelines. However, BH continues to add material not supported by the citations that have been added; and has not yet commented on the talk page. I've left a message on the article talk page and hope he will respond. If not, this editor is not only in need of education on appropriate DYK nomination, but on Wikipedia standards. — ERcheck (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This appears then to be more than just a DYK issue, but a general editing issue, leaning toward disrupting Wikipedia (ignoring guidelines and general community discussion; using WP:OR to create articles - See Earl Williamson, a recent article.) So, step one would seem to be addressing the DYK concerns. I support a ban on his submissions until he shows a change in editing patterns. Step two (we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot ignore this problem even if it is moved off of DYK), take steps to make sure that concerns are addressed. As this is the first time I've come across this editor, I don't have the background that many here seem to have. — ERcheck (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    So what does the community propose? If he won't follow policy, is this blockable? Otherwise the community is left working on this undoing every substandard edit one by one. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    If we do anything, here isn't the place to discuss it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    I used the IMDB for the articles on 1960s TV shows for the factual content. I did not use opinion inserted occasionally by readers. I don't think IMDB allows readers to change the factual material. The articles that I have written on the old show are of highest quality and were checked carefully for accuracy. I cannot imagine what the dispute is about. I used what material that I had. Compare these articles with other submissions on the old TV series.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    You don't get the point of this thread. The point is that IMDB is not a reliable source! Try nominating using it in a FA attempt and see what the reviewers think about it. DYK reviewers are extremely lenient with respect to reliable sources compared to FA reviewers. I'll paste in what option is available for a registered IMDB user like me: "You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Update' button will take you through a step-by-step process." So they will accept and consider any update that I have. No solid proof is required if the website managers think I'm right. Billy, your composition is not being disputed. The reliability of the IMDB source is unacceptable. You've been told this enough times. You're not some rookie new to Wikipedia. Royalbroil 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Bad scheduling time

    Brown Mountain forest's DYK is scheduled to be shown on DYK at midnight to 8am, Australian Eastern Standard Time. (Template:Did you know/Queue/4). Can it be delayed for 8 hours so it can be seen by people living in Australia? I'd change it myself but I don't want to mess with the queues. —Pengo 09:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    The hook has been moved to the queue 5. Please note that such requests cannot be accommodated sometimes. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, and that's understandable. —Pengo 09:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    DYK nom timeslot suggestion

    This thread got me thinking. Now that the admin bot is doing the Main Page postings, article appearances on the Main Page can be predicted to be in one of four UTC timeslots: 0 timeslot (00:00-04:00), 4 timeslot (04:00-12:00), 12 timeslot (12:00-18:00), and 18 timeslot (18:00-24:00). Perhaps we can offer nominators an option to request either a 0 timeslot, 6 timeslot, 12 timeslot, or 18 timeslot based on when they think their DYK hook target audience will be viewing the Main Page (e.g., morning or after work in the evening). For example, I have a DYK hook pending that might be of interest to those in South Korea. It now is 4 AM in South Korea[2] and about 19 UTC, so I would not want 18 timeslot for my DYK hook. With my DYK hook nom, I would have posted something like "0 timeslot or 4 timeslot requested" or "timeslot request: 0, 4". As BorgQueen notes above, such requests cannot be accommodated sometimes (Such as for the 18 timeslot when most of the United States is awake). However, this might be a good way to make better use of DYK's portion of the Main Page. We can even create a table such as "If your DYK hook target audience lives in xxx, recommended DYK timeslots are xxx." If the DYK nominator doesn't care about the timeslot, then they need not post any timeslot request. -- Suntag ☼ 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    I personally am not in favor this. Its just one more hoop to jump through in an already complicated process. It will also encourage people to request certain slots which will turn into a headache for us who stock the queue and want to present a balanced set of hooks. (What happens if everyone with a non-U.S. hook wants their hook up when their country is awake. All the sudden we get all U.S. hooks in slot 18 on a regular basis) I say lets keep things simple.Nrswanson (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with NrSwanson. Too much of a headache. Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    It's an interesting idea and I think it may be worth looking into more if we figure out a way to streamline things so that it doesn't become a headache for everyone, as the above editors pointed out. But I don't think people should make too much of a habit of timing DYK hooks just for a particular geographical area...one of the things I like about DYK is that it keeps a good mix of facts, and that would be compromised if we always put hooks of a certain geographical interest into the same time slot. I think it's good for us to ram non-US stuff down the US readers' throats (and personally, I live in the US and find many of the US hooks to be terribly boring...although different editors could say that about any kinds of hooks, I guess. My last two linguistic-y hooks certainly haven't been a barrel of monkeys). —Politizer talk/contribs 23:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I suggested this some time ago and it was roundly shot down. :) howcheng {chat} 22:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Howcheng gets shot down. See the final comment by the (late, great) ALoan for echoes of Politizer's comment above. Let's not assume that people only want to read about their own region. Yomanganitalk 14:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Today's second feature

    Anyone ever heard of Wikipedia:Today's second feature? It has a bunch of subpages that redirect to Template:Did you know. Maybe some of Today's second feature should be tagged historical and the rest deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Its colors are for the old version of the Main Page (the one before the current design) and there's been no discussion since 2005. I'd say tag it as historical. What should be deleted exactly? – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps nothing. I was thinking that some of the subpages could be deleted, but they generally seem similarly situated and evidence what appeared on the Main Page at one time. Tag as historical seems fine. -- Suntag ☼ 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    The subpages and redirects exist because Today's second feature was implemented in July 2005 before the Parser Functions were fully installed, so we had to rely solely on the Magic words of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, and {{CURRENTDAY}}. I do not know how many Wikipedians are still using that and Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Classic 2006) as their main page alternative, and using it as their default page. Therefore, I do not recommend a full deletion at this time unless someone is willing to rework all of this "spaghetti code". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Update on DYK nominating template

    A few days ago I mentioned an experimental template that I was working on for making DYK nominations. Well, thanks to help from How do you turn this on, Backslash Forwardslash, Lifebaka, and especially thanks to Ameliorate! for his/her ingenious solution, the template has been saved from the brink of certain death and, while probably not in good enough shape yet to be used for nominations, is at least in good enough shape for me to show other people. So, without further ado, here is the counterintuitively named {{DYKsug}} (I avoided names like DYKnomination because that might cause confusion with {{DYKnom}}, which is already taken and is very widely used)...

    Here's the code that nominators would copy and paste into the edit window when they make their nom: 

    {{subst:DYKsug
 | article           = Article name
 | article2          = 
 | article3          = 
 | article4          = 
 | article5          = 
 | hook              = ... that ...
 | creator           = 
 | expander          = 
 | expander2         = 
 | expander3         = 
 | nominator         = 
 | movedtomainspace  = 
 | image             = 
 | ALT1              = 
 | ALT2              = 
}}

    Here's what it would produce if you nominated two articles and specified an article creator, a date it was moved to mainspace, an image, and an alternate hook:

    Example, Hook

    • ... that this hook is just an example? — New article by Politizer (talk), moved to mainspace on November 25. Self nom

    And here's what the code it leaves behind would look like (ie, the code that reviewers and promoters would have to deal with): 

    ====[[Example]], [[Hook]]====

{{DYKsuggestion
 | hook = ... that this '''[[hook]]''' is just an '''[[example]]'''?
 | creator = Politizer
 | expander = 
 | expander2 = 
 | expander3 = 
 | nominator = 
 | movedtomainspace = November 25
 | image = Example.png
 | ALT1 = ... that this '''[[hook]]''', which is an '''[[example]]''', is great?
 | ALT2 = 
}}

    You'll notice that it copied over some empty parameters (the expander and nominator parameters, and ALT2, which the nominator chose not to specify). One thing I'm currently working on is to use stuff like <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: so that when you call {{DYKsug}} it only copies over the parameters that are actually used, and doesn't clutter up T:TDYK so much.

    Anyway, there's how things are right now. I'll post another message if there are any mega developments later. If anyone has comments or feedback on what's good or bad about this template, whether or not it will be useful for us, or things that you think it needs, I would be glad to hear from you! —Politizer talk/contribs 05:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Template:DYKsug

    Politizer and I are in the process of testing Template:DYKsug on Template talk:Did you know. Basically, that means taking existing DYK noms and placing them into {{DYKsug}} using one of the suggested strings. You can help by switching existing noms into {{DYKsug}} and reporting any problems or suggestions at Template talk:DYKsuggestion. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    Cool. I'll start using it on noms starting now. Thanks to everybody who worked on this template: it looks good! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    If you subst: switch an existing nom into the DYKsug template, you'll need to manually change back the nom time to the original nomination time. -- Suntag ☼ 22:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I'm not at all convinced this template is necessary or useful. In fact I'm inclined to think it's just going to make things more complicated. But as long as it remains optional I probably won't be inclined to object to it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Gatoclass. I have just noticed these templates at the top of the suggestions page. Do they help the process in anyway? If not they seem to be an unnecessary complication of the process. What happens if I want to suggest alternative hooks for the same article, do I have to do each one in a separate template (which would presumably sign my name after each one)? Also the text in the instructions reads: "Please use one of the below strings to post your DYK nomination:" which doesn't make it sound all that optional, this should probably be changed to "if you like you can use" or similar - Dumelow (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Just double-checked and the parameter for alt hooks is already there. My mistake - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm fine with keeping it optional (and with rewording the instructions at T:TDYK to make that clear). My original motivation for designing it was because I was paranoid about some user accidentally nominating their article under a ==level one heading== or something instead of level four, and that making everything all messy, so I thought having a template do it for them would preclude typos and mistakes. In retrospect, I haven't seen anyone make a mistake with the headings (and even if they did, it might not be a big deal...the worst that it could do, I think, is show up in the TOC).
    I do think it's nice to have the hook and nominator and stuff spaced out like they are in the template, because it can make it easier for the person promoting the hook to find all that stuff without having to search trough the sometimes-messy text that comes up in the edit window when you don't use the template. But that issue is kind of moot when there are lots of alt hooks. And yada yada.
    As for how complicated using the template is, I of course can't really judge that since I made it and therefore know it inside and out. But if a lot of people think it's complicated, I can see if there's any way to simplify things. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that the template was supposed to be used as an aid for the bot when it goes on the next update (or something like that...), not only to subst it and use it for formatting. But I haven't been active during the past few days and I'm kind of lost here, trying to keep up with what has been happening. Anyway I haven't used it yet, but looks OK to me. Chamal talk 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    That might be cool to look into sometime. Personally, I don't know anything about bots and how they work, so I don't know what this template would need to make it bot-friendly. If any bot people out there know about that stuff, feel free to give me a message about what would make the template useful to a bot, or whatever. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Queues transcluded

    So that people can find their DYK noms once removed from the vetting section of Template talk:Did you know, I transcluded the queues to the bottom of Template talk:Did you know. -- Suntag ☼ 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    That's a good idea; then people will still find their stuff when they search the page.
    I tried looking into seeing if we can make the queue sections not show up in the TOC (because they make it really long), and there doesn't seem to be any magic word for it. The best thing I could find is some code here, which looks extremely nasty. —Politizer talk/contribs 16:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Instructions

    I reformatted Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions to make it more reader friendly. -- Suntag ☼ 12:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Why is the note regarding US-related topics required on the next update/clear page? It's wrong for a start; there's often hardly any US topics. And US topics is a very vague term indeed. I don't see any point in having such a message there. It's been removed, and readded a few times. I'd like to know what purpose it really serves, and if it's actually necessary. I'm sure the admins dealing with this are careful to choose a variety of topics in a fair way. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    I tried removing it once. I think the general concensus is that we don't want an admin to buff up DYK with to many things from the US, though I agree with you that they have a brain too. I think "US related" is intentionally vague and open, though because of this it should be removed. There's also nothing about Briitish topics, which also come in by the dozens. That's my 2 cents at least. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    The note is there because we have had too many instances in the past of inexperienced updaters filling an update with all US hooks, or conversely filling it with hooks that include no US hooks at all. It also serves as a more general reminder about the importance of balancing the contents of updates. I will strongly oppose any move to have this note removed, as I know from experience that it creates more work for the more experienced updaters who have to come along and fix the imbalances. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, the suggestions page currently includes 56 US hooks out of 121 - or about 46% US hooks. So the note is as valid as ever. I didn't count the British hooks, but they are far fewer - probably well below 20%. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • A less specific reminder should help. Point out that topics should be varied as well as the geographical region they relate to. -Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Balance is necessary. So normally I would disagree with ethnic cleansing of articles. The above user has a valid point. If the language used is offending Americans... well we can't have that, can we? --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    suggestion regarding DYK articles' Discussion pages

    Do we have a prior discussion (I couldn't find any) about requiring a wikiproject banner on a DYK article's Talk page? Though this would be "instruction creep", here are my thoughts:

    1. When a reader goes from the Main page to the particular DYK article's page, he won't see a big red link at the very top of the article on the word "Discussion". It's one of my peevees with DYK noms, so maybe it's someone else's, too.
    2. As DYK articles cannot be stubs, an assessment of "Start" (or higher), or "List" within the project's tag & assess would validate that the article isn't stub class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think we should mandate a project banner. There may not BE a project for a particular article. But I think the idea of making the talk page not be a redlink is a good idea. If a project doesn't jump out at you ASAP... just slap a {{talkpage}} template on it maybe? ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    What's wrong with a redlink for "Discussion"? Seeing a redlink there tells you there is no discussion as yet and saves you a click if you were thinking that there might be. Yomanganitalk 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    We already put {{Dyktalk}} on all the DYK articles' talk pages, so I don't see the issue here with redlinks. --JayHenry (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    This question is obsolete with the new DYK crediting bot. The article should immediately get an edit to the talkpage when the bot adds the DYK banner. Besides, I've seen plenty of DYK articles that don't fit into any WikiProjects. WikiProjects don't cover every single topic. Royalbroil 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    They may not cover every single topic, but they are close. See User:John Carter/Alphabetical listing of WikiProjects. -- Suntag ☼ 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    Does {{Dyktalk}} get added immediately upon the article's inclusion in DYK or only when it is archived? If the latter is the case then those who view the article from the Main Page will still see a red link. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Heads up

    The next queue is empty, and I have to go offline soon. Can someone fill the next update and copy it to the queue please? (Please be extra careful with the new credit format.) --BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Did anyone do it? --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    the DYK Clock becoming obsolete?

    With the DYKbot on, the DYK Clock may never get to turn red because our DYK updating is too slow. Instead, perhaps we can make it turn red when all five DYK Queue templates are empty? And maybe yellow when there are more than three empty ones? No clue how to do this, but I thought I should share this idea with fellow DYKsters. Just a thought at this time. Cheers. --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    A color scheme would be even more helpful. Maybe red if none are full, yellow if one is full, and green if 2 or more are full. I don't know how to program this template. Might be possible with a lot of if statements. Royalbroil 19:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    I would suggest that if the bot goes on the fritz, it would be good to know that we are overdue. Bots do break. So using color for that seems goodness. Can we ALSO use something to indicate how full the bins are? BOTH things are things we would want to be alarmed about, presumably. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    These are all great ideas. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Agree with Cirt. If those can be implemented, they would really help. Chamal talk 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it's possible using Parser functions etc. to have the template change based on if X contains Y (only if X is Y), so there's no way for the template to check if queues 1-5 contain {{DYKbotdo}}. It would be possible to create a new template such as {{Did you know/queues|1|-|3|-|5}} (1, 3, 5 are done, 2 and 4 aren't). Then when the next queue is filled that template could be updated. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    The amendment sounds good to me. Royalbroil 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    What about a dead man switch ??? First, rather than using parser functions to monitor the buckets, have the bot do that checking every time it does an update... comment on how full the next buckets are. That can allow for more elaborate calculation than you can do in parser functions, and doesn't require new templates. Second, the bot resets the main timer itself (which I guess is what it does now)... if that timer explodes red, the bot is down. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • DYKs former master now obsolete? Should there be a retirement cerimony or something? Maybe invite back some of the old timers to give some testimony or something. -- Suntag ☼ 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm impressed with how most "old time" DYK admins are still active contributors. Most still do at least a few edits every day or week. Royalbroil 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    Can't speak for anyone else, but me too. Plus b) DYK still keeps me motivated to at least try to remember to get back to doing articles (I get so busy with other stuff, but articles are 1) a refreshing break and 2) more importantly... why we're here) ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree here. It would be nice to keep the clock around, just in case the bot breaks down. Perhaps we can also use some additional coding to indicate how full the next queue is. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Image uploading and protecting

    MPUploadBot has been blocked because it was too unreliable. Images will need to be protected manually, the safest way to do that is to protect the image when the hooks are added to the queue. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah that's what I usually do. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    Manual update

    The bot doesn't seem to be working at the moment, so I've updated manually since it was more than 30 minutes overdue. Can someone do the credits please? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've been away for a long time, but I see things improved in my absence. We actually had a bot running the show? Hurray! I was hoping it would finally happen. Doing these changes manually really takes too much time. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    My internet connection died (while I was at work nonetheless) so the bot had no connection. I've applied for an account on the toolserver so the bot can be run from there as well but "bot only" accounts aren't going to be accepted until January. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Credit automated script?

    I just read all the new DYK pages and I had a blast seeing how organized things are now. Unfortunately, I can no longer find an automated script one can install to monobook.js for automating credit giving. Can anyone point me to that script? - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Superseded version here. Instructions for automated bot crediting here. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    Bot schedule

    Is it possible to get the bot to update every 6 hours instead of every 6 hours and 5 minutes and put it on a schedule to update at 0:00, 6:00, 12:00, and 18:00.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

    To achieve what end? 6 hours and 5 minutes sounds close enough to me. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    We previously had wildly varying update times. Now they're predictable. But they also skew by 20 minutes a day. It would be more predictable if they didn't skew so I think using exactly 6 hours seems goodness. A very minor matter, but why not? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    Predictable is important and simple to achieve. Using exactly 6 hours seems like a good idea. -- Suntag ☼ 21:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    I can't really see the point in doing this since the first time an update is missed, it's going to go back to updating at some random time again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatoclass (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Apart from which, maybe a little migration is not such a bad idea? Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Every now and then the bot will misbehave and we will be off schedule for a shift or two. However, predictability is probably a good thing here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

    Notifying users when their noms are promoted

    There have been rumblings now and then of how we should notify users when their noms get promoted, so that they don't get confused when their nom disappears and have to go searching through all the queues, or worse, re-add their nom. I think Suntag's idea of transcluding the queues at the bottom of T:TDYK helps, since now promoted noms still come up when someone searches the page in their browser. But just in case people think something still needs to be done.... here are the two main suggestions I've heard a lot:

    1. Send users a message when their nom gets promoted.
    2. Leave promoted noms on the page, but put them in a pretty colorful box or something that makes it clear they have been promoted.

    Option 1 would mean that the promoter would have extra clicking to do, and it would clutter up the user talk pages of people who are prolific nominators. Option 2 would require that someone pay close enough attention to the template-flipping to know when to remove a nom from T:TDYK, since you wouldn't be able to just delete it while moving to Next like we do now.

    I am not endorsing either one more than the other, and I think both have their ups and downs, but if anyone is interested in exploring option 2, I made a sample of how it might work... there would be a new parameter, |promoted=, in the suggestion template we use now, and it would default to "no." Then, when an editor is promoting the nom, he/she would just enter "yes" for that parameter (should be easy, as he/she will already have the edit window open for grabbing the hook, etc.); after saving the page, it would put the hook and nominator/expander/creator names in a pretty box, blank the rest of the content (image, discussion, verification) using <div style="display: none;">, and leave a big message saying "This nomination has been promoted to the queue." To see what it all looks like, go here.

    The reason I have made a sample of this and not of option 1 (sending users a message) is because option 1 is very easy to make a template for and I assume we can all imagine in our heads more or less what it would look like. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

    Neither solution is particularly elegant. I think we should try Suntag's transcluding the templates for now and see how it goes. Royalbroil 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Some users have tons of nominations on T:TDYK... so their going to get tons of new messages? It'll be annoying. Maybe have a page which lists who wants to be notified and who doesn't? Opt-in opt-out? Though, I think Suntag's idea is good for now. I don't think notifying users when their noms are promoted is a very good idea, really. – RyanCross (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why don't we suggest that contributors keep the queues on their watchlists or something? Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier? howcheng {chat} 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_34&oldid=1187918745"