Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Rule D5

Is it just me, or does it seem silly to disqualify articles with 5000 plus characters (see Anethole and Laurelwood, Oregon for example) because of a single fact tag? For one thing the rule says dispute tags, which can be parsed to mean you need more than one to reject, or if there are any tags. Its not perfectly clear by the text. I can understand disqualify for the big templates at the top (neutrality issues, general cleanup, etc.), but I think we should alter the rules to make it where you would need more than one of the inline tags (peacock, clarification, citation needed, etc.) to disqualify an article. After all, the goal was never to put forth FA quality articles at DYK. Certainly not stubs, but not FA. An article can even pass the GA quick fail with a citation needed tag or two. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the fact tags have been removed. We don't have a policy on fact tags but it probably doesn't hurt to clean them up before they appear on the mainpage if possible. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags aren't really dispute tags (and, to be honest, when an article doesn't have many footnotes, I'd rather see several fact tags than none; it means that someone has at least been paying attention to what needs to be sourced). This issue recently came up at another nomination ([1]) and my response was basically, if you have a couple inline tags here and there it's fine; if they're all over the place (ie, if there are enough to warrant a template at the top of the article) it's not fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated text across noms

Right now we have at least three related list noms on T:TDYK:

• List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University
• List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London
• List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Imperial College London

All of them begin with some introductory text that explains what Nobel Prizes are and such, which isn't a problem in of itself (a few days ago I commented that intros seemed lengthier than necessary and were artificially inflating the prose count, but I retracted that later, as the article writer had a good reason for writing that much in the intros). The [possible] problem is that the background text in all of them is very similar, if not the same; not only similar to one another, but similar to the text in many (if not all; I didn't check) of the existing lists in Category:Nobel laureates.

In this particular case I think that text just shouldn't be counted, as it's not really new. But I also have a more general hypothetical question... assuming these were the first three Lists of Nobel Laureates ever on WP, and that intro text newly written for them but copied across all three, what would we do...count it for one but not the other two? Because in that case it really is new text, in a way, but also it doesn't seem fair to allow multiple DYKs to share the same chunk of text like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only count the text for the original article. If the articles were essentially made at the same time, the nominator gets to choose which article the text should count for. This is similar to A5: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cut and paste text (or substantively the same) should not count, whatever article it is taken from, whether a new article or old.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tricky issue, but I gave it some thought some time ago and the conclusion I came up with is that if text is both duplicated and less than five days old, then in the duplicate articles it can be ignored as counting toward either new text or text from which a x5 expansion is made, in other words, any new article with duplicate text will qualify so long as it has at least 1,500 chars of unique text, regardless of how much duplicated text there is. Gatoclass (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Next update correction request

The next update surely oughtn't to be Queue 6 as it states at the top of the page? It does not contain any Saint Patrick's Day hooks which it is in Ireland in approximately twenty minutes, soon will be in the United States and is pretty much across the world. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the small number of St. Patty's Day hooks (enough for three queues, tops) perhaps we should save them for the hours people in Ireland, the UK, and North America are more likely to be awake. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I spread them out between the 4 sets during the day - 2 or 3 in a set. I gave them priority for the picture and final spots. Royalbroil 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible to just use another queue first... and then use the special ones during the day. It is now 03:10am approx in Ireland. Another four or five hours perhaps? --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Could The Simpsons DYK perhaps be slightly altered from ... that The Simpsons episode "In the Name of the Grandfather" is scheduled to debut March 17 on Sky One and will be the first episode of the show to air in Ireland before airing in the United States? to ... that The Simpsons episode "In the Name of the Grandfather", scheduled to debut March 17 on Sky One, will be the first episode of the show to air in Ireland before airing in the United States? Commas may be more useful here. --Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Participating

To begin contributing at WP:DYK, can users just begin to suggest articles and discuss nominations, or is there a selection/registration element? Cheers! cf38^talk 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No registration, you can just dive in! You don't need to be an admin or anything, you're free to comment on, and verify/reject, any articles on T:TDYK. Welcome! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) cf38^talk 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot suggestion

I've been thinking that perhaps it would helpful, when preparing updates, to have a bot that could post times in certain places around the world so we could more easily co-ordinate special occasion hooks with local timezones. The bot could post its output to, say, the master queue page, where it would list the time in which each queue page was due in each location.

So for example, you might have an output something like:

Queue page #1: New York 8 pm 17 March, London 5 pm 17 March, Sydney 11 am 18 Mar.
Queue page #2: New York 2 am 18 March, London 11 pm 17 March, Sydney 5 pm 19 Mar.
Queue page #3: New York 8 am 18 March, London 5 am 18 March, Sydney 5 pm 19 Mar.

... etc etc. The bot could take its cue from when the time template is reset. I have suggested New York, Sydney and London as the places to track because this is the English speaking Wikipedia and most of our users, and our special occasion days, will reflect that. Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. I know I often get annoyed having to count up how many queues until some hook is up and adding up the hours. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. You maybe should use Chicago (Central time) so that U.S. people should only have to convert at most 2 time zones. Royalbroil 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the time zones were only a suggestion, I'm open to alternatives. Actually what would be good is maybe if in addition to some regular timezones, we could add one for certain occasions, like say we could have added Ireland for the recent St. Pat's day anniversary. Gatoclass (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this need a bot? A template should be able to do the trick by getting information from both the DYK time and the next queue number. Shubinator (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Would you be interested in putting it together? Gatoclass (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow...template programming is so much more cumbersome than programming with a language. I scratched something together:

	Los Angeles	New York	UTC	London (UTC)	New Delhi	Tokyo	Sydney
Queue 7	11 November 16:00	11 November 19:00	12 November 00:00	12 November 00:00	12 November 05:30	12 November 09:00	12 November 11:00
Queue 1 Prep 1	12 November 16:00	12 November 19:00	13 November 00:00	13 November 00:00	13 November 05:30	13 November 09:00	13 November 11:00
Queue 2 Prep 2	13 November 16:00	13 November 19:00	14 November 00:00	14 November 00:00	14 November 05:30	14 November 09:00	14 November 11:00
Queue 3 Prep 3	14 November 16:00	14 November 19:00	15 November 00:00	15 November 00:00	15 November 05:30	15 November 09:00	15 November 11:00
Queue 4 Prep 4	15 November 16:00	15 November 19:00	16 November 00:00	16 November 00:00	16 November 05:30	16 November 09:00	16 November 11:00
Queue 5 Prep 5	16 November 16:00	16 November 19:00	17 November 00:00	17 November 00:00	17 November 05:30	17 November 09:00	17 November 11:00
Queue 6 Prep 6	17 November 16:00	17 November 19:00	18 November 00:00	18 November 00:00	18 November 05:30	18 November 09:00	18 November 11:00
Prep 7	18 November 16:00	18 November 19:00	19 November 00:00	19 November 00:00	19 November 05:30	19 November 09:00	19 November 11:00

Feel free to change the formatting...I know it's not easy to read now (it's at User:Shubinator/DYKLocalTime). Once it's ready we can move it into Wikipedia or Template namespace and have it transcluded at the top of the central queue page. Shubinator (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That was quick :) Any chance you could put it into table format, like the "List of DYK hooks by date" template? Gatoclass (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean something like this? (Note: when I save this edit it's gonna change the above example, too. Shubinator's original version is here.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much nicer. Thanks! By the way, right now the template isn't aware of changes between Daylight Savings Time and Standard Time. Later I might be able to have it automatically switch over. Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Being bold and adding New Dehli. There is a big gap between the London Time (Which can pretty much cover Europe/Africa), Sydney (East Asia and Pacifc), and NY (Americas) regions, and India is a fairly prominent country. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this thing ready for prime time yet? If so I will copy it to the queue master page. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I moved it to Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. London switches to daylight saving time on March 29, so we'll have to tweak it then. When I get some free time I'll try to put it automatic checks for daylight savings. I could also add a field for users to input their own time zone if they wanted to transclude the template on their user page or whatever. Thanks to Rjanag for formatting, and \ / for New Delhi and catching a typo. Shubinator (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Added to the queue page. Nice going :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing glitch

For some odd reason, I am getting repeated errors trying to delete the hook section for George F. Hopkinson from the suggestions page. I've already promoted the hook but for whatever reason each time I try to remove this text I get a Wikimedia Error. Any help (like deleting that text) would be appreciated. Oh, and if you're still reading this, the last 100 hooks or so are in desperate need of review as some of them are getting quite old. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be happening to all edits to T:TDYK; I'm still able to edit other pages. I assume in 10 minutes or so it'll be fine again... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done T:TDYK is working again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

11 hours?

Did we really go 11 hours between updates on the main page today? Yikes. - Dravecky (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a day of glitches. Apparently MPUploadBot also was malfunctioning; this picture was uploaded late by an admin, and this picture never got uploaded/protected. Shubinator (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still having problems?

I'm somewhat new to DYK, but shouldn't the update have happened by now? Are we still having problems? Ronnotel (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can try sending a message to one of the DYK admins (checking to see which ones are online right now) to let them know the update is late. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done But we only have one update in the slot now. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have avoided helping out until now as I had an active hook in the queue. Now that it's up I'll try to dig in and learn a little more. Ronnotel (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I want to help, but I'm very busy in RL, and probably will be for a week. I guess I'll be indirectly helping out with DYKcheck. Shubinator (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Next update: rewritten Garage hook doesn't make sense

I see that my hook was accepted (and thank you!) and is in the next queue, but it has been rewritten and the new version doesn't make sense to me. The original hook was based around the sourced fact that contrary to common belief, this theater isn't a repurposed garage but an old factory:

• (original) ... that the Performing Garage never was a garage?

But now in the queue there is:

• (queued) ... that the off-Broadway theater Performing Garage is not actually a garage?

Maybe the original lacked context, but the absence of "theater" and the "never was" were instrumental for the hook. The new one is saying, "DYK that a theater is not actually a garage?" which is a truism, when the original was "DYK that this Garage never was a garage?" Restoring the "never was" would restore some sense, as meaning "DYK that this theater named Garage never even was a garage?" It seems to me that it should be changed to either of:

1. ... that the Performing Garage, an off-Broadway theater, never was a garage?
2. ... that the Performing Garage is not actually a garage?

I see Queue 5 is the next update in a few hours but I can't even be bold and fix it with "1" because it's protected. P.S.: At the top of Template:Did you know/Queue, I suggest you add a sentence such as "In case you see a problem with a hook, please contact USER X or discuss it at PAGE Y", because I wasn't sure where to go about this. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've revised it with a slight variation on your #1 suggestion. - Dravecky (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm relieved! — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a good prospect for April Fool's DYK but was just a bit short. There was no real good hook. Royalbroil 02:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging bot update and questions

I've been working on a bot to tag DYK articles, and it's coming along well. The only parts left are file tagging and archiving. I've got a few questions about we want the bot to do:

1. Start out with an easy one...any good ideas for bot names? I was thinking of DYKHousekeepingBot so I can reuse the username if/when I program another bot for DYK.
2. Were sound or video clips ever used without {{DYK Listen}} or {{DYK Watch}}? Ideally the bot would just search for those templates, and [[Image: or [[File:

Questions on archiving...

1. I don't want to overwrite the current archives just yet, so I'll have the bot create the archives somewhere else. I could do it in my userspace. Or, if we don't intend to ever overwrite the current archives, the bot could write straight to the Wikipedia namespace. Which one of these is preferred? If it's going straight to Wikipedia namespace, what should the "root" be? A related question: what should the archives be titled? Do we want to keep the current system, something like Wikipedia:Did you know/Archive X, or do we want something like Wikipedia:Did you know/Archives/YEAR/MONTH?
2. What should we do with archives & deleted articles? I think we should keep it as it is now; the DYK entry will show up in the archives, but the article name will be redlinked of course. I could also program the bot to not include hooks from deleted articles.
3. What should we do with deleted files? I'm not sure about this one (same options as above...include as a redlink or don't include), but I'm leaning towards not including deleted files in the archives.
4. I've noticed the earlier archives have frames around the pictures and a caption (an example). I could program the bot to do the same if we want.
5. Should pictures in the archives be sized to their original size on T:DYK, or do we want them all to be the same? Now we always do 100 x 100 px, but earlier it varied from update to update.

Right now I'm thinking the archives will be built like the most current archives, with subsections for individual days. Each page will correspond to a month. DYK images/media will be floated to the right. At the top of each set of hooks will be the time and date the hooks were removed from T:DYK. For more current archives, this will mean that the time below the set of hook will be the time the hooks were put on T:DYK, since updates are done in sets. In the early days of DYK, though, updates were "rolling", with older hooks being taken out from one side and newer hooks added from the other. Feel free to make suggestions and ask questions, technical or otherwise. Shubinator (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As for picture sizing and framing, I think it would be best to keep them unframed 100x100px like they are now...even if some of the old ones weren't displayed that way, in the archives it would probably be best to keep everything standardized as far back as we can.

That being said...I like your plan for organizing the archives into individual days/updates, as that makes it easy to navigate. For the olden days when updates were rolling, though, the archive could be different, and just lump them all together...that shouldn't be too hard to handle, we could just divide the archives up into "archives before X" and "archives after X" or something like that, and have them all split into months or whatever within each of those.

When the bot does the file tagging, are you still planning on putting the files into categories using User:Rjanag/DYKfile or something like that?

As for the bot's name.... DYKBitchBot would probably be an accurate description of the busy work it will have to be doing, but some people might not like that so much.... Barring that, I think DYKHousekeepingBot is a good name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for the file tagging that's pretty much all it will do. It'll see if the file has been deleted (search on both En and Commons), detect the type of file by extension, then tag it with your handy template (on En) showing the DYK date. Heh, imagine seeing your watchlist...your first article's talk page has been tagged by DYKBitchBot... Shubinator (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So this bot will be doing the archiving and tagging the article talkpages? I have the do-the-update side of DYKadminBot rewritten so if I don't have to worry about archiving and tagging it will save me a job. What about credits? ~ Ameliorate! 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now I'm thinking DYKHousekeepingBot will be a one-time bot to tag article talkpages and overhaul the archives. I suppose I could run it every night or something after that, but it would be best if DYKadminBot did archiving and tagging so the update stuff all happens at the same time. I'll probably post the code, so you can get ideas for archiving and tagging from my code. I think I've figured out how to tag on talk pages before any discussions (DYKadminBot just appended the tag to section 0, which sometimes has a line or two from someone who didn't make a section). DYKHousekeepingBot won't do credits. It can't really since it only looks at T:DYK, and there's no way for the bot to tell who should get credits. Shubinator (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another task

Is DYKHousekeeping bot here just to organize the DYK archives? If so, after that's done I have another related task for a bot. The earliest DYK articles (circa 2006) didn't use {{dyktalk}}. It used a subst box (sample diff). You can find examples for testing in some of my earliest DYK articles here plus many of the long-term contributors at here. This should affect the counting for the number of DYKs that became GA. Royalbroil 04:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bot will do a few things: 1)Tag any DYK articles that haven't been tagged. If they've already been tagged before but don't have the hook, the bot will add it 2)Tag DYK media 3)Make new archives. That's interesting; I hadn't realized the template had been substituted before. So you want the bot to remove the old substituted template and add the new one? That's definitely doable... Yeah, after the bot does its run, WP:DYKSTATS will get a big boost. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, it would be best to standardize to the non-substituted template. How will the bot tag media that exists on Commons but not on EN, which is the overwhelming majority of current files? Royalbroil 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of just tagging them here on En. For example, many En featured pictures exist on Commons, but are tagged here (an example; also a DYK pic) The bot would check to see if the file exists on En or Commons before tagging it. This would create a lot of new pages on En; the alternative would be to tag the media on Commons, and have the tag say something like "En Main Page" instead of just "Main Page". Shubinator (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Speaking of housekeeping tasks...while we're at it, would it be a lot of trouble to have the bot harvest the page view statistics from Henrik's page view tool (at least as far back as there is data for)? Maybe we could add a parameter to {{DYKtalk}} so it says something like "X was featured on the Main Page on 14 March 2009, and received a total of about 5 page views (disclaimer about how page view statistics might be inaccurate, and how they're not a big deal, and whatever)". If it's too much of a far cry from what DYKHousekeepingBot is doing now, then you don't need to worry about cramming it in now, but it might be interesting to think of at some point; I think Cbl62 and the others at DYKSTATS are probably getting sick of looking all that stuff up by hand. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I could program the bot to get data from the page view counter. But what about hooks that were on the Main Page over midnight (Wikipedia midnight)? If a set of hooks was removed from the Main Page at 00:01 UTC, the page view stats for that day won't reflect how popular it was. I suppose the bot could take two days worth of page views...the day it was removed and the day before. Shubinator (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what the people at DYKSTATS have been doing manually. It might give those hooks a slight boost, but it would be pretty insignificant most of the time...judging from my own articles, these things usually get a couple thousand views on the day they're on the main page, and like 3 views a day when they're not on the main page. so throwing in that extra day would probably not make much difference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it. I'll have the bot always take two days worth, since right now it doesn't know when a hook first appeared on the Main Page; it only knows when the hook was removed. That would also remove the bias. So would dyktalk just have another field tacked on to the end? Shubinator (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking something simple along the lines of {{#if:{{{views|}}}|, and was viewed approximately {{{views}}} times}} or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

I noticed that ArticleHistory right now doesn't have a field for the DYK hook. If it's added, DYKHousekeepingBot will be able to add the hook. (I know this has been brought up a few times before.) I think there's a benefit to having the hook appear on the template instead of just a link to archives. I'm not saying we should get rid of the archive link, but add a field for the hook. The bot can't put in the archive number because it doesn't "know" about the current archives. It would be good if future DYK GAs and FAs also included the hook in ArticleHistory, but I don't want to make more work for Gimmetrow or SandyGeorgia. While DYKHousekeepingBot is doing its run, it could easily add the hook if a field was created. If needed, the bot could also check for other issues with ArticleHistory, like both DYKtalk and ArticleHistory on the talk page (is this still a problem?). Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (I've sent a message to Gimmetrow.)

One of the points of ArticleHistory was to reduce unnecessary text on the talk page. If the dyklink is used, the hook is one click away, same as any peer review or FAC page. Is there really any need to do more? Gimmetrow 02:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no need. A related question: if the archives are redone with something like Wikipedia:Did you know/Archives/YEAR/MONTH, could ArticleHistory be changed to automatically show the link to the archive, given the date? Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that should be easy. The template can extract month/year from information in the dykdate field and use it to form a link. Gimmetrow 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll see if DYKHousekeepingBot makes usable archives, then we can think about doing the switch. Also, are there any pages that have both DYKtalk and ArticleHistory? I could program the bot to get rid of extra DYKtalks. Shubinator (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

While you're at that, another thing that needs to be done is adding ArticleHistory to some GA articles that were on DYK. Once articles get GA they're supposed to (as far as I know) use ArticleHistory rather than the DYK template, but there are several old articles that still have {{GA}} and {{DYKtalk}} together, rather than ArticleHistory. This isn't really a DYK-specific issue, since there are also non-DYK articles that should be updated (although I guess if GAN is the only thing in their history, it's not as important to switch to ArticleHistory), but it would be nice...it would also beef up the numbers at User:Rjanag/DYKfuture, not that they mean anything anyway.

I don't know if the bot could automate the actual production of the ArticleHistory tag for articles like these (I suppose it's always possible, but might be a lot of work for little benefit), since it's the kind of thing best done by a human...but even if the bot could simply return a list of the, i dunno, 60 or so articles where this needs to be done, that would be useful, because then someone with time on their hands could work on fixing those manually. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The "What links here" for GA says there are only 6 talk pages that aren't archives that still have {{GA}}. I checked and none of them have DYKtalk. Shubinator (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

{{GA}} is a temporary template. There probably are some articles with DYK and AH. I suspect many of those have the DYK template subst'ed, so they might be a little difficult to find, but if someone can generate a list, the articles can be processed. Gimmetrow 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok; it's almost the same amount of work to have the bot generate the list compared to programming it to get rid of the stray DYKtalks, so I'll have it finish off the job. Shubinator (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting older hooks

The practice here is not to delete en masse hooks older than a certain magical date, especially ones that have been already approved and are merely waiting for insertion into a queue. Individual hooks that are no longer being addressed may be deleted but there is no automatic age-out for DYK. - Dravecky (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did this happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not just once but twice this morning. - Dravecky (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn't happen. If the hooks are getting too old, the promoter should get them off the suggestions page and onto the queue. If there's a problem, say it. Otherwise, the hooks should be promoted as a matter of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Has somebody had a word to Deacon yet? We really don't want that to occur again. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We had a spirited discussion on my talk page but he was more focused on my use of rollback instead of undo so I'm not sure the point was properly driven home. - Dravecky (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG rollback? Have they shot you yet?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And let me take this opportunity to urge any editor reading this to take a few minutes to review one or several of the (too) many aging hooks that are not yet approved or have yet to be evaluated. I've knocked off the most egregious offenders and promoted the obvious winners but there is a lot of old wood that needs sorting there right now. - Dravecky (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a problem, we just give Deacon an explanation for why we don't do that (as Gatoclass has done), revert, and move on. As far as I know, the rules about not using rollback on non-vandalism are mostly to avoid BITEing newbies, since getting rolled back might hurt your feelings; a rollback plus a talk page explanation, though, is not a problem, and if this user wants to make something of it then that's his own problem. He came in here and did something wrong at a project that he apparently didn't take the time to understand, so it's his own fault if he gets reverted. If it ever happens in the future (with anyone), we should be able to do the same thing--revert (in whatever manner you want to) and explain at their talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pipe links

While archives 23 and 27 (also someone talking about it in 37) discuss the various justifications for Easter-egg pipe links (WP:EGG and also WP:PIPE). I think the way DYKs are written could use a change.

While I appreciate the need the brevity and succinctness, the use of eggy pipes does too much in the sense of the context (subject-matter wise) provided in what is linked to compared to the link itself. Usually the link text is in the language of the subject matter, and the linked article is in the language of the reader's reading work, if you catch my drift. For example, an example from today

"... that due to widespread censorship and control of media in the Eastern Bloc, underground distribution of clandestine information became common?"

The second link has a noun linked to by a non-noun, which imo is not a good thing. Implicit in the combination of words are various assertions which the reader is forced to conclude, which obviously may be incorrect (e.g. that Samizdat is the way underground distribution of clandestine information became common, or that Samizdat is a common method of underground distribution of clandestine information, etc.—admittedly these examples are weak).

The first link is a bit better, since it is a noun-to-noun pipe, but is deficient in the sense of not exactly being a faithful interpretation of the title. It implies that censorship and control = information dissemination.

The point of all this is that by mixing around words in the pipe links, readers are forced to "read between the lines" to understand what the DYK is trying to say, and in the process may form opinions which are wholly undesirable (e.g. is Wikipedia trying to politically influence me?, ... am I wrong? etc.) I'd say the second link example is the worst kind of pipe, but I think pipes of this kind, in general, are bad. 118.90.101.123 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Brevity is very important on the main page as there is only so much space. Extreme accuracy can be left to the article. If readers are gaining their knowledge from reading hooks and not clicking the articles then they may be slightly misinformed about whether the artticle has a noun or verb heading. But then they should have read the article if they wanted to know a tiny bit about the hook Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Point of order

First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive is too small and its on the main page so it can stay but its 25% or so a quote. Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And, refreshingly, it's not my fault (this time) but this should serve as a cautionary tale to check length and all the other stuff when promoting hooks, even when they've been given a checkmark by a known editor. - Dravecky (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, replied on Vic's talk page when I should have replied here. Technically this one's in a bit of a grey area as we usually count in-text quotes, it's only blockquotes we don't count. But the in-text quote here is quite long in comparison to the rest of the text, and on reflection I agree this article was too short, it's 1737 chars long and the quote is 556 chars, so there is only about 1,250 chars of original text there. However, I'm not going to quibble about 250 chars now it's already been promoted. I personally wouldn't have promoted it but we can't expect everyone to see things the same way. Gatoclass (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Milestone recoginition

Does anybody monitor Wikipedia:DYKLIST for activity? I see at least three editors who have created or expanded at least 25 articles which were featured on DYK that have apparently yet to receive the standard token of recognition for this milestone. I would look into taking care of it myself but one of those usernames seems strangely familiar. - Dravecky (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd give you the 25 DYK Medal if I hadn't already given you the regular DYK medal. I'm guessing that Gatoclass feels the same way. You could give the award to the other 2 if you know them. Royalbroil 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wouldn't have hesitated to hand D. his 25 DYK medal, but since I too have already awarded him a DYK contributors medal, perhaps it would be better, now that you mention it, for someone else to award him this one. Gatoclass (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What if we made 25/50/100/200 DYK medals be something you give yourself, like the WP:service awards or whatever? Granted, I shouldn't put words in anyone else's mouths, but personally I don't pay any attention to DYKLIST and have only the slightest idea how many DYKs other people have (I just know whose name pops up a lot at T:TDYK and whose doesn't), and it seems like individuals keep track of these things on our own... and I imagine we're relying on other people's counts anyway, rather than our own. # of DYKs is more measurable / less subjective than the general DYK medal, so I wouldn't see a problem with people giving themselves the medal when they feel they have hit 25 or 50 or whatever. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That may well be something to consider in the future but to be honest I don't feel like being the pioneer in this area. I've done the medal for two of the three (thanks and congrats to SRE.K.A.L.24 and Darwinek) but I just can't bring myself to give that last guy the medal directly. (/me whistles) - Dravecky (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I likewise volunteer to send medals to anyone in need either at the prompting of the awardee or a 3rd party. Is User:Dravecky due for 50 DYK medal? --Boston (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks, just the 25 DYK Medal which rʨanaɢ was kind enough to have awarded me earlier this evening. - Dravecky (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tanna_japonensis

I'm new to DYK; I added this on the 19th March; I wrote it on 14th.

I tried to follow all the instructions and criteria, but there's no comments or anything.

Maybe I did it wrong, by putting it under an older date, or something?

I'd appreciate any tips. Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong; sometimes we are just slow in responding to noms (see Wikipedia:Did you know/After nominating, section labeled "patience" :) ). I will try to take a look at it in a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry for not being patient enough. The procedures and systems for DYK are jolly complicated! Thanks for your attention. I'm very happy to see it in the Q. --  Chzz  ►  19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Image protection problems

For some reason, the DYK image isn't being protected by cascading protection. Gatoclass had problems with the last group, and I found the same problem with this group. There's a thread started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Main_page_cascading_protection_not_working. Until this can be resolved, all admins need to make sure that the image is manually protected. Normally you shouldn't have to do this. Royalbroil 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK archive

The DYK archive entry for 00:15, 22 March 2009 at Wikipedia:Recent additions is wrong. See here. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Update to NewDYKnom : adding link to article history

How would people like to have a direct link to the article history within each DYK nom? I threw together an update to the template that would do that; there is a sandbox example of it here, or here's an example right now:

Help:Page history (history)

• ... that this nom has a link to the page history?

Created/expanded by Jimbo Wales (talk). Nominated by Rjanag (talk) at 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

•   Help:Page history – Jimbo Wales (give) (tag)
•   Nom credit: Rjanag (give)

As usual, the changes to the code can be seen at User:Rjanag/NewDYKnom dev‎. Anyway, does anyone think this would be useful, and not a pain?

(Also, I should note that for noms with multiple articles, this will create a history link for each article.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, this doesn't mess up your ability to reach the section directly (ie, if you're looking at your watchlist or the T:TDYK history and you want to go directly to a section that someone else had edited, you can still do it). To prove it, I have just edited this subsubsection right now, and if you go into the history you should be able to click and go directly here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was totally wrong about that previous message. Now, though, it should work. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it's needed. Could you put the history link in smaller font? Shubinator (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made it a little smaller...I could go one step smaller, but I dunno how that would show up on other people's screens. I agree it's not necessary...I was just curious if people would find it convenient. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) For fun, I used it for real on T:TDYK; here's a permalink. Now I'll wait and see if any of the vetters get super-confused or anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck is getting quite confused, because it sees the history link as another title. I could squash that behavior if we adopt the revised template. Shubinator (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm...it just depends how much extra work that will make for you. This history link isn't a super-important feature, it's just something I thought people might find nice; if it's gonna turn out to be a ton of work (updating DYKcheck) and little payoff, we don't need to bother with it. If it would be helpful at all to add some sort of tags around (history) telling DYKcheck to ignore it (I don't know what those tags would be, but who knows), feel free to edit the code at User:Rjanag/NewDYKnom dev. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be relatively easy. The script could just check for "&action=history", and not count those links. Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Cronin

Could an admin change "World War I" to "First World War" and "defenses" to "defences" please? This is a hook about a British subject and so should be in British English. It is in Queue One. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, after confirming the British English at World War I#Cognate names for the war. Art LaPella (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Did you know

The above notice was recently discussed on my talk page in regards to some possible tweaks, which were duly made. Having had this notice brought to my attention however, I've since come to the conclusion that the thing is more trouble than it's worth. It appears above the edit window on practically every DYK page, forcing users to scroll down to start editing - and with the numerous pages which need to be edited these days to post an update, it quickly becomes a nuisance.

The only page this notice has any business appearing on is the T:DYK page, but if it can't be confined to that, I would like to suggest dumping it altogether to speed up the updating process. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems the pages it shows up on are all the T:DYK/... subpages (ie, not T:TDYK, WP:DYKA, WP:DYKSTATS, etc.; but T:DYK/Q, T:DYK/N, etc.). Granted, I can only actually edit two of those pages (Next and Next next) so I'm only guessing about whether it shows up on the queues. Anyway, I don't know enough about mediawiki to know if it's possible to make an editnotice show up on a page but not a subpage, but I imagine it ought to be possible; for example, my own talk page has an editnotice but none of my talk archives do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears on all the queue pages as well. It even appears on the Time template page, for goodness sakes. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the disease has spread to the LocalUpdateTimes subpage too. Shubinator (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Nose George

This article was placed at the head of queue 6 last night, complete with photo, but today it has disappeared from the queue. I'm puzzled now... Can anyone tell me why? Many thanks.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your hook has been held over for April Fool's :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? It started as an April Fool's hook, and then the author moved it to T:TDYK (for reasons I never really understood). [2] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it started out at normal DYK, then moved to April Fool DYK - but I hated the hook they gave it. (I think more people would click on it if the hook was left straight rather than twisted for an April Fool's one, cos an outlaw being made into a pair of shoes is quite off the wall anyway). So I asked if it would be OK to move it back, which was agreed...and it was then placed at the top of queue 6. Yippee I thought - til I noticed it has been taken off today. Any chance of putting it back on top of queue 6 instead of April Fools?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How about if we keep it as April Fools but leave the hook the way it is? (Just a suggestion...it would kind of be a pain to move things around again...) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they'd like that - cos it hasn't got a 'twist' then. Doesn't matter. I've removed it from April Fool talk page anyway now. If it's a pain, and I can imagine it is, just leave things as they are. I'm sure some people will discover George by themselves!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? That is one of, if not the, best hooks we had for April Fool's! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SIt doesn't need a "twist" to go up for April Fool's day; it's funny, which is enough. I urge you to put it back on the April Fool's page; they won't reject it or complain about it, and there's no point in your selling yourself short by removing it when there are no problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the thread over there, the April Fool's gang does seem a bit zealous. Should we put this one back in regular DYK? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the first hook he had should be run on April Fool's Day. Sure, it's straightforward, but is is really shocking, and it's not like the other 6 hooks won't be joking-like. However, if not, we should run it in a normal DYK—that hook can not be allowed to not run. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the original hook (after being hanged he was turned into shoes) should run. I don't really care when or how we run it, as long as it's that hook and not one of the ones the Apr Fools crew suggested. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regular DYK - please,please,please! I just like the shoe thing, that's the only reason I wrote the article in the first place! The guy is the only American criminal to be turned into a pair of shoes...I don't think it needs an April Fool twist on that.It's just plain bizarre...-- Myosotis Scorpioides 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now there's not a free space in the queue, but once Template:Did you know/Next next update is cleared then I will add the shoe hook and portrait back there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done [3] rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Big Nose discussion at the April Fool's page? Did someone remove it?

I still think this would be an excellent April Fool's hook - as it is, I'm not sure what the suggested alts were. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed here, so you can see the discussion in that diff or an earlier version. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I had approved it for April Fool's Day! I was fine with the original hook and I'm very disappointed to see it leave. It was one of the best hooks that we had! I had removed it from Queue 6 because I thought it was for sure an error. Can we PLEASE reserve it for April Fool's? Royalbroil 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the original hook, ie "after Wild West outlaw Big Nose George was hanged by a lynch mob he was made into a pair of shoes?" and use that for April Fools? It's certainly bizarre enough to qualify and I think Myosotis would probably approve of it. The hook he didn't like was the one about the inaugural ball and I have to agree with him that that one was too obscure. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support original hook on April Fool's. Shubinator (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the April Fool's page per consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I'm really happy with this - many thanks! (And sorry to have been a pain). I just thought the April Fool hook was too obscure, as Gatoclass said. It certainly wouldn't have made me click on it.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

←I moved "Big Nose George" from the non-eligible candidates section at the April Fools DYK page. I'm hoping it was listed there by accident(?) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that was probably me, I just opened the page and added the hook to the bottom without realizing there was a non-eligible section there. Gatoclass (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Q4 credits done

Credits have been done for Template:Did you know/Queue/4, now someone can clear it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And while you're at it, I think the queue count at User:DYKadminBot/count needs to be incremented to 5; it looks like it got missed on the last update. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky has fixed it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#April_1st_guidelines_for_2009. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK Medal userboxes

While doing something else entirely, and partially inspired by the folks WikiProject Oregon, I have devised a set of userboxes that a recipient of a DYK Medal could use to acknowledge and display the award on their userpage without having to take up all of the real estate that the full medal template takes up. I've mimicked the colors of the original recognition templates and invite any interested person to take a look in my sandbox then comment here on this idea/proposal. - Dravecky (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They look nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal by Dravecky (talk · contribs), they are well designed. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, they do look nice, although we already have the Template:User Did You Know2 userbox. But some people might prefer the alternative, or they might like to use both. Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they complement {{User Did You Know2}} so it shouldn't be a problem. By the way, I started {{User Did You Know2}} a long time ago to keep track of the count of my DYK contributions (diff). I'm glad to see it has found widespread usage. Royalbroil 03:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck

Any objection if I change WP:Did you know/Prosesizebytes (and related passages) to emphasize User:Shubinator/DYKcheck instead of User:Dr_pda/prosesizebytes.js? DYKcheck does the same thing, and it also does more. From a new user's point of view, DYKcheck is no harder to use than prosesizebytes or prosesize, because the procedure is identical except for what file name to copy and what the button's name is. Art LaPella (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The one difference is that (for me at least) DYKcheck takes a few seconds to do its magic, whereas prosesizebytes.js is pretty much immediate. Granted, not a huge difference, but something to think about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A few seconds is a difference for regulars, not for beginners who are likely to take an hour to learn either system. Thus I said "emphasize", while still mentioning prosesizebytes to be noticed by those who understand the rest of the page already. Art LaPella (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to show first-timers DYKcheck, because the tool checks the prose size and much more. Also, it's color-coded, so if someone doesn't feel like reading the rules, no colors = good, yellow/red = bad. Shubinator (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point; the instructions are more for new people than for us. I would say go ahead and change it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Queue request

Resolved

 – Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Real Change is currently in Queue 5, which will be up from around 2 AM to 8 AM in US Central Time. Since it's a Seattle newspaper, might someone be able to switch it with an item in Queue 4 or Queue 6, so that it's up for at least part of the time when people in that time zone are awake? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I swapped it with one in queue 1 (there were no good swap candidates in 4 or 6) so it should be on the main page beginning at roughly noon, Seattle time. - Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: fivefold expansion

Could someone please direct me to a link showing an example of what exactly constitutes "Fivefold expansion"? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example: several months ago I expanded the article Zebda for DYK. The version before I ever edited it had a prose size of 885 characters; the version after I expanded it had a prose size of 4847 characters.

The instructions for how I counted that expansion are available at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Fivefold. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, Thanks! -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Finishing the credits

I've done the manual update from Queue3 and done all of the credits except for the ones related to KNOE-FM, an article I co-created. If some brave soul would please finish off this last article tag and two talk page tags then reset Queue3, it would be much appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can do them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Credits done. Someone with magic admin fingers will have to do the queue-resetting, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And to bring it full circle, I have reset the queue. Thanks for the assist, Rjanag! - Dravecky (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated LocalUpdateTimes template

Although it doesn't look very different, the LocalUpdateTimes template has gone through a major overhaul. It's now aware of Daylight Savings Time and will make the necessary corrections automatically. Also, you can now easily add an extra time zone. This will be useful for regional holidays. For example, {{Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes |customname=Zimbabwe |customshift=+2 hours}} gives

	Zimbabwe	Los Angeles	New York	UTC	London (UTC)	New Delhi	Tokyo	Sydney
Queue 7	12 November 02:00	11 November 16:00	11 November 19:00	12 November 00:00	12 November 00:00	12 November 05:30	12 November 09:00	12 November 11:00
Queue 1 Prep 1	13 November 02:00	12 November 16:00	12 November 19:00	13 November 00:00	13 November 00:00	13 November 05:30	13 November 09:00	13 November 11:00
Queue 2 Prep 2	14 November 02:00	13 November 16:00	13 November 19:00	14 November 00:00	14 November 00:00	14 November 05:30	14 November 09:00	14 November 11:00
Queue 3 Prep 3	15 November 02:00	14 November 16:00	14 November 19:00	15 November 00:00	15 November 00:00	15 November 05:30	15 November 09:00	15 November 11:00
Queue 4 Prep 4	16 November 02:00	15 November 16:00	15 November 19:00	16 November 00:00	16 November 00:00	16 November 05:30	16 November 09:00	16 November 11:00
Queue 5 Prep 5	17 November 02:00	16 November 16:00	16 November 19:00	17 November 00:00	17 November 00:00	17 November 05:30	17 November 09:00	17 November 11:00
Queue 6 Prep 6	18 November 02:00	17 November 16:00	17 November 19:00	18 November 00:00	18 November 00:00	18 November 05:30	18 November 09:00	18 November 11:00
Prep 7	19 November 02:00	18 November 16:00	18 November 19:00	19 November 00:00	19 November 00:00	19 November 05:30	19 November 09:00	19 November 11:00

You can also use the custom time zone to personalize the template for your own user page or talk page. Shubinator (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you make one additional change? I would find it very useful if the next queue up was highlighted with a different background color so I could instantly see what was "next" rather than have to examine all six and do the math. - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The color's light; feel free to suggest another background color. (In hex please, like ffffff.) Shubinator (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's perfect. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! I especially like the highlighted queue, noticed that feature right away! Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it right away too - great job! Royalbroil 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

This Wednesday is April Fool's Day, the one day where we let our hair down. Let's try to get ahead as much as possible because everything's going to be placed on hold for a day. Right now there's almost 4 queues full of gems for April Fool's and there could possibly be a 5th queue if there's a last minute rush. The discussion is here and the queues are here. Royalbroil 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The hooks should be spread out over eight updates, not four. That is because of the 24 hour time lag between one part of the planet and another. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We've always done events like this by UTC. Last year we ran 2 queues for 12 hours each. Royalbroil 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we have to do it that way this year :) Still, I'd forgotten that it's possible to simply leave the updates up longer, that's another alternative of course.

BTW, any chance you could do the next update. I'm really tired and about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done everything but the credits. Can someone do them please? I'm logging off now, it's queue #6. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The queue can be cleared now. Actually, it'd be best if 5 and 6 were loaded with next and next next. Shubinator (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Queue 2

Queue 2 has: ... that willow-leaved cotoneaster (Cotoneaster salicifolius) is a woody plant which is native to Western China, with over 30 cultivars which range from tiny groundcovers to large shrubs?

• This has too many "which"s in it. Should be something like:

• ... that willow-leaved cotoneaster (Cotoneaster salicifolius) is a woody plant native to Western China, with over 30 cultivars ranging from tiny groundcovers to large shrubs? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or:

• ... that the willow-leaved cotoneaster (Cotoneaster salicifolius), a woody plant native to Western China, has over 30 cultivars ranging from tiny groundcovers to large shrubs? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• And "the willow-leaved cotoneaster" could just be dropped entirely. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd actually say drop the scientific name and pipe the common name, since scientific names make people's eyes glaze over. Online sources say it's "Willowleaf cotoneaster" by the way. Shubinator (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stub

Please could someone define the Wikipedia meaning of "stub article"? I created Fledgling Jason Steed yesterday and marked it as "start class," before nominating it at DYK. (It isn't massively long, but it does have 25 refs etc). However, another editor removed the start tag and marked it is a stub. I always thought a stub was just a few lines, or a couple of paragraphs at most...--Beehold (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks eligible to me. I wouldn't worry about it unless he comes back to re-stub it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep; it wasn't a stub, even when the editor marked it such. Don't worry about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Brill, thanks! Now, fingers crossed for a DYK!!--Beehold (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Next update queue - comma needed

This needs a comma:

• ... that during the 2008 trip to Asia the Ecuadorian tall ship Guayas took aboard an officer of the People's Liberation Army Navy for reefing training?
• ... that during the 2008 trip to Asia, the Ecuadorian tall ship Guayas took aboard an officer of the People's Liberation Army Navy for reefing training?

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Queue 5 mistake

I made an error in a hook in Queue 5. The following hook is incorrect:

• ... that Weed Heights, Nevada, built to support the mining at Anaconda Copper Mine, became a ghost town in 1978?

It did not become a ghost town. It was sold and became a rental community and an RV Park and has been investigated by the EPA. Suggest the following alternatives:

• • ... that the EPA has spent $6 million investigating the waste at both the former Anaconda Copper Mine site in Nevada and Weed Heights, the community built to support the mine?

Or

• • ... that the community of Weed Heights, Nevada was built to support the open pit mining operation at the Anaconda Copper Mine?

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done; I picked option 2. Bencherlite^Talk 22:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK is going to start looking different

...because I updated {{NewDYKnom}}, as I mentioned above I would be doing. The only change is that it will create a direct link, within the nomination, to the article's history...the idea is that it will make it easier (1 click instead of 2) to get there if you need to visually inspect the history or if you just aren't using DYKcheck for some reason or another. Shubinator and I have done some talking to make sure the new formatting of the template won't confuse DYKcheck. So anyway, I updated it now because no one said they hated it and I can't see how it would hurt anything. If, after a few days, people aren't benefiting from it and they find the extra links really ugly or distracting or something, then it will be easy to revert and go back to the way things were. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To me the new noms look fine, and not too cluttery. Looks like it'll be useful for jumping to an article's history quicker. Jamie^☆S93 16:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just used it for the first time and it's looking good. Seems to work very quickly as well, compared to the average link in WP! Nice work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone pointed out at my talk page that this change to the DYK nom headers might make it more difficult to link to DYK noms. I have tried to make sure all the other various templates that link to sections (such as {{DYKproblem}}) now conform with this new setup by having (history) in the header. Also, to make it easier for people to type out links to DYK noms (if you're having a discussion with someone, want to let them know you just nominated an article, etc.), I made {{T:TDYK}}. I don't know if anyone will use it, but I figured it might make linking a bit less messy. For example, if you nominated the article Example and I wanted to make a link to it, instead of doing

[[T:TDYK#Example (history)|your nomination]]

I can now just do

{{T:TDYK|Example|your nomination}}

Both yield this: your nomination. Anyway, it's not necessary or anything, I just thought it might make it easier to link to stuff and look less messy in the edit window. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's hooks

I really think one or two of these hooks are trying too hard. For example, this one: that in 1518, hundreds of French people were told by Saint Vitus to dance to their deaths? I can't see anything in the article which supports that hook, and I suggest a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with another April Fool's hook. - Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Tiger Woods couldn't beat an old dog" one? I find that one a bit of a groaner. I much preferred the alt hook about him losing to a 10-year-old. Any chance we could get it changed? Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a new one recently about Cherry Springs Airport closing because the sky there was too dark / stars were too bright. Not sure if anyone has seen it, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool Queue 1

I have two hooks in this queue. I live in Britain, could someone tell me when they will "go live" here in old Blighty - as I'd like to see them. Thanks.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool update frequency

Last time I looked there were only four April Fool's updates. Are we all agreed then that the updates are only going to be changed once every 12 hours? It's the only way to stretch them across the full 48 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts we already have one update recently promoted that is not an AF update, and I guess we can let that one run, since it's only midnight to dawn in Australia. Which means we only need to leave the four updates up for about ten hours apiece, starting with the next update. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just looked over the April Fool's queues. It's quite a good and amusing group. Very well done! Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was expecting that we' run the hooks for the normal 6 hours to get the 4 groups done in 24 hours. I thought we'd do this by the UTC time. Royalbroil 21:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Besides, the other sections on the main page will do the UTC 24 hours. Royalbroil 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we switch them every 8 hours, IMO they should expire a little after midnight Chicago time, if you run them off every six hours, they will expire about 5pm Chicago time, which doesn't seem like a very appropriate time for them to end. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Error on main page

The last hook reads this: "... that a rules dispute during the first all-cowgirl rodeo, in 1948 in Amarillo, Texas, led to the formation of the first rodeo association for women?"

The word "held" should be just in front of "in 1948". By the way, I know about WP:ERROR, but the last two times I've posted there about DYK, nothing has been done until the hooks are off the main page. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for DYK

The current batch of April Fools hooks is quite amusing, nice job everyone who worked on the articles as well as to everyone involved in the planning. DYK deserves a collective medal or a barnstar or something.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools over

April fools day is over, and every section of the main page but DYK has switched back to serious mode. DYK is sticking out like a thumb. Does anyone object to me moving the current crop off the page now? Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We've still got 5+ hours of April foolery left here in the Western US. In fact, we're entering prime time now. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, still AFD in western North and South AMerica for 5 hours+. Just as we went "early" for the US we'll be "late" for Asia and Europe. All continents will have to learn to deal with timezones. - Dravecky (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia runs on UTC, not by adding together all the time zones on the basis that it's April Fool's Day somewhere. It stopped being April Fools on UTC nearly two hours ago. Why does DYK alone need to run amusing hooks for more than 24 hours? Either pick fewer hooks, or cycle through them more quickly. Bencherlite^Talk 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because DYK is just more considerate of those who live in timezones further away from the UTC and would like to actually see some of the April Fools stuff at a reasonable time of day?  :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously someone screwed up planning things...I know we had a brief conversation here about whether to go by UTC or to include all time zones, but I don't know if a similar, centralized conversation happened at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page or anything. (If there was one, I guess it's our fault for not having paid attention to if...if not, I guess it's everyone's fault for not having come to an agreement about this sooner.) I don't have any opinion on what we do with the hooks up right now, but hopefully next year we'll remember to have this discussion in a centralized location beforehand (assuming that didn't happen this year?). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. DYK is sticking out like a sore thumb. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Something else that should be done is to look at the hooks that did not make it and move them to the regular DYK queue where possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems this was taken care of. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that there were unused hooks at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2009 - I just moved one I had there that did not make it on April Fools to the March 31 queue. Not sure about the others, but they should be looked at. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but any articles that aren't new (created/expanded in the last 5 days or so) will no longer be eligible. They would have been exceptions for April Fool's, but they aren't for regular DYK, so they'll just be removed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I had looked over the situation to see if there were any unused April Fool's Day hooks that nominated in good faith during the 5 days following their creation/expansion. I found none, except new suggestions that were in the current suggestions. So this shouldn't be an issue. If it is, then let that person bring it up to our attention. Royalbroil 03:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I had to move the one I nominated (which was created on March 31) to the regular Suggestions queue, but was unsure about the others. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I've moved all the hooks from queue #6 (the only serious queue) and put them into the DYK template. Someone needs to make whatever other changes DYK needs at this point (including repopulating all the queues) Raul654 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

3 v 2 is hardly a consensus. People worked very hard preparing those updates, and four hours on the main page is shortchanging those who put these articles together (and BTW I don't think it's very appropriate to follow up a fun day with a hook about a tragic disease). Perhaps we need a wider discussion on how to deal with "special" days, because I don't think limiting them to UTC is a very fair method for all those who don't happen to live in the UTC timezone. Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the time zone argument goes no where. That is Wikipedia's decision. I can say that it is just as jarring for me to see wierd hooks when it is not April Fools as it is for you to see your out-of-the-time-zone hooks. Wikipedia's decision is for the sake of some order. Not everyone will be satisfied all of the time. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia "runs" on the UTC is irrelevant in regards to how DYK sets up and updates that section of the mainpage. If DYK wants to set up X number of queues to run for Y number of hours, that is the project's prerogative regardless of what timezone or day it crosses. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should DYK make April Fools Day last for more than 24 hours – Gatoclass appeared to want 48 hours, to judge by his contribution a couple of sections above this one – when all the other sections of the main page make do with 24 hours? DYK should be working as part of an overall project, not out of step with the rest of the main page components. Agree with Mattisse; the argument that "it's not UTC where I/other people live" is irrelevant, since everyone gets to see the April Fool's Day main page at some point over the 24 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We've run previous "special days" over a 36 or 48 hours period and got no complaints, so I don't know where the decision was made to run only over 24 hours but no-one bothered to inform us about it. Of course if there is a consensus to stick to UTC we will abide by it but it would have been nice to be invited to participate in the discussion in which this consensus was allegedly reached or to have it pointed out to us.

In regards to the so-called "April Fool's" hooks themselves, they were all still legitimate hooks in their own right that deserved as much time on the mainpage as any other. The only thing that essentially distinguished them is that they were selected for their humorous or suprising quality. So I am quite disappointed that some of our best and funniest hooks got kicked off the main page after just a few hours. Gatoclass (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Would 4 v 2 help with the consensus? Raul has a lot of experience with the main page, with Wikipedia in general, and with processing. Can we try and trust his judgment on this just a little? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always had viewpoint that the April Fool's Day hooks should run for the 24 hours (UTC) of April Fool's Day only and that the queue length needed to be adjusted to make this work. To do more than 24 hours is insulting to the people who hate the tomfoolery. If I had been available, I would have made it work that way - 4 queues running 6 hours. You'll notice that I promoted the first set to make this work, and that I earlier had made some minor adjustments on times to get the first group up right at 0:00 UTC. Royalbroil 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The remaining articles don't have to be wasted - just rewrite them (the ones that can be rewritten) and recycle them. Raul654 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If it means anything to you guys, Google's April Fools pranks are still up right now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits not done

Can someone do the credits for the current batch please? Not much point me doing them as I have a hook in there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of credits, would anyone mind if I tweaked DYKmake and DYKnom to automatically include the signature for the person doing credits? I did this for DYKAFmake and DYKAFnom and it seemed to work pretty well. Shubinator (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mind? Heck no! These functions used to autosign, but for some reason they stopped doing it and it's pretty annoying having to do it manually. So please be my guest and fix it :)

BTW, enjoyed your April Fool's special "Smiley" credit too :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the signing was taken out because of the bot. We could add it in to the editing window, like the April Fool's credits, and that should be "a step above" the bot. The pages are protected though. Could an admin tweak User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake-insert and User:Ameliorate!/DYKnom-insert? The last </includeonly> should be replaced with ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly> (see User:Shubinator/DYKAFmake-insert for an example).

April Fool's was nice. The best part - everything was true. Can't wait for next year! Shubinator (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've pasted in your code. It sure is a funny looking string, I hope you didn't make a typo! Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another nice thing would be to have the templates automatically fill in the article name; right now, if you're not using the DYK helper script or whatever, you have to paste the name of each article into the edit window. I think it would be simple to change the preloaded text, but I don't really have any experience with that stuff. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure why Ameliorate never added that functionality, it seemed like an obvious thing to automate. Also, it's kind of annoying having to manually include an edit summary on the article credits. Doing the credits would be a lot easier if all that stuff could be automated. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I fiddled with the adding in the article title before, and it's pretty tough, because template is preloaded onto the edit window. It looks unlikely, but I'll try. It seems like you can't add preloaded edit summaries (Mediawiki page). Maybe we could request it. Shubinator (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK stats

Does anyone know when the page stats gadget will be updated to include April? -- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is User:Henrik's concern; we have no control over it. But actually, April is already up; it's not showing up in the drop-down menu, but you can still type in the URL and get the data from yesterday. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And here are your stats: Big Nose George, Sparkie. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thnks so much Rjanag!! I was just curious.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I still have to add every new month manually :) Occasionally I forget to do it right at the beginning of the new month. henrik•talk 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK Wikipedia charts

Do you know when/if this page will be updated? --Aushulz (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom of the page says the last data dump was in mid-March, but the charts look as if they haven't actually been updated in years. But anyway, how exactly does DYK fit into these? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I see now the scope of this page. Thanks for the answer, however. ^-^ --Aushulz (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is this where to discuss an issue with a specific hook that hasn't appeared on the Main Page yet? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, either here or below the hook itself on T:TDYK. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well the hook is gone from T:TDYK, which is why I came here. I was just wondering why an alternate hook was selected for a hook that had been referenced and approved. It's currently in queue 3, for List of Silver Slugger Award winners at third base. I'm doing a set of new article rewrites to fix some lacking content issues with this set of award articles, and since they are all similar articles, I'm trying to write differently-styled hooks for each. The hook that's currently on queue is very similar to an earlier hook and, IMHO, sounds boring. I thought the original hook was more "hooky". Of course, I may be biased because it's me writing, but I was still concerned. I know about the rules about there not being time to discuss changes, but I think the DYK would be more appropriate with the original hook. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, an additional note that would apply only if the current hook were used - the current wording makes the hook read like Castilla still plays for the Rockies. The "has won" should be changed to "won". I would still prefer the original hook, though. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For NewDYKnom developers

The new magic word {{REVISIONUSER}} is now enabled, and things such as

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}

can be used as a default value in a template to automatically get at the last moment the login name of the user saving a page. Using it, {{NewDYKnom}} (and the main page's examples) won't have to always require typing out our own username any more. (Yes, I feel concerned, why do you ask?) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So you mean, for example, we could set |nominator= to automatically be filled in with {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}} ? Might be a useful feature. At the same time, though, we also have to make sure the template still works for people nominating others' articles, or nominating an article that they worked on with other people, or (rare case, but still possible) posting a nom for someone else and not wanting to actually list themselves as a nominator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Since the DYK suggestion page lists a number of ready-made templates for the most common cases, I think there are two possibilities of syntax:

• Make it so an empty creator/nominator parameter will default to the person posting the hook. So the ready-made templates will still have empty or missing fields (depending on the case), such as:

New Article, self nom: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=ARTICLE | hook=... that HOOK? | status=new }} (no more "author" field for this case)

• Make it so an explicit value of "self" and/or "me" (using #lc: for case-insensibility, etc.) will be resolved into the poster's username, so that someone leaving it blank in the general template (not using a ready-made paste) won't be credited by error. In this case the collection of ready-made templates may look like:

New Article, self nom: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=ARTICLE | hook=... that HOOK? | status=new | author=self }} (explicit "author=self" for this case)

Which way is better I can't say, depends on how people usually use it, but in both cases there would be a lot less of typing one's own username as creator and/or nominator, since I reckon the collection of ready-made templates covers the vast majority of suggestions. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Those would both be useful; sometimes people put in "self" instead of their names, and sometimes people leave it blank; in both of these cases I think it would be correct 99% of the time to default to the name of the poster. Sometime soon I'll fiddle around and try to update the template. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to catch people leaving it blank as well as those filling with "self" or "myself", I guess code to link to a user could look like (untested):

[[User:{{#switch: {{#lc:{{{nominator|self}}} }}
|self|myself={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}
|#default={{{nominator}}}
}}]]

(There are no User:Self or User:Myself but there are User:Me and User:I...) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented part of this idea in the dev version of the template—now |author= defaults to {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}, but only after first checking to make sure there is no value for |creator=, |writer=, and |expander= (all of which are alternate names for the |author= parameter, and which I have no idea how often people use, although I imagine |creator= probably still gets used since that was the parameter's name in older versions of this template). I will still have to fiddle around a bit to get it to replace "self" and "myself" in |nominator= with {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONUSER}}, because there is already a bunch of code there that compares {{{nominator}}} to all the various |author= and other parameters (the basic reason is that if someone lists themself as both author and nominator, we don't want to credit them twice, so "nominator" disappears if author and nominator are equal) so I'll have to find a way to get it to work in with all that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Never mind that; I messed some things up. Will continue working on it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits needs to be done

I've done the long-overdue update from queue 3 (3.5 hours late! I miss the bot!) but since I have a hook in this queue I need somebody else to do the credits from this listing. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Soon my edit count will be a million trillion! Muahaha!!! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the overdue update from queue 6 (where is that darned bot?) but I'm swamped-under busy at the moment. Can some other kind soul complete the credits from this list for me? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Will start now. A kind admin will need to clear the Q afterwards, of course. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The queue is pre-cleared which is why I posted a link to the version before I cleared it. Okay, back to the salt mines for me. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ah, that explains why it was an external link :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK size of a stub?

I'm unclear what's supposed to be the current prose size of a stub according to the rules: Feral House has a short lead and a Film section that's a paragraph listing their books turned into movies. For DYK expansion rules, is it starting as 446 chars (lead only) or at 1286 chars (lead plus Films) or something else? Thanks, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The prose size of the entire article (in this case, 1311). It's easiest to count using User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But the script can't make the difference between real prose and a list wrapped into a paragraph, that's why I asked DYK's opinion about this big paragraph that's just a list of books and films. So, if one writes a bulletted list of books that have been turned into movies, that doesn't count as DYK prose, but if one turns the list into a paragraph, that becomes DYK prose – good to know. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the scripts will count it. But if a reviewer notices, they will probably yell at you (or whoever wrote it) for doing crappy writing or for trying to circumvent the rules. Either way, it wouldn't bode well for your nomination; I　wouldn't recommend it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand: I specifically asked whether the list paragraph in stub Feral House was counted or not (1286 or 446 chars) for the stub's start size (before a possible expansion), and you apparently said yes (you said the stub was 1311, including the list paragraph). But now you say that a list paragraph shouldn't be counted? Sorry but this is important: my researchs for other articles gave me several sources and material for this stub and some built-in hooks, so I feel confident I could expand 5x a 446-char stub with some extra work along the extra motivation of a DYK (but an expansion from 1311 seems unlikely). So why declare the Feral House stub as 1311 chars if its list paragraph shouldn't be counted? — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 13:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1311 is the count automatically generated by User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js. That doesn't mean it always counts exactly what we want it to count; that's just how it counts. Like I said, if someone submitted an article like this for real, here is pretty much how it would go:

• I would count it using prosesizebytes.js. Let's say it happens to be 1800 characters, over the 1500 character limit, but half of the characters were from a list paragraph.
• I would put a cleanup tag (such as {{prosetimeline}} or something similar) at the top of the article.
• I would go back to the nomination at T:TDYK and say something along the lines of, " Technically over 1500 characters, but most of the 'prose' is just a list. Please clean up.'

So basically, we count whatever prosesizebytes.js count, and then use our judgment in determining whether or not that content is actually any good.

Some other people might do it differently; some might copy the text into a word processor (MS Word, OpenOffice, etc.), delete the bad paragraph, and count it that way. The above is just my way of doing things. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in this instance, I take it that I may be able to expand and nominate this stub, and help the verifications by using the comment field of the nom to explain "The original stub was 446 chars (plus a list paragraph I don't count) expanded to 2300 chars for 5x" and it would be a valid DYK nomination? I just wanted to know about this specific case and avoid a bad surprise or disappointment later about the way it's counted. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; the pre-expansion size of the article is calculated from the automatically counted page size of the version, no matter how bad it is—see Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules A4, or Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold F2 (they're the same thing). This is because in general we don't have time to conduct in-depth assessments for the previous versionf of every article. The process I described is how I count the current article size, not the old article; I almost never bother to assess the old version of the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes, I positively know from experience that tables (ok, not the exact same thing as bullet lists, but pretty much the same: unprosified text) are not counted. And why should they? It's not prose. Prose is what we're all about at DYK. The "no matter how bad it was" clause is for long, but badly written and/or flawed/unsourced text. Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold F2 specifically mentions "at least five times as much prose" (my emphasize). Punkmorten (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As F2 explains, the "how bad it was" clause is because we have trouble keeping up with the backlog as it is. If we make any more exceptions, I hope we recognize how much longer it would take to search for and debate such conditions on every insufficient expansion on the list. Art LaPella (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools hook stats

I'm not sure if anybody else has done this, but I've compiled some of the April Fools' viewing stats. It's at a user sub-page here, listed in the order of how each hook was literally placed on T:DYK. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, except that articles that nominated didn't do very well. Oh, well. I was part of the group effort to get The Story of Menstruation on the main page, and it did real well (imagine that?!). Jamie, would you move the page to be a subpage under Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2009? Royalbroil 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those look slightly higher than average, other than the final batch (which wasn't up for the full period). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a good hook, and I expected it to be highly viewed (especially the "Disney" part was kind of bizarre; when I first saw the hook, I was thinking "what??"). "Everything" was possibly one of my favorites, though. RB, I've moved the page to → Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2009/Views. Jamie^☆S93 12:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the stats. Some of them did better because they were up for much longer - the first two updates, for example, were up twice as long as the last one.

The only result that really suprises me is that Radio Hat didn't get more views. I thought everyone would want to take a closer look at that radio hat! (Although maybe they just clicked on the pic and didn't worry about the article). I think if the results indicate anything, it's that "funny" hooks don't really work - it's the quirky and suprising ones that excite people's curiosity. Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointe des Almadies

Hi, is there a reason Pointe des Almadies was removed from the queue without running? All the information was verified and no one requested a change or posted any objection. I thought part of our goal was to correct systemic bias, not perpetuate it. A search for "Africa" turns up only one return for the most recent page of the DYK archives. This is the westernmost point on the continent! It doesn't make sense: we're running community colleges at DYK and ignoring important geography. Pointe des Almadies was even used to settle a maritime boundary dispute between two countries. Please explain the removal? Durova^Charge! 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Um... its currently in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Its in the featured spot too.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, it just hit the Main Page. You'll be getting notification soon :) Shubinator (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Kick me! Why didn't I think to check? Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar question

There's a hook in queue 5 that reads: "... that conductor George Georgescu first made music as a child by playing a violin won by his father in a raffle between his legs like a cello?"

This make it sound like the raffle was between his father's legs (which is, of course, nonsense) but I'm temporarily at a loss for a good way to re-word this. Any ideas? - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Classic case of trying to cram too much into one hook. Just remove half of it:

• ... that as a child, conductor George Georgescu first made music by playing a violin between his legs like a cello?
• ... that as a child, conductor George Georgescu first learned music using a violin won by his father in a raffle?

I prefer the first, but whatevs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That Lady in Ermine

Someone asked me why the hook for That Lady in Ermine was not used, although approved. Since I don't know on what basis or who chooses the approved hooks to feature, I am asking here. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still in line; I will leave a message for that user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And for a general answer...there is little "choosing" that goes on, basically all approved hooks go to the queue—sooner or later, depending on things like what type and length of hooks are needed in a given update. If there is a reason not to put a hook in the queue, it won't get approved (or, from time to time, it will get approved and then someone else will un-approve it, but they will always leave a rationale). If a hook is sitting around approved and nothing has happened to it, that just means it's still waiting to be used; if it was approved, it won't get rejected just for sitting around too long. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-Ed Prison Sluts

We need to get this article to DYK. I don't care how, it would just be a great hook. ∗ \ / (⁂) 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's currently too short, needs a couple of better references, and a spot of rewriting but, yeah, with a title like Co-Ed Prison Sluts it would be sure to get a ton of clicks. (And a free-use photo uploaded to Commons would be nice, Chicago-area alt-musical fans. Just sayin'.) - Dravecky (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Cannibal Cheerleaders on Crack? I'm short on time now, but here are two refs for a brave adventurer: 1 2. Shubinator (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and a review for Sluts: Review. We should work in the fisting comment. Shubinator (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like lots of potential for an excellent 2010 April Fool's Day DYK if you don't mind waiting just under 1 year. Royalbroil 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We sure are awesome

I'm not sure what the new FAs are, but according to User:Rjanag/DYKfuture the number of former DYK articles that have grown into FAs just passed 300. Hooray, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Note:　the usual caveat, about how random numbers are nothing more than random numbers, applies. 300 just happens to be a nice and round random number, and I think it's cute. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox/DYK

If I develop an article in my personal sandbox for over five days, will it still be eligible for DYK when I copy+paste it to the mainspace? Queenie 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck yes. The timer starts running when you move it to mainspace, not before. - Dravecky (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But please don't copy-and-paste it into mainspace; use the "move" tab at the top of the page to perform a normal move. That preserves the page history. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why preserve the page history when you are just editing in your own sandbox? It's pointless, no-one needs to know what your draft versions looked like. The editing history really only becomes useful after an article has been moved into mainspace. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's true. I suppose I just discourage copy-paste moves out of habit. For articles moved from a sandbox, it's probably not a big deal either way. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer! Queenie 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As I and F3 understand it, if you move the page history, it will look like the article isn't new enough. It's still OK, but we will probably need a reminder that it was copied from user space, which we can verify from a move log. I thought the preferred method was to move the page from user space, but don't move the history; as Help:Moving a page#How to says, "You'll be ... given the option to also move the page's talk page". Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally just leave a comment in the nomination saying "moved to mainspace on 7 April" or whatever. You are right, it is good to leave a reminder, because otherwise people will get fooled and think the article is old (especially when the "moved bla bla bla" edit summary is buried under scores of other edits). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Copy-pasting drafts from userspace is usually accepted, provided no one else besides yourself has edited it. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up... we're behind

Just a heads up but we are currently needing some more people to review hooks. There are several days worth of expiring noms that have not been gotten to yet. We don't even have enough hooks approved currently to fill one more queue.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked off about two updates worth of hooks from the 30th and the 1st. That should help. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of those that jumped in to review hooks but we still need more help. If special effort could be made to review the oldest hooks, March 29 to April 2, it would be greatly appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to whine on this page about why my Donna Kossy suggestion from 8 days ago wasn't commented at all (at least some reason for rejection or something I could work on) when I saw this section, so I've tried to help by listing under my suggestion the URLs from which each hook is inline-sourced in the article (I didn't add any assessment button), to help verification... *before* whining on this page, that is. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another way to help is to review some other nominations...whenever I get antsy for my nom to get reviewed, I just go and review all the ones around it so that people will have no choice but to review mine ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll sound horribly selfish, but isn't this a self-defeating tactic? I mean, it's only human that overworked reviewers under a deadline to feed the Next Update Moloch will prefer already-reviewed noms over unreviewed ones. So it's only human to be concerned that reviewing all the ones around my nom will just give priority to everything else while my unreviewed one goes expiring. Still, I've reviewed and ticked three other noms, but at the risk of being seen as Machiavellian I've picked those with a picture: mine doesn't have a pic and is thus not competing for the illustrated spot. (Unfortunately, one I reviewed turned out to have copyvio and low sourcing, so now Dravecky will hate me and I'll also look like I'm trying to shoot down the competition, sigh. On the paper it may look like a good idea if we both nominate something and review something else, but I'm unsure it's such a hot idea in practice.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no "competition" at DYK, since there is (in theory) not a limited number of spots—unless DYK ends, there will always be room for more hooks. Even if others get promoted earlier than yours, you have nothing to worry about. Really, if anything, getting reviewed is more urgent than getting promoted—if a nom sits around for a week before it gets reviewed, then you might have little time to address concerns that are raised, whereas once a nom is reviewed and approved then it can sit around indefinitely and still get promoted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate you? You saved me from embarrassment after I tried to rescue someone else's hook that another editor had already checked as okay. Clearly it had concealed issues that your more thoughtful review caught so, if anything, you're my new friend. Keep checking hooks at this level of scrutiny and you'll be my friend for life. - Dravecky (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rjanag, but it seems to me there is necessarily some form of competition: as I understand it, there are 4 batches of 8 hooks per day vs. a constant stream of incoming noms. If there are, say, about 50 noms per day, then each week will see about 350 noms compete for 224 spots (no matter in which order hooks are taken or after how many days) and expired noms can't stay forever either. As for "getting reviewed is more urgent than getting promoted" I completely concur as that was precisely my problem reported above (my mom still not having gotten any comment or request or hint after lying for 10 days on the page).

Thanks, Dravecky, I was just lucky my eye zeroed in on that "0ne". — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah...it might look at it, but really in my experience we have always been able to keep up with the noms. Remember that some portion (usually a small one) of the noms coming in every day are bad and will be rejected anyway (for lacking sources or stuff like that). In any case, the status of other noms on the page does not have any real effect on the final outcome of your nom (and likewise, the status of your nom doesn't have any effect on yours), so there's nothing to worry about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was curious, so I did a count...it looks like there were ~36 nominations in the 24 hours of April 10. So it matches up quite nicely. Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits to be done

I've just done the current update from queue 1 but somebody needs to follow this link and do the credits. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm on to it. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The queue 2 update is done but with most folks out for Good Friday around here I'm extra-slammed for time. If some kind soul could follow this link and do the credits, it would be much appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked my Watchlist at an opportune moment again :) ... will start now. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And now queue 3 is done and while I finally have the time to do credits, irony strikes and one of my hooks is in this set. So if somebody could follow this link and knock these out, I'd owe 'em a virtual cookie. - Dravecky (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On it. Shubinator (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Shubinator (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the previous DYK image was vandalized. Updating admins, please make sure the cascading protection has kicked in after doing an update (try to edit the image description and see if you get a protection notice). Purging the Main Page has been rumored to help. If needed, protect manually. Thankfully our Commons images are getting protected there by a certain Commons admin :) Shubinator (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that cascading protection has working right for a while. I've been protecting the temporary uploads. Now that I acquired Commons adminship about a week ago, I protect the images on Commons for 3 days to make it easier here. Please let me know if I miss one. Remembering to remove the {{en main page}} template on Commons has been a pretty big pain in the butt, so please clean that up for me if you notice that I've missed one. Shubinator and I made tests, trying to defeat the Commons protection, and neither of us could beat it. I used my non-admin alt account. Royalbroil 13:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits

Didn't have time to do them as I have to go out. Queue #4. Gatoclass (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do em. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! Admin needs to clear the queue. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Backslash! The queue is now cleared. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue nearly empty

We only have one more update ready after this one. If anyone could manage to put together one or two, that would be appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I finished preparing one at T:DYK/N (a lot of long hooks, kind of hard to shuffle and balance), and started making another one in next next. Best, Jamie^☆S93 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing pic for lead hook

Resolved

 – rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more I think the species originally identified in the image:Sticta ainoae.jpg pic is incorrect – it doesn't jive with the general description of the genus in the article (which is derived from material from a reputable source). However, the other image now in the article shown here

Sticta hypochra

matches the genus description, and is of similar quality. Could someone kindly make this change (image and species name)? Sasata (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the hook Sasata is talking about is in Queue 2. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

For the current Queue 1, please change Junmin Shenfenzheng to Jumin Shenfenzheng (the first is a redirect to the second). Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for the catch! Royalbroil 11:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK is freezing my computer

That's how bad the backlog is getting. I'm trying my best to clean the lower level, but only so much I can do. We need more decision-makers on those bottom hooks. A 9-day backlog (I got it down to 7) is ridiculous. Wizardman 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two open slots on the Next update queue and eight on the Next next update, if you would like to move some over that have been verified. We can also temporarily extend the slots to hold 9 until we get down to only a 3 day backlog. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more typical to speed up updates, rather than make the updates bigger, in the case of a backlog. I think this is partly for MP organization (if DYK is way bigger than On This Day, etc., it looks ugly), and partly because once you get past a certain "critical mass" of hooks it's just too much for anyone to bother looking at (ie, a given hook might get more views in 4 hours if it's part of a set of 8, then it would get in 6 hours as part of a more intimidating set of 9). To be honest, the critical mass is probably closer to like 6, but oh well, what can you do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's slowing up my browser, too (DYK has probably seen worse days, but 200 hooks is quite a bad backlog). I'm trying to move hooks off to update pages; T:DYK/N is filled and ready for an admin to promote to queue #3. I'll start on T:DYK/NN, which is empty at the moment. Jamie^☆S93 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 190-odd hooks is pretty standard these days. I hate to say this, but I suspect rjanag's "history" links may be partly responsible for the slowdown. They add quite a lot of extra links and code that the software has to chug through. If people are experiencing unusual delays, this might be the reason. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a possibility. If they are causing a slowdown, I don't mind removing them from the template; I just added it for fun and figured it might be somewhat nice to have, but I don't know how often they are actually being used, and if they're slowing down the page then it's probably too much cost for too little benefit. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be worth commenting them out for a bit and seeing what happens. FWIW, I tend to load the target page and then tab history open from there, simply because it's what I'm used to... I suspect a good few others are the same Shimgray | talk | 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only reason I added the link is because I got tired of having to click twice. (I don't have fingers, so it's really hard.) Anyway, this is a good suggestion, I will comment them out and see if things change in a week or so. (Too bad we don't have another DYK project to use as a control group. Oh well, WP isn't science.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you use popups? I find that very convenient when doing the updates. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean as an alternative to having history links? I don't know, I've never tried popups, but if they are better than using the history links then there's no real loss from having removed the history links now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Popups allows you to navigate straight to the subpage you want. I find it very convenient for taking shortcuts. Give it a try and see how you find it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the deed is done. I wouldn't remove the history links that are there currently, as it will break any incoming section links (from {{DYKproblem}} or whatever else), so it's probably best to just hang tight for a week or so, hope we still have about the same number of noms on the page, and then see if it's faster. (And hopefully someone here has a better memory than me, because in a week I don't think I'll remember how slow the page was right now.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible problem is the use of so many ticks throughout the page. WP:FAC is probably a good deal more enormous than T:TDYK, and is always full of diffs and links, but (right now at least) it's opening faster for me. It might have less code overall (since T:TDYK has a lot of hidden code with the auto-generated credits...but I wouldn't want to remove those, I love how lazy they allow me to be when updating Next), but the other big difference is that at FAC they don't like using  Done and stuff like that, whereas here almost every nom has multiple , , etc. I wonder if we could try to phase out and ? I like having the "approved" and "rejected" ones because it makes it easy to quickly scan the list when you're filling up a new update or anything, but are the question ones necessary? In most cases, seeing several lines of conversation below the nom already lets you know that questions have been raised (unless it's one of my noms, which I always follow with like 10 afterthoughts before anyone has had a chance to review). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One way to cut down on the backlog would be to raise standards a bit. Ask for longer articles from the outset, for example. Perhaps 3000 characters? Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Raising standards is a perennial proposal, and probably not going to happen right away. If it does ever happen, it would have to be for a much bigger reason than a temporary backlog and annoying load times. As to your specific example, one of the objections people have raised about upping the minimum length is that it people may just fluff up their articles with junk to meet the new limit. A better way to raise the standards would be to demand better sourcing, ref formatting, etc., but I think in practice most of us are demanding that anyway (I know I do, and nominators probably think I'm a bastard for it, but oh well, it's worthwhile in the end). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the best reason to raise standards is that we all want the encyclopedia to be of the highest quality, but those reasons are rarely convincing enough to enact widespread change. Change often happens because of practical reasons. For example, the death penalty is ending in several US states because it is too expensive during the economic downturn. No one's moral argument won the day (on either side) - pragmatism did. Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Raising length I'd oppose, but officially raising referencing standards I'd support. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

@ed... making reference standards official could be nice. I don't think it would change how any reviewers do their business—I know I look at refs closely, and reject or whine about articles with large unreferenced sections—but it could reduce the amount of surprise/anger that nominators have when their articles get criticized for something that's not in the rules. In the past, in the rare instance that someone did object to my objections by saying "hey, there is one footnote, and the rules don't say there needs to be more," I would usually have to fall back the rule about not passing articles with cleanup or dispute tags (and then the nominator would get mad because I was the one who put the cleanup tags there in the first place). But anyway, if we want to add a referencing rule to WP:DYK#Selection criteria, we should probably start a new section here raising the proposed addition and getting some comments. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: freezing, two notes if that may be useful:

• About the slowness, I remember reading once a discussion at the Tech Pump asserting that pages with a long history could become very slow to load when database servers are overworked (and this often matches my personal experience), something that may aggravate any other perf-related problem with the DYK suggestion page. My suggestion would be to move the whole page to a /archive01, copy-paste its entire content back to the normal page (with the permalink to the archive as edit summary), then blank the /archive01 with a one-liner like "This page kept only for its history of DYK suggestions up to N April 2009." (or some plan to that effect).
• About the ticks, wouldn't it be better to have a text tag in addition or replacement to the icon? I mean, if someone is in a hurry for verified hooks, doing a backwards CTRL+F on the page for a tag such as "HOOK-Yes" should be quicker and easier than scrolling and eyeing for an icon. The text tag could be added to the two verified icons (HOOK-Yes), and replace the other icons entirely (HOOK-Query, HOOK-Maybe, HOOK-No). — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)