This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I was wondering if we'd want to consider a permanent holiday holding bay, similar to what we did for Halloween and Xmas. Looking at the next month, there are several possibilities. You have the Super Bowl, Lincoln's Birthday, and Groundhog Day. It could also serve as a place for admin building the queue's to find any date-specific hooks, so they don't overlook it. I'd suggest it can hold date specific ones up to 14-21 days. Just something to ponder.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please move the hooks from the next update to queue one. I'd like to put together another set. Thanks. Nrswanson ( talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
My nomination was rejected and removed today ( diff) because the reviewer didn't think it was expanded 5x. Not including the list, the actual expansion was 14.6x. Is it possible to have someone re-review the hook? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
With the bot down and the number of admins working in DYK at the moment lower that would be ideal, quite a number of routine six-hours updates are not taking place on schedule. This slower rotation is only exacerbating the current backlog so, per earlier discussions, I have edited {{ DYK-Refresh}} to start warning at five hours instead of six. I am hopeful that this small change will allow us to better keep our four-queues-a-day schedule (with the slight possibility of one extra queue every couple of days) until the bot returns. - Dravecky ( talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Again can we *not* update again? I'm going to attempt to run the bot again... I think I've isolated the bug that caused it to run while logged out (which is the reason why I had to halt its operations). In short, please do not manually update the DYK! and make sure the bot knows which queue to pull from. —— nix eagle 12:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone bothered to check the DYK archives? I've noticed that they are quite disorganized and that most articles don't have DYK templates. Is something being done about this? (I made a few efforts myself, but I would probably need some spare help.) Deucalionite ( talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
%28
and &29
instead of (
and )
.
Politizer
talk/
contribs
17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)$create_content = preg_replace("/$/","$",$create_content);
Ok, so the only other bug we have right now is the () issue? I suspect that one is the bot encoding the () as it would in a url. I'll try to isolate it on monday as I have to go shortly :). —— nix eagle email me 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How many of those are still active and what are the requirements? I'm can probably take a crack at one or two. —— nix eagle email me 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Wikipedia:DYK#The_hook: "The hook itself should be concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces)". Great. I just spent two hours trying to create a 200 character hook, down from the 250 I had initially composed. Now, I visit the main page to see a 257 character hook for This is Nightlive. Can anyone tell me if I should stop trying to follow the rules? Viriditas ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
...
in the hook). And personally, I don't agree that "nobody is actually going to read" the rules; I found them quite easy, and have read them more than once, and I'm not even a smart guy.(out) Seriously, no one reply to Viridtas after this...it's not gonna change his mind, and it will just adddd to the drama. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason we don't have a hard and fast limit on number of characters for multi-hooks is because it's pretty rare that we get hooks with a large number of nominated articles. Like every other project on Wiki, things are constantly evolving here. Right now we are just basically applying common sense, but we may have to move to a more definitive rule eventually. Someone suggested the other day that the text of every nominated article beyond the first should not be counted, which is one possible definition. But one has to remember that technically speaking, a hook with two nommed articles that is less than 400 chars long is already saving space, so it's to our advantage to keep the definition reasonably flexible. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the previously unwritten rules be moved to a subpage of the guidelines? Should i also add this to WP:RM to make it more official? (btw, move not merge) Simply south not SS, sorry 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just be bold and do the split. As long as you don't change the "unwritten rules" while doing so, it should be fairly uncontroversial. —— nix eagle 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested by someone
Suggested by Gatoclass ( talk · contribs) (Copied from above discussion) the "Unwritten Rules" page should probably be split into two separate pages, one covering the unwritten rules themselves and the other covering the "rules of thumb for preparing updates", which is really a different topic.
Suggested by Simply south ( talk · contribs)
I don't really like any of the other current proposals...personally, I think the current naming scheme isn't a huge problem (if people want to nitpick, we can always change it to "[Previously] unwritten rules") except for people who come in and misunderstand what's going on, which is clearly what happened a few months ago the last time there was a big battle over this; it's not our fault if people misunderstand what the rules are, especially when it's so clearly written that the rules are a description of consensus. Anyway, many people chiming in during that discussion seemed to want to move the rules into project space rather than Art's user space, and I don't have a problem with that (although it could keep a note saying something like "these guidelines were originally complied by Art LaPella"), but I don't see a pressing need for the name itself to be changed. Moving it into project space would be enough to dispel the crazy idea that these rules are Art's fabrications (not to mention that giving them a shortcut, such as WP:DYK/UR, would add an air of "community-ness" to people who have complained about them before), and calling them "unwritten" even though they're written isn't killing anyone, it's just a historical nicety (for example, the village pump is called a village pump even though it's actually a webpage). So my suggestion is to move rules to project space without making a new name. Politizer talk/ contribs 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You can see this thread to view some of the previous iteration of this discussion, for background info. There was also some discussion in the thread higher up in that archive, Alleged inconsistency (formerly entitled "Politizer's deception"...haha...that was just a laugh a minute, wasn't it?). Just so everyone can have an idea what has been said already. Politizer talk/ contribs 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please update the mainpage. It has been five hours and we really need to try and update every 5 in order to get rid of the back log. Thanks. Nrswanson ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request that Mozart in Italy to have its chance at DYK, despite its submission half-a-day over the 5-day guideline. [1] [2] Brianboulton is not familiar with DYK, [3] and I only came to know of the new article near the end of its 5th day. [4] The article is an amazing work of Brianboulton, and deserves a nod for its creation. The associated subject (Mozart) is readily recognizable by most, if not all, of the world, and it would help the project's cause by highlighting this article to the general public. Jappalang ( talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you nominate articles for DYK that you yourself created? Jonathan321 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I just updated the DYKsug template (the difference is that now it auto-generates credit templates for everything....in the past, if there were more than 2 articles, it would just produce a message saying "you'll have to do the credit templates by hand").
I believe I have tested the new version pretty thoroughly before updating. But just in case, please be wary at T:TDYK, and if any problems are popping up with new nominations notify me and (if it's urgent) feel free to undo the most recent edit at Template:DYKsug to get it back to the last version. Politizer talk/ contribs 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started working on a new template that, if I get get the kinks ironed out, might supersede {{DYKsug}} and {{DYKsuggestion}} and replace the current system we have. The reasons are as follows (you can find a lot of the discussion surrounding these points summed up at User talk:Politizer#DYKsuggestion format):
creator = Politizer creator2 = creator3 = creator4 = expander = expander2 =
etc., isn't necessary anymore...in the past it was nice to have the article contributors listed prominently like that (made it easier to do the credits), but now the credit templates are generated automatically (thanks to, I believe, Hassocks, who I think was the one to suggest that) so we don't really need this
So, with that in mind, I'm working on a new template that just places in the hook, nominator info, and credits, pretty much like this:
====Example==== * ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''? <small>Created by [[User:Politizer|]]. Self nom at ~~~~~</small> <!-- *{{DYKmake|Example|Politizer}} -->
So the output looks pretty similar to how things were before we had the templates, I guess. My hope, though, is that it won't be a step backwards—the main idea is it would standardize things, it would auto-generate the credits templates (people seem to like that?), and hopefully be a lot simpler to use than what we have now (fewer parameters to worry about, not having to keep DYKsug and DYKsuggestion straight, etc.) and ideally be more compact at T:TDYK (personally, I think the way things are now, what you get in the edit window isn't messy, but it does take up a lot of space). Obviously, there's some stuff that still needs to be fixed: specifically, getting the credits templates to be commented out (it seems to be more complicated than it looks; see the indented part of
User talk:Gatoclass#DYKsug template update for why).
For some examples with some more doodads, see here (and what it looks like in the edit window, here).
Anyway, I just thought I would throw this out there, so people can give input and feedback if they want. And, of course, it would be good for me to know what people want, or if this is totally unwelcome, before I go too far ahead with it. (And even if everyone thinks this is an improvement, I recognize that it's still sort of rocking the boat, especially since it's been a relatively short time since we implemented the current system and this might be too early to shake everything up again.) Politizer talk/ contribs 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A new feature I think that would be very helpful would be an auto-generated line for the image. I'm thinking that we need a field for the image file name, and for the image caption, which can both be generated and used in much the same way as the credits. » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|image=
field when you call the template. They don't put in a caption, though; it wouldn't be hard to add a |caption=
parameter if everyone want. I didn't do that before because I just assumed it was the promoter's responsibility to write the caption, but if everyone wants it automated I can add it very easily.
Politizer
talk/
contribs
02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Old news now, but substantial chunks of Breastfeeding in public - a DYK on 3 January - were copied from History_of_breastfeeding#Breastfeeding_in_public. I'm sure it was inadvertant - the author did not nominate it - but could nominators/reviewers watch out for this sort of thing please. -- Testing times ( talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
separated into new section by User:Politizer
I hate it already after sometime off of DYK. I deleted one other DYK nomination due to....I guess an edit link had the wrong whatever and instead of going for a date, I got to a nomination two edit link above it and deleted my nom for that thinking it was a "stupid" example coughed up by someone. Whatever happened to just doing it manually instead of having some script do the job? Can we at least have that option for people who aren't that lazy and are willing to do the work without help of a script?? I am an experienced editor on Wikipedia, I ain't THAT freaking lazy!!! -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It's driving me nuts. I think we have to move as much as possible off that page and put it somewhere else. We could start by moving the seven subst'ed queue and update templates, and also the hook count template if possible. Maybe there's some other stuff we could move too, I'm not sure, but I'd like the page to contain as little as possible other than the suggestions themselves. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
...that the hook which reads that John Ryan, the co-creator with Derek O'Connor of blogorrah.com and the former co-owner with Michael O'Doherty (the founder of Kiss and Stellar) of the unsuccessful New York Dog and Stars on Sunday publications and the successful VIP and TV Now magazines—which give their names to the VIP Style Awards (venue pictured) and TV Now Awards respectively and the latter of which regularly features Lorraine Keane amongst others—was so fearful of criticism for his 2009 television series This is Nightlive that he was reported as intending to go travelling for an "unspecified time" has to be one of worst constructed sentences in the English language? What does it even mean, with all of these parenthetical asides and a clause set off by hyphens? I am the first one to acknowledge that I have tried for a multiple-article hook, but we have to be careful that we don't leave readers far more confused than they could ever be informed by a sentence such as this one on the main page. 200 characters is a tight restriction, but it ought to be enough to get a decent hook across to readers. Even with extra characters allowed (I count 580), I don't think that this sentence makes any meaningful sense, either as a sentence or as a representation of what DYK should be offering. I think DYK would be better served by chopping these into separate hooks if a comprehensible single hook cannot be written. By contrast, that John Ryan was so fearful of criticism for his 2009 television series This is Nightlive that he was reported as intending to go travelling for an "unspecified time" would be a readable double hook, as a start. Alansohn ( talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've broken it up into three different hooks, as follows:
Update: I've managed to squeeze it into two hooks, as follows:
Ahh, luckey me eh? My 11-article hook might be next record holder lol [tongue in cheek] YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've gotten counts of former DYKs that are currently good/featured content, just for fun I threw together a table that displays what we have so far. Here's what it looks like:
Status | Number of articles |
---|---|
Featured article | 2,412 |
Featured list | 896 |
Good article | 8,064 |
These may be slight underestimates (
learn more) refresh this table |
Want me to put it anywhere? I was thinking DYKSTATS might have a home for it (just with a minor introductory sentence, such as "Some articles that were featured on DYK have gone on to become some of Wikipedia's featured or good content; bla bla bla").
And by the way, since these questions will probably be raised by someone... first of all, this is all automated (it doesn't use a bot, it just happens magically because Gimmetrow is a genius and because we have great magic words such as {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}), so no human will need to do a thing to update it (other than me maybe null-editing it when I feel like it—but even that might not be necessary) and it won't increase the responsibilities of anyone here or anywhere else. Secondly, it's not meant to illustrate anything, make any point, or cause a change in policy or how stuff works; it's just there for fun and for your viewing pleasure, if you want to look at it. Politizer talk/ contribs 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that the additional ("unwritten") rules are binding, the main WP:DYK page should contain just an overview of the detailed rules. As far as I could learn, this is common practice here for other policy stuff ("in a nutshell" etc.) A few things may need to move between the two pages to optimize the presentation. But before we bother with details, let's see if the general organization has support. The simplest naming scheme that came to my mind is:
As starting point the WP:Did you know/Additional rules should just be moved to WP:DYK/Rules. Then WP:DYK should be trimmed of advice like "Use {*mp} to get bullet points on the Main Page", which belong in the detailed rules. Those that need to know this usually do already :-)
The need to reorganize the rules together has been discussed as long ago as Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#5x expansion. We all support somebody else doing it, but nobody feels they know the details well enough to produce a coherent description. Art LaPella ( talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now added the queue and next update page templates to the Template:Did you know/Queue page as suggested by other users above, so that's done. I also moved the hook count template to the same page, for want of a better place to put it. I just want it off the Suggestions page because it's not very useful there, and can only slow down the page load times. I suggest renaming the Queue page to the "Queue overview" page or something similar as it now contains more info than just the queues. I have also deleted some other templates from Suggestions that were serving no practical purpose. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Current box | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User:Politizer/DYKbox |
Picking up on yesterday's discussion about the growing length of the Nav Box, if people think it's getting too long, we could shorten it in the following ways:
(1) merge Next Update and Queues into a single page (they really are focused on the same general topic of monitoring what's coming up next in line)
(2) merge "Rules" and "Additional Rules" on a single page. I agree with Gato's point above, but putting the two on a single page can be done without confusing the new users. The main rules can be listed at the top as Rules and the "additional rules" can be set forth in a separate section below the main rules as a guide to how the rules have been interpreted and applied. Even as an experienced DYK participant, I do find it confusing to see "Rules" and "Additional Rules" on the Nav Box.
(3) If that's not enough to shorten the navbox, I'd consider eliminating "List" as it really is a page of interest principally to those on the list (and those folks can bookmark it)
I'm probably biased, but I think Stats is a useful feature to keep in the Nav Box. Unlike "list", it's not a vanity page and is intended to be of general interest, and it focuses on particular hooks that have worked effectively rather than on personal medal count.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
T:DYK/N
, but, as I mentioned above, I can't expect everyone to have memorized all the shortcuts like me...different people like to get around in different ways.)
Politizer
talk/
contribs
16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)One of the problems that I believe is in the process of killing the Wiki is the enormous number of rules that don't actually improve anything except for the ability of administrators to argue with each other. The rules lists continue to grow without bound, and become more opaque and self-contradictory with every edit. Yet they do little or nothing to improve the Wikipedia itself, while at the same time driving off users.
The DYK rules are a perfect example of this. For "fun", I copied the text from the DYK rules into a text editor, in order to remove all the formatting and thus make it smaller. The main rules and "additionals" are... you read for this? EIGHT PRINTED PAGES.
Many of these rules are confusing, new or repetitive, but are nevertheless being used to silently fail articles from the list. The problem is so widespread that it's even mentioned as a "rule", G1. Yet in spite of it being mentioned as a problem, there is no attempt to fix it. The process places all of the onus on the nominator, and none on the objectors - even if the objection is obviously wrong.
In particular, there is a new rule that is widely being applied in this fashion- "must have an inline for the hook". Apparently many reviewers have decided this means that the hook must appear in that form in the body of the article, and that its appearance must have an inline. This obviously conflicts with the fact that the hook is often adapted from the article intro statement, and it is generally accepted that intros do not need inlines unless they introduced new facts that are not covered in the body of the article (which is itself considered bad form).
This (IMHO) mis-applied rule means that DYK is actually more restrictive than FA! For a system that is, as the "rules" state "meant to be something that is motivating to editors creating new content", let me assure you that being victimized by a mechanized process is not exactly motivating.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't gotten any feedback yet (and there are several other things being discussed above, so this might not be the best time, but oh well), but anyway, the new template and possible alternative for {{DYKsug}} is finished and available at Template:NewDYKnomination (the name can always be changed, I just couldn't think of anything better; {{ NewDYKnom}} also works). Everyone free to experiment with it in sandboxes or whatever to see if you like it or not; you can also see the prepared examples I made a few days ago here (and what it looks like in the edit window, here)—there have just been a couple minor changes since then. There is more information about this template and the reasons for it above.
If you do want to test it out anywhere, just be aware that in that template there is no longer |creator=
and |expander=
; they have been merged to one parameter called |writer=
, so you'll have to use "writer=" rather than "creator=." Also, there is a parameter called |rollover=
to set the image's rollover text.
If you guys all think this isn't an improvement then I won't mind, I just need to know so that I can start focusing on other things (such as improving the system that we already have). If you do think it is an improvement, then I'll need to know that too, so we can start thinking about how to go about switching over. Politizer talk/ contribs 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears the Next update page has been protected by cascading protection. Any particular reason? Or is this an error? :) » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 15:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to leave a note that 3 people, including myself, are working on a 2 - 15 part DYK. They deal with 28 plays, 14 per half of a career, divided by an important historical event in the author's life. There is no way to subdivide them further instead of having individual pages. The first set will be put out coming soon, and will include all new pages, few redundancies, and all of the criteria met. If there are any problems or concerns, please contact me. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope it is the Fielding stuff you have in your userspace, about time he got some coverage; I have redlinks to his stuff all over the place. Do you mean you are intending to cram 15 DYK links into a hook? That will be plain ugly from a presentational point of view and if you can write a hook that actually hooks while including 15 articles I will be very surprised. What's the point of that? 4 or 5 shorter hooks over a week or so would get more attention for the topic anyway. I might have got the wrong end of the stick mind. Yomangani talk 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can possibly allow a hook with 15 noms, unless perhaps they were very, very short links and even then it's highly unlikely. We just had someone nominate a hook with 15 noms a few days ago and the consensus was that it had to be broken up into two or more hooks. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles.
← So why not repeat the message again, just to be on the safe side?
Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. Articles which have been expanded to only four times their previous length are also not eligible. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles.
-- Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. Exceptions have been made for existing articles expanded more than four times, but those expanded less than four times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. - Ottava Rima ( talk) 06:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
So which is it? Does an article need to be expanded fourfold or fivefold? -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Queue 1 does not take into account that the lead hook has two highlighted articles. Someone needs to add Kentucky in the War of 1812 as mine.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Que 5, hook #3 starts with "that that". Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly believe we need to increase the rotation of queues to every 5 hours or perhaps every 4 hours to try to work through the backlog. There are currently 6 complete queues lined up ready to go and enough verified hooks to construct at least another 5 queues. At the present rate, that's almost 3 days worth of hooks... and ignores the 150+ unverified hooks and the fact that at least another 75-90 new hooks will get nominated in those three days.
On a related note, we need more folks to do some thoughtful reviewing of the existing hooks. Some of these have been sitting untouched for more than a week since they were nominated. The more well-written, properly verified hooks there are, the easier it is to create a solid queue. Thanks! - Dravecky ( talk) 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel silly for asking this question, especially given that I've added a few hundred DYK nominations, including using the new templates which I feel are starting to become pretty usable. When I want to add a nomination for the 25th, I go to that section and edit the section that includes the first nomination only, adding my new nomination above the old one. I don't want to edit the whole article or even the whole day for fear of edit conflicts and other potential screwups. Am I doing this correctly and might there be a better way to use the templates to just add an entry for a specified day? Alansohn ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a trivial error in the National Bridge Inventory. I pointed this out, but apparently that's interesting? Do people really find that interesting? -- NE2 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Politizer ( talk · contribs) - this seems a bit like forum shopping. Cirt ( talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Alternate hook idea - I know this is on the Main Page now, but I thought that something like
DYK ... that the use of salt to melt ice on County Route 35 in Warren County, New York is adversely affecting the health of Lake George?
would be a more interesting hook. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got around to looking at Mitchazenia's contributions, and found this. He's playing a game in which getting an article on DYK gives him points. -- NE2 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*The problem is how do you fairly apply an "interesting" standard? Considering the global worldwide audience of the main page, defining what is interesting is highly subjective. If we try to limit the scope to what the few regulars here at DYK find interesting they we are going to pre-install (albeit subconsciously) a fair amount of systematic bias into the main page. We already have a difficult time trying to pull from a broad spectrum of articles as it is. Not only is this a recipe for Wiki drama, as noted earlier, I think the type of subconscious bias that will be introduce will be far more detrimental to the quality of the mainpage than the occasional "boring" hook. Agne Cheese/ Wine 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I was wondering if we'd want to consider a permanent holiday holding bay, similar to what we did for Halloween and Xmas. Looking at the next month, there are several possibilities. You have the Super Bowl, Lincoln's Birthday, and Groundhog Day. It could also serve as a place for admin building the queue's to find any date-specific hooks, so they don't overlook it. I'd suggest it can hold date specific ones up to 14-21 days. Just something to ponder.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please move the hooks from the next update to queue one. I'd like to put together another set. Thanks. Nrswanson ( talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
My nomination was rejected and removed today ( diff) because the reviewer didn't think it was expanded 5x. Not including the list, the actual expansion was 14.6x. Is it possible to have someone re-review the hook? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
With the bot down and the number of admins working in DYK at the moment lower that would be ideal, quite a number of routine six-hours updates are not taking place on schedule. This slower rotation is only exacerbating the current backlog so, per earlier discussions, I have edited {{ DYK-Refresh}} to start warning at five hours instead of six. I am hopeful that this small change will allow us to better keep our four-queues-a-day schedule (with the slight possibility of one extra queue every couple of days) until the bot returns. - Dravecky ( talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Again can we *not* update again? I'm going to attempt to run the bot again... I think I've isolated the bug that caused it to run while logged out (which is the reason why I had to halt its operations). In short, please do not manually update the DYK! and make sure the bot knows which queue to pull from. —— nix eagle 12:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone bothered to check the DYK archives? I've noticed that they are quite disorganized and that most articles don't have DYK templates. Is something being done about this? (I made a few efforts myself, but I would probably need some spare help.) Deucalionite ( talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
%28
and &29
instead of (
and )
.
Politizer
talk/
contribs
17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)$create_content = preg_replace("/$/","$",$create_content);
Ok, so the only other bug we have right now is the () issue? I suspect that one is the bot encoding the () as it would in a url. I'll try to isolate it on monday as I have to go shortly :). —— nix eagle email me 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How many of those are still active and what are the requirements? I'm can probably take a crack at one or two. —— nix eagle email me 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to Wikipedia:DYK#The_hook: "The hook itself should be concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces)". Great. I just spent two hours trying to create a 200 character hook, down from the 250 I had initially composed. Now, I visit the main page to see a 257 character hook for This is Nightlive. Can anyone tell me if I should stop trying to follow the rules? Viriditas ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
...
in the hook). And personally, I don't agree that "nobody is actually going to read" the rules; I found them quite easy, and have read them more than once, and I'm not even a smart guy.(out) Seriously, no one reply to Viridtas after this...it's not gonna change his mind, and it will just adddd to the drama. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason we don't have a hard and fast limit on number of characters for multi-hooks is because it's pretty rare that we get hooks with a large number of nominated articles. Like every other project on Wiki, things are constantly evolving here. Right now we are just basically applying common sense, but we may have to move to a more definitive rule eventually. Someone suggested the other day that the text of every nominated article beyond the first should not be counted, which is one possible definition. But one has to remember that technically speaking, a hook with two nommed articles that is less than 400 chars long is already saving space, so it's to our advantage to keep the definition reasonably flexible. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the previously unwritten rules be moved to a subpage of the guidelines? Should i also add this to WP:RM to make it more official? (btw, move not merge) Simply south not SS, sorry 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just be bold and do the split. As long as you don't change the "unwritten rules" while doing so, it should be fairly uncontroversial. —— nix eagle 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggested by someone
Suggested by Gatoclass ( talk · contribs) (Copied from above discussion) the "Unwritten Rules" page should probably be split into two separate pages, one covering the unwritten rules themselves and the other covering the "rules of thumb for preparing updates", which is really a different topic.
Suggested by Simply south ( talk · contribs)
I don't really like any of the other current proposals...personally, I think the current naming scheme isn't a huge problem (if people want to nitpick, we can always change it to "[Previously] unwritten rules") except for people who come in and misunderstand what's going on, which is clearly what happened a few months ago the last time there was a big battle over this; it's not our fault if people misunderstand what the rules are, especially when it's so clearly written that the rules are a description of consensus. Anyway, many people chiming in during that discussion seemed to want to move the rules into project space rather than Art's user space, and I don't have a problem with that (although it could keep a note saying something like "these guidelines were originally complied by Art LaPella"), but I don't see a pressing need for the name itself to be changed. Moving it into project space would be enough to dispel the crazy idea that these rules are Art's fabrications (not to mention that giving them a shortcut, such as WP:DYK/UR, would add an air of "community-ness" to people who have complained about them before), and calling them "unwritten" even though they're written isn't killing anyone, it's just a historical nicety (for example, the village pump is called a village pump even though it's actually a webpage). So my suggestion is to move rules to project space without making a new name. Politizer talk/ contribs 16:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You can see this thread to view some of the previous iteration of this discussion, for background info. There was also some discussion in the thread higher up in that archive, Alleged inconsistency (formerly entitled "Politizer's deception"...haha...that was just a laugh a minute, wasn't it?). Just so everyone can have an idea what has been said already. Politizer talk/ contribs 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please update the mainpage. It has been five hours and we really need to try and update every 5 in order to get rid of the back log. Thanks. Nrswanson ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request that Mozart in Italy to have its chance at DYK, despite its submission half-a-day over the 5-day guideline. [1] [2] Brianboulton is not familiar with DYK, [3] and I only came to know of the new article near the end of its 5th day. [4] The article is an amazing work of Brianboulton, and deserves a nod for its creation. The associated subject (Mozart) is readily recognizable by most, if not all, of the world, and it would help the project's cause by highlighting this article to the general public. Jappalang ( talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you nominate articles for DYK that you yourself created? Jonathan321 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I just updated the DYKsug template (the difference is that now it auto-generates credit templates for everything....in the past, if there were more than 2 articles, it would just produce a message saying "you'll have to do the credit templates by hand").
I believe I have tested the new version pretty thoroughly before updating. But just in case, please be wary at T:TDYK, and if any problems are popping up with new nominations notify me and (if it's urgent) feel free to undo the most recent edit at Template:DYKsug to get it back to the last version. Politizer talk/ contribs 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started working on a new template that, if I get get the kinks ironed out, might supersede {{DYKsug}} and {{DYKsuggestion}} and replace the current system we have. The reasons are as follows (you can find a lot of the discussion surrounding these points summed up at User talk:Politizer#DYKsuggestion format):
creator = Politizer creator2 = creator3 = creator4 = expander = expander2 =
etc., isn't necessary anymore...in the past it was nice to have the article contributors listed prominently like that (made it easier to do the credits), but now the credit templates are generated automatically (thanks to, I believe, Hassocks, who I think was the one to suggest that) so we don't really need this
So, with that in mind, I'm working on a new template that just places in the hook, nominator info, and credits, pretty much like this:
====Example==== * ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''? <small>Created by [[User:Politizer|]]. Self nom at ~~~~~</small> <!-- *{{DYKmake|Example|Politizer}} -->
So the output looks pretty similar to how things were before we had the templates, I guess. My hope, though, is that it won't be a step backwards—the main idea is it would standardize things, it would auto-generate the credits templates (people seem to like that?), and hopefully be a lot simpler to use than what we have now (fewer parameters to worry about, not having to keep DYKsug and DYKsuggestion straight, etc.) and ideally be more compact at T:TDYK (personally, I think the way things are now, what you get in the edit window isn't messy, but it does take up a lot of space). Obviously, there's some stuff that still needs to be fixed: specifically, getting the credits templates to be commented out (it seems to be more complicated than it looks; see the indented part of
User talk:Gatoclass#DYKsug template update for why).
For some examples with some more doodads, see here (and what it looks like in the edit window, here).
Anyway, I just thought I would throw this out there, so people can give input and feedback if they want. And, of course, it would be good for me to know what people want, or if this is totally unwelcome, before I go too far ahead with it. (And even if everyone thinks this is an improvement, I recognize that it's still sort of rocking the boat, especially since it's been a relatively short time since we implemented the current system and this might be too early to shake everything up again.) Politizer talk/ contribs 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A new feature I think that would be very helpful would be an auto-generated line for the image. I'm thinking that we need a field for the image file name, and for the image caption, which can both be generated and used in much the same way as the credits. » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|image=
field when you call the template. They don't put in a caption, though; it wouldn't be hard to add a |caption=
parameter if everyone want. I didn't do that before because I just assumed it was the promoter's responsibility to write the caption, but if everyone wants it automated I can add it very easily.
Politizer
talk/
contribs
02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Old news now, but substantial chunks of Breastfeeding in public - a DYK on 3 January - were copied from History_of_breastfeeding#Breastfeeding_in_public. I'm sure it was inadvertant - the author did not nominate it - but could nominators/reviewers watch out for this sort of thing please. -- Testing times ( talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
separated into new section by User:Politizer
I hate it already after sometime off of DYK. I deleted one other DYK nomination due to....I guess an edit link had the wrong whatever and instead of going for a date, I got to a nomination two edit link above it and deleted my nom for that thinking it was a "stupid" example coughed up by someone. Whatever happened to just doing it manually instead of having some script do the job? Can we at least have that option for people who aren't that lazy and are willing to do the work without help of a script?? I am an experienced editor on Wikipedia, I ain't THAT freaking lazy!!! -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It's driving me nuts. I think we have to move as much as possible off that page and put it somewhere else. We could start by moving the seven subst'ed queue and update templates, and also the hook count template if possible. Maybe there's some other stuff we could move too, I'm not sure, but I'd like the page to contain as little as possible other than the suggestions themselves. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
...that the hook which reads that John Ryan, the co-creator with Derek O'Connor of blogorrah.com and the former co-owner with Michael O'Doherty (the founder of Kiss and Stellar) of the unsuccessful New York Dog and Stars on Sunday publications and the successful VIP and TV Now magazines—which give their names to the VIP Style Awards (venue pictured) and TV Now Awards respectively and the latter of which regularly features Lorraine Keane amongst others—was so fearful of criticism for his 2009 television series This is Nightlive that he was reported as intending to go travelling for an "unspecified time" has to be one of worst constructed sentences in the English language? What does it even mean, with all of these parenthetical asides and a clause set off by hyphens? I am the first one to acknowledge that I have tried for a multiple-article hook, but we have to be careful that we don't leave readers far more confused than they could ever be informed by a sentence such as this one on the main page. 200 characters is a tight restriction, but it ought to be enough to get a decent hook across to readers. Even with extra characters allowed (I count 580), I don't think that this sentence makes any meaningful sense, either as a sentence or as a representation of what DYK should be offering. I think DYK would be better served by chopping these into separate hooks if a comprehensible single hook cannot be written. By contrast, that John Ryan was so fearful of criticism for his 2009 television series This is Nightlive that he was reported as intending to go travelling for an "unspecified time" would be a readable double hook, as a start. Alansohn ( talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've broken it up into three different hooks, as follows:
Update: I've managed to squeeze it into two hooks, as follows:
Ahh, luckey me eh? My 11-article hook might be next record holder lol [tongue in cheek] YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've gotten counts of former DYKs that are currently good/featured content, just for fun I threw together a table that displays what we have so far. Here's what it looks like:
Status | Number of articles |
---|---|
Featured article | 2,412 |
Featured list | 896 |
Good article | 8,064 |
These may be slight underestimates (
learn more) refresh this table |
Want me to put it anywhere? I was thinking DYKSTATS might have a home for it (just with a minor introductory sentence, such as "Some articles that were featured on DYK have gone on to become some of Wikipedia's featured or good content; bla bla bla").
And by the way, since these questions will probably be raised by someone... first of all, this is all automated (it doesn't use a bot, it just happens magically because Gimmetrow is a genius and because we have great magic words such as {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}), so no human will need to do a thing to update it (other than me maybe null-editing it when I feel like it—but even that might not be necessary) and it won't increase the responsibilities of anyone here or anywhere else. Secondly, it's not meant to illustrate anything, make any point, or cause a change in policy or how stuff works; it's just there for fun and for your viewing pleasure, if you want to look at it. Politizer talk/ contribs 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that the additional ("unwritten") rules are binding, the main WP:DYK page should contain just an overview of the detailed rules. As far as I could learn, this is common practice here for other policy stuff ("in a nutshell" etc.) A few things may need to move between the two pages to optimize the presentation. But before we bother with details, let's see if the general organization has support. The simplest naming scheme that came to my mind is:
As starting point the WP:Did you know/Additional rules should just be moved to WP:DYK/Rules. Then WP:DYK should be trimmed of advice like "Use {*mp} to get bullet points on the Main Page", which belong in the detailed rules. Those that need to know this usually do already :-)
The need to reorganize the rules together has been discussed as long ago as Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#5x expansion. We all support somebody else doing it, but nobody feels they know the details well enough to produce a coherent description. Art LaPella ( talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now added the queue and next update page templates to the Template:Did you know/Queue page as suggested by other users above, so that's done. I also moved the hook count template to the same page, for want of a better place to put it. I just want it off the Suggestions page because it's not very useful there, and can only slow down the page load times. I suggest renaming the Queue page to the "Queue overview" page or something similar as it now contains more info than just the queues. I have also deleted some other templates from Suggestions that were serving no practical purpose. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Current box | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User:Politizer/DYKbox |
Picking up on yesterday's discussion about the growing length of the Nav Box, if people think it's getting too long, we could shorten it in the following ways:
(1) merge Next Update and Queues into a single page (they really are focused on the same general topic of monitoring what's coming up next in line)
(2) merge "Rules" and "Additional Rules" on a single page. I agree with Gato's point above, but putting the two on a single page can be done without confusing the new users. The main rules can be listed at the top as Rules and the "additional rules" can be set forth in a separate section below the main rules as a guide to how the rules have been interpreted and applied. Even as an experienced DYK participant, I do find it confusing to see "Rules" and "Additional Rules" on the Nav Box.
(3) If that's not enough to shorten the navbox, I'd consider eliminating "List" as it really is a page of interest principally to those on the list (and those folks can bookmark it)
I'm probably biased, but I think Stats is a useful feature to keep in the Nav Box. Unlike "list", it's not a vanity page and is intended to be of general interest, and it focuses on particular hooks that have worked effectively rather than on personal medal count.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
T:DYK/N
, but, as I mentioned above, I can't expect everyone to have memorized all the shortcuts like me...different people like to get around in different ways.)
Politizer
talk/
contribs
16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)One of the problems that I believe is in the process of killing the Wiki is the enormous number of rules that don't actually improve anything except for the ability of administrators to argue with each other. The rules lists continue to grow without bound, and become more opaque and self-contradictory with every edit. Yet they do little or nothing to improve the Wikipedia itself, while at the same time driving off users.
The DYK rules are a perfect example of this. For "fun", I copied the text from the DYK rules into a text editor, in order to remove all the formatting and thus make it smaller. The main rules and "additionals" are... you read for this? EIGHT PRINTED PAGES.
Many of these rules are confusing, new or repetitive, but are nevertheless being used to silently fail articles from the list. The problem is so widespread that it's even mentioned as a "rule", G1. Yet in spite of it being mentioned as a problem, there is no attempt to fix it. The process places all of the onus on the nominator, and none on the objectors - even if the objection is obviously wrong.
In particular, there is a new rule that is widely being applied in this fashion- "must have an inline for the hook". Apparently many reviewers have decided this means that the hook must appear in that form in the body of the article, and that its appearance must have an inline. This obviously conflicts with the fact that the hook is often adapted from the article intro statement, and it is generally accepted that intros do not need inlines unless they introduced new facts that are not covered in the body of the article (which is itself considered bad form).
This (IMHO) mis-applied rule means that DYK is actually more restrictive than FA! For a system that is, as the "rules" state "meant to be something that is motivating to editors creating new content", let me assure you that being victimized by a mechanized process is not exactly motivating.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't gotten any feedback yet (and there are several other things being discussed above, so this might not be the best time, but oh well), but anyway, the new template and possible alternative for {{DYKsug}} is finished and available at Template:NewDYKnomination (the name can always be changed, I just couldn't think of anything better; {{ NewDYKnom}} also works). Everyone free to experiment with it in sandboxes or whatever to see if you like it or not; you can also see the prepared examples I made a few days ago here (and what it looks like in the edit window, here)—there have just been a couple minor changes since then. There is more information about this template and the reasons for it above.
If you do want to test it out anywhere, just be aware that in that template there is no longer |creator=
and |expander=
; they have been merged to one parameter called |writer=
, so you'll have to use "writer=" rather than "creator=." Also, there is a parameter called |rollover=
to set the image's rollover text.
If you guys all think this isn't an improvement then I won't mind, I just need to know so that I can start focusing on other things (such as improving the system that we already have). If you do think it is an improvement, then I'll need to know that too, so we can start thinking about how to go about switching over. Politizer talk/ contribs 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears the Next update page has been protected by cascading protection. Any particular reason? Or is this an error? :) » \ / ( ⁂ | ※) 15:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to leave a note that 3 people, including myself, are working on a 2 - 15 part DYK. They deal with 28 plays, 14 per half of a career, divided by an important historical event in the author's life. There is no way to subdivide them further instead of having individual pages. The first set will be put out coming soon, and will include all new pages, few redundancies, and all of the criteria met. If there are any problems or concerns, please contact me. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope it is the Fielding stuff you have in your userspace, about time he got some coverage; I have redlinks to his stuff all over the place. Do you mean you are intending to cram 15 DYK links into a hook? That will be plain ugly from a presentational point of view and if you can write a hook that actually hooks while including 15 articles I will be very surprised. What's the point of that? 4 or 5 shorter hooks over a week or so would get more attention for the topic anyway. I might have got the wrong end of the stick mind. Yomangani talk 02:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can possibly allow a hook with 15 noms, unless perhaps they were very, very short links and even then it's highly unlikely. We just had someone nominate a hook with 15 noms a few days ago and the consensus was that it had to be broken up into two or more hooks. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles.
← So why not repeat the message again, just to be on the safe side?
Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. Articles which have been expanded to only four times their previous length are also not eligible. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles.
-- Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. Exceptions have been made for existing articles expanded more than four times, but those expanded less than four times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. - Ottava Rima ( talk) 06:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
So which is it? Does an article need to be expanded fourfold or fivefold? -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Queue 1 does not take into account that the lead hook has two highlighted articles. Someone needs to add Kentucky in the War of 1812 as mine.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Que 5, hook #3 starts with "that that". Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly believe we need to increase the rotation of queues to every 5 hours or perhaps every 4 hours to try to work through the backlog. There are currently 6 complete queues lined up ready to go and enough verified hooks to construct at least another 5 queues. At the present rate, that's almost 3 days worth of hooks... and ignores the 150+ unverified hooks and the fact that at least another 75-90 new hooks will get nominated in those three days.
On a related note, we need more folks to do some thoughtful reviewing of the existing hooks. Some of these have been sitting untouched for more than a week since they were nominated. The more well-written, properly verified hooks there are, the easier it is to create a solid queue. Thanks! - Dravecky ( talk) 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel silly for asking this question, especially given that I've added a few hundred DYK nominations, including using the new templates which I feel are starting to become pretty usable. When I want to add a nomination for the 25th, I go to that section and edit the section that includes the first nomination only, adding my new nomination above the old one. I don't want to edit the whole article or even the whole day for fear of edit conflicts and other potential screwups. Am I doing this correctly and might there be a better way to use the templates to just add an entry for a specified day? Alansohn ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a trivial error in the National Bridge Inventory. I pointed this out, but apparently that's interesting? Do people really find that interesting? -- NE2 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Politizer ( talk · contribs) - this seems a bit like forum shopping. Cirt ( talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Alternate hook idea - I know this is on the Main Page now, but I thought that something like
DYK ... that the use of salt to melt ice on County Route 35 in Warren County, New York is adversely affecting the health of Lake George?
would be a more interesting hook. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got around to looking at Mitchazenia's contributions, and found this. He's playing a game in which getting an article on DYK gives him points. -- NE2 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*The problem is how do you fairly apply an "interesting" standard? Considering the global worldwide audience of the main page, defining what is interesting is highly subjective. If we try to limit the scope to what the few regulars here at DYK find interesting they we are going to pre-install (albeit subconsciously) a fair amount of systematic bias into the main page. We already have a difficult time trying to pull from a broad spectrum of articles as it is. Not only is this a recipe for Wiki drama, as noted earlier, I think the type of subconscious bias that will be introduce will be far more detrimental to the quality of the mainpage than the occasional "boring" hook. Agne Cheese/ Wine 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)