Wikipedia talk:DYK.html



This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

e · h · w · r To-do:
Comment on adding Art's unwritten rules to the DYK rule page. Comment on GA included in DYK. Add nominator names to the Wikipedia:DYKBEST tables. Provide feedback at DYKsuggestion template. Comment on the Bot Approval for DYK WikiStatsBOT. The original request is here). Check on DYK purge bot request. Check on DYKCheckbot request. Check on DYKTagbot request.
Priority 9

Renaming Proposal for Best of DYK

Darn, just to late

Darn, I only found out today about DYK has a limit of 5 days, and I creatd a nice article 6 days ago Nestoridae (23:29, Dec 23).... O well... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that much because the current articles are backlogged and the dec23 lot are still on the queue. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will enter the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, under Dec 23. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, according to Unwritten Rule D8, it's fine to submit your nom after five days, as long as there's a section under "Expiring noms" for the date you expanded/created the article. Jamie^☆S93 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool I now just have to wait for someone to see if it can be used. (nothing yet) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Running on manual

Just to remind admins that we are currently back to manual updates, because the toolserver is down or something. Don't know when it will be back up, but the last update was three hours late, so please try to keep an eye on it next time to see whether or not the bot is functioning again. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver is back up, though that's been the case for a while. I have no idea if we still need to wait before the bot can work... Olaf Davis (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot still is not working, last update had to be manually posted as well. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So we'll have to convert the contents of the next queue to human readable format, post it on the template, update the clock, add it to the recent additions, credit, and clear the queue? Is that the correct process? Are we trying to do it every 8 hours, or try more frequently to lessen the backup? Royalbroil 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The turnover is still six hours, you can tell because the time display still works (as long as you purge it). No need to "convert the contents of the queue into human readable format", because the bot credits also happen to be set up to be easy for a human too. Just click on the "give" and "tag" fields to give out the credits.

Other than than, I think you're pretty much on the money :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's another manual update in the books. Here's hoping for a speedy recovery by our ailing bot. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the bot has been taken over by User:Nixeagle, but since he's on vacation until next week I have put in a request at WP:BOTREQ to ask someone else to take a look at it in his absence. I'm afraid I've been spoiled rotten by the Bot over the last few weeks, and I don't at all fancy the idea of manually updating for a whole week! Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DYKLIST?

While we're at it, why not rename this page "DYK Hall of Fame" and call it it DYKHALL or DYKFAME? "List" is really not very informative at all, and it looks a bit odd now we have "DYKSTATS" as well. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'd say move the page to "DYK Hall of Fame" and let WP:DYKHALL, WP:DYKFAME be redirects. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Breastfeeding in public hook: appropriate for Main Page?

Hi all. I nominated a neat little article I found in the New Articles suggestion list, but am aware that the topic could be considered unsuitable for the main page. No reason why it should be, I suppose, but, you know, better safe than sorry and all that. Thoughts? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I can see we'd have people worrying about reaction if there was a photograph, but the mention of the article itself shouldn't offend anyone! Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not ?! ok with me. NVO (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrific, I was about to point out the facebook farce but you have it - great work. I am so angry about that given some of the other material on facebook. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks everybody; that confirmed what I felt. It would indeed be disappointing if there was any negative reaction from general users, but as Casliber said, recent antics on Facebook have shown that attitudes can be slow to change! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up 2

I've updated manually; can someone please do the credits? It is the queue 5.--BorgQueen (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did the credits of queue 1. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just barely had enough time to do all of the crediting for Queue 2. Would someone please clear it. I don't know how. I have to leave. Royalbroil 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's another well-overdue manual update in the books. I got home and saw we were at almost 10 hours on that last set of hooks. The bot can't possibly get on line fast enough. (Yes, all credits are handed out, the archive updated, the next-up and timer reset, and all the other housekeeping stuff I know about is done, too.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Kart

My understanding of the rules for Did You Know inclusion may be hazy, but why are we including an article that is about three years old (and has been larger than a stub for more than two) on the main page? One (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering as well. My understanding is that the article must be 5 days old or younger, or has been not a stub anymore for 5 days or less. —harej // be happy 06:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the 5x expansion that counts, whether the article was originally a stub or not. This is the article before expansion, with 3263 characters, and the article now has been expanded to 20164 characters. Expansion is more than 6x, and therefore is quite eligible for DYK. Chamal ^talk 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't calling it 'Wikipedia's newest articles' a bit misleading, then? One (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's like the content of the article is pretty much new after so much was added. See selection criteria 1, which rejects any expansion less than 5x because of this. But any new suggestion would be welcome, if you can think of any better way to name it. Chamal ^talk 07:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A proper 5x expansion of the prose of a non-stub article is a nearly-heroic undertaking and the result is usually what amounts to a new article with a few traces of the original scattered throughout. The Super Mario Kart falls inside this expansion rule which rewards the creation of new content. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that it's a heroic undertaking. One (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Man I wish there was a way this could be a pictured hook.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 08:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All you'd need is a free image that illustrated the article and a functional time machine. This hook was on the front page in the previous set of hooks. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was in use already.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch

This was never completed or updated: Wikipedia:FCDW/December. If anyone is interested in finishing it before 20:00 UTC tomorrow, it could run in the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to do this? I can get working on it if nobody's there. Chamal ^talk 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See Ragesoss's query here; it's bedtime for me, if you can work on it, you should let Ragesoss know, and incorporate the info he linked there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like some people are against this, looking through some past discussions. I'll leave it alone for now, unless someone else is willing to do it? Chamal ^talk 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only couple of people "against" it are dropping to be "against" all of DYK without actually wanting to work to improve anything. Feel free to finish the article for the Signpost and it will be appreciated by far more folks than the handful of drive-by negative agitators. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost needs good content to show what's happening on the Wiki! Please write it. I would have finished it if I knew what happened. I don't have much time free time anymore, otherwise I'd be spending a lot more of it here. You got a great start with the background of the event. You could add how many hooks ran (or actually listing the hooks might be better). Don't worry about the detractors, they were opposed to the event happening. It already happened, so it's too late for them. You'd be reporting something that's passed. Royalbroil 12:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a little late, now that December is past? Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone know the exact facts? I don't know any more than you do, Royalbroil (which makes me think I was stupid to say that I would do it). I just realized I can't write a proper one with the knowledge I have. It'd be good if we had Politizier and Suntag etc here, who I think were more involved in this. Chamal ^talk 12:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not too late, Gato. It seems like something that you (or BorgQueen, among many others) would good at since you usually seem to know what's going on at DYK. I started the article to help promote a Christmas DYK event, but there seemed to be too much objection to the concept to run the article. Since it did happen, it's a great topic to include in the next Signpost to record what happened. The newsletter used to be weekly, but lack of writer interest has pushed it now to more like monthly. Royalbroil 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalbroil describes exactly what I'd like to see for the Signpost: an article on how the December 25 DYK stuff actually went off. It might also include a summary of the debate over it beforehand, and the discussions in the wake of the Halloween event over whether and how such Main Page theme content should be handled. Even just a paragraph or two to add to "News and notes" would be great. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, please let me know and I can push back publishing a bit if need be. Otherwise, I plan to start publishing in about an hour.--ragesoss (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone can finish up Wikipedia:FCDW/December for next week, it would be great; it could be patterned after Halloween Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone able to work on finishing this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Allrighty then, I'll have to write this myself, although I know next to nothing about DYK. Since no one else will, I hope there will be complaints about the result :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK total participation list

In the Hall of Fame page, I was wondering, what is the difference between "Creations & expansions" and "Nominations"? Thanks in advance if you answer. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you create or expand an article, you can nominate your own hook for DYK but if somebody else notices your hard work they can nominate a hook from the article you created or expanded. You would be recognized for creating or expanding the article and they would get credit for discovering your fine work and bringing it to the attention of the world at large. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Creations are new articles that you wrote from scratch, expansions are existing articles that you expanded over 5 fold (5x), and nominations are articles that you nominated without creating or expanding. Royalbroil 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew you can nominate other users creations or 5x expansions. Nice to know. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for DYK contributors

For those who have submitted multiple DYK featured links and like userboxes, I've created a DYK userbox:

This user has been a major contributor to N articles featured on Did You Know.

To add it to your page, paste the following code:
{{Userbox DYK|N}}
onto your userpage and change N to your number of Did Your Know articles. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also use:

This user has written or expanded N DYK articles on Wikipedia.

by adding {{User DYK|<big>N</big>}}

onto your userpage and change N to your number of Did Your Know articles. Truthanado (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen on user pages all sorts of claims for GA, FAC and DYK when they contributed one edit. When will this madness end? Just let everyone put all the boxes on their page claiming anything they want. Besides, remember DYK is the place where one of the "main" facilitators received 58 DYKs last month. Do you think maybe the incentives are all wrong? Does this contribute (really) to the encyclopedia? I think more energy is expended on DYK for less positive result to the encyclopedia than any other place. Bring back the Awards Center! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What people put on their userpages is not DYK's business. All that "advertising" is for personal satisfaction only, you don't get a special place in the community or anything like that. If anybody feels that they have done enough to claim credit for something, they are free to do so and welcome to it. That depends on the individual's preferences. For example, I don't like to nominate others' articles since it doesn't feel right to me to claim credit just for pointing out others' work, but this may look stupid to some people. I don't have a problem with that, that's their belief and this is mine. We can't expect everyone to think like we do. Everyone here contributes a lot to Wikipedia, and those contributions also depend on what they like. We are all volunteers here who work on our own areas of interest according to our own styles (as long as it is within Wikipedia policies and guidelines), and none of us are going to work according to what anyone else says (unless we are going against policy and someone points that out of course). And why do you keep dragging in that problem about one particular user? I don't know if you have a problem with him, but I fail to see how this affects the effectiveness of or contributions to DYK. Chamal ^talk 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I know there is nothing stopping you userbox people. It is worth noting that the latest statistics (in the Signpost) show actual (useful) contributions to Wikipedia declining since 2007. Could this be related to all this trinket collecting, and the 5x expansion of an article with junk in order to collect another DYK. Beat the record and get 59 in one month and 12 in one day! How about a userbox for Most Collected in One Day and Most Collected in One Month? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can make them if you like . But what's your point? DYK can't be held responsible to for the reduction in the number of contributions. Only a very small proportion of all Wikipedia editors contribute at DYK, and even if all of them are after awards (as you are saying) that would affect the overall contributions very little. Chamal ^talk 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am consistently amazed at the level of concern shown about what other people do. Who frackin' cares? --IvoShandor (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This user has been a major contributor to N articles featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page.

How is this new infobox any better than {{User Did You Know2}}, which I started several years ago? It looks almost identical to me. Royalbroil 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about expansion

I've got a question about the 5x expansion rule. I'm considering on getting Matt Smith (British actor) (expansion) and Eleventh Doctor (creation) to DYK in the same hook, but I'm a bit concerned about how the expansion rule works in cases such as Smith. You see, Smith had been rumoured for about 24 hours before he was cast as the Doctor to be the new Doctor, but any addition was unsourced and near-instantly reverted. Would eligibility, therefore, be based on this, or a previous version? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the version refers to a stable previous version. If you had reverted some lengthy vandalism, that wouldn't count against you. Similarly, I don't think unsourced rumours will count against you. If the rumours had of stayed there for a few days, you might have some issues, but you should be fine. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a stable version before the cavalcade of edits that would be the baseline for expansion but given the bajillion edits over the last 36 hours or so I'd hate to try to determine the credits for a DYK template. - Dravecky (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real stable version, there have been good-faith improvements as well as the addition of rumours. I'd say that the expansion began on January 3, from this version. We don't have to count only Sceptre's edits, and the expansion did start then. I say base it off of the version I linked, and give extra credits where needed. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the awards section be counted as prose? It looks like, and was formatted during the rumour-adding frenzy as, a list. Personally, I'm counting from Timrollpickering's protection, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same as Clerks' version, just with the awards list being made semantically into a list. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Expiring hooks

It seems as if we still have some hooks from as far back as December 20. I am going to do a run through and see which ones haven't been worked on in the last three days, but can we have some reviewers focus on the expiree's for a while? » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try and have an article I created be in DYK

I am a beginner here at wiki and am totally overwhelmed.

Some others helped me get Kamilo Beach into DKY, but I couldn't have done it myself.

I just made: Bridge scour

I've gotten as far as the hook:

Did you know Bridge scour is the most common cause of highway bridge failure in the United States? Catchy, huh?

Can anyone give me a suggestion or two?

Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna. Did you know may seem like a complicated system at first, but it is actually a very simple process. I'll nominate the article for you and show you step-by-step how to do it.

1. Head to the suggestions page, located here. Read the instructions at the top of the page to ensure that the article you wish to nominate is eligible.

2. Assuming it is, head to the section for the day the article was created, or the expansion was started. (In this case, here.)

3. Add your nomination to the top of the section, using the {{DYKsug}} template. The template itself isn't too complicated, just make sure the formatting of the hook is fine, with the article bolded and linked.

4. Watch for comments. Often an article will have a few minor issues that need to be addressed before the hook is moved to the main page. You, the creator/nominator, will be required to make the suggested adjustments. (again, nothing major)

That's it! Once your hook has been verified, it will be added to the next update page and then on to one of the queue pages. With no further issues, the hook will be on the main page not long after that. I have nominated your article for you in this case, here, but haven't had a lot of time to check the content, so there may be a few issues that you will need to watch over. You are more than welcome to nominate your next article by yourself! » \ / (⁂ | ※) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It actually does seem simple now. I appreciate you taking the time to help.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gif images

Are moving gif images allowed as the picture on DYK?

The page bridge scour has moving a gif of a bridge collapsing and I am wondering if it would be appropriate.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it I guess. I don't see anything against it in the rules or unwritten rules. If the selecting admin decides it's good enough, it can be used. Chamal ^talk 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I had seen that picture and was really tempted to use it. I didn't know how the image would relate to the hook, so I took the easy option and used the other image. There isn't, nor do I know of any previous rule barring GIF images. As long as its encyclopaedic, it should stay. I think audio files have even been used before, was it Frog Legs Rag? I can't quite remember. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed image. Unusual media has more of a chance of being the lead hook, simply because it offers some variety. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the sizing an issue?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Backslash_Forwardslash has already added it. Looks fine to me. Chamal ^talk 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK and Date MoS

An editor raised a concern at Politizer's talk page about the linking of dates in Template:UpdatedDYK and Template:UpdatedDYKNom. Unless anybody has an issue with it, I am going to delink the dates, and try to get them to link to the relevant entry on the DYK Archive. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. No use keeping those links if they are pointing simply to the date. It'd be good if it can be changed to link to the relevant date in the archives. Chamal ^talk 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Based on the current archive format, it isn't possible to have it linked to an anchor. The only possible way would be to add section headings with the day, such as ====April 1, 2050====. I wouldn't mind seeing the overhaul done, but given the extent of the work that would have to be done, for little benefit, I can't see that happening. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to do it, we can start from now - no need to change the format of old archives. The template will affect new entries only. Currently the page is updated manually, so the archiver will just have to place ===='''''~~~~~'''''==== instead of *'''''~~~~~'''''. When and if the bot becomes operational again, then can we change it? Chamal ^talk 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with ~~~~~ is that it includes the time, which would have little connection to both the time of the update and the time the author received notification. The a more appropriate heading would be ===='''{{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}} {{{CURRENT DAY}}}, {{{CURRENT YEAR}}}'''====. Beneath that heading the hooks can be placed under a dot-point heading with the time manually added from the update. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the first two days on WP:DYKA. The page looks like it needs archiving, is that done automatically or does it have to be manual? » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates changed to link to the days entry on WP:DYKA. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Help needed re update

As the main page update was overdue, I moved queue 3 to the main page manually. I am not sure, though, how to reset queue 3, give credits, and other tasks. Could someone else help with that? Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Next update after this should be 00:44, 5 January. That's 6 hours after I moved queue 3 to the main page. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reset the queue, given the credits, and incremented the queue counter. I will likely not be in front of a computer when the next update is due so if some other admin could take care of this tonight, it would be much appreciated. (We miss you, DYKadminbot!) - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for my hook in the queue

I received a notice on my user talk page that a hook from Joshua L. Liebman was selected for the "Did you know" section on January 4. However, I don't see it on the current main page, nor in the archive from earlier today, or in the upcoming queues. Can anyone help me find it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With the DKYadminbot out of commission, the whole DYK array of pages must be manually every six hours and the admin that last updated the active template didn't update the archive. I've now added that set of hooks to the archive. Enjoy! - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Queue 4 moved to Main Page

To keep us on time with the manual updates, I moved Queue 4 to the Main Page at 04:46. However, I am deficient in my knowledge re updating archives, doing credits, clearing queue 4, etc. If someone else could take care of that, I'd appreciate it. Next update should be set for 10:46. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can give credits and update the archive, but an admin will need to do the rest. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To clear a queue, delete everything in the queue add add the statement {{User:DYKadminBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} . You forgot to reset the clock. To do that, you need to edit [1] and follow the directions by pasting in {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} . You did the main thing, which was to update the template. Hopefully the bot will be back soon. Royalbroil 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Peculiarity at the bottom of T:TDYK

There is a peculiar visible interwiki link at the bottom of T:TDYK that I am unable to fix. Can someone look into it? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the link, so either someone has fixed it or I'm just confused. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky removed the link here. That means we can no longer get to the Chinese equivalent of T:TDYK, but the link wouldn't display in the expected place anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No credits for Queue 5

Just a reminder, no credits have been issued for Queue 5 which was moved to the Main Page at 06:42 (UTC) today. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay but with so much else going on I got a bit behind. Here's hoping (praying, begging) that the bot comes back online soon. I've got a full day's worth of queues put together but need somebody else to do the updates for the next day or so. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for all the hard work you've been doing on this Project. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The kind words are appreciated. I've done the update from queue 1 but real life will definitely keep me from doing the next one in a bit over 5 hours. - Dravecky (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Can we not manually update the next go around? It turns out the bot is operating, however for some reason it thinks it should not be doing any edits. I need to see what happens when it really is supposed to edit. I'd appreciate a delay of an hour to any human doing the DYK hooks. (This is Ameliorate's old bot) —— nixeagle 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like a plan. I'll be so glad to see the bot working again. - Dravecky (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot seems to be working as far as I can figure out when I checked the contribs. Please have someone familiar with the DYK template system double check the edits of the bot. It should take queue 3 in 6 hours if all is good, if not please email me as I will likely be away from my computer. However I can trigger the bot from my blackberry. —— nixeagle 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The bot in question is Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot. Please verify the edits on Jan 5 are correct. If for any reason the bot is malfunctioning, please block it and tell me what is wrong. I will not be able to attend to it until tomorrow. —— nixeagle 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only issue is it can't handle the new WP:DYKA format, which I guess is a non-issue. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've manually updated since it was delayed for almost half an hour. Can anyone do the credits, please? Thanks. (It is the queue 3.) --BorgQueen (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again from my blackberry, we might need one more manual update before we can call this a day... Depends if you guys can tolarate an hour delay on the DYK update this one time, something is wrong with the current crontab setup and I am not sure what the issue is and I cannot fix it tonight. If you guys don't mind waiting until 830 EST tomorrow, I would apprciate the chance to debug the bot at that time. If someone manually updates before then, I will have to delay until 200ish UTC to figure things out. —— nixeagle 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it work if we lowered the flipping interval to 1 hour less than what we want? Royalbroil 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, does nixeagle want us to wait another 24 hours before posting the next update? It's already overdue now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nixeagle is offline and I don't understand his message above, I am going to update in an hour from now if there are no objections. If it means we have to do a couple of extra manual updates tomorrow, that is better I think than leaving the update for another 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If at all possible delay manual updates until past 1530 UTC. (If I am reading the update time correctly that should be the correct time for the next update if I am not reading the template update time right tell me). If you have questions post a message on my talk page as well as here as I am replying to this over a blackberry. Thanks —— nixeagle 09:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive box tomfoolery

The archive for this page is up to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 37, but the archive box at the top only shows up to 36. Does anyone know how to mess around with it? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at the relevant template doc. According to this, we can't have a 3-column archive box using the "auto=long" parameter once the number of archives reaches 37. "auto=yes" should keep us going until we reach 100, but the appearance will be different. I might try that... (and good to see you here again; are you mid-holiday?) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't post the next update!

Unfortunately, I posted the last update manually minutes before nixeagle left a message asking me not to. However, he has now asked that nobody manually update the next update as he is going to try and debug the bot after it becomes overdue. He anticipates the next update will be due around 1530 UTC, so please everyone don't manually update that one until he gives us the all clear. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. We now have a full set of queues so when the bot starts working, we'll be good to go. - Dravecky (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the bot *is* working as designed. As such please do not do any more manual updates, the bot will be updating the DYK appropriately. The bot may be delayed as much as 12 minutes, but it will be done within that time frame. (Example, if update is supposed to happen after 100 UTC, the bot will start its run by at least 112UTC). —— nixeagle 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that, if the bot is down, or there are issues that need fixed immediately, please let me know by emailing me, (goes to my blackberry). You can email me by using the email this user diddy. —— nixeagle 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

December DYK hooks

In a variety of posts during my then-pending RfA, Mattisse has claimed that my purpose of receiving 58 DYK awards in one month and "as many as 11 in one day" was to pad my award count to use in my RfA. His 05:26, 30 December 2008 post above is typical:

Further, you have editors, such as User:Suntag, abusing the process to "collect" awards to use in his RFA, where he brags about being 16th on the "most viewed" list. See User:Mattisse/sand for insight into how he collected 58 DYKs in one month, as many as 11 in one day. This is the fox guarding the hen house. If you want to have a little awardee in group, then do not pretend it is for the greater good. It is merely the privilege stomping ground to use as a spring board for RFA.[2]

The reason I posted all those hooks around 8 December 2008 was to bring the Suggestions page hook count up from 70 hooks to the 180 hook amount suggested by Gatoclass. On 6 December 2008, Orlady started a thread DYK supply pipeline slowing down?. I suggested getting more hooks from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult.[3] Gatoclass noted in that thread that the number of hooks had slowed down.[4] In the 7 December 2008 discussion US and people hooks, Gatoclass note that there were "a total of only 72 hooks on the entire Suggestions page right now."[5] I again noted that "we can increase the noms taken from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. I'll try to do this later, but I gotta go."[6] At 04:26, 8 December 2008, Gatoclass notes that "we really should have a minimum of about 180 hooks to select from and a max of about 230, but instead we currently only have 70 hooks."[7] I read that and began to put together hooks from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult in an attempt to make up for the 110 hook deficiency. About 12 hours later, I began adding hooks. As for my 11 hooks in one day, I don't see how that is a big deal, particularly since GeeJo nominated 15 DYK hooks on December 10, 2006.[8] I'm bringing this up now because Mattisse's 04:23, 4 January 2009 post -- "Beat the record and get 59 in one month and 12 in one day!"[9] -- continues to hammer away at DYK as a whole on this point even after my RFA closed on December 30th and in the face of the pending Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3. I don't feel that I did anything wrong in trying to bring the hook count from its alarming quantity of only 70 hooks on the entire Suggestions page up towards the 180 hook amount. There was a significant need for more hooks, I stated what I planned to do in response to that need, and did it. I would appreciate your comments on my actions in this matter. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a longer response at your talk page; I'll just say here that I agree that Suntag's actions were all to the benefit of DYK; that the criticisms raised against him for these nominations were all inappropriate and should have been responded to more quickly; and that as long as there is an atmosphere where people who try to improve the project get rewarded by being accused of "gaming the system," I will not feel comfortable participating in any project-related areas. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen Suntag, you have been nothing but helpful to the encyclopedia. Your motives are of no relevance. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the contributions of Suntag and Politizer and several other folks have kept this vital project going through quite a rough patch. They are to be commended, not condemned, for their interest and their vigilance. - Dravecky (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notice we went from a scant 70 hooks back to an appreciable number very quickly, but I didn't realize until now who was most responsible for that. So I will take the opportunity now to say thankyou for your hard work over that time Suntag. The last thing that should be happening is for you to be getting criticized for it! Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Suntag has been a tireless contributor, and I was very distraught to see the comments being made about him/her both here and on the RFA page. I hope those comments have not discouraged you, Suntag. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I was disappointed to see Suntag getting criticism for his actions at the RfA - he certainly wasn't producing too many submissions for DYK to handle and I see absolutely no evidence of an ulterior motive. If I'd realised you were directly responding to a shortage, Suntag, I would have been more vocal at the RfA. Don't let this discourage you, please! Olaf Davis (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as alternate advice, if you guys run into a slow patch, let me know and we can have the bot update every 8, 10 or 12 hours instead of every 6 hours. That may be a better solution, but it is up to you. :) Increasing the bot update to every 12 hours will result in half the load, increasing it to 8 hours will result in about 75% of your usual load. —— nixeagle 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That idea previously was posted 7 December 2008, where I wrote "There are two ways to fix this. First the bot should be revised to have simple parameters that let the DYK admins specify how often the bot updates. The parameter should be factors of 24, namely, every every 1 hour, every 2 hours, every 3 hours, every 4 hours, 6 hours, every 8 hours, every 12 hours, and every 24 hours. The DYK admins then can change the parameter at will to immediately affect the bot update rate. Also, we can increase the noms taken from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. I'll try to do this later, but I gotta go. So, later gators." I think both solutions were and are viable. Trying to maintain the Main Page update at a 6 hour interval keeps the Main Page content fresh for its readers. User:DYKadminBot/time has been used since 8 December 2008 to adjust the Main Page updates. That page was last edited 26 December 2008, so things may have changed. -- Suntag ☼ 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a variable User:DYKadminBot/time, its in seconds. (so if you want 8 hours you put in the result of 8*60*60 which is 28800). So 1h = 3600, 2h = 7200, 4h = 14400, 6h = 21600, 8h = 28800, and 12h = 43200.

I understand the motive to keep it updated and fresh, but when you guys are running low on submissions or reviewers (say because of the holidays) you guys should not worry about cutting back a bit :). Remember the FA is only put up once every 24 hours. —— nixeagle 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Old DYK bot pages

Hi there. Some of you may or may not know, Nixeagle is recreating the DYKadminBot (talk · contribs) for DYK again, but there are some oddities that need to be clarified. Can anyone clarify what function the redlink in Template talk:DYK#Queues played? It's here for reference. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That link was never active I think. It was only there because the queues were transcluded onto the suggestions page. If you look at the base queue page, for example, here, the link has changed and is working fine. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Manual update help needed

I just updated the main page as the old group had been up for 8-plus hours. As with the last couple times I did a manual update, I need help with credits, updating/clearing queue 1, archiving the last group, resetting the clock, and possibly also protecting the image. Anyone available to help? Cbl62 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the image (which should be done before updating ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I apologize. I really need to take the time to figure out how to protect the image. The update was so far past due, I took a chance. I appreciate your help. Cbl62 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Instructions for protecting the image are in Category:Protected main page images. It's pretty easy: if the image is in Commons, upload it locally and cascading protection takes care of the rest. The credits were done a couple of hours ago, by the way (I started doing them and reverted myself). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've manually completed the credits after it appears that the bot freaked out and left user credits multiple times. Even odder, it did it as an IP user. Another admin has blocked that IP address but this needs attention from somebody who understands the bot. - Dravecky (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing DYK articles that make FA, FL, and GA

Last time I raised this topic, it got buried under a storm of other fighting. So here we go again.

I was interested in creating a list of featured content and good articles that were featured on DYK as part of their history. This list is not meant to change anything about the FAC or GAN processes, it's just intended to be a fun way for people to see what happens to DYK articles after they leave the front page—purely for hedonistic pleasure, not for any policy-affecting things. The list will be populated by making a small edit to the {{ArticleHistory}} template included on most FAs, FLs, and GAs; it will not use a bot and it will not affect how editors use the template.

I am leaving a message here to see what other DYK participants think should be included. The list will certainly include former DYKs that are current featured articles, featured lists, and good articles. Are there other forms of content that you would like to see included (for example:

• featured or good articles that have been delisted but were featured/good in the past
• former FAs that have been demoted to GA
• DYKs that have also been on ITN (if that's even possible)
• any other forms of featured content)?

If there are, let me know, and I will work with Gimmetrow (the main person in charge of maintenance of the ArticleHistory template) to make that possible. Again, I should stress that this will all happen behind the scenes and won't affect how FAC or any other review process works, and most people won't even know anything is different...so if you are here to go bring your friends in and whine about how I'm trying to usurp Wikipedia with my giant sweeping changes, you can go somewhere else. I would appreciate it if responses to this thread could be limited to constructive suggestions. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea. What is Gimmetrow (talk · contribs)'s take on it? You say above this will not use a bot, but wouldn't it use GimmeBot (talk · contribs)? I mean because if it was solely dependent on manual updates to article talk pages, it'd never fully express the accurate statistics because that is simply a ton of info to do manually. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It will use whatever's in the ArticleHistory template. If the template has a date that the article was featured on DYK, and the |currentstatus= parameter is set to FA (for example), the transcluded template will cause the article talkpage to be included in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles. I'll figure out what to do from there (maybe I can whip up something simple to count how many articles are in the category and display that number). Anyway, this way it would just depend on people accurately updating AH when their article gets promoted; it won't be perfect and there will be stuff missing, but I don't see it being used for anything important so I'm not too concerned. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I should clarify: when I say this list will be populated by "making a small edit to {{ArticleHistory}}," I mean that it will be done by making a single edit to the template code, not by editing the talk page of every article. In other words, the person (or bot) promoting the article doesn't need to do anything special; when that person does his/her normal stuff with the template, this will happen automatically, behind the scenes. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that when articles get promoted to FA, GimmeBot (talk · contribs) updates {{ArticleHistory}} with the relevant stuff, so it might be able to do that as well. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. If this works the way I intend, GimmeBot shouldn't have to do anything different; when GimmeBot (or anyone else) updates the template, everything else will happen automatically. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:20, 7 January