Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I suggest an addition to the rules, stating that any nominations that are passed over for newer ones should be provided an explanation of why they were not chosen. If the admin believes the nomination isn't interesting, the admin should request an alternate nomination. A nomination shouldn't be removed from the page without having comments on its most recently suggested fact. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:01

I'd support the idea behind this, as a suggested practice, if it were done collegially and not confrontationally. I think admins, and noms both, would benefit from feedback. Perhaps a place to discuss it for the older ones? ... because noms that are passed over and fall off the bottom are gone and there is no where to hang the comment. I do try to comment when I can. There is a tension here between wanting to include every nom, and trying to pick only the best. Some noms may not get picked, for valid reasons. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create an "Unused" section at the bottom, and place unused ones there. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:35

Ok with me except that part-time admins wd find it too much of instruction creep. No reason needs to be given if it is over 5 days old. --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If it has been on the suggestions page for 5 days and has not received a single reply, then there is something seriously wrong with the process. The nominator should always be given the chance to supply a more interesting nomination, or fix whatever complaint the admin has. Without getting replies, nominators may not even realize that their suggestion isn't going to be used, until it suddenly disappears from the suggestion page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:49

Brian: (4x edit because of fast moving edits by one editor) If they would have fallen off you mean? Then leave them there for a few days? For ones still eligible just annotate in place perhaps, with a "I didn't pick this one because..." ??? that would work fine for me. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Nominations should be given comments well before they are going to pass the 5-day mark. Once they are 5 days old, they could be placed in an Unused section so that nominators can see why their suggestion wasn't used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:52

I'll do my level best going forward to comment on every nom that clearly doesn't already have showstopper comments on it that I pass over. I support the idea of increasing feedback to noms and writers and admins... I do want to be sensitive to GB's concerns that the process gets harder for him if too much is added but I think this is worth trying to do. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that non-admins can do too. Unlikely that an admin is going to not pick something with a reason that isn't obvious to non-admins. Stevage 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave this a whirl for my latest update (which had some problems for other reasons, I missed that a couple of articles were NOT eligible and one was on the front page briefly, caught the problem as I was about to update the talk page...). I commented on every non picked article I felt wasn't obvious already from the bottom to where I stopped evaluating as I had enough articles at that point... I also commented on every non selected picture from the bottom to where I stopped evaluating pictures because I had the picture at that point... It was an interesting and useful exercise. I do not think it added a LOT of time. I'd like to keep trying to do this and see if noms and authors like the extra feedback. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section called "Unused suggestions" where unused suggestions should be moved after 5 days. How often should the section be cleared? after the nominator is fine with the reasons? or 5 days? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:42

So, to be clear, it would be 5 more days after they fall of the bottom then? unused ones before timing out could of course still get fixed, used as is, or whatever. That gives the users plenty of time. I don't think waiting till they agree is workable, they may never agree, or never even come back to see... I'm willing to give that a try as well... why not! ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean wait till they agree, or after 5 days, whichever comes first. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:58

I wonder if this will not create too much work. What about if instead of explaining why an admin has chosen a nomination, make them explain why some nominations were not chosen (and expired and were removed from the page)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't follow you. Isn't that what we have been saying? Admins should leave replies to nominations they passed over, explaining why, ahead of time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:58

I see no need for this section at all, this is a good example of needless instruction creep. Once the 5 days is up, the 5 days is up. Why keep them hanging around for another (up to) 5 days? This is unnecessary and further bloats the page. The rash of commentary on nominations that has sprung up recently is perfectly adequate to inform nominators of what is going on. If we adopt the further commentary on passed over nominations that has been suggested, the whole process will become far too unwieldy with this as well. Ditch this "Unused suggestions" idea now. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's simply to give nominators a chance to see the comments before the suggestions are blanked from the page. I don't see how it is difficult; non-admins can do it as well. As you point out, the large amount of commentary is relatively new, but not all nominations are receiving comments, and might not receive them (as has often been the case) until right before they are blanked from the page. This seems unfair to the people who do the hardest work of all around here: those writing articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:28

It's just unneccessary bloat and, a clear case of instruction creep. The history of the page is always there, and people are always welcome to ask why their nominations were not accepted if they feel the need to do so. I am always happy to respond to queries about suggestions that I have passed over, as I'm sure all other updaters are too. There is no need at all for this section IMO. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem? Rather than delete everything under a date, you just move it down a section. That hardly seems difficult, and anyone can do it. It's unfair for a nominator's submission to be deleted without him getting a chance to reply to the specific reasons (if any) that were given. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:05

It's not difficult, I agree, but it's totally unneccessary and is instruction creep, which you are so utterly opposed to elsewhere on this page - explain?. The "problem" is that it's not needed, the process works well enough without this. Seems to me like this idea is a "solution in need of a problem" :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem, though, as I've seen several nominations be deleted from the page without a reply, or if a reply was given, it was only moments before the nomination was deleted--certainly not enough time for the nominator to have seen the reply, let alone attempt to fix his nomination. Is it really so much harder to move a section down one, than to blank it? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:40

I don't see that as a problem, for the reasons given above. People can reply or query as neccessary. Why do you feel the need to add more process steps for the sake of it, when you say you are against instruction creep? Your position is at best untenable, and at worst, bizarre. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against instruction creep when it's unnecessary. It is necessary in this case, for the reasons I've listed, which you have not specifically addressed. Are you suggesting that a nominator sift through the constantly-changing history of the talk page, looking for the replies he received. If/when he finds them, how does he reply to them? They've been blanked from the page, essentially ceasing any discussion on the matter--very unfair to someone who puts a lot of work into the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:18

I addressd your points above. If somebody is aggrieved at their nomination being passed over, they are very welcome to ask why, and I will be happy to answer, as I'm sure all other updaters will be too. The "new culture" of extensive commenting that has arisen, plus the proposal to comment on why items are passed over is more than enough to give adequate feedback. This new section is therefore unneccessary instruction creep and should be abandoned. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is that there's no guarantee that all nominations will get replies. That's part of why the new section should be added, to keep track of what exactly is not getting used, and why (if any reason is even provided). Everyone should have the opportunity to see what is/isn't being used, and comment/complain about it. Blanking sections is just counterproductive. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:28

Well, I disagree. DYK is a rapid turnaround process, with as little as 6 hours between updates. This is not FA or FP where there is, quite correctly, a long deliberation and debate over the merits of each proposal, it's a showcase for new articles, works in progress. Hopefully that exposure will lead to interest by others and improvement of the articles. In that context, having the nominations on the page for 5 days is perfectly adequate. To add another 5 days is just creating process unrelated to the nature of DYK just for the sake of it. DYK has worked perfectly well without this extensive commentary (and now your proposal for another 5 days in another needless "holding pen") for as long as I have been observing it. I have no problem with additional commentary on nominations, provided it is constructive, but I see absolutely no need for this further instruction creep. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that Lar proposed we extend nominations for 5 days, by way of this Unused section, to allow them entry into the template if they are fixed within those 10 days. Also, please note that DYK is open to change, just as any other page on the site is. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:01

de-indentimg Nope, if I got Lar correctly, he's saying that these should remain for a further period of 5 days once they become ineligible, so that nominators and article creators who may not be daily-regulars on WP can still get to know the fate of their noms even if they log in once in ten days, without going to history. --Gurubrahma 14:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. That is my interpretation of what Brian was proposing as I understood it. Note that I personally do not think this is necessary, that it adds extra work and confusion for little additional benefit, but I am willing to go along with consensus, because I am pretty flexible about that and don't see the need to tendentiously resist consensus once a fair number of people speak out. At the time I spoke I thought consensus was that it was worth trying. Now, I'm not so sure though. In any case it DEFINITELY is not an extension from 5 days to 10 days of eligibility for nominations. I would oppose that. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't for an extension to 10 days, but was willing to hear arguments for it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:58

Note: I've been doing this a while now and it adds significantly to the time the update takes me. Further I've had at least one user take affront at my comment as to why his nom wasn't selected, although it wasn't the most comprehensive comment, I could have done better. On the other hand it does seem to get the hooks improved and so forth in some cases... So I'm thinking this is mixed, at best. I find I haven't been commenting on any noms above where I stop at all! And if the update lags, the ones I am taking and not taking are about to fall off the 5 day ledge because the update frequency has been low.

On balance I'd cut it as extra work and instead encourage people to take a few min here and there to look and comment on noms.++Lar: t/c 15:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

...that the Dutch language was first recorded in the 6th century AD and therefore is over 1400 years old?

Just curious, but how did this get on DYK? I thought it was only for new pages, and the Dutch language certainly isn't a new page, nor are either of the other two links. SnowFire 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a diff? I was not able to find it as a selected article in the T:DYK history, but I may have missed it. I agree it doesn't at first glance appear eligible. It's usually good to raise this at nom time if you catch it. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw it on the "Recent Additions" archive, and mystery solved. Seems it was just added by a random user User:Rex Germanus (who, incidentally, is getting 3RVV warnings for the Dutch page on his talk page). Here's the diff. Seems like the latest admin update cleared it, but it was right at the top before and very visible. SnowFire 17:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I don't think that actually REALLY made the front page but i could be wrong. As GB says, maybe we need to sprotect if we're getting a lot of spurious adds? Or more of us need to watch it... I confess I did not have it on my watchlist till just now. Thanks for clarifying! ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the template history either, so I removed it when moving the items to Archive 71. Sprotection wouldn't work because most of these spurious additions seem to be added by registered users who would still qualify to edit. Full protection in line with the template would fix the problem, but is OTT in my view. I think we have enough poeple to watch it now, and that the few rogue additions can be easily reverted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate reason for a non-admin to want to change that page, though? Even if it's easy to fix, there doesn't seem to be much actual use from allowing users to edit it. SnowFire 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If an admin messes up the formatting on one of the entries, a non-admin can fix it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 21:18

Above, Piotr asks if there is a list of who updates or a process for becoming an admin that updates DYK. This is my view only, but there is no list, and no process to "become one". Just jump in. If you're an admin and you're interested, read up on the update process and the suggestions, guidelines and so forth... then maybe use history on the template and the template talk to see what edits are made in what order, and then just do it! Other admins will be happy to help you out or offer suggestions. I was in IRC the first time I did it but ended up not really needing to ask anyone anything, it went smoothly... That's how I started, it's no big deal per se. Anyone else have a comment? Hope that helps! Another pair of hands would always be welcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... we really could use some more DYK updaters right about now. I've done the last few but have only been able to do about 1 per day or so due to other factors and I am about to go much less active till about 10 July. So if you've ever wanted to try your hand at this, or if you've done it before and could do it again, please do. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go this evening. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the unused suggestions header left at level 3, same as the dates, that way if you edit the entire suggestions section, you can make a day unused by just moving the unused section up a day instead of having to either edit the entire page (risky) or by cutting and pasting in two separate edits (also risky). I have changed it to level 3, explaining why in the edit comments, several times, but someone keeps changing it back. Please discuss, thanks. If there is an issue with doing this I'd like to know what it is. If several people were doing updates and no one else liked it, that would be one thing but I've done the last few all by myself. (after today I will not be able to do updates, or less anyway, for about 5 days as I am going to a convention.) ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The timing of DYK on the 4th an update occured around 2330 then by 1200 it had been changed. Gnangarra 05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

on the 2nd update was at 2322

on the 3rd update at 1637

on the 4th update at 2318

on the 5th update at 1142

16hrs seems a fair DYK for front page as most editors get to see their DYK noms but 12 hours doesnt give the opportunity for editors to see their DYK Gnangarra 05:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous frequency was because only I was doing it. The guideline is 6 hours or more. I had been doing all the updates for a while and although I wanted to do more, could not get 2 updates a day out. So suggestions were piling up and in danger of going stale (Going stale and never getting chosen, I think is worse than a suggestion getting a shorter presentation than the one before it). I'm glad someone was able to step in and do an update, (Thanks Brian0918!!!!) and hope in fact that the pace picks up as there are a LOT of good suggestions now... but I'm on wikibreak till about 10 July so rely on others for a bit. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info, if I can help just ask Gnangarra 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating the template requires admin status, but you can still help by suggesting new entries or checking on existing ones (making sure they meet the requirements, suggesting better hooks, etc). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't make my mind up from what the DYK rules state so could someone clarify this for me. Suppose I work on an article in my userspace for some time and then move the article into the main namespace when I have finished. Is that article eligible for DYK as it is a newly-created article or not? The article could well have a substantial edit history dating back more than the 5 day cutoff of DYK. I think it should be allowed, if it wasn't it would encourage editors who make articles in their userspace to copy/paste, which I think should be discouraged.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I consider it allowed, and I measure the start time from when the move happened, not the first edit. I admit bias because this is typically how I develop new articles, it gives time for them to get done nicely before I go "live" with them. An article is new because it's newly visible. We should not encourage either copy pasting OR rushed work, there is no rush here, we have time to get good articles. The downside potential is that while you are privately working on an article, someone else may do one with the same title, but in that case you should just merge your stuff with theirs and be happy... (remember we do not own articles!) the article became visible earlier than if you had been working alone. All of the above is my opinion only. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I thought that was probably the case, but best to make sure...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings folks, got a bit of a technicality question.

On Talk:Battle_of_Khaybar there is displayed an infobox that explains that an entry from Battle of Khaybar appeared in the Did you know? column on 8th May, 2006. Technically speaking the information in this infobox is correct at 22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th (a total of nearly 6 hours) a DYK question relative to the Battle of Khaybar article was displayed. The problem is that this display was done in error. My question is this, despite the DYK question having been displayed in error (out of process) should the Talk:Battle_of_Khaybar display the infobox as though the DYK was legitimate? Myself and another editor have been trying to remove the infobox in accord with such logic but some other editors insist that it be displayed. Please see this related discussion. What should be done? Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(copied from Mgm)

I see you've been working on this (and I cribbed what you did for Template:UpdatedDYKNom) per [1] I think it may have broken all the older usages, if you check what links here and follow a random link you'll see some messes. Let's discuss on WPT:DYK ok? something needs to be done I think. My suggestion would be that if the parms are not present, the whole date is omitted completely (and the template assumes parm 1 is the article name instead of parm 3). This kind of logic is doable with #ifexists and #switch, I know how... but I would prefer to discuss first. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated it to be similar to UpdatedDYKNom, because I often informed users some days after the article actually featured and altering the dates was a lot of work. If you want to renumber so the article is the first parameter, I've got no problems with that. If older articles are broken by the update, they should be subst: with the correct information. This is a subst: type of template. I couldn't find any examples of the template messing up. Can you point to a specific one? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do a what links here... first one I checked had the problem. I agree it's an improvement but I think changing the order to have the art first would fix things a lot. I may make time to try to make that chnage (if you don't beat me to it) for both of them. Let's stay threaded here ok? ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll keep it all on my talk page and just leave short notes to inform you unless you check your watchlist regularly. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• We should try to fix those transclusions by using subst and the correct dates, and only consider altering the order of the parameters afterwards. P.S. Don't forget to change the instructions at template talk DYK if the order is changed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'll create a separate dateless template to replace the old transclusions with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this to WPT:DYK, I know CactusMan had some concerns too. I think maybe we should get all the regulars in on a redesign. I think with careful crafting, one template that takes either 1 or 3 parms can be built so we don't have to fix the old ones, and we can accomodate both versions, and that works under subst as well as transclusion. I've done this sort of coding before in other templates. The key question is whether if there is only one parm given it should default to no date at all, or default to the current date, for the other two. If you agree with taking this to WPT:DYK, go ahead, or I will refactor it, as you like. Thanks for your help on this by the way! Your efforts are appreciated. (I do check my watchlist pretty regularly, but with 1800 items, sometimes I misse stuff... feel free to ping if you think I am not responding because I missed it)++Lar: t/c 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm already almost done with fixing the old transclusions. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well cool! you rock! I still think we should maybe get a good unified design for the final answer though, thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Right now UpdatedDYK and UpdatedDYKNom do have a unified design, but feel free to suggest improvements to the templates on WPT:DYK. I would add an error message when the template is transcluded instead of subst:'ed as {{afd}} has. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just flipping the parm order I think is all that's needed now, and the design questions I asked above about defaults. Ilike the idea of warning if not subst'd.. Let's move the whole thread over there? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, copy it over if you want. Include a warning if stuff is not subst:'ed. And if it's possible. Make sure the template is altered if the user doesn't provide a date. I don't know a lot on qif an similar stuff, so you'd have to lend a hand there. Is there a page that shows how non-included data can be left out of the template? I know there's a code for it, but I don't know how it works. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good work guys. My preference would be to default to inserting CURRENTMONTHNAME and CURRENTDAY for the date if only the article name parameter is supplied. That way it would still function like the old version for immediate notifications, but still have the 3 parameter facility for later notifications. Is this possible, I'm no template guru? --Cactus.man ✍ 08:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure it is possible. I have to test it under the various subst permutations though, the templates I've done the most surgery on don't get subst'd. I plan to work on this when I have some time... I am pretty busy with a client in late stage production support that has issues but soon, soon, unless MgM or someone else beats me to it. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Still on my list to fix this, just haven't gotten a chance yet. early experiments with substitution warning caused some weird results. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)