Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

I've noticed a string of DYKs have been done that don't notify the creator. I honestly think it will discourage some of the people going out of their way to create interesting articles. While this is a website relying on altruism and the user talk page notifications are fairly meaningless --they are meaningful to the people who take the time to write these things. Anyway, just some food for thought, nothing more. --Bobak 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Second.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at this is how much notification is appropriate? Currently the information at Template talk:Did you know#Instructions to admins mentions three types of notifications: article talk page, author talk page, and nominator talk page. If the author and nominator have the article wachlisted, a very likely possibility considering the interest displayed through having written and nominated the article, then placing notification at all three places represents a triple redundancy.

Given DYK's historic difficulty in finding and retaining administrators willing to perform regular updates (a process that with practice can take 20-30 minutes to perform), is it a good use of resources to add another 10 to 15 minutes of tedious cut-and-paste effort to provide this triple redundant notification with each update? Conversely, would DYK be better served by reducing the level of bureaucracy in an effort to attract more administrators willing to perform the updates that will allow more articles to reach the Main Page? I do not believe that anyone will argue that notification is a bad thing, but at what point does the benefits provided by notification no longer justify the extra effort required to perform the notification? --Allen3 ^talk 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have popups enabled, you can go straight to the talk page pretty quick, so it would only take about another 5 for the authors, but in any case, I feel that more people should put there hand up to help update, as it appears that very few admins are interested in sharing intformation, which is surely the point of the encyclopedia,...even though the majority view may be otherwise. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you replying to me Piotrus? I still hope that I am practising handing out the notices to the people who create the articles, ans I feel it is a well desreved pat on the back. At least when I write my articles for DYK, I like collecting them too! It's also convenient to express my appreciation for the articles, which I read, at least in part. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, the nomination that goes in the template first attracts considerably more attention than others, probably because it is illustrated. Is there any guideline which article should take the first place in the template, when free images are available for several nominations? To pick up the current template, why Sigrid Hjertén is preferrable to Siege of Constantinople (860)? If there is no guideline on this point, perhaps we should have one. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of any written guidelines, but in the updates I perform several different things are considered including how well an image depicts its associated article, what type of images have recently been chosen for DYK, and the other images currently on display or scheduled to appear before the next anticipated update of DYK. An recent example of these considerations is Image:Magoon.jpg, which was deferred for a day to allow two other black-and-white left-profile images of white men to rotate off the Main page before it was selected. As to your concerns about the selection of the current image, Image:Hjerten.jpg is a self-portrait of Sigrid Hjertén while Image:Roerich gosti.gif, the image suggested to accompany Siege of Constantinople (860), is a painting of long boats that is more loosely associated with its topic and is not even included in the article it is supposed to represent. The selection was thus made on the basis of which image best depicted its subject. The siege article was not deferred as there are a plethora of other articles available with images, its subject helped provide diversity to the selected set of articles, at at 4 days of age it was nearing the end of its eligibility period. --Allen3 ^talk 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I try and put the best quality article (length, info, and refs) which is also pictured relevantly at the top of the page, to showcase the best work, which is why Piotrus, Ghirla, Halibutt, etc, tend to get pictured the most as there articles are regularly 10kb+ and have sometimes even multiple photos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I still think that we need some guideline on the blurb which comes first. While there is a lot of superior nominations about to be expired, today the first line in the template is occupied by Västgötalagen, an unreferenced stubby stub (and even marked as such) about "a text describing medieval provincial laws" which is supposed to be "the oldest example of Early Swedish literature to survive in its entirety". I was not aware that a legal code qualifies as "literature"... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, it was rather short wasn't it. I think I would not have selected it. Anyway, it is gone now.

I think we need some more admins to do updating. It is much quicker without having to faff with the user talk templates, but I have already had queries/complaints on my talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the two articles Västgötalagen and Sigrid Hjertén have very little in common... --Camptown 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As Ghirla has clearly been giving this issue a great deal of thought, it might be useful for him to provide a straw man proposal for the type of guidelines he is proposing. Such guidelines, if designed to meet the needs of the entire community, could be beneficial. An example of this benefit is letting people know that there is apparently an implicit requirement that all links in an update be evaluated instead of just the nominated articles (the ones that are bolded). --Allen3 ^talk 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good point and my error - the selected DYK was:

• ...that the Västgötalagen, a text describing medieval provincial laws, is the oldest example of Early Swedish literature to survive in its entirety?

so Early Swedish literature was the article in the spotlight. No, there was no need to review Västgötalagen, and Early Swedish literature was fine. I withdraw my previous comment unreservedly. But we still need more admins to do updating. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet, the article Early Swedish literature was a cut-and-paste from the old Swedish literature article. However, nobody seems to have discoverd that before it was too late... Camptown 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Prigat item read:

...that in 1943, Prigat, a small and newly created juice manufacturer at the time, sold 775,000 syrup bottles to the British Army in the Palestine Mandate?

Considering that the state of Israel (where the current link goes) didn't exist in 1993. --Jfruh (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it never written what does the image represent?! --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is always illustrating the topmost entry, and ideally "(pictured)" should have been added right after the relevant link when DYK is updated. The alt text for the image occasionally gives slightly more detail. I'm not sure that much more can be done in the limited space that the template occupies. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My shot at a DYK from the article on The Joint Expedition Against Franklin. This is my first shot at this, so i am open for suggestions on how I can improve! Thanks.

...That The Joint Expedition Against Franklin was a small Civil War battle that occured on the Blackwater river near Franklin, Virginia in which 7 United States sailors were awarded Congressional Medals of Honor.

Chris Kreider 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

oops, wrong place. I will move this to the right place. Chris Kreider 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have been through this before, but I still feel that it is required to flag this off, given that we are woefully short of updating admins. I'd prefer reguar updation of DYK to notification - ppl may feel that it is an inconvenience if they are not notified but would be devastated if their nom doesn't make it to DYK. I believe that updating article talkpage alone should be enough as long as we can promise better turnaround and more frequent updation of DYK. If people still feel that the article creator and the nominator (groan!) need to be notified, may be some non-admins can take up that work to help the updating admins. The minimum mandatory requirement for an updating nominator should be updating the article talkpage and nothing more. It is very beneficial for someone like me who works from a slow internet connection but would like to extend a helping hand. I believe we can also attract more admins to update in that simpler scenario. Please see the burnout rate among updating admins and think about it. Another idea I have, is to create an admin pool for updating DYK - with name of admin, the times he can update and the days he can update. If we have three admins covering each slot, we will definitely have regular turnaround of DYK. If we find that some slots are not taken, we can go to WP:AN and make an appeal for those slots - specific requests and a simpler process generate a better response any day. Else, we will keep discussing the same issues till eternity. FWIW, the discussion topics were the same from at least March 2006, when I started becoming inactive here. --Gurubrahma 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the stamp-collecting part of DYK is a great incentive to contribute. I think a better way would be to conscript some aspiring admin to do an apprenticeship by doing the "clerking" like for RFCU and RFARB. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be possible for some kind of bot to do this? It seems that as long as you know the contributor, article name and date the actual task is quite mechanical. --Cherry blossom tree 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It could do and theoretically could be easy. I wouldn't use the bot myself, except for the article talk page. Sometimes I like to have a personal word with the author of the page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why five edits on the authors' talk pages are so exceedingly difficult to make. If they really are so time-consuming, a notification bot would be in order. I don't know how it would tackle the expanded articles, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not exceedingly difficult, but it is time-consuming. I find it takes about 30 minutes to update DYK (review the suggestions page, check the edit history of likely candidates to make sure that they are new enough, review the articles to check that they are long enough and have references etc, check that one has a suitable image, check whether the image needs to be uploaded from commons, protect the image and add a protection template, review the nomination text and tweak where necessary, save and check the new entries look OK on the Main Page, update the suggestions page, add the (same) template to five or six talk page). Perhaps I need more practice to become more efficient (or perhaps there are corners that I could cut) but that is quite long enough to spend doing a relatively mundane administrative task! Adding templates to the user talk pages of the selected article's creators and nominators adds another 5 to 10 minutes to an already lengthy process. Part of the problem is that user talk template is different (you have to match creators/nominators with their articles). Yes, I agree it is nice to get that the warm glow when you see a DYK message on your talk page (and I often miss seeing my actual nominations on the Main Page because they are up and then removed while I am away from Wikipedia) but I can like without it. It would be easier if there was a generic "you have an article on DYK" template, without specifying the article, or perhaps we would reactivate the "holding area" so someone other than the updating admin can do the notifications? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was a fairly frequent updater, but haven't in quite a while. I created some javascript automation that makes placing the templates easier for me (it may not be easy for others... but if you want, look in User:Lar/DYK/monobook.js and my main monobook, you're welcome to it). I still liked leaving a personal note though. I haven't updated in a while because I find it hard to get 30 uninteruppted minutes to do it, which is what it seems to take, what with everything. We have some time and motion data available, from earlier discussions. I was a strong opposer of not adding the templates but now... I guess I no longer have standing to comment since I haven't updated since forever. A bot would be a good thing, I guess... ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can a non-admin assist? - Sorry if I'm late, but I just found this discussion. Some of my earliest and most positive experiences with wikipedia involved my DYK contributions; the "stamp collecting" aspect of those cute little banners certainly played a role. If it's possible for a non-admin to help by doing some grunt work, I'd jump at the chance to "apprentice" in the DYK section. I have an embarrassing amount of free time right now, and I certainly wouldn't mind handling some of the more tedious details if I could help. If there is something I can do just let me know :) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be to work one update in advance, leaving the next template-batch on a subpage for any admin who happens along after the update-time. This'd have a few benefits:

1. Since the entries would already be checked and the picture protected, all the next guy would have to do is to copy/paste it to the template and add the notices.
2. The next template can be worked up at any time during the next six hours, and any errors removed before they hit the Main Page.
3. The template could perhaps be left unprotected since it's not on the Main Page, so non-admins could have a go at it (not sure about this idea, since it'd mean the updating admin would still have to check all the entries before pasting them in)
4. An alternate Main Page could be made substituting in the subpage for DYK, making it easier to match up the lengths of the two sides.

Any opinions? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey that idea has a lot of merit. It seems worthy of an experiment Someone maybe could mock up what it might look like? ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea too. A few thoughts: We'd have to be careful about preparing a template before midnight UTC and using it after, since if the featured article and on this day lengths change then we'd throw the balance off. I think unprotecting the template would be good, since it would give us a bigger pool of labour to work from. I think in most cases whoever puts it on the main page would just have to check the history to see that whichever users updated it were trustworthy (and ensure that the image is protected) rather than examining each article individually. It would also allow someone to do part of an update, leaving it for others to complete if they didn't have time. --Cherry blossom tree 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've knocked up a trial page at Template:Did you know/Next update. to view it in the context of today's Main Page, go to Main Page alternative (Next DYK). To view it in tomorrow's, go to Main Page alternative (Tomorrow & Next DYK). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with some time go through the DYK's archive articles and sort it by date and break it off from the rest of the DYK's featured daily and group it by a monthly basis and include the picture that was also featured with the DYK article. For an example of what it should look like reference the other main page's archives, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/November_2006

I think it would vastly improve the aesthetics and feel of the DYK archive and lead to better usage. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.125.176 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 November 2006

That is a good idea, but it would be quite a large amount of work (you could also haved point to WP:TFA and its subpages, which I think was set up that way before the POTD archive).

The main problem here, I think, is that DYK is set up with daily subpages like TFA and POTD so it can be changed every day (which makes it easy to point to the relevant daily sub-page) but rather is updated several times each day, on an ad hoc basis. Quite a lot of investigative work would be required to go through the archives and work out which articles were nominated when, not to mention editing all of the archives and setting up new pages by date. The traditional response to somone asking for lots of work to be done by other people would be {{sofixit}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How did Revolution make it into DYK when the article is over five years old as a stub and almost four years old as a non-stub? —Angr 07:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Topher0128 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spirited argument by User:Piotrus, I guess. I wasn't updating the template over the weekend when this appeared (busy doing academic work), and given its iffy nature and the fact that we're doing fairly well for nominations at the moment, I probably would have passed it over, at least until it had garnered some more discussion. No harm done though, so long as this isn't called back as precedent at some point in the future. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out on T:TDYK we will never fool our readers into believing that revolution is a new article in English Wikipedia. Besides, the expansion was not very substantial and the article still lacks a lot. I don't think we should add common terms to DYK, even if their coverage was expanded. For instance, I would not like to see gate on WP:DYK, because the article has been clearly there for ages. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All right - I'd like to try and exercise my brand-new admin powers by having a try at updating DYK from the prepared template. However, the local image used in the new update - Image:HinduSwastika.svg - behaves strangely: it can be viewed, but trying to edit it (to add the {{c-uploaded}} tag) comes up with an empty page. Any ideas? Sandstein 05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, of course, it's because no one has uploaded the file on Wikipedia yet. Sorry, it's early in the morning here... Sandstein 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've completed the update - please excuse any mess I may have made of things. One problem, though: I can't find the templates to be used for notifying contributors or for marking the discussion pages. Can anybody please add them to the guide to updating DYK - and help me out with actually adding them, since I've got to leave for work now anyway? Thanks! Sandstein 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. Hopefully I'm not stealing your thunder, but I've found and added one of the templates you're after. The one for the article's talk page is {{DYKtalk}}. The one for the creators/nominators I can't find, but I've just copied the relevant code from one of the notifications I've had before - inexact, but at least it gets the job done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out here! Sandstein 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just a quick heads-up, which is that if any of the articles were nominated by people who didn't write them, I didn't do anything about that. The authors have notifications and the articles have boxes, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, the talk page notices are at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen them somewhere. Always in the last place you look and all that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

15.1.1949 - Lt. Gen. K.M. Cariappa becomes India’s first Chief of Army Staff and Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army. Indian Press and Information bureau says that KM Cariappa was the first Chief of Army Staff while Rajendra Singh is credited the same status on DYK ..Which one is true? MerryJ-Ho 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"General Maharaj Kumar Shri Rajendrasinhji assumed charge of the Indian Army, as the 2nd Chief of Army Staff, on 14 January 1953." - Who nominated this false DYK??? MerryJ-Ho

A quick check of the page history of Suggestions shows it was a self-nom by User:ImpuMozhi. As to the hook, it appears that it was false, and that Cariappa was the first. Unfortunate that this hadn't been picked up, but it's not always possible to do so. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it considered an conflic of interest, if updating the dyk next update and you add an article you suggested? I am inclined to skip over my own article as I would rather not even give the impression that I am doing it just so my article gets shown? Anybody have any suggestions on the proper procedure for this? - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that when Lar was actively updating DYK, he would generally rely on another admin to review his own nominations. Even if your evaluation of your own work is honest and accurate, there would indeed be a strong perception of COI (I know this came up over the summer, and some accusations were exchanged, but I can't provide a diff). However, if you are concerned that your piece might get overlooked, it shouldn't be objectionable to ask another admin to review it (in a neutral fashion of course, not "Hi, would you please add my nom to the update?"). Doc Tropics 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - I am not an admin, I am just trying this whole next update thing. Preparing it in advance. I will however, err on the side of caution and not include my own contribution, and leave it up to somebody else to make that decision. Thanks for the feedback. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would tend not to pick my own nomination. Do you have any particular update or updater in mind? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that is what I was leaning towards. The reason I ask, is I have just recently started getting more interested in DYK, I have a nominations Cessna 165, and was working on the next update. I just skipped over it and worked up the list because I really dont want it looking like i am in it just for my own articles. If that makes sense., Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm very guilty of doing this recently, though I do have the somewhat plausible excuses that for most of November my nominations have made up a huge proportion of the non-stub suggestions (Since November 20, I've written the nomination for and submitted 55 articles that have hit the Main Page, an average of about 5 per day), that none of my nominations are of articles I've created, and that I've been making sure the template is updated every 6-8 hours, to the point of staying up to update and doing so again before leaving the house in the morning, which has meant that not a single article without an attached complaint has expired recently. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed again at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 3 recently. The candidate had shown strong dissent in the past when Cactus.man and Samuel_Blanning vetoed his noms, so I asked him to reaffirm his commitment to our gentlemane's agreement. When he started arguing a bit, people got upset. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no don't put your own noms on. Not cool. I'd pull out the diffs but we discussed this ad nauseum in the summer -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When the choices look like this, am I better off just not updating the template for a week or so? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I did a GeeJo clean-sweep update once. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we limit it to not putting articles that you authored on the template? -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Next Update trial's been running for a few days now, and I figure it's about time to start finding out what peoples' opinions are. Its original aims were to:

1. Cut down the time required for an admin to update the main template
2. Avoid any major errors hitting the Main Page, by having a wider pool of people check over a set
3. Get more people involved in DYK

How do you feel it's working with regards to these aims? (I'll post my own opinion in a little while) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1.)I am not an admin, but I am going to assume that it is alot easier for an admin to post a well prepared dyk. 2.) I think with more people involved, there is a better chance of catching the errors. After while, you start looking at hooks as, "How can I make this fit nicley" If you arent setting it up, just viewing it, or getting ready to publish it, I assume it might be easer to have the errors, "Jump out". 3.) Get more people involved with dyk. It got me involved, and Now, I try to tell everybody I know to get involved when they are creating new articles. It at least got me, do not know how many other people it got though. Overall, from my opinion, as a non administrator who has just taken a recent interest in DYK, I strong approve. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: I've not been involved in DYK for a bit, but part of the fun of updating DYK was choosing which articles to place on the main page. Are you supposed to place these suggestions on the main page then add ones you like for the next update? -- Samir धर्म 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can if you wish, the idea was that you weren't forced to. If you only had time to change round the template, you could do just that and leave the work of selecting nominations for others. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Looks like a good idea to me then -- Samir धर्म 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by the current trial. Does this allow the nominators to insert their own nominations into the template themselves? That seems slightly problematic. If not, probably a good idea. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It allows non-admins to get involved as well. I would rather people not assume that you can put your own noms onto the template - having said that, if someone else then does the update, then there isn't too much of a problem. But I would prefer that people not put their own onto the staging area, as it then puts another in the position of having to remove it (if necessary) - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could this be stated explicitly, especially if this becomes the actual process, rather than just a trial? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to have a debate about that as well? (see the archives) ....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's rather bad form to put your own noms on the template -- Samir धर्म 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Baka put his own on the waiting list. And there's still space on today's version. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw Geejo do it before, so here starts the finger-pointing game. Anyways, perhaps we should discourage it. I will say however that when I update, I am more stringent in "grading" DYK's than most other users (judging by the number of stub-like articles that seem to appear nowadays). If your own nom is about to expire, that may not be a bad idea to put it on "next update".Bakaman 03:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK…? needs a rethink. It's irritated me since I started reading it. Such a section should include facts that are in some way surprising or thought-provoking, not just obscure. The way it is now, the only thought likely to be provoked is: "Why should I care?" For example (using facts that happen to come to mind right now): "Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [present style; Dull] "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] "Did you know that after the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus was killed at the battle of … in 811CE, his skull was made into a drinking vessel by the Bulgar khan Krum?" [Much better] Patrick Neylan 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. The hooks that are suggested by nominators aren't set in stone by any means - they can be changed if they're wrong, but also if someone else can think of a better fact stemming from the same article (I recently suggested that a particular Congolese accused war criminal was more interesting as a psychology student-turned-general rather than as an accused war criminal, for example). Obviously not every single hook will be policed in this way, but surely the simple solution is to have a look at the suggested facts and see if there isn't a better hook that can be fashioned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has probably been suggested before, but perhaps the new article requirement should be eliminated and replaced with DYK required from each top portal field of interest (arts, sciences, humanities/social sciences, people, miscellaneous, or whatever) that is not from a FA or GA. The usefulness of DYK is lessened when snippets come from arbitrary topics which may never be expanded and leave older (yet not fully developed) topics of high interest to be left in lower visibility.

In essence, readers would be greeted with facts from every field and lead to articles that are already a bit developed, but just need a little bit of advertisement to make them great articles. falsedef 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, such a change would so drastically change the scope of DYK that it wouldn't really be the same section. What you're proposing seems to be more of a Collaboration of the week, turned over on a six-hourly basis. Most changes made to DYK items are basic copyedit – something most new articles are very much in need of and easy enough for anyone to do even as a first contribution to the project. Given that this isn't really the type of editing needed by most established entries, I'm just not sure that articles under this proposed scheme would get the right kind of editors to improve them in such a short space of time. Projects like this are better suited to a longer time-scale, which is afforded by the various collaboration and peer-review systems already in place. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the next update, and i regularly use the alternative main page. It usually is pretty good at updating. I cant get it to take the changes I made to the next update template. Not sure if it is a problem with my browser cache. (I did shit+ f5) or if anybody has reccomendations on how to force it to take the updated next update template! It would be much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the wikilink with a purge-command URL. Let me know if you still have problems. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This line:

...that John Singleton Copley's painting, Watson and the Shark (pictured), was based on a real-life shark attack that occured in Havana, Cuba in 1749?

needs a comma after "Cuba". Thanks. --Pharillon 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The linked text "newest articles" in the intro "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" should lead, logically, to a list of the newest articles, presumably the New Pages page, rather than to the DYK archive. This is confusing, since the archive page doesn't list new articles, only DYK blurbs about a subset of new articles. To take the reader there, there's already an Archive link at the bottom of the DYK section. --Largo Plazo 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back on the Main Page talk page. It was decided that Special:Newpages wasn't really very reader-friendly, and that Recent Additions was more useful to them. I'm not really arguing for or against the change, just explaining why it is how it is. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If the link was deemed unfriendly, then pointing it somewhere other than where its text indicates it will lead isn't a helpful solution. Constructive solutions would be:

1. to make the original destination page friendlier;
2. to create a new page that contains what the link says it contains and that is in addition friendly, and change the link to point there;
3. to change the text of the link to something that describes where the link actually leads;
4. to unlink the text; or
5. to remove it altogether.

Since the actual link is a duplicate of the Archive link below, it's redundant. Since it's useful to prefix the DYK list with "From Wikipedia's newest articles", since that phrase accurate introduces the DYK list, I think that, failing the first two options above, the best solution is to unlink "newest articles". --Largo Plazo 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)