Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive

Rules discussion

Hmm.., shall we get started with the discussion? ס ^Talk 09:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:O Edit conflict!

Yes, we need to discuss. The main things I see that need to be discussed are:

1. What is suitable for DYK?
2. The lower and upper limits (non-stub and non-vga was originally agreed)
3. What is "boring" - is it subjective? Or are all hooks allowed, no matter how boring?

Please discuss!

Thanks,

BG^7even 09:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be allowed. Wikipedia is not censored. This project is not only aimed at children. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Echo kennedy, the Simple English Wikipedia is not censored. I think with DYK, as with all good things, we just have to use common sense. Articles that are stubs I don't think should be included, and featured, aka VGA's, shouldn't be, either. What is "boring" is very subjective. What I find interesting may bore someone else's socks off. ס ^Talk 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts also. To take each point seperately, I think that any article is suitable for DYK. We are not censored. The Internet is not censored. However I think the hooks should be phrased so that it's not "in your facey" - therefore to find out more you do actually have to click on it, if you get what we're saying. At the moment the most such as hook will be on for is only about a day, so it really won't kill the encyclopedia - which, conincidentally, is what we are building, not a censored site for children (fine, that argument came up in the closure discussion and it is true to an extent - but they are probably going to just use the search bar and not scroll down the the DYK section - and of course these pages can be just as easily found by clicking "Show any page".
• Number two - I think the limits should be as above - but what is a "stub"? Something with a {{stub}} tag, or a certain word limit? And finally, Number Three: I think any hook in an article that is referenced is allowed. I find trams and trains very interesting, but who else on this wiki does? I find Christianity boring for example, but I would not deny it a DYK because of that.
• Thanks, BG^7even 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My nomination after the g-spot one, "... that the English word semen comes from the Latin word sēmen (meaning seed)?" meets all requirements. It is interesting, informative and perfect for any child wishing to learn something which causes creation of everything living. The fact that it is even being discussed for appearing "too sexual" is ridiculous. If semen lead to an article saying "IT CUMS OUT TEH PENIS" then a discussion would be appropriate. However, it leads to something informative and vital to any child remotely interested in biology. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I however don't agree with Gwib, as you probably know. I don't think it it vital to anyone interessted on SEW. I think have them on wikipedia, but not on the main page. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yotcmdr: What are your reasons for not having them on the main page? I wouldn't have it as a VGA personally, but I don't see a problem with DYK where it is only ever on the page for at most a couple of days, and once we get more active probably less than a day. If there aren't more comments soon it's going to pretty much close back to how it was, and if people moan, then tough - they had their chance to speak out! BG^7even 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below under #Censorship --Matilda (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

BG7:My reasons are the same as Matilda. I've kept saying it, I don't think it is suitable for children (and Matilda pointed out that article related to children are right up there) and I don't think adults learning english will be interessted to know a word comes from latin (if they are, they can look up Latin wikipedia) and I don't think they'll be looking up articles related to sexuality to learn english (unless they're real perverts). To finish, I agree with what Maltilda wrote below, except the uninteressting hooks (rabbits, etc...). I think it depends on each person's interests, and some people (again children for example, may not know this, they might think they just live In the UK, or US depending where they live. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stubs and short articles

• I think we should have a shared understanding of what a stub is for the purposes of not being included in DYK. I don't think that merely because an article is (still) tagged as a stub, it is a stub for the purposes of DYK. I think however that and article that is less than 5 sentences long or less than say 800 characters (main text not picture captions nor references) is probably too short. Cape Town was too short (314 characters), Irn-Bru was not too short (997 characters). --Matilda (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree here. Imho I don't think there's been much about stubs, just what constitutes one. I agree that perhaps anything under 800 characters is probably too short, but we need to have an in-depth reivew of how long our short articles are - if we have lots of articles below 800 chars and only a few above, then obviously it needs revising. Although I don't think this is the case. I agree with your examples only. I think stub-sorting needs to be enforced more, and perhaps we could tie this in with Wikipedia:Stubs. BG^7even 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a guideline that the article should not be too short; if a calculation is required then article text must be at least 800 characters in length? --Matilda (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me. Articles must be at least 800 chars, but more would be preferred <-- sufficient?

I think another section done! (Comments, please!) BG^7even 00:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• From below at #Another break:
  • Wording suggested by Eptalon: DYK articles should have a certain length. There is no use in putting 3-sentence stubs.
  • Wording suggested by BG7: Stubs/Short Articles - Articles must be at least 800 chars, but more would be preferred.
  • My suggested wording: DYK articles should not be too short. Three sentence stubs are not suitable. The text of the article must be at least 800 characters. The number of characters can be measured with this tool .--Matilda (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel a vote coming on... but, I agree with all that Matilda is said. It's built on what the community have said which is how it should be.

Cheers, BG^7even 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hook has to be Interesting

• Hooks have to be interesting - they have to tempt you to read the article. Three uninteresting hooks recently proposed come to my mind:
  • ... that rabbits are found in many parts of the world? - so what? In Australia it is an introduced pest. Rats are found everywhere too as are spiders .... I don't want to go tot he rabbit article after reading that hook.
  • ...that the first WrestleMania event happened on March 31, 1985 and continues to this day when the 25th anniversary event happens on April 5, 2009 at Reliant Stadium in Houston? - only of interest to somebody already interested in WWE
  • ... that the English word semen comes from the Latin word sēmen (meaning seed)? - this is merely a dictionary definition. Did you know that "The word creation comes from the Latin word, creatio." So what?

The hook has to be interesting in itself so as to get people to the article because it is an interesting hook, not merely because the article is linked on the front page. --Matilda (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK will always have this problem. What is interesting to one editor will not be to another - how many editors have interests in trams, other than myself?

To take your examples, the rabbits one actually fits into the site's aims quite well - it's a simple hook, and indeed if many children do look at the site then they will perhaps find this sort of hook preferable, and indeed may not know the actualy fact. The second one I agree is probably to uninteresting, and also is probbaly not suitable for DYK as the second part is adverty as written, and should probably have another hook. The first part or second part on their own could be made to work. The third nomination is actually the sort of thing DYK needs. How many people do actually know that? Not many i'd expect. Most of what comes up in DYK? is probably not ever going to be used again (my only DYK hook at en-wp was DYK that there are currently 16 operational trams at the National Tramway Museum - how many people need to know or want to know that, not many I expect - would you call that uninteresting?). :Thanks, BG^7even 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - since you asked I am sure you should be able to write something more interesting about the museum then there are 16 trams that work in it. I have gone and had a look at the equivalent article here. For example I am more interested that you can ride a tram for 1 mile and it is in a reproduction Edwardian village. But actually I have ridden vintage trams in Bendigo and which go further in a city noted for its Victorian era architecture and if you look at the fleet page I think they have more than 16 working trams too. Also ridden restored trams in Christchuch [1] so ... I think a better hook though would relate to the most unusual or oldest tram - eg ... did you know you can see a some extraordinary tram at the Crich Tramway Village in Derbyshire, England? or somesuch. That a DYK nom was accepted at en, doesn't mean it would be accepted here. Note you had better be specific about the geography too - do you know where Bendigo and Christchurch are? Why should I know where Crich is (though I do know where derbyshire is but it is better to have the country too.

In response to your points

- the rabbits hook is too simple so as to be patronising - for example did you know that rabbits are not native to Australia - but they are a major pest now - so the fact that they are spread world-wide is not because they are indigenous world wide - something aboutt he spread of rabbits world-wide by humans would indeed be interesting - that they are everywhere conveys little. Many parts of the world is also a weasel phrase - I don't believe they are in Antarctica for example - so the fact is kind of true becuase it has been qualified but that qualification turns it into a so-what. The reference provided talks about Australia and also mentions It is believed that the Normans in the 13th introduced the rabbit into Ireland. - that is more interesting - ... did you know that rabbits are in many parts of the world because they have been introduced by humans?

wikipedia is not wiktionary is my answer to the dictionary definition point, yes indeed I knew that about semen, not just Latin but what it meant - it is perhaps a really elementary fact. Similarly that the word creation derives from the Latin is elementary - many words do.

--Matilda (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are better hooks than that - indeed that one actually came from en:Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum and at the time it was the only cited hook. I have lots of much better ones to suggest here (Did you know that Bluegoblin7 is the youngest tram conductor, for example ;) (i actually have a source for that!)).

The Christchurch and Bendigo systems differ from the British systems in that they are actually heritage operations on real tramways, rather than an actual heritage operation ;). Blackpool is our only example (and not for much longer...). But, this isn't the place for trams!

I see your points and I do agree with them - they are all valid. As "interest" will always be subjective, I think noms cannot be denied fully unless 3 or more assessors find it boring. One on it's own cannot be removed. For this reason I think {{DYKalmost}} should be used with a wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?", or better still the reviewer looks for one as I said above. Thanks, BG^7even 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The suggestion to first mark as {{DYKalmost}} should be used with a wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?" and if 3 assessors find boring its out is excellent --Matilda (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks ;). It could be more or less, but I felt that was a good balance with the amount currently assessing. The third reviewer would then add {{DYKno}} and something like 3 editors feel that this hook is boring. Sorry, not this time. I think I can safely tick this section as done? BG^7even 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• From below at #Another break:
  • Wording suggested by Eptalon: The hook used to point to the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article directly (and not in a footnote, or in a linked reference)
  • Wording suggested by BG7: Interesting Hooks - The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel it is boring, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 3 assessors (including the initial one) agree that it is boring, it is a {{DYKno}} with wording something like 3 editors feel that this hook is boring.
  • My suggested wording: The hook used to point to the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article text (not in a footnote, or in a linked reference, or in an infobox). In addition, the instructions to the project team for reviewing should be The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel it is boring, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 3 assessors (including the initial one) agree that it is boring, it is a {{DYKno}} with advice to the nominator that "3 reviewers feel that this hook is boring, please suggest an alternative hook." --Matilda (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel a vote coming on... but, I agree with all that Matilda is said. It's built on what the community have said which is how it should be.

Cheers, BG^7even 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Complex articles

If an article is long, it may be complex. A readability checker can confirm the English reading age required to read the article. This wikipedia is about simple English. If people want to read articles with no regard to the complexity of the language they can go to enwp. Accordingly all articles must meet the guideline at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles.

Difficult to know how an article meets or does not meet those guidelines but the quick and easy test is a readability test such as Article readability - note prefix article with simple. I suggest a year level of no greater than Grade 8. This is based on some work experience and confirmed say by this link which discusses Readability of Participant Information Documents for Clinical research. I believe it is a reasonably accepted standard and one that is aimed at the English-speaking adult population. For simple wikipedia we should really be aiming at something like Grade 4 or even Grade 2 but anything anything above Grade 8 most certainly should be rejected.--Matilda (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are tools on the PGA and PVGA pages that do this - and also word counts. I'll get a linky shortly and we can adapt it for DYK use (well not adapt but use it ;) ).

Articles accepted should ideally be in simple english. The odd complex word isn't going to detract from the overall article but the assessor should try and remove it and perhaps link it to wiktionary - those on the team are not just here to check and deny - as we don't credit for noms or writing, anyone should be looking over proposed noms - and definitely the reviewers. BG^7even 23:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• From below at #Another break:
  • Wording suggested by Eptalon: The article linked shouldn't be overly difficult to read. If it was copied form another WP, it should have undergone attempts of simplification. + There shouldn't be many red links in the article linked.
  • Wording suggested by BG7: We just need to say that they must be simplified, not be tagged as complex and should not have red linked cats or templates. Red links however are fine as this is one of the points of DYK!
  • My suggested wording: The article linked shouldn't be overly difficult to read. The article should not be tagged as {{complex}}. It should comply with the guideline on writing Simple English articles. Readability tests such as Article readability should indicate a U.S. grade level of no greater than Grade 8 on most scores. There should be no red linked categories or red linked templates.--Matilda (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel a vote coming on... but, I agree with all that Matilda is said. It's built on what the community have said which is how it should be.

Cheers, BG^7even 21:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from enwp

I am concerned about articles of any length that have been copied from enwp and there has been an attempt made to simplify them. In my view that simplification often does not work sufficiently (and they remain too high in the readbility statistics ie should be tagged as {{complex}}. In addition it is against the guidelines at the bottom of every editing page Do not copy articles directly from the English Wikipedia, because they are usually too complex, and can use templates that are not here. --Matilda (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should say no to articles copied from en as a lot are. We just need to say that they must be simplified, not be tagged as complex and should not have red linked cats or templates. Red links however are fine as this is one of the points of DYK!

The words at the bottom are guidlines though - and seeing as most editors do often spend a lot of time re-wording the articles i don't think it's a biggy. No point in re-inventing the wheel, at en ive actually use several language versions to make a super article, so-to-speak. BG^7even 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• See above on complex articles - that should cover off any concerns --Matilda (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Copying from enwp and simplifying works if the editor who is doing it has sufficient expertise. It is not just a matter of rephrasing. Often concepts have to be approaced from a different point of view entirely. Anyone who imagines they can effectively simply a complex article by changing a few words, is mistaken. The article Gothic architecture is a simplification of the original at enwp. I wrote both of them. The Simple English article is directed at reading-age 12, which is what I usually write at. It contains a great deal of architectural vocabulary, but every term is explained.

Problems occur in particular when people try to simplify topics that they are not themselves familiar with. People need to be prepared to do solid research into their topics, just the way that people do on enwp.

Amandajm (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

• Messy topic but I note that on the main page we say The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English. I do not think there is any mandate to ignore the fact that children are part of our target audience. Teachers would appear to be encouraged to use this as a resource. We need to think very carefully as to what we put on the main page and include therefore in DYK. The argument you can search for topics is a distraction.

Censorship is a very tricky subject and I don't think we can censor per se. Too hard to draw the line.

We can ensure that everything is accurate and meets our policies of verifiable and neutral point of view. Controversial topics need to be especially mindful of these two policies because of their potential to offend. Articles that are not properly referenced or not neutral, regardless of the topic, should not be included in DYK. For preference they should also be weeded out of the wikipedia or at least tagged accordingly - but that activity is beyond the scope of this project.

For other articles we need to think carefully as to what image are we portraying and whether we alienate our audience (or our audience's teachers and parents). To get a hint of who our audience might be have a look at Page hits top list - kiddies topics are right up there - Disney movies, Halloween, Greek gods and goddesses. Sure there is sexuality topics - but that is like kids looking up rude words in the dictionary. I think those page stats show that our readers are probably children - they are not adults learning English as a second language. We are not competing with English wikipedia - people who want to write about controversial topics, probably need to think whether they should be here or at the other project. Our audience is different and DYK needs to reflect that.--Matilda (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My comments on that which was said above is as follows. Yeas children are not our only target audience but we should only put what appropriate for them on the main page. If we don't we liable to get blocked from all school and alot of homes and thus defeating the purpose of what we're doing. If they put in in the search bar and go to, fine, that's their call. But if we put it on the main page it's like saying "come have some fun disobeying your parents." If you think back to when your were kids you looked everywhere for a cheap get off to put it vaguely. I don't want to be associated with helping that.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed it several times (look through simple talk to find the respective discussions), I will just re-state what probably most of you know already:

• There is no forbidden knowledge; we can of course talk about how we phrase the different things, and we should look that what we put on the main page is verifiable, and as unbiased as possible (for DYK).
• There are also Very good articles on the main pages, but these are much less of a problem, because they go through more of a review process than DYKs (and even then, I would not be concerned too much about having say breast or condom as a VGA). VGAs show that we as a community are capable of making good-quality articles, even if they may be about a problem subject (to put in parents' terms). Also please note that sex-related subjects are not the most dangerous; those are problably biased articles about religious movements, or articles with many hard-to-verify claims in them. --Eptalon (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Eptalon has put it well - ie there is no forbidden knowledge' - in fact I would be more inclined to censor extreme violence than sexual topics for children - that tends to have more context in say movies than a web page. I also would not be overly concerned about having say breast or condom as a VGA - VGAs should meet by definition our standards of verifiability and neutral point of view.

One of my points echoed by Eptalon is that articles on DYK should meet verifiability and neutral point of view and this is essential for any topic that is controversial: whether sex, politics, religion, violence, ... If we could agree on this, I think that would be progress --Matilda (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeat my comments I don't think censorship is needed. I think Matilda and Eptalon hit the nail on the head. Articles should not be declined because of content unless it is inaccurate and untrue, and not correctly referenced. BG^7even 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Suggested guideline - articles on DYK need to meet WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral Point of View policies - for controversial topics, the whole article (not just the hook) must be verified and comply with neutral point of view. This means inadequately referenced articles on controversial topics will not make the grade, including those that are tagged with some fact that needs proving. --Matilda (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I think that's fine. We just need to decide now if such hooks are suitable for DYK. From what i've seen, general consensus is yes - there are just a few "younger" editors around who don't approve. BG^7even 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This "older" editor isn't that keen either, but perhaps she knows more about unwinnable censorship arguments - as Eptalon said no forbidden knowledge. So I guess if any reviewer deems an article controversial then we need to review that the article meets reasonable standards of verifiability and neutral point of view to let it though the keeper - it can't be blocked merely because it is controversial or an editor doesn't like it, but editors have to agree that the article is encyclopaedic and meets WP:Rules. Nominations of controversial articles may accordingly take longer to process to allow reasonable time for editors to review and in my view such noms should not be processed in less than 24 hours to ensure editors in different time zones get a chance to look. --Matilda (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how we would do it but need to do ti in such a way that would mainly attract adults. Cause I wouldn't want my kids if I had any to stumble across ANYTHIGN like this stuff.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  05:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Main Page is way beyond the bounds of this. We should appear friendly and clean for our readers, giving the view that we are trying to give useful info in DYK, etc. -- American Eagle (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lots of things to respond to, so here goes!

Matilda: Wasn't referring to you in that statement btw ;) you came across to me as a very mature, calm and civil person ;) I completely agree. It's what i've been saying all along. I think think the best way to go about controversial articles is that there must be at least 2 supports perhaps that say it is suitable, or if there is only one approval then it cannot be added until 24 hours has passed. Articles should also be checked a lot more carefully for proper refs etc.

CM16: I don't think that's going to work. Whilst it's a good idea, I don't see a way of adding it, unless it's the last link of the last hook (they may have got fed up by then) or we link it via some page that gives a warning about potentially unsuitable content - but that would probably need some complex coding unless we created lots of pages in case there was more than one controversial topic. Although I really don't think that this is an issue - like Matlida and Eptalon have said, there is no forbidden knowledge - and if they really look at it now, then at least a wiki article that is factual and probably more censored than some things on the Internet is better than say, some porn site - which often appear in the most innocent of Google searches.

AE: So you wouldn't let an article like condom, penis or breast appear as a VGA? There is no point working on such articles to get them to that standard if there is no reward like being shown on the main page. You say being friendly and clean - well I fail to see how we can be friendly to our contributors if we deny noms just because a couple of editors do not like it due to their age, religion etc. Also, clean can be interpreted in several ways - clean as in not having a bias as to what goes in DYK (which not allowing controversial articles very clearly is biased) or in a way whereby we don't show "dirty" articles such as those being discussed here. Both are inappropriate for this wiki, and if you dislike it, with all respect, please reconsider your position here. We are not going to not have certain things because of a couple of editor's beliefs.

Hope that doesn't come across to impolite, incivil etc, if it does, please tell me and I will make an apology and strike the comment - I don't want to offend anyone!

Thanks,

BG^7even 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

At least test it it's allwe got to help children while still having it on the front page. And not ALL knowledge is unforbidden most countries won't allow people to know how to build nuclear weapons. My point is on that while it may not be forbidden to you it may be to a child. At least try to make it a little les sexual. The G-spot one no. Should not be on the front page but the one about semen I can see being on the front page without a problem. Get what I'm saying?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  23:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Just as an example, a molotov cocktail (also known as petrol bomb) takes a glass bottle, a flammable liquid (eg. those used to light fires), a rag, and some matches to make. All the ingredients can be bought by almost anyone in a supermarket (for the flammable liquid you might have to have a certain minimum age, like 14 or 16 years old). Probably costs you less than USD 10. The components are as easy to get as a packet of cigarettes. .How to make such a device is clearly described in molotov cockcktail. Carrying one of those will nevertheless get you arrested (if done outside some police or military training) in most countries. Throwing such a device can cause a lot of damage (up to the point of killing people). Similarly, you'll find how to make a nuclear weapon in most encyclopedias (though getting the fuel, most often plutonium, might not be as cheap and easy). So where's the point of not letting people know how to make one? --Eptalon (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also another notification. There have been discussions on ENWP about this here (controversial topics), here (content verification) and here (Goat sex). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't even read my message. Please re-read it and respond accordingly.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The links given above, particularly the third show no consensus on enwp for these controversial articles to get a DYK nomination. Moreover they show that at least one featured article will not ever be featured on enwp's main page because it is controversial - ie the article on Jenna Jameson referred to in the third of the linked discussions. Given that our audience is even more targetted than enwp's I think there is ample evidence that we need to think carefully about the main page and what is featured on it.
  Specifically concerning the links given by Gwib and the associated debates at enwp
  • The first link did not discuss any particular article so gives no guidance.
  • The second article hooked to, en:List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior doesn't seem very controversial to me (but I acknowledge may be to others) - it appears to be within the scope of no forbidden knowledge) it did feature in DYK but with a hook that was substantially modified from that discussed in the link Gwib gave at here (content verification) - see en:Wikipedia:Recent_additions_189. That hook was more informative and neutral - not sensationalist. Proposed hook was ...that the female kob (pictured) (and over 200 other mammals) display homosexual behavior including oral sex, genital stimulation, and urolagnia? - revised hook was ...that flamingos and other birds display homosexual behavior sometimes forming committed same-sex relationships that can involve sex, traveling, living together and raising young together? A useful comment was made in that debate:

    The purpose of DYK is also to attract more content to new articles, the hook needs also to be relevent to the article in this case it took a term and made it synonymous with something that it isnt. For something that gets displayed on the main page it needs to be factual and not just sensationalist

    .
  • The third discussion - hmm - I note the article no longer exists but is a redirect. The article did not get featured in DYK. It was rejected as a "pointless article" by a very experienced reviewer of DYK noms with the additional comment concerning naivety by another experienced editor.

Of the links provided by Gwib therefor I am not sure we are any further. Even enwp has standards as to what appears on the main page under DYK or for featured articles.

Sticking with standards about verifiability and bias will probably help a lot in resolving issues.

Maturity on the part of contributors of nominations to DYK will also help - think carefully why you are nominating the article. Your nomination reflects on you as an editor and it isn't always a good look - it can make you look like a silly schoolboy. --Matilda (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back to censorship, there should be none on here. One of the fundamental rules of the WP:NOT (at least on English Wikipedia) is Wikipedia is NOT censored for children (We do not use different words on Wikipedia just because children read it.) Anyone learning English is bound to come across words which they do not understand, better they see them here so someone can explain what they are, rather than them using the words in the wrong context and wind up with a Glasgow kiss. Iceflow (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying censor the articles...I'm saying don't put anything inappropriate for children on the front page. Is that so much to ask? I'm not saying don't have reproductive organ related articles but I am saying to link them on the front page. Get it?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) But by saying not to put anything inappropriate for children on the front page, that's exactly what you are doing. Its not censored. If it doesn't appear on the front page, the kids will see it elsewhere in the wiki. I cannot see the point of stopping those articles going to the front page if a child can find them and read them anyhow. If you stop them going to the front page, you are censoring the site. Iceflow (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually if a child doesn't know about it, he won't find it. If they don't know about it, they won't see it, that's what ChristianMan's point is. If they know the word, they can look it up. If they don't, they can't look it up. Simple enough? If we don't put it on main page, it isn't censoring the site, it's more like preventing children from seeing what there parents don't want them to see. If an adult wants to know about they type in the word for it, or if they don't know the word, they can use a translator, or type it in the wikipedia of their language. I just think we should do like the uninteressting topic rule: If 3 people think the topic (article) is unsuitable then we don't have it. Fair enough? Yotcmdr (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a formal policy discussion on whether this Wikipedia should be censored. Censorship is very black and white, there's no grey. You either censor the content thats on it, or where it is, or you don't. There's no in between. My view, I don't think Wikipedia should be censored. ס ^Talk 23:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about censoring wikipedia. It's about wether or not to have certain articles on the main page. I think if 3 people are against the article beeing in DYK=no. Yotcmdr (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Not having an article on the main page because some think its not appropriate for children = censorship. ס ^Talk 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is when someone, often a government, does not allow certain things to be published this is what is said in censorship article. However article not on the main page wouldn't be censored as they would still be included on wikipedia. Yotcmdr (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for discussion's sake, what do you call not allowing a certain article on the main page becuase of its appropriateness to children? I call it censorship. ס ^Talk 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To me it would be more like prevention. Yotcmdr (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Yotcmdr- Suppose we do that. Why don't we disable the Show any page link as well??? If its on here, that button is one way they stand a chance of finding it. Or supposing an offensive article gets edited and shows in new changes? A child looking at that page, knowing how inquisitive children are, (I look after 2 and have one of my own) would just be liable to click on something if they didn't know what it was. Hey, here's a thought? Why not disable new changes while we are at it? We can keep their little minds clean after all! If they can't find it, don't see it come up as a link, and can't locate it, they won't get to it! Do you see what I am getting at here??? It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop someone finding an article unless we disable half the site and kill all the blue links. That way they won't get to any other article without searching for it. Iceflow (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that we can't see eye to eye on this. I think a policy discussion would be a wise idea. We have no such policy regarding whether or not wikipedia is censored, it seems like we need one. ס ^Talk 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done arguing with you on this I've said my opinion and you've said yours. If you want to dirty the mind of kids then go ahead....it's on the record that I will not support it.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  04:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're done with arguing but I'm not! I agree Iceflow, it's impossible tostop children accessing them. But how many articles about sexuality are there? 200, more? That's still only a 200/40,000 chance of finding it on Show any page. And for the new changes button, which 9 year old stays on his computer all day editing wikpedia and the new changes link? Very few. So I'm going to have to stick with what I said: if 3 people find the article unsuitable for children, then it doesn't get on DYK?. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship- suggested wording

• From below at #Another break:
  • Wording suggested by Eptalon: Information presented in the DYK article should be verifiable, and unbiased.
  • Wording suggested by BG7: Censorship - Still under discussion but imo it seems there shouldn't be any!
  • My suggested wording: Information presented in the DYK article should be verifiable, and unbiased. There must be a citation of a credible source to support the fact contained in the hook. Articles that are tagged for bias with {{NPOV}} or for lack of accuracy with {{Disputed}} are not suitable for DYK. Articles where facts are questioned with {{fact}} tags may not be suitable.--Matilda (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel a vote coming on... but, I agree with all that Matilda is said. It's built on what the community have said which is how it should be.

Cheers, BG^7even 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Censorship debates

Hello, I took some time and dug out the other censoship debates:

• Use of explicit images (June 15- June 27, 2008)
• Censorship, #2 (April 13-April 15, 2008)
• Parents control, Policy change... (April 14-23)

This is just for those people interested; please note however that those discussions are archived; if you want to bring up the discussion again, please do so here, or on Simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship - main page DYK is not the same as censoring, but failing to promote the article's existence

• As per my notes above - I accept there is no forbidden knowledge. I think it would be useful if we had some guidelines along the lines of en:Wikipedia:Profanity or collected the information on past debates in an essay similar to en:Wikipedia:Pornography. Obviously we have turnover at this wikipedia and we have to re-explain the wheel if not reinvent it, quite often. While we state at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is probably worth explaining how that fits in with our audience and elaborate on the concept of no forbidden knowledge.

In the mean time, there is a difference between no forbidden knowledge and drawing such knowledge to people's attention, oe even forcing it upon their attention. I do not accept that the "Show any page" function or even the "Search" function mean that therefore anything can go on the front page. I can't find where enwp came to the conclusion that one could have a featured article on a pornography start but that by consensus it would not appear on the main page. I can find that that consensus has not been challenged. I can also see DYK suggestions rejected and they are articles that breach, for a lack of a better way of putting it, good taste. (see above comments)

I propose therefore that, should an article pass all other DYK rules (ie not too complex, properly referenced, not tagged as breaching neutral point of view) it could still be rejected because three editors don't like it . This is following up on Yotcmdr's suggestion above - if 3 people find the article unsuitable for children, then it doesn't get on DYK - that is not a net three editors - it isn't a !vote - that is just three say no and it is rejected - regardless of how many people support the nomination. Three editors can reject an article for any reason - they find it racist (you would think then it breached NPOV) or dangerous or ... not even any good reason! In other words we accept a consensus on dislike.

This "rule" is not the same as saying that the article shouldn't exist - it is about "promoting" the article or drawing attention to it, which is a different thing. --Matilda (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I like the idea of, if 3 editors say they don't like it, it can't appear on DYK. How do we know that there aren't editors that will just oppose any DYK they don't like, therefore it can't appear on the main page (and there are editors around that would do that). I'd support an idea of If a net of 3 editors "don't like" a DYK, it can be rejected. ס ^Talk 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I back ס on this one. I don't like the idea of a "3 say no, it doesn't go" method of looking at the article. However, instead of a net of 3, I say we set up a panel of 10 editors (5 admins, 5 regular members) 9 editors, per synergy's suggestion on IRC (no splits that way) who could look at an article, and say yes or no to it. If a majority of those 9 people say yes, it flies. If its a no, it doesn't. I think 3 people is too few a number to outright reject an article for DYK. I will warm to the idea if the articles get a more thorough review than just 3 people who say "forget it!" Iceflow (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think 9 is a good idea. I think we should have 3 conservative's, 3, well, the opposite, and 3 people who don't have either view (you could call them neutral). Whether or not they're admins I don't really mind, but I don't think they should all be admins. How they decide whether or not a DYK is suitable is something we'll need to discuss further, but I think this is a good idea, as long as no cabalism develops ;) ס ^Talk 02:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• We already have a panel of 9 editors (including admins) at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_participants. You may not get all participating in a !vote - but effectively what you are proposing is a !vote. If only 3 people !vote / express an opinion and 1 supports, 2 oppose - are you happy for it to go that way? Or are you going to wait til all 9 have expressed an opinion - what about if they are on a wikibreak (announced or otherwise). The rationale for using 3 opposes regardless is essentially the same as resolving the issue with boring hooks. I actually don't think majority rules is very good in this case, if three active editors are uncomfortable then I think the community should pause and listen. This is not the same as deleting the article - it is about not advertising it. Regards--Matilda (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• We could work on a net oppose, ie, if 4 out of 9 oppose it going on the main page, or 4/9ths of the active panel members reject the DYK, then it would be rejected. As for who should be on this panel, I think it may be best if there was some sort of community discussion perhaps, not just a "first in, best dressed" idea. ס ^Talk 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you want 9 editors to vote that's not a problem, but in that case do the same for the boring hook because otherwise it seems unfair. Yotcmdr (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What can go onto the main page

Hello there; now that we have basically agreed that there is no forbidden knowledge I want to extend that notion to a workable concept.

As I have pointed out, both Good Articles and Very Good Articles go through a community review process; as a "reward" for writing a Very Good Article, this will be displayed on the main page, with a blurb that will make people want to read the full article. The VGA's get rotated, at the moment, each of them is shown at least once a year. Our current main page design does not have such a space for good articles. Getting an article to GA or VGA status is a lot of work. In order to not demoralise people, I think it would be safe to say that once the article in question has gone through the peer review process needed to make it GA or VGA, there it can be shown on the main page without any problem - It has a higher standard than most other articles, and we should be proud to display it.

As pointed out above, the only articles that are problematic are those that do not correctly source their facts. Did you know that...

• .. over 100 million women worldwide use Combined oral contraceptive pills
• .. women who had had an abortion often did better at school or at work after the abortion
• .. Transport for London refused to place an ad for a museum because it showed a 15th century painting of a nude woman

would all be valid hooks; all of them pointining to problem subjects (to put in parents' terms)

In short: A hook can be bad because:

1. What the hook claims cannot be taken from (a sourced) statement of the article
2. The hook is difficult to understand
3. The article is difficult to understand
4. The article does not fulfill the other criteria (bias, sources, length)

Given these are the only criteria, I dont think it should be too hard ot find a majority against placing a certain hook. I therefore think that if 51% of the editors oppose (5/9) the hook should not go onto the main page.--Eptalon (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications:

• No strict/predefined body who decides on DYK
• Any named active editor (who also edits here, we don't want voting-only accounts to vote in this) can vote
• Min. quorum of 5 votes (like always) (that is:we need 5 people voting to qualify)
• Voting is per DYK period (whatever that is)
• Other rules (socking) as usual.
• A simple majority of those voting oppose -> article/hook combo does not go on DYK space--Eptalon (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another break

What would you think of the following:

• DYK articles should have a certain length. There is no use in putting 3-sentence stubs.
• Information presented in the DYK article should be verifiable, and unbiased.
• The hook used to point to the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article directly (and not in a footnote, or in a linked reference)
• The article linked shouldn't be overly difficult ot read. If it was copied form another WP, it should have undergone attempts of simplification.
• There shouldn't be many red links in the article linked.

Did I forget anything?--Eptalon (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps four should just be "the article should not be based upon or copies from any other Wikipedia". Surely starting articles from scratch is the best way to ensure they are in Simple English, not normal English (as 99 per cent of articles here seem to be!)? Queen LiLi (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... good ideas, but I don't think they address much of what has been commented on above. I think we are now at a stage where we can come to definitive guidlines for all stages except Censorship, which is still ongoing. Therefore, I suggest:

• Stubs/Short Articles - Articles must be at least 800 chars, but more would be preferred.
• Interesting Hooks - The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel it is boring, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 3 assessors (including the initial one) agree that it is boring, it is a {{DYKno}} with wording something like 3 editors feel that this hook is boring.
• Complex Articles - Not confirmed yet imo, but I think where possible articles should be a simple as possible. Obviously complex topics may have complex articles. The odd complex word isn't going to detract from the overall article but the assessor should try and remove it and perhaps link it to wiktionary - those on the team are not just here to check and deny - as we don't credit for noms or writing, anyone should be looking over proposed noms - and definitely the reviewers.
• Articles from en-wp - We just need to say that they must be simplified, not be tagged as complex and should not have red linked cats or templates. Red links however are fine as this is one of the points of DYK!
• Censorship - Still under discussion but imo it seems there shouldn't be any!

Ok, so they are my ideas. A lot more opinion in them than I originally planned, but I think I have managed to summarise each section above.

Queen LiLi: With the amount of contributors at the moment the chance of getting enough hooks of non-en articles is small. Imo if they are pretty simple then they should be fine, as above.

Thanks,

BG^7even 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the red link thing....I don't know why i do I just do.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK? is supposed to bring in new editors and contributors. They can do this in several ways imho - they can add to the articles, or they can create related articles via the red links. If there are no red links, then that limits contribution on that article to... that article. Not a lot of options there and won't bring in new editors.

Note to All: Please comment on specific sections in them, rather than here. Let's use this to for the new guidelines/rules. BG^7even 18:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rules

Following the discussion above and noting that comments seem to have died down, I propose the following rules for DYK:

• Information presented in any article nominated for DYK should be verifiable and unbiased. There must be a citation of a credible source to support the fact contained in the hook.
  • Articles that are tagged for bias with {{NPOV}} or for lack of accuracy with {{Disputed}} are not suitable for DYK.
  • Articles where facts are questioned with {{fact}} tags may not be suitable.
• The article linked should be easy to read.
  • The article should not be tagged as {{complex}}.
  • It should comply with the guideline on writing Simple English articles.
  • Readability tests such as Article readability should indicate a U.S. grade level of no greater than Grade 8 on most scores.
  • There should be no red linked categories or red linked templates.
• Articles nominated for DYK should not be too short.
  • Three sentence stubs are not suitable.
  • The text of the article must be at least 800 characters. The number of characters can be measured with this tool .
• The hook used to encourage people to read the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article text (not in a footnote, or in a linked reference, or in an infobox).
  • Whether a hook is not interesting should not be a matter for only one reviewer to decide. The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel the hook is not sufficiently interesting, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 3 assessors (including the initial one) agree that the hook is boring and no alternative has been put forward, the nomination is rejected with {{DYKno}} and advice to the nominator that "3 reviewers feel that this hook is not interesting, please suggest an alternative hook."

--Matilda (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I like the fact that we could nominate articles with at least 800 characters. I was running out of ideas for DYKs because there were just too many stubs... and the content articles either had the {{Complex}} tag on it, or it was entirely unreferenced. – RyanCross (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

All seems good, however, I disagree with "Articles where facts are questioned with {{fact}} tags may not be suitable". If an article is offering a referenced hook, and further on it has an unreferenced sentence (one which isn't being used in DYK or nommed), then why should the article be classified as unsuitable? A simple example is India: long with plenty of references, but one {{fact}} near the beginning. Unless I've misunderstood, that should probably be re-worded (and if I have misunderstood it should be re-worded as well :P). Other rules seem good. Nothing about pictures? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put "may not be suitable" - one fact tag for a presumably (I haven't read it) non-contentious article and no problems - but contentious articles with mutiple fact tags we may have a problem about whether we want to bring readers to it - at the very least until we have our house in order. If the fact being queried about India was significant enought to bring the article potentially into disrepute it should not be DYK - eg an assertion that 90% of the Indian population are Muslim. It becomes a matter of judgement. --Matilda (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checked what needed proving at the India article. I think it would be worth asking somebody to cleean up with a citation the reference to the third largest army and nuclear weapons - I think the latter is common knowledge - don't know about the former and potentially contentious - why not get it sorted before DYK since it is in the lead of that article.--Matilda (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with all of what has been suggested. Is a vote needed? They include all the things that we're discussed and where there were disagreements a good compromise has been made. I'll give a little more time and then i'll re-open DYK noms with these new rules. I don't think there will be any objections to any but the censorship issues, but I might leave that one out... for now.

Thanks,

BG^7even 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what is written above.Yotcmdr (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

•  the rules above have been moved to the project page and linked to from T:TDYK--Matilda (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity

See Simple Talk --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the template not in Simple??

Moved here from T:TDYK – RyanCross (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Matilda's comments on the {{Hidespoilers-start}} RfA, I have to wonder why this template is full of non-simple terms. Aside from Wikipedia and article - collection, archive and nominate are all in need of replacement. Also, looking at the hooks used, 4 of the six are in need of linking/simplifing. Barrel, gunpowder, cellar, Houses of Parliament, fans and communes all need fixed. President of the United States is a title - either fully linked as such or using president as just an occupation which would still need to be linked.

We can't even get simple english on the main page? -- Creol(talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How about fixing it yourself instead of moaning about it here? And you surely meant RFD, not RFA. We don't give adminship to templates. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I disagree with most of your above points; where I do agree with you, I've fixed the template. It took me all of a minute. Majorly ^talk 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for raising the issue Creol and thank you for tackling so promptly Majorly - I agree with the points made by Creol and we need to work to ensure that the hooks are simply expressed and adequately wikilinked - I guess I sort of assumed that but do we need to make it explicit? --Matilda (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Hooks

Hello all,

I think like we did for Halloween we should have some Christmas themed hooks over the 3 day update period over Christmas (It should be 25th to 28th, but i'm going to slow down the 3-day period to make it 24th to 26th, as I won't be active on Christmas Day.

Even if it's just the Picture Hook, that would be great!

Cheers,

BG^7even 20:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah great idea (I hadn't even thought of it!). Could we have just christmas hook on those 3 days? And can we start nominating them from now on, and keep them until the 24th?.Yotcmdr ^{Sign up for the wikicup =talk=} 20:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would be the best case scenario, so if it can happen, then great! Yes, please do start nominating them now, we can then get chance to fix any issues etc (so nom even if not quite up to standard). How do you think it would be best to group them: Christmas Hook after the hook or a Level 3 heading? BG^7even 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Level 3 heading. Yotcmdr ^{Sign up for the wikicup =talk=} 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)re

Ok,  Done BG^7even 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Time limit

As I regularly edit as the normal English wiki, i noticed that the DYK rules were almost a copy-paste from there. A rule reads: "Article is unable to be used on DYK, the time limit has passed, or there are larger reservations." Unlike Normal English wiki, where the time limit is 5 days old, here i saw no "time limit", but still a "time limit" clause. Also, there should have been a link to this page in the DYKbox, I had to contact Bluegoblin7, who led me here. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "that"

A quick thought. The apparent standard usage on DYK is "Did you know that X is the letter before Y". However, in nearly every case the word "that" is superfluous. For instance, "Did you know X is the letter before Y" would work just as well, and arguably better. Thoughts? Soup Dish (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The usage of "... that" originated from en.wikipedia, so we followed that. RyanCross @ 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rules condensing

I think we need to condense all the rules into one location. We have rules at Template talk:Did_you_know, more rules at Wikipedia:Did you know, and rules at Template:Did_you_know. I think we need to find a way to get them all towards one location, and make sure the rules are consistent throughout. The "no very-good articles" clause appears only on Template:Did you know, for example which I don't think people know to look at for rules. Either way (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've gathered the rules and added them all to WP:DYK#Rules. I've transcluded that section to T:TDYK, so whatever is changed to the rules would change at T:TDYK as well. That way, we don't have to worry about different rules at those two pages. Regarding T:DYK, I've reworded the banner so it would direct editors to the ruleset at WP:DYK#Rules. That should probably fix the problem, RyanCross @ 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK credit templates

Hello, apparently we are using nom credit templates now. Though, I'm a little confused on which templates to give out on certain situations. For example: If an editor's only edit to a DYK nom is an addition of one citation (happens often), do we give out the {{UpdatedDYK}} or {{UpdatedDYKNom}} to that user? Generally speaking, do we give {{UpdatedDYKNom}} for minor edits and the other for major (creation, 500+ characters added including new citation, etc.)? Thoughts would be appreciated. These need to be specified before I do the next update's credits when it's ready. — RyanCross (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are we giving out templates exactly? Either way (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To provide motivation for contributing to our main page. I have a feeling we might need to start doing the same (or at least what en does, I wouldn't have the slightest idea though) for our PGA/VGA's. I think only one passed and 4-5 others failed. There is definitely not enough attention when it comes to our main page. Synergy 21:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it to have the exact opposite effect. If anything, it decreases the quality of the work towards the main space or other areas. We're seeing this right now with the quality of DYK hooks from people hoping to get points for the WikiCup. The hooks are lackluster and thrown together just to gain a prize. The same thing can become true with barnstars and credit templates. We see this especially on en.wiki where users just want to be able to put the new prizes on their user page. In my opinion, it dilutes the quality. Either way (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(to Ryan) Leave a message for Nonvocal about it. I think he did the majority of work on it. Synergy 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally opposed these templates and I believe we had a discussion on this somewhere in ST archives (most opposed it), but Nonvocal seems to have no knowledge of it. Maybe we should start another post on ST first before we do anything? — RyanCross (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Oppose per the previous discussions. Our DYK process is not suitable for giving out credit. As any article is eligible for DYK, provided the criteria are met, an editor only has to use the random article button and not actually edit the article. Therefore, it's not appropriate to give credit. As for discussion, i'm using this topic for that. We shouldn't be using ST for every little DYK thing: that's what this page is for. BG^7even 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested section

moved from Template talk:Did you know

I've added a credit section, it has been removed citing no consensus. here is the historical version. I would like to suggest it, for a few reasons:

Incentives are good, everyone, myself included, likes a pat on the back.

If editors get what they like (incentive) they will be more encouraged to find, improve and nominate articles to DYK.

Thank you for the consideration, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. To add to them, DYK was running for a couple of months before the introduction of incentives, and people still contributed. Not needed. Ever. BG^7even 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to provide motivation for contributing to our main page. BG, as far as editing articles, why not make editing the article a requirement? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Many users already add the DYK question mark to their user pages in an informal way. This I am fine with. But not with formally rewarding what could be nothing. As for your suggestion, while I do think it's a good idea, such a thing was originally opposed due to the fact that the community is not very active. I'm happy to be proven otherwise. Wait until tomorrow to see my suggested ideas/system. It might help this, as it's another step for the reviewers, and we also need to define what an edit counts as. We can't also give credit for one but not the other, if you get what i'm saying? BG^7even 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

reset Okay, my ideas are gonna have to wait longer, but the pressing issues:

• Credit: do we or don't we? I would say no user talk credit but yes article talk credit
• Criteria: i know i fussed over it, but i want to relax the thing about two yesses, as it's rarely going to happen. What I propose is:
  • Hooks must be on the page for at least 48 hours before they can be added to Next Update
  • Hooks must have one or more support
  • Hooks cannot be added to Next Update by the nominator or reviewer
  • Hooks will be removed from nominations after 72 hours of no discussion, unless they are approved and awaiting a space
  • In the event of no picture hook the updating user can select a suitable image for any approved hook without further approval.

What does everyone think?
Thanks,
BG^7even 22:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the hooks being on the page for at least 48 hours before being adding to NU, and that they must have more than 1 support and that they cannot be added to NU by nominator or reviewer. Those just make common sense. I also agree that hooks without any discussion after a certain period of time should be automatically removed without discussion, except in that one instance. The only quabble I have is the time period. I think that 72 hours is too long for this....I think 48 hours is much better (maybe even 24 hours, but to give the benefit of the doubt, 48 hours). I disagree with having the updating user selecting a suitable image for any approved hook....I would rather see a fresh hook with a fresh picture than a kind of unfresh hook with a fresh image. Instead of that, I think that if we can't find a picture hook in enough time that we just replace it with a non-picture hook as that would be easier and although it wouldn't look as good, we could still get the DYK's updated. Cheers, Razorflame 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll reply in more detail soon, but briefly, I think that the 48 limit would be better. 24 is imo too short. As for images, by approved hook I mean one that has just been moved to NU and not a hook that has already been main paged, so it would still be a fresh hook. Remember sound files are also allowed! Cheers, BG^7even 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all of these limits are too short unless things significantly change with DYK in terms of editor support. We have hooks that have been sitting there for weeks now without further comment (three of them are mine and I've been waiting for responses to give it the go ahead since Jan. 14, Jan. 11, and Jan. 4). So I don't see how we can get these done in 48 hours if the last time DYK has been edited right now is 23:02 14 January (2 and a half days ago). Either way (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And I just noticed I have a fourth one that I added on January 4 and it hasn't been commented on at all. Either way (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes well as you can see in this discussion there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed first. RfA is generally extremely active, thus the short limits. Once we reach a decision for it then the backlog will soon clear - also see there are no new noms recently. Thanks, BG^7even 13:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, do we keep or remove the credit that has already been given for DYK?s? I'm for the idea, as it looks sloppy. In the meantime... I have to go and fix talk page credit. (Note: If there are no opposes or comments, i'm going to be bold and ignore all rules and delete them straight off.) BG^7even 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The poll is not needed at the moment, we need to get the discussion out of the way first, as there are still lots of discussion points. BG^7even 16:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to nominations being removed as "expired" after 72 hours with no comments. We should not punish the nominator because others do not step up. A nomination should only be removed as "expired" if someone raises a concern about the hook and the nominator never addresses said concern. Either way (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree. There is not a large community. So, if there were expired, it would have to be after 7 - 14 days. Not 3 days. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should others have to "step up" if the nominator cannot be bothered? Linking in with the credit argument, if an editor doesn't care about their hook and/or can't be bothered to fix their issues, why should already burdened editors have to do it? BG^7even 18:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about nominations being "expired" because no one has approved them or further commented on them after a certain period of time. Two hooks were removed today was "expired" where the last comments on them were by the nominator (me) because no one ever came back to say "Yes, the changes look good" or anything to that effect. One of the nominations was never commented on by anyone by the nominator for twenty (20) days. Either way (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

scream: ok, how does 5 days sound? Too short and people don't et chance, too long and the page gets backlogged. No-one has objected to this after 5 days in the past, so why now? BG^7even 18:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with 5. I had to bug folks to recheck my nominations after I fixed them, perhaps fix days will allow people with work schedules to comment on them. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Anyone complain if I add all the above proposals into the "rules"?

BG^7even 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK Suggestion

Going along with another DYK suggestion, but what about a bot that notifies of promising articles? I know -en has AlexNewArtBot, but I'm not sure how it'd work here. Thoughts? Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? I'm not sure how this bot would help us... (Though, coinidentally, i'm planning another GoblinBot to automate the updating, archiving and crediting of the process!)

Cheers, BG^7even 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooks from en

Are you allowed to bring over hooks from en? TurboGolf 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as you simplify them and confirm that they're factually correct. Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As long as they don't break the rules and the hook is found in the simple article. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: The hook must be in a Simple Article, be Simplified, and fulfill all the criteria. BG^7even 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK Update Bot

Hello all,

I've asked for a trial run of a DYK Update Bot to help "simplify" our process. It will basically do what the updater already does, but is an automated process.

The exact set-up is still TBC with the person who is coding it for me, but it is likely that it will be possible for any priveleged user to run it by editing a page.

It will take hooks from next, archive old ones and credit new ones.

The idea behind it is just to make the process smoother and more efficient, and also to let users dedicate more time to reviewing hooks rather than updating. In the future it will also allow us to integrate more features into the DYK process, if we ever fully protect the template we can get around that, and if we want to enforce a time between updates I can set it up to update automatically every xx hours/days.

Comments please?

I envisage the first run to be run later this week/next week. Comments will still be welcome whilst me and the developer work the bugs out, and indeed once it is "live".

Thanks,

BG^7even 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. But how will we get around a protected page? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey NVS, what it means is that in the event the Template is fully protected the bot can be given +sysop and will be "in charge" of editing that page. If no admins are available to make an update, then we could get backlogged/stale hooks. The idea of the bot is that it will be automatically updated either at a specific time (every xx days/hours) or the run can be started by any user/priveleged user that edits a particular page. Hope that explains it! (If i've confused you more, please say so!) Cheers, BG^7even 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The template could probably be semi protected if needed. Is it unprotected at the moment? Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been semi'd for a while now. Can't remember why we did it, I think we thought it was a possible target (wise move imo!). Cheers, BG^7even 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>If the time arises when full protection is needed, it can be given +sysop. Right now though, I think we should just leave it as it is. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh that was my general plan, but i'm glad you brought it up to avoid confusion! Thanks, why we did it, I think we thought it was a possible target (wise move imo!). Cheers, BG^7even 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even see that, my bad :) Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the second half of that that's striked... I copied and pasted my sig cos im fiddling ;) BG^7even 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Back to the bot, I personally believe it's a fine idea. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks for the input :) It should be running by the end of the week/next week in a beta format. Thanks, Goblin 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK's death?

Copied from Wikipedia:Simple talk#DYK's death?.

I believe that DYK is in its last breaths, and I'm beginning to believe that this is a failed experiment. It has been updated once in the last month, and the nomination page doesn't show much activity. Some say it is not dying, just inactive at the moment, however, I feel like it is something that is on its way out. Like the Wiki Cup, it was strong for a bit, but trickled down. Perhaps it is time to consider letting it go the way of the Wiki Cup? Either way (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's backlogged and not being maintained like it should. Editors have tried and failed to save it before, so I think it's time to let it go. Let us not forget that it's transcluded onto the site's main page, so a poorly-maintained template looks bad for us. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(E/C)Thanks for telling the whole community what you feel (rather than just people on irc). I get your point but I don't really agree. It's inactive but if we can get a couple of volounteers (I don't mind doing it) to revive it again, it'll work, I'm sure. Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If there is consensus here, we can remove it (tag as historical) until we have the necessary amount of editors for upkeep. Personally, I think removing the accreditation was what killed it. Synergy 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also remember that before things such as GA and VGA have gone without activity. And to quote Pete's favourite template... {{sofixit}}. Goblin 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the change this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the inactivity in this area. I used to be active here (real life concerns were in the way), and I'll be happy to be more active again. I just finished doing another update. Any other help from now on would be appreciated. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with everyone on this. It is a project that can easily be revived if it gets the appropriate number of users to start updating it, and I would not mind doing this for you all :). Let me know if there is anything that I can do. Cheers, Razorflame 03:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we need:

• Either another change to the rules requiring less editors - i.e. one can review/move/update
• Or more editors get involved with the review/move/update process.
• And more editors nominating articles so that we can make updates once a day every day at a minimum.
• And either more editors nominating photographs with their hooks.
• Or the reviewer/mover/updater may add an image without further review.

It might seem a lot, but in actual fact it's not that much. The whole process could be run with three editors as it is - a nominator, a reviewer, and a mover and updater - and could be run with just one. This would however provide inappropriate results and so a team of about 5 minimum would be an optimum level. Just my thoughts. Thanks, Goblin 16:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It used to be so much easier. You would find a decent article, find a hook, thats it. Now it has to be of a certain length, and VGA's are no longer allowed. Its become increasingly difficult to find an article you can use. Kennedy ^(talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps change it back? I think that VGA articles should be included because the purpose of DYK is to "hook" people into reading the encyclopedia and good articles. As long as that goal is acomplished does it really matter which article it came from (as long as it meats basic requirements)? fr33kman ^talk 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps expand it to include PVGA and PGA articles also since they mostly almost meet the criteria? Just a thought fr33kman ^talk 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we move this discussion to the related talk page (if nobody has any issues with this), as this discussion could get quite long, and probably could do with not being on this page. I personally think that either VGAs and GAs and PVGAs/PGas become allowable again, or alleviate the length requirement. Cheers, Razorflame 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to mention something, we never allowed VGAs at all (iirc), and GAs, PGAs and PVGAs have always been allowed. I think we should remove the lower limit and simply say those with a stub tag are not allowed. However, it's not an issue of not having enough hooks or suitable articles, its the need to find more editors to keep the process alive in the nominating of hooks and reviewing the hooks. And yes, I will copy this to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, put up to here in a lovely collapsible box, and then we can all have tea and biscuits on Kennedy ;) Goblin 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question template

I was wondering if one of the review templates could include this: Question:? --The New Mikemoral (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Is it possible to use these?--The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 07:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Medal
		{{{1}}}

		The 50 DYK Medal
		{{{1}}}

		The 100 DYK Medal
		{{{1}}}

		The 200 DYK Medal
		{{{1}}}

		The DYK Medal
		{{{1}}}

We don't keep track of who nominated what, so this would not work. We had crediting for a bit but ultimately decided to remove it. Either way (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the final one? If a user notices another user's many contributions, then they can reward that one.--The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)