Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Bluegoblin7 in topic neutrality

We're Back!

Firstly, it's great we're back :D. Let's hope that we don't "die" again :). Just wondering... do we want an updating bot? It was previously agreed that it would work, so I think it would be a good idea. Regards, Goblin 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I personally think it's easier to do it manually. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the input. I think there are reasons both for and against it, but i'll wait for more input and for the process to start getting going again before we do anything. If we give credit, it could automate that, and it could also automate the talk page banners etc, as well as archiving. Effectively, it would cut out all of the various stages. Thanks, Goblin 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rules Clarification

Are we using the old rules or are we changing them for the "born-again" DYK? Just want to clarify before we start updating :). Regards, Goblin 09:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

To add to this, I think one change that does need to be made are the 2 support, can't approve and move restrictions etc lifted, as that was ultimately one thing that led to DYK's demise. Regards, Goblin 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why not? We don't get as many articles, so the rules here don't need to be as stringent as enwiki. As long as we're displaying something reasonable on the Main Page for viewing pleasure, I'm totally fine with it. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good :). Let's go with it, i'll go and Be Bold. Goblin 15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
That sounds good but maybe we should use GAs and VGAs sparingly, cause the main point is to use facts from the "lower tier" articles to encourage people to expand them.--   CM16  21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

DYK credits

Sorry for the multiple postings, just another thought, are we going to give DYK credits now? I'm swaying towards the idea personally.

If we did, we need to decide before we make a "new" update, and also if we are going to give credits for "old" DYK hooks. Personally, I would "scratch" the old ones completely and start completely afresh, though others may think otherwise.



Goblin 09:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a good idea, but we need a more systematic approach to this (using bots, for example). Doing it by hand will only lead to gradual forgetting to complete abandoning of the whole system. Chenzw  Talk  14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aye, see above ;). But could I ask for slight clarification as to which parts are good ideas? Thanks, Goblin 14:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes, it would be a nightmare trying to credit the old hooks (our archives are messy). This also brings up a point that we need to set up a new archive system. Chenzw  Talk  14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okie dokie. I shall look into a new archival system, but let's keep the old ones as they are for now (as was suggested on IRC ;).) Cheers, Goblin 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not in favor of credits. 95% of the time the user nominating the hook has barely edited (if at all) the article he or she is nominating. It rewards people for just stumbling upon facts more than anything else. Either way (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
That is a fair point with the DYKs here. If we were to give credit, it might be better to change the rules so that the user has actually contributed to the article. But I don't think that that is feasible at this moment in time, due to the history and the problem that we have with keeping it alive. We should wait for more input before swinging either way I think. Goblin 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


Ho often should an update be? I think all five or seven days, or so. Thoughts? Regards, Barras (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This was something that was never 100% clear with the "old" DYK, and also something that ultimately led to it's demise. Personally, i'd say once a week for the initial updates, whilst things start up again, and then we can re-evaluate in a few weeks time. Personally I think an update every 2-3 days would be good, which means that backlogs would clear fast if we got one. Let's see how it goes, I say :). Goblin 16:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I was thinking every two or three days. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Better three. So all have enough time to look for DYK's. Barras (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Expiring/Stale Nominations

Is there a specific time when an idea become a "Expiring/Stale Nomination?" --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think previously we have said two-three days without input from the original nominator after being given a   No. Nominations without input from other users do not expire. Goblin 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, then I missed that conversation. Thanks. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

800 Characters

There's been a little dispute at T:TDYK about whether there should be a minimum of 800 characters in a hook. What are the community's thoughts on this rule? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could see this maybe relaxed down to 600 or 700, but I think a minimum does need to be put into place. We can't have 4, 5 sentence stubs being our DYKs. These should be mildly developed articles. People are saying that this standard is hard and makes it so less DYKs occur. If anything, it helps the project because it encourages/requires us to develop articles and expand these small stubs. Either way (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with Either way. Decreasing the character rules from 800 to maybe 600 sounds fine to me. Besides, these DYK articles should not be just one or two sentences long. They should at least consist of enough information so our readers can get several facts into their heads, and eventually encourage some of us to improve these articles. — RyanCross (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also agree, there are some decent stubs that have interesting possible hooks in them. 600 should be the minimum though (common sense and consensus per proposal can override imo) but we do need to set a limit. On the other hand; a DYK hook from a 250 char stub might encourage its expansion?!? fr33kman talk 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Various odds & ends

Hello team,

A few odds and ends, nicely bullet pointed below:

  • Update time, I'd suggest around every 10 days as this isn't too long, but at the same time gives enough time for more hooks t be gathered.
  • Article length, I see no reason go below the 800 limit - indeed, just today has an article been expanded and is now on the next update page. Dedication people!
  • Hook bank: What I suggest is we build up a "bank" of hooks from Good Articles (and perhaps Very Good Articles) that can be called upon in case we are short of hooks and an update is approaching.
  • FastTrack - perhaps have a system whereby users who have had several good hooks in the past can have future hooks "FastTracked" through certain stages? It would need working out with the community how such a system should work.
  • Teams - we set up dedicated DYK teams, one for hook finding, one for reviewing and one for updating. Again just a thought, no idea if there would be enough interest or not!

Thoughts, please!


Goblin 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anons proposing hooks

Goblin and I had a discussion about who is permitted to propose hooks. The rules of DYK state that "an editor" proposes a hook; the question is being asked, "does this include anons?" fr33kman talk 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply


  • I believe in anons (I was one for a long time on enWP). True many are disruptive to the project, but if an anon has no (recent) history of being disruptive should an otherwise possibly good proposal be trashed simply because an anon proposed it? I understand that most anons will actually be non-static IPs but the proposal is normally a one time posting anyway. Therefore, I think anons should (in theory) be permitted to propose hooks fr33kman talk 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I have no objection if anons propose hooks. However, I fear that most of the anons here are vandals (Unlike at en where good anons exists). I suggest we give this system a try for the next month. If it works out well, then fine, no need not to allow anons to contribute. Anyway, WT:DYK's statement is a bit ambiguous. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't see why not. It all depends on if the hook is good (or good-faith at least). If it is, then all is well. If it is not, then warn the IP with standard practices. I don't see why we should stop IPs from suggesting good hooks. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). 08:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Five Day Update

Hey gang,

I think it's probably a wise move to move down to a five day update cycle. I think it's safe to say that we can sustain interest, and we've certainly got plenty of hooks lying around.

I'm going be bold and change around how the "queue" system works to make much more sense, and i'm also going to look into a bot - but that's someway off, we need to maintain the interest first ;). If anyone has any objections, just shout!


Goblin 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fine (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I support this 5 day cycle per my views at IRC where I supported BG7's 5 day proposal. Pmlinediter  Talk 07:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another next update

Would it seem alright to add another next update to the DYK system? Although, the names need change; "next next next update" is not very good. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not right now, I don't think so, personally. The (latest) resurrection of DYK is relatively new and it's anyone's guess as to whether or not it will survive and thrive as we want it to. Right now, I think that the next-next update is a good idea and that any additionally approved hooks can simply sit in the T:TDYK page until there is space available in the next-next update page. I think it's great that this iteration of DYK seems to be thriving; but experience makes me leary of adding an additional layer of complexity at this point. IMO :-) fr33kman talk 01:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Per Fr33ky, I don't think it's needed right now. That said, I am planning out an overhaul to the queuing system as ours is a bit cumbersome. I can either suggest it first linking to an example on my personal wiki, or I can just be bold - up to you guys :). Goblin 08:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Be bold; we can always revert if it doesn't meet with approval here. fr33kman talk 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  Done - Comments, please! Should be pretty straight forwards as long as the updating user follows the steps carefully. It's also future-proofed should we wish to add anything else. One question, should I perhaps add edit notices for the pages to make it doubly clear? Goblin 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply


I'd be willing to help more here, if someone could condense the processing instructions. :) Incidentally, next next update? Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've just updated the system, please read through and ask if there's anything you need help with, thanks for the interest. Goblin 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Are there instructions posted somewhere for the updating of the template? I might have missed it. Thank you again! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The basic jist is at the bottom of all of the Queues. I want feedback on how complex/simple that is, and if it needs tweaking I will, by way of edit notices if need be! Regards, Goblin 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply

Loosen Up

I've noticed the standards for hooks are becoming increasingly high - I thought we'd decided not to use the readability tool, but I may be wrong. Thoughts? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't think we used it either... especially considering it's not actually that accurate. Shappy, anything else you've noticed? (Though we have become a lot more lax recently, which is good ;)) Goblin 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Why would we feature complex articles? I don't understand the point in featuring, showcasing articles if our intended audience is not able to understand them easily... I'm not just feeding the articles into the tool (and the tool may not be accurate for short articles) but I am using the tool in conjunction with common sense. If the tool says 12'th grade reading level, and I read the article, and see words like "organization" and "wherewithal"... and I also see compound long sentences, then we've not met our goal for that article. We are the Simple Wikipedia... let us at least meet our standard when we showcase an article. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
True, the tool can suggest potential issues, but it is deeply flawed, especially on foreign articles or "non-survey" articles that have to use at least some of the specialized vocabulary of their subjects. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. If there's one word in an article that isn't completely Simple, that's not a reason to reject the whole hook. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I hope that you are not under the impression that I use only the tool to make my decision, no, in fact I only use the tool as guidance. I make my decision based off of the entire article, and my common sense. And, as above, we don't showcase complex articles. DYK needs to have some standards. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Too lax

Hi! I think it's really good that the rules have loosened up recently, but I've got to point out that they've become too loose. I've noticed many hooks put forward that simply are not sourced/cited, that don't actually say what the hook claims they do in the article (or in the way the hook says it does), have complex tags on them etc. I agree the readability tool is useless but a complex tag must be a fatal flaw for an article! A WP is an encyclopedia and is expected to be accurate and deal solely in facts. DYK is a method we use to get readers "hooked" into reading articles they might not find otherwise. Both the DYK hook and the article it hooks to must be accurate and the article must have a reliable citation in it for proper verification.. I'm not saying articles must be fully sourced but the facts used in the hooks must be, full-stop! Can I please ask everyone working on DYK to reread the criteria and to ensure that both the hooks are going to pass and that the articles are going to be acceptable prior to nominating a new hook? Let's all remember the five pillars; they apply to DYK too. :) Thanks! fr33kman talk 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Non reviewed hooks

These hooks need review before they are move to a Q that is on it's way to the main page. It makes no sense at all to progress a hook to the main page without a check, especially since the administrator moving the hook may or may not be checking. This needs to be done. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, firstly it's not just admins that move stuff. There's no full protection anywhere. Secondly, as I appear to be the main mover of hooks, I can assure you that I do check every hook before moving it from the suggestions page to a Queue, and every hook I move will have been reviewed by a reviewer as well. I don't see what you are getting at, afaik no hooks have been Queued without going through the normal process. Goblin 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Ok, I did not know that the transcluded DYK template was unprotected. Also, I just "no"ed a hook that was in a queue today. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Which queue was that? I don't see any edits to any of the Queues since yesterday, except T:DYK/Q2 as it was updated today... Goblin 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Pardon, the "to be moved to a queue" sub sub queue on the suggestions page. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
There might be a better way to organize the hooks, I don't know. But so far, what we have now is perfect. I'll look after I fix the two DYK articles I no'ed to try and get them yes'ed. (well I no'ed one, and I'm fixing another one, but they are both on my list). NonvocalScream (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is... per en, though minus the dates. I.e., we don't need the sections, so I was just bold and got rid of them. If you're referring to Benazir Bhutto btw, I think you'll find that was nominated after my hook... Goblin 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Excellent. Yes, I think I'm working on those hooks in reverse, but I think I can have them done both over the next few hours. I'm trying to get it done quickly, but there are also other things pulling my attention. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's hardly a queue... personally I don't even think that needs to be there as it segregates out the hooks... That's just as much a part of the review page as the section above... Oh wait, it is the review page, how stupid of me. Goblin 19:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! And yes, I would make the same statements regardless of who the hook "belonged" too.Reply

Tweaks needed? ...

Hi all DYK participants! Firstly, I'd like to personally thank all of you for the job you are doing in keeping this iteration of DYK alive and thriving! We are having hooks nominated all the time and have become so active (after all the prior deaths) that we've needed to add queues even!! Wow!

I would like to start discussion to tweak the process a bit, however. I think most of us are guilty, but we've let the quality of DYK slip a little bit. This is the case with both the hooks making it through the process and with the process itself. We've let hooks through that shouldn't have made it and we've become a little too lax in the procedures of DYK (such as nominating hooks with fatal flaws, forgetting to add images to hooks if they are available, forgetting the two spaces needed to separate hooks [I know it's small, but I'm dyslexic and sometimes get lost if they aren't there], and not moving hooks in a timely fashion into queues).

As such, I'd like to get some suggestions on what other people think is working, what isn't working and what we can do to help tighten up the system. I think the rules regarding nominations are fine, just not processes. Examples of things I'd like to discuss are; credits, incentives (DYK Cup?), who can move hooks, etc.

So, what do you think? Cheers!

fr33kman talk 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Changer credits

I think a credit system would be encouraging. With stringent requirements, adding credits (a little box on the talk page similar to a barnstar) for those who created or significantly expanded an article would go a long way with certian editors, myself included. Everyone loves a good pat on the back. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about a dual level system? One level when you just get a topicon for simply finding a hook that makes it into the mainpage and a second with the more rigorous requirements? I'd like to encourage people to help build or expand the article but also reward those who find the hooks for DYK. fr33kman talk 00:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
That is even better, both groups of editors get recognition. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yup, definitely a two-tier system or much more rigourous requirements. We shouldn't be rewarding people for doing relatively little, i.e. something as easy as pressing Special:Random and having a quick read. Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply

DYK cup

I've mixed feelings about this one... I don't think the wikicup made it very far. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it could be made to work, and that the main issue with the WikiCup was that it was too complex and there wasn't enough activity at that time. The wiki is more active now so could probably work better. I've got a few ideas which I will share at a later stage. Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply


I believe we must showcase only the best article... so only those that make the bottom of that scale are on DYK preferably. For example... if they are even a little complex, the need to fail. So they can be improved. This is a major issue. I also have issues passing unstable articles to DYK, example, those with recent developments. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Part of the whole reason for DYK is to get articles to be improved, both by new and old users alike. I don't see anything wrong with the current requirements which have been tweaked many, many times in the past and I feel that these are perfect for what we currently "do". Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Agree with Goblin. DYK is for articles to improve, articles with imperfections. Showcasing our best articles is what PGA and PVGA are for. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a problem with unstable articles - part of the reason I suggested keeping them around longer (below) in addition to the concerns about not seeing all nominations is that it gives a chance for problems to be fixed. This is a Good Thing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeh, I think perhaps out of everything raised here the timing would be the most important to resolve quickly. Would anyone object if I was bold and made a 3-day minimum time compulsory from now? Finer details can be continued to be discussed, but certainly a lower time limit is a good thing. Thoughts? Regards, Goblin 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! Cross-posted belowReply

Nominations page


This page is horrible with my eyesight. Please consider adding level three headers for each hook. It needs to be accessible. I have to remove my contacts to use this page. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree it needs something to separate the hooks. I was thinking along the lines of level three headings myself, so I think that'd be a good start. What do other people think? fr33kman talk 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the idea of the three headers for each hook. Perhaps, we can expand WP:DYK to include the rules and pull up the nominations after the DYK table. Regards, Pmlineditor 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC).Reply
If it works... I need something to separate the hooks. There are so many, and it is becoming difficult. I just want it easier... if possible. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree it can be hard for people to read. We are actually required by US federal law (and UK/EU law) to make reasonable changes to accommodate persons with disabilities such as dyslexia. fr33kman talk 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think a level three heading makes a lot of sense. It separates the nominations very clearly and uses very little DB space and bandwidth. Please outline why you think they are not a good idea. fr33kman talk 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
No reason, in fact. I think it makes the system unnecessarily complex. On the other hand, I have no strong opposition to its inclusion as on second thoughts, it does help improve the look of the page. So, I might just say Yes. Pmlineditor 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
:o) I just want to see the nominations easier! If there are no strong objections, I'll place the headings in tonight. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Despite my initial opposition, I actually quite like these L3 headings and think that it is a good move on the part of everyone who thought them up. It's also reminded me to dust off a DYK tool I was working on, initially for EN but now here, and I will go back to developing it :). Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply


I need these, because I am confused by all the pages required to go thru to update the mainpage. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree these are required. I just updated the mainpage and it took me a bit of reading to do it. I think the current instructions are very good, but perhaps others can suggest changes to them to make it easier for anyone to update the main page. fr33kman talk 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are instructions at the bottom of every queue, and I am preparing an edit-notice that can be added to DYK pages further detailing the instructions. Personally, I believe that the instructions are pretty clear, but then again i'm biased as I wrote them and devised the system - further input would be appreciated. Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply


We need an established rule and official rule on timing. Entries are disappearing from the nomination page so quickly that I'm not always even seeing them. To that end, I propose that they stay on the nomination page for at a minimum three days.--Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Definitely   Not. 1 day should be enough. Pmlineditor 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it should be at least three days. This gives editors time to review, approve, ask questions or reject. It also gives nominating editors or others time to fix problems. One day is no where near enough time. fr33kman talk 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
But well, that'll have an impact on the DYK updates which is currently 5 days. If all hooks stay for 3 days, then that'll be hampered. Perhaps, we can settle for something in the middle ;):- 2 days at the least and preferably 3. Also, I'll like some comment on the proposal of the the nominators/reviewers moving the hook. Pmlineditor 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think that's a good point to raise, but will it really impact since we have five queues and only one active per five day period? Perhaps we could say a minimum of three days and try it out for a couple of weeks and see if we run into trouble? Where is your comment about editors/noms moving hooks? I don't see it on this page (unless I'm missing it somewhere!?!?) fr33kman talk 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to that discussion between you and Gobby. :P Pmlineditor 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
My personal thoughts on this are the following:
  • 3 days between nomination and queueing.
  • 5 days from nomination to removal if they become stale
  • A DYK update every 5 days, which has been working well.
Thoughts? Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply
Yeh, I think perhaps out of everything raised here the timing would be the most important to resolve quickly. Would anyone object if I was bold and made a 3-day minimum time compulsory from now? Finer details can be continued to be discussed, but certainly a lower time limit is a good thing. Thoughts? Regards, Goblin 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! Cross-posted aboveReply
Sounds good to me! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply


No change here, but I would remind people to avoid these edits (sorry fr33kman, yours was just the most recent such edit) where they promote/demote a tag they have commented on.--Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed that because it had been rejected. My involvement was merely a comment; not a vote. I was talking with Gobby and I think we should allow an editor to move or remove hooks they are involved with as long as they are not the only editor to approve or reject it. Comments? fr33kman talk 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Remember: Just because a COI can occur, doesn't mean that it is occurring. I think we can trust the regular contributors to DYK to avoid COI's and if we do see a problem move, we can address it at that time. fr33kman talk 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
/me grants Fr33kman's point. Considering that...I suppose I don't really care which way we do this - but it should be clearly stated somewhere to avoid confusion. Philosopher Let us reason together.
My views on this are that there should be no issue with the "regulars", or a specific list of users, or even a general rule, moving hooks that they have either nominated, approved or commented on provided that there is a third party that has commented. I.e. the nominator and two "yes"'s. Such edits should also be able to be undone uncontroversially without warning and without being considered an edit war. If editors fought against this then perhaps the privelige removed. (Just thinking out loud!). Again, any other thoughts? Goblin 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!Reply

Updates (2)

Hi all! I think we should update the DYK on main page all 7 and not 5 days. I think this would be better. THoughts? Barras || talk 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Much like we know that the TOTW gets updated Monday or Tuesday, what about aiming for an update of DYK for Friday or Saturday. Most people work/do other stuff during the week, so getting them for the weekend would really be better than getting them for the week. But otherwise: good idea. --Eptalon (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'd prefer Saturday/Sunday though I have updated at almost all days of the week. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 15:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

DYK template

I hereby present to you {{DYK}}, an easy way to evaluate hooks as required :). Comments? MC8 (b · t) 14:38, Thursday September 3 2009 (UTC)


Regarding this... We are not giving weight to certain holidays. That breaks neutrality. Actually, I've removed the entire special occasions section. We can not give weight to certain "occasions". The entirety of that idea is not a neutral point of view. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's there because an interest was expressed in Christmas hooks - indeed one was nominated. Furthermore, it has been there for a while, so I don't see your removal as something that can just happen without discussion. We also had Christmas hooks last year and are repeating the process. Feel free to suggest other holidays, but having Christmas there is clearly not expressing a POV. For that reason, i've reverted you. Goblin 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!Reply
Return to the project page "Did you know/Archive 1".