Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Template:Archive box collapsible

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

DYKAdminBot...

...skipped articles in it's first update. See Talk:Empress_Dowager_Guo_(Muzong), Talk:Showdown_(Pendulum_song). And it is currently updating twice... -_- —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It's been doing it for two days now, taking from one queue and than another in a span of less than eight minutes.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the correct update. Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create a centralized page for bot glitches instead of having them scattered around this page. It might help us find a pattern, and help nixeagle debug. Shubinator (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but it's probably just as easy for nixeagle to look through T:DYK to figure out what is going wrong. Gatoclass (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does anyone know what language the bot is written in? Maybe I could pick up a book on it and try a little debugging myself. Although one appreciates their efforts, it's frustrating having to wait for overworked bot managers to get around to taking a look at our little corner of the project. Gatoclass (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot appears to be written in PHP code (quick reference: '$' in front of a word makes it a variable, and ';' ends a statement). Perhaps I should learn PHP instead of Python ... so similar to Java. -- CB...(ö) 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a... the bot, which skipped most of the previous update, has skipped the most recent update altogether. I waited 70 minutes past the due time and nothing so I've done a full manual update. I won't be at the PC most of this weekend. If the bot is really dead (again) then we need somebody who can make the manual update on schedule for the next couple of days. - Dravecky (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that the bot messed up somewhere between getting the current T:DYK page and finishing up...oddly enough, there seems to have been no actual break in the bot's acitivites, but rather a 3-minute interruption in communication between the bot and the "wikipediaindex" ($wpi). I have no idea yet why the bot hasn't resumed its responsibilities...I'm unsure of how to actually run parts of the code that cause threads to "die()" and test them out. -- CB...(ö) 17:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

It's that time again. Another update needed, admins. Shubinator (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to VS! Shubinator (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest update (from queue 3) is now complete. - Dravecky (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed. Shubinator (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to YellowMonkey! Shubinator (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another manual update (including credits) is in the books. - Dravecky (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another manual update. (How's that bot coming?) - Dravecky (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to YellowMonkey! Shubinator (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Run this in an image slot

This should also be reported here instead. Art LaPella (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Queue 4. Shubinator (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr image could be replaced with this image from the same queue File:Mont Saint-Michel de Brasparts1.jpg. Flickr image has no good description and it should have been uploaded to Commons. Its uploading to English Wikipedia was wrong. Please take a look Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on my talk page when you asked for the same image to be promoted, the building which is quite striking at 1024x768 is an indistinct gray blob at 100px across and given than a dozen images a day are nominated for the maximum 4 available slots, it's unlikely to find its way to an image slot.

If the current image in queue 4 needs to be uploaded to Commons, then I encourage somebody to take care of that. However, since DYK procedure for images at Commons is for an admin to have to copy it and upload it here temporarily anyway, I'm not sure it's a disqualifier for this attention-grabbing image. - Dravecky (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the image has a bad description and a very low resolution. Besides IMO we should rather promote an image taken by Wikipedian than an image from Flickr. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants a new nomination template?

The new DYK nomination template is all ready (in fact, it has been used a couple times already at T:TDYK, by Hassocks and by me), and if everyone is ready to switch over the only thing that really needs to be done now is to update the T:TDYK edit notice (MediaWiki:Editnotice-11-Did you know) so that it has a big thing saying "hey everyone there's a new template"), and updated instructions. I have drafted a sample new edit notice at Template:NewDYKnomination/neweditnotice; if it's acceptable, someone can just paste the code from that edit notice (excluding the <noinclude> and everything following it) into MediaWiki:Editnotice-11-Did you know, and update {{DYKsugstrings}} (the template that shows instructions on T:TDYK) with the sample strings from that same edit notice. I can then update the instructions at T:TDYK#Sample DYK suggestion strings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, if anyone here was not around for my messages in the past about this template: the main reasons this new template was made are that a) it's, hopefully, simpler than the current setup and won't confuse people as much; and b) it will greatly lower the byte count on T:TDYK, so that the page will hopefully not take forever to open.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone can just paste the code from that edit notice (excluding the <noinclude> and everything following it

Shouldn't that "noinclude" have a matching "/noinclude" somewhere? Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think it should be ok because it's at the end...and the little message box after it was basically just a note for myself so I don't forget where MediaWiki:Editnotice-11-Did you know is; that stuff doesn't need to be copied into the actual edit notice, so for the actual edit notice I don't think there needs to be a "noinclude" at all. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you can explain why it's needed in the first place to my satisfaction (and assuming it works properly) I see no issues with this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question just now occurred to me: How will this new nom template interface with Shubinator's new DYKcheck tool? In particular, I note that the tool checks for 5x expansion only if the nom indicated that the article was an expansion. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to indicate 5x expansion in the nom (status=expanded); as for how stuff works with DYKcheck, though, Shubinator will know more about that than I do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the script will be able to read 5x expanded from the HTML. Of course, the nominator will have to specify expansion for the template to show 5x expanded. DYKcheck will also pick up if 5x expan is mentioned anywhere in the comments for the nom, so if one nominator forgets someone can just add a note. Shubinator (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants a script to check DYK nominations?

At long last, the script I've been working on is finished. It's called DYKcheck, and it checks nominations for routine things like prose size, inline citations, stub tags, ITN or DYK appearances, date of creation, date of expansion, moves from userspace, and hook length. Its description page does a good job of describing it; I'll just say it's quite amazing. Thanks to Art for giving me the idea for customizable options with his comment on interpreting about more loosely than others. And thanks to 74.14; I've made sure the tool works for anons. Let me know what you think! Shubinator (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still need to check for sources and verifiability, but this tool would definitely help ease the repetitiveness of checking all the other things. I'll definitely try this. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just used it on Casliber's nom, and it worked out very nicely. For the time being, though, I think we should still check the histories ourselves, just since the script has just been released and there might be a bug or two that hasn't revealed itself yet.
- Also, when I reviewed the nomination I felt like I should write something like "length and history verified (checked by User:Shubinator/DYKcheck)" just to let people know that I was using the tool. Would people find it useful, for the next week or so at least, to have templates to quickly and easily show that text? Something like {{DYKtickwithscript}}, yielding
  (checked using User:Shubinator/DYKcheck)
  That might act as sort of a disclaimer until we are 100% sure that the script is bug-free? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice. This will make our work much easier. Well done, Shubinator! As for Rjanag's suggestion, I think this parallel adoption approach would be a good idea. How long should this be? Chamal ^talk 13:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - {{DYKtickwithscript}} and {{DYKtickAGFwithscript}} now work:
      - (checked using DYKcheck)
      - (checked using DYKcheck) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried with a few hook, and there seems to be a problem. All of them shows the hook length fine, but shows prose size as 0 and says "no inline citations". The line that is supposed to show information about expansion/creation is blank. What's wrong here? Chamal ^talk 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait... reloading the page seems to fix it. So do we have to refresh WP:TDYK to check each hook? Chamal ^talk 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me it works without reloading the page. Different browser? I'm using Firefox. Shubinator (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: This hook is shown as "Article has not been created or expanded within the past 10 days (1958 days)", but article has been expanded today by more than 5x. Maybe we could use User talk:Shubinator/DYKcheck for reporting bugs/problems btw? Chamal ^talk 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue. The article was quite massive before (for example here). The tool will get confused if the article length yoyos a lot, because it uses a binary search algorithm which assumes the prose length has only crossed the 1x line once. And sure, you can use the talk page for bugs if you want. Here or my talk page works fine too. Shubinator (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tool works well, mostly, but I got a similar erroneous result on Middle Colonies. The result it gave on my own 5x-expanded hook is better, but a user would still need to go in to check the history and determine the pre-expansion article size (among other things, it got the date of the expansion wrong, as the expansion started on 16 February -- what time zone is the tool using?):

DYK eligibility scan results: (See here for details.)

Article: Rural Cemetery Act
Prose size (text only): 5018 B (819 words) "readable prose size"
Article created by Nunh-huh on June 29, 2006
Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 20 edits ago on February 17, 2009
Original Hook: 126 characters

--Orlady (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tool gives the date the article crossed the 1x line. For Rural Cemetery Act, that would be this revision on February 17. DYKcheck uses Wikipedia time. Shubinator (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I figured that I started expanding it 8 hours earlier, when I first touched the article, but I guess the tool is actually correct -- the expansion of prose content did not begin until 17 February.

Do I understand you to say that the tool measures when the article was increased beyond one-fifth of its current prose size?--Orlady (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Technically it finds the last revision that was below one-fifth its present prose, and then displays the date of the edit that took it above one-fifth. Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the documentation closely, so throw a bucket of wet noodles at me if my question is already answered there. Is there some way to tell the tool where on the page to start checking? By default, it starts with the newest hooks, which is not the way DYK-checkers normally work. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Orlady (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket of wet noodles thrown :). If DYKcheck sees a # in your URL, it will start at that section. So if it sees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_February_16, it will start with the February 16 noms. Shubinator (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wipes noodles off face. Thanks, that works! --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try the tool on a multiple article nom, try this one out. (The script won't check for 5x since the string 5x expan is not in 5x+ expansion. I'd add a note for the benefit of the tool, except this nom would take forever to complete with the expansion check.) Shubinator (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few bugs to report

This has great potential, but there are a few glitches on Internet Explorer. I'm on v7. It seems to report "No inline citations" consistently ... I wonder if the use of <ref name="XXX"> as opposed to <ref> is causing it? Also, on T:T/DYK, I get a really weird layout problem: the tabs (Template, Discussion, Edit this Page, New Section, History and Watch) drop down and overlap the page title, and the quick links at the top right (Hassocks5489, My talk, My preferences, My watchlist, My contributions, Log out) disappear completely. I'll report any more oddities I spot. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations bug fixed. For geeks: IE processes the innerHTML method differently than Firefox; it doesn't show quotes for ids and the tags are in all caps. I'll look through the code to see where else it might be affected. The layout problem is probably caused by fixing the sidebar, since it only happens on T:TDYK. You can configure DYKcheck to never fix the sidebar and you shouldn't have that problem (but of course the sidebar won't be fixed). I'll see if I can make the fixed sidebar work though. Thanks for catching these! Shubinator (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a way to fix the sidebar and not have layout problems with IE. The meta user styles page where I got the code actually says it shouldn't work at all; I think it hasn't been updated for IE 7. If you do turn off fixing the sidebar with the options, you can still get DYKcheck to run if you're in the middle of T:TDYK by putting javascript:dykCheck(); into your URL and pressing enter. Sorry I couldn't fix it. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I ran a check on St Cosmas and St Damian Church, Keymer, the tool said the article was created by Paste on February 12, 2009, but it also says that was not in the last 10 days, but was 1316 days ago. I can't figure out why the tool has that notion; the page logs do not show any move activity or an earlier deleted version. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you weren't looking at the results for Eccles, Greater Manchester? That one shows 1316 days for me; St Cosmas and St Damian Church, Keymer is not showing any flags. Shubinator (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tool gives me accurate results now, but I'm sure I wasn't looking at Eccles earlier. The tool accurately gave the creator's name and date ("Paste on February 12, 2009"), but it also inaccurately said the article was not created in the last 10 days and was 1316 days old. --Orlady (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. The article creation function is passed the same variables as everything else. If you clicked on the tool before the last nomination was done processing you could have run into concurrent threads. Otherwise the variables might be remembering something...but all the ones that count are cleared for each title. Let me know if you can reproduce the bug. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This script could be very useful for GA reviews, Peer reviews, and Featured article candidate discussions, as well. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjanag/DYK_non-admin_participants

Hey everyone, a while back, I remember a while back Politizer (Now Rjang) put together a list of active non-admin participants in DYK (User:Rjanag/DYK_non-admin_participants), and I was wondering if we should make the list official? I can't really remember anyone objecting to this and I think it would help to increase DYK's transparency. So what does everyone think about possible making this official and moving it into the Wikipedia: namespace? Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally forgot about that! Anyway, I wouldn't have any problem with either moving it to mainspace or just pasting it into WP:DYK. And by now we have some new contributors who might be interested in adding their names to the list :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is any participation list "official" in any way? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A participation list never can be official, what I am proposing is moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace and making it like WP:DYK/A so that its easier to find and is not buried in Rjang's userspace ;). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not do that? And it wouldn't be named space. That's still a subspace. Named space is if it was at WP:DYK Participants, or something similar. Subspace is non-controversial (mostly). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a great idea Mifter (talk · contribs), to move User:Rjanag/DYK_non-admin_participants to Wikipedia-space. Also would be best to update it again to see who is active/inactive. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Did you know/Non-admin participants, shortcut WP:DYK/NAP. • \ / (⁂) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does anyone mind if I nominate DYKable as a redirect for deletion? It's a pretty improbable mainspace redirect. • \ / (⁂) 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here...nothing links to it and I doubt anyone will ever use it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks need checking ASAP

Could editors make a special effort to check out the "older" hook nominations? There are dozens and dozens of hooks that need attention and verification so we can continue to promote queues to the front page. Certified biographies are in the shortest supply but all of them need to be checked as soon as possible so balanced queues can be constructed. (Oh, and a thoughtful look at the two remaining February 8th hooks would be especially welcomed.) Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still need checking, now more than ever, and another wee hours update is complete. - Dravecky (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just verified a bunch of hooks (including a bunch of bio hooks ;) ) but there's still a lot of hooks left and any help would be appreciated :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it. Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions 240 issue

Just noticed this at Wikipedia:Recent additions 240: "... that coaches of the Great Western Railway were built up to 13 feet (4 m) longer than most other British railway carriages of the time? [redacted link" A forum link amongst the DYKs? Surely this must be some kind of mistake. Manxruler (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I'll search and try to find who added them. • \ / (⁂) 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears some spammers were trying to boost their Google rank. Redacted link and removed it elsewhere. I'll see if I can get it blacklisted. • \ / (⁂) 07:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's been 8 hours since the Main Page was updated. I'd do it myself but am still not confident about the process for protecting an image. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:DYK#Pictures. Shubinator (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ruhrfisch! Shubinator (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin take care of some temporarily uploaded pics that never got deleted? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Shubinator (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The archives aren't very consistent...a lot don't have the pictures linked, some pictures haven't been deleted, the articles before archive 49 don't have the dyktalk template, etc. I'll see if sometime I can make a script/bot...but first priority is the DYKadminBot. Don't know if I'll get the time any time soon though to program a new one. Shubinator (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of the rules

User:Art LaPella/Proposed rules rewrite for Did You Know

This isn’t a rule change; it’s a rule explanation change. This version of the rules should be easier to understand because:

The description of each Did You Know function has been separated. If a newbie doesn't understand, nothing confuses him faster than constant interruptions about things like updating Next Update, when all he's trying to understand is how to write an article for DYK, and/or nominate an article.
Wikipedia:Summary style allows you to read about any subtopic without getting bogged down in the details.
Therefore, I can add a lot more explanation, and it doesn’t get in the way unless you ask for it. For instance, if you think this is instruction creep, there’s even a section to explain that.
Nearly all the text in WP:DYK, WP:DYKAR and T:TDYK#Instructions has been included, but it has been moved around to keep separate topics separate and the same topics together. Some of the duplicate rules have been omitted. If you see a rule I can’t explain, it’s because I copied it from the existing rules.

Some people won’t like an explanation others can understand. They will call it patronizing and unencyclopedic. My philosophy is that a working system is better than an admired system.

I don’t do approvals or moving on to Next Update and beyond, in part because an explanation like this doesn’t exist. So I pretty much blindly copied the rules for those functions, and that part of my system will be the easiest to improve.

I didn’t create the shortcut redirects because I would have to change them anyway when moving to Wikipedia namespace. Also, adding images might help relax people (I don’t have much experience with them).

I hope DYKCheck helps. Otherwise, if nominations, but not approvals and updates, are easier for beginners to understand, there may be a flood of nominations and more work for the rest of us. Art LaPella (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that I'm not at all keen - especially with the way everything has been separated into separate pages. The rules may well need a rewrite, some reorganization and tweaking, but I'm not persuaded this is the way to proceed. Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you aren't persuaded you could give me a hint where my persuasion in my previous post broke down. :)

Another form of persuasion would be to find a volunteer unfamiliar with DYK and give him a task like evaluating a nomination. Then ask him if he found information more easily with a long list of unfamiliar concepts jumbled together on one page – well, two pages – trying to pick his way past constant irrelevant interruptions like what admins did before DYKADMINBOT? Or was it easier to get unfamiliar concepts presented one at a time in predigested bites before confusing it with the next concept? Beginners should be our first priority, not preaching to the choir.

Perhaps I should have made this clearer in the introduction, but I also think my system is easier for regulars to navigate, at least when they discover they can bypass intermediate screens using Category:Wikipedia Did you know rules instead of the old system's Table of Contents. The information is combined at the expected place, not all mixed together with unrelated topics. If the old system is so easy to navigate, then why couldn't anyone correct the problems of the same information repeated in unrelated sections, and why is it so often out of date? Art LaPella (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization structure makes it more complicated. Yes, I now know what I can do. However, I now have to search through many pages to try and find it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I have to say it's clear that Art has put a ton of work into this...so, no matter what we decide on it, hats off to Art for doing all this.
That being said, I do agree with Gato that this is a bit daunting. I don't know if that means we should completely throw this out, though; personally, I still think that a good solution for a lot of the DYK rules problem is to have the main rules page just listing the four "pillars" of the DYK rules or whatever (just the important stuff—newness, cited hook, article not being crappy, and whatever) and leaving the details (how to calculate expansion, etc.) in the subpage(s). (I made a longer posting about this idea, don't remember where, it's somewhere in the WT:DYK archives.) In any case, Art's setup might be useful as a sort of tutorial, rather than as a reference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, my babbling about pillars is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 40#Verification. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds better than WP:DYK. Art LaPella (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too commend Art LaPella for being so concerned about those of us who now feel disenfranchised from DYK and for soliciting my input. When I started at DYK almost two years ago, I don't remember reading much of anything. Mostly I looked at the nominations and the comments and could figure it out that way, only occasionally consulting the short list of rules. In those days there was not the intense competition and heated talk page arguments that exist now. As far as the new (or rewritten) rules, the terminology is now so unfamiliar, the sections with bewildering names so many, and the rules so exacting that I would have to spend quite a bit of time figuring out even where to begin. That takes more motivation than I have, since DKY is no longer the relaxing backwaters it used to be where I could exercise ingenuity to produce a creative hook. Further, I am not willing to engage in legalistic talk page defenses of particular hooks or particular rules. I used to enjoy improving the hooks of others and even improving their articles and sourcing to produce a fine DYK hook for someone else. I looked at the hooks recently with that in mind, but no longer felt that it was permissible for me to plunge in and offer an ALT hook. Perhaps there is a place in the rules that explains the correct way of doing that now. (I feel like I might be beheaded if I did the wrong thing, since the fact that DYKs appear on the main page has morphed into such an important factor that a mistake might warrant the death penalty.) I fear there is no going back to those less intense times. DYK is no long a fun place for quaint oddities and expression of creativity in hook writing but rather laundry line battles. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unfamiliar terminology is defined at User:Art LaPella/Proposed rules rewrite for Did You Know/Glossary, which didn't exist before; I thought I reminded people of its existence often enough to sound silly. I didn't describe how to offer an ALT hook beyond briefly defining it as an alternate and suggesting looking at the suggestion page for its format. But there is a section (and subsections) for writing a hook, which would also do for an ALT: User:Art LaPella/Proposed rules rewrite for Did You Know/Hook, which would change to WP:Did you know/Hook. I still think that section, for instance, is easier to find than reading past Raul's pencil sharpener and all that other stuff first, especially when using Category:Wikipedia Did you know rules; and it also links to all our material on hooks without searching Additional Rules. Art LaPella (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a site map. Does that make things easier to find for people who already know them? Art LaPella (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crumbs - a glossary!? Is the jargon really as bad as that? Bad DYK. Bad DYK. :( There is a tendancy for one-off decisions in particular cases to ossify into binding precedent. Perhaps it is time to get the machete and flamethrower out, and realy cut the "rules" down to size. WP:IAR.

Having said that, I think this is a good starting point. I like the very clean front page - modelled on WP:WIAFA? - but I think it should concentrate on the DYK criteria rather than the process for getting to the Main Page. Can the subsidiary material be thinned down and done as sections of a single page? -- Testing times (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty to encouraging the tendency for one-off decisions to ossify. The alternative isn't that the situation will go away; the alternative is that the decision will be unpredictable without weeks of studying previous precedent to know if your nomination will be approved. The way to take a machete to the rules – not just the written rules but the unwritten precedents that would otherwise apply – isn't to ignore the rules; on the contrary it's to emphasize a simplified set of rules and get everyone to conform. See my Instruction creep section.

No, I don't know much about Featured Article procedure; I consider Featured Article procedure to take more time than it's worth for such a tiny fraction of Wikipedia's articles. I didn't "concentrate on the DYK criteria" on the first page because nobody needs to know how to do everything at once, and if we insist on people understanding admin functions before they can submit a nomination, they might give up on the whole idea instead. So the first page asks people what they want to do. Then I tell them the DYK criteria for that task. It's the old version that emphasizes the steps leading to the Main Page; my version emphasizes what you need to do to accomplish any one of those steps. And I don't know why I would combine the subsidiary material on one page like the Additional Rules; the way to reduce the confusion factor is to introduce those explanations only when the reader asks for them, and provide them directly rather than reading the entire Additional Rules page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna echo Art here: I always get a little bugged when people accuse him or other rules-rewriters of creating "instruction creep." The rules are the consensus, and the instruction creep has just happened on its own, grown out of months and months of people starting arguments; if enough nitpicky arguments get started over whether expansion is counted from bytes or characters, then eventually there is gonna be a nitpicky rule about it. Art's unwritten rules, the Additional Rules page, and this page don't create the nitpicky rules; they have just documented them so that we can have a shorthand of what the consensus on these nitpicky issues are, rather than having to dig through 40 archives. If we were to do away with the nitpicky rules page, that wouldn't stop there from being arguments over byte count; it would just mean we wouldn't have any convenient way to respond to them (and would have to start a major thread and waste everyone's time every time one of these tiny issues came up). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not intending to point fingers at any particular participant (and I didn't accuse anyone of instruction creep either). Art has put his head above the parapet and should be congratulated for doing so.

My point, really, is that surely we should be able to make do with some statements of principles and then common sense. The margins are always grey and fuzzy, so there is little point inventing sharp black-and-white distinctions. Wikipedia is just not about devising rules and then making everyone conform. The convenient response to rules-laywer arguments about byte counts is "stop wasting everyone's time". Anyway, I will now take my own advice and stop wasting everyone's time. -- Testing times (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I try to distinguish issues with consensus from the gray and fuzzy margins. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my proposal adds explanations, not rules, and only if you click them. Art LaPella (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the site map. This has evolved drastically from before. I will skip over reading all that stuff as it does not make too much sense for someone not involved in the last few months. A submission must be "included" using a template. Or are you using "included" to just mean the usual dictionary use of "include". So an editor takes one of those templates and fills it up. How is "including" accomplished? From the examples, it looks like the template is just stuck in with nothing special being done. (It's a good thing I didn't follow my impulses and write an ALT and stick it in per the olden days, as I would have messed up.) I guess the thing to do is to take a template that is already filled out, copy it, then fill in my own stuff and paste it in underneath. I will try to get interested as I used to really enjoy fixing hooks and articles. Is there an area that actually needs help, or is all this automated or for admins to do? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I forgot to say that an ALT isn't submitted using a template! I forgot here, but Proofreading#Proofreading Template talk:Did you know does say "For a big change, suggest a rewritten hook using an ALT (still remembering that glossary?). Look through the rest of the page to see how ALT's are formatted." Yes that's complicated, but please don't shoot the messenger; I didn't write DYKsug. As for an area that actually needs help, I believe I listed them on my front page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't find the word "included", unless you mean at {{DYKsug/doc}}, which I didn't write. Art LaPella (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and E3 also says ALT's shouldn't be submitted with the template. Art LaPella (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the rules pages yet so correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.... But anyway, I don't think there should be a rule saying people have to use the template. I just made it to help out if people find it helpful; a lot of people had been nominating stuff for long before the template existed, and are more comfortable just typing out the nom by hand, and I think that should be fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Art LaPella (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK#DYK spring cleaning

This subsection of the DYK front page claims that "the DYK process is organized over 19 pages" and proceeds to list all the DYK subpages. I think a lot of the pages listed here are not actually part of the "process" and don't need to be listed. For example, Template:DYKbox and Template:DYK archive header are simply navigational tools, and WP:DYK/G, WP:DYK/A, WP:DYK/NAP, and Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors are more like directories and reference materials, not actual process pages. Would anyone mind if I did some spring cleaning of this list? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where to put this

So I will ask here. Despite an egregious lack of superfluous inline citations, Tottenham Outrage seems to have managed to get on the Main Page, according to its talk page at least (and Wikipedia:Recent additions 240 says "14:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)" although the main page tempate was updated some hours earlier [1]).

Should I have received a credit on my talk page? Because I have not. More importantly, if I have been missed out, were some of the other contributors to that update (and possibly others) credited? I thought the bot was meant to make this sort of thing easier... -- Testing times (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was getting forgetful on its way to halting altogether. I have put the credit tag on your talk page. The time discrepancy between the front page appearance and the move to the archive is because the archive is not updated until the next set of hooks is moved to the front page. This ensures that any errors caught during the time on the front page do not appear in the archival copy. - Dravecky (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted update, but...

Wikipedia is so hopelessly slow right now I can't do any more. It took six minutes just to load the time template in order to reset it! So all I've done is post the update and reset the time, someone else will have to do the archiving and the credits later.

Also, I skipped queue #5 and posted queue page #1 as I couldn't get the pic in queue #5 to load at all. So #5 will be the next in line. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed credits for this update and will be happy to do the next update in about 45 minutes but I'll be away from my PC most of the weekend so some folks will need to keep a sharp eye on this and try to complete regular updates. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and poke other admins if I see it's late. Shubinator (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, maybe we can make a list of admins willing to do updates if prompted? I know we already have two lists of DYK admin participants, but I get the feeling that isn't current. One of the admins on the list has explicitly not updated the template in fear of messing up the main page. Also, I see the proposed list as being less of a commitment...just that if an update is late and a non-admin is looking for an admin to update it, these admins should be checked first. Shubinator (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's

Was thinking about writing an article about the fungal species Cyathus gayanus (yes, it's real) and perhaps doing a double hook with Phallus impudicus (would required a 5x expansion). I think it would be hilarious, as people would click to see the joke (the joke is that there is no joke, they're just both ridiculously named species). Is this doable, or pushing the limits of main-page decency? Sasata (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could add the grasses Andropogon gayanus and Holcus gayanus. The latter is in the Pooideae sub-family.

I think they are all named for Jacques Étienne Gay.[2] (another redlink), like Eupatorium gayanum, Polemonium gayanum, Ribes gayanum, Leucanthemum gayanum, Lycopodium gayanum, Stigmaphyllon gayanum, Hippeastrum gayanum, Chloris gayana, Anarthrophyllum gayanum, ... -- Testing times (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I see big multi-hook potential! Sasata (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the word "gay" or "gayanus" in it doesn't make it funny. You can propose April Fool's Day hooks at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. You can already post the articles, as we accept content written in the past year before April Fool's. Royalbroil 05:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implying "gayanus" is funny and should be on DYK for April First will definitely be insulting to many members of the community. I would tread carefully with many of these names. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Surely we can do better than gay jokes. • \ / (⁂) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will defer to those with better judgment than me :) Thanks Sasata (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the phallus one, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images at DYK

I just noticed that on a recent DYK, File:Adam-Mickiewicz-Monument-by-Rygier-Krakow.jpg was used. This image was from commons. Although the cascading template protects the en.wiki page, it does not protect the commons page. That means that before anyone noticed this (time did pass), someone could have uploaded a vandal photo at commons and had it displayed on the main page. In order to fix this, any future images from commons should probably be protected for 24 hours during the time it is to be displayed on the mainpage. This would require communication with admin at commons to ensure that this happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think DYK admins are supposed to upload Commons pictures to en temporarily for the Main Page. See Wikipedia:DYK#Pictures. Shubinator (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We used to do that, but my understanding is that all images that appear on the front page are now automatically protected. Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I heard, there use to be a bot that took care of it, but the user of the bot is gone. Perhaps we need to try and find someone willing to take charge on this issue? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures that appear on the main page (either as featured, news ect) having been getting protected locally on commons to prevent the need for a temporary reupload to en.wiki, If you ask their admins nicely they should do it for DYK photos as well, under this template. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed in queued hook

The picture hook in Queue 5 needs to have (''pictured'') inserted in it. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for pointing it out! Royalbroil 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No manual update this round please!

I'm trying to poke the bot back into behaving again. Finally a time I'm online and the DYK is updated intersect :P —— nix eagle^{email me} 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah!, we will have to try to fix the bot later I suppose, I won't be around in 6 hours. —— nix eagle^{email me} 17:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are no queued hook sets, and the next update is due in about one hour. I think that means that the bot cannot do the next update? Is this deliberate? If not, is there an admin in the house who can move Next Update into the queue? --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by his contribs, nixeagle isn't online. He posted that message two updates ago. Shubinator (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pat's hooks

I noticed we have a St. Pat's hook already. Is it time to start creating the hooks, or should we hold off a week or two more?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people are already submitting St. Pat's Day hooks, I guess we might as well start a special occasion section for it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts may be deleted

There is a discussion here on whether the shortcuts T:DYKT and T:TDYK should be deleted. The reason for deleting them is that a cross-namespace redirect to a talk page should not be used. If I understand correctly though, the real problem is that a template talk page is being used for DYK nominations. A template talk page should be used only for discussing the template. IMO, Template talk:Did you know should be moved to Project space (maybe Wikipedia:Did you know nominations). The shortcut could then be something like WP:DYKN. —teb728 t c 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how discussing nominations in template talk is a problem, since T:DYK is (like T:ITN) very different than most templates—it's a template that has an entire project revolving around it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Rjanag. Is this really a problem? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK template is updated regularly, therefore the updates need to be discussed. By using it for DYK nominations, we are discussing possible updates to the template. ~~If anything, just change T:TDYK to TT:DYK~~. [[TT:DYK]] is a shortcut for a different language Wikipedia, so the current redirect is a good work-around. • \ / (⁂) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think teb728 has a good idea. Cross namespace redirects are generally a Bad Idea as they clutter the search engine (technically, T: is in articlespace, according to WP:Namespace), and even if it is accepted that T: represents a short cut into template space, the target is in template talkspace. There is only one place that shows a shortcut from namespace to template talkspace, that that can be corrected by either piping the link on the template itself or following teb's suggestion, thus staving off other problems that might arise. As pointed out, TT: cannot be used as an abbreviation for template space as it links to Turkish Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really a matter of piping, as the main point of T:TDYK isn't to be posted in places, but for DYK regulars to be able to type it into the search bar and get there in one click, rather than having to go to T:DYK first and then click through. (It doesn't sound like much, but it would get annoying if you did it a couple hundred times.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon is sizzling hot at DYK

Child of Midnight and Drmies have been raking in the DYK views with their hooks on unusual bacon edibles. The top 5 so far this month are below, and chocolate-covered bacon also had almost 10,000 views. People seem to love the bacon hooks! Cbl62 (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article	Image	DYK views	DYK hook
Bacon Explosion		40,500	... that the 5,000-calorie Bacon Explosion (pictured) was created in response to a Twitter challenge to develop "the ultimate bacon recipe"?
chicken fried bacon	File:Sodolak's chicken fried bacon.jpg	26,500	... that the recipe for chicken fried bacon (pictured) was developed in the small town of Snook, Texas, at Sodolak's Original Country Inn?
Folkestone White Horse		17,700	... that the European Commission declared the creation of the Folkestone White Horse (pictured) unlawful?
USS Connecticut (BB-18)		17,600	... that when the pre-dreadnought battleship *Connecticut* (pictured) ran aground in 1907, the U.S. Navy tried to cover it up, prompting Congress to consider an official inquiry?
Ernest Allmendinger		14,200	... that American football player "Aqua" Allmendinger (pictured), once described as "a young giant in perfect physical condition," acquired his nickname after working as a waterboy for railroad building crews?

Can we say that the bacon hooks are hogging the spotlight?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to admit, unusual recipes do make pretty good hooks :) Suprised to see the sporting one there though, IMO it wasn't a very good hook at all. I guess there are plenty of sports fans out there. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW How would one of you guys like to put together an update? I've been doing quite a few lately, and I could use a break. We only have one in the slot currently. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put together an update. Will try to do another later today. BTW, the Allmendinger hook was mine, and though I thought it was not a bad hook, I was also surprised that it drew such a large volume of hooks. I think the image must have played a big part. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the hook was a bit long, but judging by the reaction, I guess our readership didn't think so :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect long hooks to get more reaction, at the expense of crowding out other stuff. Art LaPella (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not based on any rigorous analysis, my anecdotal experience in doing the "DYKSTATS" is that longer hooks don't do better than shorter hooks. Regardless of length, the hook needs to be clear and attention-catching. Overly wordy and convoluted hooks are not likely to do well. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. 24 winning hooks averaged 137 characters, and 24 hooks from the main archive averaged 149 characters. Art LaPella (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queue empty

The queue is empty and another update is due in under six hours. I don't have the energy to do another one tonight, so will somebody please help out by putting an update together. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post worked! I did one. Royalbroil 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RB. Very much appreciated :) Gatoclass (talk)

I did, too, but I'm new to this, so someone should check my work. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good! I can see you have potential... Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good; I added an eighth, though, because it looks like we have been doing 8 lately, and it looks like tomorrow's On this day... is pretty long. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did another one. Queue 5 needs some cleaning up; multiple "that" and "..."s. Shubinator (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The next update and next next update are now full and ready to be moved to Queues. Cbl62 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please credit Queue 4? I just had enough time to do the admin part. The update was about 3 hr late. Thanks! Royalbroil 12:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The credits have been completed and the queues have been updated. - Dravecky (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New template

The new template is up and running, and has just been used by someone random, and seems to have worked.

I'm about to be away from the computer for a bit, and I made some quick changes to the template (mostly trying to get rid of the tons of whitespace it was making). If anyone sees something major going wrong with it, please revert the template to the last working version. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the new template on the 2/23 article Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. It worked fine except that "self-nom" and the date stamp didn't appear. As this was a self-nom, I followed the directions of leaving "Nominator" blank. Let me know if I should have done something differently vs. a glitch. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content and DYK eligibility

In response at first to a request, I've evaluated two recent DYK submissions and judged them not eligible for DYK for reasons including that they contained content copied verbatim from a source. The nominator believed the content to be public domain; i do not; that will get sorted out in other discussion at wt:NRHP and elsewhere. But further, I have asserted that DYK standards are higher than general wikipedia article standards, namely that an article with copied content from a public domain source is not DYK-eligible, while such an article could be acceptable in wikipedia as long as the public domain source is properly credited. On this further matter, could some experienced persons here comment and/or provide references to guidelines on this? I have not been active on DYK recently and don't have the guidelines or precedents handy. (There's yet another issue: what is proper attribution, and I assert that requires crediting a source for wording by use of quotation marks for any verbatim passages, but that is not immediately being discussed.) The nominator, a new editor is not happy, and I sympathize but think it is best to be clear, sooner rather than later. However as noted here the nominator believes I am making it up about DYK standards being higher, and I would certainly like for that to be clarified for the person and for anyone else. doncram (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows my feelings on the matter as per previous discussions, but verbatim copied information with no attempt to quote, use in an academic way, and the rest, should not count. We are supposed to be making new articles or expanding articles, not copying other people's entries. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this of course omits is that even the non-copied content in any of these articles, the stuff I wrote in a manner even Doncram hasn't figure out how to object to yet, exceeds the 1,500 character requirement of DYK. But really, how many pages is he going to be allowed to start threads about me on? At current count it's at least 5. --Miss Communication (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ Ottava) - I actually agree with you here. Copied content should not count in expansions.

(@ Communication) - A) would it be possible for you to just re-word the text? B) What other pages? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks Ottava. I was elsewhere given a link to this recent DYK discussion about ships articles and danfs material. That refreshes me, the policy is that block quoted material doesn't count towards DYK word counts. And, presumably if an article fails to block quote stuff that should be block quoted, that that stuff shouldn't count either.

To respond to Miss C just now, I guess the 5 places i've commented are

at tt:dyk on the 2 articles
at Talk:Boxhill (Louisville), where i raised objections re DYK eligibility
at Talk:Ronald-Brennan House, later, raising parallel objections re DYK eligibility. (The article and its Talk seems to have just been deleted, i don't know whether that was actually necessary or not, and I did not request that.)
In response to Miss Communication's request on the first talk page, that she would like for anyone elses' opinions, I asked for others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Nomination forms US-GOV-PD? to come help at the Boxhill article. This was within a thread opened by Matthiasb who had asked for help in dealing with the Boxhill article, which had brought me in in the first place.
In response to Miss Communications comment on the second talk page, which i interpreted to be mostly calling for documentation of DYK policy, I opened this thread.

Did i miss anything? Oh, i guess i gave a courtesy notice to Miss C's talk page, where i note Bedford is offering to whisper into her ear, off-line, presumably about me and my objections to a series of DYK nominations of his, some time ago. Anyhow, I think I have been polite enough and quite helpful in the substance of what i have done. Note, the Boxhill article has been rescued by the friendly participation of NRHP regular members who responded to my request at wp:NRHP. Miss C's tone, particularly regarding the entire NRHP wikiproject, despite their help, is beginning to rankle me a bit though. doncram (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that this endless hounding of me on page after page will continue until I quit editting. If this episode produces anything, hopefully it will be an investigation of the way Doncram makes Wikipedia miserable for you once he sees your edits are the slightest bit out of step with policy (or his ideas of policy). --Miss Communication (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]