Wikipedia talk: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	TM: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	TM:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Concerns and commonsense

After a long time, I got round to updating the DYK as it has been due for over 10 hours. I updated DYK regularly for around 4 months, from mid-Dec — mid-Apr of 2006. I was the sole updating admin for a couple of months and I can't recall an occasion where worthy suggestions had to be passed over due to lack of admin presence. However, I was shocked today to see that 5-day old suggestions are still lying around and older days' suggestion were still cluttering the page. With around 3-4 admins, sincere and competent at that, being involved in updation, why has it happened? Let me proffer some explanations - any chore if it becomes drudgery, cannot be done easily. Don't ask me to provide a cite ;) for my statement. Updating DYK is daunting for any admin - apart from the multitude of technical things (protecting/unprotecting, archiving, resetting the time counter) and political things (balancing the length on main page, ensuring diversity, ensuring that no entry becomes stale), we also have the maintenance things such as updating talkpage and 2 user talkpages for each entry. While it helps in the updating admin's catering to our editcountitis, I don't see practical use. FAs, In the news, selected anniversaries - is there any intimation to the user/suggestor/initiator? No. Why on DYK? Assuming that an average of 3.5 updates are done in 24 hours and each update has average of 5 suggestions with 3 self-noms and 2 others' noms, the no. of talkpages I need to update are 5*3.5 talkpages + 5*3.5 usertalk pages(creators) + 2*3.5 usertalkpages(nominators) = 42 edits. For each update, add atleast an edit to template page, its talk page, image page and protection/unprotection, another 14 edits. So, 56 edits per day to keep DYK running? People may not mind so much if they are not intimated abt their article making it to DYK when compared to their article not making it to DYK, because the entry has become stale. To prevent entries becoming stale, we need to have more admins updating it in a simple way. See the earliest posts on this page about the proposed changes in DYK which I had followed and which were not objected to. Why not keep it simple? Why not have a manual DYK counter, esp. since the updation itself takes 20-30 min and the DYK refresh template would become stale by that much time? Why have a in-use template for admins when the probability of edit conflict on the template page is 0.01 and on template talk page is 0.03 (I quote these probabilities from my experience of ~200 updates, and edit conflicts of 2 and 6 respectively, which were fixed within 2-3 mins)? Are we interested in creating better mouse traps? Why not concentrate on pressing needs like archival bot or facilitating easier updation? Am sorry if it looks like a long-winding rant or if i appear a techno-phobe but I find it difficult to digest that worthy noms just don't see the light despite a longer and a daily DYK section just because it becomes progressively difficult for an admin to update DYK. Please understand that my rant is against the system in its current form. --Gurubrahma 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's simply due to the larger number of nominations that seem to be occurring lately. We don't have to use every nomination; only the most interesting ones should be used, and the template should be kept highly interesting and varied, since that is about all we have to offer. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:12

"Interesting" is subjective. So, unless there are objections on a nom (by any editor, including the updating admin) it should be a shoo-in for the DYK template. How wd ppl know why their suggestion hasn't made it if it wasn't commented upon but still doesn't make it to the template? --Gurubrahma 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree about keeping it simpler. We should probably ditch the in-use templates, both in the template and on the talk page. What else can we get rid of? The DYK-Refresh template, though interesting for checking the time, is just more wasted edits. Why not simply make it clear that you have to wait at least 6 hours, and provide a link to the template history to check when the last update was. Most people know how to add. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:18

How Lar uses time

I have done some thinking about where I spend time and how much. The process for me is:

1. Mark that we're starting. (turn on the hidden box in the template talk, then go and turn on the hidden comment in the template, grab the articles at the same time so they can be archived.
2. Archive. This is a big timewaster due to *mp vs * differences on the bullets... perhaps we should use *mp across the board? The automation that used to make the archive entries for you is broken and I don't know how to contact whoever did it. It's worse the larger the archive is, so keeping the archive emptied helps matters. (3-5 min)
3. Pick a picture. Check it for freedom. Protect it. If it's commons, that means copying it down, uploading etc. (I'm working on uploading enough to stand for commons admin so I can protect there, which will save time) (5 min)
4. By far the largest part of the time is spent on reviewing and selecting candidate articles, (which means checking the article for a number of different things, good length, fact is present in article, good refs/cites) stripping away comments and picking the best version of the hook, fiddling with the wording and grammar to try to avoid other editors making needless edits to fix small things, sorting into the right order, etc. (15-25 min)
5. one final check of the template with the new items, remove the comment block notice, then save it, check main.
6. This part goes fast now that I created js to automate: Plop notices on all the article talk pages. (Now a 2-3 minute job)
7. This part goes relatively fast with automation as well: Plop notices on all the user talk pages. (5 min because I still have to paste article names into the dialog boxes, and you ahve to check to see if there are noms and auths)
8. Double check main to see if there are any issues I missed the first time, see what Brian changed in the meantime.
9. Remove the articles that were nominated. Check each one removed to see that I left the right things on the talk pages (in my contribvutions). 5-10 min
10. unprotect or delete if from commons the most recent previous picture. 2 min
11. Remove the notice from the template talk page and update the clock. 2 min

That adds up to a bit more than the 40 min it usually takes me but gives an idea of proportions.

Zocky's searh box script is ideal for dealing with the {{*mp}} -> * issue. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I love that widget, it's very powerful. Last I checked it was still forcing the edit box width to not resize with the window width though. As soon as that's fixed, it goes back in... ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be fixed now, the talk page intimates it is. Will test later. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be easier just to let the *mp's pile up in the archive, and then put them in notepad and mass-replace. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:11

Good point. Or use them in the archive too? I dunno... they seem to work there OK. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Refresh templates and automation, more thoughts

I find the DYK-refresh template and the normally hidden box warning that an update is in process to be tremendously useful. I was getting a LOT of edit conflicts all the time without these present. I would strenuously object to any change to this part, losing inuse and refresh save LITTLE time and prevent a LOT of problems. Traffic on this page is higher now than it was before.

I support additional automation where it makes sense. I'd love to see the archive processer fixed, it would save some time. I created js funcs that at least for me almost completely automate leaving the talk notices (they were pooh-poohed by Brian as not useful though) and I highly recommend them... I have ideas for more automation as well.

I have a final comment. I think we'll have more people helping out if we have a more collegial atmosphere here. For one, I find the atmosphere a lot less collegial since we had the mandatory reference flap, for reasons I think most of us know but which I will not spell out. Less collegial means less desire to do the work. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to point out where I "pooh pooh"'d your js as not useful? Or did you just assume that I would say something like that? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:44

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#javascript_functions_for_template_insertion_on_talk_pages Reads like pooh-poohing to me. (and others, confirmed offline at the time) ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where? I recommended you talk to Lupin. Then I detailed what I'm currently doing. Nope, no pooh-poohing, no matter what these mysterious "others" have to say. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 00:55

Updating admins are not idiots. I'd trust them to update the time properly when they can do more complex things like c-uploads, protects and archives. Only article talkpage template shd be compulsory, not others, as I mention in the 4th post of this page and the subsequent discussion with Ghirla. Let all other things be optional. --Gurubrahma 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, see above. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, 40 minutes per update and at 3.5 updates per day is 140 minutes, i.e. 2hr.20min., not just worth it. For an admin who is trying to update it first time, he wd be bewildered with the DYK-refresh and all that. I don't know abt ur automation, but overall, it doesn't seem to save much time. For someone who works from a slow internet connection like me, using inuse templates on the template page and talk page take more time. Also, the red box is no guarantee, ppl. can still add while you are updating. --Gurubrahma 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a guarantee but it vastly lessens conflicts. It's very easy to use and is worth the time. The place to find time savings is in the selection process itself which is where the majority is. My automation saves me over 10 minutes over doing it by hand, I find.

Well, everybodys working methods vary. I see no harm in keeping the hidden box warning for the talk page that an update is in progress and the {{UpdatingDYK}} for the template itself, although I seldom use them myself. I also find the {{DYK-Refresh}} useful as well, no reason to get rid of it, although it does seem prone to breaking from time to time. Haven't had time to test Lar's javascript tabs yet, but every time saving device helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

which templates to keep

I'd keep the article-creator-notification templates, just to keep the self-nom folks coming back (it's always nice getting an "award" on your talk page). I think the nominator template is less necessary, simply because most of the nominations are self-noms. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 18:47

No one prevents the editor from adding the template to his user talk page if he wishes to. I dunno if you read the exchange between me and Ghirla above. DYK medal is a better award, anyways. --Gurubrahma 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would never give myself an award or notice of any sort. We would have to change norms if we want people to put notices on their own pages after their article is selected. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do it just so I can keep track of the articles I nominated, since I've been listing them on my user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:28

Why don't we go back to the old process of simply listing the latest entries under "The following users need to be notified" and let a non-admin or anyone else handle it? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:02

Not where the bulk of the time is spent, see my time above. Maybe yours differs? No savings and worth doing. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I'll simply list them under that section, and you can go through them with your automation and update them as you please. Or don't, and someone else will. Just because it's not the bulk of the time doesn't mean it's not good to save a little time. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:26

Let's have one process that we all use, knowing that you do things one way and everyone else another is just a recipe for havoc. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

G pointed out on my talk page that one size may not fit all. If people on slow connections want to do less, or do it differently, and we can come up with a documented and clear alternative process (which doesn't result in confusion about which was and wasn't done) I for one am fine with it, can't speak for anyone else of course. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have something like a Template:Did you know/Next, so that the update can be prepared at a more leisurely pace, and possibly with the participation of non-admins.--Pharos 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I envision Polish/Russian revert wars, among others. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:27
  • my worry too ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(2X edit conflict) Aside from the revert wars issure, that's not a bad idea (permanant semiprotection would prevent most pointless edits); it also stops the influx of posts to Wikipedia talk:Main page/Errors which follow every DYK update. One unrelated point though. Would protecting the image on Commons stop someone else uploading a different image to Wikipedia in the same name as the Commons image? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've noticed people forgetting to temporarily upload the file to Wikipedia in order to protect it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:31

That's not what he meant. Some have claimed that protecting the commons image is enough. I thought it was. I may have been wrong. But if you still have to upload to WP, protecting on commons doesn't help.++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You would have to have some sort of "blue page" on Wikipedia (if only of text) and protect that too. However, you would not have to upload the image locally.--Pharos 19:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 19:42

I don't think we should overplay the danger of revert wars in such a situation (though it is a serious concern). Higher levels of technocracy like this tend to discourage the over-zealous; as long as there was guideline against self-promotion, we shouldn't have too much of a problerm. And it would be still admins who make the final decision. Anyway, I think it's worth a trial period.--Pharos 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to try a trial if we can hash out exactly what the process is, and get consensus first, before making radical or possibly disruptive changes. can you bang out what you have in mind? Maybe in a new section? (PS I added a lot of level 3 heads to reduce conflict and make it easier for dialup users to work with) ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brian, keep the article creator notification template, but the nominator one is probably less important. Nominators can always watchlist the article talk page and spot the notice there, but it's good in my view to give the article creators a nice pat on the back with a notice.

I'm not too sure about the idea of a Template:Did you know/Next. Quite apart from the possible revert war issue it would make the updating process too cumbersome and almost unworkable. Getting agreement over which 5 or 6 entries to use could become a complete nightmare. The nomination page already has plenty of comment on many entries, let's continue to trust the updating admin to use judgement and common sense when the time for an update comes around. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

what problem are we trying to solve here

I think we need to step back here... the problem Gurubramhma brount up was too many noms not getting selected. But a week ago we had a drought, and we deliberately slowed the update rate down significantly to compensate... So what's the real problem here? Maybe it isn't what we think it is.

Also... While I'm all in favour of process improvement, one thing I've learned in my 25+ years of professional experience is, don't optimise the stuff that doesn't matter. Find where the bulk of the time is spent, and optimise that. The bulk seems to be in the picking the articles itself process, at least for me. Perhaps others can post their timings to the same level of detail to see if their bulk of time is where mine is. If others can efficiently pick noms faster than 15-25 min, I want to adopt their process. If others spend more than 2 min on posting notices to article talk pages, lothers should adopt MY process, and so forth. Sparring around about what we should do may be pointless without measurements ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

brian0918's time

If anyone cares, my time for this last update was 30 minutes. 3 minutes to add updating notices and archive. 13 minutes to select new entries [including proofreading an article with typos in Word, and adding comments for nominations I didn't use]. 7 more to protect the image, add the entries into the template, proofread, and save. 3-4 minutes to update the refresh clock, download and upload the image from commons to wikipedia (then add the licensing and info). And 3-4 minutes to post notices on the articles'/creators'/nominators' talk pages (5 articles, 5 creators, 2 nominators), and then clear out the "staging area". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 01:11

Thanks Brian! How do you pick the new entries so fast? That's where I dump a LOT of time, I find that it takes a fair bit to read the articles, check to see how they are referenced, etc. And I'm still not getting perfect results, someone pointed out that one of the articles I picked this AM may not be factually correct... The image protection time at 7 min (plus another 3-4 ?... wasn't totally clear) might be a place to look for savings... I can get it done a bit faster, but not much, and it sounds like Cactus.man also doesn't get it done really fast... I think I am going to try to see if that can be automated better... but I have my doubts as it spans two sites, etc. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes quickly because I spend other time looking through all the entries. "13 minutes" is just how much time I spend in updating. When I said 7 minutes, I meant 7 minutes to: protect the image, add the entries into the template, proofread, and save. I had forgotten to upload the image from commons, so I then had to go back and do that. It could still be done more quickly. The only part that goes quickly is the talk page notification. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 16:29

Cactus.man's method and time

As suggested, my method and approximate times follow. I don't use the warning templates or the staging area, I just prepare everything in my text editor (blatant plug) in advance and then bung it in the template, deal with the talk page and fire out the notifications. Typical order and timings:

1. Review articles and images for selection. Check articles for quality, length, date of creation, correct author, stated fact is mentioned etc. Copy and paste to text editor. (15-20 mins).
2. Prepare draft template entry in text editor, paste into template and preview, compare length versus current template content and likely size on the main Page. Paste old entries to text editor for archiving later. (5 mins).
3. Protect the selected image (1 min - 5 mins (if uploading from commons))
4. Save the new items to the template and purge to update the Main Page.
5. Update the talk page refresh clock, add old items to the archive, remove promoted items from the suggestions area, unprotect or delete the previously featured image (5 mins).
6. Place DYK notices on article talk pages, creators talk pages and nominators talk pages (5 - 10 mins).
7. Done, have a cup of coffee (5 mins).

Hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian articles?

I don't know if it's only me, but I've noticed that everyday, there's at least one article that is related in one or another way to Russia; why is it like this?

• ...that although Ernst Neizvestny's work had been denounced by Nikita Khrushchev as degenerate art, he was commissioned to sculpt Khrushchev's tomb?
• ...that Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (pictured) was noted as a patroness of Schiller, Goethe, and Liszt?
• ...that due to protests and financial problems, the Saint Petersburg Dam was one of the Soviet Union's most notorious long-term construction projects?
• ...that the Alexander Column (pictured) on Palace Square in Saint Petersburg, despite its weight of 600 tons, is set so nicely that no attachment to the base is required?

etc... --Shandris^{the azylean cat} 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We pick from the noms presented, and there have been a large number of articles involving Russia (as well as ones involving Poland) presented. I don't think it's an intentional bias, it's just what the pool has in it. (someone else told me in IRC that it was funny that there were so many train articles picked... :) ) If it's a serious problem, let's discuss but my suggestion would be to nominate more articles from other areas... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, because Ghirlandajo finds cool pictures for the main page. :) Note that while there may be a lot of articles on Russia/Poland, there is usually never more than 1 of each in any given set of DYK articles on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 01:43

It's because Ghirla (Russia) and Piotrus (Poland) put up heaps of stuff relating to their country. Back in May when I had more time for article writing, there was about an Australian one up every day or two.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian and Blnguyen are exactly right. Fundamentally, the answer to "too many X" is to add more Y, Z, A, B and C, not restrict X. As long as we aren't overbalancing it's not a bad thing to select good articles. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists in articles

Joseph Krumgold, which is on DYK now, has well under 1000 characters/bytes (if you ignore the list of works). Should we be including such lists in determining whether an article is long enough? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 13:46

I think it's reasonable to evaluate lists as part of the article, as they are kind of content. I saw your comment to that effect on the nom, thought about it, looked at the article, and felt it was a good enough article (including the list) to warrant selection. IIRC we have selected actual LIST articles in the past, but I may be mistaken. I'm interested in what others think, and if it's a bad practice, would be happy to see it added to the guidelines, but I fear instruction creep as it's rather a small point... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Selecting one's own articles

Although I did this, twice, when I first started updating DYK, on reflection, I'm starting to think it's not necessarily a good idea to select one's own articles. As long as we have several different admins doing selection, if the article is good, it will presumably get selected by someone else. It may reflect poorly on the process to self select too many times. Therefore I'd like to propose a guideline modification to suggest (not mandate, but suggest) that admins not select their own articles unless there really is a dearth of nominations. This is, I think, an important enough thing that I'm willing to see it added to the guidelines even if that is instruction creep... thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trusting others will assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, although there's always a limit. Let's wait until that boundary has clearly been crossed to start imposing policies, since I have a feeling we'll never need them. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:24
  • I think it's a bad practice, regardless of assuming good faith or not (not sure who you're looking to assume it). I think there has been a fair bit of self selection lately already, enough to raise concerns among other folk than myself. Do you think it's a good practice? Do others? Do you think no appearance of conflict of interest is given by self selecting? Do others? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem with it, as long as the admin is not clearly choosing his own entries over others (especially others that are about to expire) without providing any reasons on the talk page. I'd know a clear case of abuse if I saw it; for example, an admin making a brand new nomination, and then sending it immediately into the template. We had one example of that not too long ago. Other cases might not be so clear, and should be handled as they occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 15:50

I agree with Lar on this, especially now that there are a number of admins updating. I think selecting one's own article sends out the wrong message to non admin nominators, especially those few whose entries get passed over for whatever reason. I would support the suggested modification to the guidelines. The example you gave Brian is not really pertinent to this suggestion as it was due to a complete misunderstanding of the process on Brookie's part. He just added it to the template without it even being on the nomination page. A genuine good faith error I would say. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it was just a misunderstanding; that's why I don't see a need to modify the guidelines--there aren't any example of admins knowingly doing such obviously inappropriate actions, and it seems unlikely they would. Have any nominators even complained about their entries not being used? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 17:30

The misunderstanding you speak of was indeed handled well, but is not what I'm referring to. It was way out of process even without a guideline. I'm referring to picking your own noms, in an otherwise within process way, which is something you do quite a bit, and which (so far) everyone else commenting on (here or on talk pages in the case of (at least) User:Gurubrahma) thinks is not a good approach. Even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided, unfair as that may seem when you'd really like to pick your noms, barring extenuating circumstance. I'd like to hear more comments of course but I'm sensing a consensus here that we should add this to the guidelines, and I'll do so within another day or two barring any strong voice in opposition. I hope you'll think about whether you can go along with that consensus, should I be correct that one is forming. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You pick nominations that interest you, I pick nominations that interest me. If someone else wrote about topics in classical antiquity, I would probably pick those as well. It just happens that I am pretty much the only one writing about that entire area. The topic doesn't seem interest you, but it does interest me. I do try to hold off on using mine until they're near the very bottom, selecting them only after all the decent older nominations have been used. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:46

I'm not sure I agree with that, I try to pick noms that are generally interesting, not just ones that I myself find interesting. I pick sport noms all the time, for example, but I find sport, in general, terrifically uninteresting. Further I've picked noms by you many times, as have all the other admins participating in the process. I reiterate that avoiding picking noms you have made avoids the appearance of impropriety and except for yourself, everyone else so far seems to agree. If they're at the very bottom and no one else has picked them, perhaps no one else thinks they're of general enough interest... but if there truly are no other good ones, the suggestion (not rule) allows for that. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, note that "everyone else so far" consists of Cactus.man. If nobody thinks a nomination is interesting, they should leave comments to that effect. Not giving someone the opportunity to supply a more interesting fact is unacceptable. As for my practices, I'm trusting other admins will assume good faith on my part, as I do on theirs. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:38

It is more than just Cactus.man, and the comments on nominations bit is a side issue to this proposal, take further talk to the next one down (and realise that so far everyone agrees). I'd note that User:Stevage just edited the proposal, and I've invited him here to comment. Since his edit was to tighten, but not change the sense, I'm assuming he's likely to be in agreement with consensus but I could be wrong... ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had some comments about items being passed over, but that was from another admin who thought it inappropriate to pick his own nom as well! Admins are in a privileged position with regards to this process, and as Lar says, any hint of impropriety or self bias in the selection process should be avoided. A bit of self restraint goes a long way, if the article is worthy, it will get featured by someone else. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins are only privileged in that they can actually edit the template. Everyone else still has a definite say, and any complaints they make will be taken as seriously or even more-so than complaints from an admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 15:49

I'm not sure I see how that's addressing what Cactus.man said. He said he's had people bring him concerns about this issue. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is trying to set admins apart as having more privileges, and I disagree. Just because we can edit the template doesn't mean we don't have to listen to others' opinions or complaints, and take them seriously. We are only privileged in being able to click Edit on the template page, and click Save. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:32

I'll let Cactus.man speak to what he actually meant but the way I read his words is that we can pick, others cannot. Therefore we are in a priviledged position. He is not saying (and I am not saying) that everyone else should not have a say. I strongly agree that we all should "listen to others' opinions or complaints" and that our only priv is to be able to edit. But with that agreement I fail to see the relevance to what Cactus.man said. He said others have raised this concern, that there is an appearance of impropriety. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can pick, but we should make it clear why we don't pick the other ones... we should be held accountable. He didn't say others raised a concern about their suggestions not be chosen; he said 1 admin asked that his suggestion not be used before others. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:53

I have no problem in leaving comments on noms I pass over in future if there are none already. A bit more work, but what the hell, I can live with that. A lot of items we pass over are due to the attempt to achieve a balance of articles. Everybody is welcome to comment on the nominations, of course, and I think we all take those comments into account when making our selections, but the fact remains that admins are in a privileged position because ultimately only they can add items to the template. That is part of the community bestowed trust to act fairly and with discretion. In my opinion, selection of self nominations just leaves too many potential questionmarks about impartiality for comfort. After all, the World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina would be completely unacceptable with a Brazilian or Argentinian referee. And the admin who contacted me didn't ask that his nomination not be used before others, but that he wouldn't select his own, not wanting to let his bias get the better of him. I'll invite him to comment here to broaden opinion and help generate consensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving comments, of course, is the subject of a different proposal, below, and one I'm quite willing to give a try too, so lets. Consensus there (since we're agreeing with Brian it gets a lot easier) seems crystal clear. This discussion is about selection of your own nominations, and you've quite nicely restated the issue, it's an issue of perception, which I adjudge everyone so far commenting, except Brian, has acknowledged, either directly, or at least indirectly (saying one would not select one's own nominations suggests awareness of that perception issue to me anyway). ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking personally, I wouldn't pick one of my own.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

change made

I have changed the guidelines under the selection section: [1] in accordance with the consensus I see forming. The wording is very mild, it's phrased as a suggestion and discusses exceptions... this makes it rather wordier than other points, which may be an issue. I also tweaked the wording and formatting of a couple of other points as well. If folk do not agree, please revert and let's discuss further. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a solution looking for a problem. I'm sure over time it will become more than a simple suggestion, as is the case with everything else on the site. (That's probably one of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia) — BRIAN<color=gray>0918 • 2006-06-23 15:53

Perhaps to you it does seem that way but not, I think, to others, who have stated that there is a perception problem here, who have stated they would not pick their own noms. I felt this guideline was appropriate, I discussed it first before making the change, I sought consensus, and I am not averse to it being reverted if consensus is not there for it. It's an easy revert and yet I will be happy to be the person that reverts it if necessary. That's how things should work here, as with everywhere, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply getting yes/no opinions from others as to whether or not they would pick their own nominations is not enough grounds for instituting a guideline that is not necessary. That's just voting, not discussion leading to consensus. It is still a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:29

It is like calling RfA a vote. Here I see four ppl in support of the motion and only one against it. There has been discussion, and it seems to have consensus. I'm sorry if you don't see a consensus forming. Or we should probably try RfC with several of the issues that have been bugging DYK of late? --Gurubrahma 16:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I see 2 people saying they'd support the change, one person simply saying they don't select their own nominations, and 1 person saying the addition is unnecessary. In any case, numbers do not matter except in the two broken processes: RFA and AFD. It is the rationale that matters. As Jimbo once said, "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy." I don't see the need to go to RFC. That'll just be another month wasted on few or no comments. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 16:46

What Jimbo forgot to add is that a vocal minority of one idiot does not trump the reasoned opinions of the majority of idiots who are in disagreement. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, that would be ridiculous. But when the majority of individuals aren't even bothering to discuss and argue rationale, and are simply saying "I support" or "I oppose", it ceases to be a discussion leading to consensus, and becomes a simple vote, as is the case here. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:47

I see enough reasoned opinion being set out by enough editors here, I'm not sure why you can't. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "I support as per X" and saying "I support as per X and here is why your argument Y is wrong, and here is why your argument against X is also wrong." We have almost all of the former (simple voting, as you'd find on AFD/RFA/FPC), and very little of the latter (reasoned discussion leading toward consensus). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:40

Are you counting or not? I support, CM supports, GB supports. CM reports other people have raised concerns too. B says he wouldn't do it. You oppose. You're it. That strikes me as rough consensus so far, unless your lone opposition so far means lack of consensus, which I'm not sure I agree. I see no need for an RfC at this point. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Gurubrahma supported; I didn't see him leave a reply in this section until just now.

1. CM doesn't report other people having raised this concern; he said 1 other admin suggested using others' nominations before his. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, we don't even know if that should apply to what we're doing here; specifically, you don't know if that admin would support changing the rules as you did.
2. B says he personally wouldn't do it; he didn't say he supported changing the rules as you did.
3. Gurubrahma's only comment (just now) was an argument based on numbers, and as Wikipedia is not a democracy, Gurubrahma has done little more than to supply a vote.

Read Wikipedia:Consensus, and please try to understand why Consensus is not just a number of people saying Yes/No. Only you and Cactus.man have made an effort to rationalize the change, but neither of you have shown why this isn't just a solution looking for a problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:00

If you could stop assuming that I don't know what consensus is, that would be good. I find it rather offputting. I was reaching consensus on things before you were born if I'm not much mistaken. As a consultant, reaching consensus is part of my job. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I support, CM supports, GB supports... That strikes me as rough consensus..." If that doesn't sound like voting, rather than discussion leading to consensus, then I don't know what does. Consensus is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. If its users do not want to argue on rationale, then they should just stay out of the discussion. Please, explain how your addition is not just a solution looking for a problem—as Johntex alluded to below, instruction creep should be avoided at all costs. This new addition seems also to be contrary to AGF. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:21

re-indenting Well, I've commented on your talkpage yesterday and I felt that it was indicative enough of my stance. It is ironic that you refer to Wikipedia:Consensus but are not interested in an RFC as the page clearly says that "Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." I see a talkpage comunication failure, your mileage may vary. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in it because it is not necessary. I think we can still reach consensus without having to go through RFC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-23 17:44

I too hope it's not necessary to take Brian through an RfC to get him to see that when everyone else speaks out about something, and it's not a fundamental policy issue that consensus can't override, that he's not on the side of consensus. That was what happened the last time he was on one side and everyone else on the other and so far it appears to be happening here as well, although we don't have as many voices yet. Consensus is not a vote but it's also not one person saying they don't agree and overlooking the reasoned discussion put forth by everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So, please explain why your change is not just a solution looking for a problem. I'm looking for evidence that the change is necessary. We must avoid instruction creep at all costs, and your addition also seems contrary to AGF, in that it sounds as if others will assume bad faith on the part of the admin. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 00:16

I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest. However, I am also against instruction creep. In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it. I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it. Johntex\^talk 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen several DYK suggestions getting rejected of late due to various issues. I'd like to know how many of DYK suggestions from Brian's self-noms got rejected ever since he started updating DYK. I believe that an admin updating his own article's suggestion to DYK would not have appeared a conflict of interest if he was the only admin updating DYK or if the acceptance rate of the suggestions was as high as 95% (occurrences from the not so recent past when I was updating). However, now that someone has raised the issue of conflict of interest, I believe that it is best to recuse oneself from updating suggestions from one's own article. --Gurubrahma 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I started nominating suggestions and updating the template at the same time. And as far as I recall, there was at least 1 that went unused. I believe it is better for others to assume good faith on the part of the updating admin, than to demand that the admin avoid any chance of them assuming bad faith. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:25

Brian: several people have pointed out that this is a problem. In fact one is now questioning whether you're passing over good noms in favour of selecting your own. That's not an assumption of bad faith on your part, it's a suggestion that you're human, like we all are, and perhaps biased, or if not biased, at least possibly giving the appearance of bias. This change, to add a suggestion that we not select our own, is not a "solution in search of a problem", because there IS a problem here. (bluntly, since the gentle approach doesn't seem to be getting through to you, you're doing way too much selecting of your own noms for my taste and for the taste of others, including some I know of who choose not to participate here because they don't want to get in a bunfight with you...) I continue to assert there is consensus here for a gently worded suggestion, except (primarily) for your resistance, and it's not at all about voting, it's about your counter arguments having been refuted satisfactorily, in my view and in the view of others. Consensus is not blocked by one person (in essence, paraphrased for effect) insisting "everyone else is wrong about this and you don't know what consensus is and you're not assuming good faith and I understand what Jimbo means better han you do". That's just not a workable, collegial, cooperative approach, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase it however you like; it still looks like an assumption of bad faith. I don't pass over suggestions that are interesting, regardless of who writes them, and not without providing a reason ahead of time (so that the nominator has a chance to fix it), which is more than other updating admins were doing until recently. Whether intentional or not, it really sounds like you're overinflating the issue—you mentioned no problem with my updating practices until this reply. You've invented a solution looking for a problem, and now you're trying to label me as the problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 18:28

That's correct, I did not mention a problem with you specifically, initially, because I hoped that a word to the wise would be sufficient and that I wouldn't have to point out that it's your recent selections that caused this to come up. I was trying to avoid being specific. But you did not want to take that word to the wise, did not want to let me avoid pointing out that you're the issue in order to remain polite, so I finally gave up and got specific. Make no mistake, your trying to assert I'm not assuming good faith, or trying to assert I've overinflated things, or saying this is a solution in search of a problem do not reduce by one iota the fact that it is a problem, that just about everyone else at least thinks it potentially looks bad, thinks that a suggestion is in order, and that you're the big resister. Twist that around as you like but the consensus here is clear to me, and I suspect to many others as well, this suggestion should stay, whether you agree or not. I'll state it directly so there's no mistake or misunderstanding: Please stop selecting so many of your own nominations unless there are strong extenuating circumstances. It's just not appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, going after me rather than my rationale. Johntex brought up a good point about instruction creep that you haven't addressed. Please don't disregard his arguments when mischaracterizing it as a "clear consensus". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:23

I'm a relative outsider to the DYK process, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth. I approve of the change. At AFD, admins are strongly discouraged from closing deletion discussions on articles that they nominated in the first place. It just looks bad, even if the consensus is overwhelmingly (even unanimously) in favor of deletion. There is always someone else who can close the discussion while avoiding that appearance of bias. Here at DYK, if the nomination is valid, it appears that there will always be someone else who will select it, and avoid that same appearance of bias. Joyous! | Talk 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't it go against AGF to say that one must avoid any situation that leads others to assume bad faith when you are not acting in bad faith? Shouldn't the default assumption be good faith, unless and until a problem becomes significant, or individuals are clearly acting in bad faith on several occasions? Is there an actual guideline on AFD that specifically states that nominators should not be closers? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 21:26

But why put yourself in that position to begin with? It does look bad to see that whole string of DYK notices on your talk page, and then find out how many of them were selected by...you. And as for AFD, yes. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, it states As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. Joyous! | Talk 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put myself in that position. I pick entries that I find interesting, and it happens that some of those are also ones I write. I don't even look at it as a conflict of interest issue; I'm just selecting the oldest entries that are both diverse and interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 01:24

Others, without ascribing bad faith to you, (or you validly ascribing bad faith to them, although you have certainly tried) do see it as a conflict of interest. Seems blindingly obvious to me... Don't do it. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I should pass up suggestions that I find interesting, and hope that one of the 2 or 3 other updating admins will also be interested in the topic? This is exactly what is wrong with this change. I had hoped that AGF would have been enough of a reason for nobody to jump to any conclusions, but jump away. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:07

Correct. If no other admin thinks it interesting, it does not get selected. This puts us all on an even footing with all the non admins, and admins that nominate things but don't do DYK selection, who, after all, don't get to select their own nominations either. Otherwise I'm left with the impression that you're basically saying your judgement is better than ours, that you are better at judging what is interesting than the rest of us. You don't actually mean that, I hope, but that's the impression I am left with. We have started to comment more on suggestions passed over, so you have the same chance as everyone else to improve your hooks and get selected. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying my judgment is better than yours; I'm saying that I have interests that the 2 or 3 other admins do not. You select entries that I would clearly pass up, and I select entries that you would clearly pass up. It is not a level playing field if the updating admin is not free to choose from any of the entries on the suggestion page. Just because some suggestions are receiving comments doesn't mean all of them will. Hopefully you'll get around to commenting on my suggestions sometime before they go past the 5-day time limit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:45

If you feel like replying to Johntex's arguments sometime, go right ahead. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 04:14

I believe I already have replied to Johntex's arguments, although not directly. But I am happy to do so directly. Here you go, annotated. John's remarks (italicised) are interspersed with my comments, indented:

I agree that an admin selecting her own entry is not the most desirable circumstance because their is a potential for a conflict of interest, or for someone to percieve a conflict of interest.

So we're in agreement in principle that there is potential for a perception of conflict of interest.

However, I am also against instruction creep.

So am I. But this has to be weighed in context. Sometimes some small amount is unavoidable if introducing it can get a greaqter good

In this particular case, unless someone can show me that admins selecting their own entries has become a significant problem, then I would be against complicating things by writing a policy or guideline to prohibit it.

Several people have so described (shown) why this is a significant problem, so therefore in his view a policy or guideline would be appropriate in this case, if Johntex accepts their assertions. But that's not what is on the table, what is on the table is only a suggestion.

I am neutral on the proposed mild wording that makes clear that we suggest admins not do this but that there is no policy or guideline against it.

So therefore, I conclude that Johntex is neutral, that is, he's not opposing the inclusion of a suggestion, but he's not for it either absent such showing that there is a problem. Neutrality == going along with consensus whichever way it turns out to be.

Based on the above, then, I reassert that there is consensus for this suggestion, and that the objections on Brian's part have been addressed; first that Johntex asserts there is no issue is incorrect, and second that Johntex is against the suggestion, have both been shown to not be valid, as Johntex accepts that there may be a problem if others assert there is, and that he is neutral on implementing this suggestion. I of course invite Johntext to extend, expand or correct my remarks if I have erred in my interpretation. ++Lar: t/c 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not been "shown" that it is a significant problem. Johntex was looking for specific evidence, and all you've provided is that "several people" have replied on this page. That is not evidence, and certainly not what he was looking for. Surely if several people have replied, there must be evidence of a significant problem somewhere in their replies; can you list this evidence? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:51

What would you consider "specific evidence" then? Please be specific. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Johntex (although I may have already and hope I didn't mischaracterize his comments), but specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 20:32

MY evidence of a problem is MUCH simpler to spot. If several people say "there is the appearance of possible impropriety here if admins choose their own noms" there's a problem. Several people have said it. Therefore there is a problem. I am not sure it would be productive to go through all the times you (or anyone else... but you're the one who's doing the bulk of the self selection of late) selected your own noms looking for which ones got passed over and which didn't. I find it completely sufficient that several people say there's an issue with it and the practice should be discontinued. Please stop doing it and please stop trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion. We should avoid even the appearance of impropriety if it is easy to do so. And this is easy. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not how this started out though. It started with a single proposal by you, not a sudden group-realization. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. Feel free to look through my selections. I made sure with all of them that older nominations were used first, or if not, for the reasons stated, or, more often, because the template already had an entry on a similar topic--in which case, I used those passed-over nominations in the next update. I don't understand your reason for telling me to stop discussion on the matter. I would understand if you were telling me to stop reverting something, or stop obviously doing things out of process, but none of that is occurring. You're telling me to stop discussing the matter. That is ridiculous. If you can provide evidence that there is a significant problem as I clearly laid out at your request, then do so. Otherwise, admit that there is no significant problem, and thus the addition was unnecessary, regardless of how much sense it makes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:35

I'm not telling you to stop discussing it, although it seems increasingly pointless to continue. I'm telling you that in my view there's a problem (and my criteria differ from yours, and further I reject your criteria as unnecessarily complex and irrelevant), that in my view multiple people have noted it, and in my view there is consensus for the change, consensus for the addition of a suggestion, regardless of whether you think so or not. I'm not sure I'd characterise any of that as "ridiculous". ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You mischaracterized my actions as "trying everything you can come up with to argue against this suggestion", and then told me to "please stop" doing it--that is ridiculous, as I said. My criteria require actual evidence, not requested opinions. Multiple people have only noted the possibility of a problem because you requested their opinions on the matter. There is still no actual problem, just the possibility of one, and that is not enough reason to add in new guidelines. As I have already shown, there has not been discussion leading to consensus, but simple "support as per X" comments, which are simply votes. Nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing. If you can provide any, please do so. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:02

As long as we have more then one person dealing with selecting DYKs (btw, do we have a list of those people anywhere and info on how to join them?) I think that there is no need for an admin to select his own entry, others will do it for him. I'd discourage people from using their own entries - I am sure there is good faith all around, but why create room for accusations that it is not the case? Let your fellow DYK admin select your entries, and all will be well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• The guideline isn't simply "be in good faith", it is "assume good faith" on the part of others' actions--so in this case, it's a guideline not for the admin, but for those viewing the admin's actions. The default is to assume that the admin is acting in good faith, unless the problem becomes significant or the actions are obviously repeatedly in bad faith. I don't see it as being up to the individual to make sure that others will assume good faith on his part, but up to the others to default to an assumption of good faith in all but the obvious cases. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 22:04

I also support the change. Assuming good faith is a red herring: this is about avoiding a position where good faith has to be assumed, because the actions, prima facie, raise the issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The change, as it is currrently worded, reads:

A suggestion rather than a rule: Admins, try to avoid picking your own nominations. Use common sense here.

I think from reading the discussion on this matter that there is consensus for this to be included on the page. It is entirely misleading to attempt to portray this as instruction creep, there are no instructions, only a suggestion. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All policies started out as guidelines, and all guidelines as simple suggestions. This is exactly what is meant by "instruction creep". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 15:40

But as things stand, there is consensus to include this suggestion, instruction creep or not, whether you agree with it or not. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "consensus", so you and Lar have said from the very beginning, before the rationale were even debated. And now you have a few more votes, and very little actual discussion, and you are again calling it "consensus". And by doing so, you are avoiding any actual discussion on the matter. It is instruction creep, and there is no evidence that the change is necessary. If you disagree, you will have to provide more than simply saying "N people disagree with you" or "it is us versus you all alone". That is not a valid rationale until you've provided evidence that the change is necessary due to a current significant problem, in order to avoid unnecessary instruction creep. You have not shown that there is a problem, just that you have a solution. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 18:10

I never used the word consensus until there was a clear one forming. I certainly never used it "at the very beginning". Please check the history if you must. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant problem, as we have stated before but which you haven't accepted. It gives the appearance of impropriety which is not a good thing, and should be avoided. This change avoids it, and avoids it at little additional cost and little additional process. Therefore the change is necessary. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of a problem is not the same as an actual problem. I'm looking for actual evidence, as I clearly laid out at your request above, and which I have copied here as a reminder--specific evidence of a significant problem would be one of the following: repeated obvious examples of an admin(s) knowingly doing things out of process to place his nominations in the template; an admin(s) repeatedly choosing his much newer nominations over numerous older ones without either a) any obvious reason for skipping over the ones he passed over, or b) providing any reason for the nominations he skipped over. The important part to the 2nd one is that it be as obvious as possible that the admin(s) is doing this regularly and skipping over several nominations (ie, the more he skips over for the fewer reasons, the clearer it is that there is a problem). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 22:46

We differ on what constitutes a problem. I reject your definition and restate that several people have already said there's already a problem. You can either go along with what everyone else thinks, erring on the side of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, or keep insisting that even in the face of consensus you're right and that no one has yet met your complex criteria, as you like. I know which one is more likely to be productive and collegial though. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem

As I have said repeatedly, nobody has actually provided evidence of a real problem that needs addressing.

Going back to Lar's first comment: he described a possible problem (one of the countless possibilities that we may one day face in the future), and proposed a solution to that possible problem. He then asked for opinions on whether the possibility does exist (which of course it does). He received several opinions stating that the possibility does exist. What he did not receive, and nobody has provided, is evidence that the problem actually exists now.

There is no actual problem. If and when the problem does occur, we can address it with the proposed change, as would make sense. It does not make sense to start addressing actions that there is no evidence are currently significant problems. That leads to needless instruction creep. I can propose a million different hoops for people to jump through that, while certainly capable of preventing an inappropriate action, are unnecessary because that action is unlikely to occur, or has not been shown to be a significant problem. We don't need to fix problems that don't exist, at least not until they do exist. The possibility of a problem is not enough reason to introduce a guideline against that problem. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-25 23:11

If you want to act dense, feel free, but don't expect that it would be the consensus. As one editor has remarked above, it is surprising to see how many of your suggestions have made it to DYK and how many of them were updated by you. Also, given your own admission that you've started nominating suggestions and updating DYK at almost the same time, it appears too much of a coincidence (given the age of your account). Since you are intent on wikilawyering and can't/won't understand discussion couched in niceties, let me put it as bluntly as I can. You have been updating suggestions from your own articles with alarming regularity and I see it as a problem. Since you don't see consensus and won't be ready for a RfC, the best we can do is what they tell us - WP:DFTT. The sad part is that an admin is acting this way. --Gurubrahma 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have to second Gurubrahma here. There is definitely a problem which is to be addressed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't follow your 3rd sentence at all. Can you reword it? I think you misunderstood me, and I don't want to misunderstand you. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 07:40

An appearance of impropriety is a problem; it is not just a "potential problem". This has nothing to do with bad behavior on the part of anyone, it's just an inherent quality of a system where the "judge" is also a "contestant". Brian, I really think you've put some positive energy into the DYK system of late, but it's just not a good idea to update the template with your own noms.--Pharos 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if/when my noms start getting skipped over for little or no reason, then I can come back here and complain about the "appearance of impropriety" on the part of admins who appear to be ignoring my noms for whatever personal reasons they have brought into the process. If that's all it takes for there to "be a problem" (which is all the evidence you've provided so far), then it is only inevitable. If you think that proposal sounds ridiculous and unnecessary, it is only because the original proposal, based solely on "the appearance of impropriety", is just as ridiculous and unnecessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:03

The thing is that people do often complain when their noms are skipped over (rightly or wrongly). It just does not look good when someone in "authority" passes over your nom and selects their own. The "appearance of impropriety" is a pretty darn important principle in judicial ethics, and should apply to admin functions (where possible), as much as it should in a court. An admin should not close an AfD they originally opened, and a judge should not decide the fates of companies they own stock in. Nor should an admin update DYK with their own articles.--Pharos 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many you are turning out every day Brian, but I'm happy to do an update in the 0-8 timezone on weekdays to relieve you from being put in a conflict of interest - You're items are good and will be selected, so it's best to sit back and let others do it for you. There is no need to give the bad impression that this a aself-coronation - a la the pigs on Animal Farm. If we can't get even the most simple things like DYK in order, the community may lose confidence in the WP system and it might fall apart. Better to pre-empt the problem and not self-select in the first place. Personally, sometimes I see noms that I think are poor, so I don't pick them, but in the case that one of my noms is there - this may lead to accusations of vanity, so when I get back to writing a few DYKs, I would step back from the updates for that week to not interfere with the selection process. unforuntaely atm only Ghirla is the non-admin who debates DYK, so it would give the impression of a closed club. `Blnguyen | rant-line 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If noms are skipped over, yours or anyone else's, all you need to do if there are no comments indicating a reason, is to ask why. The new "commentary culture" should go some way to eliminating that likelihood. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", and I think it's inappropriate for you to suggest that any of the updaters would. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if there actually were to be some bad faith going on anywhere, their purpose would have already been served, because they would have been trying to stop my nom from getting on the main page: which simply means to ignore it for 5 days--after that, the rest doesn't matter, because the nom is not going to get on the main page. And even if they give a reason why they don't use the nom, there is plenty of wiggle room for fillibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 08:47

As for your comment that "it's inappropriate for you to suggest that any of the updaters would", don't you see that that is exactly my reason for opposing this addition. I think it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest updaters would do anything for bad faith reasons, without any evidence to back it up, but that is exactly what's happening here. Both suggestions are inappropriate, but if you're going to allow one, you must allow the other. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 09:01

Eh?? You seem to be becoming a tad paranoid: their purpose would have already been served, because they would have been trying to stop my nom from getting on the main page. Who is trying to stop "your" nominations appearing on the main page, I have placed plenty of them there myself, as have several others. I would never ignore nominations for "personal reasons", just as I would never promote them for "personal reasons". That is the nub of the issue under debate here. Please Brian, hole - dig - deeper - stop. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand what conjecture is? I'm not saying it's happening now. I'm conjecturing about it as a future possibility. Notice how I prefaced my comment with "If/when". You said: "I would never ignore nominations for 'personal reasons'"; well, I would never choose my own articles for personal reasons, but that hasn't stopped you from implementing a new guideline; why should we stop with that one? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 13:56

Well the guideline if you wish to call it that was implemented by Lar with the support of several editors, myself included. Perhaps we should stop with that one because it has consensus for implementation and the other one doesn't. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unused Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In progress review of commenting on every suggestion not selected

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

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

Dutch language entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional DYK updaters

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

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

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

Level of unused suggestions

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

4 July update timing

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

on the 2nd update was at 2322

on the 3rd update at 1637

on the 4th update at 2318

on the 5th update at 1142

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

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

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

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

Question on userspace

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

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

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

Displaying of a talk page DYK template

Greetings folks, got a bit of a technicality question.

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

Template:UpdatedDYK hacking

(copied from Mgm)

I see you've been working on this (and I cribbed what you did for Template:UpdatedDYKNom) per [2] I think it may have broken all the older usages, if you check what links here and follow a random link you'll see some messes. Let's discuss on WPT:DYK ok? something needs to be done I think. My suggestion would be that if the parms are not present, the whole date is omitted completely (and the template assumes parm 1 is the article name instead of parm 3). This kind of logic is doable with #ifexists and #switch, I know how... but I would prefer to discuss first. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection commentary and "Unused Suggestions" experiments

We've been running this for a while now, and I think it's possible to get a feel for how effective it's been. I find that the additional commentary being made on nominations which are passed over is often confusing for nominators, adds unneccessary clutter to the page and rapidly gets out of date and even more confusing as other nominations are added and removed. It also adds unneccessary additional workload to the updating admin's task. I suggest that we restrict commentary to technical and stylistic matters regarding the nominations during their tenure on the page and abandon this "skipped because ..." commenting. If nominators wish to know why one of their noms was not used, they can ask the updating admin directly. It's a much better and more personal way of informing nominators if necessary.

I also don't think the Unused Suggestions section is of any use. I argued against its introduction above, so I won't repeat my arguments again, other than to say it also adds unneccessary clutter to the page. It is also frequently out of date and very poorly maintained. As I write, there are entries still in the main section from 12 July, and the Unused Suggestions sections has entries going as far back as 6 July. This is all needless redundancy and should be abandoned. As before, if nominators wish to know why an entry wasn't used, they can ask the updating admin directly. I'm off to clean up the talk page now ... :-( --Cactus.man ✍ 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied Lar's comments from above

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

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

Agreed, commentary during the tenure on the page is perfectly adequate and less confusing. Once the 5 days is up and they're not used, they get removed. Keep it simple, no need for over complication. Any queries can be addressed directly to the updating admin - after all, that's why we have talk pages, right? And it's a much better form of communication than a (necessarily) short one liner on the template page. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that both of these sections have not panned out, really. We've given them a fair shake now, I feel. 3 or 4 times now I have had to explain at some length about a comment I've left on why something wasn't (yet) selected, because it confused a nominator. I'm not opposed to commenting when it makes sense but not for every unselected item. I think it has introduced a bias as well, I tend to take the bottom most items, with only rare exceptions, because that reduces the number of items I have to comment on. That's probably not a good thing either. Anyone else find they're biased that way? So in summation I think we should discontinue this practice, and undo the changes in description of how things are done to stop asking folk to do it, and drop the unused suggestions section. ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK bullets suck (moved from Talk: Main Page)

DYK looked better without the bullets a few months ago. Why use them along with an ellipsis starting each line ? Ugly and superfluous. -- 64.229.179.114 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know would be the best place to suggest layout changes to the DYK box. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone here get rid of the ugly bullets ? --64.229.231.181 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To help the anon, here are the two examples.

With the bullet points	Without the bullet points:
...that a National Weather Service bulletin for New Orleans, Louisiana, warned of "human suffering incredible by modern standards" before Hurricane Katrina's landfall? ...that although the Polish-Romanian Alliance, an important alliance of the 1920s, was still in force when the Second World War began, it had little impact on the German invasion of Poland in 1939? ...that the fossilised remains of lions have been found at Crook Peak in Somerset, England? ...that Captain Humbert Roque Versace was the first Army P.O.W. in Southeast Asia to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in captivity? ...that Paris has held six world's expositions, but the most recent was in 1937? ...that the makers of Winston cigarettes responded to qualms about the incorrect grammar present in the ad campaign "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" with a completely new campaign, noting the error?	...that a National Weather Service bulletin for New Orleans, Louisiana, warned of "human suffering incredible by modern standards" before Hurricane Katrina's landfall? ...that although the Polish-Romanian Alliance, an important alliance of the 1920s, was still in force when the Second World War began, it had little impact on the German invasion of Poland in 1939? ...that the fossilised remains of lions have been found at Crook Peak in Somerset, England? ...that Captain Humbert Roque Versace was the first Army P.O.W. in Southeast Asia to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in captivity? ...that Paris has held six world's expositions, but the most recent was in 1937? ...that the makers of Winston cigarettes responded to qualms about the incorrect grammar present in the ad campaign "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" with a completely new campaign, noting the error?
	With indenting
This space intentionally left blank	...that a National Weather Service bulletin for New Orleans, Louisiana, warned of "human suffering incredible by modern standards" before Hurricane Katrina's landfall? ...that although the Polish-Romanian Alliance, an important alliance of the 1920s, was still in force when the Second World War began, it had little impact on the German invasion of Poland in 1939? ...that the fossilised remains of lions have been found at Crook Peak in Somerset, England? ...that Captain Humbert Roque Versace was the first Army P.O.W. in Southeast Asia to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in captivity? ...that Paris has held six world's expositions, but the most recent was in 1937? ...that the makers of Winston cigarettes responded to qualms about the incorrect grammar present in the ad campaign "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" with a completely new campaign, noting the error?

Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, LV. I think DYK would look better if each bullet is replaced by an ellipsis. But is there a way to keep the indenting ? Indenting is important as the text wraps. DYK is not as wide on the Main Page. -- 64.229.231.181 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have table-ised and added a unbulleted but indented version. I think I prefer with bullets. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)