Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

wikilove

I just wanted to express my love for WP:DYK. It is very heart-warming and encouraging to see one's contributions on the main page (even more so when they're nominated by someone else). Go DYK! :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

...and by extension, kudos to all the admins who keep it updated, and the editors that troll through newpages on a regular basis. *blows kisses* pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Is DYK limited to just articles? If it isn't, I think it shouldn't be. What do others think? RENTA^{FOR LET?} 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling

The string "acqutted" currently appears in DYK. Please add an i. ^L_Wizard @ 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is off main page now. As relatively fewer no. of people track this page, you should try Talk:Main Page for instant results. Thanks for bringing this up, --Gurubrahma 13:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Announcements and proposed changes

• A DYK medal a la the FA medal has been instituted in order to honour excellent contributions to DYK. This is similar in conception to the barnstar system of recognition. It would be worthwhile to honour people who contribute to DYK on a continuous basis through their excellent articles / suggestions (from the articles started by them as well as others). Please feel free to confer this award on deserving people.
• As I write this, the vote for changing the main page design seems to be 579 support to 180 oppose votes in favour of the new main page design. This would mean that DYK would make its appearance on all the weekdays.
• As we have crossed million articles and as we get set to have DYK every day of the week, it becomes important to ensure that the quality of the articles does not drop. Articles need to be of a minimum length and lists would not be considered as articles usually. The current guidelines stipulate that stubs should not be added to the main page. However, the guidelines are confusing because they state a minimum size of 1000 bytes at one place and 1000 characters at another. I propose that we should have a minimum size of 350 words - this should be enough to fill one screen area and would be considerably longer than a stub.
• Updating DYK column (by an admin) and notifying users takes 20-30 minutes. Also, the updating process itself is not straight forward, involving uploads, protects, archives etc. The process has become lengthier for images uploaded from commons as attribution also needs to be done. As a result, the admins who update this on a continuous basis are limited to one to three people at the most. With the increase in number of suggestions, and the attendant need for updating DYK across time zones, every day of the week, would call for more admins updating DYK; this would also imply a need for simplifying the process.
• A suggestion for simplifying the process and its benefits: - Typically, {{UpdatedDYK}} is used to notify the creators of articles on their user talkpages about a suggestion from so-and-so article making it to DYK. Many a time, the person who suggests the article for DYK is not the same as one who starts the article (not a self-nom, in our parlance) - and he has no way of knowing if and when the suggestion has made it to DYK. More often than not, he is also a principal contributor to the article in question. To address these problems, {{dyktalk}}, which is used to update article talk pages has been implemented. As the article itself would be conceivably on the watchlist of all the major contributors to the article, everyone of them would know that the article has made it to DYK. Also, it serves as a more public record than a user talk page and can inspire more people to work on better entries that make it to DYK. I suggest that only the talkpages of articles be updated from now on, with the usertalkpages updation left entirely optional (I am not in favour of deleting or deprecating {{UpdatedDYK}} entirely because this can be useful for motivating newbies on their first DYK entries). I plan to implement this scheme from the coming week. --Gurubrahma 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see how {{UpdatedDYK}} makes the updation process more difficult. I often nominate the articles by newbies in order to show that their work is not lost to us and is appreciated by the community. Many (if not most) of these hardly know how to sign their name, let alone what the watchlist is all about. Therefore, {{UpdatedDYK}} is the only way to make them look at the Main Page. So I'm quite concerned that Wetman, Adam Bishop and the rest didn't get the traditional {{UpdatedDYK}} announcement on their talk page today. I am not an admin but may take responsibility for adding such templates to user talk pages. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I read your proposal more carefully and see your agreement that the template can be useful for motivating newbies on their first DYK entries. If it is used optionally, what is the criterion then? Who is considered a newbie and who is not? As a sidenote, if the template is dropped, the number of nominations may plummet drastically, as most people self-nominate their articles to see the template as a kind of award gracing their talk pages. Given that the nomination page is frequently overloaded these days, this move could be beneficial. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  When I say that it is optional, I expect the updating admin or the nominator to update the usertalk page. I think it is best to leave it to common sense to identify a newbie rather than allow instruction creep. Adding {{UpdatedDYK}} to user talkpage is much more cumbersome and time-taking than adding {{dyktalk}} to article talkpage due to the following reasons: - "Updateddyk" implies that article names need to be entered for each suggestion, then added to user talkpage. Some of the user talkpages take too long a time to load. "dyktalk" means that the same message needs to be copy-pasted in 4-5 article talkpages which are either very short in length (taking less time to load) or non-existent as yet. Most of the articles's original creators may leave them as stubs but I have seen other editors improving these a lot and suggesting them on DYK after I started the "dyktalk" template and implemented it. Most of the user pages (including mine) proclaim the articles they have started rather than they improved or collaborated. An implicit deprecation of "Updateddyk" and implementation of "dyktalk" should hopefully reverse the phenomenon to some extent. Also, please note that, previously, since dyktalk was new, I made it optional. The only change now is that the other template has become optional. Any help in updating usertalk pages by non-admins is highly appreciated. From my experience, I find that more (casual) readers see the talk page of an article and get interested in joining WP as editors, not by seeing user talkpage. Also, AFAIK, for any FA, the message is on talkpage, not on the user talkpage. It makes more sense as a signalling mechanism for collaboration. I sincerely believe that this change is in order for both strategic (promoting collaboration) and tactical (reducing update times) reasons. --Gurubrahma 06:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for your response. I see your point now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

British Rail flying saucer

Would like to suggest that this one be saved for April 1 (with, admittedly, a little DYK rules bending) if possible. See Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page and the talk page... ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This has already made it to the DYK, but let's see - though I wasn't around last year on that day, I heard that there were lot of silly pranks then. I'd rather prefer something genuine like this, but let's see. --Gurubrahma 12:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's an archive somewhere of all the stuff done, pretty funny stuff... if you're an insider. This year's idea is to make it funny for those not in the know by using only true items, with the prank being that they actualy are true despite sounding obviously false. Perhaps the DYK rules bending needed would just be to allow this one, and a few carefully selected others, to be "reselected" as it were, on the day... ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo in the current DYK listing on the main page

According to the Manual of Style, italics should be used for television show titles and double quotes should be used for episode titles. Right now the DYK section says, "...award-winning Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Inner Light is..." Could someone please fix this? Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe such concerns should be addressed to Talk:Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Allowing expanded articles?

There was some previous discussion (now in the most recent archive) about allowing DYK to cover articles that have recently been built up from stubs rather than just new articles. It received some reasonably positive comments but nothing ever came of it. I think this would be a positive move because I think at this stage in Wikipedia's development we have more need to improve our existing articles than to get new ones. Allowing expanded stubs to be displayed on the main page would encourage this. Any thoughts on this? --Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is already an implicit policy, and I have myself updated sveral expanded stubs to DYK - caveats: these should have been really stubs (definitely less than 500 words), should not have made it to DYK before (some admin may have put them on DYK some time back inadvertently) and should be at least thrice as long as the previous stub version. --Gurubrahma 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. That's good. I thought I'd recently seen someone reject a request to put an expanded stub on as it wasn't allowed. Should The Rules but updated to reflect this? --Cherry blossom tree 12:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the announcement section above, we have different rules on different DYK pages. I would like to wait for a month or so to address objections to the above proposed changes before standardising them on all DYK pages. That rejection you refer to may have been because it was not a stub before expansion (length rather than tag matters) or it may not have been listed within 5 days of expansion. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the guidelines Gurubrahma proposes (and is defacto using?). They seem very reasonable, after all the point of DYK is to highlight new things that are neat to know more about. If the article was a stub and now it isn't, the new thing to highlight wasn't there before, after all. Thanks for moving this forward. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The rules should be clear on this. I do see expanded stubs there from time to time, but I didn't put mine as I thought it was fobridden.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been more than a month now, and no one has voiced objections, shall we now update the rules to reflect the allowing of expanded stubs? It's a good thing IMO. Kimchi.sg 07:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

World war 1 missile defence?

The assertion on the Main Page that Seacliff, Scotland, was a missile defence base during World War I looked a bit odd to me (who had long range rockets in World War I?), and as far as I can tell the actual article makes no such claim. Too late to fix it? Willhsmit 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article itself seems to have been corrected. I've fixed the DYK blurb. Shimgray | talk | 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Other DYKs

Do the rules for this main DYK apply to other DYKs such as Portal:Music/Did you know? Hyacinth 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Only to this one. --Gurubrahma 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ostrog Bible

The first printed edition of the Bible in a Slavic language can not be Ostrog Bible of 1580 when Prague Bible was printed already in 1488. Qertis 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The talkpage of Ostrog Bible may be the right place to take this up. --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins not checking whether the article is new?

Both Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (From April 5, 2004) and even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which is clearly not a new article (and is in fact from 2002) are currently in DYK. Shouldn't the updating admin actually check if the article is new? --Rory096 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Casu marzu, too, from March 16, 2002! --Rory096 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Main Page - some ppl. want to have fun on April fool's day by putting genuine stuff that sounds unbelievable, hence the old DYKs - this would only be for today (UTC time). --Gurubrahma 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you care...?

Someone suggested this as the heading for April Fools' once. Shouldn't be too harmful. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It sure has a subtle form of humour in it. It is a good heading ONLY for April Fools' day though. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up

The Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article isn't new. So, um... yeah, it really doesn't belong it DYK. Just thought I'd point that out. MrVoluntarist 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a harmless April Fool's day joke. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Timing of DYK articles

I'm well aware that current DYK policy is not to allow articles older than 120 hours old. Does that mean that an article that gets stranded on the nomination page until it's older than 120 hours is excluded?

Example: I did a self-nom on 2005-06 World Sevens Series on April 11. Another admin commented that it wasn't appropriate yet to be featured on DYK, and suggested improvements. I expanded the article considerably, and he okayed it on my talk page. However, there hasn't been an update to the template for nearly a full day. Even though I'm an admin, I don't consider myself competent enough to edit the template myself. By the time the template gets updated, there will be several possible entries—not just mine—that will be over 120 hours old.

What's the policy regarding stranded noms that haven't received comments, or have been commented but improved? — Dale Arnett 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it on the list under April 11, and see what happens. I just updated the template a few hours ago, so maybe on the next run it'll be in there (depends on the admin doing the update). I put one from April 10 on the main page this time around; for me the 120 hours thing isn't a hard and fast rule. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Selection process

I'm a little unclear on exactly who decides, and when they decide, which articles "make it" and which don't? What proportion of nominations tend to get in? Is there any kind of discussion/consensus/voting process, or does the admin just make a judgment call? Stevage 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly an admin judgment call, but users normally post comments saying that they think the article is too short, badly formatted, etc. As for a nomination success rate, it's pretty high (probably 80-90%). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template update process

The current process of updating the Did you know section on the Main page involves a manual update of the template at the time of change. With the recent introduction of the MediWiki Parser Functions it now appears possible to implement a schema similar to the one used by the Featured Article or Picture of the Day yet still change the section contents several times during the day. On possible syntax to implement this change is to change the template transclusion on the main page from {{Did you know}} to something of the form:

{{Wikipedia:Did you know/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}.{{#expr: ({{CURRENTHOUR}} / 8 round 0) mod 3}}}}

The above syntax would cause the Did you know section to be changed three time each day at 04:00, 12:00, and 20:00 hours. If a simple twice a day update is preferred then {{ #ifexpr: {{CURRENTHOUR}} < 12 | AM | PM }} could be used to cause an update at midnight and noon.

The advantages of an automated update process such as this are that updates could be queued up a day or two in advance of being displayed on the Main page, the transcluded files form an archive that does not need to be maintained after entries are added, and entries receive a more consistent length of time on the main page.

Is this a change that is worth doing? If so, how often should the section be updated and when should the cut over be performed? --Allen3 ^talk 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What happens if the queue inadvertantly is empty? That would be the thing I'd be concerned about. Unlike, say, tips, and FA's, you can't queue these up far far far ahead. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The short answer to your question is that a blank file will be transcluded to the Main page. You are correct that entries could not be queued more than five days in advance (two to three days is probably the realistic limit), but the current system requires an admin to update a template a couple of times each day so overall effort for the updates in comparable to the current system. The real advantages come in the form of a predictable update schedule and simplified archiving. --Allen3 ^talk 00:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of multiple pages like the 'article of the day' I might suggest setting it up as a conditional list. So, instead of having to set up new pages a couple of times per day you would add new items to the bottom of the list. An older (pre ParserFunction) example of this concept can be seen at Portal:Middle-earth/Featured article... when transcluded into Portal:Middle-earth each entry is only displayed if a specific parameter is set, and only one is ever set at a time in the call. For DYK this could be adjusted to use a call like {{Template:Did you know|time={{JD}}}} and then have {{#ifexpr: ({{{time}}}>{{JULIANDAY|2006|4|30|3|30}}) AND ({{{time}}}<{{JULIANDAY|2006|4|30|15|30}})|<list of DYKs>}}... which would display the specified set of entries between 3:30 and 15:30 on April 30, 2006... then the next set would have a different time range, and the next, et cetera. The last entry in the list could then always have 'time < year 2050' (or whatever far distant time) to prevent the queue running out and displaying blank. --CBDunkerson 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that sounds like it would be quite a nifty thing to do. I like the idea of rotating automatically... There's still work to do around protecting pages but that could be done in advance, when the thing was chosen, as long as having things protected longer was OK (now, they are manually protected from when they are manually added to when they are manually removed) ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This implementation appears to introduce extra opportunities for human error without adding any additional functionality. The conditional list requires the admin updating a list to add a considerable amount of conditional code that is can not be easily tested except by reseting the time on the servers. It also adds the effort of striping the conditionals to the task of archiving previously displayed entries. If the "Did you know" section was a long list of items that were cycled over time then your proposed implementation would be viable, but until such an event happens the extra technical knowledge needed to perform updates combined with no savings in the effort to archive old entries suggests that this is not the best solution.

A hybrid solution of having a set of files that are cycled over time (Sunday.AM, Sunday.PM, Monday.AM, ..., Saturday.PM) could be a viable solution assuming the automatic creation of an archive through individually dated files is not considered a significant advantage. --Allen3 ^talk 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the requirement to inform users on their talk pages of updates

This is, without a doubt, the most time-consuming and annoying part of the DYK update process. I'm not sure the effort of going to up to six user talk pages, copying the template, and manually typing in the correct article name (imagine the hilarity if you mix two of them up) is worth it. With a non-tabbed browser or a slow laptop it would be even more painful. There is, after all, a message posted to the talk page of the article which is a far quicker copy-and-paste job, and surely most users who go to the trouble of making an article DYK-worthy will see it.

Thoughts? I think this is contributing to the current backlog for no good reason. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My theory is that it's a neat thing, a fun boost to the recepient (I know I do a little dance whenever I get one of those notices). I'm not convinced it is adding to the backlog (but I can't say for sure, not doing the work) and that it could be automated with a little work. I'd be willing to give it a look at some point. But if something had to give this is less important than putting removed articles in the archive list after they have been on DYK for a while, and I think there might be some of that problem right now, maybe... not sure. the bigger problem is to get more people to do the selecting and updating. Addressing that is done by making it easier, it's true.++Lar: t/c 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't take the notice away, I agree with Lar that it's fun for the article creators. Why not we leave the notification system as what Template talk:Did you know currently says: the user talk notice is optional and can be done by users, the article talk page notice is non-optional and done by the updating admin (or we could modify this so that users can do it)?

However, my ideal DYK process would be: we appoint a group of users (not admins) to paste DYK notices on article talk pages and user talk pages whenever the template is updated. Admins shouldn't have to do anything except update the template itself, and maybe notify someone from the group to do the talk page pastings. If there's such a group, I'm willing to help. Kimchi.sg 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fun, yes... if you get it. Of the four articles where my contributions got them to DYK, I only created two, so obviously didn't get the little sticker. The other two were expanded from stubs. I don't know whether that ratio's any different for people who do more writing than I, of course. Still, as long as it's not actually a requirement... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the updating admin whether he chooses to inform the creators about their articles being featured on Main Page or not. It is highly recommended to inform new wikipedians (you'll know them by red-linked userpages) that their work is appreciated by the community. As for Kimchi's proposal, I always inform the guys whose articles were nominated by me, even when the updating admin doesn't care to do it or put the tags to a wrong user talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notifying article creators is currently optional, although personally I always do it as a courtesy, whether it's a newbie or veteran editor. It doesn't take too much extra time and helps foster a co-operative spirit. I would like to see it become the norm again. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed appropriate to notify article creators about this. This is also another way to give recognition to these article creators who started the ball rolling. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of featured picture candidates is equally tedious, so User:Veledan created a script to semi-automate the process (see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates). You might want to talk to him and see if we can't get something similar for DYK. howcheng {chat} 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, please find an elaborate discussion above on the section titled Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Announcements_and_proposed_changes. I have created the article talk page notification to reduce the work load for admins, but used both the templates for some time to familiarise editors about the new template. --Gurubrahma 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive section needs updating

The archive section at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know is getting very long. Reading the source of that section, it seems that User:AllyUnion used to run a bot that archived old DYKs in that section. Does anyone object if I reuse the code and make another DYK archiving bot? Kimchi.sg 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do, the archive section on the talk page is way too long. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering there's a small amount of bureaucracy to get a new bot in place, I put forth a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Got a hint from Tawker, and dropped a note to Werdna648. Hope his bot can do this task. Kimchi.sg 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Quality of articles?

Ok, despite my bitching above I'm going to do another update. Now it doesn't look as if any worthy articles are going to miss their place in the sun I can make sure I'm doing it right. Basically, I passed over rail transportation in Okinawa because it has no sources. I also passed over Uí Ímair because of its length. Am I being fair in both cases? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK an article being unsourced is not a disqualifying factor for DYK. I wouldn't disagree with your judgement, though. And we could always propose that as another DYK criteria. Kimchi.sg 09:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are about to beat me to it Sam, I'll let you go ahead and update. I note your comments about rail transportation in Okinawa, although I had it "pencilled in". Exposure on DYK often generates useful links and sources. I'll be interested to see your selections though but I'll keep my others under wraps for now :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

{{DYK-Refresh}}

The display of this template on the DYK talk page seems to be broken for some reason, in my browser at least. CURRENTDAYNAME is displaying a broken link to Thirsday instead of the correct day. The template itself doesn't appear to have been vandalised, so does any template-guru have any idea what the hell is going on and how to fix it? --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been alot of adjustments and complete replacements of the templates I originally used to perform all the date calculations for this page. Somebody must have introduced a typo somewhere along the line. I'll track it down. --CBDunkerson 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not have any problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it CBD --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --CBDunkerson 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

DYKs used to be shorter

Have a look at the first archive. They were nice and simple then :) Have the DYK phrasings become too long and tortured? Stevage 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We still do see occasional one-liners, but these are getting rarer now. My feeling is that the increasing pressure to present the best-looking entry for DYK is causing editors to bulk up their entries with more words. Kimchi.sg 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to heartily agree here. A blurb of this type is actually more interesting when it's been reduced to just one enticing factoid. In cases of excess, I think the updating admin should just feel free to trim what's been overwritten.--Pharos 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As a guideline, how about making sure each point is only "one point" (no "that blah, and also that..."), and if examples are given, no more than two are included? Note: guideline, not rule :) Stevage 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've started enforcing it on my own entries from, well, this one. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the admins can always trim the entries. Before the current main page, DYK had much lesser space and trimming was de riguer. --Gurubrahma 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination length is a balancing act between the article length and quality, the nature and interest factor of the facts, and the available space to be balanced out to occupy the main page efficiently. I think adding more rules is unneccessary and we should continue to trust admins to use discretion to achive the right mix. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting started doing DYKs

I am keen to get started doing DYKs now that I have the shiny new admin buttons. I've been a bit swamped at work but hope to get to one this evening, and definitely will do some this weekend. I've read through the instructions and other relevant things but still might want someone to fire questions off to during the process. Also I have a question, how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are? I assume that you do the protections of images and articles first, and actually change the template as the very last thing to do, save that, check the main page to make sure it took correctly, and then go around to article and editor talk pages to leave the notices... that seems like you might get into protecting things, and then find out that another editor already did the DKY template update, rendering your protects superfluous... thoughts? (the backlog right now is really bad... lots of great articles that deserve promotion) ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much a good order to do things in. Sometimes there are conflicts in updating, but it's pretty rare - just do a final check of the page history before hitting the save button to make sure. If you've wasted half an hour preparing things it's no big deal, just some learning on new topics - reading the DYK noms is usually great fun. Good to know there's a new updater aboard :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "how do you know that someone else hasn't started doing it at the same time you are?" I see this could become a real problem as more sysops partake of the DYK updating work. Maybe we can have a {{DYK-inuse | ADMIN_NAME}} template that says "DYK is being updated now by ADMIN_NAME." and have the updating admin insert it in Template talk:Did you know for the duration of the update, so that other people will know? Kimchi.sg 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Where to put it? behind noinclude tags on the main page? Or as you say on the talk page where the noms are (which is where people start work I assume)? or both?. I'll make one up if no one else does shortly. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can the other DYK admins comment here? I'm not sure how you guys start the updating routine. :-) Kimchi.sg 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy, imo ;). I was almost the sole updater of DYK for over a month. When nixie and I used to update, I used to check for image protections to see if she or any other admin is on the way to update DYK. I've updated DYK for around 4 months and never ran into the problem of other admins doing the update. More common problem is someone adding a suggestion to template talk, just as I am trying to archive and update it, resulting in an edit conflict. It also happened a couple of times on the template when some admin was correcting spelling, grammar or trimming the older DYK just when I was trying to usher in the newer DYK. --Gurubrahma 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts. That suggests the source page where the noms are is the right place. I may create and start using a template. (or just uncomment and recomment a warning box) No one else has to do so if they don't want to... I'm new here though so I'll try it without for a few cycles first I guess. Optional doesn't mean bureaucracy, although I dislike it too. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I just did my first one. I found it rather hard/finicky. I only did a partial, there were 5 articles, I pulled 2 and added 3 (there seemed to be room since the three I added had compact hooklines). Please, anyone that knows what they are doing, check my work. I protected the new image (but I just realised I forgot to unprotect the old one!) and left notices on talk and user pages. Comments, feedback, concerns, all very welcome. I will have to leave Friday to others as I will be traveling. But I will do some of Saturday's ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Looks quite okay. Kimchi.sg 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All looks good to me too, although a full changeover would have been good. It makes the archival process slightly easier. Good job nonetheless.--Cactus.man ✍ 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A full changeover makes archiving easier? I did not know that. I put the 3 articles I removed in the archive myself.... I'll keep that in mind though. (and we have enough of a backlog that there is no shortage of material). However, as it turns out I think I may have messed up a bit... see [1]... I did not look at that image closely enough. Although arguably the copyright symbol is a false assertion, it would have been better not to use that image at all. So whoever does the next rotation... please rotate that image off! There are lots of other good ones. ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I find it easier, others may not. The current situation though is that when the next updater archives Mafeking Cadet Corps, s/he needs to remember that particular item previously was at #1 with an image, and they should add that image to the archive page also. I just think it's easier not to miss things like that if they're all done together. But each to his own :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Update, I see the copyright question has caused the allegedly offending image to be removed, so that's that possible banana skin removed. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)