Template talk:NewDYKnomination

Nominations with image[edit]

Not sure whether this is the right spot for commenting, given that nobody has used this talk page before. But here are a couple of suggestions:

T:TDYK also has a template that one can copy, and it contains the additional parameter 'alttext'. Maybe this should be added to the list of parameters, too.
I further suggest to include a wikilink to Wikipedia:ALT
I suggest that 'rollover' should be wikilinked to the appropriate page (if such page exists - I couldn't find it), or at least it should be better explained what that actually is (rather than what happens when you don't fill it out). I had a bit of trouble finding out what this actually is. Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2010_March_12#Difference_between_alt_text_and_rollover_text.3F gave me the answer.

I hope this makes sense. Schwede 66 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. How do these additions (template documentation, T:TDYK instructions) look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous. There's a couple of tags showing in the new rollover text description, but I'm sure that somebody will come through and tidy this up. The text now explains what's required, and the link to tooltip also helps. Big thanks. Schwede 66 01:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review template[edit]

{{editprotect}}Please consider incorporating this review template to pre-insert the review checklist upon substitution. Relevant consensus has been demonstrated, overwhelmingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy enough to do, but I think I'd prefer to wait until there is a clear agreement on what exactly the checklist template should constitute. Per WT:DYK#Review checklist formatting improvements, although there is probably consensus that there should be some sort of checklist, it seems not everyone agrees on exactly what the checklist should be or how it should be implemented; I think some similar discussions cropped up elsewhere on WT:DYK as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably make a working version in the sandbox first when there is agreement on the implementation. Ucucha 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a protected template, I think it's also important to get a version that people like (down to the boring details like formatting) before putting it on. For instance, I prefer one like this (notice that I've removed the "obvious prose issues" that was in Tony's template, as well as the bolding which I feel is distracting); but putting up my preferred version on the protected template might be seen as an abuse of admin privileges. And once any version is up, making changes to it would also require admin privileges. So it's probably best to get a consensus version worked out off-template first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the bolding is distracting, but the "Obvious ..." has been approved overwhelmingly at the RfC, so I don't think it can be unilaterally removed. Tony (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red link, review requirement[edit]

There is a red link in the Usage guidelines:

|reviewed= The article that the hook nominator reviewed, in accordance with the review requirement. - If you are required to conduct a review, and did the review before nominating the hook

Is this still a requirement? Or was there a policy change? Thanks.--Edcolins (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Videos[edit]

It appears that the parameter 'video' is not working any longer. When I use it, the video doesn't show as part of the nomination. The way to get around it is to simply use 'image'. Schwede 66 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

Following on from the post at User talk:MSGJ#Template help needed, it's probably best discussed here.

I have a question: why is the template stuffed with <noinclude>...</noinclude>? Many of these enclose line breaks or comments  - I just don't see the point. If such extraneous tags were removed, it will be easier to work out what the template is supposed to do. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the tags are extraneous, but the overwhelming majority are necessary. Most of them relate to substitution elements. You can't substitute a templates output on the target page if it is coded as {{subst:PAGENAME}} because it would substitute the templates information instead of creating a link with the target pages information. The workaround is to either {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} some portion or subst:<noinclude></noinclude>PAGENAME}} so that it is not actually a substitution template until it is reconstructed on the target page.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 07:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried {{{{{|safesubst:}}}PAGENAME}}? Demo at User:Redrose64/Sandbox11. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks promising. Indeed many <includeonly></includeonly>, <noinclude></noinclude> tags may be extraneous.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 16:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think it looks better, I fixed the bunching problem, and fully tested the changes logged on the testcases page. Thanks for the tip Redrose64.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 09:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image section reversion needed[edit]

The code changed about a week ago so that the output for the image information, which had been nicely on several lines and making it easy to read and to copy from the template edit window onto the DYK prep pages in edit mode, is now all bunched together. I've picked two actual examples, both from February 13—Template:Did you know nominations/Stone circles of Junapani from before the change, and Template:Did you know nominations/Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn from afterward. The generated code used to appear as follows (you'll have to look in the editor to see what I mean; I unfortunately don't know how to replicate it so it displays properly outside the editor):

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Now, it appears all bunched up as follows:

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

I frankly wouldn't mind the closing div tag to be on its own line, but the running together of the DYK nompage template and the entire following div, without a break, is not helpful. Can it please either be restored to how it was prior to the change during the day on February 13, or improved by not having the closing div on the same line as the following comment? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—An example of the currect output in on the Template:NewDYKnomination/testcases page if you would like to verify that it is back to the way you prefer? I'll go through the others and fix them manually.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're all fixed and the template will generate the output accordingly.—_{My76Strat • talk • email} 12:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add support for Source and Reference in the template[edit]

Now that the DYK nomination requirements have grown to include specifying the source and reference in the nomination, it would help to have those included in the template. At the moment, each nominator has to make up their own manual process to add it, or copy it from another nomination which might be a good or bad example. Having it in the template would simplify and standardize the process. There should be a Source and Reference field for each ALT as well. This seems like a good approach to me; is there any reason not to include it? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having been through the DYK process once I'd like to chime in on this: Having the source shown in the USAGE section of the NEWDYKNOM TEMPLATE was extremely confusing. I eventually realized that this was just for the reader to understand that a source should be provided, but it LOOKS like you are supposed to add the source material right there within the template. This incorrect impression is solidified because nowhere else is it shown HOW to correctly add a source.

Here is the pertinent/misleading/confusing example from Template:NewDYKnomination:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination
 | article       = 
 |    article2   = 
 | status        = new / expanded / BLP expanded / mainspace / redirect / GA
 | hook          = ... that ...?  Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link], or briefly cite, the source)
 | ALT1          = ... that ...?  Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link], or briefly cite, the source)
 | author        = 
 |    author2    = 
 | image         = 
 |    caption    = 
 | comment       = 
 | reviewed      = 
}}

RobP (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: I've removed the offending text. If we can work out a standard way to add sources, then I agree that that would be much better usability-wise. @Gronk Oz: Is there any agreement on how sources should be formatted? Everyone is going to have to use the format that is put in the template, so we should make sure it is what people want before we add any code. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: I'm not sure what "offending text" was removed, but I'll assume that it was bad and you did a good thing, so thank you for doing that. I am relatively inexperienced with DYKs, so I'm not the best person to comment on how it should be formatted. What do the experienced reviewers want to see? They are the ones this is aimed at. We also need to make sure that whatever instructions are included will be clear to a less-experienced person; that's who they are aimed at. Even what's there now about the source for the hook is not clear to me: I would prefer something more specific like "copy the sentence from the article which supports this statement" or similar. But that's just one person's opinion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: I have used the template a number of times since the addition of the sourcing text, and I was not comfused. I think it should be added in ad this discussion taken to the DYK talk page rather then held here.--Kev min § 01:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you ARE supposed to quote (ideally) and cite (always) the source supporting each hook right here in the template. I added that myself years ago to make the process of verifying hooks (which, if you can believe it, used to be even more hit-or-miss than it is now) more direct. Figuring our how to add new parameters was too complicate, so I kludged them onto the end of the existing ones. It's worked out pretty well, actually -- even if I do say so myself. E Eng 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rookie in need of help[edit]

I recently nominated Himura Kenshin to a DYK after giving the article almost 20,000 kylobites more. Still, I think I already did enough DYK requests in the past. Should I make a review or something to request it? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly mixed indentation[edit]

It looks like this template's module suggests using incorrectly mixed indentation. I'm not going to fix it just yet, as I suspect there are more areas than just the module that have this issue, but I figured I would mention it here in case anyone knows something about it.

The actual issue is the module's output template says to use :* to reply, when by the looks of things it should either just be * or **. As it looks like the DYK nominations are, markup-wise, not in reply to another list, it should probably just be a single bullet.

Additionally, any list indentation in a bulleted comment list should be done like so (see also MOS:INDENTMIX):

* Top post
:* Incorrect reply
::* Another incorrect reply

* Top post
** Correct reply
*** Another correct reply

Since I assume this isn't a very watched talk page, I'll probably just do some looking around so I can figure out what the most correct change to the module would be depending on how DYK nominations are usually done. Perryprog (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes. this. someone please fix this theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please for God's sake make it:

* Top post
*: Correct reply
*:: Another correct reply

I don't know why some people want bullets everywhere. It's every distracting. I'd be happy to make the change but I'm having a brain fart and can't figure out where the code is. Anyone want to give me a hint? E Eng 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng @Perryprog I am unsure what either of you are talking about, but understand the proposed changes you're making. Can you share where you see this problem? I may be able to find/locate where its source code is located then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah and EEng: frankly, I have no clue why I didn't just fix it myself—it's quite trivial, so I've done so here. EEng, I stuck with the current style of having bullets everywhere since that's what's already in use, and it's an improvement over the utterly inaccessible version that was there before. If you think that DYK congenitally just uses the *:::: style instead, definitely go for changing it—just change each ** in the edit I linked earlier to be *: and you'll be good to go. Perryprog (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all I was talking about: [1]. E Eng 20:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly edited preload to auto include article name[edit]

When using the preload template, I boldly edited it to include the article name, which can be manually replaced before publishing of course. We could make it more user friendly by assigning {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}} to a variable, but either way, a new user shouldn't have to manually edit the article title and potentially make a mistake, especially with complex article titles.

The changes were made in Template:T:TDYK/preload. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work with multi-article noms? E Eng 18:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No different from before. It might guess the article name incorrectly then but Article2 parameter etc are still available as before, and {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}} could be replaced with anything as before. People making multiple nominations would likely be more familiar/less intimidated by template editing in first place. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me -- I didn't see there was |article2= and so on. E Eng 20:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncaught error[edit]

Reporting an uncaught error. {{subst:NewDYKnomination|image=#}} will produce "Lua error in Module:NewDYKnomination at line 58: attempt to index field 'rootPageTitle' (a nil value)". Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym Where is it called like that with the # (hashtag pound/sign)? {{subst:NewDYKnomination|image=#}} rightfully so raises an error, whereas {{subst:NewDYKnomination|image=}} does not, which is what this template has. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not likely actually to be called like this, and you are right that it should raise an error in this case. I think the problem is more that "attempt to index field 'rootPageTitle'" is far from being a helpful error message. I fixed this in this edit to the module, which checks for page titles that don't have anything before the hash mark (Lua title objects treat these as essentially section links with no page name). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]