Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18[edit]

Template:DYK topicon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYK topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As far as I can see, this template is orphaned and there appears to be no discussion about it's use. I highly doubt that consensus for a topicon in articles indicating that it was once featured on the DYK section would ever emerge. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is another template in line with {{Good article}} and {{Featured article}} and all of the articles that have been featured on DYK should use this template. I would like to get some feedback from the members of the DYK project on this before proceeding though. Technical 13 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Speedy delete as apparently DYK doesn't want readers to know that the article they are reading is currently an article that is featured on the main page. Technical 13 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would prefer this being kept, but again feedback from the project should determine the outcome. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 03:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice idea, but DYK isn't a substantial distinction — as someone who's gotten a lot of them, I know that DYK is a simple thing that really doesn't warrant a topicon. No other kind of Main Page appearance gets marked on the article itself; we have talk page templates for "this was the Featured Article of the Day on ___", "this appeared in On This Day", etc., and unlike the topicons for GA and FA, this one really can't be revoked because it marks a past appearance, rather than a status. Finally, note that this wasn't discussed/approved by the DYK project, and nobody's been using it except Wamiq. That's not by itself reason to delete, but it means that the project isn't using it (no official consensus from a discussion, no practical consensus from widespread use), so we shouldn't think that this is something requiring input/relevant discussion/permission from the DYK people. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should only be kept if it is bot maintained, and only appears on DYK articles that are currently featured DYKs, and when that status expires, the template should be removed. If this is not the case, and this is to be kept permanently, then it should be deleted since appearing in DYK is not important in the long run, and has nothing to do with the quality of the article, only with a spurt of editing activity. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DYK is not just an appearance. Not just every new article expanded within five days can be featured as a DYK article on the main page. The conditions 3 and 4 here mean that the article should conform to all major Wikipedia guidelines. So a DYK article is something like a mini-good article. This template can show that the article actually fulfilled those guidelines when it was featured on the main page. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 05:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just an appearance. Article topicons aren't medals: they are only appropriate for indicating current status, so they should only be used for a status that could be removed if they deteriorate. There's no way to change the fact that Article X appeared in DYK, and it's entirely possible to have a major deterioration in quality over time that would prevent it from going through DYK again. Yes, you could periodically reassess articles to see whether they're still DYK quality, but that would be a massive waste of time with insignificant benefit. We really shouldn't attempt to have another level of "mini-good articles" without a big community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Topicons don't just indicate status. The well-established {{spoken article}} speaker icon doesn't indicate any status of the article. It just tells that some previous revision of the said article has a spoken version. By analogy, this template just informs that the article once fulfilled the DYK criteria and was featured on the main page. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The speaker icon informs users that a spoken version of the article (either the current text or a previous verson) exists currently (i.e. it indicates the status of its availability). —David Levy 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. (Or redirect back to Template:DYK user topicon.) DYK is simply a one-time main page appearance (similar to TFA or ITN), not a full assessment (like FA or GA). It does have some rules, but they only apply once; after an article leaves the main page, it doesn't have to adhere to them any longer and could easily deteriorate. There's no "Did you know reassessment" to match FAR or GAR. Because of that irrevocability, DYK should not have an article topicon, but rather stick to the talk page. Little Mountain 5 08:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since GA and FA have their own, it stands to reason that DYK should have it's own too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: a good record of articles that have been in DYK. Mat ty.007 11:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template was created in 2012 and has never been used. This is because we already have a talkpage template to indicate that an article has appeared on Did You Know, and this is where it should stay. DYK is not a measure of article quality as Little Mountain 5 explained, in the same way we do not indicate TFA, ITN, OTD or RD appearances. It would also be meaningless to most readers, and could give false indications of a formal review which many DYK noms do not have. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not the one that is used on userpages as well? The translucions are all from one editor adding it, Wamiq. Mat ty.007 12:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought it was this, which seems exactly the same and is to be used on userpages. ~~This seems to have been created by Warmiq with no discussion and no rationale~~, and has been added by him to six pages. Due to my error, I change my vote to Delete or re-direct, at least until discussion on the DYK talk. Mat ty.007 12:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Matty.007: Whoa?! Who said I created it? It was already there. I just added a decent documentation and transluded it to a few DYK articles when I came to know of it. BTW, my name is WA + miq, not WAR + miq. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 12:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread the history and your name. However, the fact remains that this would need some kind of discussion at DYK before even thinking about adding it to the thousands of articles from DYK. Mat ty.007 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was created as a redirect in 2012 to Template:DYK user topicon, which is used on 164 pages. It was changed into an actual template to be used on articles to note their status as current or recent DYKs less than four months ago and I had forgotten all about the project. So, to say it was created in 2012 and has never been used is extremely factually inaccurate. Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait and see what happens in this new discussion. Mat ty.007 12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have talk page templates and categories to document articles which have appeared on DYK. That's all that's necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Little Mountain. I can pull a DYK-able article in 30 minutes, and a review will take 5 at most. Want to guess how much time goes into an FA or GA? There is nowhere near the level of peer review or effort, and having a DYK icon belittles the efforts that go into GA and FA. ITN doesn't do this. OTD doesn't do this. DYK should not either. Yes, I write a lot of DYKs (564 and counting), but I think this template is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a long time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A DYK appearance is noteworthy, but such information (which includes various other occurrences, such as a mention by a media organization) belongs on the article's talk page (where it already appears, thereby providing full documentation). A GA/FA icon indicates an article's current quality designation, to which this simply isn't comparable. We display icons in articles as a service to readers, not as trophies for editors. —David Levy 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The template as currently placed on the article talk page is more appropriate and more than adequate; appearance on DYK does not equate to going through the GA/FA process. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know is showing a clear consensus against implementation of this. I personally am in opposition to its usage per LittleMountain5 here and David Levy on the WT:DYK page. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A past appearance at DYK is noted in the article history on the talk page but has no bearing on the current status of the article, unlike GA and FA topicons, and so ought not to be displayed to readers of the article. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other article-space topicons indicate the current state of the article (GA/FA and/or protection); this does neither, and cannot be removed/revoked. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Little Mountain 5. — Scott • talk 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks dreadful. The GA and FA icons are meant to mark out an article as something of quality. A DYK can simply mean that it isn't a stub. It is not necessarily a mark of quality. Plus non-editors will be utterly confused at the question mark which would otherwise appear on the top right of articles. Miyagawa (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't actually indicate the state that the article is in. APerson (talk!) 20:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussion at WT:DYK has revealed that the rationale for this template was based on some profoundly erroneous notions about the nature and purpose of DYK. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per DYK discussion. Mat ty.007 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matty.007, you still have a Keep that you posted earlier. You should strike one or the other. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? I thought I struck it? Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We don't need DYK topicons to show that an article is a DYK article. It doesn't reflect the quality of an article and also doesn't indicate the current status of an article (per Nikkimaria). Mediran (t • c) 11:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.