Template talk:DYK

Format

I've formatted these using Wikipedia's format as a guide, namely:

• The title of the article from which the information is taken must be in bold and linked to the article.
• Entries should start with an ellipsis of three full stops (not the ellipsis character …) and a space, and the first sentence should end with a question mark.
• The hook itself should be concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces).
• When you write the DYK item (or "hook") please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers.

Since it's quite a well-established format that we're replicating, it made sense to apply the same basic principles and formatting. For me, a lot of the statements are too long at the moment (since they include all the text from the articles), and I'd like to get the longer ones rewritten in a more "hooky" style ;) User:Adam/sig 12:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...

• ... that Bongo Bongo is among the largest bosses Link has ever fought, along with Molgera, Dark Dragon, Morpheel, Twinmold, Stallord and Eox?

Opposition

As was recently discussed in the Skype chat, these statements aren't all that great as far as trivia goes. Maybe we should dump this one and look for more exciting fodder? User:Adam/sig 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that one was a bit...self explanatory. I'm good with killing it.—Justin^(Talk) 22:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

I salute you for this, Adam. It's a great idea. I'm guessing that we're going to need to manually place all of the tidbits in there, huh?—Justin^(Talk) 02:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup! It may take awhile. I've been wanting to work on it, but kept having to do other things. But anyone may search the wiki and dump Trivia in here. We'll get it as a Main Page feature sooner or later. User:Axiomist/sig 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just had to point out that this wasn't my suggestion. While I'd idly considered it in the past, it was our good friend Axiomist who actually proposed it and made it happen. I just did the template-making donkey-work ;p User:Adam/sig 11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nearly ready

OK, this is taking shape now. Once the statements are moved into the template, they'll rotate through in sequence, displaying a group of three at a time. Is everyone happy for them to be added in the order shown above, or do we want to re-order them first to randomise the information a little better? User:Adam/sig 10:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to re order them. They should be random.—Justin^(Talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They will be random with the option tags. User:Axiomist/sig 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True. That should randomize them pretty well.—Justin^(Talk) 19:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just use the option tags. I looki forward to seeing these on the main page. :) —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 21:21, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm confused. Ax, when we discussed this I thought we'd decided on daily rotation as with the Featured content templates, so that's the method I've built into this template. I'd considered maybe using randomisation as well, to add a random statement at the start and end of the list. But any random entries in the list would change on every page load, and I didn't think that's the idea we were going for at all... User:Adam/sig 12:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rotation? Hmm...Well, I guess rotation is alright, although I personally would like to see it randomized.

On second thought, if this is going on the main page, maybe it should be rotation. It would be too weird to just randomize the stuff on a page which is basically our DOORWAY to the wiki :P So I'm good with rotation.—Justin^(Talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still thinking that the daily rotation would be best. My above comment is meant to explain to them how it's going to cycle(using a function, they are familiar with), not really a change in my opinion. Sorry that wasn't clear :P User:Axiomist/sig 00:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's good. So, what I was saying in my first comment was that if the comments are added to the template in their current order, one day we'd be showing:

Did you know...

• ... that Hena will begin to scratch herself after Link looks at the picture of the fisherman from Ocarina of Time?
• ... that the Oocca may have been based on the bird-like creatures in M. C. Escher's painting "Another World"?
• ... that the in-game text from the Japanese version of Twilight Princess confirms that the Oocca created Hyrule itself, rather than the Hylians?

My problem is that those are all TP related, so maybe it would be best to change to order to something a little more random, or even to put them in an order that includes some kind of link or succession between one statement and then next? User:Adam/sig 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE A BRAINSTORM!!! We list all of the statements on the template page (noinclude tagged, of course,) and we include a link to the template page in the template itself so people can see more of the things. But we definitely need to reorder them, though. I say we go by the name of the article the statement came from. (Or to whatever it refers, like the sripping hippo in the Japanese/European LA.)—Justin^(Talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact Approval/Removal

OK, so seeing as a few too many irrelevant facts have recently been added to the template, I'm thinking that we should decide on some things. The first would be if we have to "approve" DYK facts before adding them, so we can ensure than only useful information is actually seen. This is important, as it appears on the main page, and reflects the Wiki's quality.

The second is that I wish to inquire on how we're to go about removing useless facts. Although I think most of them can be universally agreed upon, we don't want edit wars occurring between hurt members. Now I'm not suggesting making either of these as strenuous as the voting process for Featured Articles and such, but maybe it should be set up so that at least one other member has to agree. Another option would be to only allow Autoconfirmed members or Autopatrol members (or higher, if seen that it's needed) add/remove facts, and if there's a disagreement between a few groups, then take a vote. If a new member wants a fact added, they can post it in certain section, and allow a higher member to add it. I'm not really sure what the best way to go about this is, but I think it could be a much smoother process. Please leave your thoughts! —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 04:21, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Something that's going to be on the front page of the wiki shouldn't be open for all users to edit. I also think approval for facts is a good idea. Just because a user is Autoconfirmed or Autopatrol doesn't mean they shouldn't check with others. =P —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 16:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Useless Facts

OK, I'm starting to get tired of having some of these facts sit around. These facts need to be the kind that grasp the attention of even long-time Zelda fans, and not be trivial statements of obvious or uninteresting things. I'll post a few of them here, and see if others agree that they defeat the purpose of the template.

1. ... that in Soulcalibur II, Link releases a shot from his bow as a Special Attack?
2. that Bongo Bongo is very similar to both Gohdan from The Wind Waker and Mazaal from The Minish Cap?
3. ... that the name "Mothula" is probably a parody of Mothra from the Godzilla movies?
   1. vardefine:DYK7|*... that Windfall Island holds the record for the most Pieces of Heart on a single island in The Wind Waker, with nine in total?
4. ... that the method of attack used by Bongo Bongo is also almost identical to the Master Hand battles in the Super Smash Bros. series?
5. ... that Din's Fire is capable of evaporating Morpha's tentacles?
6. ... that three (later one more) Mothulas appear in the Earth Temple enemy floors in the Savage Labyrinth on Outset Island, despite the fact that they don't appear in that dungeon?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying all of these should go; I'm just saying that they should probably be reviewed. Some of them are just about name similarities, which seems pointless to me. Duh, these two bosses look alike? The only way someone wouldn't notice that already was if they hadn't played one of the games. In which case they probably don't care. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 00:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)