Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:01, 23 March 2016

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 14:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 2 hours ago( verify reset purge )

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Building prep sets

Several people regularly build prep sets and others do occasionally. When building a set I am always conscious of the possibility of an edit conflict so I usually use the {{inuse}} template to try to prevent this. Edit conflicts are particularly awkward as I normally build a whole set in one go before saving it, archiving each of the nominations along the way. I try to produce a balanced set geographically and in type of hook and this normally takes me almost an hour. Next I look at each of the hooks and may tweak the prose of some or look at any particular nomination that might be problematic. I do not examine each nomination in detail to check that the hook fact is properly cited and all the details are correct. If I were to do these things it would take too much of the time that I would like to use for more productive tasks.

When a hook gets pulled from the front page or gets condemned as faulty while in the queue, several people get called to account, the nominator, the reviewer, the prep builder and the admin who moved the prep set to the queue. Of these, the first two have a personal benefit from their involvement with the hook while the last two are merely keeping the DYK system working freely. I think the prep builder has enough to do in creating the set and should not be blamed for pulled hooks. It might be helpful to have a more clear delineation of the duties of each of these participators to help everything run smoothly but without unnecessary duplication of effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was the prep builder's duty to make sure the hook is properly cited and all the details are correct. Therefore it takes me longer than an hour to build a prep set, because I run each article through Earwig's make sure there are no copyvios. And if there are, I spend more time notifying each hook nominator as to the problem. I think we all have major responsibilities in getting a hook to the main page, and if we slip up occasionally, we should all be treated with respect rather than finger-pointing. Yoninah (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"without unnecessary duplication of effort." if we didn't have that many problematic hooks in prep, queue and mainpage, I would agree with you. As it is, the extra checks by prep- and preferably also queue-builder are not "unnecessary" at all but a needed step to decrease the number of problematic hooks (with "problematic" ranging from the minor to the truly major problems). Pinging the editors involved is not "finger pointing", but a way to get their feedback (as they should be best placed to judge whether the complaints have any merit), and to educate them if necessary (like in the fact that references and external links shouldn't be copyright-violating sources). I can recall very few instances where actual finger-pointing has been done, and that was only for too often repeated problems. I also recall instances where not pinging the editors inolved led to complaints, as if things were done behind their back. As usual, it is hard to please everyone when starting a discussion about possible problems. Fram (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I hear you. I just feel embarrassed when I slip up. Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As Yoninah says, it is one of the duties of the prep set builder to recheck the hook and article: confirm that the hook facts are in the article, are sourced by the end of their respective sentences, and that the sources do actually contain the facts in question. This is a crucial check point: reviewers vary in quality and knowledge, but someone who builds prep sets should be sufficiently well versed in DYK to check not only the hook, but take a glance through the article see whether there are glaring issues. Back when I assembled sets regularly, I came to expect that when building a set at least one of the hooks I'd been planning to include in the prep set had hook or other issues. Instead of promoting it, I had to supersede its approval with a slash icon and point out the problems with the hook and article. It wasn't just hook issues either: articles were too short, not 5x expanded, had blatant close paraphrasing, were very poorly written, etc. Building prep sets does take time when done with the proper checks, and there's no good way around it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see that I am going to have to do more checking when building sets. And as Yoninah states, it is embarrassing to be hauled up to explain one's errors. In fact I tend to avoid promoting articles with claims of first etc. There's one there now in Prep 6, "... discovered more novel viruses than anyone previously?" Such claims tend to be rather nebulous. No-one has actually counted the number of viruses discovered by different researchers, but someone has suggested that he leads the pack, and it has become an accepted fact. And the other day, there was a fact, stated by the BBC, and mentioned in the hook as "reputed to be", and it was still challenged and removed.

But to return to my original query, If the prep builder is to check things thoroughly, is the person who moves the set into the queue expected to do this too? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the queue promoter's minimum responsibility is to ensure there is no vandalism in the queue and that the credits have been listed (i.e. that a review has actually taken place). Ideally, they should check the image for licensing concerns, hooks for use of language, and the articles for other criteria. If we enforce promoters to ensue the latter, we may end up with stalled preps... Jolly Ω Janner 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've said this before plenty of times and I'll say it again. In my opinion, prime responsibility for checking the accuracy of hooks lies firstly with the nomination reviewer and secondly with the administrator promoting the set from prep to the queue. Set builders should certainly be encouraged to check hook accuracy, but their prime responsibility is to build a balanced set and expecting them to check all aspects of a nom as well is asking a bit much in my view. Set builders should certainly do a quick eyeball check of articles before promoting them to prep to ensure no obvious flaws, and be encouraged to do more, but reviewers and queue promoters are in a much better position to focus on the fine details of DYK compliance. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, your opinion doesn't seem to reflect how DYK has actually worked for the past couple of years, since in practice the administrators who are queue promoters rarely focus "on the fine details of DYK compliance". You do, but who else does? For the years I've been around, set builders have been crucial to checks, and indeed I was taught that it was an important part of my job as set builder to ensure the hook I was promoting was valid and the article was okay as well. People who build sets are presumably more experienced at DYK than regular reviewers, and more likely to spot issues; as I noted above, I rarely built a set without sending at least one nomination back for additional work. Administrators should, of course, be far more experienced than that, but given how many problematic hooks are slipping through, either we need to add another layer of checking to the initial review, we need to be very sure the prep set building functions as a better check, or we need to get buy-in from all of the administrators who currently move from prep to queue that they'll do the lengthy checks required for an eight-hook set where the entries may only have been checked by a very inexperienced reviewer who didn't really know what they were doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I very much agree on the need for better quality control, and have said so myself many times and proposed changes and improvements. The problem is that people disagree on the best approach. I think it's great that you thoroughly check nominations before promoting them to prep, it would be great if everyone followed your example and I strongly encourage people to do so. At the same time, I don't want to do anything to discourage set building, because it's an absolutely crucial step in the process. I'd rather people built a set without thoroughly checking every aspect of a nom, so the set is there ready to promote to the queue at the right time, than that they not build sets at all, because if the sets aren't built, either it's a lot more work for the existing quality controllers, or else sets end up not getting promoted on time.

Now that we are having this discussion however, it occurs to me there's a simple solution to this problem right at hand. If we had some sort of template that set builders could add to say they had thoroughly vetted the set, administrators would know that those sets without the template still needed a thorough check before promotion to the queue. In fact, requiring that someone, in effect, "sign off" on the validity of each set, could well be a simple and straightforward way of adding the extra level of oversight that too often has been found lacking. It could also prove to be a useful method of getting more users to participate in quality control, as everyone could see which sets were still in need of verification. Maybe it's time we tried such an approach? Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding a page that specifies the responsibilities of the updater. Do we even have one?

Other than that, I am having second thoughts about my suggestion above. I only rarely build updates myself these days and may be underestimating the number of hook issues one finds when doing so. I don't think we would want stacks of problematic hooks promoted to prep, only to have to demote them all again, that would arguably waste even more time. I still think the notion of some sort of formal set verification, possibly splitting responsibilities to some degree with set builders, might be worth considering though. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I normally start by collecting a set of hooks and then checking them all. To thoroughly check them all takes several times as long as reviewing a single hook. Checking is of course total duplication of effort. I don't run Earwing, but like the others have seen all sorts of problems. Not all can be laid at the feet of the reviewer; the articles can change between when they are reviewed and when they are tapped for a prep area. Only once I have a set do I commit the prep area really rapidly. So although it takes about an hour to build the prep area, it appears in series of updates over a few seconds. It would be much easier and quicker (and I would do it far more often) if the prep builder did not have to recheck the hooks. But there are dummy spitters who throw tantrums over problems with the hooks. There is also though, also the possibility of errors occurring at the prep builder stage. The problem here is caused by doing things in two passes. When I go to move the hook into the prep area, you have a limited field of view. So there is the possibility of problems when people weave additional instructions into long-winded discussions, which can leave the prep area builder confused about which alt hook should be promoted. In one case, they tried to change the credits in the discussion instead of altering the meta-data. Again, the prep area builder cannot see this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: "It would be much easier and quicker (and I would do it far more often) if the prep builder did not have to recheck the hooks. But there are dummy spitters who throw tantrums over problems with the hooks." This sounds as if you would prefer to build preps and queues without further checks and don't really care that this would mean more errors on the main page, and only don't do this because some others don't like to have errors on the main page. I presume I have misread your intentions here, so could you perhaps clarify or reword these two sentences so that it becomes clear what you really mean (perhaps providing examples of what you mean with "dummy spitters who throw tantrums", so that we can better understand your frustration)? Fram (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The are always errors in the articles. If we agreed on how many was acceptable then I could tell you whether the extra check is worthwhile or not. Often the prep area gets checked again by someone when it is put up far enough in advance People carry on about things like articles not meeting the MOS, somehow unaware that is not a requirement below GA level. The worst dummy spit I had to endue was over an image. It had a valid copyright tag on Commons, but it turned out that the uploader was not the photographer as he claimed. We had no way of knowing that, and per WP:CONSENSUS were not permitted to challenge it if we had. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"There are always errors in the articles". True but irrelevant, we are discussing errors in the hooks. It isn't a DYK requuirement that an article is errorfree, and I don't think the archives are filled with complaints about errors in articles (perhaps a few exceptional cases where there were more errors than facts, but that's about it). In the hooks, no errors are acceptable. They may be inevitable, but abandoning the checks by perp builders is not the right response. Thank you for your examples: complaining about the MOS seems to be very rare here (it happens at the DYK nomination discussion, but that, again, is not what we are discussing here, this is about prep building), I see people improving grammar and the like but these don't lead to hook removals or heated discussions normally; as for the image discussion, yo uaer wrong: while we have no jurisdiction over the copyright status Commons gives to an image (which is what your WP:CONSENSUS links says), we have every right to remove such an image from an article or a hook if we (enwiki) believe the image to be a copyright- violation or otherwise problematic. While there is no rule that you should check whether an image at Commons is truly freely usable, we should immediately remove the image from the hook (and preferably the article) if there is reasonable doubt about the copyright status. Perhaps the way the person who made this claim was a "dummy spit", I haven't seen that discussion; but they were right that the image, once it was with reason challenged, should have been removed, and you were wrong if you claimed that it should remain because of WP:CONSENSUS. Fram (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not claim that the image should have remained; but I do concede that all I did was check the copyright status on Commons, and made no effort to investigate further. As you say, there is no rule that you should check whether an image at Commons is truly freely usable. But many people didn't agree with you, and I received a torrent of personal abuse. As the prep builder, I check for more than just errors in the hooks. But while I the main problem is with hooks that are not supported by the supplied sources, the prep builder usually has to make judgement calls about whether the hook is sufficiently neutral, whether it focuses "unduly on negative aspects" of a living person, or whether it is "otherwise problematic" (ie offends someone's sensibilities). Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Building prep sets in March

During women's history month, I encourage prep builders to feature women generously. Looking at the ones already nominated (Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Women in Red/8#Did You Know features - right now 21 approved, 29 not yet), and expecting more to come, three women per set seem not too many. Last year, many were shown in April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Gerda. It is Women's History Month, after all. Yoninah (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it might be wise to increase it to one or maybe two per set. I've recently been going on about one per every other set. Several of these nominations make no mention that they are to be posted in March, so this is probably why the special occasion holding area has been underestimating. I should find time later on to rectify this if someone else hasn't already. Jolly Ω Janner 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

They can go to Special occasions only after approval, - the other tool may have advantages ;) - My calculation is 50 nominated now, 12 days not yet assigned: two per set even without any new nominations. But there will be new nominations. That's why I said three seem not to many. Compare 2015, - and that was before Women in Red. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: I'm moving them to the Special Occasions section for Women's History Month as they're approved. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened to WP:NOTPROMOTION? sst✈ 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know exactlywhat you mean. These hooks will appear eventually, but it makes more sense - at least to me - to show them during Women's History month than later. Last year, some came in May. Prep sets are filled for two thirds of the month. 36 are open. Let's please try to accommodate at least those especially written for the month, - purple background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

When I was building some sets, I forgot about the special occasion holding area, but was trying to add articles on women anyway, and found a lot that hadn't been placed into that area...we probably need to do what Gerda suggests and add at least two per set, we are halfway through the month and there looks to be a ton not yet run. Montanabw 04:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5 - "adumbrate"

"adumbrate "? Really? Certainly uncommon from whence I come. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it that I'm the only person that's never ever heard of this phrase.. ? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it either, and it seems hardly correct. These verses don't "foreshadow" these things, they evoke or mention them. Fram (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cool, I thought I was alone. I've gone for "describe", although I was tempted by "talk of". I'm easy either way, but "adumbrate" had to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm the editor who initially approved this nomination. Adumbrate does not only mean "to foreshadow." It also means "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." I thought that the hook was particularly catchy and interesting because it included a word that was rather unique and unusual. Indeed, the term "adumbrate" is a much more precise and nuanced term that "describe." I also think readers will be much more likely to click on the link if we use the word "adumbrate" as they will likely want to learn more about what that term means. The Rambling Man and Fram, can we restore the original language? Simply using an obscure word is no reason to change the meaning of a hook. I'm also pinging Smerus, the original author of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's a more common word to replace my substitution that's fine. "adumbrate" isn't even used in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Although the article may not use the word "adumbrate," the article tells readers about the things that are mentioned in the haiku. "Adumbrate" certainly isn't an inaccurate term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No-one is questioning the accuracy, just like no-one would question that a myocardial infarction is an accurate term for heart attack. Since the article itself doesn't even use the term, I'm not sure how our readers will "learn more about what that term means". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If NOT OBSCURE and NOT HARD TO COMPREHEND isn't a part of WP:NOT, it should be. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the term "adumbrate" to the text of the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but I still disagree with the use of such an obscure term in the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and I disagree even more with using such an obscure term in mainspace. While we don't dumb down, most of our readers don't have doctorate degrees. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I will admit that my position in this matter appears to be in the minority, and I will defer to the consensus here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Admirable. Thanks. I tried making a joke out of combining adumbrate and admirable, but I think I'd have been even less funny than usual --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• As the author of the article and the hook, may I kindly be allowed a comment here? If you were really concerned about this, you might perhaps have had the courtesy to let me know you were querying it. Fram, you have deliberately picked a tertiary meaning of the word 'admubrate' to score your point; but the Oxford English Dictionary gives the appropriate definition 'to outline: to sketch: to give a faint indication of', aboslutley in order here. For User :The Rambling Man's English comprehension I cannot take any responsibility; but the fact that the word is not used in the article is utterly irrelevant - unless you can indicate the rule that says each word in a DYK must be in the article? To explain a joke is of course always tediopus, but for those who don't get the point, the essence of the original poems (and of Matthews's music) is that they are deliberately pretentious, and the hook was designed to reflect this. If it makes people loo up 'adumbrate' in a dictionary, so much the better. More seriously, the hook as some twit has ill-informedly changed it is incorrect as the haiku do not 'describe' the items listed at all. Therefore please either change it back or remove it fom the queue as I do not wish my reputation as an editor to suffer.--Smerus (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just link it to adumbrate. I've done this in the past with obscure words such as hewn (in regards to Devon County War Memorial) and went on the Main Page without a fuss. Jolly Ω Janner 01:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• A few points. (1) the fact that the word did not appear in the article was relevant as it was being claimed that our readers would go to the article to understand the word. That was impossible. (2) Reading comprehension: there seems to be a fair few of us who have never even heard of the word, let alone comprehend it, not just me. (3) Avoid the personal attacks, that will help things go your way. (4) it seems that "outline" would be a perfect replacement to describe, given the chat above and the various dicdefs being bandied around. (5) Hewn is not obscure at all. (6) you might perhaps have had the courtesy to let me know you were querying it. - you were pinged at 4pm yesterday, so no excuses. (7) Using all this bold, including on the section heading, has given me a headache. (8) Have a nice day, I hope someone does precisely what is needed so the tantrums can stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is utterly unreasonable and inadequate; your gloating is not solving a genuine problem. A prime feature of DYK hooks is that they are correct; thanks to you, this one is incorrect. I never claimed that readers would go to the article to have the word explained. The hook was properly promoted before you decided to get your word in. You unilaterally changed the hook to one which was incorrect, without getting my feedback. I was not pinged by you when you lodged your objection, only by another editor eight hours later. Some of us (e.g. me) work and and can't respond promptly to pings (n.b. there was at that time less than a day before the queue was due to go live). You respond to my genuine concerns and anger by calling them tantrums (although I am apparently not allowed to deprecate your behaviour). 'Outline' would indeed be correct - if to me less preferable - but the word in there now, thanks to you, is 'describe', which is incorrect. You are the one who has made it incorrect - yet contrary to the spirit of WP, you seem not in the slightest concerned to remedy this. You could as suggested by User:Jolly Janner simply link 'adumbrate'- why didn't you, if you were so concerned? Moreover, there appears to be no mechanism to prevent this incorrect hook being published within the deadline now only a few hours away. I hope that some one, somewhere, can do something, as you seem to refuse to do so.--Smerus (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no gloating at all, and no personal attacks either. We really ought not to link to Wiktionary, it's not brilliant by any means, and if we suddenly have to start linking terms on the main page, we should think twice about how we communicate with our hundreds of millions of readers. Your belligerent attitude is what is "utterly unreasonable". I'll go for outline. That's why I asked for feedback here, by the way. Have a good day at work, me, I'll be next to the pool with my cocktails. Or I'll be at work too. One or the other. P.S. You don't own the hook, so next time you think you need to be "consulted", feel free to keep an eye on your "own" work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Smerus: "Fram, you have deliberately picked a tertiary meaning of the word 'admubrate' to score your point" Uh, no, I didn't. I picked the very first Google hit, Merriam-Webster, where the first meaning is "to foreshadow vaguely". Even in the Oxford dictionary, it is not a "tertiary meaning", it is the second definition. Fram (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Smerus, you used adumbrate in the meaning of "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." because you think this most accurately describes the haiku. So in your view, the haiku give a description of "cherry blossoms, hair loss, and pub opening times". Actually, the haiku don't, making your hook wrong. You can read the haiku here; none of the three can be accurately said to be descriptions of these subjects ("it looks really nice" is not a description, the third haiku is a description of a november evening, not of pub opening times, and the middle one has no description of hair loss but of old age). Removal of the hook may be best, but not because it no longer uses "adumbrate" which was wrong no matter what meaning of the word you wanted to use. Perhaps "evoke" would be a better choice all round. Fram (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Jim Hazelton hook from main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Hazelton @Calistemon, Kingoflettuce, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber:

• ... that in 1964 Jim Hazelton became the first Australian to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific?

The hook has two sources, one needs subscription so I haven't been able to check that one, and the other one states "He was one of the first to cross the Pacific in a single engine aircraft" which doesn't support (or contradict) the hook and was probably not intended to source the hook but the second part of the lead sentence about this.

However, already in 1934 Charles Kingsford Smith and copilot Gordon Taylor were the first in their Lockheed Altair Lady Southern Cross. You can read this in these articles (particularly the Lady Southern Cross article), or in these sources: (" This was the first west-east crossing of the Pacific by air and for many years the only single-engine aeroplane to cross the Pacific Ocean."), ... Fram (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. Should have been more prudent with my review. I did notice the paywall for the first source; should have AGFticked it instead. It seemed adequately referenced, and the sources provided some indication of Hazelton's being the first Aussie to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific. Was not stringent enough! But to give Calistemon the benefit of the doubt, he probably did not mean to introduce this untruth. Thanks for spotting this, Fram − you certainly are indispensable to the project! Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Good job getting a correction on thre, guys, instead of just removing the error. The honesty and transparency makes us more respectable. Abyssal (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Hazeleton article still has it wrong. What a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.240.68 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I could not get behind the paywall either, but I did look at reference 4 which really supports the hook and gave me the confidence to promote it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry, but it really doesn't support the hook. "Back in September, 1964, he became the first Australian to fly solo across the Pacific in a single-engined aeroplane." Emphasis mine. I haven't checked if this claim is correct or not, but it was not the claim made in the hook (and the article for that matter). Fram (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for spreading misinformation, it really wasn't intended! I quote The Australian article from 20 June 2014: His desire to import new aircraft types led him to become the first Australian to pilot a single-engine aircraft, a Piper Comanche 400, across the Pacific in 1964. You can get past the paywall if you access the Australian for the first time. I believed The Australian to be reliable. My mistake for which I'm really sorry for. Calistemon (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, in my experience the errors or problems are very rarely added intentionally, usually it is either carelessness or (like here) errors in the sources. Fram (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

New Day hook removed from Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/The New Day (newspaper) @Gareth E. Kegg, Ritchie333, Cloudz679, Yoninah, and Casliber:

• ... that the publishers of The New Day believe 500,000 people have stopped buying British newspapers regularly?

Most UK newspapers publshers would be bery happy if only 500,000 people had stopped buying British newspapers.

What the source actually says is that there are 500,000 people less per year buying newspapers. Fram (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since that hook was not approved—only the original (aka ALT0) hook was approved by the reviewer—I'm puzzled as to why it was promoted in the first place. I'd normally suggest a simple substitution, but the article should be made to reflect the source first. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: ALT2 was not struck when I came to promote this. I saw the reviewer's question about the publisher's claim in ALT1 and Ritchie333's correction in ALT2, I read the source, and I felt it was an acceptable solution. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up, can an admin please move a hook from one of the preps to fill the hole in Queue 5 left by Fram's removal? Perhaps the Operation Phalat hook in Prep 3, since its not similar to any of the nearby hooks in Queue 5. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

500,000 people per year doesn't make sense, which year is that? Probably only the last year. The 1st order derivative on the graph shown at List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation doesn't look linear. Also see this source. Ritchie333 17:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It at least makes more sense than the hook, and it matches the source, which the hook didn't... Fram (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion, perhaps. Ritchie333 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor change to hook on main page

I changed

• ... that the Kankakee mallow is known from a single 700 m (0.4 mi) island in the state of Illinois?

to

• ... that the Kankakee mallow is known from a single 700 m (0.4 mi) long island in the state of Illinois?

(adding "long" after the measure) I thought that not having an indication after the measure was weird (I first even thought that it was a mistake for 700m²), so I hope that the current hook is better. If not, feel free to revert of course (or ask me to do so). Fram (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Palm Sunday

A week ago, I nominated Bachs cantata #1 for Palm Sunday, 20 March. Template:Did you know nominations/Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. It still needs a review, and the queues/preps are already filled. Any chance? - Bach's birthday the next day might be an alternative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, Montanabw, Cwmhiraeth this is good to go and I've made room for it in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5. Jolly Ω Janner 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Link rot

Hi is it necessary to articles to have archived references to prevent link rot in order to be promoted? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but it's widely unaccepted to use bare URLs. Jolly Ω Janner 19:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Selena

I checked Talk:Selena. I saw that it was featured as DYK last year. However, it also appeared as Featured Article in 2006 and part of OTD three times. I don't know why it was approved without checking prior history. --George Ho (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

An examination of the article history shows it was delisted from FA, then promoted to Good Article, so no problem there. Also, seeing as this was in the past, I'm not sure exactly what it is you want us to do. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

An article which appeared on ITN in the past may not appear on DYK. This does not apply to articles which appeared on OTD. sst✈ 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it being nominated again or something? It was last featured in October, so I'm guessing it was either a mistake or the rules were different back then. Nothing we can do about it now. SSTflyer, bold-linked articles that appeared at OTD are ineligible as DYK candidates. Jolly Ω Janner 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess it was a mistake then. Too late to fix now. sst✈ 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Queues need filling

Just a friendly reminder that the next queue is empty and the template is scheduled to update in five hours. Thanks in advance. Jolly Ω Janner 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've clean-swept the lot. Now 6 preps to fill again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown of content

When was the last time someone did this? i.e. over a given time period (let's say a week), how many articles are new, how many are 5x expanded (and if so how old), and how many GA-promoted....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to see how many contributions nominaotrs have been round/how long they've been editing Misplaced Pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 4

A while back, I put a necrophilia hook in the quirky slot and User:BlueMoonset moved it out, saying that necrophilia isn't quirky. Now I just moved a similar hook out of the quirky slot, but User:Jolly Janner moved it back, and it's now in the queue. I'd like to ask for consensus here as to whether this hook belongs in the quirky slot. IMO, it isn't a quirky hook in the first place. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, when I first saw that nomination, I was hoping somebody would come up with a different hook. And I don't know what that hook would have been. But perhaps it's only a small few who remember the Death of Gram Parsons when Phil Kaufman stole the corpse and burned it at Joshua Tree in the desert. It wasn't against the law to steal or burn a body, at that time. He was arrested for stealing and burning the coffin. After Gram and Phil, what's a little necrophilia? — Maile (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Yoninah, I must admit I feel uncomfortable with necrophilia on the mainpage. In fact I'd be uncomfortable with any link to the article really. However I am happy to go with any consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Cas Liber, the initial question was whether the hook should be in the quirky slot, not whether it should be on the main page at all. We have had a necrophilia hook in the past that was quite controversial and was removed from the main page; see Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 105#Necrophilia hook discussion. I don't think this hook should be in the quirky slot if it is retained, since the reason for placing something there is that ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more—I can't see this hook encouraging readers to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The legality of necrophilia is quirky (at least in today's society) and that's why I put it in the end slot. Why would it encourage readers to return less so than any of our other quirky hooks? The previous discussion involved murder as well as necrophilia and I think this was the main reason behind its removal. Probably not in the same level of offense as this hook. Jolly Ω Janner 04:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that this hook is not quirky. I would also like to point out that it is not hooky. It sounds more like a news report. As Maile suggested, I think it should be returned to the noms area for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support quirky slot – From wikt:quirky: strange in a somewhat silly, awkward manner, potentially cute. I think necrophilia may be considered awkward. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Such a hook should be effective in getting readers to read the article. Why would "upbeat" content necessarily encourage readers to come back next time for more? sst✈ 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hook and article are incorrect, per the sources, @Salvidrim!: An admin needs to pull this hook, pending correction. Hook says ... that despite admitting to necrophilia, Karen Greenlee only spent 11 days in jail for theft of a hearse and delaying a funeral (article also says she was fined $255). Why wouldn't stealing a hearse be "grand theft auto", and therefore more than 11 days in jail and a minor fine? Is it illegal to "delay" a funeral, which is acutally the pre-burial ceremony? Source #2 is not clear to me if it's a verifiable source. But this is the one that says she was charged with stealing the hearse. Source #1 is the book The Corpse: A History, and Source #3 an interview from the Sacramento Bee, both say it was illegally driving a hearse and interfering with a burial. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages prefers paraphrasing to copied statements. "Illegally driving a hearse" is thus paraphrased as "theft of a hearse", which is well supported in numerous source describing the offense as "stealing the hearse", "stealing the Cadillac", etc; there are more sources on the talk page that directly call it a theft (that will be used to expand the article at some point, I've just dumped them there for now). "Interfering with a burial" is paraphrased as "delaying a funeral" -- sources variously describe the offense as interfering with a burial and funeral rather interchangeably so both are synonymous in this case. No specific sources use the terminology "delaying" so I'd be fine with directly using the verb "interfering" if that sits better with you. I've changed it in the article, and can change it in the hook if you tell me where. and in the queue. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose quirky slot for reasons expressed above. Misplaced Pages may not be censored, but that doesn't mean we go about giving special treatment to such hooks, and equating "strange in a silly, awkward manner" with necrophilia (it certainly isn't "potentially cute") is beyond my comprehension, given that a significant proportion of readers will find it disgusting rather than awkward or silly. The first and last slots are the special ones for DYK—much like you take special care with the first and last stories in an anthology—and this one doesn't qualify. (I give it a 50/50 chance of surviving the main page if it gets there in its current form; I rather expect some admin to pull it, either of their own accord, or as the result of a complaint at WP:ERRORS.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where Wiktionary got "potentially cute" from, but I couldn't find it in any other definitions of quirky. , , , . It certainly doesn't go with my own understanding of what quirky means. It's also not like we're intentionally giving it special treatment, as all new articles are worthy of being featured on the Main Page. If anything moving it from the quirky spot over a non-quirky or upbeat hook would be to give it special treatment. Jolly Ω Janner 20:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what hooks are being referred to here, but the second one - the admission of necrophilia that attracted only an 11-day sentence, struck me as a pretty bizarre sentence and therefore a quirky fact. The hook clearly has an element of the macabre, but that's never been a bar to the quirky slot before. "Quirky" does not necessarily mean upbeat or amusing, it just means strange, oddball, weird or bizarre, and while I personally prefer quirky hooks that are both quirky and funny, that's never been a requirement. I have sometimes thought that hooks referencing truly horrific or tragic events should not be put in the quirky slot, though clearly not everyone agrees judging by some of the hooks I've seen in the slot in the past. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure I stated my position accurately in the previous post. For the record, I do think that "quirky" implies an element of humour - but people differ on what they find humorous. Quirky hooks that are not especially humorous but just strange or oddball are probably also acceptable. But I really don't like seeing hooks in the quirky slot that pertain to horrific or tragic events, even if the highlighted fact is itself quirky, because the impression left by the grim subject matter tends to overwhelm the quirk. And at times, I have removed hooks from the quirky slot for that reason. Having said that, what constitutes a suitable "quirk" is always going to depend to some degree on personal taste, it's not entirely quantifiable. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: WP:OVERCITE and DYK

I know that this topic has come up before, but is the DYK requirement that a hook be directly cited meant to over-rule WP:OVERCITE? In this review, that was approved for a different hook, an editor objected that there was no citation for ALT 1. But there is a citation for ALT 1, as ALT 1 is a condensation of two consecutive sentence, the second one of which has a direct citation. For DYK, are we supposed to write articles that have long, convoluted sentences so that they can pass nomination? Or are we supposed to violate WP:OVERCITE and, if a hook involves multiple sentences or a paragraph, stick a citation at the end of each sentence? Or are hooks that condense several sentences (or even an entire article, as one of my nominations did once) be discontinued? My thought was that the spirit of that guideline is that the hook content be cited, yes, but that with a hook composed of multiple sentences (or a paragraph), the phrase is what needs to be cited, not necessarily every component part of the hook with its corresponding sentence (I hope that made sense). I've found my understanding to be what is generally practiced at DYK, but there are some reviewers who are very strict (and sometimes I have been, just to defuse things).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The top of the cited essay has a disclaimer saying "Essays are not Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines.", so I think DYK's rule 3.b) should override it. Jolly Ω Janner 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

When in doubt, overcite. Montanabw 06:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• 3family6 It's always interesting to go back and see how and why any given rule came into being. In the case of this one, it happened on April 28, 2008. 1-Talk page thread, 2-It became part of the rules. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• That's a nice find, Maile. My own understanding of the rule is that it's there to make fact-checking a lot easier. Not just for the designated reviewer, but for anyone reading the article when it's featured. When promoting hooks, I also sometimes turn a blind eye to the rule when I think it's easy and obvious which citation is used for the hook. If the issue is raised on the nomination page then I think it's best to resolve it, however. Jolly Ω Janner 22:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In general, yes, I try to resolve things, and I might've tried to work things out if this had been the only hook. I just strongly feel that in this case, the recommendation was detrimental to the article prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally didn't notice that WP:OVERCITE is an essay. I wrote the above late at night recovering from a cold, after a whole day's bout of editing, so I apologize for mistakes or harsh tone. But, to get back to the point, I've been intentionally trying to improve my prose style and flow, and this seems like a step backwards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's alright and I don't really see any solid work-around which can combine our rules and that of widely accepted citation styles. One could always remove the inline citation after it's featured on DYK? if it's that much of a concern. It's not ideal for article stability, but if you're heading towards GA or FA it'll help. Jolly Ω Janner 03:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily adding it for DYK and then removing it later is what I was going to end up doing. But I think it's very silly for DYK to have a requirement for article content that not even the FAC have.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The main reason the citation rule is there is so reviewers can quickly confirm the hook statement. Even with the rule as it is, it is sometimes very difficult to confirm the hook, often because the writer has messed up the cites. So requiring that the nominator cite the relevant sentence(s) is also a good way of getting them to re-check their own cites before nominating.

I don't recall the issue of citation of consecutive sentences all associated with the hook being raised before, but I think it would get messy if we started to try and add caveats to the existing rule about exactly when a sentence should be cited. So I think if somebody asks you to cite every sentence that pertains to the hook even if those sentences are consecutive, you should just go ahead and do it - and you should probably do it anyway. You can always remove the cites after the DYK has appeared on the main page if you think they are overcited, but I think we need to keep the rule simple. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that this may have been suggested before, but would it be possible to deprecate this rule, and instead require the DYK nominator to specify the source if the hook is not directly supported by an inline citation? sst✈ 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 9. As of the most recent update, 62 nominations have been approved, leaving 148 of 210 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the fifteen from February that have previously been listed.

• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Gui Minhai
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Williams (dance critic)
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Margareta Hallin
• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Umaswati
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Croatian Apoxyomenos
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wave 1
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash
• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Mandala-brahmana Upanishad
• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Drishyam
• February 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Trishikhibrahmana Upanishad
• February 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Strength II
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Colonel Johnson
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahavakya Upanishad
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Sinsay
• February 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eve Russell
• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Aizoanthemum hispanicum
• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/The Frog God
• March 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Badami cave temples
• March 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Thank You for Your Service (2016 film)
• March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Turiyatitavadhuta Upanishad
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Exodus: An Oratorio in Three Parts
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/The Boy Next Door (film)
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Rolling stock of Network SouthEast
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Young Man of Arévalo
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Santi Sergio e Bacco al Foro Romano
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Engy Ghozlan
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Tuck rule (ice hockey)
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Telescopium Herschelii
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Wilfrid Eggleston
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Parvoblongoolithus
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Kansas v. Carr
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Lenny Schultz
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman temple
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Gérard Lhéritier
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Rotraud Hansmann
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/San Menna
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Les Tres Torres
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Stumbo
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Gustav Gunsenheimer
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Phou Phiang II
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert L. Packer
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Israel and state-sponsored terrorism

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Error (from a GA!) on Main Page corrected

For 8 hours, we claimed

• ... that Ape Escape was the first game to require the use of the Dual Analog Controller (pictured)?

Template:Did you know nominations/Ape Escape (video game) @AdrianGamer, Rhain, Khanate General, and Ashorocetus:

Considering that that controller was already discontinued a year before the game was launched might have caused some concern with the GA and DYK reviewers, but apparently not so. The hook fact was not supported by the two sources given, but no one catched this. Please, everybody, be more careful, we have way too often such errors on the main page (e.g. two days ago, we claimed that an Austrian law forbade teachers to marry, but that law only applied to women).

I don't know what the reason is for this continuing problem; if we don't have enough people to do good checks of our articles, then we should perhaps reduce the rate of DYKs on the main page. But to simply carry on like this is not a good idea. Fram (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(Oh, and it apparently also showed the wrong image, not the Dual Analog but the DualShock. If we can't even get our nerdy articles right...) Fram (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If we reduce the rate of DYKs, the backlog will implode. I already struggle with frequent crashes of my web browser while on the nominations page, so I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. IMO, the promoter should give a final check of the hook's accuracy. It's possible they did in this case, since when I saw it posted at the errors page, I too discounted it because I misread the DualShock as the Dual Analog. Jolly Ω Janner 08:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be a lot faster in closing DYK nominations for problematic articles, instead of accepting everything. There are nominations for very poor articles which just meet the literal requirements of length and newness, and which then need weeks of rewriting and rechecking by others to get them to an acceptable level. Instead, we could do a review, give the interested people a week to correct the problems, and if this isn't done to a reasonable level, reject the DYK application. Be more gentle and lenient with new editors, more strict with experienced ones, but let go of the mantra that every DYK submission will get its Main Page spot. Remember that DYK is only what, one in fifty or so of all new articles anyway, so it's not as if everyone gets there. Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That is something I could get behind (even if it was temporary). Ctrl + F + Israel should be an easy way of picking out such nominations. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fram makes a good point. I have rejected a number of nominations, but I can probably count them on the fingers of one hand and they only go there after a torturous review with multiple participants. Ritchie333 08:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrections notice

Can we gauge consensus on whether we need to add a "Correction" note when erroneous DYKs have been on the main page for "too long"? An example is shown here added by Fram. I have removed it until we are satisfied that we have a consensus to add such a correction and that it has a consensus for its format. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the village pump then, only discussing this among DYK regulars doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I have readded the correction until there is a consensus not to use such statements, as it should be there now, not weeks later (I don't plan on adding disclaimers for old errors, I only added these a few times for errors in either the current or the previous DYK)). Fram (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means initiate the discussion, just stop taking unilateral actions and changing the way we deal with long displayed errors. A consensus should be formed in how best to detail these things. Particularly side there was some doubt and errors in your correction disclaimer. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fram and The Rambling Man: I don't care where the discussion is held, but stop wheel warring. Fram, you added it, it was removed. Editing a protected page to add it back was wheel warring. TRM, removing it again was wheel warring. Blocks and desysops can follow that sort of behaviour. Bencherlite 10:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages