Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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 Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

The 5-day rule

I've been wondering for some time if changing to 7 or 10 days might lead to better quality articles and snappier, tighter hooks. After all, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page, so does a few more days really make much difference? Of course, one can take as long as one likes preparing stuff in sandbox, but on average, better work is produced by open collaboration in mainspace. And most of the recent problem articles have been solo efforts.

One idea that I've been trying on my userpage is letting others know of the DYK deadline for articles that I will nominate, User:Edwardx#DYK_collaborators_sought. If editors see something of interest, they can get involved at an early stage and if they make a significant content contribution, get a co-credit.

Any thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• support The 5 day rule is one of those factors to the DYK process that acts to make things worse. We should abandon (or at least, substantially lengthen) it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - How would more time to prepare an article result in "snappier, tighter hooks"? Better articles, maybe, as quite a few people seem unwilling to work in user space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More collaboration and a longer timeframe should lead to better hooks, as there will be more opportunity to discuss hook ideas, tweak and tighten them before nominating. Far too many flabby and dull hooks get through the review process without any comment from the reviewer or anyone else. Edwardx (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! EEng (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't the five-day rule also apply to expanding articles already in mainspace? Why the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. Expansions and new articles are not treated particularly different, except for the length requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 There's a detail in the rules that needs to be tightened in writing - whether the goal post is moved or not. I saw a nomination nixed based on the beginning of the expansion being out of the time frame, even though the completion was just a few days later. The rules state "within the past five days ". The rules don't address whether the count for the time frame is when the expansion has begun, or when it's completed. The other side of the issue, is that if the rules say the count begins when the expansion has completed, an editor can say they were working on it for months, so the final few edits should be the date used. What's your take on this Crisco? — Maile (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow the link here [1] to see that (unfortunately) an editor either has to rush to expand within five days from beginning to end, or carry out the expansion in private and then thrust a whole new article in place all of a sudden, with no edit history to guide others as to what he did step by step (which is often helpful). At least the author of those instructions meant it that way.

And that's the way I understood it too (again -- unfortunately) -- I worked several late nights because, having added a modest amount to Widener Library, I eventually realized that I probably could reach 5X (which I hadn't considered as a possibility before) but then -- Oh, boy! Gotta hurry! 'Cause that stupid 5-day clock is ticking! Then after all that work, I get the numbskull story that prose footnotes "aren't prose", apparently because the mindless DYK tool doesn't count them as such -- and we humans have to follow what our automated masters' command! EEng (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And then you see other people nominating articles they're still part way through, just to ensure they are nominated within the window - defeating whatever the purpose of having a window is... Support Furius (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you show a disturbing inability to paraphrase. "For step-by-step instructions on how to calculate whether an expansion is fivefold and whether it is within the past five days, see User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand."? Really?

Maile, I've never seen anyone argue that "completed" means "doing the very last edit". If you are building a bridge, and I place the last rivet, it would be disingenuous to say that I completed the bridge in five minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw one, Crisco 1492 - and only one - in recent weeks. Can't find it now. But that's what made me ask. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Maile66 I assume you're referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Prime Prep Academy where I did a lot of development in a sandbox and then spliced back into the mainspace shortly followed by the nomination? I did it to stay under the blasted "5 day" rule. Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, it's not that one. It was something I'd seen on the nominations page and gave no input, therefore, having no record in my Contributions what it was. Can't remember the article name or the reviewer. I just remember it was initially given the red X with a comment it wasn't expanded 5X within 5 days of the nomination. When I looked at the article history, the case was actually that the editor had been expanding for several days, some of the 5X was older than 5 days. I made no comment, thinking that would all work out before anyone removed it entirely from the page. Hopefully, someone did catch that.— Maile (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support as an interim measure, but in my opinion any kind of deadline like this is counterproductive. As far as I can see the 5-day rule is nothing more than an arbitrary choke to prevent the process from being flooded with every single new article. At the same time (and this is the real corrosion it works) it penalizes careful article development in favor of slapdash development.

  If we need some way to limit nominations, let's start with requiring there be at least something in the article which would make an actually interesting hook. Way too many hooks now are utterly pedestrian, unsurprising statements such as Did you know ...

• ...that [band you never hear of] followed up their debut album [meaningless album name] with a hit single [meaningless song name]? or
• ... that [athlete] is the first person since [recent date] to [do something apparently not too rare, since we just said someone else did it recently]? or
• ... that [work of art with unsurprising name] was sculpted by [artist you never heard of]? or
• ... that people often put furniture in their screened porches?

(and I'm not kidding about that last one -- it really was a DYK).

I'm not saying that hooks have to be about famous people doing important things. But at least something about the hook should be surprising, intriguing, apparently contradictory, weirdly named, or whatever. Please don't object that this is a subjective decision -- lots of stuff we do as editors is subjective. This might be one place where voting really would make sense: every day every editor has 10 hook-votes he can give to the 10 hooks he likes best, and every day the top N votegetting hooks move on to next stage, to have their articles evaluated.

EEng (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Expand to 10 or 14 days. It takes time for people to notice and contribute to a new article. Lengthening the time limit should result in better hooks drawn from more fully developed articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 5 days is not a natural period. 7 days would be more sensible as many editors like myself will have a weekly schedule in which the weekend is the best time for activity here. The AFD cycle was increased from 5 days to 7 days for the same reason. Andrew (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Tentative support one week. Although I don't think this affects most DYK regulars (those I know complete the writing stage in a day usually), this may help us draw new editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - the "real" rule has been more like 8 days for some time, might as well make it 7 officially... As a content creator, I often am bumping against the 5 day rule (at least on expansions), so think a few more days is beneficial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  Also, most other processes (AfD, PROD, RfC) run on weekly (1 or more) time frames. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support expanding to 7, 10, or 14 days, per the nominator's reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support expanding to at least a week. Creating/expanding an article within the timeframe is bad enough. If you want to nominate it yourself, you have to do a QPQ. Expanding the timeframe could certainly help article quality, but it will also help better review quality - a reviewer can actually take their time and not be "oh my goodness, I need to review this before tomorrow or else I can't nominate my article!"--¿3family6 _contribs 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support expansion to 7 days and starting the clock from the date of completion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose longer period: I'm seeing some odd supporting reasons that shouldn't stand unchallenged, and am absolutely opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion that expansion's clock start from completion rather than start of expansion. 3family6's reasoning that the QPQ must be done before the nomination is manifestly untrue, as nominations occur all the time with QPQs "to come". Reviewers will certainly wait a week from nomination, if not longer, for the QPQ to show up. Andrew's reasoning that five days is not a natural period seems odd, since the article creator/expander can start their five days at whatever time is most convenient to them, which can naturally include a weekend if the person wants. This is very unlike AfD, where if someone is only here one day a week, the AfD could be opened and closed before they show up again; here, it's the creator choosing the day to start (or start expanding) an article. Not quite sure why ThaddeusB thinks the "real" rule is eight days, since I've seen articles seven days old get rejected. (We tend to be lenient to first-time nominators, but less likely to give the same exception to experienced DYK submitters.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: I apologize for not being more nuanced. I know full well that articles are often submitted with "QPQs 'to come". Right now I have a sitting nomination on which I did just that. But, as a regular DYK submitter, that is how I often feel, and it was not without some trepidation that I nominated Below Paradise without first doing a QPQ. Perhaps make it clear in the instructions that it is okay to submit first and then do a QPQ?--¿3family6 _contribs 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many of the articles that I create or improve are started because of an external event and so the start time is not of my choosing. Such events include:

1. Editathons and Wikimeets. These are good for getting articles started and this is often their main purpose. But they are not so good for getting them up to DYK standard because there is often not enough time or resources in the hurly-burly of the event.
2. Deletion discussions. I patrol AFD and often improve articles per WP:HEY.
3. Topical media. For example, this morning I was browsing a magazine which made a point of complaining that there wasn't a Wikipedia article about a notable person. I was going to throw the magazine away and so started an article immediately with that reference before I lost it. I would like to bring this article up DYK level but am not sure when I will have time to follow through. I might find time this weekend but there's an editathon on Saturday and a Wikimeet on Sunday. And I have a life too.

Andrew (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Andrew, that's the most cogent reason for expanding from five to seven days that I've seen. Will have to give the matter more thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Re:8 days. It used to be explicitly written into the supplimental rules [2]: "'Five days old' really means about eight days in Swahili :)" until someone complained about the Swahili reference and it was changed to the current language about it not being strictly enforced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• ThaddeusB, that change antedates my DYK participation by several months, which explains why I'd never seen the "eight days" joke. (I can't recall anyone ever asking for eight days, and if they did, I rather doubt I granted it.) As far as I can see, the basic rule has become less strict in terms of granting leeway if there isn't a backlog of hooks; right now, of course, since the backlog of hooks (and approved hooks) is huge, there shouldn't be any leeway given unless it's a special circumstance. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It always seemed unfair to knock back an article that was a day late when we give people weeks to fix problems. Unfortunately, the backlog of hooks is not large. A few years back it was much larger than it is today. I have trouble assembling a prep area once the number of nominally approved hooks falls below about 50. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support changing the 5 day rule to 7 days/a week because I have seen many times where a nom has failed because it was a day late and that could drive away potential new contributors, which after all is what DYK is intended to promote. Extending it can give them more time to nominate especially if they weren't even aware of DYK beforehand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Guarantees me a weekend to nominate an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons stated above. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I still wish someone would explain what the function of a time limit is in the first place, other than for some reason the DYK subhead on MP is, "From WP's newest content" or whatever. EEng (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's the reason. Originally it was three days. It was increased to five days in 2005 because DYK was replaced by TFA on the weekends, and there were problems with articles nominated on Fridays. Consideration was given to going to seven days at the time, but five was adopted as a compromise. There was consideration of going back to three days when TFA became a regular column in 2006, but it was decided to stick with five days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't we end the self-imposed hurry and change the MP subhead to "From some interesting WP articles you can help improve...", and shift the criterion from "Someone with time on their hands was able to hurry this article into existence really fast" to "This article actually has something interesting about it, regardless of how long it's been around." See #make_them_interesting above. EEng (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I would have nominated far more articles if 10 or 14 days were allowed. The short time is a discouragement against nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport changing the rule to seven days initially. It's just a bit longer without drastically changing the fundamentals. This could be revisited later if ten or fourteen seems necessary due to the issues already mentioned above, and assuming nothing terrible happens with this change. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• tentative Suppport to seven days in first instance - I too have run across articles 1-2 days late to be included. I think we might pick up a few better candidates this way. Not sure about any longer as it is supposed to be "new" and I do think we have to draw the line somewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Seems it is time it implement the change to 7 days. What all needs changed to make it happen? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

   Done - This should just about do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding orphans

Somebody refresh my memory here. I check for orphans on articles, because I'm pretty sure that used to be in the reviewing rules in one place or another. This just recently came up in a talk with another editor who also does not specifically find orphan mentioned. Did the rules change somewhere? Can we just forget about the whole orphan issue now? Personally, I've never understood the point of requiring a new article link to some other article or get slapped with a tag. So, an article doesn't link to another one - big whoop-de-doo...— Maile (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: It is a non-controversial maintenance tag, just like 'underlinked', 'deadend'. It helps a person to make article look healthier and provides a better base. It confirms that the subject has got some amount of importance other than the main page. I had created links for many articles before, usually takes about 25 seconds per article. OccultZone (Talk) 01:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is historically not considered a big deal, but it can be fixed easily (Djawoto can be linked from the G30S article and in "see also" from the Indonesian exile literature article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• But the question is whether a hook can be promoted to the main page when the first thing the reader sees is an "Orphan" tag at the top of the article? Similarly, I just came across a DYK nom with "expansion needed" tags in several places. Per Rule D7, isn't the article supposed to look somewhat complete, even if it's start-class, and not like a work in progress? Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article with expand tags shouldn't run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And Djawoto is no longer an orphan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Yeah they shouldn't run. Such term can be added to guidelines. Just like I had added above, that it is pretty easy to link the articles. Sometimes it depends upon the editors and their knowledge about the wikipedia pages. For example, I found many biographical articles to be orphaned, I would link by adding the names to related pages such as "List of French People", and test from semi-automated programs. It becomes clear that the page no more requires the orphan tag. OccultZone (Talk) 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

None of this directly answers the key questions:

1) Is Orphans specifically mentioned in the reviewing rules as part of the criteria check? It's not on the list of Dispute tags. If it is mentioned in the reviewing rules, where specifically is it?

2) If not mentioned, why is it an issue in the review? As @Yoninah: noted, it needs to be spelled out in the guidelines. Nominators and reviewers need this clarified for future reviews. We can't say "you need to clean up the orphan tag" if it's not in the rules.— Maile (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Common sense I guess. I only said that it is easy to solve that tag' issue, so it should be solved instead. OccultZone (Talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification when I said "none of this", I generally meant everyone's comments as a whole. I think the consensus here is that orphan tags should be cleaned up, but somebody needs to add that to the guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure it used to be in the guidelines once upon a time.— Maile (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the orphan tag talk page to stop using it on articles, and to put it on talk pages instead. It does not say anything about the content of the article, and so is not any kind of problem for DYK, apart from its ugliness. So I would suggest that if you see an orphan tag, just remove it, or if you want move it to the talk page to stop annoying the readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"...annoying the readers..." is about all that tag is good for. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Graeme, "just removing the tag" without fixing the problem that got the tag there is likely to end that person at AN/I and likely blocked as that would be considered by some to be extremely POINTY and DISRUPTIVE. It's not that hard to find links to most articles (and if you don't find any, use the att parameter). There was a subsequent discussion where it was laid out that placing the tag on talk pages instead of articles would break multiple tools and bots as well as the actual categorization system itself and therefor was technically infeasible. The solution to this is that pages that have been tagged with this tag for more than two months and don't have other issues have that tag hidden from view. So, the recourse is to either fix the orphan issue (add a link to it from another article), fix the other issues and wait until the article is a couple months old (it is okay to backdate the orphan tag to the article's creation date), or start a new RfC on VPR to try and get consensus to yet again change how the template appears. Quite frankly, I would think the easiest thing to do, to follow the path of least resistance, is to just deorphan the article by creating a link to it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need a little section just for the revolving door of already-in-prep-or-Q-hook-corrections

QUEUE 2 - *[3] Men can't be translated. EEng (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 2 - *"that chief justice Thomas Balmer was once the managing partner of American law firm Ater Wynne?" -- Chief justice of what? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't panic -- there's still 4 minutes to go on this one. EEng (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say in parting (with apologies for the unavoidable offense to the nominator) that this is precisely the kind of utterly uninteresting dog-bites-man hook I referred to elsewhere on this page. So a state supreme ct judge was once senior partner of some law firm I've never heard of (should I have heard of it?). Surprise! Now, a hook that said he never went to law school, or never practiced law, or started civic life as dog-catcher (not that there's anything wrong with that) or whatever -- that would be a hook. EEng (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 3 -*"after Kent County Cricket Club were unable to" -- was unable to? (There may be US vs. UK usage issue here.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 -  :*Same issue with "before they moved to their current home of Odsal Stadium, Bradford Northern spent 26 years at Birch Lane" -- ("before moving to Osdal Stadium, Bradford Northern spent 26 years at Birch Lane" avoids the issue). EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 3 -*"neither Israel or the US are in a position" -- is in a position. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, correct English usage is "neither, nor". So it should be "nor the US is in a position."— Maile (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to leave something for someone else to notice. Thanks for helping with this -- I thought no one was paying attention. EEng (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, look here. I also know that the sentence is grammatically wrong, but since it was the person's statement I didn't took the liberty to twist or turn it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a quotation, so there's no use in knowingly importing anything more than the meaning -- certainly not an obvious grammatical error which can be corrected without doing violence to what the person is saying. If for some reason we want to preserve the error we'd have to quote it, but there's no reason to do that here. EEng (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I'm a native English speaker and my natural tendency is to use a plural verb when a "neither... nor.." construction is in the subject position Furius (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Two singular subjects connected by "nor" should take a singular verb. If one is singular and one is plural, most guidance says to match the nearest subject (and often advises to rearrange the subjects so the plural one is second). In this case, as referred to in MOS:PLURALS, "United States" is generally treated in North American English as a collective, singular noun. isaacl (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *"neither Jessie Traill (pictured) nor Iso Rae were Australian war artists?" -- neither X nor Y was an Australian war artist. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *'Tunnel Rats leader Dax Reynosa responded to claims that his group was too aggressive with the line "I pull a pistol out my pocket and I cock it"?' -- was the quoted statement the "line" claimed to be too aggressive, or was it the response? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 4 - *"Eric A. Walker continued as a professor at Cambridge University and published more books, despite being lobotomised?" -- I violently object to the despite, which plays into the myth that anyone receiving a lobotomy is expected to become impaired (though that was often true -- please, I don't need any education about lobotomy or its effects). What the article says is, "in July 1946 underwent a leucotomy (lobotomy), which involved the removal of part of his brain. He subsequently made a strong recovery and was able to resume teaching." If anything this suggests the lobotomy made him better. And lobotomy and leucotomy aren't exactly the same thing, and this gets especially confused across international boundaries, where the terminology gets somewhat fluid. There's been a lot of fuss on this Talk about an imagined requirement that DYK articles be somehow certified correct, but I'd be happy to start with making sure that the hooks, at least, correctly reflect the article. EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

QUEUE 5 - *"that the Germany–Poland border after WWII mostly follows" -- what a weird way of expressing it. Don't we mean "that the post–World War II German-Polish border mostly follows"? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 4 - *"that the camera of the LG G3 has" -- for the not-so-hip, couldn't we say "that the camera of the LG G3 mobile phone has "? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1 - *"that Jitan Ram Manjhi had to resign the day after he was sworn in" -- article doesn't say he "had to" resign, just that he did resign -- "Following the JDU's poor showing in the 2014 general election, Kumar accepted responsibility for the defeat and resigned" -- quite a different statement, and BTW this is a BLP. (The article also uses the word supremo and I, at least, have no idea what that means.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1- *"Marten Woudstra was one of four men who formed the committee" -- this is easily misinterpreted as meaning that MW caused the committee to come into being, instead of that he was a member of the committee. Why not say, "MW was one of four men on the committee"? EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook is not that far off from the article in giving the impression that Woudstra and three other men got together and caused the committee to come into being. However, the source is not that clear. It says there was a committee, but it does not really get specific about how the committee was formed. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The article's clear he was chairman of the committee, and therefore a member, so my wording is clearly justified by the article's contents. I hope we're not walking into this [4], however. EEng (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. If you and three of your friends decided to form a group to clean up a neighborhood, and they elect you as chair, are you just a "member", or did you help bring it into being? Both. But my point, is that the source does not say these four men founded the committee, only that it existed and they were members. Where did you get that link? — Maile (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Link was the first thing that came up on google for the subject's name. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm going to have to leave this list to others -- I just can't focus on all these little topics for now. Of course, in about an hour I'll let myself get drawn in again, but for now that's what I'm telling myself. EEng (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

PREP 1 - *" that allegations of conspiracy between Muslims, Jews and lepers" -- um, you mean among??? (Please, no lectures on how between can be used with groups larger than two. It can in some cases, but this isn't one of those cases.) EEng (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with you. "Among" would convey that the allegations arose from the Muslims, Jews and lepers. a confession was forced out, stating that the lepers were acting on the orders of Jews, who in turn had been bribed by the Muslims of Spain, in an attempt to "poison the Christian population of Europe" This would seem to be that the allegations were that the three groups conspired with each other against Christians. "Between" seems fine to me. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. "between" is wrong in the hook for the same reason "with each other" is wrong in your own post -- they apply (with minor exceptions) where only two parties are involved -- for a larger number you need to say "conspiracty among X, Y, and Z" or "the three groups conspired with one another". So "between" has no different meaning than does "among" -- it's just for the wrong # of parties. But you've hit on another problem, which is that it's a bit unclear, as written, whether the Muslims, Jews, and lepers are the alleged conspirators, or the source of the allegation, though the intention is clearly the former. (How would lepers even get together to take collective action -- did they have a union, or a legislative lobbying group, back then?) I therefore suggest the old text

that allegations of conspiracy between Muslims, Jews and lepers against the Christians of Europe sparked an international hysteria in June 1321?

be changed to

that allegations that Muslims, Jews and lepers had conspired against the Christians of Europe sparked an international hysteria in June 1321?

I'm gonna have to leave it to the rest of you to sort all these out -- I'm pooped. I hope I'm wrong in at least a few cases, but this convinces me more than ever that the intended target areas of DYK quality controls is too vague de jure and too diffuse de facto. A lot of review energy is invested in making sure articles are 100% perfect (which is impossible) and, apparently, not enough energy is invested in making sure the hooks are really correct (they should be traced through all the way to the sources) or (in many cases) that the hook is free of puzzling aspects prima facie (I needed a few more legalisms to reach my quota for today...).

I repeat for the nth time that I think we'd be way better off openly identifying DYK articles as works in progress we hope MP readers will jump in and help with, but the hooks should be unassailable. EEng (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected some of those while looking at the prep areas (you can edit the prep lists yourself even if you are not an admin. That doesn't mean you should, of course, but nobody has told me different, so suck it up) Belle (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Question re Prep 4 hook

I'll admit to not knowing all the ins and outs of formatting at WP. I'm not pulling this hook, because I might be wrong. In Prep 4, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument hook has "~500,000 acres" mentioned. Is the tilde character a way of writing "less than"? In the article, the "Description" section and the Infobox of the article mention 496,330 acres, which is verified by the source. In the "Campaign for establishment", it's rounded off to 500,000, acres and its source says "roughly half a million acres". The hook might be totally correct. I've just never seen it written with a tilde before before. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A tide means "approximately". But I'd say the blurb would be better without it. Most readers won't understand it, and no-one will feel deceived when they look into it and find we lied to them by a few hundred acres. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the tilde on the prep template. If someone else feels otherwise, they can revert it back. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be pulled.

... that the 500,000 acres of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument contain former stomping grounds of "wild" life such as the ground sloth, Billy the Kid and Geronimo?

Is someone kidding? "Stomping grounds"?? Grouping Geronimo with Billy the Kid as some kind of "wild life"??? DYK is the gift that just keeps on giving. EEng (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be pulled because you get excited. Dial it back once in a while. — Maile (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable to group together extinct wildlife and two leading figures from the Wild West, and calling them all "wild" in order to create an intriguing hook. All three are support by citations. Edwardx (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Or:... that the ground sloth, Billy the Kid, Geronimo, and astronauts in training used to be found in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument?

"Stomping grounds" and "'wild' life" don't strike me as brilliant phrases for main-page use, and we don't actually need the size of the land in the hook when you can mention astronauts instead. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like your idea Bencherlite, but it's more "hooky" if you omit the words "in training". — Maile (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reworded a bit, but essentially used Bencherlite's suggestion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very good as you (I think it's you) now have it. EEng (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the phrase "stomping grounds"? It would be helpful if you explained your objections please. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's non-encyclopedic, for one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the kind of effort we used to put into improving DYK articles? I do note that one person has copy edited the article (well done) ... but all these clever people trying to finesse a single hook does seem odd. Still you are all volunteers and I guess it will produce a better hook. I'll get out of here, before I'm seen as a contributor. Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean "back in the days" when DYK had a greater number of seasoned editors? Since I've been around, this talk page has seemed more like mud wrestling and has driven off some really good people. I miss the ones who left. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• First of all (Crisco) hooks aren't supposed to be encyclopedic in the sense that article content is -- they're supposed to be fun, intriguing, whatever.
• In general there's nothing wrong with "stomping grounds" in a hook, but it's strained, to say the least, when applied to an animal unless you're being purposefully anthropomorphic, which isn't the case here.
• Grouping Geronimo with Billy the Kid under the heading of "wild" will offend some people, not without reason.

I modestly suggest we consider this in like of some points I made the other day -- see #somepoints. EEng (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• The last bullet point is something we should consider. Perhaps we should use Bencherlite's suggested hook instead. It does have astronauts, which are always cool. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind, we've already replaced it with Bencherlite's hook. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I made it that at various times the ground sloth, Billy the Kid, Geronimo, and astronauts could be found in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument? EEng (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's actually not true – none of those could be found in the Monument, which was established less than a month ago (except possibly an occasional visiting astronaut, which could really be found anywhere). Can that be changed to something like "... could be found in what is now ..."? It's currently in Queue 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's even better. EEng (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK -- the gift that keeps on giving -- next installment

Now we have

...that the Fountain of Ahmed III in Üsküdar, Istanbul features a calligraphic inscription of Ottoman Sultan Ahmed III, handwritten by himself?

First we have the awkward wording -- what does an inscription "of" a person even mean? But more serious is the idea that a masonry inscription was "handwritten" by anybody, much less that a sultan spent weeks or months with hammer and chisel pounding it out himself. I stand ready to be corrected, but this sounds suspiciously like a misinterpretation of some phrase like "the inscription was placed there by Sultan S" which doesn't mean he did it with his own two hands any more than it does when we say the Pharaohs "built" the pyramids. The sources for this are in Turkish -- is there anyone who has actually checked? EEng (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure enough we have at-least-looks-not-unreliable source, which says

It is rumoured that the last verse of the inscription was said by Sultan Ahmed III and there is the signature of the Sultan Ahmed III at the end of the inscription.

-- which is quite different from what the hook says. EEng (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify it. First of all, the sultan, Ahmed III, was a calligrapher and a poet. This is mentioned in the article with ref. Secondly, he could have handwritten the inscription on a paper, and must have given it to the stone mason for the handwork. Or does someone think any other way? What important is that the script is written by the sultan himself. I hope I could make it clear. On the other side, I would expect a note on my talk page posted by the person who pulled out the DYK nom from the queue before I try to find out where the nom was landed suddenly. --CeeGee 16:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your narrative sounds plausible and I believe it. But the phrasing "a calligraphic inscription handwritten by Person X" implies very strongly that X did the masonry work himself (though "handwriting" is a bit odd in the context of masonry no matter what you do). And the phrasing "calligraphic inscription of Person X" is also puzzling -- an inscription of a person? This would make more sense:

...that the Fountain of Ahmed III in Üsküdar, Istanbul features an inscription made according to the personal calligraphy of Ottoman Sultan Ahmed III?

As to the chaos of last-minute changes to hook, I share your concern. EEng (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Maybe the repeating of "Ahmed III" can be eliminated. Anyway, thanks so much for your time. --CeeGee 17:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sloppy.

• ...that the Fountain of Ahmed III in Üsküdar, Istanbul features an inscription made according to the Sultan's personal calligraphy?

EEng (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what now happens with the nom? --CeeGee 06:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I altered the wording of the hook, but I don't think it was pulled from the queue (it shows in the list of Wikipedia:Recent_additions at 16:00, 14 June 2014) Belle (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

When it's in that list does it mean that it appeared on the MP? In that case why there is no credit at the article's and the nominator's talk page? --CeeGee 18:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was on the Main Page, typo and all ("a inscription"). When it was promoted, it appears that the {{DYKmake}} was accidentally omitted. I've manually issued credits on the article and user talk pages. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell me again: Why is it DYK prizes everything being done in a hurry? EEng (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And giving, and giving, and giving

[5] Queued to appear in an hour. EEng (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Eligibilty of BLP's

If I expand a BLP article (which previously had references) twofold, would it be eligible for DYK.?--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. That rule only applies to unreferenced blps. --Jakob (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now over an hour overdue. Looking for an admin to promote the available prep as soon as possible, and maybe get the next one promoted as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

am out and about. If preps are filled I can move a few in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of fivefold expansion

Suppose an article has 1000 characters of "readable prose size". How many characters should I add to it to fulfill the DYK length criteria. If I add 5,000 chars making it 6,000 chars, would it be eligible or not? Please ping me when answering this question.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:DYKGN - Vivvt (Talk) 13:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997: 1* is 1000 characters of readable prose, so 5* is 5000 characters (or over). Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• We need another admin around here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I renew my proposal ...

• ...that there be 12 queue sets, and 12 prep sets, so there's never a time anyone feels like filling them that there's no space, and so that hooks can spend plenty of time in prep, getting "all eyes", before moving on to Q
• ...that having 6 of the 12 queue sets filled be considered the normal minimum
• ...that the bot slow from 3X / day to 2X / day when there are < N filled queue sets (N might be 4, or 6 maybe)

EEng (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Slow the bot down and get more eyes on the hooks. We've had to fix three and pull one today alone from WP:ERRORS. Rushing these through may be good to prevent crap being displayed on the main page for too long, but it appears to be encouraging a flippant and lackadaisical approach to reviewing the hooks before they're posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

What about the hooks that say something such as "[Person] thinks that [thing] is [his opinion]"? It seems a standard WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and it may be fine in the article, within context. But is it acceptable to use them as hooks? I find it as a subtle promotion of the viewpoint, in an argument from authority style. When I see those, should I request another hook, or should I let it go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambalachero (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My favourite was "... that Anne of Green Gables was a lesbian?" I said, well duh. But other editors objected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be OK I suppose. I noticed the recent Widener Library hook that gave us "one student felt she ought to carry "a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle" when entering?". I scan read the very long wiki article and there seems to be no evidence of who this student was or whether he or she actually existed. (A recent review criticised the source for being full of anecdotes). Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The hook appears twice, once in the lead and once in the body. In the body it's cited, and the cite [6] takes you straight to the source in Googlebooks, in which historian Barbara Tuchman writes, "My daughter Lucy, class of '61, once said to me that she could not enter the labyrinth of Widener's stacks without feeling that she ought to carry a compass a sandwich, and a whistle." Now, what exactly don't you understand? EEng (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled hook

As a result of WP:ERRORS and serious concerns over the attribution of claims (i.e. "is said to have been...." by whom?), I've pulled this hook:

" ... that the peal of bells in St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham is said to have been the first to be rung in a Catholic church in England since the Reformation?"

For further information, check the error report diff here. Once resolved, there should be no problem re-adding it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the protocol for this? Do we reopen the nomination? Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the hook was on the main page for under an hour, we typically give another chance. (If it had been up for much of its scheduled run, then probably not.) I've reopened the nomination template with a note that a new hook will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And please inform the nominator and various reviewers and admin who posted it to the queue that they are required to undertake more rigorous reviews to prevent this kind of thing slipping onto the main page seemingly undetected. Today alone we've had to "fix" three DYK hooks and pull one, all of which had made it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I had a quick look at the "next" queue, and found a few issues. Seriously guys, it's getting real now, if we have to correct/update/fix/pull three or four hooks from each queue, you're going to lose the main page area. Slow down your updates, focus on review quality, do something about this mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job EEng didn't take his analogy any further. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An ALT 1 hook has now been suggested, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And giving, and giving, and giving

Template:Did you know/Queue/2:

• that midwife Mary Francis Hill Coley was the subject of the instructional film All My Babies, which has been used to educate midwives for 60 years?

I don't find this statement in either of the article's two sources (nor the article's statement that the film was in use as late as 2012). BTW this is exactly the sort of article I wish we had more of at DYK -- wonderful, illuminating, thought-provoking -- and it's a shame its appearance is marred by sloppy work. There are plenty of other hook-worthy facts -- the 3000 babies, the reunion, the crossing of the race line, ... EEng (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I pulled that per the concerns raised. Of course, the DYK community are welcome to fix the issues and renominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually that claim can be read in the first source (58 years rather than 60, so it would need an "almost" in the hook), but the phrasing in the source is somewhat jumbled and it is unclear exactly what the 58 year claim refers to. Belle (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all - I have amended the phrasing in the article to reflect the claims in the sources more clearly. I have reopened the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Francis Hill Coley and suggested a couple of alt hooks. 97198 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• that "Turn Up the Radio" is Madonna's 43rd number-one on the US Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, the most for any artist?

It's either 43rd number-one hit on the or maybe 43rd Number One on (or something), but not 43rd number-one on. For crying out loud. EEng (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

<bump> EEng (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled hook (ii)

I've pulled the following hook from Queue 2:

"that when Anthony Hewitt signed a contract worth US$1,380,000 with the Philadelphia Phillies, he enrolled in Vanderbilt University to learn how to manage money?"

The text says he "planned" to do that. This is a false hook. Please try harder to ensure the hooks match the article claims. Just glad to catch it before it made WP:ERRORS (as five blurbs did today alone). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this hook while it was in the nomination area because I assumed that the "when" should be "after" (that is, he enrolled after he signed the contract), but the source made it clear that the enrolment formed part of the contract as his team were paying for him to take the course (I don't know whether he ever took the course, but that isn't important for the accuracy of the hook). The phrasing could be changed to "he was enrolled at" to make it clearer. I imagine the article may be worded differently to avoid close-paraphrasing. Belle (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks to Belle for notifying me of this discussion. Second, enrolling is "the act of officially registering as a member of an institution or course", which the article says he did (the contract included eight fully-funded semesters ...). Not sure what the issue is. Enrolling doesn't necessarily mean that one actually completes something, it means they registered to do so, which he did. Go Phightins! 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Go Phightins! 19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Side note: Please, whatever happens, when this hook gets back in prep, let's make sure it links to Anthony Hewitt (baseball) and not Anthony Hewitt the classical pianist. As DYK boners go that's nothing, but every little bit counts.

What the article says is

he signed a contract that included a $1.38 million bonus and fully funded eight semesters at Vanderbilt, which he'll cram in over several offseasons. ... Hewitt reported to the Phillies' Gulf Coast League affiliate in Clearwater, Fla., early this week, and will attend Vanderbilt later this year. "I want to major in business or economics, so I can manage my money and start investing it," he said.

That's not "he enrolled". Period. Anyway, a much more interesting hook would be to include that the team seems to be paying for the college e.g. "AH's recent contract blah blah includes funding for blah, which he intends to use for studying blah". EEng (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point on the linking; that's my fault. As for "enrolled", I took "fully funded eight semesters at Vanderbilt" and "will attend Vanderbilt later this year", cognizant that students generally enroll in school in May for semesters starting in the fall to mean that he enrolled. Is it a little synthesis-y, I guess so. The hook could be rephrased that as part of his US$1,380,000 contract, the Phillies paid for him to attend Vanderbilt, at which he sought to learn to manage money. Go Phightins! 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait... the link really was wrong???? I didn't even know that. I thought I was making a joke. Once again DYK truth is stranger than (or, at least, as strange as) fiction.

Enrollment at a postsecondary school is pretty much the same as registration -- you're actually there, actually sign the forms, actually pay the money. It's not just telling the school, "OK, I'll come" after it accepts you.

I won't be following this in detail, but please be very careful. I don't see anything in the source saying that he actually "sought" to do anything at Vanderbilt, just what his contract provided. Unless you can find other sources, you should hew closely to what the one source says i.e. contract provided for this and that, and he said he would do such and such. EEng (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So the hook was plainly incorrect, yet it passed a QPQ and an admin agreed? And yet there's nothing wrong at DYK? Bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The link was, at one time, wrong. OK, as for actual phraseology of the hook, I think the following is supported by the source: "Did you know ... that when Anthony Hewitt was drafted by the Phillies, he signed a contract that included tuition to attend Vanderbilt University, at which he planned to pursue a degree to help him manage his money?" Go Phightins! 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

TRM - I think that is a mischaracterization of the situation. What occurred was that several people perceived "enrolled" to mean different things, and I guess that was, to some extent, my fault. Nevertheless, I believe the way I phrased the hook above is better, and the situation need not be a witchhunt/referendum on DYK. Go Phightins! 20:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not suggesting it's a "witch hunt/referendum", just noting that I've had to correct something like five DYK hooks in the past day. There's a stinking problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologized if I overstated there. What's the procedure here? Does the hook need to be re-opened/re-approved? Or can it simply re-enter the queue/prep area? Go Phightins! 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled hook (iii)

I've pulled the following hook from Queue 2:

"that midwife Mary Francis Hill Coley was the subject of the instructional film All My Babies, which has been used to educate midwives for 60 years?"

Various concerns raised above and at WP:ERRORS mean it's best for this to be fixed before it hits the main page. It would be better if it was fixed before it got to the queue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Slow (or stop) your nagging bot

One major problem here is that you have a bot telling you to update the DYK section. Please, ignore it, or slow it down. The quality of the queues (somehow getting past both a QPQ review [no surprises] and an admin [surprised]) is pathetic. You need a full team looking at the queues before they get automatically moved to the main page, and the mad rush to update every x hours is causing serious problems. I'm now at the point where I can't spend time fixing piss-poor hooks that embarrass Wikipedia's main page, instead I will simply remove them until the concerns at WP:ERRORS and here are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame the bot for the quality of reviewing or promotion, especially when the bot's actually been down for the last few days.... -- KTC (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming the bot for the quality of the reviews. I blamed the QPQ review and the moving admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Queue 2

Queue 2 has only 5 hooks. Are we changing the number of hooks in each set? Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No change. It's just that two hooks were pulled from that queue after it was promoted from the prep area. A solution would be to ask an admin to replace them with two other hooks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see people are aware of this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 1

One hook suggests (arguable) that a sailor's corpse was scattered in a dinghy and a few lifebuoys ... though I don't believe that is what is meant.

Removed hook from prep 4

@Cbl62, Location, and Hawkeye7: I have removed the Frank Ringo hook from prep area 4, [7]. While the (reliable?) source in the article stated that he was the first major league player to commit suicide, other sources give examples of earlier suicides, including Fraley Rogers in 1881, and Jim McElroy (baseball) in 1889 (but before Ringo). This is a reliable source for the Rogers suicide, and this one for the McElroy[8] (the source used for Ringo does give McElroy as well, but with another date). Sometimes it is useful to not only search for a supporting source, but also to check whether there are no conflicting sources, certainly with definite claims like "the first", "the last", and so on. Fram (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I should have done what you recommended. I have commented further about the sourcing in Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Ringo. Location (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hardly a good find. Finding errors in DYK is like finding mosquitoes in a swamp. EEng (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC) (Actually, it was a good "catch" -- to continue the baseball theme -- but I couldn't resist the image. Fram's comments suggest we should have a list of "danger words" for hooks: first, only, most, [insert 500 more words here, actually]. And the warning to check for conflicting sources is very well taken as well.)

Admin needed to edit Queue 2

On the "Turn Up the Radio" hook, please add the word "single" after "number one", and hyphenate "number one":

• ... that "Turn Up the Radio" is Madonna's 43rd number-one single on the US Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, the most for any artist?

Thanks, and thanks to EEng for noting the problem above. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On a similar vein : that one chimpanzee group wiped out another chimpanzee group during the Gombe Chimpanzee War? - I don't think "wiped out" is particularly encyclopaedic language, and the article itself states something different, that one group killed all six male members (not everyone) of the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The wiped out language is indeed inappropriate because of the males-only point. However, for the record I want to say that I don't believe hooks need to be, or even should be, "encyclopedic" (though no one ever says what that means). They're supposed to be fun, coy, playful, intriguing, puzzling, and all kinds of other things articles usually aren't (though personally I don't see why an article can't be fun, as long as it keeps a straight face). EEng (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite, we can try to engage our readers but to do so by giving them an entirely false hook, or one which doesn't make sense, or one which isn't substantiated by reliable sources is something we should avoid like the plague. Or joke about and laugh and ignore the ongoing crisis as some DYK evangelists seem to do. "Don't panic and carry on! (And ignore all those pesky hourly WP:ERRORS!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Manual update overdue

Hey. Update the hooks. It has been 10 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• See now people are pulling in both directions - update less often to improve the quality or keep updating at the same pace and just pull half of them when they get to the main page. Which is it? Furius (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The sensible folks are suggesting DYK slows the heck down and tries to guarantee a minimum level of quality, as opposed to having to fix six or seven or eight hooks in a day as we've had to do over the last 24 hours. SLOW IT THE HELL DOWN. Get some quality, forget the throughput until the project improves. If items stay on DYK for 24 hours, no-one dies. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to note the special occasion request to run the Lucy Li hook in the afternoon hours, Eastern Standard Time, on June 19. I put it in Prep 2, which was supposed to appear at that time, but if the hooks are going to stay on DYK for more than 8 hours, it might need to be moved up in the queue. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• It could be moved if space were available, but there's hardly an overwhelming need for this article to run at the same moment the US Open starts. The hook is equally time-relevant at any point between Thursday morning and Sunday afternoon. Resolute 20:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Typically the relevant date is the debut date. In this case, she actually validates the record on Thursday by debuting. She may not even be playing on Saturday or Sunday. Even if both sets are full a one-for-one swap would not take much work. Then the hook can be date-relevant as intended, by actually appearing on the date that the record is validated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• The schedule now shows that at 11:07 UTC, she will debut. I think she will be playing until about 16:00 UTC. Thus, she should be in one of the next two queues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think I have now screwed up my own date request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• The DYKUpdateBot is working again, so the queues are being promoted at 8 hour intervals. (Actually, 8:15 intervals, until the queue promotion times align again with 00:00 UTC.) At this point, the Lucy Li hook is going to hit the main page at approximately 17:05 Eastern today, a bit over four hours after her estimated finish time. That's close enough for government work. (There's something screwed up about that Golf Channel page; the morning groups are listed as playing for 5 hours 45 minutes, and the afternoon groups are listed as playing 18 hours 15 minutes.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that in hell, there are only two TV channels: Formula car racing, and golf. 24 hours. <Zoom>, <zoom>, <Zooooom>. (Switch channels... a hushed voice...) And now he takes the crucial putt... <slow, decorous applause>. EEng (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do about this slowmotion train wreck

Of course, I agree with TRM's comment just above. What's really needed is changes to procedures so that more of a sense of responsibility is instilled at every stage (nominating, reviewing, promoting), etc., but that's way above my pay grade. I suggest that, for immediate relief of this minute-by-minute brinksmanship of STOP PRESS! BAD HOOK ABOUT TO GO LIVE!, the easiest thing might be to explicitly and definitely extend the length of time hooks spend in prep/queue before going live, thereby increasing the number of "eye-hours" on each hook:

• For the 500th time I propose increasing the # of prep sets to (say) 12 or even 18 -- what's the cost? (More q sets would be sensible as well, but for that someone needs to tinker with the bot.) And...
• Rule for admins: No prep set should be moved to q until, say, 24 hours has passed since that prep has sat with no edits to it. (No doubt there's some magic word by which each prep set can be displayed with an automatic "Last edited at [timestamp]" tag.)

The nice thing about this is that it doesn't require any qualitative changes to the process, just a quantitative time-dilation at the final stage, which for the moment seems to be our best defense against looking like idiots on MP.

It would also be nice to have some way editors can comment on hooks in prep or q less awkward than what we have now (which posting to Talk:DYK) but whether that's hard or easy I don't know. Only someone very familiar with the DYK machinery should attempt that, lest we wake up someday to see our internal arguments over hooks somehow posted on MP.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All very sensible suggestions. The cost of increasing to 12 or 18, of course, is that those editors keen on DYK, as an "almost guaranteed" way of getting an article on the front page, will be disheartened and submissions might easily dry up. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "Did you know that.... more effort was put into Wiki DKY submissions than in constructing all the rest of the front page put together"??

Unless the hook gets pulled, more prep areas just means a longer delay to reach MP. I guess you're saying more exposure in prep increases the chance of getting pulled. As to your little coda, I disagree. From the looks of things not nearly enough effort goes into DYK. At least, not the right kind of effort. EEng (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

yes sorry, another (deliberately) misleading hook. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Stop making me laugh. This time I spilled my coffee. EEng (talk)

I think having your hook pulled at the last minute is more disheartening. DYK is essential to encouraging new editors to participate, but if they don't learn that proper sourcing and factual accuracy are important on Wikipedia, what's the point of this encouragement? DYK can be an opportunity to show them the importance of that. Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this talk of train wrecks, SHOUTING and people dying meant to invite people to assist or are we trying to give examples of the type of hyperbole we should avoid at DYK? I feel that the more people rant then the more that others go well 'lets leave it to those who never make mistakes and like to report every small change they make here in capital letters'. Asking for rational contributions when the request includes an intro that tells the reader what "sensible folks think..." before they contribute is not going to invite more reasonable views. You found some errors and you have beaten back the process and the contributors and the quality checkers and .... revealed more errors. A similar finding to what they had at Salem and they knew (or thought they did) that the witch finder didn't create the witchcraft... until they stopped looking for it. I'm sure this isn't the type of contribution you wanted so I'll return to spectating as I don't want to be involved in this "train crash" you speak of... now? Who is behaving as if they in charge of this "train crash" and who is the brakeperson? Victuallers (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you're saying is unintelligible, at least to me, despite that fact that I am (trust me) thoroughly steeped in the history of Salem and its witch hunts. No one expects individuals to be error-free. But I and others do expect the process to be close to error-free. Perhaps you don't understand this, but it is quite possible to build a system which is more reliable than any of its parts -- think airliners, telephone switching systems, webservers, even most criminal justice systems (though there's a long way to go yet in that area). Every pulled hook in the last few days was an avoided opportunity to end up as a Slate article or Onion parody. You're like a parent defending his drunk-driving teenager who weaves over the centerline, runs red lights, and knocks down mailboxes -- "Well, they're just little dents, and he hasn't killed anyone yet." Great. EEng (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, too many pet project managers here, "it's not our fault we produce utter bilge and get it all the way to the main page, it's all your fault for not spending your own time checking up on us desperately urgent QPQers and checking up on the admins who post crap to the main page". This continual bemoaning of the inadequacies of the rest of Wikipedia is a well recognised disorder. It's about time those at DYK who live in the clouds where it's not DYK's fault that we have to fix 50% of the hooks on the main page finally wise up. Cue another flippant and pointless response from "your local DYK representative". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unintelligible? Are you sure that's not hyperbole, because you both go on to answer some very relevant points to what I was saying. As you have said "500 times" we do need to check these extravagant claims. When the last of the passengers is shot and the train is not moving then we will be able to find out who the culprit is that creates this anger. Then as now you will have the last word. Victuallers (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I double-checked and, in fact, most of what you're saying is indeed unintelligible, at least to me, but glad that through some accident I somehow respond to whatever it is you were trying to say. What's all this stuff about shooting people and deaths and anger and so on? We just want to slow the train to avoid embarrassment to WP. No shooting involved. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just improve the DYKs, stop promoting crap to the main page, and we'll all live in peace. The process is flawed, the clamour for main page appearances and pathetic QPQ reviews is the problem, the pisspoor quality control is the icing on the cake. Why should we be fixing or pulling half the DYKs that are being submitted to the main page? Why should we have to do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 5:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Because you will get the kind of help you deserve! (actually slightly better) After you have rejected "pet project managers, pisspoor project controllers, crap promoters, half arsed admins etc etc", you will be left only with the people who you don't accuse of being a member of these arbitrary groups. You will also lose all those who object to well meaning volunteers being tarnished by this blunderbuss anger. Anger may solve this problem and show me how you can show a new approach to inspiring people to help by repeating how many errors you have found and how pisspoor, crap and half arsed they are. I will be impressed if you succeed. Victuallers (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

This isn't about "us" and what "we" deserve. It's about protecting WP's slowly-improving reputation for reliability from constant erosion. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

... goodness me, not a witch-hunt, I hope? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Where's the incisively amusing easter-egg hook? EEng (talk) apologies Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely slow the train wreck down. We now are dealing with half a dozen DYK issues per day, which I guess averages out at 50% of the hooks being corrected somehow. This compares very poorly with ITN and TFA and TFL, and poorly with OTD and TFP. DYK is dragging the quality of the main page down to such a point that it is worth considering pulling the entire section until the quality control issues, both reviewers and admins pushing queues out half-arsed because the timer is screaming at them that they need to refresh the queue. ITN have just removed the stupid timer with one that just informs people how long it's been, rather than attempting to mandate a pitiful update. Suggest DYK consider something similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any kind of clock is a recipe for disaster, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Beautifully apt link. EEng (talk)

Rambling Man's vehemence and EEng's sarcastic humor are going to derail this project faster than Wikipedia burnout ever did. I have been reviewing DYK articles for many years and have always put so much time into looking up each and every online source and rewriting close paraphrasing. In recent months I have started promoting hooks to prep areas, and spend at least half an hour checking those seven hooks for sourcing issues. (Often I have to stop assembling the set and leave notes on the template pages, calling for fixes before the hook can be promoted.) I know I can make a mistake, but most of my prep sets are going through intact – certainly 50% of them are not being pulled daily, as Rambling Man claims. IMO the problem lies with the QPQ system. Before it was put in place, regular reviewers like myself and others would do all the reviews. The backlog grew, and now many newbie article creators are being asked to do reviews, too. Unfortunately, they don't have the same dedication to the project – they just want to get their own article on the main page – and the system is suffering. Let's talk about revamping QPQ instead of trashing and chasing away good and valuable reviewers and administrators. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where all this stuff about chasing people away or derailing comes from. We're just pointing out the obvious, which is that something's very wrong. Clearly part of it is that various people are trying to carry out functions they're unsuited for, but that's not trashing anyone -- it's just a fact we need to deal with. You've suggested one possible locus of the problem, which is QPQ, which twists editors' arms to do reviews which (presumably) they wouldn't do voluntarily. EEng (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the tone of the arguments rather than the substance; I would say you and The Rambling Man are blunt and forceful and nobody likes to be on the receiving end of blunt force. Belle (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

With reviewing articles, I think it would be handy if we created something like Template:GAList. When I do reviews I often forget to actually write down everything that I checked for. Something like the GA checklist I think would help encourage people do be more systematic and thorough in their reviews, and also would prove a handy way to keep track of what they have checked for and what they haven't.

I just thought of something else: Maybe add something like a "help" field or something, that new reviewers can use if they want a more experienced reviewer to double-check or advise them in a particular area.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Must "to bed" now, so without commenting in full, I really like the idea of giving reviewers an easy way to say, "Can someone guide me here?" Maybe a template preloaded into the review with a parameter that can be changed from "No help needed" to "Yes help needed". EEng (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that hooks being pulled from the queues or preps are an indication of a system failure (or train wreck): if your brakes stop your car (train) before you go through the red light then they are generally considered to be working. And although it would be nice not to have hooks with errors on the main page, most of the error reports there come from a few "concerned citizens" (that's what we call ourselves in the meetings and we close the windows so we can't hear the nasty things the people outside are calling us), so I wonder how much the general readership cares ("OMG honey, have you seen Wikipedia's DYK section!? They said a product could be merchandised into a T-shirt! Wait until the papers get hold of this!"). Belle (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remind me to do the driving next time we go somewhere together. Stopping, over and over, inches before collision indeed means that the brakes work fine, but it also means the machinery that actuates them (eyes, brain, reflexes) are operating on the edge of disaster.

You're right that a huge proportion of readers are unaware of, or unconcerned about, how ridiculous is much of what they read -- that's why the National Enquirer and Daily Mail have plenty of readers, and Fox News plenty of viewers. That doesn't justify WP letting itself move in that direction even a little bit. And the opinion leaders who have a lot of influence on WP's reputation (journalists, academics, whatever) do care about grammar goofs, fact flubs, and common-sense cockups, because experience of many centuries shows that these things are good indicators that the writer can't be relied upon. EEng (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My mother told me never to accept lifts from strangers. The prep areas and queues are for fixing these mistakes before they hit the main page - I think that's really what your proposals below are saying - so we shouldn't count it as a failure if we catch mistakes at this stage, and we shouldn't beat up the those involved in the chain up to that point. I think we can count it as a failure if an error hits the main page (though from my experience the opinion-making journalists are usually the offenders when it comes to grammar or accurate reporting) Belle (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the prep areas and queues are for creating sets of articles, ordering hooks, not for reviewing them. If hooks have to be pulled from prep, queue or mainpage, then the reviewing process, which should end at the time of promotion, has failed. "Beating up" those involved isn't necessary though, unless the problems are very blatant (some BLP problems, the easter hook) or often recurring with the same person. That's why the proposals are usually to change (or abolish) the system of DYK, not to punish some individuals. Fram (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very idealised view of the process. How many hooks go from nomination page to main page unchanged? I doubt it is much over 50%. Belle (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between "unchanged" and "totally rejected as being factually incorrect" of course. I don't drop a note here i I add a minor word, change a capitalization, ... But there is a problem with the whole process if we regularly get hooks which have been approved by at least three persons (nominator, reviewer and promotor) and still are wrong, and the problem is made worse when things get rushed at the prep-queue-main page stage, reducing the chances of the errors being spotted and corrected. That are the issues people are trying to solve (by requesting a second reviewer, slower throughput at the prep-to-main stage, less hooks, ...), and that will need to be solved if DYK wants any chance of survival. Fram (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, now

I'm formally proposing:

• (a) that the # of prep sets be increased to 18.
• (b) that no set be promoted to Q until it has been in prep, with no edits, for at least 48 hours (even if that means a MP update will be overdue). (With no edits could maybe be something like without significant change, but since this is something of an emergency let's just stick with no edits for now. And yes, this will almost certainly mean a stall in MP updates for 24 hours or so.)

Before we get supports/opposes etc., let's hear first only from those suggesting improvements and changes. That way we don't have to circle around and get supports reaffirmed after changes to the proposal. EEng (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I presume that the "no edits" only applies to the hooks (not the articles themselves)? Edwardx (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a good idea, assuming we nail down the wording of that "with no edits" clause. Without being challenged? Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the hooks stay longer in the prep areas as it means mistakes can be fixed without needing admin assistance, but I'm not sure "no edits for x time" is necessarily the best measure of whether a set is suitable for promotion to the queues as this might just mean that nobody has looked at it. Worth trying though. 18 sets might be a bit overwhelming both for those compiling the sets and those looking to check them. It seems rare that the queues and preps are filled even now with just 4 preps, which is why the preps are being emptied almost as soon as they are filled, so I think what is really needed is some encouragement for people to make up the prep sets (at the moment they seem to get little in the way of thanks and a good part of the blame if some error is discovered, so you can't really wonder at the reluctance to step up to the job) Belle (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Time "under the spotlight" is a very crude measure of quality, admittedly, but it maximizes the one and only weapon we seem to have, for now, to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot on MP, to wit, eye-hours. Or keep ourselves from shooting us in the foot. Or us shooting we. Or, um, ... anyway.

The idea of the 18 is (first) so that there is never, ever a time that someone has the energy to put together a set that he's unable to make that contribution just because all preps are full, and (second) because with a enforced 48-hour minimum, at 3 sets/day that's 6 sets right there, so in steady state (queuing theorists, sit up straight now!) with a reasonable daily variance of arrival rate, a buffer size representing 2X the minimum service time (taking the enforced time-in-q as "service time") seems prudent. It can't hurt and it helps at least some and maybe much. EEng (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying: if the prep areas aren't usually full it makes no difference if we have 10 empty slots or 100, but if some valiant soul decides to make up a set we don't want to have to turn them away because all the prep areas are full. Doesn't seem like a bad idea. Belle (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. EEng (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Revising:

• (a) that the # of prep sets be increased to 18.
• (b) that no set be promoted to Q until it has been in prep, with no edits to the hooks or image(s) -- edits to the articles don't count -- for at least 48 hours (even if that means a MP update will be overdue).

EEng (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The best step under these circumstances is to make sure that QPQ's are done properly instead of pulling the hook from the preps or ques. 18 preps would be too big and unnecessary, but I think 10 preps would be good to organize and check. Instead to 3 sets per day we can switch to 2 sets in 24 hours for a few days till we are sure that the review work is being done properly and hooks on the MP won't embarrass any of us.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Being "sure the QPQs are done properly" is a great goal, but I don't know how to achieve it offhand -- rules and procedures will need review, etc etc etc. I do know that more time in q will reduce the drama of last-minute pulls -- there will still be pulls, but at least not so many at the last minute. It's very stressful for everyone sticking fingers in the dike right and left. Improving the process upstream should be the next step, but this can be done immediately.

Slowing to 2 sets per day will not have the same salutary effect. All that will happen, if we do that, is that the rate of putting sets together will correspondingly slow, but they'll still be put together, typically, at the very last minute, so that again we'll have the last-minute pulls. More subtle changes to procedures might have the final effect of increasing q length and therefore exposing sets to longer "final scrutiny", but for now, a required time under final scrutiny is the only way I can see to immediately guarantee a minimum time under final scrutiny.

What's the downside? EEng (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the regular mainpage stewards like EEng and The Rambling Man will have seen far more hooks (especially problematic ones) than the typical DYK participant, and especially over a wider range of areas including TFA, ITN and OTD, and therefore it doesn't surprise me that, all things being equal, they are better tuned to spot issues. I'm not sure how to elevate the standard of QPQ reviews to this level in a manner that everyone will accept, but if we don't do it we're going to keep on getting threads about errors on this page again and again. I like the idea of holding preps until they are stable, it's kind of like PROD in reverse - default consensus is to keep unless there are objections. I also support some sort of mentoring - all of these hooks with errors and issues were made by editors in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Regular DYK steward? Me? I - am - a - regular DYK steward??? I don't remember even visiting this Talk until maybe a month ago, and I don't think I've even used up my 5 free nominations. If I'm what passes for a DYK doyen then we might as well throw in the towel now. Also, I never, ever look at MP so this has nothing to do with breadth of exposure. But the basic point is well taken: whatever the reason, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and some people are better at noticing problems than others. Helping each editor find tasks he's suited for is always a worthy effort, but for the moment I still want to focus on one thing: for the moment review in prep/q seems to be what's saving us from embarrassment, so I'm just trying to make that less hectic by enforcing a minimum time in prep/q. It's fast and easy. Upstream improvements will take way more time. EEng (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both of these would actually have the opposite of the desired effect. Four Prep sets provide a reasonable number of hooks for thorough investigation. Eighteen sets (126 hooks, which is more than half of all hooks currently on the main nominations page and is significantly more than the number of currently approved hooks) would be overwhelming, and each hook would likely get less scrutiny. Of course, it would never come to that, because even the four existing sets are very rarely full these days. And the other proposal is even worse. Knowing that every edit to a hook resets the 48 hour clock would make people exceedingly reluctant to make any changes except to correct the most horribly blatant errors. Smaller issues would simply pass through uncorrected. Plus, if someone just doesn't like a hook or has a grudge against a user, they can indefinitely delay a set by making a minor edit to any hook in the set every couple of days. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC) The part about intentional delays was just an afterthought. I don't want people focusing on that, so I've struck it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What Mandarax says, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously any system we adopt would make an exception for minor edits, and any abuse of the system can be dealt with via administrative intervention. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of having 18 prep set areas available is simply so that there's never a time when someone with a burst of energy feels like putting a set together and can't because there are not prep-set areas available. With a 48-hr min time in prep at least 6 preps would always be full, and I'd expect 2-4 more on top of that, typically. The rest are just to we never have to hit a limit. The reason we rarely have 4 full preps nowadays are this: (a) there's little motivation to put a prep together before the last minute; (b) as just explained, potential set-building is sometimes lost because all 4 are full.

I'm not worried about abuse of the system or grudges.

The point about hesitation to make small changes has merit and is really part of larger issue. goota run more later EEng (talk)

Seriously now (Take 2)

I believe I was being overcautious with the "with no edits" provision, since there will usually be additional time in Q as well (though only admins can fix hooks there). Let's try this:

• (a) that the # of available prep sets areas be increased to 18. (With the expectation that 6-10 will be in use at any time.)
• (b) that no set be promoted to Q until it has been in prep for at least 48 hours (even if that means a MP update will be overdue). Admins promoting to Q should take special care to check any changes made in the few hours before promotion, especially if the promoted set will appear on MP without much delay.
• (c) that nomination discussions be transcluded onto prep and q pages along with their hooks, for ready reference in case questions arise.

OK, now I'm ready to face judgment.

Support. Duh. EEng (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lower to 18 per day?

It seems to me that demands for speeding up the DYK process is going to waste, whether 8- or 12-hour. The bot messages are rampant, and there are long-time concerns about flaws of the DYK. But it's always a cycle of endless complaints. Anyways, lowering down to 18 (six per set) won't hurt. That way, we can double-check the hooks properly. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

George, we've been told that seven hooks per set is the current ideal size to retain symmetry on the main page, so reducing the number to six will have a deleterious effect there. If there were a compelling reason to have fewer, it might make sense to do so despite this, but I don't see one in your post. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is compelling enough: are you sure that administrators and editors are capable of competently doing the 21-hook check? Can they adequately double-check errors among hooks and never overlook them at this time? --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere this is most easily handled by giving up the compulsion to swap sets at rigid intervals. Six vs seven / set is aspirin for a dying patient. I might repeat a suggestion I made elsewhere, however: if we allowed the last, as well as the first, hook to have an img, that would (a) allow more images, which is nice, and (b) maybe have the right layout symmetry, with six hooks, as one image has with seven. Just a thought. EEng (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

George, ever since I started working on DYK a bit over two years ago, you've been constantly worried about the frequency: too many hooks, too few, too many sets a day, too few... and too often it's misplaced. Please, give it a rest. EEng, at the moment (when labs isn't down) we have an automated process that takes on the heavy lifting of promoting to and archiving from the main page on a regular schedule. You may have noticed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for some of your suggestions so far: I would certainly imagine that if we were to ask for a second image on the main page, it would require a massive RfC and I very much doubt DYK would be allowed a second image when the other sections aren't. Do you truly believe that such a request would be successful and worth the effort and energy required? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew nothing about what would be involved in making a change like that. It was just a suggestion. A for the "lack of enthusiasm", let's wait and see. People need time to adjust to new ideas. EEng (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again

DYK 'that when Virginia Grayson won $20,000 in the Dobell Prize for drawing, she said she would use the money to get her "ute fixed"?'

Except she didn't:

JOE O'BRIEN: And what are you going to do with the $20,000?

GINNY GRAYSON: Well, ah… (laughs)

JOE O'BRIEN: A holiday or towards your work?

GINNY GRAYSON: I'm thinking I wouldn't mind getting my ute fixed. [9]

That isn't a statement that Grayson was going to do anything with the money. It was a statement that she was thinking about it. Or, as it says at the top of the source "she'll probably use the money to fix her ute". Not much of a hook with 'probably' or 'maybe' though, and who cares about getting the facts right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

$20,000 seems like a lot to spend on just one sheep. EEng (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trust you to pick up on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ewe would say that. EEng (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reviews

Is there any reason that nominations have to be reviewed and signed off by only one person, as opposed to being resolved via consensus? I disagree with the decision to pass Template:Did you know nominations/Video gaming in Bangladesh and I nearly pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Ashford, Kent ([10]), though I later redacted this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no good reason why that shouldn't be the case at all. In fact, it's a very good idea. It would dramatically increase the quality of the articles and the quality of the hooks. It would naturally slow the throughput, but that's no bad thing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

At present hooks pass through at least 4 hands -- nominator, reviewer, prep, q -- and we're still getting substantial #s of serious (and many, many minor but inexcusable) errors not caught until prep or q. So adding one more set of eyes won't help much. (Sorry to mix the hand-eye coordination imagery there.)

What drew me into this talk page a month ago was the realization that a serious reversal of priorities has taken hold -- everything's backwards -- slapdash work is prized over careful development; quantity over quality; tagging minor blemishes, which others might be able to fix better than you, is punished in favor of pretending articles are finished and perfect; personal ideas about what disqualifies an article are imposed at whim through reference to "unwritten rules"; and more. Plus the QPQ provision forces people to review who don't want to do that. I've looked at a sample of the reviews behind some of the recent pulls, and there's a very common pattern: "Length looks good, no close paraphrasing, offline source for hook AGF." I see that last bit over and over even when the article links to the hook's source -- online -- and you can see right there that the hook is wrong. I'm beginning to suspect some reviewers think AGF means All Good and Fine.

But I'm going to keep relentlessly directing people back to my proposal for a quick improvement with little downside -- requiring a minimum time, under scrutiny, for preps before they're promoted to q. See that proposed in bold elsewhere on this page. EEng (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if I may be allowed a moment more, the reason I suggested it was a good idea was that multiple reviews and consensus gathering is how ITN works, and ITN suffers nowhere near the volume of ERRORS, certainly nowhere near the number of pulled items etc as DYK. And the best thing about working that system for DYK is that there's no time limit at all, unlike for ITN, where decisions have to be made reasonably quickly to ensure items posted are still in the news! Multiple eyes on each DYK can't harm the process in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to mention that one of the most striking things about DYK is its high volume of errors compared to ITN (at least based on the low volume of evidence for those in its discussions) -- ITN has built in time pressure, so you'd think the reverse would be true. All kinds of changes should be helpful, but I think we should first thing enforce a minimum time in prep. That way the small # of people who seem to catch most of the errors don't have to keep looking every few hours -- especially non-admins who can't do anything but complain once something has moved from prep to q. EEng (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, your proposal would certainly improve things just because there's more opportunity to fix the foul-ups. However, enforcing a consensus based agreement that a nomination is ready could be put in place quite easily. For free in fact, other than a minor change to the DYK procedure. No changes to templates or timing code, just slowing the process down so nominations can receive quality reviews and for a consensus to build that they are suitable (and interesting enough) for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Multiple reviews and consensus gathering is how the vast majority of WP processes work. Let's look at one of them. We wouldn't expect an article to be deleted after an AfD that has just the nominator and one !vote saying little more than "Delete - not notable, no reliable sources". Yet that is analogous to how we treat the majority of DYK nominations. We wouldn't force multiple comments at a nomination - if a genuinely brilliant piece of work appears and the review praises it for overwhelmingly meeting the DYK criteria and the reviewer is highly experienced in this area, it should be put into the build area. Similarly, if a nomination has "New enough, long enough, hook interesting, sources AGF, GTG" and there are no objections, it should go through. The change here is that if you don't think a review is good enough, you get given a chance to object before it goes through. Like the stock 7 days for AfD, there should be a reasonable time period for consensus to form on a nomination. In that's respect it's not too different to EEng's proposal to only bump a set up to the queue if objections don't appear in the timeframe specified, which should be tried as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And maybe the focus should be different for different types of DYK, e.g. a recently promoted GA should stand up to quality scrutiny and sourcing, but the hook should be interesting and be referenced in the article, meanwhile a recently created or expanded article needs thorough quality checking, source verification and hook sanctioning. But regardless of all that, if slowing things down and expanding the minimum time in the prep areas is an easy first step, then I support that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

By all means propose something, but pls also comment on my min-time-in-q proposal elsewhere on this page. Must run. EEng (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

These are by no means contradictory proposals, neither of which seem harmful - why can't we discuss, vote on and enact both of them? Furius (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, they complement one another, but to be fair, just slowing things down is more likely to gain traction than revising the pitiful QPQ system which encourages editors to say "yes that's great!" so they get their five minutes of fame for their own DYK. Adopting an ITN-style discussion, re-work and re-review process would be ideal for DYK, and it'd almost certainly reduce it to one set of six hooks per day, but so what? Where was it writ in stone that DYK had to circulate at such a preposterous speed that we ended up piling junk after junk onto the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I was not in favour of this before but am warming to it given the ongoing issues. I'm not in favour of an arbitrary 48 hours as listed above. The easiest that would result in littlest change would be some double checking process in the prep areas in that someone certifies them before moving on. I don't know whether it needs to be multiple people or just one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think 10 prep areas or so would be ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"ooooh, nice hook"

I'd say that at least two people should be reviewing things, if we're not able to model it on the ITN process where we simply don't promote something until it has consensus, and that includes a quality check, not just "ooooh, nice hook". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for improved procedures at any and all stages where improvement can be made, and by all means someone start proposing something. I just don't know, for example, how a two-reviewer requirement fits with current QPQ -- do we require two QPQs now, per nom? Isn't there some tool that checks QPQs -- that would need to be modified? All doable but I just don't know what's involved. But someone propose.

Meanwhile, this very second there's one set in Q which will swap in about 8 hrs from now, and one prep which (assuming it gets promoted to Q) will swap in about 16 hrs from now. Everything else is empty. Right now it's bedtime in UK, dinnertime on the US east coast, and the end of the workday on US west coast. (I'm going to assume -- unfairly to our esteemed English-speaking colleagues in other parts of the world, but just for a first approximation -- that everyone's in either the UK or US.)

(Oh, or in Canada, of course. Don't cry, Canada. Just because we forgot to buy you any Christmas presents like the other children doesn't mean Mommy and Daddy don't love you too. Anyway...)

Unless someone puts another prep together now, most of the dozen people who have found the problems behind the 20 pulls or fixes in the last 36 hours will either be working, asleep, showering, or commuting for most of the time between now and 16 hours from now. So maybe problems will be caught, or maybe not. If they're to be caught, I guess we'll do it on our coffee breaks or when our bosses aren't looking. We'll have to check over and over until the prep set appears. (I, at least, have no idea how to put one together.)

Why should it be that way? Why can't I just come home tomorrow evening, relax, and spend an hour making my daily contribution to DYK i.e. checking the 3 or 4 or 5 preps waiting their 48 hours? And if I don't have time, I can rest assured that there are plenty of other people who have had lots of opportunity to eyeball each set. What is the downside of requiring 48 hours in prep? Someone please say. EEng (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There seem to be plenty of supernumerary reviewers as things are. For example, my most recent DYK was reviewed and passed after a query about the image status. But then another editor has stuck in a query. And some other editors were quite interested in the article's orphan status. And it seems that the subject himself has looked over the article as he made a minor edit. There seems to be plenty of oversight already and so I oppose more formal rules per WP:CREEP. Andrew (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're opposing the multi-reviewer proposal, not the 48-hour proposal? I tend to agree that just requiring "more signatures" is probably not going to have a low benefit-cost ratio, though as part of a larger reform (e.g. clearer instructions on what reviewers are checking for) I do think multiple people should be involved in the review. EEng (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"plenty of oversight" perhaps, but not plenty of "useful" oversight. If the oversight was "useful" then the vast array of errors that land on the main page every week wouldn't be so .... vast, would it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• This section is headed "multiple reviews" and so that is the formal proposition which I oppose. Other proposals should not be bundled in with this as they will tend to confuse — Wikipedia discussions are quite inefficient when they ramble. This efficiency aspect is another reason to oppose multiple reviews — they would reduce accountability by diluting responsibility for the reviewing process. It seems better that one editor is formally identified as the primary reviewer. We would might then be able to compile useful statistics about the quality of the reviews. If these identified weak reviewers then they could be given some training or other remediation. AFC has instituted measures of this sort because their reviewing process was even more broken, I gather. Andrew (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple reviews is used by both FAC and ITN/C, so it's abundantly obvious that it can and does work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reviews are also used at all the deletion procedures (bar the "short circuiting" PROD and CSD), requested moves, content disputes, RfA, in fact the vast majority of cases. In fact, even GA reviews are not exempt from having stalkers, which can be welcome and encouraged. In the case of Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Martin (ophthalmologist), I see no issue with what's happened. Admittedly I think User:Drmies is one of the best content creators we have with a particular flair for DYKs, so when he says "hang on", it's worth listening to, but even so I would expect the closer to act like an admin closing an xfD and make a judgement call based on the arguments supplied and their merits. Sure, it's great to see your work approved and passed, and given praise - but it can't come at the expense of the encyclopaedia. It's all about the article. I wouldn't even go as far as mandating two reviews. Some may only require one, some may require three or four. Some opinions may be deal breakers, some may be discarded. We should be flexible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't about my note on Andrew's DYK nom of course, nor should it be, but since I'm involved with that (and I was pinged) I'll drop my two cents. Here's the first: a big difference with ITN is that DYK asks reviewers to do much more, not just judge whether something is appropriately important or not. If Pete Rose makes it into the hall of fame the question is whether it's newsworthy, not whether the article is up to snuff (whatever the snuffy criteria may be). A difference with FA is the level of quality control which we must have for FA; for DYK the bar is lower (I think we all agree on that). So the practicalities of a two reviewer-requirement are much more complicated for DYK than for ITN, and on the other hand the quality requirements lower than for FA. That does not mean, of course, that we shouldn't have multiple reviewers, but it's not an easy thing to implement.

  As for Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Martin (ophthalmologist), which I think can serve as an example of what sometimes happens at DYK, yes, a "closer" will make a decision one way or another. That decision should be based on the arguments of the objector (in this case me), with maybe a judgment on the commenter's experience: we all know that sometimes very new editors tick things off. Someone above noted and discredited "personal ideas about what disqualifies an article are imposed at whim through reference to 'unwritten rules'". I'm not sure if any of the current DYK rules explicitly support my objections, but to refer to such objections as "at whim" and "personal ideas", that's bogus. (I have no hatred toward ophthalmologists or eye printers.) The "unwritten rule" should always be, is it a decent enough article that we want to advertise ourselves with? It's there also that a second reviewer might be valid (regardless, again, of whether my objections to the ophthalmologist are valid), and on occasion we see this at DYK. The nominator won't like it, of course, but hey--consensus matters. Andrew's article and my objections are not the best example (it's minor and can hopefully be handled by editing and sourcing, by one of you maybe), but we recently had a long, long discussion over--what was it, a Ukranian politician who had been turned into a cartoon or something like that. No appeal to "personal whim based on unwritten rules" applied there: it was serious business (found it: Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya). The objections in that nom cannot be done away with "personal whim" or "IDONTLIKEIT" (my favorite overused non-AGF charge), and the discussion went on for much longer than it should have, in the face of formidable opposition. This, Template:Did you know nominations/Jailbait, is another recent example, where fortunately Newyorkbrad stopped by to add to my and Mangoe's objections.

  Let me just add that I agree that often nominations are OK'ed too easily: I've seen it dozens of times, and I'm sure I've not made friends when I made objections. So in principle I certainly agree that more quality control is best. If it were up to me, I'd have a group of knowledgeable and seasoned editors decide as a committee, not as copy editors but as Guardians of the Bigger Picture--but who's going to volunteer, and who's going to pay their salary? OK, that's enough out of me. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"the question is whether it's newsworthy, not whether the article is up to snuff". Oooooh, The Rambling Man is going to come after you for that. I shall make lemonade and serve it between rounds for a penny a glass (yes, I'm typing this from the 18th-century). Belle (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"DYK asks reviewers to do much more" funniest post of the day. We don't post ITN items unless their quality is up to scratch but DYKs get posted with errors and pisspor hooks every single day. ERRORS is daily full of DYK issues, yet ITN items go unruffled mostly. I wonder why. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I just checked WP:ERRORS and the last DYK hook to get pulled was the St John the Evangelist's Church, Kirkham one three days ago, ([11]) while at the same time ITN had three issues on it ... am I missing something or are we just pulling them at queue time instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ITN is a joke so I don't pay much attention to it. Whenever people start slinging mud at DYK, I go to the top, check the current FA and always find it easy to find fault with something in that. Today, for example, the FA is Boletus luridus — yet another fungus. I read the blurb on the front page and notice the claim that "laboratory testing has not revealed any evidence of coprine in the mushroom". I check this out and find reputable sources contradicting this statement: "Traces of coprine were found in other mushrooms like ... Boletus luridus", "Coprin is a toxic ingredient of the ... lurid bolete (Boletus luridus)." The article's claim seems to be based upon a single study but WP:MEDRS says that "primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" and we should "avoid over-emphasizing single studies". Now perhaps the point is debatable but notice that there seems to be no discussion of the matter on the article's talk page, the GA review or the FA review. One might think that the toxicity of a mushroom would be the most important aspect of it but nobody seems to be interested. Now I am not blaming anyone in particular and I don't care much about this myself. My point is to demonstrate how easy it is to find fault. But it is our clear policy that our content may be imperfect and every page of Wikipedia contains a disclaimer which emphatically states that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". People who want perfection should please look elsewhere because perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct that the point is debatable; however, there is no contradiction between the sentence in opening blurb and the sources you gave. If you ever find yourself caring, I'd be happy to discuss this on the article's talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do please discuss it; I shall be interested to read what you have to say. And I have a picture of a remarkable crop of fruiting bodies which popped up around the garden pond the other day, which I would be interested to identify too. But I fear that we will lose the main thread in consideration of such mycological minutiae so I will now move on to tomorrow's FA. This is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band — a much more accessible topic. I read through the blurb for this and the final sentence catches my eye, One music scholar has described it as "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". I immediately itch to shout {{who}}? and go to the actual article to find who said this. The author of this statement turns out to be David Scott Kastan but, as you see, we don't have an article for him yet. So why do we care about this person's opinion, if he's not notable enough to have an article? I go looking to see who he is and find that he's a professor of English at Yale. His profile states that, "my primary intellectual concern is with the relations of literature and history in early modern England". So why are we describing him as a music scholar? FA is the gift that keeps on giving, eh? Andrew (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since you have so much to complain about regarding TFA and ITN, where are your error reports? Or don't you seriously care about the project? I'd suggest that since there's so much wrong here in your mind, this isn't the project for you. Certainly, if you hold DYK in such esteem yet feel other areas of the main page are a "joke" or otherwise, you should do something about it. Perhaps that involves too much effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• The comparison between WP:ITN and WP:DYK is not altogether appropriate. Note that the number of new items posted in DYK in a given time period is an order of magnitude higher than the number of new items posted in ITN in that same period. (That is, the number of new items in ITN in a given week is typically around 10–12, and the number of new items per week in DYK is typically around 140–150.) I don't believe that that the error rate in DYK is an order of magnitude higher than the error rate in ITN. Furthermore, there are usually many eyes focused on the items eligible for posting at ITN (because they are news), while the articles under consideration for DYK are often about low-interest topics. Finally, the fact that DYK articles aren't fully polished is actually consistent with the original purpose of DYK (as I understand it), which is to draw readers' attention to the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress, that new content is always being created, and that we have new content that needs improvement. (I sometimes nominate items for DYK precisely because I'm hoping that other people will know how to polish the rough edges on a new article -- for example, because they know about related Wikipedia articles that the original contributor failed to link to.) --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And therein lies the inherent problem. The mad rush to push DYKs to the main page is humiliating it utterly. There's absolutely no need for DYK to have the turnover it does, my goodness some hooks come and go before major time zones even get a chance to read them. Slow it down, spend more time looking at the substance in the DYKs and the quality and the interest in the hooks. Why the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with this enough. I find that taking a break from WP and doing something else, then coming back fresh, is a great way to spot your own mistakes. You just don't get that opportunity with the short timeframe that the queue currently has. It's also rather unfair on readers around the world if a hook they'd be interested in happens to come on and off the main page while they're asleep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, my apologies if I misspoke. My experience with ITN is somewhat limited. I once proposed something and it was laughed out of court (with ne'er a word spoken about the article), and once I wrote a DYK which was hijacked by ITN--also with ne'er a word spoken about article, presumably because I wrote it and there was no need to. Or, if there is such quality control in ITN, great--I didn't know. And I didn't know, maybe, because I don't see it acted out in public like in the DYK discussions. And you could, TRM, look at the two or three DYK nominations I linked, and say, "hey! quality control! no joke!" Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That seems a little odd, all ITN nominations are discussed at WP:ITN/C and several commentators take the time to read the articles under scrutiny for quality. That's available for all to see, and unless you're a member of Arbcom, mostly the admins that lurk around ITN won't publish an item unless it's up to scratch. I agree that the three DYKs you linked have a decent commentary. The problem is the other 137 that would have featured on the main page in the week in which those three may have been shelved. Some quality, but far too much quantity. Why the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Cavern mystery

I read in Prep 1 ... that Treak Cliff Cavern (pictured) is one of only remaining active sources of the ornamental mineral Blue John? - sorry, I have no idea what "one of only remaining" is supposed to mean, and wonder if in case of such a change those who were active in a nomination get a warning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a typo, Gerda, which I noticed and corrected. Belle (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And it was I who introduced the error, BTW. EEng (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - Now seriously: it happened that a hook that had been agreed on in a nomination was changed in prep, and I was not notified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that happens. Ravening fact wolves circle the prep areas looking for weak or lame hooks that they can cut out from the pack and, after the wolves have eaten their fill, grammar vultures swoop in and pick on the bones. I don't think it is workable that every nominator gets a notification for every change, they should probably watch the prep areas and queues if they are worried. Belle (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Foolish hooks flee the preps for the false security of the queue sets, only to find themselves snatched from the flock at the last moment, then dashed on the Rocks of Ridiculousness or run aground on the Shoals of Silliness. EEng (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do a great deal of adding a comma here and an article there in prep, that's not what I mean. The "lamb" is easily watched in the nomination, but once in prep, it's sometimes hard to tell if a change affects "my" hook. In cases of a substantial change, I would like to be contacted and asked, that's all. Nothing happened overnight to Schloss Weimar, thanks, "wolves", also for being watchful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That said, if anybody wants to rap my knuckles for interfering with hooks in prep, I can take it (though I'm not saying I won't dish it out in reply). I've only been making changes where there were deficiencies and nobody has told me not to do so which is why I've carried on. Belle (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, keep doing it - net positive ++++. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ionia Rollin Whipper

Pulled

that in 1931, African-American obstetrician Ionia Rollin Whipper opened Washington, D.C.'s first home for unwed mothers that was not racially segregated?

from Prep 1. The article doesn't say this. What it says is that she raised funds to support unwed African-American mothers, then in 1931 opened a home, and that until the 60s it was the only home open regardless of race. It doesn't say it was open to all races from the beginning. EEng (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just took a look, and the sources do support that the home was open to all races from the beginning, so I rephrased the article to clarify matters. Since the hook was not fully pulled—the template remains promoted and nothing was entered in the Removed file, I'm restoring the hook to its prep slot. If there are other significant issues, please feel free to pull it all the way: pulling is a three step process (see Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue for full instructions). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, there's no reason to mandate anyone to do extra work when pulling a hook other than just pulling a hook. If it's going to cause damage when it's on the main page, pulling it is most important. If someone wants to run around finding who's responsible for it and add it to a table or whatever, that's someone else's look out. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, I was under the impression that EEng was interested in helping DYK work better, so I thought to inform him of the typical steps for removing a hook. If you don't reverse the original promotion once the hook has been removed, the nomination effectively disappears, because promoted and rejected hooks don't show up on the nominations page. It takes a minute or two to do this, adding a new icon and short explanation of the issues that need fixing in the process, and is a crucial step. Obviously we can't expect a main page removal to be handled in this way, but here at DYK before it hits the main page: absolutely. And we have for years. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you two take a break for a few minutes while I get my bulletproof vest on? ... OK, resume firing! I gotta run but I'll comment later. We're all just trying to make things better here. EEng (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, still waiting for the comment. I honestly can't understand why you aren't even pulling the DYKmake templates when you pull the hooks—those are on the same prep page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Extra eyes wanted for hook now in queue

In Queue now: "... that in June 2013, 930 cases filed by or against Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank were pending in Indian courts?". The article claims "As of June 2013, 700 civil and 230 criminal cases filed against or by the bank were pending in various courts.[18] In 70 of these cases trial hadn't begun as of March 2014.[19]" However, it looks to me as if the 930 cases are only cases filed by the bank (to recover money to pay of their debts)[12], and that the 70 cases are cases filed against the bank (for alleged fraud)[13]. This would mean that the hook is wrong ("by or against" should be "by"), and that the article is wrong as well. None of this was discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank. If anyone agrees with my reading, I'll change the hook or pull it, whatever is preferred in this case. Fram (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The first source says that the bank is also battling over 700 civil and 230 criminal cases and the 2nd source says that trial has not begun in any of the 70 cases filed at three local police stations. The first source doesn't says that the bank had filed the case and the 2nd source doesn't prove that 70 cases were lodged against the bank. Where's the problem.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Where's the problem? There's nothing in these two articles indicating that they are talking about the same group of cases, and much to indicate that they are talking about different (opposite) cases. From the second source, about the 70 cases: "It is 13 years since Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank fraud came to light and Reserve Bank of India superseded its board of directors, but trial in none of the 70 cases filed at local police stations has begun." Not "70 cases remain unstarted", but "in none of the 70 cases has it begun". The complete article is about cases against the Bank. Now, the other article, about the 930 cases, is only discussing cases initiated by the bank, and the fact that they need help in getting their money and so on. The two articles discuss completely separate sets of trials, but our article (and hook) lumps the two together. Fram (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook can be reworded and the facts in the article can be corrected accordingly. The hook can be changed to "... that in June 2013, 930 cases filed by Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank were pending in Indian courts?". We need an admin to make the changes.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the facts in the article but only an admin can change the hook.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The first source is confusing - at one point they seem to have had more cases than defaulters. The second source isn't clear on who "the accused" is in all cases either (though those identified are all connected to the bank). That the cases haven't started doesn't mean that they aren't pending. Perhaps the hook could be reworked like so: "... that in June 2013, hundreds of cases involving Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank were pending in Indian courts?" Belle (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)See e.g. [14]: "The bank has filed 225 criminal cases for the recovery of Rs450 crore" (this was in 2011). So it seems at least very likely that the 230 criminal cases were not filed "against or by the bank", but only "by the bank". Fram (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "or against" from the hook, further improvements or corrections may be necessary but this one seemed the most needed and least controversial. Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Carpet bombing

I've pulled

... that the largest piece of carpet ever laid in the Pacific Northwest at that time was installed at 400 SW Sixth Avenue in Portland, Oregon?

Aside from not saying when "at the time" was, the hook doesn't match the article, which says

The interior utilized walnut and light marble trim, and included what was believed to be the largest piece of carpet ever laid in the Pacific Northwest at that time, which was installed by Meier & Frank

-- we can't be turning "was believed to be" into "was". And this can't be patched by just adding "believed to be" to the hook, either. A "belief" like this needs, at the least, to come from a source in a position to know. For steepest street that would be the National Assoc of Road Commissioners, for deepest mine that might be the Mine Safety Administration, but for biggest carpet in the Pacific Northwest that would be... um... well, I don't know, but it better be convincing -- not just the store supplying the carpet or the owner of the building in which it was installed -- can't tell because the source is offline. EEng (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to add something. I think there's a lot of room for a hook something like this, even if it's not based on an unimpeachable source. if it's phrase right i.e. in a way that self-consciously discloses the tentative nature of the claim e.g.

... that a piece of carpet installed at 123 Jones Street in 1959 was described by its installer as "the biggest shag I've seen in the Pacific Northwest in fifty years"

The combination of distance in time, fanciful nature of the claim (can't be seen as promotional), obviously lighthearted expression of the point, etc. etc. makes this quite different from (at the other extreme) a damaging or laudatory statement about a living person, attributed to "it has been said" or whatever. If the source was online I might have been able to suggest a rewording. EEng (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is online if you have access to NewsBank and your access includes the historical archives for the Oregonian. What the source says in relevant part is: "the main floor of the new building is covered with what is said to be the largest single piece of carpet ever laid in the Pacific Northwest." There is no attribution as to who said it, but the presumption would be either the bank or the general contractor. Given there is no byline, my assumption is it came from a press release the paper took and ran with. So, I think we could just add "believed to be" or something to that effect. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now overdue; admin still needed to promote prep 1, which has been ready to go for a while now. Prep 2 is also filled... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell

This edit [15] is the most concise summary of what's wrong with DYK I've ever seen. The reviewer's comment is:

Note: Reassessment on the Talk Page, or no assessment at all, but DYK cannot be a stub. Removing the Stub rating and leaving it "unassessed" is fine.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the article actually is -- it only matters what tags and templates are, or are not, present. Form over substance. EEng (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters, EEng. Once rated, an article should not be unrated. There's nothing wrong with reassessing it, assuming that it does qualify for a different status, but it shouldn't be an automatic destubbing and should meet the appropriate criteria. Articles that can only muster a "Stub" assessment are unlikely to qualify for DYK even if they do have the minimum 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Um... you do realize that was my point, no? What I quote above was someone's recommendation to make an article "not a stub" by changing its assessment from "stub" to "unassessed" -- apparently without regard to whether the article really is a stub. That this kind of thing can be said openly in a review, without apparent comment from anyone else, speaks volumes about the DYK process. You have a valid point that an article meeting the 1500-char minimum probably wouldn't also qualify as a stub, but that just brings us to another of my favorite gripes: why does DYK encourage people to pull articles in a direct about 15 degrees off of the stub-start-C-B-GA-FA trajectory? Why not just ask for B-class (for articles under 30 days old) or GA (for older articles), and be done with it? This would channel all this DYK effort into improving articles in ways the rest of WP recognizes. EEng (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Rating articles can be tricky, and there is significant divergence in views...as we found out when running the Stub Contest....speaking of which....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about this stub contest, but I agree that actually evaluating quality would take more time and effort than mindlessly checking that it's at least 1500 characters and has no templates. Is that too much to ask before a hook and article appear on MP? EEng (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Stub and stub are not the same. Petra Noskaiová was rated almost stub by project opera, but good enough for DYK. Some stub ratings are never changed when an article was expanded, - I simply go and change those myself when I review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I cut down the Elms

I pulled

that a 1971 protest against the removal of 13 Scots elm trees in a Stockholm city park led to more attention being paid to citizen input into the decision-making process of the city council?

because from the Google translate [16] of the source to which the hook is cited, it seems...

• (a) the change this event led to was more citizen input in planning, not city council matters generally
• (b) this seems to be one author's opinion, which may or may not be generally endorsed (though I'm guessing it is).

EEng (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • You pulled something based on the (notoriously unreliable) Google translate? When the sentence in question is, even in Google, clearly in the context of planning conducted by city councils? (Check out the paragraph starting "Almstriden became a watershed in Swedish post-war politics"). And when the paragraph itself ("Almstriden coincided with a planning crisis.") reports the hook statement as fact? *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do DYK denizens put bullets at the start of every comment? It's one of the several signs that DYK is a little island cut off from the rest of Wikipedia. Anyway, the pertinent passage (via, yes, G translate) is:

Almstriden became a watershed in Swedish post-war politics. Anders Gullberg draws in his book about Stockholm, "City - the dream of a new heart," that conclusion because the war unleashed "intense strain and channeled a longstanding and widespread discontent that have not previously received much tangible impact. A long era of high and growing concentration of power in urban construction was canceled.

Almstriden coincided with a planning crisis. It was a confirmation that the next big thing in planning must become citizen participation. An insight as sixteen years later would lead to a new Planning and Building Act.

You explain to me how this is really about city council actions generally (not just planning matters), or how a wider claim is generally accepted and not what one author said in a book -- even allowing for G translate. EEng (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Aren't city planning matters an important element of the "decision-making process of the city council"? If there was more citizen input in city council decisions about city planning then there was more citizen input in city council decisions (even if not all of them).Furius (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how planning questions are decided in Stockholm, and if I did it would be OR. I can tell you how they're handled in most large US cities: a zoning, planning, or redevelopment board, separate from the city council, makes such decisions, with the city council acting as an appeals body -- that may or may not be what's going on where the source mentions a citizen writing to the council. I really don't know, and again, if I did it would be OR and SYNTH. We have to stick to what the sources tell us. Hooks, which appear directly on the main page, should be ironclad. EEng (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I killed the bodyguard

Hook says

...that Carlos Manuel Hoo Ramírez was the personal assistant and bodyguard of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, once considered Mexico's most-wanted drug lord?

but the article says these things are allegations. We can't have this kind of transubstantiation going on all the time, especially with a BLP. I'm pulling this instead of patching it because this suggests insufficient attention to BLP in review. Even for a drug lord (ahem... alleged drug lord) we need to hew to standards. EEng (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Come on dude, help us out. The template is at Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Manuel Hoo Ramírez--where is the article at now? BTW, I note that "of" is missing in the hook in the nomination; so that's one thing that the reviewer missed. Anyway, I'm sure your point about allegations is correct, so that hook should be pulled. BlueMoonset, are you reading this? Drmies (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't until you pinged me, Drmies. You know, looking at the nomination template, it appears that of the two approved hooks, ALT1 was promoted, and it's the one that's problematic. The original hook merely says that the two were arrested at the same time, which appears to be accurate based on one of the sources. (I've made sure it's cited at the end of the relevant sentence.) So rather than reversing the promotion, I'm using the original hook and putting it into Prep 2 where the other hook had been. If there are any other issues, by all means pull it again, and this time unpromote it as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good call, BlueMoonset. Thanks. EEng, what do you say? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. As mentioned I pulled rather than patched only to shift any potential BLP blame to someone else. EEng (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to my fellow DYK prep/Q vultures

Links to the nom template for the various hooks may be found in the "Credits" section of each prep/Q set. EEng (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominee notification bot trial

A bot request related to informing DYK author/expanders will begin trial soon, assuming there are no specific objections to the trial. Please seeWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 2 and voice any questions or objections on that page. In the absence of objections a limited trial will be authorized. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk (BAG) 02:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The first shall be last

I pulled...

that Mary Quant's first rival, fashion designer Kiki Byrne, was one of her former employees?

because the source just says "rival", not "first rival". I meekly suggest that in future reviews, the boilerplate "hook AGF" be replaced by "IDBC" -- I Didn't Bother to Check".

I might mention in passing that a fashion designer's rival being a former employee is "dog bites man" -- if you want something amazing and quirky, find a fashion-design rival who wasn't a former employee. EEng (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the promotion so that the nom template re-appears on T:TDYK. --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Lili Bosse

I want to say in passing that I'm gratified that I've received only one bit of pushback (which I don't consider valid, BTW) on my many recent pulls. I guess that means I'm not too far off track. I pulled

that Lili Bosse, the current mayor of Beverly Hills, California, is the only child of two Holocaust survivors?

-- this statement is sourced only to the subject's re-election campaign website, which is certainly at least questionable under WP:SELFPUB, but in the context of a politician, getting what might be seen as free publicity on WP's MP, it just seems this needs wider discussion. Let me quote from the reelection website:

Lili Bosse. A lifetime of dedication to our community. ... Lili Bosse, the only child of Holocaust survivors, grew up on South Maple Drive, in the house where her mother still lives ... Lili has long been considered one of Beverly Hills' most respected and effective community leaders.

If the question were only whether the "only child of" point should remain in the article, even then a tag would seem appropriate. But as I've been trying to drive home now for some time, hooks -- which are published directly on MP -- need to be ironclad -- particularly because this can be seen as somewhat promotional.

I'd like to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It took a bit of digging, but I managed to find more sources saying both her parents were Holocaust survivors: [17] and [18]. --Jakob (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I had added the LA Times article about her mother to the article, and I've just added the other source you found on Google Books. She also says it during interviews which can be found on youtube, but I suppose the Google Books reference is even more "neutral." By the way, nobody lies about this type of thing because it could lead to a lawsuit if it turns out to be false.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO these new sources are more than adequate, and I want to be clear I wasn't questioning the truth of the assertion -- it's the political context that kept nagging at me. Even now I'm a little uncomfortable repeating on MP the very first thing said about the subject on her own political website, but as far as I can see there's no election underway anytime soon [19] so I, at least, won't lose any sleep on that aspect.

I do need to comment on this "nobody lies" point. First, I don't know who would be the plaintiff in such a lawsuit. And, second, if nobody ever did anything that could lead to a lawsuit, then there wouldn't be any lawsuits. EEng (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no election coming up in BH lol. And yes, in some countries at least, you could get sued (by zionist organizations) for lying about that. Anyway, can it please go back in the line now?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3 is loaded. Can an admin review and move the set to queue, please? BTW, should "Graf Zeppelin" in the lead hook be italicized? I am not sure. --PFHLai (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Imagining the resurrection

I pulled

that the foxhunting celebrity artist Charles Loraine Smith had both his death and resurrection imagined in verse?

because the article doesn't say the subject "had" these things imagined in verse, merely that others did so. I don't mind fixing grammar and wording a bit, but if hooks are supposed to go through an approval process I don't feel comfortable substituting corrected wording with changed meaning at the last moment -- thus the pull. I suggest

that the death and resurrection of foxhunting celebrity artist Charles Loraine Smith were imagined in lighthearted verse years before they happened?

[correcting]

that the death and resurrection of foxhunting celebrity artist Charles Loraine Smith were imagined in lighthearted verse while he was still very much alive?

The difference is that the "resurrection" imagined is not the usual religious one, but rather that (in one of the poems) the subject was thought to have died but turns out to be merely asleep. Therefore the poem is actually talking about something that has already happened, at least according to its purport -- not something yet to happen, as my first substitute hook (now struck out) implied. I point out that that this flub on my part, in trying to correct an error in the original hook, is why hooks should not be patched on the fly -- if there are anything but minor problems they should be cycled back for review. EEng (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)