A fact from Alonso Martínez de Espinar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School by Diego Velázquez contains a portrait of Alonso Martínez de Espinar, Spanish courtier and one of three important writers on venery of the Spanish Baroque? Source: 1: "El tercer retrato se encuentra en el cuadro velazqueño titulado La lección de equitación o El príncipe Baltasar Carlos en el picadero ... A la derecha, en un plano intermedio, hay una segunda escena en la que se encuentra el maestro de equitación del príncipe, el conde-duque de Olivares; éste recibe una lanza de manos de Martínez de Espinar ante la mirada de Juan Mateos"; 2: "Alonso no habría pasado a la historia de no ser porque en 1644 dio a las prensas uno de los tres vértices de la literatura venatoria del barroco español: el Arte de ballestería y montería".
Comment: Have to start this now because the Espinar page was created on 20 July; but the page on the painting is not ready for review, so please hold off for a few days (at least). Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The first bold-linked article (on the painting) is under 1,500 characters so is currently ineligible to be run as a DYK in its own right, but can continue to be linked (just not in bold) with the same hook for a single-article DYK on Alonso. Are you happy for me to complete the review on this basis or would you rather a little more time for expansion? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Maculosae tegmine lyncis, thank you for this, please excuse this late reply – I've been caught up in other things. My idea was to make this a double; I'll try to develop the painting article a bit in the next week (there's plenty to say, it just needs time to say it). If I haven't done so by 19 August I'll either go with the single DYK as you kindly suggest, or withdraw this completely. Is that OK with you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Flibirigit, I do have a number of DYKs, I've no idea how many; none of them is very recent. Do they "expire" in some way, allowing me to start again as a virgin, or is the QPQ tool playing up? I had assumed I would need to do two QPQs for this nomination. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you would like to do reviews, please go ahead as the DYK project can use all the help it can get. My statement simply meant I could not find any evidence of previous credits requiring QPQ. Flibirigit (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Two or three QPQs will be needed, depending on whether this is a double or a triple. The QPQ tool doesn't work when nominators move old talk pages to other page names and then create a new talk page with the standard name in its place, since the history starts afresh each time: looking back through 2016 I see at least eight DYK credits. (The most recent, Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Bradley (from last October), had a QPQ supplied by Justlettersandnumbers, so QPQs are needed here as well.) Justlettersandnumbers, are you okay with adding evrik's newly created article to the nomination and using the proposed hook? (If so, the image caption should probably be updated, though perhaps to drop the one name, since including both would be too long.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
BlueMoonset, I'm more than okay with making this a triple, I'm delighted – and very grateful to Evrik for making that possible. Evrik, I feel bad that you donated QPQs, but thank you for that too; thanks also to Maculosae tegmine lyncis. I'd like to suggest an alt3, below – the fact that two men in the same painting both wrote important books on hunting seems remarkable enough to be mentioned. I suggest changing the image caption to "Prince Baltasar Carlos in the Riding School; Mateos and Martínez de Espinar are in the right middle ground", but if that's too long then please trim however you collectively judge best. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Justlettersandnumbers, in multiple-article hooks, only one bold link is counted in the total character count. The additional ones are free, so you're well under the 200-character maximum even counting "that" (which does count, along with the question mark, but not the periods). I've added "(pictured)" to the ALT3 hook. I've adjusted the templates above to account for the new article; Maculosae tegmine lyncis, if you're happy with ALT3, can you please add the appropriate tick below? The three QPQs have been provided (see above). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
: the approval template now relates to all three articles, the various hook facts all corroborated in at least one; not sure how it works, but should more than one person get the DYK credit, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
are you thinking of an addition to this hook along the lines of: the latter identified, also in Velázquez's Don Juan Mateos, thanks to a portrait engraving in his treatise by Peter Perrett? (Also, if so, would this mean the new dyk template would not need a separate review?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have struck ALT4a because at 279 prose characters, excluding all but the first bold link and "(pictured)", it is far too long. ALT4b comes in at 210 prose characters using that bold link, but would be under 200 characters with a shorter bold link, so I think it could be allowed; ALT5 is under 200 characters. I find the wording of the identification confusing, however; I'd like to suggest ALT5a to revise the ALT5 wording by displacing "identified" to later in the hook:
@BlueMoonset: I was alerted to this discussion by evrik, but all of these comments are my own. 5a is 162 characters, and 4c is 161 characters, if we account for the fact that only one bold link is counted. So both count as short enough. Portions of the hook fact are mentioned in all of the articles, with Juan Mateos (courtier) getting the closest to mentioning the full hook fact. The rest of the review is per Maculosae tegmine lyncis. It seems fine, but I'm going to ask for another opinion first before I sign off on this. epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Evrik and Justlettersandnumbers: I privately messaged some people (who don't wish to be identified) about this. There is an opinion that this can possibly be split into separate hooks, since it may be too complex to follow. I could go with either keeping the single hook or splitting it up. If we do go with a single hook, I think 4c is better compared to 5a. Let me know your thoughts. epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy for this to be six-fold if that's what Evrik would like, but as I said above I'd prefer that the curious fact that the two men both wrote treatises on hunting be kept in the hook if possible. Can someone cleverer than me come up with a wording that achieves this without losing clarity. If I've read the rules correctly, thirty or more characters could be gained by mentioning Mateos first. Anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
BlueMoonset, when looking at 5a, I put myself in the shoes as a typical reader. I had to look up what "venery" meant for this to make sense. 5a works, and I could approve it as well, but it might not be as interesting. The X hooks are also short enough to fit in DYK criteria, but even more convoluted - and not what I'd want to see as a reader. epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Justlettersandnumbers, epicgenius, might we be able to use "hunting" in place of "venery" in the hook? The "Venery (hunting)" link for "venery" is actually a redirect to "Medieval hunting", an article that only uses the word "venery" twice in a quoted section, doesn't define or explain it, and doesn't mention "Spain" or "Spanish" at all. I'm proposing to replace "venery" with "hunting", if it helps (if not, I'm out of ideas):
OK, I'm sorry, I seem to have taken my eye off this ball. 5b is not particularly clear or grammatical, and appears to imply that Mateos was identified in the riding-school picture through the engraving, which I don't believe is necessarily the case. I know this has gone on too long already, but as an alternative I suggest: