Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 161

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Maile66 in topic Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Inferno, second opinion needed
Archive 155←Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163→Archive 165

Prep 1 - Curzon Street Baroque

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque

@Yoninah: @Giano: @Gerda Arendt: Please be advised that @JHunterJ: has tagged the article for its citation style being incomplete. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot understand what the problem is [1]. Giano (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Giano:I think that the lack of page numbers is the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think so. All the books used have page numbers, only the web pages don’t. Giano (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I began formatting the first 4 refs using harvard citations. I can continue later. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but there's no need for that. The problem WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED MUCH MORE CLEARLY for an article in a prep queue is given in his edit summary - there are two Tinniswoods in the references & the notes don't distinguish which is used. @Giano: or someone has now sorted this. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The page number for current reference number 29, "O Sitwell, Rat Week" is the only one missing. The book is 80 pages, so a page number is desirable in this case. The other two short citations without page numbers refer to online articles which naturally have no page numbers. --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That was indeed the problem THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE FIRST PLACE, which I stated clearly in the edit summary AND ALSO IN THE COMMENT NEXT TO THE TAG. Go yell at someone else, Johnbod. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least you didn't miss the comment, as both Giano & I did yours! I hope you have read Rexxx's comments on your edit, at the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help to have gotten the article improved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Rinse the Blood Off My Toga

... that Wayne and Shuster's comedy sketch "Rinse the Blood Off My Toga" recasts Shakespeare's Julius Caesar as a detective story?

Yoninah Reidgreg Maile66 Flibirigit

I'm wondering about the word 'recasts', which isn't actually used by either source (and is spelled in the article 're-casts'), as I would have thought 'retells' would be the word we're looking for? But I didn't want to change it if this is a Canadian English thing. --valereee (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You might want to consult the Merriam-Webster thesaurus lists recast as "alter, change, make over, modify, redo, refashion, remake, remodel, revamp, revise, rework" which is exactly what Wayne and Shuster did. — Maile (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that the word can't be used for this, only whether we should be using the word I've always heard in such a situation as being the most common usage. --valereee (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's correct as written, why make a stylistic change? — Maile (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I just like to try to bulletproof these things as much as I can. If no one else sees an issue, I'm fine leaving it as is. If I'd thought it was definitely a problem and I knew exactly how to fix it, I'd have gone ahead. --valereee (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Since it's a comedy sketch, 'rejiggers' sounds funnier.   It looks like the hyphen was in the article from its creation. I don't feel it's needed but I don't have a good reason to make a purely stylistic change. Reidgreg (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend the YouTube viewing of this, just for a few good laughs. Brutus hiring a private eye to investigate the assassination of "Big Julie" the crime boss. And his nagging wife Calpurnia who advised him not to go to the forum on the Ides of March. It's a recasting of the story Shakespeare told, but not necessarily a retelling of the historical event. Especially in historical context, Brutus was one of the chief assassins. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure "recasts" is valid. How about "presents" ? DS (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Recasts is correct according to the Miriam Webster thesaurus. There is no need to make a stylistic change. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just joining the conversation now. Everything Maile says is correct. Watch the video, Valereee, and you'll get it. Yoninah (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not that I don't get the point, and I have no objection to keeping it as is if the consensue is that recasts is fine. I just tripped over the word and thought I'd bring it up. I did watch the video, it was exactly what I was expecting. :) It's what I'd call a retelling, like West Side Story is a retelling of R&J. In theater when I hear recasting, I'm thinking of the cast, not the story. But again, happy to go with consensus. --valereee (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: thank you. It is for sure not a "retelling". It's a send-off or a take-off. But glad we're sticking with "recasts". Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sendoff would be a better description than retelling, certainly. --valereee (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Fine. But adding the fact that the play has been turned into a detective story, I think we should leave the hook as is. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think leave it as is. I've been uncomfortable for a while with changing hooks for no reason other than someone offers an alternate word or two that they think is better. That really boils down to individual perspective, according to the individual's background and knowledge. Crafted to what one individual thinks is nifty, regardless of how well-intentioned, is stylistic. It's tempting to say, "...I have an idea ..." but probably better to trust the judgement of the nominator if all the facts are correct. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim

... that when an angry mob overran the palaces in Granada in 1309, they spared the sultan, but made sure to kill his vizier, Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim?

Cplakidas 97198 SL93

I'm not seeing any sourcing for the sentences in the article that come closest to supporting this hook, and I'm not sure the hook is even supported by them: an angry mob of Granada's citizens attacked the palaces of both the Vizier and the Sultan. Abu Abdallah's palace was sacked, and he was killed by Ibn al-Mawl; his corpse was defiled and lost so that he could not be buried. The Sultan was forced to abdicate in favor of his brother Nasr and was allowed to live in Almuñécar.. --valereee (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought I saw it, but I guess not. Pinging those who discussed ALT2 - @DragonflySixtyseven: @HaEr48: SL93 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Doesn't that sentence support the facts in the hook? (1) an angry mob overran the palaces (2) the vizier Abu Abdallah was killed, and (3) the sultan was spared (not killed) and rather forced to abdicate. Which part is missing? HaEr48 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
HaEr48, the fact the sultan wasn't killed doesn't mean they "spared" him. Maybe they couldn't find him or he escaped somehow. The face the vizier was killed doesn't necessarily mean the mob "made sure to kill" him -- in fact, it seems to say one person killed him, not the mob. --valereee (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
That's odd, I have a distinct memory of consulting the text cited, but now I can't find it. DS (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Would there be any objection for one of the other hooks if they are found to be correct? SL93 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, SL93, and DragonflySixtyseven: The main source is Harvey p.170. Re "spared" him, the source did say "allowed to depart to take up residence in Almuñécar" so I think spared is accurate. Re one person killing him, good point and I'm open to rewording it, but given that the killing happened as part of the crowd's sacking of the palace, I would say it's accurate to broadly say they killed him even though it's one person who did the actual killing. HaEr48 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added the Harvey citation to the article sentences and added "allowed to leave but was forced to abdicate", how does this look for a tweak to the hook:

ALT2a... that when an angry mob overran the palaces in Granada in 1309, the sultan was spared but his vizier Abu Abdallah ibn al-Hakim was killed? --valereee (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thank you Valereee   Also, probably you didn't realize, but your addition of "allowed to leave" feels a bit redundant given the "allowed to live in Almuñécar" part of the same sentence, what do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's awkward...hm. Maybe break the sentence in two? All I wanted to get at was that he was allowed to leave the palace, which provides the direct support for "spared"; I don't have any opinion on how exactly we get that in there, just that it be made clear. --valereee (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I just realized that the hook is now in the "Queue" area which means a regular editor like me can't change it to ALT2a. HaEr48 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
It's in the next queue to hit the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, change implemented. DS (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Emery

A million acres converts to 4047 square kilometers, but I don't know how to do that magic and MOSNUM makes my head hurt. --valereee (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Fruits

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that the fruits of the barley sugar bush are attractive to both birds and people?
@Cwmhiraeth:@Maile66:
This seems like a rather obvious hook fact. Isn't there something more unusual to say about this? Yoninah (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 is stated in the article, and sourced. Works for me. How about you @Yoninah: — Maile (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely, thanks! I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 image

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I find the black and white illustration of the Midnight Steeplechase impossible to view at thumbnail size. Can something be done about the image to make it more visible? Otherwise we should place something else here. Pinging Moonraker, David Levy. Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I cropped the image, but I'm not sure if that made much of a difference.— Maile (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. But now I really can't tell what it is. I'm moving it out of the image slot. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Approved nominations that regular promoters can't promote

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

People who build prep sets also nominate their own articles at DYK and review others, none of which they can promote to prep. Here are a list of the five oldest approved nominations that Cwmhiraeth has either nominated or approved herself, where we need other prep builders to do the promotions; a few of these have been waiting for over three weeks since they were approved; a sixth, not as old, has been waiting nearly a month. (In the case of Cwmhiraeth's own articles, these obviously should not be promoted together, since we try to spread out nominations by nominator and by subject.)

Over four weeks old:

Please remember to cross off entries when you promote them, so other prep builders don't go looking for them. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried my best when promoting hooks earlier, but there are many nature hooks and music hooks that I had to skip over some for balanced preps. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saadat Ali Khan I

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I had closed this nomination as it had been marked for closure by Wuerzele earlier this month and the nominator Royroydeb had not edited the article in over a month and had been inactive for weeks. Several hours later, Dharmadhyaksha reverted my closure, saying that Your first review took a month to start. Why do you expect the nominator to be prompt within 3 days?. Afterwards, I reclosed the nomination, saying that it had already been closed, and if there was a desire to re-open the nomination, a discussion should be made at WT:DYK. I am voluntarily putting up my action for review here to ask if my closure was proper, or if the nomination should be allowed to continue while waiting for a response from Royroydeb. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I know you’re trying to keep things moving but just in passing recently I’ve seen several instances of you saying “I will give you X days to do Y” or “I will allow Z”, and it all seems quite bossy. You’re not in charge. Lighten up a little. EEng 08:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that your closure was proper, but Dharmadhyaksha actually does have a good point. I have noticed some of your reviews take awhile to complete in a timely manner despite you being pinged. I do remember myself nominating articles for DYK with you picking them up for review and I felt frustrated when you took a long time to see my fixes, despite the fact that you were working on other DYKs the past few days. Your only response was that you were busy with other things which I'm not sure if that is so great of an excuse when you're going through other DYKs. Plus nominators have been already waiting a very long time for a review. I do appreciate how smoothly you help keep DYK running, but that is my view. SL93 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I have to apologize for my tardiness, as when I don't reply immediately, it's either: 1. I would wait for further responses from either the nominator or other editors before replying again, or 2. I spend some time away from a nomination due to burnout and would rather return to it later on once my mind is clear and I can give a fresh look. I'll try to keep the promptness concern in mind in the future and try to finish reviews more promptly in the future. As for the "I'll give X days", I try to avoid it and mainly do so only to let things move forward and hopefully result in quicker responses. I apologize if my wordings have sounded "bossy" and I will refrain from using such wordings in the future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominator is not the only one responsible for getting a hook approved. Just like how you meddle in other reviews with your "un-interesting-ness" aspect, there are editors out there who can help nominators in their DYK reviews. I am in fact fed up with your constant remarks of something being un-interesting. And in recent past you have made it a point to stall so many Indian DYKs with this lousy reason. If you want something "interesting" propose it so. If not, simply check for the truthfullness of the proposed hook, check it and approve it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, the "interesting to a broad audience" is a rather controversial criterion, and much drama has resulted from how to interpret it. I have to admit that many editors such as myself usually can't agree on what counts as "interesting". As for the Indian hooks, I am not singling them out and in fact I have approved several India-related hooks in the past with little-to-no complaints. My only suggestion at this point is that you have to realize that not all Wikipedia editors and readers are Indian or are familiar with India-related topics. We are writing for a global audience, not a predominantly-Indian one, so hooks should ideally be written in such a way that international audiences would find it interesting too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
So until you establish what is interesting, please do not stall nominations based on this comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb I normally use would be something like, for example: "This is a hook about someone or something from/about [country or field X]; is it likely that a typical reader who is not from or is not familiar with [country or field X] would find it interesting?"; other editors may have different interpretations. If you have other concerns about the "interestingness" criterion, you are free to start a discussion on that, asking if it should be changed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha, if you want to try to get what you think across, it is best to assume good faith about other editors. SL93 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think am assuming bad faith? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You're making it seem like Narutolovehinata5 has an agenda towards Indian hooks. SL93 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jew with a coin

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kindly requesting an uninvolved editor, one who has previously not commented on the discussion, to please take a look at the nomination and article and see if the neutrality and stability concerns have been or can be addressed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK Nomination Request: Samuel Adler (composer) and/or Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ciao Wikipedia Editors: It is always a pleasure to learn something new on Wikipedia's "Did You Know" column. BRAVO to all for your inspired efforts to enlighten the world! Perhaps if you have extra time you might consider nominating the articles Samuel Adler (composer) and/or Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra for inclusion in the column sometime in the future.

Adler is one of America's leading 20th century composers. He was a Jewish immigrant from Nazi Germany who escaped the Holocaust and was drafted into the U.S. Army immediately after completing his graduate studies at Harvard University with Aaron Copland. Upon returning to his native Germany in 1952 as a Corporal in the Army, he found his homeland in ruins and convinced his superior officers to establish the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in an effort to support America's cultural diplomacy initiatives through Europe in the post World War II era. The orchestra is the only symphonic ensemble ever established within the U. S. Army. Its instrumentalists were all active members of the Army who were also professionally educated musicians of the highest caliber. Their mission was not to wage war, however, but to promote international peace through shared cultural interactions between nations as some of America's first "cultural ambassadors" .

One possible "hook" into theses articles might be:

1) Did you know that the American composer Samuel Adler founded the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra to support cultural diplomacy after World war II? Or perhaps more suitably... 2) Did you know that the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra was founded by the American composer Samuel Adler to further cultural diplomacy after World War II ?

These are merely a few possibilities. As highly experienced editors, I'm certain that you can think of additional possibilities which might be more suitable. Feel free to use your imaginations! Thanks again for your kind consideration and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. Ciao! 2620:65:8000:A203:AD18:1901:87DF:68F7 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)GCU

  • Thank you for your interest at DYK. Unfortunately, neither article would be eligible for nomination at this time. For an article to be eligible, generally an article would have had to have been created, had its prose content expanded at lest five times, or promoted to good article status within the last seven days. And as far as I can tell, neither article has met any of these requirements. Nevertheless, the articles could be featured in the future if an editor would expand either or both to meet them. Thank you for your interest, and if you have any questions, you are free to read more at WP:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

NPP as part of DYK

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there,

I was a bit surprised when, on clicking one of today's DYK's (the Grampian - interesting hook and article) that it hadn't actually been patrolled (it now is).

Is checking the patrolling status articles sourcing DYK's that have made it through review and been added to a prep queue something that happens? Should it be?

It just seems that if we have DYKs to highlight a few interesting, usually new, articles, they should be prioritised for patrolling. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well ... @Nosebagbear: nobody replied here. I'll give this my best shot at an answer. I assume you're talking about Wikipedia:New pages patrol. When I was a new editor, a handful of my articles got patrolled, so I'm thinking you are talking about screening new editor output. There's nothing wrong with nominating such new articles that you find in your patrols, as long as they also pass all the other requirements WP:DYK, Supplementary guidelines, Reviewing guide. If by chance you are suggesting we incorporate New Pages Patrol into our process, I think it's not necessary to add more to the DYK process that is already bogged down with rules and regulations. We welcome new editors to try DYK, so if you have a new editor/article that you think fits here, please feel free to nominate. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It was the latter, in the sense that DYKing involves more aggressive checking than NPP (or at least the two I've sent through have), so patrolling seemed a reasonable add-on, but you're right as to causing more work. It would probably make more sense to ask at NPP if we can, between us, prioritise NPP the day's DYKs. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I hope someone will remove the Jessie Grayson DYK from Prep 1, as it has just appeared on the main page in the current set! I just got pinged about it, and was surprised as I had noticed earlier today that it was in a prep set some way down. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, I think the hook/credit just got accidentally left behind during a shuffle, good catch Rebecca! --valereee (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

== Back to one set per day? ==

We'll likely drop below 100 approved today. Should we go back to 1 set per day? --valereee (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Moved to above discussion! --valereee (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please post discussions at above section Update as of August 24. — Maile (talk)

Bug involving being pinged or pinging other editors when archiving nominations

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

So I just closed Template:Did you know nominations/Principality of Hutt River, and after doing so I received a notification saying "your message of BlueMoonset was sent". This is despite the fact that nowhere in my edit did I ping BlueMoonset. Conversely, I have been on the receiving end of such pings in the past when some nominations I reviewed were promoted or rejected. Is this some kind of bug? It only seemed to have started when the DYK talk page transclusion thing was implemented. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in to confirm that I was pinged, and this is functionality that I don't find useful. Wugapodes, is this something you have added? Or was it someone else? I would greatly appreciate it if it were removed right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is something I did. @Anomie: do you know if anything has changed with the ping system recently? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know of anything, but it's not terribly likely I would. Perhaps it got confused by the fact that the line with BlueMoonset's signature was modified by the edit? You'd do better to ask at WT:Notifications. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes has suggested that this issue is to do with this edit. If so, an examination of the added lines (those with the blue border) on the right shows the Wikimarkup 
constructing short, interesting hooks. Thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]]
- it is that link, in conjunction with Narutolovehinata5's signature in the fourth added line, that has triggered a notification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine this is the first time my regular sig has been the last thing on a nomination page prior to promotion, with those changes seen in the diff having been done. Plus, I've closed a number of DYK templates before, and it's never happened to me on the other side. It remains very odd behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything to do with DYK; this happened to me earlier this week, elsewhere. I was pinged by this edit. It's certainly odd, but the ping feature has always been buggy, I think...Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I have similarly received several notifications in the last ten days or so, when my signature has been the last thing on a DYK nomination template of a hook just promoted by someone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This has happened to me multiple times in the past few days. Strangely enough, I never received a notification of the ping from Maile at Update as of August 26 on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Gara Medouar

... that archaeologist Paul Pascon was a Pied-Noir whose devotion to the situation of Moroccan peasants led him to adopt the Moroccan nationality?

Drmies

Wasn't sure who all to ping here, as the original hook was for three articles. The article says that his grandfather was a pied-noir but not specifically that he was. Does the fact his grandfather was mean he was too? Do we need to make this explicit in the article to meet DYK requirements? --valereee (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • valereee I don't know that that is necessary, but if your grandfather is a pied noir, and you're born in Fez, then it is most likely that you are one too. Nonetheless, I clarified that in the article, since the source confirms, and corrected two typos--for the same price. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you! --valereee (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Hey, Drmies, sorry for the second ping, I was looking at the first half of the hook and just realized I had a question about the second half, too. "led him to adopt the Moroccan nationality"? So he was born there, but wasn't already a citizen? Apologies for my ignorance. --valereee (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That is what I conclude, Valereee. I'm no expert on citizenship, I'm only a citizen of one country and my passport has expired, but it is entirely possible that indeed he still had French citizenship, and either "traded" it for Moroccan citizenship, or got dual citizenship. (Many Moroccan ex-pats in the Netherlands, for instance, seem to have that.) Remember, he was born in Fez in 1932, under the French protectorate in Morocco. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The source says "took the form of taking out moroccan citizenship", I think "led him to take Moroccan citizenship" might be clearer. --valereee (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, sure. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/WCLM (Chicago)

... that Chicago's WCLM radio lost its FCC license for leasing an audio channel without permission to a service that broadcast horse racing results to bookies?

Raymie SL93 Yoninah

The lede says "The station lost its broadcast license over several violations, the most notable of which was the use of its subsidiary communications authority (SCA) subcarrier facility to telecast the results of horse races on an additional audio channel" and the section says "The commission said that Carol Music had failed to program the station in accordance with the proposals made by the company when applying for its license and had used the SCA for a purpose other than that originally stated, noting that the other violations found in the hearing made it unnecessary for the FCC to consider the horse race results service as a factor in revoking the license." Do we need to rethink this hook? --valereee (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I will let Raymie or someone else think of a new hook. I'm not entirely sure what is considered hooky for radio stations. SL93 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: That would come from the way the proceeding developed (and I found a source that honestly should have had me rethinking the hook). Apologies for not showing up sooner... I was asleep. How about... Raymie (t • c) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
... that Chicago's WCLM radio was investigated for leasing an audio channel without permission to a service that broadcast horse racing results to bookies, later losing its license over other violations?
JUST squeaks by at 199 characters, lol! --valereee (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Why not shorten it:
ALT2: ... that Chicago's WCLM radio was investigated for leasing an audio channel without permission to a service that broadcast horse racing results to bookies? Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
If the set turns out long, it could certainly be shortened via the above. Right now it's short for tomorrow, good length for next day. --valereee (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Losing an FCC license is a big thing; I find that very interesting, and would wonder what those other violations that actually made them lose their license if broadcasting to bookies didn't do the trick. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Barbara Zechmeister)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just moved this hook from Prep 4 to Prep 6. This is basically another "Actor X playing Role Y" hook. Would it be possible to propose another hook about this person, or if the nominator wishes for this to be used, for it to be reworded in such a way it would better appeal to those unfamiliar with opera? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The most recent list was archived about an hour ago, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 6. Right now we have a total of 305 nominations, of which 128 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four that remain from April and May, and the six from early June.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Something weird is going on with this page when reading it on mobile

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

For some reason, if I'm reading WT:DYK on mobile, the sections that show are only up to "Hold until 60th Anniversary"; you need to expand that in order to see the sections that come after. When I asked about this on Discord, they said it might have to do with the collapsible boxes. Perhaps this issue could be fixed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Where do we have collapsible boxes on this talk page? — Maile (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure actually, probably in a now-archived post (also, I have to correct myself: the message actually said "collapse templates", not collapsible boxes). What I do remember is that the problem started after there was some section rearranging in the 60th anniversary section (i.e. this edit). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You might have just helped figure this out. I notice in what you have linked that there was a "plainlist" template right below "Section break for visual clarity". But there was no corresponding "endplainlist" at the bottom. I have removed the plainlist template. Did that solve the problem for you? — Maile (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I just checked and it indeed solves the problem. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Werner Müller (politician)

... that Werner Müller managed a reduction in Germany's dependence on coal in a socially responsible way as Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy and CEO of major energy companies?

Gerda Arendt Cwmhiraeth Yoninah

It looks like the source for this is a memorial page at the website of one of his employers, Evonik. I've added an attribution in the article, but I think it gets pretty unwieldy and too long if we attribute it here, and I'm not sure even with attribution it's appropriate for a DYK. Do we need to pull this and rework? --valereee (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Missed the extended comment at nom and that I should also ping Maile66 --valereee (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, the employer memorial page is not the only source for that. The president used those words in his laudatio in 2009. I have added the citation for the president's speech to the sentence in the Career section that ends "in a socially responsible way." Just to be clear, too, this person was a minister under a different president! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm having a hard time with the translated version of that new source but happy to accept this AGF! --valereee (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I was away, sorry. Yes, it's in all sources, I just took that one because it's in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Skurnik

  • ... that when offered the award of the Iron Cross from Nazi Germany, Leo Skurnik, a Jewish major in the Finnish Army, refused, saying he would "wipe his arse with it"?

The actual quote is of course "wipe my arse with it" -- I'm thinking we enclose 'his' in square brackets? --valereee (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please change the quote in the hook to "wipe my arse with it". Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Or:
ALT1: ... that when offered the award of the Iron Cross from Nazi Germany, Leo Skurnik, a Jewish major in the Finnish Army, refused, saying: "I wipe my arse with it"? Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's a better solution --valereee (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Who?

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
@Smallbones:@Mary Mark Ockerbloom:@Storye Book:@97198:
I have tagged the lead for giving no indication of who she was (a French woman?), where she was from, etc. The whole write-up is very sketchy, almost reads like a gossip column. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Re-ping @Storye book:. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I also have reservations about the hook itself. Is Gigi that well known of a media in France? If it is, the hook would have worked, but right now I'm not sure if the current hook would interest a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I've heard of the film Gigi, but not of Colette. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Everyone knows of Colette! Well, obviously not, but she is a very famous French writer, and Gigi is one of her best-known books. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps there would be more interest to the hook if we specify somehow that the work is French, and/or mention how well-known Colette is? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

perhaps this is a generational thing, but please see Gigi (novella), Gigi (1949 film), Gigi (play), Gigi (1958 film), and Gigi (musical) (which won the academy award for best film). I'm not sure this hook can be fixed along the lines suggested, e.g. adding "by French writer Colette" would seem something like "by American writer Ernest Hemingway". I might suggest a hook mentioning Lord Louis Mountbatten but that might be a bit risque for the main page. Please let me know if you have other suggestions for a hook. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Eh, what? There's nothing wrong with this hook. Is Gigi that well known of a media in France? - er, it's the novel that spawned all of the above, so it's not only well known in France, but worldwide. C'mon, really folks - in the same Prep set there are two Americans who are basically unknown outside the US, a lake in Morocco and an opera by a not-particularly-well-known composer. I think Gigi might just pass on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see the problem either when there are hooks about people who are known far less. The thing about DYK is that it's mostly new articles and the most popular topics have typically already been written about. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Just looking at an article that I nominated which is in prep 3 - "... that Patricia Marshall's role in the 1947 film Good News was originally meant for Gloria DeHaven?" A few of the cast of the film Good News were nominated for Academy Awards and Gloria DeHaven was notable enough to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, but I honestly can't say that I know for sure if either the film or the actress are well known well outside the United States. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • More to the point, is there more information about Letellier that's available in sources? The article seems to be predominantly about her relationships and relatively little is said about her actual life. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Would that be a good claim to notability, if she's only known for relationships with other notable people? I'm asking because the sources in the article (at least guessing from their titles, since I don't have access to them) appear to be more about those people she's had relationships with, and I'm not sure if said sources are enough for her to be notable in her own right. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the hook interest, the article is still tagged. The lead is insufficient and the whole article reads like something written on the fly. Yoninah (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Colette's Gigi is rather iconic, and those who don't know can learn a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a bit more known about her - or rather, it seems, varying information written about her in different sources: she was a classic dancer / a dancer in the Paris Grand Opera corps de ballet / a young pupil at the Conservatoire / preparing for a career as a singer. I'll try to add some more info and sources to the article, and perhaps restructure it a little - though the tag has been removed, the lede doesn't really summarise the rest of the article yet. I would say that Yola became notable (or famous) through her relationships with other people (and particularly through relationships with several powerful men at once). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Bullitt hook)

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Evrik, Icewhiz, and Cwmhiraeth: I'm not exactly sure about this, but does this hook meet the real-world requirement? Since it seems to be discussing about a plot point of a movie. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it does. A chase scene in a movie was filmed in San Francisco. I took out "famous", quite POV and I've never even heard of it. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) It was filmed on the actual street. It isn't that the plot says this is on Army Street (it was actually spliced together from a few different disjoint locations) - but it was actually filmed on the street and shows the street itself. "San Francisco moviegoers were probably a little more cynical about Frank Bullitt's high-speed pursuit. From the opening segment on the former Army Street until the chase's fiery conclusion in Brisbane, the Charger and Mustang seem to leap around the city with no logic, often rounding a corner and turning up dozens of blocks away."[2] + map here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications, just making sure that there were no doubts about the hook's suitability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: do videogame gameplay elements meet the real-world requirement?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Sometimes there has been disagreement on whether or not hooks about gameplay elements (such as discussing playable characters or the controls) fit the real-world requirements for works of fiction. Can we have a discussion on clarifying this matter? This came into my mind after coming across Template:Did you know nominations/Venetica, in which the currently proposed hook is ... that in Venetica one plays as Death's daughter?, and it can be vague as to whether or not the information can be considered in-universe. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that video gameplay elements are more or less the same thing as fiction plot elements, that there should be a connection to the real world, and that "one plays as X" or similar is no more a connection to the real world than "one can read about X" would be in a hook for a fiction book. But I have no idea what precedents there are for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think describing who the protagonist is, is allowable since it's one of the main characteristics that reviewers highlighted - and the hook is short and hooky that way. That said, I'm not married to it and I will propose alternatives for good measure. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 and 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago33 comments8 people in discussion

Prep 5

@Gwillhickers, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and Animalparty: I'm aware that there was some discussion on this hook before it was approved, but I have some doubts on if current wording is sufficiently "hooky". The point of the hook was that it was unusual at the time to use your work for your doctoral dissertation, but I have to admit that it's kind of easy to miss this point when reading the hook (like how it's kind of easy to miss the words "his work"). Speaking as someone who myself is very interested in history, I think it might be possible to reword the hook in such a way for it to catch more attention. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I still have reservations about the whole hook, as expressed on the nomination template. Perhaps a different hook could be found. Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there doesn't really seem to be any material left in the article that could work as a hook, as even the ideas that probably could have worked (such as the jobs of his parents, teaching at a women's college, or having a work dedicated to him) are all typical and not unique to him. If we can't find a better hook, sadly there may be no other option but to pull the current hook and close the nomination as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This is in the article source Alabama Pioneers, but not in the article. It should be there, as it's pretty interesting stuff. The hook at the top was actually ALT3 on the nomination template, so I've named this one ALT4.— Maile (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done – Having done this, I find the original hook very interesting, more so than someone donating his book collection. ALT1 says much about the writer, and the quality of the writing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I don't actually have a problem with any of your hooks. But I wonder if @Yoninah: and @Narutolovehinata5: might be satisfied with slight rewording of your original hook. I'm not sure what their exact objections are, but perhaps its just a way the hook is written. Since we don't know which came first, the book or the dissertation, it could be rephrased perhaps.— Maile (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3 only mentions Abernethy's work, regardless of the date of publication. ALT5 works also, as it mentions "book form" and doesn't commit to any idea about when the book was published. (i.e.before or after this work was submitted as a dissertation). Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: since you write a lot about American historians, I can understand why the ALT5 hook fact appeals to you. But frankly, it's not going to appeal to a lot of other readers. I think Maile's ALT4 has a lot more hook interest. If you absolutely insist, however, ALT5 it is. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, HathiTrust seems to have a full view copy of the original book from Harvard University. The title page says, "THOMAS PERKINS ABERNETHY, Ph. D." Assuming this copy is the very first publication, his doctorate happened before the publication. *Abernethy, Thomas Perkins (1922). ... The formative period in Alabama, 1815-1828. The Brown printing company. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, as I've always maintained, most subjects don't appeal to a general audience to begin with, so no one can say for sure which hook is going to spark the most interest. Having said that, ALT5 says more about the writer and his work than a hook about donating a book collection does. I would go with ALT5. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll substitute the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks once again for you tireless help and contributions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
[ec] Gwillhickers asked me to have a look. I'm fine with ALT5, though the insider will know that depositing the books at Marion is kind of interesting, given what Marion is. I do have a question about the article, though--the References and Sources don't visually jibe with each other; I'm not quite sure why the notes and the bibliography don't simply have matching titles/authors etc. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT5 addresses my concerns about clarity and I do not mind it being the hook that is ultimately used, but Yoninah's comments about hook interest make sense. It's still a rather niche hook, and while I'd argue that ALT4 is niche too, I'm not really sure if it's really okay to go with a hook which both the nominator and promoter seem to agree does not exactly "interest a broad audience". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I only mentioned that most subjects don't appeal to a general audience, in the hopes that these highly opinionated and ongoing debates about what's interesting to a general audience would not prolong these discussions to the extent they typically have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Hopefully, we can now all let this go on to Prep and move to other subjects. Just for the record "interest a broad audience" is really a subjective judgement call, depending on the background and interests of who is making that assessment. That idea looks very different to millions of young techno-nerds than it does to millions of senior citizens. Nobody really knows what a "broad audience" is at Wikipedia. It's all subjective guesswork, so let's please let this hook appear as it is in the prep ... and move on to other subject matters. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah: This is more of a request for clarification, but the article doesn't seem to elaborate on the "socially acceptable way" that he reduced the coal dependence of Germany. Would it be possible for that part in the article to be expanded on? In addition, while the hook itself is okay, there do appear to be other possible hook facts that could be used as alternatives, such as the fact that he did the reduction in dependence despite being the CEO of a coal mining company himself, or that he was on the board of Borussia Dortmund. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We could also potentially reword the current hook into something like:
ALT2 ... that Werner Müller, a former German economic and energy minister and CEO of a coal company, was praised for helping reduce the country's dependence on coal in a socially acceptable way?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. "was praised" seems too pale, and the question "by whom?" will follow. He was named "Manager of the year" for it. [3] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"Was praised" sounds really positive though, and "by whom" can be a general statement (meaning it wasn't specific people, but in general). If you want to focus on the award, that could be rewritten to say:
ALT3 ... that Werner Müller, a former German economic and energy minister and CEO of a coal company, was awarded for helping reduce the country's dependence on coal in a socially acceptable way?
In addition, it doesn't seem that the "socially acceptable" way is elaborated on in the article. Did this refer to his good relations with companies and the people, as discussed in the Legacy section? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: @Narutolovehinata5: I think "socially acceptable" needs clarification in the article, and probably changed to different wording in the hook. I read the sources that were in English, and they used the same wording. In the United States, "socially acceptable" is something more to do with either the social standing of an individual or their family, or perhaps table manners, or personal behavior of one individual, or a lot of things. But I've never heard of it in regards to transitioning a country's fuel dependence from one type to another. I think in the United States it might be more likely to be called, "a political compromise" between opposing factions, or "educating the consumers" in a way that would take decades. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please find out what the German term would translate to, because I can't. It's not as much fuel dependence as jobs to be lost, and a way found that the people who will loose their jobs find acceptable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Would "…without damaging the fabric of society" or "…while minimizing social and economic disruption" work? ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
yes for me, but longish for the wanted "hookiness" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that "socially acceptable way" is still acceptable wording with regards to the hook, it just needed to be elaborated on in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
"Socially responsible" is the term you mean. Social acceptability is to do with manners, decorum and sometimes political correctness. "In Japan it isn't socially acceptable to blow one's nose in public." Here the guy was exercising social responsiblity (Sozialverantwortung / Gesellschaftsveranwortung ) by making sure the workers were looked after.Felixkrater (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: this is in the next Prep to promote to queue. I believe that "socially acceptable" is so wrong, that I will not promote that Prep to queue. Someone else can. But I'm not going to be responsible for promoting that one. "Socially responsible" is a correct way to word it. I'm not the only admn who can promote to queue, but I can't think of any who would promote to queue knowing there is a debate on one of the hooks. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: sorry, I thought this discussion was resolved. I swapped the hook with one from a later prep set. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thank you. That prep set, with a different hook, has now been promoted. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, it appears that the wording order of the hook was changed, so it now reads ... that Werner Müller managed a reduction in Germany's dependence on coal in a socially responsible way as Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy and CEO of major energy companies?. Does this change allay any concerns that other editors may have with the article and hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: the change in prep had been made by me, based on the above suggestion and Gerda's not objecting. Per dialogue with her on the nomination template just now, I have matched "socially responsible" on both the hook and the article wording. Can we please put this back in Prep now? — Maile (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination request: Henry Lewis (musician)

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Ciao fellow Wikipedian editors -- perhaps if you have some free time you might consider nominating Henry Lewis (musician) to the "Did you Know" columnn. I have just completed several upgrades to the article inclduing additional references, a discography section and an info box. One possible "hook" might be: DYK ....that the African-American conductor Henry Lewis led the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra as part of America's cultural diplomacy initiatives in Europe after World War II? As experienced editors, you might have superior ideas so fee free to experiment. Many thanks for your assistance and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. 2620:65:8000:A203:A033:D245:A813:D7B6 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)GCU

This article doesn't qualify under DYK rules. Before your expansion began the character count was 2056 characters, and presently it is 6636 characters. You would need to add another 3,644 characters to qualify for a 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Ciao Yoninah - Many thanks for the tip --So Sorry that I was not aware of the character limits. I have attempted to increase the article further but I am not certain whether I have properly attained the required level of characters. (I think that I added 8,705 to reach a total of 26,547 bytes) Whenever you have the chance, feel free to take a look and many thanks again for your thougthtful assistance! Cia2620:65:8000:A203:85DC:6632:19E3:1D53 (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)GCU
You are getting closer, 9124 now, you will need 5*2056. Can you word the recordings in prose, perhaps? - Because bulleted lists don't count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No problem -- I listed as many as possible. Good luck with the nomination.. Ciao2620:65:8000:A203:85DC:6632:19E3:1D53 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)GCU
I've created the nomination. It's at 12k prose now. I hadn't seen that Gerda was already eyeing this when I mentioned her. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hot pepper, blah hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

... that according to Guinness World Records, the Carolina Reaper (pictured) is currently the leader in the race to grow the hottest pepper?

This is currently in Prep 5. While it's technically true that Guinness says that, the article lists four peppers which are hotter, but haven't been certified by Guinness. Even if it were unquestionably the hottest, such a dry fact would still make a really blah hook for such a spicy subject, especially since the article has some facts which are actually interesting.

... that a pepper which "kind of opened the floodgates" in the race to grow the hottest pepper was being studied by the Indian army for weaponization?

Although the use of pepper spray by individuals for protection, or police for crowd control, may be familiar to some readers, I find it interesting that an army would consider weaponizing peppers.

Other facts which could possibly be turned into hooks:

  • The pepper podcaster's quote that the race is "a hugely controversial war – there are scandals, accusations of cheating, death threats"
  • The bottle of hot sauce that sold for US$595
  • The 2013 quote speculating that Scorpion peppers had the potential to become the second- or third-highest yielding crop behind marijuana

And probably others. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging article creator @Valereee:. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The hook was the suggestion of the reviewer. I like it, myself, as I think a ton of people will be interested in the hottest pepper. It's true there are other contenders who are claiming to be hotter, but it's also true the current 'official' hottest pepper according to Guinness is the Carolina Reaper, so for me that isn't a problem. I really like the image as it's colorful, and it wouldn't work with the suggested hook ideas. I'm open to different opinions, but I guess I kind of disagree this is a blah hook. --valereee (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I promoted the hook and I agree with Valereee's reasoning. I guess the hook could say something along the lines of "the official leader", but I believe such a change to be from nitpicking. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I also like the hook and image and was going to promote it, but SL93 beat me to it. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The hook is basically saying that the race has a leader, which I find very uninteresting. If you bring Carolina Reaper up to good article status, this might make a good hook for that article, because it actually says something about the pepper. The current hook says nothing interesting about the race to grow the hottest pepper. There are lots of colorful images in the article and an appropriate one could be used with just about any hook. Incidentally, reviewers shouldn't be reviewing their own hooks. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: @Yoninah: @Valereee: A good point has been made here, in that the nomination reviewer wrote ALT1a, reviewed the ALT himself, and then passed the nomination himself. This should not have happened. There should have been an uninvolved party reviewing the hook. And because that was the hook used, an uninvolved party should have passed the nomination. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I disagree. It was just a hook that was a tweak of Valereee's own hook. Valareee's ALT was "... that the Carolina Reaper (pictured) is currently the leader in the race to grow the hottest pepper, according to Guinness World Records?" ALT1a was "that according to Guinness World Records, the Carolina Reaper (pictured) is currently the leader in the race to grow the hottest pepper?" SL93 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: What you say is true, but he signed his name to the hook. Technicality? I leave this issue up to others in this conversation.— Maile (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, but I will say that we can just use the non-tweaked hook. SL93 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I will leave the discussion about whether the hook is interesting or not to other editors. It's so subjective at times and I think that discussions of whether an approved hook is interesting is very boring. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have promoted it if I noticed that...though I decided earlier that I'm done with building preps so there won't be an in the future. It's not because of this, but it's just something that I did to help out since there is usually only two promoters and not really something I enjoy doing too much. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally don't find you to be in the clear either - "I also like the hook and image and was going to promote it, but SL93 beat me to it." SL93 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reopened the nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most recent list is now over a week old, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 15. Right now we have a total of 240 nominations, of which 99 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one that remains from May and the four from June.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

1 September help needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Vespro della Beata Vergine - I forgot it's still open. I pinged the last reviewer, but anybody is welcome. It would really make most sense on 1 September, second slot, - sorry that I forgot about it during the last week. - Comments in the peer review welcome, to present it in top condition! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Too late, don't bother, will adjust hooks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought hooks had to be interesting

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There is nothing in the hook "... that critics called the comedy adventure video game The Haunted Island "suitably goofy" and "pretty gosh darn rad"?" that can be described as interesting. It is just "critics gave opinions". --Khajidha (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Other people may have other opinions, but personally I thought that the quote "gosh darn rad" sounded eye-catchy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Eye-catching yes, but I have no idea what it may mean, so wouldn't be tempted to click. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it got over 3,200 pageviews. I felt this hook was far more likely to appeal to readers based on the unusual hook wording. My opinion of ho-hum hooks for American historians being pushed through DYK on the logic that as I've always maintained, most subjects don't appeal to a general audience to begin with, so no one can say for sure which hook is going to spark the most interest (see discussion here) has also been vindicated by the poor performance of Thomas M. Owen (682 pageviews), Thomas Perkins Abernethy (848 pageviews), David Cooper (abolitionist) (972 pageviews), and Donald Dean Jackson (956 pageviews). So much time is spent arguing over these hooks and they end up going nowhere. Yoninah (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Glitch

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

G'day all, I went to transclude Ba Congress page to September 3, but something is wrong with the formatting of the nom page. Any ideas what I've stuffed up? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding link to nomination template (for some reason, the NewDYKnomination template is not being substituted): Template:Did you know nominations/Ba Congress BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I think it's because you only have one closing bracket for the hook's World War II wikilink rather than the required two. (I did a preview to test adding the missing closing bracket, and it seems to do the trick.) It's important that you make the actual fix rather than me, because the resulting template substitution makes assumptions based on the person closing it, and it should be you, the nominator/creator. Let me know if you have any further problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset, you'd think I would have spotted that... Fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Preps 4 and 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Prep 4 (Forest Gump hook)

@RightCowLeftCoast, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: While an interesting hook, especially if you're familiar with Forrest Gump, doesn't this hook count as an in-universe hook since it's a plot point? While it does have a real world connection as the regiment did really exist, I'm not sure if it would meet WP:DYKSG#C6. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with another hook being chosen. I approved them all. SL93 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I gave the existing hook a tweak. If there are any further objections, I would go with ALT3 as the other hooks are not up to scratch IMO, although the fact that it's a US Army unit would have to be added to the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: thanks for tweaking ALT4 of the nomination.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 (KSUN)

@Raymie: I think the hook can be improved some more, since right now it sounds a little bland. Perhaps it might be a good idea to mention the reason why its sold its call sign (i.e. due to monetary issues)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: That's not bad. Because its financial issues are documented, it isn't that much of a stretch to write... Raymie (t • c) 17:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that radio station KSUN in Bisbee, Arizona, sold its call letters to a station in Phoenix after going off the air due to financial troubles?
I boldly added that information to the hook in prep. It can be further changed if needed. SL93 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Name of reference

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thuy Trang is currently in prep 3 and there is a discussion going on at Talk:Thuy Trang#Name of reference about whether or not she should be referred to as Trang. I don't know if this discussion would be an issue for DYK. SL93 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Using a Youtube video of a webcast as a source in a DYK article

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to request some extra input regarding an issue that came up while I am reviewing the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/B. M. Kutty. One of the sources in the nomination article, B. M. Kutty, is a news webcast the program Cut The Clutter, a part of a web news channel ThePrint produced by an Indian journalist Shekhar Gupta. The news program is webcast via YouTube and the source is a link to a Youtube video of episode number 248 of Cut The Clutter[4]. The source (currently ref no 8 in the article), is not used to support the proposed hook, but it is used several times to support other statements in the article. I am not sure if this source would qualify as a WP:RS in this specific situation, and the guidance provided by WP:SELFPUBLISH is somewhat unclear on the point. I would appreciate some extra input. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you Nsk92 for bringing the matter for a broader discussion. To introduce myself here, I am the author of the aforementioned article and the nominator for the DYK. I just want to add one submission for the consideration of other experienced users here. How does a video any different from, let's say, any editorial or article authored by the same journalist? Just because one thing is a video and another is in print can't be a very solid argument for calling a video WP:SELFPUBLISH. Would that not make all the news articles self published work? Adding on this, no reliable news source would release a video without the scrutiny like it is done for any published article. The video in question here has been used to provide reference to some facts. If the authenticity of that video would be questioned then the credibility of the news source and the author would also be under doubt because the author is merely stating facts; facts can be either right or wrong. An argument would be foolish if one would consider those facts reliable if in printed form and not reliable if being verbally conveyed by the author in a video form.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:PUBLISHED states very clearly that online media, video, etc. is an acceptable source as long as it is of an acceptable quality, but that goes for text sources (print and online) as well. As long as there is no copyright infringement, I don't see what the problem is. This news item was created by The Print, and they have published it on their own channel. The journalist is bona fide, he is not a self-publishing vlogger; there is a even a wikipedia article about him - Shekhar Gupta. I have quite often used online radio broadcasts and online videos as sources, including in DYK articles, and no one has questioned it. YouTube has been around since 2005 and many well respected news channels, universities, research institutions, etc. use it to disseminate information. There is nothing unusual or "new fangled" about it. Felixkrater (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Felixkrater.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Buckwitz

LouisAlain Gerda Arendt OhanaUnited SL93

The building photo is captioned with Städtische Bühnen Frankfurt in the hook but is captioned with Opern- und Schauspielhaus Frankfurt at the article, and the building itself isn't named in the article sentence that I think must be the support for that point in the hook. Is there an official name? Should we be using the same name everywhere? And is this: The theatres of the company, which had been destroyed during the war, were replaced by one house, inaugurated in December 1963, which was based largely on his suggestions. ...the sentence where it should go? Also, is "won George Solti" what we want here? It seems an odd construction. --valereee (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the official building name, Opern- und Schauspielhaus Frankfurt, is too long for a caption, and a very German construction. It means Operra- and Play-House Frankfurt. Städtische Bühnen Frankfurt is not the name of the house but the company, translating to Municipal stages Frankfurt, which seemed (to me) a shorter way of saying the same. Opera and plays are already mentioned in the hook. But if you think it has to be the exact name, feel free. I can add the official name to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
So if in the article we refer to it as Städtische Bühnen Frankfurt's Opern- und Schauspielhaus, would that be correct? I think that would remove any confusion. And do you have any objection to replacing 'won' with 'hired'? I'm assuming you're trying to avoid what would seem a rather interesting hook -- that Buckwitz was expelled from the Ministry of Arts by the Nazis but drafted by the Nazis into the Wehrmacht? I know you like to focus on the person's work. --valereee (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I think "Städtische Bühnen Frankfurt's Opern- und Schauspielhaus" would be an awfully long string of all-German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it will help to write all-German titles in hooks; as an English-speaking reader, I have no desire to search out the translation and would just pass over the hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Mutter Courage? Those who don't kow Brecht will not be helped by a translation. Or do you mean the name in the caption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I would think it would make more sense to use the photo with the DYK for the article Städtische Bühnen Frankfurt, which is currently in Prep 5 .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the image is good for his article, because he was the driving force behind it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Rebecca's right, the building illustrating the bio hook was confusing and works better for a non-bio. I'm afraid that turned a "bio" image hook into a non-bio image hook, but I guess that's part of the point I'm making. I hate these 12 hour hooks. I feel like there's no time. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
As you wish. You could swap the two hooks, both in prep. You could also move both to later, - one opera-related hook per day is enough, and we have Ursula Boese in the first set, for 12 hours of which Europe will sleep for eight ;) - How about her in the second set, with image? A woman! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Whatever: I believe that "B. hired Solti" is a bit to harmless for the unusual fact that he somehow made Frankfurt acceptable to the conductor, who came from the Bavarian State Opera in Munich and went on to London and Chicago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: you are correct about "hired" Solti not being correct. There are no details in the article about how Solti came, except that he was brought. In the US, when someone is in a management position, whether it's corporations or entertainment, it is generally expressed as the manager "brought in his own team of" or "recruited" their own team. John Lennon didn't "hire" Paul McCartney. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
"recruited" might work, actually, - could you change article and hook, please, if I forget (have no time right now)? - not urgent, as swapped from tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: it seems that @Valereee: has rewritten the hook, and neither Solti not Buckwitz are a part of it.1. And Solti was not in the original template. I await your response, because I have no wish to engage in a wheelwar with another admin. Gerda, please advise what you want us to do? — Maile (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, fear not - I hope, but have to jump and can't check: tomorrow will have the Städtische Bühnen hook, Buckwitz some sets later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 I didn't rewrite it -- RebeccaGreen pointed out there were two very similar hooks. The image for the hook that was originally in the Q6 set worked better with the other. I just traded the two hooks between sets. --valereee (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, Well, when Gerda comes back around, she can tell us exactly how she wants it worded. — Maile (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was clear enough that it wasn't a rewrite but a swap. Just insert "recruited" in the Buckwitz hook if not already done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent additions

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

What happened to the edit buttons for each day's entries? Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What edit buttons? — Maile (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You used to be able to open an edit window for each set, if only to copy the image and hook details into the WP:DYKSTATS listings. Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: :It was changed by @Ravenpuff:.1 I don't see any discussion before this happened, so I reverted the edits and have now given the template "Template editor" protection. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Gatoclass: Do we need any other templates given Template Protection? — Maile (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I don't know of any off the top of my head. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 - steak

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Cwmhiraeth: I can see why you would choose Italian Nettist Party for the quirky hook in the hookset. I just thought that its lead image was just so perfect for the hook (literally the leader holding the steak) that it could have been considered for the lead hook instead. I really don't know why I'm saying this because I don't want to second guess you here. I just felt the need to gush about how awesome that hook is somewhere before it went live and this was as good as of a time as any. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I hardly considered using the image because it showed the party leader holding something, but it was not apparent to me what was in his hands. If others disagree about giving the hook the image slot, I would be perfectly happy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's hard to tell what he is holding - it's clearer at full size, but even then I think it's necessary to know from the story what it is. It might be different in colour, but what we have is b&w. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries there. It probably was only obvious to me anyways because I had steak on the brain from reviewing the article ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Fatty

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
@MX:@SL93:
This hook seems pretty pedestrian. Looking at the nomination template, all the hooks are pretty run of the mill. MX, do you have another suggestion? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT4 ... that Mexican drug lord Alfonso Lam Liu used U.S.-born assassins carry out attacks against security forces and politicians? Source: Esto aunado a los reportes de colaboración de la agencia antinarcóticos de Estados Unidos, Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA), en el sentido que es uno de los principales instigadores de la "violencia" contra las fuerzas federales y políticos que se han declarado en favor del combate al narcotráfico en esa región del país. Según la DEA, el ahora identificado como El Gordo Lam Liu, está contratando gatilleros de origen estadounidense / This coupled with the collaboration reports of the US anti-narcotics agency, Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA), in the sense that it is one of the main instigators of "violence" against federal and political forces that have declared themselves in favor of fight against drug trafficking in that region of the country. According to the DEA, the now identified as El Gordo Lam Liu, is hiring U.S.-born gunmen.
  • ALT5 ... that Mexican drug lord Alfonso Lam Liu held ties business and family ties with a local politician from Tamaulipas? Source:El poder de Juan de Dios Cavazos no sólo estribaba en la envestidura como mandatario municipal, sino en el parentesco de su yerno de apellido Canales Melhem, ya que la hermana de éste se casó con Alfonso Lam Liu "El Gordo Lam". Alfonso Lam "El Gordo" inició un periodo de apoyo a su familia, realizó grandes inversiones en los negocios de su nueva familia, los Canales y los Melhem, teniendo participación en empresas como Transportes Trancasa. / The power of Juan de Dios Cavazos did not only lay in his political position, but in the kinship of his son-in-law of last name Canales Melhem, since his sister married Alfonso Lam Liu "El Gordo Lam". Alfonso Lam "El Gordo" began a period of support for his family, made large investments in the businesses of his new family, the Canales and the Melhem, having participation in companies such as Trancasa Transportation.
  • ALT6 ... that Mexican drug lord Alfonso Lam Liu spoke in a coded language to prevent law enforcement from understanding his drug operations? Source: Defendants and other members of the The Company [including Alfonso Lam Liu] often spoke in coded language during telephone conversations to disguise and conceal the nature of their cocaine and marijuana trafficking activities.

Prep 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

...that ice almost half a million years old has been found on a mountain named after a dog driver?

Is dog driver the right phrase here? We don't have an article on dog driver, and it brings up connotations that the dog drove automobiles. Should this have a link to Sled dog racing, or similar, such as:

...that ice almost half a million years old has been found on Mount Moulton, a mountain named after a Sled dog racing driver?

Am I being too picky here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Dog driver" is the word used in the source and refers to people who drive such sled dogs. It definitively isn't appropriate to link to "Sled dog racing" though as it isn't about racing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe link to sled dog? --valereee (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

...that ice almost half a million years old has been found on a mountain named after a sled dog driver? --valereee (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done Changed hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While the bot will probably register a complaint about four hours from now, I thought it might be helpful to ping a few admins in the hopes that one of them can promote a prep or two to the queues. With luck, Cas Liber, Maile, Amakuru, and/or valereee will be able to populate at least one queue in the next five hours and a bit, before the bot goes looking for a queue to put onto the main page. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done one queue just now. Will do others later on if nobody else does first! Thanks for the heads up.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Anti-terrorist

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
@Daß Wölf:@RebeccaGreen:@Cwmhiraeth:
The last part of this hook is OR; the fact is not mentioned or sourced in the article. All it includes is the nickname, without explanation. Yoninah (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I realise that it's not in the article yet. However, the current Source 11 says:
"Cro Cop was a scary dude long before he ever set foot in an MMA ring. Prior to his MMA career, he was a fairly high-ranking K1 kickboxer, and before that he was, well, a cop in his homeland of Croatia (have you figured out the origin of his nickname yet). After years of service in the 1990s — during which time he also trained boxing and won multiple amateur championships — Cro Cop worked his way into the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit, Croatia's elite special forces police unit. He was not, in other words, some shitty mall cop or something. He was the real deal, and I have no doubt that it helped him develop an aura of utter fearlessness when he entered the ring."
Source 12 does not make the origin of the nickname explicit, but says:
"Special Police Officer - ATJ Lucko Mirko Filipovic, known in the martial arts world as CRO COP was awarded the individual prize:
- for exceptional international sporting achievements through which he promoted both Croatia and the Ministry of the Interior, emphasizing his affiliation with the MUP special police, both at matches and at press conferences, wearing the Croatian police uniform."
So I suggest that we edit the article to say:
Professional mixed martial artist, Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipović, was a member of the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit for six years.[11,12] He wore his Croation special police uniform at press conferences,[12] leading to the MMA nickname "Cro Cop".[11]
Or something like that. (I'm not sure where the six years comes from - maybe we should leave that out.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I have edited the article as I suggested here, and added another reference which says "Filipović, as a member of the anti-terrorist unit Lučko, the source of his nickname Crocop." (It's from the Croatian publication Nacional (weekly), and is in English, which perhaps explains the non-sentence.) Please let me know if you still have concerns or suggest further edits. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably - the unit is called Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit, of which there is only one, but since we don't repeat the name Lučko in both parts of the hook, this would be better phrased as "an anti-terrorist police unit". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed 'the' to 'an' in Prep 6. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this, RebeccaGreen. I tweaked the hook, fixed the link, and spelled out another link. It looks good now. Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for clearing this up, especially RebeccaGreen, much appreciated! Sorry I didn't notice this soon enough. Daß Wölf 14:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Wang Guodong

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

@Zanhe, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, and Yoninah: I feel like the world's most recognizable portraits seems to be mild WP:PUFFERY and unencyclopedic language: we could just as well mention briefly the giant Mao portraits for which he's well-known and that inspired Warhol, without using deliberately subjective wording. As this hook isn't in the quirky spot, there's no real need to make it ambiguous as such. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. Please do not make major changes to hooks in preps without discussion in the future. "The world's most recognizable portraits" is subjective, but it's qualified by "some of", and it's how they're described by the The New York Times, not some uninformed media outlet. And there's no reason hooks have to clarify everything: they need to intriguing, which is why they're called "hooks", not mere "facts". -Zanhe (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The NYT is free to use whatever words they choose to describe his works in their article, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a subjective statement that doesn't really fit Wikipedia's own policies on words to watch. Sure, they may be recognizable, but whether they're the some of the most recognizable is a contentious claim. In any case, if we're making such a claim in a DYK hook, we should at least clarify what the said portraits actually are for readers, since it seems to be just the series of Mao portraits we're talking about. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Saying "some of the most recognizable portraits of Chairman Mao" would certainly bring to mind the Warhol works that were inspired by this artist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to use a subjective description, we should clarify who made the description and not make it in Wikipedia's own voice. --Khajidha (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mary Welch/Nora Houston

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I swapped these two hooks, per a credible concern, but please someone check my work --valereee (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it to the prep. Now maybe this can be discussed better before promotion. Wikilinking the drawn out discussion - User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Alts -
ALT1 is probably the more interesting option as it has a broader appeal. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I had also wondered about the hook, but didn't see any DYK rule it contravened, as it is in the article. It could be misleading if readers didn't click through to the article, though. For ALT1 and ALT2, I think that a citation to a source will need to be placed directly after that sentence in the article. Personally, I think having Eugene O'Neill in the hook would draw more attention, so I would suggest something like:
ALT3: ... that playwright Eugene O'Neill stipulated that actress Mary Welch had to gain at least 50 pounds (23 kg) to reach 180 pounds (82 kg) for a role in the play A Moon for the Misbegotten? (183 characters)
RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. SL93 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It's OK with me too. I contributed to the discussion at TRM, and was a little concerned that the implied correlation between the weight gain and her later death might be a fringe theory. This doesn't mention that though, so is fine. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and directly cited the hook. One reference states how much weight Mary Welch needed to gain while the other one states the weight that she had to reach. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

QPQ completion?

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I have a question of what counts as QPQ completion. (This issue came up in a DYK nomination I am currently reviewing.) Can QPQ be considered fulfilled if the other DYK that the nominator reviewed says that all the requirements for approving the nomination have been satisfied except that the QPQ for that nomination is still pending? (And that other nomination is not yet marked with a tick as approved.) Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mike Wallace Is Here is the nomination on which @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: is claiming QPQ for Josh Yorwerth. A "reviewer" signing off with "passed GA yesterday. Everything is fine. QPQ is needed" is not a review by any stretch of the imagination. It tells us nothing about what (if anything) was checked and leaves the nomination open to further delay by other editors citing errors in the article. Passing GA is a qualification for date of inclusion into DYK. But it by no means is an indication that DYK standards were checked in the GA, which has different standards. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Putting aside the quality of this particular review for the moment, I would still like to know how to interpret the QPQ rules in these types of situations (and assuming that the review in question is sufficiently detailed). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Nsk92, for a QPQ to be considered complete, the review must cover all of the components of the DYK criteria (summarized in the area above the editing window of the nomination template): newness, length/expansion/GA, neutral article and hook, sufficient inline citations, no copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism, hook length/interest/sourcing, that a QPQ was provided if necessary, and that any image is in the article, properly licensed, and shows well at tiny size. Once that review has been done (with resulting icon), the QPQ is considered sufficient, even if the review has not yet concluded because further work needs to be done by the nominator. Reviewers do typically continue until the review has concluded, but if they have suggested a new hook, they of course cannot review it, so another reviewer will be found to take over at that point. (Note that a GA must be reviewed with the same rigor as new and expanded articles: we've had cases where, for example, copyvio or close paraphrasing, missed by the GA reviewer, was found during the DYK review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, very good, thanks. (It would be good if Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines said something more explicit on this point.) Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the key thing regarding QPQs (in this case, having finally looked at the reviews in question) is that the review states whether the QPQ has been provided if one is needed, and if it's an adequate review. (The first one provided was not adequate, but the subsequently completed checklist was, as we AGF that a "y" means that the reviewer has checked this out themselves. Checklists are not required—I prefer to write it out myself—but they are sufficient, provided any necessary commentary is included.) There isn't much about the QPQ in the supplementary guidelines, but I think that's because the explanation in the main rules at WP:DYK under number 5 of the Eligibility criteria covers things pretty well: The review must address all five criteria listed here—and, of course, the QPQ is that very fifth criterion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but the explanation of Rule 5 in WP:DYKRULES is still not sufficiently specific regarding the meaning of "review" in "you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)", namely in regard to whether the QPQ review needs to be formally completed in order for it to count. Personally, I would prefer a hard and fast rule which says that in order for QPQ to count, the QPQ review must be taken to completion (that is, either formally approved with a tick, or declined). Otherwise, the reviewer might disappear and drop out at some point in the process, after addressing all 5 criteria in the initial review but before formally approving the nomination, and leaving the nominator hanging. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In a perfect set up, everything would be on one page, and we wouldn't have to jump around to find everything. However, under Rules Eligibility_criteria #5 very specifically says:
  • For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here. (bolding is mine)
The "here" it is referring to are actually the 4 review requirements above it, plus the QPQ requirement is #5. "must address all five criteria listed here" is pretty specific, and it's under the basic rules page. I'm not sure why it needs to specifically say "taken to completion" for it to count. If they didn't address all the criteria, they didn't meet the written requirement of a QPQ. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I've read that bit before I made the original post here. The issue with the current wording is that it would seem to allow a reviewer to get QPQ credit for making an initial review, "addressing" all five criteria and identifying some issues that need fixing, and then dropping out without coming back to complete the review. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: thank you. Now I understand your point. @BlueMoonset: I think what is being brought up here, is the question of whether or not a review has to be completed as approved before it can be a QPQ. Versus, for instance, some of our most engaged reviewers (such as yourself) who spend a great deal of time on the older nominations trying to get them cleared for promotion. Such reviewers don't necessarily start or finish a review, but their efforts can be intrinsic to getting the nomination closed. Do we say all their efforts don't count towards QPQ? — Maile (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that anyone who does a needed full review, even if there was reviewing activity prior to that, can take credit for a QPQ. I'd be dubious about someone who gives final approval by checking a single ALT hook. The in-between cases are a judgment call, though if there is a major "per XYZ's review" component in the new review, I'd be dubious about granting credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
What about, for example, a new reviewer approving a newly-proposed hook, then saying that the rest of their review was "per XYZ"? Would that still count as QPQ? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Late update

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Any reason why the 12:00 UTC update didn't go ahead today? Has it been switched back to one per day already?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the bot failed to fire. I'm trying to do a manual update, though I'm very rusty on the procedure as I haven't had to do one for a long time. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done, hopefully, though it would be nice if somebody checked to ensure I didn't miss anything - BlueMoonset? Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, thanks for taking this on. Since Shubinator typically is around in the early hours of the morning UTC, this may not get fixed until after the next set would need promotion, so if you're around at 00:00, it would be great if you could see whether the bot is back up or not. As far as the manual update goes, it looks great except that the removed set wasn't archived at Wikipedia:Recent additions, so that needs to be done. Also, in its most recent run, DYKUpdateBot added a template to the image used in the previous set (though locally on English Wikipedia rather than on Commons), so I'm assuming you should also add {{DYKfile|7 September|2019|type=image}} to File:Newtonia hildebrandtii00.jpg here (I think you'll need to "create" the page). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you to everybody who contributed to the last update. Just a note that the update failed again two hours ago. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all the usual admins seem to be offline at the moment: Gatoclass, Maile, Cas Liber, Amakuru, and even Materialscientist, who is usually my go to when Gatoclass is unavailable. If any other admin is around and would like to give it a try, the instructions are on the Queue page you'll be working on (in this case, Queue 3), in the Posting the new update section at the bottom. You can follow along with the DYKUpdateBot in its most recent update by viewing its Contributions. If we're lucky, Shubinator will take a look at Wikipedia shortly—we've notified him on his talk page—in which case the bots will be restarted and a manual update won't be necessary. But we can't count on it happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold until 60th Anniversary

Latest comment: 5 years ago49 comments10 people in discussion

I have been recommended to make a request here by BlueMoonset (talk · contribs). Requesting that the approved DYK Template:Did you know nominations/1959 San Diego F3H crash be held until the event's 60th anniversary on 4 December 2019. I understand that this special occasion is several months away, but as this is likely to only be on the main page once, given the lack of additional reliable sources on the event, it would be greatly appreciated.
I am presently in contact with Naval History and Heritage Command about getting more of their resources in order to improve the article, but cannot guarantee that what they will provide me in the future will be sufficient enough to get the article promoted to FA, and thus on the main page again.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As the reviewer of the nomination, I have no objection to the hold, but I don't think it's my call. I don't usually build the preps. The regular prep builders need to weigh in on this. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It's also about whether we should (and if so, under what circumstances) we give an extension over the standard six-week maximum that we have on special occasion requests. This is over fourteen weeks. It isn't just the regular prep builders, but the DYK community as a whole who should be involved. I'm generally less inclined to allow exceptions, especially this much of one, but have noticed that consensus lately seems to be more lenient than I would be, which is why I suggested that the matter be brought here for discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As BlueMoonset mentioned above, the usual special occasion request limit is six weeks (there's the occasional hook that is granted a requested date beyond six weeks, but that's fairly uncommon). Requests that far out usually require a discussion here (such as the space-related drive we had last month for the Apollo 11 50th anniversary, and that one had an RfC). On one hand, I don't see much harm granting this request, despite the lead time that is requested. On the other hand, I'm not sure that "it will only be featured on the main page once" is a strong enough reason to waive the usual requirement, since it seems to be a given that most DYK articles will only get their time to shine once, and given the fact that it would be shown on the main page anyway, I don't see what's wrong with it just running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why 6 weeks? I wasn't aware there was a maximum. At Template talk:Did you know/Approved § Special occasion holding area, it only implies that there is a minimum to ensure sufficient review time: Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. Now, I assume practically there should be some maximum, otherwise the content is no longer technically "new". However, when there are near 3-month old approved nominations still waiting to be posted at WP:DYKNA, it seems artificial to have a 6-week special holding maximum. Let's not force editors to game the system and delay content creation just to receive an apropos post date. Disclosure: I unknowingly nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Joshua Kelley with a pending November post request.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Six weeks has been the maximum ever since I've been involved in DYK, which goes back about eight years now; perhaps Gatoclass or one of the others who have been around far longer than I have can explain the original rationale for that particular period. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how the 6 weeks timeline was set. But off the top of my head, I can think of what is possible without some timeline parameter. We open the door to the majority being special occasion hooks, with not enough non-date hooks to fill the preps. We've already gone through one editor requesting numerous birthday holds on a streak of nominations. If enough editors, or even one editor, has eight hooks, or sixteen hooks, of approved nominations for any given subject matter, and that's all you have to pick from, we perhaps end up with something like entire hook sets on one lone subject matter. And where do you draw the line? Six months, a year? I can see it easily happening that during any given period, our approved hold page can evolve into a large hunk of it being nothing more than special occasion requests. — Maile (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Maile. Six weeks is a rule of thumb. It avoids people creating articles and then asking us to hold them for months until the anniversary date. It's bad enough that hooks are languishing up to two months on the approved page before being promoted, kind of defeating the purpose of DYK's "new" content. The 6-week rule has certainly been overturned for significant dates, like the outbreak of World War II or the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing. But an airline crash? I think nominators should think ahead and nominate their articles within 6 weeks of the requested date. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Added note to my comment above. We have some really good nominators who are really prolific. Without parameters, it could easily happen that one prolific editor could create several sets of special occasion hooks for one given subject matter, that would run one day after another. The scenario is not impossible that we would have subsequent days of entire sets of one nominator's favorite subject matter. We need limits to be fair to all nominators, especially the first-timers, and to give balance to the main page. — Maile (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Things were discussed and implemented back in 2011. [5] Thincat (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I copied the link over to the header of the Special Occasion holding area, for future reference. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Grandfathering As I stated above, I think some maximum makes sense. There was a comment above that nominators should think ahead and nominate their articles within 6 weeks of the requested date. However, it doesn't appear to be clearly documented (except perhaps in talk page archives), and seems perhaps only regular DYK maintainers know of this de facto rule. I kindly suggest a sort of grandfathering of special dates for Template:Did you know nominations/1959 San Diego F3H crash and Template:Did you know nominations/Joshua Kelley, while clearly documenting this maximum in parallel. Thanks in advance for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The rule is actually clearly stated on the Special occasions section of the Approved hooks page: Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. I agree though that it might be a good idea to promote the rule better, as it's in a place that's kind of easy to miss. Perhaps the rule could also be added either to WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
As someone who did not know the rule in practice, I read the to give reviewers time to check the nomination to mean that 6 weeks was to not rush a review and post, not a maximum. It seems the 5 days is for the reviewers, while 6 weeks is actually for "newness". But this is hindsight for me.—Bagumba (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this rule is clearly stated at all. Because it often takes more than 6 weeks for an approval (or for a review to even begin, given that when an article is chosen for review is not done systematically), I misread it to mean nominations for Special Occasions should allow at least 6 weeks, not a maximum. If you have this "5-day to 6 week" rule, how do you make sure the nominations are processed within that time? In early June I ask for an article about a gay musician to be put up on Stonewall day, 28 June, so within the 5 days to 6 week window, but it was only reviewed near the end of June and the request was just ignored. I assumed that was my fault for not making the request earlier i.e. not allowing at least 6 weeks for it to be dealt with.Felixkrater (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Add clarification to rules

@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: @Amakuru: @Gatoclass: @Cwmhiraeth: @Narutolovehinata5: @Vanamonde93: @David Levy: @Mandarax:, and any other interested prep builders and admins:

I suggest adding a sentence of an approved special holding date timeline to the following guidelines:

Date requests section of WP:DYK
Special occasion holding are of the Approved hooks page
Review the article(s) section of WP:DYKR.

Whether we stick to the 6-week time frame, or agree on a different one, we should clarify it for the nominators and reviewers. Comments welcome here as to what that guideline should say. Please suggest wording below. — Maile (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps just a rephrasing of the wording that's already mentioned in the SO section? The one that goes "special occasion hooks should generally be requested between five days to six weeks before the requested date; April Fools Day hooks are exempted from the six week limit". Also, perhaps it could be noted that the five days/six weeks thing is a rule of thumb, but can be waived on occasion if there is consensus to do so, or if the special occasion requested was only decided on long after the nomination began (for example, Template:Did you know nominations/Inori Minase, where a special occasion date was proposed even though the date was just outside the six week limit, since the proposal was only made sometime after the nomination). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me suggest a change in the rules. I can understand the concerns of an editor stacking a specific date if there are too many for the same date, but the six week maximum creates a situation where an editor may game the current system and hold of on content improvement until they can nominate within that time period. Rather; why not limit the number of special holds an editor can have at a time, say no more than one per day, and no more than six per year. This way it eliminates that concern about a single editor dominating a day, and also limits how often a special hold can be requested in a given year by a given nominator.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision 1

  • "Holds for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation or expansion, and no longer than six weeks before the occasion. The seven days/six weeks rule can be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK. Waiving the rule is an option, but consensus is not guaranteed. April Fools Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know." (reworded below)
I propose the above wording - based on the suggestion right above it by @Narutolovehinata5: - be incorporated into the 3 guidelines I listed at the top. Feedback is welcome. The shorter the wording, the more likely a nominator will read. Lacking any feedback here, I will add it on my own in a few days. — Maile (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Your suggested rewording seems good to me. That way, we can make exceptions to the six-week requirement when there is a convincing reason for doing so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
We've lost the five-day minimum prior to the special occasion date, which always struck me as quite generous (a week would be better) but absolutely necessary—it takes time to review a nomination and get it into the prep/queue cycle, and people shouldn't expect a last-minute nomination to make it onto the main page within a day or two. It's different from the "within seven days", which is the standard DYK nomination newness rule, and the two shouldn't be conflated. If the seven days are being retained, GAs should be added to the creation or expansion section, since GAs nommed for DYK sometimes come with special occasion requests. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision 2

  • "Holds for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation or expansion, or to promotion of Good Article status. The nomination should be made between a minimum of one week to to a maximum of six weeks before the occasion, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets. The timeline limitations can be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK. Waiving the timeline is an option, but consensus is not guaranteed. April Fools Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know."
@BlueMoonset: is this the wording you had in mind? — Maile (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision 3

  • Maile, I think it's problematic to put the one week and six week together in the same clause, because the former is to allow enough time for a review, while the latter is an upper limit as to how far in the future a special occasion should be. Here's a first crack at a somewhat different wording, adding in the fact that not all occasions are considered special enough to be granted (we rejected an anime character's birthday, I seem to recall):
  • Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made between at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Was the hook in question the Yuki Nakashima hook? Because that special occasion was granted, only that it was initially promoted to a "wrong" queue due to time zone differences. In any case, from what I've seen, reviewers tend to be generous when it comes to granting special occasion requests and these are rarely rejected, so perhaps a more lenient wording than "The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers" could be written here instead, to reflect previous practice. The proposed wording sounds a bit too strong in my opinion (particularly the word "must") and I think it could be softer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Narutolovehinata5: I've sectioned all these different versions and comments, for clarity. At length, it was getting too hard to scan through. I'm OK with BlueMoonset's wording, with the exception of, "The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers." which I consider problematic. That puts a burden of proof on the nominator. And generally speaking, if an editor is a regular contributor here, they stand a better chance of support from reviewers. A first-time nominator would not enjoy that advantage. As noted below, some reviewers/nominators consider birthday special dates as something that should not be allowed. I'm on the fence about that issue, but we've gone through periods recently where there were enough birthday special date requests from one nominator to knock a lot of other nominations to a later date. And yet, DYK generally has no problem with birthday special dates. There's too much room for a special date like that to be approved if one has enough friends working the nominations. And the proposed wording would put a first-time editor on the fringes, especially if they nominated a subject matter that no one here knows anything about. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I'm happy for you to try some other wording; the idea here is that requests are not automatically honored, no matter how tenuous, but should be "special" in some way in order to be held for a particular date. (I had "reviewers" in plural because it didn't have to be the person giving the tick who moves it to the special occasion section; it can be a passing reviewer seeing the nom on the Approved page.) We've had requests that were not granted: I think one was the nominator's birthday, and another was a hook about a a fictional character that was requested for that character's "birthday". It also bothered me that people were effectively bypassing any kind of scrutiny by moving their own nominations to the special occasion section—just like we don't allow people to promote their own hooks, someone else should decide on whether the hook warrants being held for a special date (which sometimes means a much quicker promotion rather than being held for extra time). I'm not so worried about new nominators getting bypassed; among other things, I would hope that promoters would see the requests and consider them impartially, hopefully moving them to the special occasions section if appropriate. Let's face it, the vast majority of special occasion requests are honored, even if the hook doesn't involve the birthday or anniversary and most people don't even get that it is the birthday. (I wasn't thinking of any particular recent special request, and certainly not Yuki Nakashima.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Maybe we could leave it with how you have worded it above. I can't think of anything better.— Maile (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: in an effort to expedite the wording, I've added your version to WP:DYKR, the header of the Approved special holding area, and the "Dates requests" section of WP:DYK. You might want to look at the latter and adjust as needed. All of this is, of course, subject to change if a consensus occurs where the overall wording needs to be adjusted. But I thought it prudent to at least get the basic wording on all areas where it needed clarification. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've made very minor order and formatting edits to the text and adjusted the three pages accordingly, and also added it to the bottom of the main nominations page, where there's still a remnant section directing people to the Approved page and touching on how special occasions work. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Section break for visual clarity

I hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in again, but there a few points I'd like to make:

  • As well as changing the wording where you already have it, it should go in the Did you know rules page, Date Requests section. At the moment there is no mention of any 6 week limit there. Also, the new wording above still sounds like a ballpark guideline, it doesn't make it clear that 6 weeks is intended as an upper limit. If you mean that articles won't usually be considered for a SO date that is more than 6 weeks in advance, that should be directly stated.
Up at the beginning of when I suggested this, the Date Requests section you mention are to be part of this. The idea is to craft a policy paragraph that can be posted at all 3 places I suggested above, so that no one can miss it. I just made a change "a minimum of one week to to a maximum of six weeks before the occasion" and that outside that limit needs consensus at WT:DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest you make it a "rule of thumb" that birthdays, unless for a special reason, are not considered Special Occasions. That would allay your concerns about them being misused and becoming a problem. Recently a BLP article I reviewed was listed on the woman's birthday, but she was turning 103 and it that was part of the hook, so there was a particular reason for it being an SO. Usually though, birthdays are not of any special interest or importance.
  • The DYK Supplementary Rule D13 (not specifically to do with date requests) is very clumsily worded. If it is supposed to mean that with common sense and discretion all rules are flexible, then it should just say that.
See above. Whatever we come up with, will be the exact same wording at all three places mentioned in my original post above. — Maile (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a vested interest in commenting on this, as I asked for my nom. about a museum in a Stasi prison to be listed on 3 October, German reunification day. I deliberately got it ready and nominated with more than 6 weeks lead time, as I thought that was needed make sure it got reviewed in time. It has been approved, so hopefully it can still go up on that date, even though it will be older than 6 weeks by then.Felixkrater (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see what's wrong with considering birthdays as special occasions. For the most part, birthday requests tend to be relatively uncommon and not all nominators even consider making them, so the possibility of abuse in that regard is low. In addition, such requests have been granted regularly for years now and as far as I can tell there hasn't been any complaints about doing so in the past; if anything, what has been raised as problematic is if several hooks on the same topic get run in quick succession, not if they were all birthday hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Narutolovehinata5:
What may be considered a special occasion for one person, may not be considered special for another person. It maybe considered significant, or notable, to the nominated subject, for instance for when a bridge began to be used, or when an organization was founded or ceased to exist, or when a group or individual did an especially notable thing.
I think the six week maximum can lead to gaming the rules, and may contribute to new, expanded, improved to higher quality status, contribution to the overall project to be withheld/delayed. This does not benefit the project as a whole.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: The current wording at the top of the Special holding area reads, "Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion". So, it's always been a six week maximum. The problem with that has not been gaming the system, but that it has not been clear for all nominators that the six weeks was the outside limit. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Another point is that the six-week maximum has been in place for many years; if there has been significant gaming of the rules over the years, hopefully people will mention it here. And is it gaming the rules if you prioritize other work so that an article isn't written up until it's ready for an anniversary: the five or seven or ten planned articles all get written, but the order in which they're done may maximize special dates and anniversary hooks. People seem to slide new articles under the wire to hit special dates a week or two away; is it a bad thing that they put off other work to get the anniversary articles written up first when they discover a birthday is imminent? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because it has "been in place for many years" doesn't mean that it should always be that way. If newly created content is being held off and published only because someone is waiting to publish it and nominate for DYK within that six week maximum window, it is delaying that sharing of knowledge to the world (the viewers/readers of Wikipedia). While yes, Wikipedia is always a work in progress, it also is not paper, and has no time limit. Thus, IMHO the six week maximum is an unnecessary limitation for "special holds". If the concern is that if everyone is able to request a special hold, that eventually there will be no-non special hold approved DYKs for the main page, then surely we can come to a consensus as to what to do if that situation were to arise. Also, while there were under a dozen editors who were in the discussion of placing a time limit, the six week rule was implemented boldly by only one editor, cmadler (talk · contribs), with the support of only 4 other editors. Are we saying the decision of 5 editors should not be questioned 8 years hence?
May I suggest that the six week rule be eliminated and a more fluid, but measured rule to take its place.
"Holds for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation or expansion, or to promotion of Good Article status. The nomination should be made between a minimum of one week, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets. A user may have no more than one approved Did You Know nomination held for a special occasion at any given time. April Fools Day hooks are exempted, see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. If the only approved Did You Know nominations are held for a special occasion, the oldest approved Did You Know nomination will be removed from the special occasion hold area, and placed into prep & queue sets for non special occasion posting onto the main page."
Thoughts?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that proposed rule pretty much kills anyone working on a number of hooks for the Olympics, or events like the 50th anniversary of Star Trek or the 100th birthday of Frank Sinatra, or the annual Black History month and Women's History month if there's a limit or one or two or whatever. Or wouldn't you consider these sufficiently special occasions? (The proposed final sentence is completely unnecessary.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It would allow for multiple content creators to create hooks for a specific special occasion, and yes would have the affect of ensuring that one single content creator does not dominate the DYK section of the main page on any single day. Therefore, if a group of content creators created separate hooks around a single special occasion (the opening day of the Olympics for an example), a themed DYK section would be possible, but would reflect the efforts of a multitude of editors.
I added the last sentence, in the off chance that the only approved DYKNs are those in the special occasion hold area while there are no non-special occasion hold approved DYKs.
In essence my proposal would do the following:
  • eliminate the six week maximum rule
  • Limit an editor to a single special occasion hold hook at a time
  • Allow for special occasion hold hooks to be published outside of the special occasion requested if the need for hooks arises
My thinking behind this is that it allows for greater flexibility for requested special occasion holds, while ensuring that the special occasion hold request not be abused.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Maile66: Would an exemption, or elimination, of my proposed one special occasion hold per editor at one time, lead to more acceptance to my proposed rule change? Or perhaps, if special occasion exemptions for specific dates and limitations to my proposed one-at-a-time rule addition/six-week limitation elimination can be created by an administrator, such as the opening of an Olympic games, the anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and other such events deemed significant from time to time.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Not for me, since I don't favor the proposal in general, though I'm only one person at DYK. I think it's telling that no one else has posted here, engaging with your idea and trying to work with it. Either another approach would seem to be needed or people don't want a significant change. How long in advance would you advocate allowing a nomination to be a special occasion, if not six weeks? Two months? Three? Six? A year? More? I don't foresee support of keeping hooks hanging around for so very long. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Most people aren't going to read through this wall of text to know what you are proposing limiting one special date request per nominator for a given time frame, and the proposal would take an RFC for community consensus. I'm pinging Yoninah. Gerda Arendt. These are the ones who immediately come to mind as the most invested in what you are proposing. My question: Who is going to police this? Who is going to match up the nominator with the time frame of previous date holds, especially if they have to deal with it weeks or months later? — Maile (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You are so right about no inclination to read all of this. I think 6 weeks is a fine normal limit as long as we allow IRA for special events, as we did for the Moon Landing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Having read a bit more: I like to nominate biographies for people's birthdays, and sometimes it's several at a time. How is that "abuse". It's about these topics, not who wrote the articles, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile I saw this discussion but it's so long, I'm saving it to read when I have more time :) Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I have no objection to a long hold time, as long as a given editor is not allowed to have more than one special occasion hold at a time. That said I can see Maile66's concern about who would be tracking to ensure editors are held to the proposed limit. @Maile66: why would a RfC be required for this rule change, as no RfC was required when the six week supplement rule (which I did not find at WP:DYK or at WP:DYKSG) was implemented? @Gerda Arendt: I don't recall when I heard this, but there was stated to me a concern that one editor may dominate the Did You Know section of the main page, if they requested a special occasion hold of a large number of approved hooks for a single day; in that instance the concern is while it maybe of multiple topics (perhaps all related to a general theme) it would serve to highlight the work of the one editor who wrote the articles, rather than the combined and collaborative work of our entire community. If that isn't a major concern, than I can see why one would not want the single special occasion hold limit. As for the IAR special occasion hold exemptions, who gets to decide that? How many editors is considered a consensus made to allow for a IAR exemption to designate a special occasion hold exemption, or are only certain editors able to designate those specific dates as such, or is it limited to any admins or bureaucrat, or only certain admins or bureaucrats, or can any editor claim IAR and then the exemption to the six week limit is ignored?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you know no RFC occurred for the 6-week rule? When did it go into effect? There's a lot of archived RFC (and the ilk) discussions hither and yon about changes to DYK. I don't know when 6-week into effect, because it's been around as long as I can remember. But if you are going to take away a privilege from the community, then you'd better have an RFC. Neither you, nor I, not BlueMoonset, nor any other one or two people, can just arbitrarily take something away from everybody just because we feel like it. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
About the one request by one editor rule you suggest: as I have no time to read this all, do you mean any time, or just for the super-special events, of which I recall two, the centenary of Frank Sinatra, and the landing. - I think we focus on editor too much. If one editor has to offer two or three articles to inatra, why not have them all in such a case? - Otherwise, we have already a restriction to try to have only one article by one author in a given set. - I have no interest in making the rules more complicated than they already are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: The above latest paragraph by @RightCowLeftCoast: I have no objection to a long hold time, as long as a given editor is not allowed to have more than one special occasion hold at a time. I think it means what it says. If you have a nomination in the Approved Special occasion holding area, whether it's holding for 1 day or 6 weeks, you would not be allowed another special occasion until the one in hold appeared on the main page. — Maile (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most recent list was archived about fifty minutes ago, so here is a new list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers all of the non-current nominations, those through September 1. Right now we have a total of 203 nominations, of which 82 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from late July.

Over three months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

need some help

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

need some help with my dyk nomination. thanks!!--Sm8900 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Linking DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/Sulfur-breathing organisms. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thanks very much!! I appreciate your help. I really needed some technical help there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope you'll be able to expand the article sufficiently so it's eligible, because I think it's very interesting and surprising. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Fit in or fuck off

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I think I just ran into the worst article ever. Neutrality improved it, but there was still a pile of shit--poor writing, unwarranted generalization of sources, original research--left. I don't know which version was on the front page as a DYK--possibly this one, so maybe this piece of fiction excised by MPS1992 wasn't on there. I hope it was before all this junk was cut out by Staszek Lem. This tag by Cmprince was fully warranted. Either way, the article had 20,000 views on the day it was up at DYK--how embarrassing...

I see now there were serious problems with the DYK nomination as well--Template:Did you know nominations/Fit in or fuck off. It seems like some editors were so busy looking at the f-word that they forgot that Staszek Lem had concerns about synthesis, and Jo-Jo Eumerus therefore pulled it. The C of E, Cwmhiraeth, I know it's water under the bridge, but this should have never been passed. See these edits.

Drmies (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this out of your system, now? This happened two years ago. I agree with what you say, but 2 years is a long time at DYK, or even at Wikipedia. We can't fire the volunteers at Wikipedia, but even if we could, not even Corporate America fires employees for something they did years previously. Does it help to say we share your angst? — Maile (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It was two years ago, I don't hold grudges or bring up how my proposed hook for The Winker's Song (Misprint) was ruined in 2017. Let it go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you don't hold grudges, I suppose, but thanks for patronizing me after I point out an error. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A two-year-old error? How is this pertinent? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there 'training' material around here that references grossly unfortunate past events like this? That is, how _do_ those new volunteers understand what not to do? Pointing to "cross the streams" results might be quite useful. Shenme (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You mean something like a Rogues' gallery of screw ups? — Maile (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The hook got pulled off the main page after complaints at WP:ERRORS, according to discussion on the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot may be down; a manual update of the main page may be needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

One of the two DYK bots, DYKHousekeepingBot, last did an update at 10:48 UTC; as best I can determine, its next update should have been around 13:48 UTC, with several more subsequent to that. So it could have gone down any time in those three hours. Although DYKUpdateBot ran at 12:00 UTC and did the regular main page update, it might have gone down in the next hour and three quarters; the two bots typically go down together, though not always.

It would be great if an admin could monitor the 00:00 UTC update (a little over three hours from now), and if DYKUpdateBot doesn't start up, do a manual update of the main page from the next queue (Queue 5). Shubinator, the bot owner, typically doesn't check Wikipedia until between 03:00 and 05:00 (and not always every day). Pinging Gatoclass, who did the last manual update, and admins Amakuru, Maile, Vanamonde, and Cas Liber, in the hopes that one of them will be around at the update time and able to jump in should the bot actually be down.

Instructions on how to promote a queue to the main page are at the bottom of the queue page you'll be promoting; it's also helpful to check DYKUpdateBot's contributions to see the order in which it does things during an update, so all the tasks are done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't really stay up that late myself - we're still on summer time, which means it's a 1am switchover. It's a bit easier for me in the winter months! Hopefully one of the others will be around to check...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll be awake, and should be able to handle it; I may have to do just the update, and handle the credits later, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. It looks like we lucked out—DYKUpdateBot ran at 00:00 after all. I guess it's just DYKHousekeepingBot that's down. Hopefully, Shubinator will see the note I left them about it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Q5

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/KMCS (Kansas)

  • ... that backlash over Dodge City, Kansas, radio station KTTL's racist programming and its refusal to pay property taxes left the station with just one advertiser by 1983?

Raymie Drmies Yoninah

I'm not sure I'm finding the connection between refusal to pay property taxes and only having one advertiser left, and can't find a statement in the article that seems to say that. It just says By the time of the Smith sale attempt, a local bank was the lone advertiser on the station.

The pertinent source looks like this one: here. It twice mentions the owners being tax protesters, but doesn't seem to connect that to the lack of advertisers. Here's what it says: All but one of the station's advertisers - a local bank -have left the station. Which doesn't explicitly connect it to the racist remarks, either, and while obviously that's what caused the advertisers to desert them, our article doesn't seem to have a sourced sentence that explicitly says that. I'm wondering if anyone would object to me tweaking the hook to something like this:

  • ... that after a backlash over Dodge City, Kansas, radio station KTTL's racist programming and its refusal to pay property taxes, the station was left with just one advertiser by 1983?

To me that doesn't explicitly state that the backlash and the tax issues caused the lack of advertisers, but that the lack of advertisers followed the two? --valereee (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: See this source: "...Their action in Gray County [not paying property taxes] has led to garnishments against the station's advertisers to the point the station operates solely from revenue gained from programs aired by those who wish to pay for the time." I've also found a source that even has quotes from advertisers that left over the racism and put the citations together in one sentence. Raymie (t • c) 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Raymie, that'll do it! Thanks so much! --valereee (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
valereee, thank you for your diligence. So you read the sources--that was pretty amazing, wasn't it. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Amazing is one word for it, lol. I'd probably have gone with "appalling." :) I wish I could say it was hard to believe in 1983. --valereee (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Lizard

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  • ... that there is a myth that the pieces of the broken tail of the slender glass lizard can grow into new lizards?
@SL93:@MJL:@Narutolovehinata5:@Cwmhiraeth:
This doesn't seem like such an encyclopedic entry. It seems more hooky (and factual) that the tail is easily broken and most lizards are slithering around with broken-off tails. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This is actually petty to bring up. I don’t see why a myth can’t be used and it is factual that there is such a myth. This already went through a few editors over a month’s time. I even had to go through the trouble of finding an online source for the hook towards the end of the nomination. The hook can probably be changed to yours based on consensus, but I can’t get over how petty it sounds at this point when it doesn’t violate anything related to DYK. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally thought that it was interesting, even if it was just a myth. Sometimes misconceptions can result in hookier hooks than straight facts and I guess this is one of them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to resist leaving Wikipedia when I get a little bell icon. I'll probably respond to this and little else. Everything Narutolovehinata5 said was my exact same thought process. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I do apologize for saying it’s petty, but the article went through GA also and I just want this done. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: U.S. hooks back to back

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest switching John Howland with Kazuo Wada. Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Q4

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Tina Irwin

  • ... that Canadian dressage rider Tina Irwin was forced to restart after a power outage at the 2017 Adequan Global Dressage Festival, and achieved a world record score on her next attempt?

Toreightyone SusunW Maile66

A concern has been raised that this wasn't a world record score but rather the world’s highest small tour score on record for 2017? I know zero about dressage, so I have no idea what this even means. --valereee (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Would, 'she set that year's record for the event?' work? --valereee (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Valereee Seems like splitting hairs to me, but that is DYK. It was a world record for the small tour in that year. If it was exceeded in some other year, that's irrelevant. But, I'm not sure how I can make a change, as if I do, I cannot approve the change. My take would just be to move the placement of the date to after "achieved a" because what you wrote doesn't seem accurate to me. She had the year's record score for any event, not just that one. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
SusunW, apologies for my ignorance of the subject. I've been reading the source again to try to parse this (apologies for that hairsplitting, too). It says "world’s highest small tour score on record for 2017" -- would this work:
... that Canadian dressage rider Tina Irwin was forced to restart after a power outage at the Adequan Global Dressage Festival and achieved a 2017 world record small tour score on her next attempt?
--valereee (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, absolutely no reason for you to apologize, at all. It's the nature of the beast and truly the reason I rarely contribute to DYK at all. Your proposed hook should be GTG (193 char) if the links are put back in, but I'm unsure if I can even do that as the reviewer. Seems like it would be just maintenance, but far be it from me to understand the quirks of DYK. ;) If anyone has another issue with it, please just ping me. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Thuy Trang

... that Thuy Trang, who played the Yellow Ranger on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, became so ill when she came to the U.S. on a cargo ship that other passengers wanted to throw her overboard?

Hunter Kahn SL93 97198

She became so ill other passengers thought she was dead, which was why they wanted to throw what they thought was a body overboard. They didn't want to throw her overboard because she was so sick. I think that's a pretty important distinction, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Adding "thought she was dead and" makes it too long. How important is saying both Yellow Ranger and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers? Could we shorten Mighty Morphin Power Rangers to Power Rangers? If we remove 'on a cargo ship' will it be unclear? How important is 'when she came to the US'? Suggestions? --valereee (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ping for reviewer - @Storye book:
I only reviewed the GA and made comments on the DYK. I would have double checked the hooks also, but I didn't want someone to claim that I have a conflict of interest. For future reference, would that actually be considered a conflict of interest? SL93 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn: why are you discussing it here? The nomination page is at Template:Did you know nominations/Thuy Trang and I've approved a new suggestion by SL93 - feel free to comment there if you wish. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, whoops, sorry, hadn't realized you'd pulled it! --valereee (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
   — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) To answer SL93's question, WP:DYKSG#H2 says nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK), which I take to mean that you can't formally review hooks, but I don't see anything wrong with suggesting hooks or pointing out problems with suggested ones if you happened to see issues. I would consider it a conflict to promote such a nomination to prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
A new hook has been approved, but the template isn't listed anywhere. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just an update. I asked Cwmhiraeth if she could take a look at it and I was just notified that it was promoted to a prep. SL93 (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1 - Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion
  Moved from WP:ERRORS
  • "... that Mary Fitzpatrick, who lived in a slum, was tried for murder and robbery by a baron and a grand jury that included at least five aristocrats?" - Sir Henry Hawkins wasn't a baron at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, she was tried by the grand jury? The linked article says "the function of the grand jury was merely to inquire whether there was sufficient ground to put the accused on trial", not to actually try them. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Storye book: @Cwmhiraeth: @SL93: @Valereee:@DuncanHill: pinging those involved in the process, for some answers. Not knowing about British law, I will say that in the US, grand juries are only investigative bodies who indict; after indictment, it goes before a judge and jury for the trial. — Maile (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: *"... that rag sorter Mary Fitzpatrick was indicted for murder by a Grand Jury of aristocrats, but found not guilty at a trial presided over by High Court judge Sir Henry Hawkins, known as Hanging Hawkins? — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: adding you in case no one else on the above list is around. Time is ticking away on this. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: Hawkins was a High Court judge, not a JP! DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Corrected, thank you. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile I have no access to British Newspaper Archive to begin checking the first fact, "rag sorter". I think you should swap this out with a hook from the preps so the nominator can work on it later. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks - seems like a really good idea to me. No time to linger over the idea. Fitzpatrick has been swapped to Prep 1, and Ulrike Sonntag is moved up to the next Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I have access to the British Newspaper Archive. The trial at which the grand jury was assembled was presided over by Mr Justice Hawkins. I will have to read more thoroughly to see if it was the same jury or a different one, but it was definitely the same judge in the same court, and she was sentenced one week later. (The article says "On Monday 5 November, a true bill for wilful murder had been returned against Fitzpatrick at Leeds", but that is not what the newspaper reports say - a report published on Monday 6 November 1882 says "The business of these assizes was commenced in York Castle on Saturday morning, before Mr. Justice Hawkins." The article also says that - a bit muddled, I'll fix it.) The original (or approved) hook says "tried for murder and robbery by a baron and a grand jury that included at least five aristocrats" - the baron referred to was not the judge, it was Sir William Cayley Worsley, Bart, Hovingham, who was the foreman of the jury (so actually he was a baronet, not a baron). Not all of the jury were aristocrats, which is why the original hook says "at least five". Yes, Mary Fitzpatrick reportedly was a rag sorter. I don't think the newspaper reports describe where she was living as a slum, but I'll check that too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no access to that. I was just AGFing, which I don't know if I want to review any articles where I can't access all of the sources at this point. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, you know what ... I only have Newspapers.com, through The Wikipedia Library, and have been assuming it only is for US newspapers. But I just pulled up the above source. Here's a clipping of what I have been able to find,. There might be more on that big page, but I highlighted her name, and this was all I saw: "Mary Fitzpatrick trial". Newspapers.com. The Yorkshire Herald and the York Herald. 6 November 1882. p. 6, col. 3.  — Maile (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Or does Maile66's suggestion work?
--valereee (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: removed duplication of my suggested hook above - a bit confusing, as this is getting long. Did you ever wish you never responded to an error report? I do, in this case. The never-ending thread where nothing substantive happens. What we need is feedback from the nominator. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee, — Maile , Yoninah, SL93, @Storye book: - I think I have worked out the sequence of events in the article (it was only the true bill date and place that needed fixing). It was the same case, the same judge and the same jury first of all finding true bills, and then a week later hearing the lawyers for the prosecution and defence, and the defendant and witnesses, and giving a verdict, so the Suggestion, above, for an ALT hook doesn't quite work, as it implies that the indictment and trial were separate. And I realise now that the word "baron" in the hook that had been used is indeed linked to Sir Henry Hawkins, who, as DuncanHill noticed, was not a baron at the time of the trial. In the article, I have added in the word 'Baronet' after the jury members who had that status, and written Honourable with a link for the first jury member who was an Hon., so it should be very clear who the aristocrats were (the foreman of the jury and five jury members, = six). My suggestions for tweaking the hook are:
ALT3 "... that when rag sorter Mary Fitzpatrick was tried for murder, the jury included six aristocrats, and the judge, Sir Henry Hawkins, was known as Hanging Hawkins, but she was found not guilty?
ALT4 "... that when rag sorter Mary Fitzpatrick was tried for murder, the jury included six aristocrats and the judge was Sir Henry Hawkins of the High Court, known as Hanging Hawkins?
I like ALT4 better - I started by re-ordering bits of the suggestion above, hence the inclusion of "not guilty". I notice that the original version of this hook is now in Queue 1, which also has another murder trial in the lead hook - might be less gruesome to move this one to another set, perhaps? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Storye book, are you okay with the proposed hook? --valereee (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
* Aaagh. I have been trying all day to find a link to where the alerts have been coming from, and have finally found this. What a mess. The comment which starts "Valeree" and ends "another set perhaps" appears to be all by RebeccaGreen (if I understand correctly). That post (if it is all one post) is all correct, except that "not guilty" doesn't work, as she was not only found guilty of robbery (which in English law then implied robbery with violence), but was severely reprimanded, because the judge and jury didn't know whether it was wilful murder or not - they just couldn't prove evidence either way for wilful murder. So she was found guilty of robbery (with violence), wilful murder not proven so technically not guilty of that, therefore a manslaughter (in English law) result. So we can't say "not guilty"; that would be misleading. ALT4 works if you change it to at least FIVE aristocrats. I can't see six aristocrats for sure, unless you have identified an extra one. If we say "at least five" that is safe either way. So: ALT4 with "at least five aristocrats" please? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
* I should add that "slum" comes from 1. Her address mentioned in the trial; 2. A contemporary map showing her address location in the Quarry Hill area; 3. The Leodis citation link which describes that Quarry Hill area as a slum. It is known today in Leeds that that area was a slum until the Quarry HIll Flats were built there, anyway. However, that may be too complex for you, so I'm happy for you to change it to "rag sorter". Storye book (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Very true, Storye book, she was indeed convicted! I'm fine with at least five aristocrats - the six I counted as the foreman and the first five members of the jury - they're all named in your article, you just seem not to have counted the foreman. But either works. (I do like rag sorter, as a contrast to aristocrats, who would have no contact with rags at all!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
* Oops, yes, OK, six aristocrats. It's getting posher! Thanks. Storye book (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And a hundred years earlier would probably have been just as posh, and the sentences would have been transportation .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Is ALT4 ready to be substituted in Queue 1? Pinging valereee. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the ping, Yoninah! --valereee (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Maile or valereee: "Hanging Hawkins" should be regular font and in quotes, not italicized. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:   Fixed — Maile (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

5x expansion question

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

A question regarding the 5x expansion rule for previously existing articles: If an article was reasonably long and then was stubbified for some (non-copyvio) reason, and remained a stub for over a year, should the subsequent 5x expansion be calculated compared with the length of the stabbified version? Or the earlier pre-stubbification longer version? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: it might help to know which specific article you are talking about. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, cases of stubbing for other reasons than copyvio have been considered as potentially gaming the system. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Might well be on a case by case in my eyes. I have seen articles that had someone change a redirect into a very long unsourced article, and then turned back before, which would technically mean it would never be viable until GA, but I can't see anyone having an issue if the article was nomed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, case by case. The interval of a year is important. And the relationship, if any, between the material removed and that later added. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod makes a good point: if some of the material added in the expansion is from the prior article, then at a minimum that material would need to be 5x expanded. And we have had at least one case in the past where someone removed large chunks of material from an article to make it small, waited a month or two, and then returned to do the expansion. That was disallowed. Articles that have been stable for several months or a year or more would probably be considered okay if someone else had done the text removal. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you everybody for the input above. My question was original question was hypothetical. I was trying to understand if there are some clear-cut rules regarding how previous version of a page are treated when 5x expansion is calculated. As I understand now, the issue is treated on a case by case basis. The specific article I had in mind is Covfefe, which I expanded from a redirect a couple of days ago. The situation there is different and much more unusual. The article was originally created in early June 2017 and quickly AfD-ed. The AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe, was closed on June 7, 2017, as "Merge to Donald Trump on social media. There already was (and still is) a section, Donald Trump on social media#"Covfefe" in the that target article. The Covfefe article was converted to a redirect on June 7, 2017 in this edit[6]. I could not tell for sure if any of the extra material was added to the target article in the process; my impression is that no such new material was added then but I may be wrong. Then there was a DRV that lasted another week that upheld the AfD closure, followed by some socking and edit warring by some IPs, and the page was protected, as a redirect, on June 18, 2017 in this edit[7]. The page remained a redirect for the next 2 years and 2.5 months, until I expanded it from a redirect on Sept 11, 2019[8]. I had prepared a new version in user space a few days ago, and during that time I purposefully did not look at the old version or at the section Donald Trump on social media#"Covfefe", and I did not use any portions of either of those in the new version of Covfefe. One can make various pro and con arguments here regarding whether the new version is DYK eligible to count as a 5x expansion, but I now think that it's not worth the trouble. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say 1) deleted and recreated is an altogether different question, 2) go ahead and nominate, - there's not much to lose, and it's really not too difficult. Ping me if you need help. but with patience please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That does look like an egregious example of COI and I would totally disregard it for the 5x expansion. The text that was added "at request of Scyller Borglum using media interviews, biographical data, her resume and personal discussions" is all cited to one source which couldn't possibly contain all that detail. If anyone disagrees, we should IAR at the very least. The 5x expansion should be counted from when Muboshgu stopped editing the article on August 7 and resumed expansion on August 17. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As I noted at the nomination, I thought that this was a valid 5x expansion because the COI material was only in the article for about 48 hours, but also that getting a consensus here on the expansion was a good idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

New DYK that could be used for 13th/14th Sept

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Zambrów massacre for a DYK I just submitted, that could be used for its 90th anniversary in 2-3 days and therefore may warrant a speedier review rather then the usual lottery of 'roll several d20s' for number of days before a reviewer appears :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked, and it first needs copy-editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
C/e has been done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I approved it. Could go to the next set, with some flexibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, the nomination can't be promoted without a tick completing the review, and before that tick is given there should be the formality of a careful review that specifically mentions things like size, newness, neutrality (very important in an area given the recent controversies and current arbitration case, which looks to require only high quality sources in this subject area), whether there's close paraphrasing, etc., especially since this was not nominated at least five (or seven) days in advance as is the usual requirement for a special occasion request. If anything, the article should receive very careful scrutiny, not a quick passage to the main page; even as I type this, it is under 48 hours since its creation. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried to help, the urgency of date relevance seems now gone, I have little time, anybody is welcome to do the review.. (Was out all day, will be out again.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed it now, needed AGF for Polish sources. Anybody with knowledge of Polish is welcome to look deeper, also other eyes welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Checked up on the queues and noticed WGBP-FM had "basketball commentator" added to it. While Kevin Harlan does do basketball, he's probably more known for his NFL work with CBS (and on national radio), and I had specifically suggested it run on a Sunday to be thematic with the NFL games that day. I would suggest changing the hook to maybe read "sports broadcaster" instead of mentioning a specific sport. Raymie (t • c) 03:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(Editor who made the change here): I was originally considering using "sports broadcaster" as the description, but I was trying to avoid two nearby uses of the word "broadcast"; alternative wording suggestions are welcome here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
What about "sports commentator"? or "sports announcer", as the article says? RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and RebeccaGreen: That would have been great, but the hook is...now on the Main Page. Can we have it changed? Raymie (t • c) 00:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
If needed you can always put up a request at WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Raymie: I have changed it back to the original hook, the only wording that was ever approved. Change was made in prep and not discussed. @Narutolovehinata5: left this edit summary when making the change "adding description to Harlan since international readers are unlikely to know who he is". 1 AGF on why it happened, but the hook already says he was in sports broadcasting. Since sports (and their definitions) vary from country to country, curious readers can click on the hook to find out.— Maile (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Q2: Dorian

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This hook is in contravention to WP:EGG at the moment, as the link looks like it points to Hurricane Dorian, whereas in fact the target article is Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. Can we tweak it a bit to avoid this? Ping Hurricane Noah KN2731 Dee03 as creators / reviewers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

How hard are we supposed to be on WP:EGG at DYK? AFAIK MOS compliance is not part of the hook criteria and while slightly surprising it is not really wrong in the sense of an error of fact or misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me it should be linked this way:
ALT1: ... that Hurricane Dorian (pictured) was the strongest hurricane on record to strike the Bahamas? Yoninah (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. I've amended it to that. The text is the same, but the linking is more compliant. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

UN International Year of the Indigenous Language and DYK

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be possible to get at least one hook related to this thematic year on the FP each week? Not many weeks left in the year. -Yupik (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yupik: Not sure if you're asking us to approve a nomination, or create an article/nomination. I notice you've just nominated DYK Jaakko Gauriloff. You could easily add an ALT hook that would be something like,
How about adding his image to the nomination? That's a really, good clear image in the article. — Maile (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

credits sections

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, all! Do other prep-to-queue movers try to match up the credits to the hooks? I always count to make sure I've got eight different article credits, but sometimes the article name is different from the link in the hook, and sometimes there are multiple links in a hook, and sometimes they aren't in the same order as the hooks. As far as I know I've never actually encountered a set that had a credits error, but I'm kind of wondering if I'd have even caught it. Or maybe this isn't even something I should be worrying about? I'm sure it's fixable if it happened and it's not like it affects the main page? --valereee (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes. What I do, is to first put the DYKMake credits in the same order as the hooks. Then when you preview the Queue, it's easier to spot if something is missing. If it's one of those things where the credits are confusing, I open the nomination template to check. If a credit is missed, likely someone will post here. And as you say, it can be corrected if it's missed. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Reordering's a simple enough fix, and it makes sense to do it when a prep is move-to-queue since shuffling can get it out of order. Although if anyone is looking for a smallish, helpful task that has a definite, objective correct/incorrect output, putting credits in order in the topmost complete prep would be a mitzvah! :) --valereee (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Amen to that. — Maile (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I aim to keep the credits in the same order as the hooks, and usually rearrange them when I find them misplaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That's appreciated, Cwmhiraeth, and I didn't mean to suggest they were always out of order or just stuck in willy-nilly! Just that there's an actual benefit to having them in order. --valereee (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: @Valereee: I hereby declare the hook credit order a "no fault zone". I've probably mucked it up myself if I was in a hurry. Lots of factors, which include the shuffling of hooks while either in prep or queue, last minute swaps between prep and queue, adding a hook at the last minute to either prep or queue. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm sure I've left the credits section out of order, too --valereee (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add this stray credit to Queue2, due to be on the main page in a few hours time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
* {{DYKmake|Treaty of Potsdam (1805)|Dumelow}}
  Done — Maile (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most recent list was archived earlier than expected, so here is a new list with 19 nominations that need reviewing, which constitute all of the non-current nominations, those through September 9. As of 10:48 UTC today we had a total of 169 nominations, of which 58 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three over a month old.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4 image crop

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We need a close-up crop of the ship in the lead image: File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A21166.jpg. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A21166 (cropped).jpg MB 13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Q1

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Sotheby (Royal Navy officer)

  • ... that following an injustice suffered by the British consul, Charles Sotheby trained his frigate's guns on the Bey of Rhodes' house and opened fire?

Ykraps Harrias Cwmhiraeth

I feel like we need to wikilink Bey of Rhodes. The article currently links to Rhodes, but there's no mention of a Bey there. There is an article at Bey, but it doesn't mention Rhodes. Would linking to Bey be appropriate? --valereee (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't object if you want to link both Bey and Rhodes.--Ykraps (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Just wanted to be sure that wan't the wrong Bey or something. --valereee (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Ramble and Lake

  • ... that the Lake, completed in 1858, was the first feature to be finished in New York City's Central Park?

Epicgenius Morgan695

The article says 'among the first', but then later says the Ramble was the second feature to be completed. I'm happy to use first, but the two sources are either unavailable or difficult to read from a pdf, hoping the nom or reviewer are familiar enough with one of them to confirm 'first' rather than 'among the first.' --valereee (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: The Lake was the first to be completed and the Ramble was the second. I have fixed it now. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Epicgenius, thank you! Sorry for the nitpick! --valereee (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rugg-Feldman benchmarks: second opinion on sourcing needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is the oldest extant DYK nomination, and there is a fundamental disagreement between nominator and reviewer regarding the level of primary and secondary sourcing, and what should be required for an article in general and at DYK in particular. If someone who has experience in this area and the policies involved could please stop by, review the issues, and render an opinion, it would be a great help. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Inferno, second opinion needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking for a second opinion regarding sourcing on cast sections for film articles for my DYK nomination. Thank you. Morgan695 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Answered on the template. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_161&oldid=1091651360"