Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 163

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Gerda Arendt in topic Prep 6 – Magnificat (Vivaldi) and Ospedale della Pietà
Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165→Archive 170

Queue 2: Samsung Galaxy M30s

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
  • ... that the Samsung Galaxy M30s features the largest battery capacity for a smartphone available in India?

@Taewangkorea, Tenpop421, and Cwmhiraeth: I'm sorry, but this just screams "ad" to me. The hook is of dubious factual accuracy: smartphones are commodities and some Chinese manufacturer or seller is bound to have shipped a smartphone with a larger battery capacity into the Indian market. It's not that such a fact can't be mentioned in an article, but because of how difficult it is to prove it, something like this would probably require attribution and is thus probably not suitable for DYK. I'm also concerned that the hook fact may be entirely irrelevant to readers outside India. I consider the first hook suggested in Template:Did you know nominations/Samsung Galaxy M30s to be an improvement. feminist (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, what's the meaning/ significance of the word "capacity" there? Is this just about size? If so, why not just "has the largest battery"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"largest battery" gives the impression of physical size of the battery, not its capacity. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree. So what does this word in the hook mean, the length of battery life? Or is it capacitance? Or something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
By capacity, I was refering to the electric charge of the battery in terms of Ampere hours. The reviewer thought the 1st hook (samsung phone with largest battery) was more interesting but for some reason the 2nd hook (for the India fact) got promoted. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Whatever hook is chosen, someone will likely complain that featuring Samsung at all at DYK is promotional, see here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that my concern is not with the article subject per se; in fact I have myself written several articles on phones/tech products that have run on DYK. My concern is specific to this hook in that it may fail the "broad interest" requirement, and that "largest battery currently available in India!" sounds too much like an ad to me. I totally understand how it can be difficult to find viable hooks for such topics. feminist (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, Feminist. I think most people would call that "battery life". But then I'm no expert on the Indian mobile phone market. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @Feminist: on the "broad interest" requirement in regards to limiting it to India. Maybe we could just go with the original hook, especially since the reviewewr indicated a preference for it: — Maile (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I also support going for the original hook. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Replaced with ALT0, also removing second wikilink to Samsung as that felt over-the-top promotional. I'm concerned about so much currently-available retail merch appearing on the main page. I understand the concerns about fairness to editors who are interested in new tech products, but this just feels very unseemly to me for an encyclopedia to have blurbs and links on the main page to new products. This needs some thought. --valereee (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I strongly support holding a RfC or something like that to determine consensus on the appropriateness of newly released commercial products on DYK, as the last discussion on the dyk talk page did not do much. Taewangkorea (talk)

It's not as if we are getting a ton of these hooks though - as far as I can tell, this is only the second one this month. But I get the concern about the promotional aspect - nominators should be looking to highlight facts that are not of a promotional nature wherever possible. Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is really more like, considering the kind of content these articles have, it's difficult, and sometimes perhaps even impossible, to write a hook that doesn't sound the least bit promotional. The battery size hook proposed above is an improvement, but even that could reasonably be interpreted as being promotional. Well I guess considering WP:LIMITED, there's really not much else we can do except maybe having greater scrutiny over these kinds of hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
One possible approach, if no other hooky fact is apparent, is to find some interesting but not overtly promotional observation made by a reviewer and use that as a basis for the hook. Other than that, I can't see anything in our ruleset that deals with promotional hooks, so perhaps we need to add a word or two on the topic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass I think we've had at least five since early September just from Taewangkorea, haven't we? Taewangkorea, yeah, maybe an RfC would be a good idea. I'm concerned about three things for sure, the first being whether it's appropriate for WP to look like we're promoting new merchandise. It seems like a magnet for attracting UPE. Other companies are going to see these entries and wonder how they can get their own new products featured. The second is whether a not-truly-groundbreaking feature of ANY commercially-available product is likely to be of interest to anyone who isn't currently considering buying that product. The biggest battery ever in a Samsung phone just isn't of interest to anyone else. But the third thing is for well-intentioned editors like yourself who are just writing articles about things that interest them. In your case that's new tech. Is it unfair to you if the thing you're most interested in writing about isn't welcome in DYK? --valereee (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK header on the main page

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I may be missing something, but my understanding of MOS:ELLIPSIS is that there is to be a non-breaking space between the word that precedes an ellipsis and the ellipsis itself. However, there is no space between "know" and the ellipsis in the "Did you know..." header on the main page. Should that be changed? Armadillopteryxtalk 09:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch! - that's probably been there for years and nobody noticed :) Per MOS, I would say yes, it should be changed, but as it's not actually a sentence, it might look worse with a space - it's hard to say without seeing it, so it might be one of those WP:IAR situations. Anyway, I think your question would be better posed at Talk:Main page. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I'll post it there. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3 pulled hooks

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

I had to pull three hooks from prep 3 because I was unable to verify them. Here they are:


- I was unable to verify from the supplied source that it was his home, so far as I can tell it was just the headquarters of his production company - and substituting that wouldn't make for much of a hook. Pinging the nominator Jack Sebastian.

I am pretty unclear as to why Gatoclass was unable to verify the reference, as its the very first reference in the article. Since Gatoclass pulled and almost immediately went offline, can someone else verify this, so it doesn't miss its mainppace window? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, this is what the above-linked source says Interestingly, in his post-screening Q&A, Stevens revealed that much of the story was not fabricated: the house is real, the recently acquired headquarters of his production company, and its backstory was only slightly embellished for the film. Inspired, Stevens and his team paused the actual renovation of the house to spin their fictionalized version. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done sourced hook has been restored to Queue 3. I think Gatoclass swapped more than one hook in Queue 3, and then shuffled them, so I was unsure which one had replaced Girl on the Third Floor. I moved Betsy Head Park down to Prep 3. If it doesn't belong in that Prep, then please feel free to move Betsy Head Park elsewhere. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
— Maile or anyone, I was going to suggest substituting 'house' for 'home', as the source doesn't actually say it was where the producer/director lived or planned to live, just that it was his production company's house and future headquarters. I think there's less likelihood of quibbles saying "paused renovations on his house". RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: I noticed that also, but some producers have their company based in their home. Better to be safe, than have another question. I changed it accordingly. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I read that quote given by Maile above when I was trying to confirm the hook and I still fail to see how it confirms that the headquarters of his production company was also his home. Gatoclass (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The hook doesn't say it was his home now, it says it was his house (ie, a house he/his production company owned). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The quote supplied to verify the hook above doesn't say it was his home - period. It also doesn't even say he personally owned it at any time - it just says the house was "recently acquired" for use as the headquarters of his production company. Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I see you mean that the hook was changed from "home" to "house". However, that still does not address the issue in my view, and since the hook is now on the main page, I have taken the issue up at WP:ERRORS. Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


Resolved - Zdeňka Wiedermannová-Motyčková

The article states that it's the first girls' secondary school in Moravia, not Brno. Now, Brno is apparently in Moravia, but the discrepancy was enough to make me doubt the hook accuracy. Also, I couldn't check the sources because they are in a foreign language, and the translation given on the nomination page that is supposed to verify the hook doesn't mention anywhere that it was the first such school. Pinging the nominators SusunW and Ipigott.

I am out of the country with limited internet access. I will more than likely not be able to access again until late Friday. Had you read the nomination discussion Gatoclass, you would see that Filelakeshoe a native speaker confirmed the foreign text. Either Brno or Moravia is correct (one source specifies Brno, the other Moravia, but since Brno is in Moravia.. ) and it does not matter which wording appeared in the hook, as both are confirmed by sourcing and in the article. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone uninvolved please return that hook and swap "Brno" for "Moravia"? It is cited directly in those exact words in the "death and legacy" section and in the source cited at the end of the relevant sentence, for which I provided a translation on the nomination page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the hook to prep, assuming good faith in the sources and Filelakeshoe's explanation. I have also modified "Brno" to "Moravia in the Czech Republic" (I have added the country since most readers probably don't know where Moravia is, although if there are objections to the country being mentioned I am not opposed to that part being dropped). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 - thanks for restoring the hook, but I would drop the "in the Czech Republic" part, because it wasn't the Czech Republic at that time, it was the Lands of the Bohemian Crown in Austria-Hungary. It would have to be "Moravia, now part of the Czech Republic" or something. I also think it's unnecessary, Moravia can be linked. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Noted. I've modified it to say "now part of the Czech Republic", but if consensus determines that the mention is unnecessary, the part can be removed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


I was able to verify most of this hook after considerable difficulty, but most of the sources refer to the lake as Senie not Suli and I was unable to establish they are one and the same as the article states. Pinging the nominator LlywelynII.

As LlywelynII has been inactive since September (apart from a single edit on October 1), the Suli Lake nomination may have to continue without them. Pinging RebeccaGreen who assisted in one of LlywelynII's other nominations, as well as nomination reviewer TonyTheTiger for help. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As a first look, I see that source 2, Yu et al (2001) says "A more detailed lithological, geochemical and pollen record of lake status changes in the basin is provided by a 101m-long core (Core CK2022) taken from the playa surface to the east of Sheli Lake and thus between Sheli Lake and Dabiele Lake (Huang et al.1980; Du and Kong et al., 1983)". The map in source 4, Du et al (2018) shows CK2022 between numbers 1 (Seni Lake) and 2 (Dabiele Lake). Romanisations of names in other scripts are always tricky, and in this case we first have a name in (a dialect of) the Mongolian language being represented in Chinese characters, per the Mandarin pronunciation of those characters, and then romanised .... Regarding "most of the sources refer to the lake as Senie not Suli", of the online sources in the Roman alphabet that we have in the article, the names are given as: Suli: Mao et al, Zheng; Sheli: Yu et al (2001); Seni(e): Du et al, Spencer et al, Yu et al (2013). So 3 sources give Seni(e), 2 give Suli, 1 gives Sheli - or, the second consonant is l in 3 sources and n in 3 sources. Apart from not being able to read Chinese, the Chinese sources would show the characters, but not the pronunciation of the characters, which would depend on which variety of Chinese it was being read in. I would be satisfied that Suli/Sheli/Seni(e) are the same lake - which version should be used as the title name in English Wikipedia could perhaps be discussed, but needn't affect this hook, I don't think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that analysis Rebecca, I will recheck the nomination using that information a little later. With regard to the "most sources" comment, that was a misstatement, I was referring to the sources provided to verify the hook, not the sources in the article as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I will be unable to respond to any comments now as I am about to log off, so these issues if they are going to be resolved today would have to be resolved by others. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Image instructions for Admin

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is moved here from my talk page. In a nutshell, I was trying to get suggestions on how to word the admin instructions on image protection for the main page. I'm moving this here, as more admins might see it here rather than my talk page. All I'm trying to do is clarify one small part of the admin instructions for image protection. You people figure it out, please. I'm throwing in the towel on simplifying the wording. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Moved from User talk:Maile66
 – — Maile (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Talk page background thread on what follows

Maile, re: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Admin_instructions#Image How do we check/know that Krinkle has protected the image? When I click to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Auto-protected_files/wikipedia/en I see today's DYK image and tomorrow's, but not the image I just moved to queue. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

My experience is that Krinkle only protects the images for the current day's main page and Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. You can ask at the talk page for Krinkle, on the link you have above. I'm guessing the bot is programmed to periodically check the next day's page for any image changes - rather than checking the individual projects for changes.— Maile (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's weird because there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the number of updates to Krinkle each day. There've been two today, at 00:00 and 00:10, which is prior to today's two prep > queue moves. I'm thinking the instructions telling admins to check to make sure Krinkle has protected the image as part of the prep > queue move isn't actually possible. That needs to be checked later, possibly days later. I saw that you noticed a month ago that it hadn't run in several hours -- how did you notice? --valereee (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
At the top of Commons:Auto-protected_files it tells you the exact time and date of its last update. Also, I keep it on my Commons watchlist, so I also see there the last time it ran. It's probably programmed to detect changes on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. I have noticed now and then that it will protect the lead Queue image sometimes with 15 minutes or so of promoting a set to lead Queue. And sometimes, like any bot, it stops working, which is when you post a notice on the bot's Commons talk page that it failed to update.— Maile (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've done a slight rewriting of Admin instructions#Image. I'm not sure if I got it so it makes sense. You and @Valereee: might want to have a look and edit anything that needs it. Let me put it this way - it still confuses me somewhat. We are telling the reader to either make sure it's loaded on English Wikipedia, or Commons, either/or, without telling the reader why it can be one or the other. And I don't know how to make it clearer. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Maile, I'm afraid this is out of my area of expertise. It may be that Gatoclass knows, having been an admin and around DYK for a long time, or Shubinator, who wrote DYKUpdateBot and therefore the bot's error messages if there's a protection problem with the image to be promoted. Best of luck in getting the answer you need. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It actually looks a lot clearer to me than it was before. I'll look at it again in a couple of days and see if anything stands out to me. --valereee (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The difference is that cascading protection only applies for images on English Wikipedia, not Commons. So Commons images need to be protected manually or by Krinkle Bot. Shubinator (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Shubinator: @BlueMoonset: Now I'm REALLY confused about what we are trying to tell admins here. What are we protecting the image for/from? And if it isn't clear to me, why would it be clear to anyone else? I found WP:CASCADE, but this makes it even worse to convey this to other admins. How about you @Valereee:? Round and round and round we go. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess what I'm asking, if anyone has tried to follow this, is it seems we either do one or the other to protect the image. But tacked on to the instructions is a 3rd option, but wording confused me as to why we could chose the 3rd option, or do we add it to something else we already did? Can anyone clarify this with a Bullet-point list, preferably one sentence per bullet point. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
We're protecting the image from vandals who'd love to switch out a Main Page image for an inappropriate one - yes it's happened before. At the risk of confusing things further, let me try to summarize.
If the image is currently:
  • On English Wikipedia: no action required, the image should automatically be protected through cascading protection
  • On Commons, one of the following should happen:
  • KrinkleBot protects the image (if it's working)
  • Commons admin manually protects the image
  • Upload the image to English Wikipedia and tag it with {{c-uploaded}}, it'll automatically be protected through cascading protection
The last bullet point is there because it's the only option for images currently on Commons when KrinkleBot is down and the promoting en.wiki admin isn't a Commons admin.
Shubinator (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm with Maile and have been since I started moving preps to queues. My concern is that the instructions say to check whether the image has been protected, but I can't know if the image has been protected or not when I move prep > queue. It doesn't get protected until it's in either the next or the next-but-one queue, which may be days after I worked on that set. Which means I guess I need to remember to check again the day before a set I checked appears, which is definitely something that will slip my mind as the last thing to check off on the checklist.
And I guess I assumed all DYK images were on commons, since we can't use fair-use images on the main page? Shubinator, excuse the stupid question, but how does the main page know to use the wp version instead of the commons version? When you say upload to English Wikipedia, I assume you're talking about me downloading from commons the file of the same name, then uploading it here, protecting it, and changing something in the queue's markup to point to the wikipedia version instead of the version on commons which it's currently pointing to? --valereee (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Shubinator: THANK YOU! I finally got it, and have done slight rewording that should make it clear to @Valereee: or anybody else. I also added a link to the Commons admins, which I think was a missing piece to this. Please feel free to edit, but I think it's clear now. Admin instructions - Image — Maile (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I think images that are not restricted to Fair Use can be loaded directly onto Wikipedia, without first going to Commons. It's been a while since I've seen one, but I do know such images are (or were) tagged with something like, "Upload this image to Commons" and provide a link to the appropriate tool. Somebody can explain that better than I did. But, yeah, that's been a little confusing to me, also.. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, oh, yes, I've seen that, too, and I think I may've uploaded them to commons a few times even. I just looked at the instructions and I'm MUCH clearer now! I've already got the update bot errors on my watchlist, and posting to commons media protection is easy enough! Thanks so much for figuring this out, both of you! --valereee (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Heather Olmstead

HickoryOughtShirt?4 Epicgenius

This is probably just me being ignorant of sports, but the article says During the 2018 season, Olmstead earned her 100th win in a match against Pepperdine University.[13] At the conclusion of the season, she was named the American Volleyball Coaches Association Coach of the Year.[14] The following year, she was selected by Team USA to coach the U.S. Collegiate National Volleyball Team in Japan. At the time of her selection, Olmstead held the highest winning percentage of any women's volleyball coach in NCAA Division I history with a minimum of one season and in any division with a minimum of three seasons.[15] 1. This seems to say it was in 2019, and 2. Is "the highest winning percentage of any women's volleyball coach in NCAA Division I history with a minimum of one season" the same as "the highest winning percentage of any women's volleyball coach in NCAA Division I history?" --valereee (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: thanks for pointing this out. To your second point: I would say so, since the highest winning percentage of any women's volleyball coach in NCAA Division I history with zero seasons would be an empty group. Coaches with wins and at least one season would be automatically included in the group of all coaches with wins. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I'll take your word for it! I was guessing it was intended to exclude someone who, for instance, only coached three games but won them all, but no one would confuse that with a winningest coach? But I do change the 2018 to 2019, though? --valereee (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
valereee, I guess so. epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, ya'll. As someone who writes hockey, I am used to it encompassing 2018-19 but realize I misunderstood. Thanks for catching this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries at all, that was exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of! I was like, "Is this a typo, or correct as written for reasons with which I'm unfamiliar?" --valereee (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

October 28 special occasion request into Prep 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Roxburgh was reviwed and approved for a special occasion request on October 28, but never made its way into the corresponding holding area. Could it please be added to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1? Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth just promoted it to Prep 6. Would you want this to be placed in Prep 1 instead (so it would go up at night on October 28 in Canada)? feminist (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to put "on this day" in the hook, you do need to include it in the hook set that moves to the main page on that day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, going by Canadian time, "the hook set that moves to the main page on that day" would be Prep 1. feminist (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Prep 6 is fine. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are back to the more usual longer lists of non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are 33 such nominations this time, those through October 19, all listed below. We have a total of 248 nominations, of which 167 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from September.

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) 01:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

When is a former draft eligible for DYK?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does an article become ineligible if it spends more than 7 days as a draft in the Draft: or User: namespaces? Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC) (please ping when replying)

No. The 7-day period starts when the article is moved into article space. It can linger endlessly in Draft or User space without losing eligibility. feminist (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We need an admin: we're now overdue, since Prep 5 has yet to be promoted to Queue 5. Is anyone around who can check the prep and promoted it to queue, so the bot can do the promotion? Pinging Gatoclass, Maile, valereee, Cas Liber, Amakuru, and Vanamonde, in the hopes that one can do a promotion right now, and perhaps one of the others could promote the prep after in the next 23 hours that so we don't run into this problem tomorrow. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, no one seems to be active. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
All we can hope is that one of them stops by in the next hours and can do a promotion. Absent an admin who knows what they're doing in the DYK space, we're stuck until one shows up. It's been a while since it's happened, but sometimes we've had to wait many hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I am around and could give it a try, but preferably only if someone experienced here helps me verify the set since I have never set a prep or promoted it to a queue. If you all think that is a bad idea then we can wait for someone with experience. Kees08 (Talk) 03:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was around and aware that there was no queue last night, but unfortunately I had a somewhat busy evening and did not have the time to do any checks on the Hooks, so per the instructions and recent discussions I was unable to upload them. I will see if I have some time to tackle the checks for queue 6 today. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, have been helping a friend clean out her parents' house, we're headed over again in a short while, so I won't be around today either. Tomorrow I have meetings starting at 8:30, but I can probably do a set Tuesday. Gosh I wish some more regulars here would run for admin. If we even had just ten people who were all trying to do one check per week, I feel like we could take a breath. --valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Halloween hooks

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Joshua Guerrero may be a good fit for the last person-hook slot, as it mentions The Ghosts of Versailles, but the QPQ hasn't been done yet. Pinging nominator @Gerda Arendt:. Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

reviewed now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I have just reviewed this article, Gerda Arendt. I have a suggestion about the hook - see what you think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now suggested an ALT hook, so a new reviewer is needed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah has reviewed and approved the hook, so could another promoter add it to Prep 3, please? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility for Halloween is Template:Did you know nominations/Gara Medouar - if we're not waiting for the image licence, and if there's room in the set. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but most of the hooks are non-bio. And the image is really good. Yoninah (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Jack Roxburgh

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  • ... that Jack Roxburgh introduced legislation on this day in 1964 to declare ice hockey Canada's national game, after disproving the myth that lacrosse held that distinction?
    I find this a bit misleading myself, as I assumed from this hook that the legislation was successful and that ice hockey was installed at the expense of lacrosse. But according to the article they were eventually both given the honour, as "winter national sport" and "summer national sport" respectively. I think this could do with a clarification.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    Pinging Yoninah Gerda Arendt Flibirigit MB who were involved with the hook nomination.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think "introduce" is an open word, but may be wrong. How is this:
    ... that Jack Roxburgh introduced legislation on this day in 1964 to declare ice hockey Canada's national game, after disproving the myth that only lacrosse held that distinction?
I think the hook is fine. It is factually correct. He did disprove that Lacrosse was the national game and he did introduce legislation. Legislators propose laws all the time that are unsuccessful. The reader can read the article to find out more. MB 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that the new proposal makes more sense, since it at least implies about the situation of ice hockey and lacrosse both being declared national sports of Canada, as opposed to just one or the other. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup request

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've noticed that Prep 5 is the set due to run on 2 November and currently has an image hook. I've just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Rugby World Cup Final to run with a (I think good image). Could I ask if this could be reviewed for Prep 5 with the current image in there being moved up to Prep 4 which is lacking an image lead hook please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4 has had its image hook moved to make way for a hook that has been in the Special occasion holding area for November 1 since October 9. Of course, it's up to promoters what they choose to do - and also whether they accept an article nominated for a special occasion less than the required minimum time before the date. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's a good idea to run an article in DYK before the event it describes has actually taken place. Although it's incredibly unlikely, what if it were postponed? Might it be better to run it on Sunday instead? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite: We do it all the time. For instance 2017 EFL Cup Final and 2019 FA Cup Final both ran on the day of the final and referred to it being "today". It's just following precedent. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Pulled hook: Template:Did you know nominations/Suli Lake

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On 24 October, Gatoclass noted above that they had pulled several hooks which couldn't be verified. Two were resolved (sort of), but Template:Did you know nominations/Suli Lake has not been resolved, and seems not to have been reopened and returned to WP:DYKN. Could someone do that? Or if it's something that I could do, could someone please direct me to instructions on doing it? Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: nomination has been reopened, and relisted under August 9. @LlywelynII: has been pinged on the nomination template, and given a courtesy notification on his own talk page. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
That's right, I didn't bother reopening the nomination because I brought it to this page for discussion instead, and had already stated my intention to re-check the hook when I can find the time, so reopening the nomination served no purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The hook is now verified. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK check error

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I expanded Oecanthus fultoni from 573 characters to 2,900 characters. DYK check on the article is messed up for some reason and says "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 44 edits ago on August 30, 2014 Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (1885 days)". I know that I have 215 characters more than is needed, but I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing this and if there is a fix. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I fixed a typo in the article and tried the tool again. It worked. SL93 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1 - before tomorrow's mainpage - Patrick Lin (cinematographer)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Queue 1 has a hook that says "... that Pixar cinematographer Patrick Lin pioneered the use of a visual lens based on an actual camera lens in Inside Out?

I was wondering what a "visual lens" was. The article also says that, "On Inside Out, he pioneered Pixar's first use of a visual camera lens based on an actual camera lens, so that the animation appears to be filmed on an actual camera." (What are non-visual lenses, I wondered?)

The source [1], however, says "Patrick Lin applied his experience as a live-action cinematographer to push the studio in two new, history-making directions: (1) The first virtual lens to be modeled on a real-world camera lens. Mathematically true to a real camera, Pixar’s virtual lens has the ability to move on a track, dolly, or even appear to be hand-held. Lin and his team did this to help viewers distinguish between the interior and exterior worlds of the film."

I have changed 'visual' to 'virtual' in the article. Could someone please check this and change it in the hook, if you agree that that's what it should be? This will go on the main page in about 10 hours from now! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2 for tomorrow - Rhynocoris longifrons

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Gatoclass: Having noticed that you are finding some issues with the hooks, I had a look at this one. I have replaced one url that led to a completely different article with one for the cited article (source 4), and replaced citations to source 4 in the final para with citations to source 5, which does contain the information presented in that para. So the hook should be OK now. I must admit, I would have gone with something more hooky like
"... that the assassin bug Rhynocoris longifrons is attracted to the smell of moth larvae?"
(And I won't be butting in on any more hooks tonight - it's bedtime here!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Book of Gutsy Women

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

- I moved this from p2 to p1 in order to allow some time for more discussion of this hook. There is no indication in the article, or the provided source, that these two women are directly compared in any way in the book. Rather, the implication seems to be that what these two have in common is that they are both "gutsy women". However, this is self-evident from the book title. Self-evident hooks are by definition uninteresting. IMO this hook either needs to be refactored, or a new hook found.

Please note that I will be unable to contribute further to this discussion until I am back online tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

How is this then:
... that the mother-and-daughter authors of The Book of Gutsy Women portrayed, among others, the 17th-century nun Juana Inés de la Cruz and climate activist Greta Thunberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Better. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay with me (the author/nominator). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done Replaced in prep. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Qthree

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Maryul

  • ... that Ladakh was originally called Maryul (capital pictured), the "lowland" of West Tibet?

Kautilya3 Zanhe I see this has been discussed at the nom, but I'm still confused. Maryul of Ngaris means "lowland of West Tibet", but the article doesn't say that Ngaris is West Tibet. It says that Maryul of Ngaris means lowland of Ngari, and that Maryul was a West Tibetan kingdom. Is that enough to convey that Ngari is/was West Tibet? Normally we'd link to Ngari within the article to provide that context, but in this case we intentionally are not linking to it because it doesn't provide help, and instead the article simply links to Tibet. If this weren't an issue involving the hook, it wouldn't matter, but I was flipping back and forth between nom and article trying to figure this out. --valereee (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think adding a note in the lead, right after the translation, which connects Ngaris with West Tibet would be the solution. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I requested on WP:DYKNA for Template:Did you know nominations/Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times to run on November 1. Can the current image hook in Prep 4 be swapped to another date? Thanks, feminist (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done I reserved the lead spot in Prep 4 for your hook; promoter needed. Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: What connection does this article have with November 1st? @Yoninah: Why do you want to use the image/video clip, because I wouldn't of my own volition choose this hook for an image slot? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't actually see a request or explanation for the date in the nomination, nor any mention of November 1 in the article. Are we missing something? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
BlizzCon, Blizzard Entertainment's annual gaming convention, begins on November 1 this year. The phrase (the subject of the DYK article) gained prominence in the United States via events in connection with Blizzard (see Blizzard Entertainment#Hearthstone ban and Hong Kong protests for details). A protest has been planned at BlizzCon in response to the controversy. I expect reader interest for the topic to increase during BlizzCon, and having the article on the main page would aid readers who are curious about the slogan. feminist (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
With regards to the hook, I welcome other suggestions. It doesn't have to occupy the image slot, just that it's not every day we can get a video relevant to the topic as the image. feminist (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it was novel to have a video clip. Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be at a stalemate here. Prep 4 needs to be promoted to the queue but is lacking a lead image. Cwmhiraeth doesn't think this hook image is appropriate for the lead slot, I can't promote it because I reviewed it, and the nominator, feminist, who usually promotes hooks, also can't promote it. Is someone else going to step up and promote this hook to Prep 4, or should we put in another image and promote this hook later? Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
We can put in any other image in the article. It doesn't have to be a video, though (as I said) I think having a video as the DYK image is unique. feminist (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
With regard to WP:NPOV. I feel uneasy about having a video of chanting protesters in the image slot as it makes it seem that Wikipedia is supporting the protests. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Yoninah: I have promoted it to Prep 4. I fail to be convinced that a video makes us look more supportive than anything else. We've had some pretty funky lead images on DYK, which I would rather not have seen. One of which could have been seen as a support of blatant obscenity and/or outright pornography. Could a chant be be worse than that? We don't censor the Main Page. I thought DYK had guts for garters. — Maile (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Article not in special occasion area

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I had requested November 1 for XHFAMX-TDT and it somehow never got into the special occasion holding area, so now it's not in the appropriate queue. The hook is timed to the launch of this TV station. Any potential remedy? Raymie (t • c) 18:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: you and I are doing the same dance on this one. So, please finish it how you think it should look. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. BTW this illustrates the importance of making sure approved hooks are moved to the special occasion holding area. Prep builders are not mind-readers; we usually don't comb the nominations page looking for special occasion requests. Nominators must ask closing reviewers to move the nomination to the special occasion holding area as soon as they get the tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Q 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/bbno$

HeyitsBen Cwmhiraeth 97198

  • ... that Canadian SoundCloud rapper bbno$ became interested in music after suffering a back injury that prevented him from pursuing his dreams of becoming a professional swimmer?

This is sourced to an interview in undergroundunderdogs.com, not sure that's really enough for a DYK hook, and I agree with Cwmhiraeth that the term 'professional swimmer', although it's used in the source, is odd. None of the other hooks were approved. I'm wondering about sending this back for further review, but I thought I'd see if anyone else thinks we can fix it here. --valereee (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: What about BeatRoute magazine? "Bbno$ Is Having More Fun Than You", archived here [2]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added that source to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
RebeccaGreen, that's better, definitely! I think I'll tweak the hook to remove professional, that'll solve the rest for me. Thanks! --valereee (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1949 Rhodesia vs New Zealand rugby union match

The C of E Yoninah

This had a request for this date because it's the world finals, but the main article is already in the set, also requested for this date, which puts two rugby articles in the set. Is this still appropriate? --valereee (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. We often run more than one hook on a major sporting event on the same day. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If you like, you could Swing it Low to tomorrow @Valereee: since that's when the All Blacks are playing Wales in the Third place play off (editor's note: Ha Ha Ha!) so that it is more topical. @Gatoclass:, up to you. I'm happy either way The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not unhappy if no one else is, so I'll leave it up to Gatoclass also! Er...what's the joke I'm missing? :D --valereee (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm an England fan and we beat the All Blacks to make it to the final @Valereee: :). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, of course! :) --valereee (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How to put forward my article

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello!

I have been recommended on the WikiProject:Medicine talkpage to put forward my article on Thomas Morstede for the Did you know section on the main page. My article is 10 days old, however it is my first article. I was just wondering how I actually nominate my page for Thomas Morstede? I have read the rules on the project page but I cannot find instructions about how to this. Any helping pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The instructions are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions_for_nominators . Hopefully whoever looks at your nomination is lenient with the 7 day requirement. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I will be lenient. Please go ahead, ChocolateOrange1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

My own clumsy phrasing

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

My hook "Did you know...that the relics of St Adelphus attracted so many pilgrims by the 12th century, that the Benedictines of Neuwiller-lès-Saverne Abbey had to build a secondary church nearby?" has been approved, and I'm very glad about it. However, I am aware that a sentence with two "thats" is a little labored. How can I put it better? "...that the Benedictines of Neuwiller-lès-Saverne Abbey had to build a second church because the relics of Saint Adelphus attracted too many pilgrims in the 12th century?" Not sure about this at all. It's better to open a sentence with the more unusual fact, than to conclude it. Inputs are very welcome! --Edelseider (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the first 'that' stylestically or grammatically neccessary? Seems to read just as well without it.

Slywriter (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion seems to fall under the "rule question" without an answer in ""Rules" sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus: "E1: Does the first word always have to be "that"?"
I don't have a problem with the two thats myself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Since I am not a native speaker of English (like many readers and contributors around here, I suppose), I shall trust your judgment - if you say the two "thats" don't look funny, then I'm fine with it. Thank you, both! --Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 - Bronx International Exposition of Science, Arts and Industries

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This hook reads "... that Brazil was the only country with an exhibit at the 1918 Bronx "World's Fair"?"

The previous paragraph ends with the sentence "Other attractions included ... 15 large pavilions, including Chinese and North Sea-themed pavilions, as well as those for fine arts, liberal arts, and American achievements." So, it seems that there were American exhibits, and Brazil was the only other country that exhibited, apart from the US? It might be good to tweak the hook a bit, as it sounds like the only exhibits were from Brazil. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The source clearly states that Brazil was the only country to have an exhibit.[3] The US Congress refused to get involved (per the same source), so there was no formal US exhibit - only a "Palace of American achievements" apparently dreamed up by the organizers themselves. We should stick to what the sources say - to do otherwise ventures into WP:OR. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass, yes, I did see that the single source cited says that Brazil was the only country. I didn't read "submitted a proposal to the U.S. Congress for support ... Congress turned them down" as saying that there was no formal US exhibit. I assumed that "support" meant funding for the exposition. It seemed possible to me that the source meant the only country besides the US, and assumed its readers would understand that too. My comment about tweaking was jumping the gun a bit, sorry. If others had been concerned, then perhaps (rather like I am concerned about a completely different hook that says an event was the largest, based on one source, when none of the other sources say that). I would have looked for other sources, to check what they say - that Brazil was the only country, the only other country, the only foreign country, etc, and whether they refer to American exhibit/s. But if no one else is concerned about it, that's fine. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Australian Grand Prix

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
@MWright96:@Dee03:@Cwmhiraeth:
This hook is worded rather circuitously around the bolded subject. Could we have a hook that opens with the subject, ... that at the 2001 Australian Grand Prix? (It might mean leaving off the winning driver.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I would approve this, but ALT2 needs to be revised: the article mentions that the death was not made public during the race itself, but the hook specifically mentions spectators, which as far as I can tell the sentence in the relevant section does not mention. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm returning this to WP:DYKNA so it won't get promoted in the meantime. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: Mill Creek

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, coming late to the discussion here. User:Gatoclass trimmed off half of this hook, but I feel he eliminated the quirky half and kept the non-quirky. As he is now offline, pinging Maile, Valereee, Casliber, Amakuru, Vanamonde and others for help here. I would write it:

... that Mill Creek, Washington, was not named after a mill or a creek? Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
ok done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding consumer products in DYK

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments16 people in discussion

The consensus is against a blanket ban on the inclusion of currently available or recently released commercial products at DYK.

Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over the past 1.5 months or so reviewers at DYK have raised concerns regarding currently available commercial products going on the front page as a DYK (newly-released smartphones in particular). They have thought that such newly-released smartphones may act as a form of advertising. Thus, after several discussions that failed to gain meaningful progress, I am holding this RfC to get the opinions of other editors on the suitability of the inclusion of currently available commercial products at DYK. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment This is the first time I held an RfC so tell me if I missed anything Taewangkorea (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarification The purpose I was holding this RfC is whether recently-released commercial/consumer products should be featured at DYK, and if so, what additional restrictions/scrutiny can be placed to not make it seem like Wikipedia is showing advertising (it probably would be better for this RfC to gauge the consensus of the community in regards to this, after which I can formulate some policy proposals and try to determine consensus for those again). Taewangkorea (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/Comments

  • Neutral comment - I understand that technology products might jump out as free advertising. But if we put the kibosh on technology products, we should put it in writing in the rules/guidelines. Also, if new technology products are restricted, is that where we draw the line? How about upcoming movie/film openings? A recently released book, music, or other popular culture? Do we omit upcoming events like special commemorative celebrations of television shows, or film series? I understand the concern about the technology gadgets. But why are we limiting it to just that product? Doesn't the same hold true for any commercial output? — Maile (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And we often have requests to run singer or song hooks on the day of a new release, or a director or film hook on the day of debut. Sometimes DYK does serve as a promotional outlet... Yoninah (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK inclusion while "news", but more broadly. I agree with both Yoninah and Maile66 on the scope of the issue (and am more critical of it, apparently, than Maile66); it's not just about "technology products". That said, an article otherwise eligible for DYK should remain so, until whatever cut-off period that no longer seems promotional has passed, then start the counter again, as it were. We shouldn't deny DYK for something just because it's commercial, just wait until after it will no longer seem like en.wp acting as an advertising venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral May change my mind later after some thought, but I'm not sure what exactly would be better than the status quo. Prior to Citizens United v. FEC, the McCain-Feingold Act established a 60 day blackout period for "electioneering communications"; maybe we can take a cue from an arbitrary standard the US Supreme Court struck down (this is a completely serious suggestion BTW). Something like, hooks for a product may not be run within 60 days of that product's release? Wug·a·po·des​ 04:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm ok with "currently available", but agree "new" should normally be not allowed - a 60-day rule may be sensible. I'd want exceptions for events like sports tournaments, even though these are highly commercial, and things like art exhibitions (which have sort-of been done at TFA), building openings etc. Generally, things like books, albums & films are better after there's been time for the reviews have come in anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I lean towards not allowing anything that appears promotional of any commercial product or event. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure that going by dates helps to determine what is promotional and what is not, or how else we might do it. For locations and venues, a hook might attract attention to the place regardless of how long it has existed. If it was a book, would we count from the date of first publication only? What about different dates of publication in different countries? Later editions? Even with technology products, they're not always available at the same time in all countries, so which date would we use? (I can't imagine how elections worked with a 60 day blackout period - a lot of elections aren't even called that long before the date!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - What exactly is the proposal here? This just seems to be a statement that there hasn't been a suitable consensus, but there isn't anything to !support or !oppose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's simply if articles on tech products can be featured on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, we can assume that, but we can't oppose/support a change to policy that hasn't been suggested. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban in favor of encouraging greater scrutiny in reviewing said hooks - A blanket ban feels like instruction creep, and as suggested in an earlier discussion, may be discouraging or be considered unfair for people who have an editing interest in said topics. With that said, instead of a blanket ban, I would suggest that reviewers would be encouraged to give greater scrutiny to hooks involving that topic to ensure that hooks don't sound promotional, even perhaps needing to fail nominations where no suitably non-promotional hook could be proposed. The problem here of course is to how to define "non-promotional" as the line can be blurry at times, though consensus and discussion can help out in such cases. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban per Narutolovehinata5, particularly that we should not discriminate against those who are interested in writing about such topics. I'd also note that at this point, the number of tech products on DYK is not unmanageable. It's not uncommon for us to get a spree of articles concerning one particular topic from time to time. feminist (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban. New things are one of the natural causes of new articles, which is what DYK is about. (The hook for one of mine, about a new book, is discussed in the section right above this.) So there's nothing wrong the main page having a hook about a new thing. The hook should be neutral and not overly promotional, just as the article itself should be neutral and not overly promotional. But that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban. Each suggestion on their own. How many new products you think will be sold solely because of Wikipedia's mentioning on the Main page, vs. advertisement etc? My guess: zero. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blanket ban on newly commercially-available products/books/movies/whatever. I know that's not popular, but I think we probably shouldn't be putting links to these on the main page. It's an invitation to UPEs. I would think waiting two months or whatever, then forgiving the 7-day creation requirement, would be a good solution to the fairness issue. That said, I'd be willing to try simply scrutinizing these hooks much more rigorously. They need to be not about standard features -- a feature needs to be highly unusual, even groundbreaking, to be mentioned -- and honestly if there's nothing really interesting about the product, if it's just another phone that's been upgraded to a new version, it needs to be failed. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban however I do think we need to remind people of WP:DYKNOT and be a bit more scrutinous of articles about new products to avoid any appearance of promotion. New products aren't intrinsically promotional but we must ensure we avoid WP:WEASEL or any hooks like "product X is the first to...." or "product Y is the biggest selling Y in India/USA/insert country here". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban - There should be a mixture of new and old, If the hook's neutrally worded not promotional then I don't see the harm in having new things in DYK. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@Vycl1994 and Gerda Arendt: I was wondering if there would be a way to make this more eye-catchy. It's not really that interesting of a hook unless there's an emphasis on the "Italian priests founded a group in Taiwan" part, and considering the position of that part in the hook, it can be easy to miss. Maybe a rewording is in order? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a longish discussion already, for example to split the nom in two. It's tough to do justice to two people in one hook. I'm out for the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The hook reads fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
There probably is a better hook in there somewhere. I'll see if I can come up with something tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the dance troupe notable enough for its own article? If so, it could be blue-linked, which would solve the problem. Otherwise, I would just delete the name as without a link it serves no purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not successful in locating sources for the dance troupe itself. Chinese Wikipedia does not have articles on Lin, Michelini, or the troupe. Vycl1994 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

November 11 / Remembrance Day special occasion request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/W. A. Fry with a special occasion request for November 11 / Remembrance Day special occasion request. I apologize for the short notice. Thank you for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Ready for promotion to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4 template tweak

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The fourth hook in Queue 4 uses the wrong apostrophe template, causing incorrect spacing (depending on browser); {{'}} should be replaced with {{`}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks, Gatoclass, for taking care of this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 1 (Kalinnikov)

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

This was marked for closure by Edelseider as it was nominated one month after creation. This the nominator GeneralPoxter's first nomination, and per a later comment, was unaware of the creation time requirement for DYK. After discussion with GeneralPoxter, they mentioned that they are open to requesting a one-time IAR exception for the nom. Seeking second opinion on whether or not an exemption should be granted here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do so in this case, it's clearly in good faith, and Symphony No. 1 (Kalinnikov) meets all of the dyk criteria apart from the nomination. Vasily Kalinnikov on the other hand doesn't meet any of them, as far as I can tell. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lee Vilenski. The symphony article is long enough and was nominated by the creator one month after they created it. The composer's article was created in 2004, and has only one minor edit by the nominator. (It also lacks inline citations.) So I'd be happy to IAR for Symphony No. 1 (Kalinnikov), but not for Vasily Kalinnikov, which can still be included in the hook as a link, but should be unbolded. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I also agree. New contributors to DYK should be encouraged rather than losing out to the small print. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree --valereee (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Fine, I reviewed the article again and it should be good to go once the author (or someone else, really) has added a discography. I think it should be a requisite of any article about a piece of classical music to add a list of notable recordings. That symphony has been recorded by A-listers like Kondrashin, Svetlanov, and... Toscanini, so this shouldn't be hard. --Edelseider (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are 21 non-current nominations nominations that need reviewing, those through October 28, all listed below. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 168 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three over a month 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) 16:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

6 million articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

We're coming up on the 6 million mark. I'm wondering if DYK could do a special occasion set to run that day? Don't have any very good ideas on what that would be. Maybe a series of new good articles from some of the earliest articles, or DYKs for a selection of Wikipedia:First 100 pages or something like that? --valereee (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

6 million mark for whom? — Maile (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, enwiki...at the current rate, we should hit 6m within two months. Am I misreading something? --valereee (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: let's just say not everybody is the keen observer you are. Until now, I had never noticed before at the top of the Main Page where it lists how many articles English Wikipedia has. What a font of information you are! I don't know how that would work at DYK, since we would probably have to reference Wikipedia ... and we can't do that. You'd think the Signpost would have mentioned that little feat. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Never fear - The Signpost is on the job - well sort of. I've been half-way tracking this for a month or two. ETA for 6,000,000 is January 4, 2020 by the back of my envelop, plus or minus a week. So The Signpost has to have something for the November 30 issue or we'll be missing the story. I did email the WMF yesterday to see if they are doing anything special, but no reply yet. Any suggestions for a story or who to ask? Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

We could perhaps waive the usual rules to run the 6 millionth article - assuming it's not a mere stub - using the fact that it's the six millionth as the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass, if we slot it for the day after (... that Wikipedia's 6 millionth article appeared yesterday?) that would give us a chance to swarm it to improve, and also likely have some sources? --valereee (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Robert Hunter

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The last hook of Queue 4, nominated by Vanamonde93, features a song with lyrics by Robert Hunter, who died about six weeks ago. I think it would be a wonderful tribute if we made this a picture hook. This would require adding a photo to Dire Wolf (song); there are two Commons photos in the Hunter article (my preference would be the black-and-white one). Any thoughts? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: I have historically had poor luck with photos, so I often don't bother. I would love for a photo to be featured; adding one to the article is easy, and I'll do it in a minute or two. Incidentally, I wrote the article because in revamping Robert Hunter for RD, I found this song didn't have one. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Image added; it's this one. If an admin is willing to switch them that would be great, but as it's my own hook I'm not going to insist on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this being moved up into the image slot. But the Michigan Firehouse Museum would need to be returned to the noms page for later promotion, and one of the quirky bio hooks from a prep set should be moved into the quirky slot in Queue 4. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, Maile66, and Valereee: I wonder if any of you would be willing to deal with this? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Done, but I trimmed the hook back a bit as I thought it was a tad long for the lead. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Braised pork rice

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This record was set back in 2012, is it still extant? Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, would you mind adding that source to the article please? Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Added. SL93 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Brants's whistling rat

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

The image used for this hook is of a creature called Euryotis Brantsii, but Brants' whistling rat is Parotomys Brantsii. How do I know these are the same species? There is nothing in the article to confirm it. Pinging the nominator, Cwmhiraeth. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding the name to the article as a synonym. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to confirm that the couple played Games "often" together, or on an "upright piano". Pinging the nominator, Gerda Arendt. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

While waiting for Gerda Arendt to be available, a comment: I am not sure if there is one single source that says that they played Games together often. However, after the sentence starting "They often played from his Játékok (Games), a collection of miniature pieces for two and four hands ..." there are places and times named: Rheingau 2004, 2008 Aldeburgh, Carnegie Hall in 2009, also at Paris, Aix-en-Provence, Washington DC, Zürich (all with no date), and London in 2013. Some of the recordings named are of them playing from this collection too. Is that WP:SYNTH to say that it was "often"? (The upright piano is only mentioned in a quote from one review, so I don't think there is evidence that that was "often".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Replace "often" by including if you have to. I wanted her mentioned on ITN, avoiding all DYK wording trouble, but see if Márta Kurtág had been an American man, she would have appeared, but she is an Hungarian woman. - I saw them play from the collection on an upright piano (RMF) and I remember the impression as if it was yesterday, see User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2019#Márta Kurtág. - I should pack for travelling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) RebeccaGreen, the source itself (google translation) says: They performed regularly in four hands with the program of transcriptions of Bach choirs and compositions by György Kurtág including his famous Játékok. I took that to mean that they played all kinds of Kurtag's compositions, including, sometimes, the Jatekok. But in re-reading the sentence, I think it could reasonably be interpreted to mean they played the Jatekok "often". So I'll accept that part of the hook as verified. There is still a question mark over the "upright piano" bit though. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Replacing "often" with "including", as Gerda Arendt suggests, would solve the question about the upright piano. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You could say specifically that the played the upright at Queen Elizabeth Hall in London, which is sourced, and show as one example how they played at the grandest locations humbly as in their living room, and of course the piece of their lives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But then the "upright piano" bit would look superfluous, what does it matter if they played it one time on an upright? Also, I'd prefer to keep "often" as it makes for a more compelling hook. I'm about to log off so we may have to resolve this one tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "on an upright piano" clause as it served no purpose, but have altered "Hungarian pianist" to "Hungarian pianists" as it was unclear from the hook previously what instrument the husband was playing. I think the hook reads well now and I have consequently activated the bot for the set. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! - Just for my education: the original hook had "collection Játékok (Games}", - which was changed to "collection entitled Játékok ('Games')", - I don't understand why we need "entitled", nor the funny quotes around italic "Games". "Games" is only a translation, not itself a title. - By saying "pianists" we neglect that he is much better known as a composer, and by dropping "upright piano", we loose that wonderful humblenes, but so be it. Don't miss the video. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
On my user page, I run the ALT "... that Hungarian pianist Márta Kurtág and her husband performed together for 60 years, often from his collection Játékok (Games) on an upright piano?" - I believe that the "upright" said clearly enough what he played. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Any answer to why we have to say "entitled" for the name of a collection, and why have to have italics for something which is not a title, just a translation, and why we have to have singe quotation marks for something that is separated by brackets anyway? Just would like to learn. --
I don't see 'entitled' used much in this sense, but when I was younger, it was used to mean 'named' or 'called' when referring to a book, record, composition, etc - something published or released with a title. Now, 'titled' is much more common in this sense. That doesn't really answer why you would say 'his collection called/named/titled/entitled Játékok ' rather than just 'his collection Játékok ': either is acceptable, in my opinion, just a matter of preference. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that helps! In hooks, I'd prefer brevity. Rebecca, could you use your language skills for Clara Schumann, another pianist for 60 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the hook? It looks fine, and is approved ... or do you mean the article? If I have time, I can read it - but it is already a Good Article, so all should be fine with it? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The article ;) - Peer review open, heading for FAC, defiently fighting bias - but informal copy-editing also just fine, anybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

This hook makes it sound as if the wall fell of its own accord. Suggested tweak:

Done --valereee (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee:@Gatoclass: should "Fall" be capitalized in the bolded link? Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, good catch! --valereee (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

- I can barely follow the narrative in this article, and can't see any place where it clearly states that this woman spied for the Soviets. Can somebody please point it out to me in the text? In the meantime, I have pulled it from the prep in question as I am about to promote that set. Gatoclass (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: "During her working-time in Paris, as a librarian in the Slavic Department of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, she collaborated with the secret services, transmitting information to the USSR." ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for that ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester. However, there are still several issues. Firstly, the hook is misleading, as it implies she was betraying her husband during the civil war, when her collaboration evidently only began much later, during the 30s. Secondly, the provided source only says she collaborated "according to some sources". Thirdly, the source itself looks like a blog that anybody can post an article to. It does say at the bottom First published in the journal Obshchina [Society], Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists, Moscow (1990), No. 43, p. 6-9. but even if it came from that journal, I have no way of knowing how reliable that journal was. Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Oh. That's fair. I was just surprised that people recommended me to put the article here in the first place if it's this faulty. ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Well I guess they didn't take a close look at the sources. It looks like you wasted your time with this nomination, I'm sorry your experience with DYK wasn't more positive this time around, but hopefully you have learned something useful for another time. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have been reading the article and sources, and doing a bit of editing and adding more citations. Is there a possibility that this could be reopened if another well-sourced hook can be found? She's an interesting woman, so I don't mind doing a bit of work on the article regardless. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm always in favour of nomination rescue, so by all means go ahead, let us know when you're done. Gatoclass (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoter needed for image slot in Prep 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have reserved the image slot for the Gara Medouar hook and image in Template:Did you know nominations/Gara Medouar. As both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on this hook, we need someone else to promote it. Note: After promotion, please leave the template open so the second hook can be promoted afterwards. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

QUEUE 5 tweak request

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can we move the hook for Special Group in QUEUE 5 up to the second position? I think this DYK has a huge potential since most of my Indian friends have been quite intrigued by the article. (BTW India has the second largest English speaking population, so my request is justified)— Vaibhavafro 💬 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I already moved this up to third spot in response to your request yesterday. To move it up further would mean unbalancing the set with two non-biography hooks adjacent at the top of the set and two biography hooks adjacent lower down. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
We have a policy page (can't locate it now) that says that hook placement has nothing to do with reader response. A hook can be down in the second-to-last spot and still be highly popular. The key factor is the hookiness of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Understood. Thanks for finally explaining.— Vaibhavafro 💬 11:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I note that this hook "... that the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than seek an extension to Brexit under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019? " is in Q6.

Parliament has been dissolved and the general election campaign in the United Kingdom has started and I wonder if this contravenes the rule against promoting political causes? Cowlibob (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't read to me as promoting any particular political cause. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it certainly does because it implies that he lied about leaving the EU when the facts are more complicated than that (Parliament tied his hands, pressure from MPs etc.) which a lay-reader who isn't too versed in politics may misread it as that. It should not run until after 12 December @Cowlibob:. As we are currently in the UK election cycle, it would violate WP:DYKNOT to run it because it goes along with the narrative of opposing parties. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not the way I read it, at all. To me, it just reads as a statement of strong determination to oppose a Brexit extension, albeit stated in a colourful and amusing manner. It's absurd to suggest this implies "lying" when anybody with the remotest acquaintance with the topic knows that Johnson is the hardest of hardline Brexiteers. For people who've been living on a desert island for the last three years and have never heard of Brexit, the hook will indicate nothing whatever, so I see this hook as both neutral and amusing. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass. The hook looks like it's talking about his reaction to a specific motion, not about the whole issue of Brexit. Yoninah (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Personally I would have found the ditch scenario both colourful and amusing. But I fear for our Brenda-from-Bristol readers, who may fall asleep before they get to the end of the hook. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass; I think we should run this straight away as it has already been hanging around for weeks, after all, it is about an act of parliament and nothing to do with an election. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine as well. To save Brenda's issues, could it be phrased as "... that the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than seek an extension to Brexit?"
I suspect Branda is still out there with her spade. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the election in the UK is December 12, the hook would need to run more than 30 days before then to be eligible, or no later than November 11. Queue 6 is set to run on November 9 at 00:00 UTC, which is outside that window, so it should be all right from that perspective. This doesn't strike me as a situation that would require an even more restrictive holdback than is specified (see here for the wording). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it reads as Johnson lying at all. He really, really didn't want it and used a colorful turn of phrase to describe how much he didn't want it. --valereee (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Count of DYK Hooks issue

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I've noticed that there are many dates in the Count of DYK Hooks that are empty, but still showing up in this list. For example: from June 29 - October 4 there are 14 dates listed in this count. However, there are actually only 4 dates with outstanding nominations (sept 3, sept 21, sept 27, oct 3). The other 10 are not in the older nominations section but still show up in the count. I was wondering why this was the case. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the table at Template talk:Did you know, it has one column for #of Hooks and one for #Verified. If there are no unverified hooks for that date, there will be no corresponding section. The same table appears in Template talk:Did you know/Approved where you will see the verified hooks. The number of unverified hooks that you would expect to see at Template talk:Did you know isn't listed, but you can calculate it easily by subtracting #Verifed from the total. MB 02:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@MB: Yes. But if all of the hooks are verified from that date, and no longer have a section related to it, why do these dates still show up in the table? I would think the dates would have been removed by a bot or something. E.g., June 29, September 9, September 20 etc. Or: have one table for unverified in the main section and another table for verified in the approved section. This would prevent people like me clicking on a date that doesn't exist in the main template but still there in the verified section. Since the approved nominations are moved to the verified section, I would think the dates would be too if they are all cleaned out. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 - Thomas P. Saine

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

- I'm afraid I don't find this hook to be quirky or even interesting - lots of people have vanity plates which reference their field of work. Would it bother anybody if I substituted this for ALT0 from the nomination page? Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass, not a problem for me. I did find it amusing that a university professor collected that many vanity plates (more than those mentioned), which look more like fandom than the SERIOUS BIZNIS expected from a professor of German literature to me. But I couldn't turn that amusement into a more enticing hook than what I proposed. ALT0 (or a mix) might be better. —Kusma (t·c) 11:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Kusma, I have substituted ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: The bolded article has a space instead of a hyphen in GOETHE-1 (this space should also be nbsp). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The source uses hyphens, which is why I altered the hook. Whether US vanity plates use hyphens or not I don't know, but when in doubt I will follow the source. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a source with hyphen and a source without hyphen, unfortunately. There is a picture of the motorcycle plate here:https://webfiles.uci.edu/tpsaine/www/index.htm
which has no hyphen, so I assume there is no hyphen. But it doesn't matter too much to me. —Kusma (t·c) 16:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
According to the California DMV site, the only characters allowed are letters, digits one through nine, spaces, and half spaces (plus heart, hand, star, or "+" symbol for "Kids"-themed plates). So it should be &nbsp;. Also, can we change "registration plate"? In the US, I've never heard that term used. It should be "license plate", "vanity plate", or the term used by CA DMV: "personalized plate". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mandarax: You are probably correct that the plate has a space, not a hyphen, and I think displaying it with a hyphen is a typographical choice, not a claim about what the real plate looks like. But this is not just true for the source, it is also true for the article and ultimately I find either choice to be defensible. I originally had used "license plate", but Cwmhiraeth changed that here, which seems to me to internationalise the hook a bit. Gatoclass, do you think there should be any further tweaks in response to these comments? —Kusma (t·c) 07:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the hyphen and replaced it with &nbsp per Ravenpuff and Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3 - Vienna Boys et al

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Yes, I see that now, google translated that as "choirmaster" which was the source of my confusion. No problems then :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The queue still has boys's choir instead of the Viennese flavour Sängerknaben. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Sängerknaben is flavorful, but it means nothing to English speakers. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The Wiener Sängerknaben are world famous under that name (look at the record covers), such as The Beatles won't get translated in Germany, but I have no time to argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, so far as I can tell, the source mentions only venomous saliva, no other source of toxins. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: That was in a paragraph added by another editor. Having looked at the source, I have rephrased the article and suggest you change the hook to
  • ... that the assassin bug Rhynocoris marginatus injects toxic venomous saliva into its prey to paralyse it?
  Done, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: WYFI

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This may be an ENGVAR issue, but I find the use of the word 'lasting' a bit strange in this hook, especially as the station didn't last:

  • ... that the first incarnation of radio station WYFI was described as lasting "on faith and LPs" and ended in an "Edsel-like burn" within less than a year?

I see that the words in the source are "WYFI, the FM-only outlet that lasted for many months on faith and LPs", which for me is fine, as it indicates a period of time. Without a time, I would find it more natural to say 'ran' or 'survived' on faith and LPs. I don't know if this is an issue for anyone else? RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Changed to "running" - thank you Rebecca. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Anthony Dwyer

Dumelow Cwmhiraeth Yoninah

The quote is us quoting the writer of the source material, who writes Dwyer 'had reached the conclusion that contracting was a mug's game' but doesn't attribute that term to Dwyer. Does this hook feel like it might be taken as indicating those were Dwyer's words? --valereee (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We often put quotes around words taken from a source. In this case, since there are only two words (rather than a whole sentence), I don't think anyone is going to read too deeply into whether Dwyer said it or not. Yoninah (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --valereee (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2001 Australian Grand Prix

MWright96 Narutolovehinata5

I know this has been discussed at the nom and here on talk, but I'm still having trouble finding the sentence in the article with citation that supports this hook sentence? --valereee (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived nearly two days ago, so here is an updated list with all 31 non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 7. Right now we have a total of 291 nominations, of which 189 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those from September and the first half of October.

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) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

On more opinions being needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to invite more editors to review a past DYK nomination that has been rejected as it appeals to precise understanding of some wiki guidelines. In Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rue_Sainte-Catherine_Roundup, user Gatoclass rejected DYK nomination of an article on a Nazi roundup during WW2, on the basis that the article contains, among other things, a list of the names of the victims sent to the exterminations camps. I respectfully disagree with this opinion, for reasons that I exposed as well. I would like to invite other editors to give their opinion on the matter, encouraging everyone to remain courteous (as has been the case so far)!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, I did not "reject" the nomination, I simply placed a hold on it while the issue I raised is addressed. My concern, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, is that the article includes a complete list of all 84 victims, including their names, ages, date and place of birth, what concentration camp they were taken to, and even the number of the convoy which took them there. The problem is that none of this information is of any interest to the overwhelming majority of readers, because it adds virtually nothing to their understanding of the topic. I did leave the door open for you to include some information about the victims, some sort of summary perhaps, with possibly some comments about one or two of the more notable victims, but a mere list of names, ages, birth dates etc., especially one this long, is IMO more likely to bewilder than engage the reader, prompting them to ask "why do I need to know all these details?" Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

What happened to our administrators?

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It seems like Gatoclass is the only one promoting preps to queues, which happens only one at a time, once a day. Your prep builders have nothing to do most of the time. Pinging Valereee, Maile, Casliber, Vanamonde, Amakuru. If everyone is busy, we must figure out a workable system to keep prep sets open. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. With everything being promoted so slowly, the approved nominations have built up to nearly 200. Is it time to run a few twice-daily sets? Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Been busy. Thanks for the heads-up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
PS: @Yoninah: I trust your judgement on this - if you reckon we need to go to twice daily for a bit, then that's fine by me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I actually promoted two this week -- today's, and yesterday's. --valereee (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've been trying to promote at least one prep per day to the queue Yoninah. Unfortunately, over the last few days, I was distracted by having to make a considerable number of additions etc. to one particular nomination, which cost me a couple of prep promotions (thank you Valereee for stepping up while I was otherwise engaged), and then yesterday I lost my supposedly superior-grade internet connection again for several hours and was unable to get anything done - so basically that was at least three prep sets I missed out promoting in the last three days. I like to stay a few days ahead in the queue now because it gives me a lot more time to make fixes or consult with others about possible fixes - if there's nothing in the slot, it's a mad rush to get a prep ready in time. Getting a few queues ahead also gives people at WP:ERRORS etc. more time to suggest improvements. But yes, if other admins can drop in now and again to promote a set, it makes things that much easier. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I like us to stay ahead, too. Ideally I prefer to promote a prep to queue when I'll have at least two days to check it and ask questions at talk, as I do my checking after I've promoted to queue, so the perfect situation for me is to have at least two queues already filled, then I fill the next and am not feeling harried. I can do one per week, but more than that and I think I'm not as productive. I'll go ahead and fill one now, but honestly that's the third one this week and I start to miss things and get snippy at this point. --valereee (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I was pretty pissed at losing my net connection yesterday Valereee, because I'd already lost a couple of days trying to improve that nomination, and I've been on quite a roll lately, having gotten back into the swing of it and actually kind of enjoying it (although it must be said that I think I've probably had an unusually good run with a lack of problematic nominations lately). But I find if I do a set as soon as I log on, I'm doing it when I'm still fresh, and it gives me plenty of opportunity to go and do some other things afterwards - and then sometimes, I feel like coming back a little later and doing a second set. But nonetheless, I can't be expected to turn up every single day (and the spectre of sudden burnout always looms). So even if somebody else could manage to do two or three sets a week, it makes things that much easier. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Burnout worries me a lot. I'd rather see each of us doing no more than we actually enjoy doing. To me it feels like we need ~10 regular admins here, each ready to do a set a week when they can. That would mean we had extra capacity for when various people weren't available. What we have is about six, which means someone has to do at least two a week, even weeks when everyone is available. When any of us is unavailable, it means most of us doing two a week, and that's more than I want to commit to every week. I don't mind doing a third this week, but we need to figure this out somehow. --valereee (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thinking out loud... I'd be willing to claim a number, then ask for help when I know I'm not going to get to "my" queue? That would put me at doing a queue every six days, which is a workload I'd be happy to commit to. Do you think that would be helpful? --valereee (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Real-life happened to this administrator, and is going to continue to happen for a little while...I'll do my best to do a set or two a week going forward, but there might be gaps again soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Q4 Nov19

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Wales national football team home stadium

Kosack Narutolovehinata5 Yoninah

The sentences in the article read As a result, the Racecourse Ground is officially recognised as the oldest football ground in the world that continues to host international matches by Guinness World Records.[5] The next ground to host an international that is still in use is Hampden Park in Glasgow, which did not host its first match for another 27 years,[6] and has hosted more Welsh international matches than any other ground. which to me sounds like Hampden Park in Glasgow has hosted more Welsh international matches? --valereee (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence fragment was left over from some copyediting. I've moved it now to the correct sentence, thanks. Kosack (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Kosack, thanks, I thought it was likely something like that! --valereee (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hevrin Khalaf

I'm thinking this one might benefit from some additional eyes for neutrality. There've been a few IPs making partisanish-feeling changes, not what I'd call edit warring, but it could be a concern once the thing hits the main page. --valereee (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

22 November

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

... is the birthday of Benjamin Britten, and the day of the patron saint of music, St Cecilia. I suggested an article for the occasion, but it appeared today already. So, I wrote a new one and hope for speedy processing of Template:Did you know nominations/A Hymn of St Columba ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I hate to compete with an editor I consider a friend but I was hoping for the photo spot for Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Rogers. The video is IMO amazing and would make a great top spot. This would be to coincide with the release of the much anticipated biopic about Rogers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed Gerda's article, and there is no reason why both can't appear on that day. Which one has the image slot would be up to the promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! Britten's image is not the greatest, but in this case - finally - matching the composition time. I can try again next year, - War Requiem would also match the time, but making that GA would be quite a challenge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: thank YOU, actually. I'm a neutral party on this, but the article on Britten is not specifically about him, but one of his works. While the Fred Rogers article is about him, has the nifty video, and is about a man who was a role model and idol to multiple generations in America. Enough so, that President George W. Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his wholesome legacy. — Maile (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: @Coffeeandcrumbs: The Fred Rogers requested Nov 22 nomination has now been approved. Hopefully, as a lead hook and the Video, to coincide with the release of the much anticipated biopic about Rogers. Is it now possible? Given the time zone of the US, would it be better in Prep 1 or Prep 2? — Maile (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want both hooks to be in the same set, I would personally give the image slot to the Fred Rogers article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, only there's already a different image in the set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Prep 1 will have plenty of run time in daytime hours in the U.S. on November 22. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all for their help on this, and to Gerda for her graciousness on this. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks to all. The video makes me happy/laugh/cry every time I watch it and a good cry may be what the world (at least the US) needs right now. Cheers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I had the same reaction to watching that video. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
"It's great to be able to stop, when you've planned a thing that's wrong." OMG --valereee (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Updating various instruction pages

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Poking around a bit I found this (linked from this page) and I have absolutely no idea what it's talking about. It's been tagged for being out of date for over three years, has zero watchers, and has had zero views in 2019. Should we update or mark it as historical or something? Pinging Pppery who last edited it and Shubinator whose bot it once described. ----valereee (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 suicide

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Prep 1 has * ... that after her husband committed suicide, Li Yin supported herself by selling her paintings (example pictured)?

Some people don't support the phrase "committed suicide" ("committed a crime ..."), can we phrase that more neutral? Why say at all how he died? Sensation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not use ALT1 hook from the nomination? — Maile (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ALT1:... that Li Yin's paintings (example pictured) were so sought after that forty imitators turned out fakes in her area?

@Zanhe: perhaps you can clarify something else about the article wording that is confusing to me. Artist Ge Zhengqi, who later committed suicide, "took her as his concubine." In the western world, concubine is not a wife. Later it refers to Ge and Li being together when they ran into a military conflict, Li "stayed to search for her husband" The paragraph indicates she was already with Ge, so who was the husband? I think the article needs a little re-write to clear up that confusion. — Maile (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Maile66: Sorry for the late response, I was away last week. In imperial China, concubines ranked lower in status than the main wife, but were legally recognized as secondary wives; they were not the unmarried mistresses of the western world. See this CUHK article: "We know about her life mainly from a preface to a collection of her poetry written by her husband, Ge Zhengqi ..." And I don't really care whether ALT0 or ALT1 is used, or whether her husband "committed suicide" or "killed himself". "Committed suicide" sounds perfectly neutral to me, but I understand others may feel differently. -Zanhe (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about eligibility

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all, I am wondering whether Susie Owens is still eligible for DYK. I expanded it 5x on the 10th (seven and a half days ago) while it was being considered for deletion, and the AfD closed as keep earlier today. Cheers, gnu57 19:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to be generous, but next time please just write the nomination even if at AfD. Please ping me when done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Susie Owens. Thank you, gnu57 22:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I looked now, and wonder why - while it was 295 chars when you started expanding, and has 2111 chars now - it's still marked by the DYK check as ot a 5*-expandsion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
gnu57, thanks for nominating. It was eligible all day on the 17th—no need for Gerda Arendt's generosity, though it's great that she's reviewing it. For DYK, the seven days goes through the end of the seventh day after creation/expansion begins, regardless of time of day. Articles at AfD should always be nominated for DYK anyway before the seven days are up; consideration of the nomination will be postponed until after the AfD closes. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, - can you also help me understand the expansion factor thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the counter is comparing the current size of the article with a revision from 2008 [4]. (I have no idea why.) The character count tool says that that version has 425 characters of readable prose (ignoring the list of magazine titles), but this is an error: it's also including the broken template at the foot of the page. Cheers, gnu57 18:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, as gnu57 notes, DYKcheck can go back quite a ways to see an older version with more characters, even though that may have been a problematic addition that was later reverted. (Or, in this case, weird code that's counted by DYKcheck; the first line in the diff shown by gnu57 is 72 characters all by itself.) In this case, the article version immediately prior to expansion, the 13 January 2019 version, has 295 prose characters, and that's the basis for the 5x expansion. (The article has been at 295 characters since 2015, but even seven months at that level is way more than a long enough time period to qualify as the starting length for expansion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ready for a short run of 2 sets per day?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Right now we have 203 approved nominations out of 304 proposed. WikiCup is coming up in 6 weeks. Are we ready for a short run of 2 sets per day? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Heading into a busy time for many...doubling admin requirements when we're already having a hard time meeting them now, can we do it? --valereee (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
We may have many approved nominations, but we don't have many administrators. Those we do have are struggling to cover one set per day. I think that going to two sets per day would be a really good way to burn out the admins. If we do switch to two sets, I think it should be the admins who move preps to queues who decide among themselves when they can manage it. As Valereee mentioned, it's a busy time of year for many, so from now till the end of the year is probably not the right time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Up to Christmas maybe or go straight into it in the New Year when the Cup starts up again? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, we could be ready if we had more sets filled before we start: at least ten queues and preps filled, and at least five of them queues (and better all six queues): I would expect we could run for at least a week with that kind of buffer, which would get 56 extra nominations run on the main page, and perhaps more. (As I type this, we have four queues filled and the equivalent of three preps.) If we could get some buy in from the admins, it's certainly possible, but if they're particularly busy, then we'll be doing well to hold our own. December has not been a problem in the past—last year, we ran two a day for three weeks in December through Christmas Day. We should probably ping the rest of the admin regulars to see whether they think they'll have the time over the next little while (I realize that in the U.S., Thanksgiving is coming up): Gatoclass, Cas Liber, Maile, Amakuru, and Vanamonde. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

A Hymn of St Columba

@Gerda Arendt and Cwmhiraeth: For A Hymn of St Columba, I was not able to verify the hook on page 8. Is it in another source? Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. The voyage is in the source given, but the years elapsed are only in the other which I added, "Catalogue". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
A little confused sorry, which source verifies that he wanted it sung with fire? Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
As in the article, #3, Spicer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Cwmhiraeth: The only words with fire in any of the citations say The piece is all about the fire in Columba's belly for his missionary task, which I do not think verifies the 'with fire' part of the hook ...that Benjamin Britten (pictured), who composed A Hymn of St Columba for the 1,400th anniversary of Saint Columba's voyage, wanted it sung "with fire"? Sorry for being unclear, does that make more sense now? I do not know where the 'sung "with fire"' is coming from, I did not see it in any of the sources. Kees08 (Talk) 05:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Page 8 of the Spicer source states "In performance it is Britten’s direction that it should be sung 'with fire' which should underpin the interpretation." Alternatively, you could substitute the other approved hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I came to say the very same thing, thank you Cwmhiraeth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It's actually page 9 of the Spicer, first line of the first full paragraph on that page. ----valereee (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's chalk this one up to my incompetence. We are all good here, thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 15:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Syritta pipiens

@Alicelixuan and Cwmhiraeth: For Syritta pipiens, could we change the hook from ... that the hoverfly Syritta pipiens makes sharp darts in flight to facilitate mating? to ... that the hoverfly Syritta pipiens makes sharp movements in flight to facilitate mating? I imagined it made projectiles until I opened the article. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point (pun intended), I suggest you make the change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay! If the word dart is preferred then ... that the hoverfly Syritta darts sharply in flight to facilitate mating? would work, but for now I have changed it to movement as per above. I am fine with either. Nice pun :). Kees08 (Talk) 16:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's an interesting fact that isn't in the article (which should be included there and arguably in the hook): Tracking is probably sexual in function and often culminates in a rapid dart towards the leading fly, after the latter has settled. During these “rapes” the male accelerates continuously at about 500 cm · s−2, turning just before it lands so that it is in the copulatory position. The male rapes flies of either sex indicating that successful copulation involves more trial and error than recognition. Source. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Güzelgöz

@CeeGee and Morgan695: For Mustafa Güzelgöz, are either of you native (or fluent) Turkish speakers? Google translate gives the name Donkey Librarian, which seems more likely than Librarian with Donkey, especially since they were mocking him. I wanted to verify that the hook is a valid translation, since the sources are in Turkish. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not, I just AGF'd on the name given by the nominator. Morgan695 (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That seems a good change to me too, but CeeGee should be able to help you. I'm pleased to see you taking an interest in DYK! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Please let me explain. "Eşek" means "donkey", and "eşekli" means "with donkey". This is the usual suffix in Turkish language. What can I do if the Google translator is not able to interpret correctly. I would say it is a helpful tool but not precise always. CeeGee 10:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @CeeGee: maybe the phrasing could be smoothed out as "Librarian with a Donkey"? Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am perfectly happy with how it is, I wanted to verify that at least one person in the chain could make a proper translation. Since you can, I easily trust you over Google Translate, so how it is should be fine. I just presumed since they were mocking him, Donkey Librarian sounded more insulting so it could be the proper translation. All is well though, I will leave it how it is unless CeeGee thinks "Librarian with Donkey" is more appropriate. Kees08 (Talk) 16:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Eugen Ernst photo

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion
 
Eugen Ernst

The links in the photo page for the lead image in this set don't go to a photo of Eugen Ernst, they go to a photograph of a photographer. And when I do a search of the site, there appears to be no image of Eugen Ernst on it. Pinging the nominator HerkusMonte and reviewer Gerda Arendt. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm talking about the source for the image. So far as I can tell, it is this page (which I got from the "Accession number" and "image file name" fields of the Wikicommons image page). But that's a photograph of a different guy, named Abraham Pisarek. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess there's a mistake in the number, because that is also a completely different-looking person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
If there's doubt, why not run it without an image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I can do that of course Gerda, I just thought I should give the nominator a chance to respond before doing so. Maybe I will move it to another set for now and find another lead hook for this set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both good. Perhaps HerkusMonte knows more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 
Maybe another photo of Ernst, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-16469-0001, Eugen Ernst.jpg (source from German Federal Archives), could be used in the article and for DYK? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, but the other is better, and it's only problem seems to be some mistake in the attribution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. The source for the picture is the Deutsche Fotothek, which donated approximately 250,000 images to commons in 2009 (Commons:Deutsche Fotothek). They linked the photographer (Abraham Pisarek), why is this relevant? HerkusMonte (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass please check the terms and conditions of the Deutsche Fotothek: The low resolution digital copies made available by the Deutsche Fotothek for Wikimedia Commons are excluded from these provisions. These are subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany license model. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
HerkusMonte, you are missing the point. We can't use the image because it doesn't have a link, so we don't know it actually came from the Deutsche Fotothek. I did do a search of Deutsche Fotothek to try and find the image but it doesn't appear to be there. If you can find it and add a link to it to the image page, then we could run it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass The image was uploaded by FotothekBot in 2009 as part of the Fotothek project. The licensing is absolutely clear ("This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Deutsche Fotothek of the Saxon State Library / State and University Library Dresden (SLUB) as part of a cooperation project. The Deutsche Fotothek guarantees an authentic representation only by using copies of the original images as provided by the Digital Image Archive.") We do know it came directly and straight from the Deutsche Fotothek, whether they published the same image at their own page or not is completely irrelevant. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass I agree with @HerkusMonte:. We have all the documentation and licensing we require on Commons about this image that was uploaded a decade ago. There could be any number of reasons why Deutsche Fotothek doesn't currently have the image on their website. The collection was in a library, and who knows what happened to that original collection in the last decade. Maybe the collection is still there, but their online site can't access it. Maybe their system crashed, and they lost a bunch of info. The "why" it isn't on their website is not under our control, or knowledge, and we should not be concerned. They gave us the license to use it, so it should be good. — Maile (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Maile, I think we can safely assume that it did indeed come from the stated source given that it was uploaded by the bot (a detail I missed). So I think it's fine to run with the original image. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: So we can now move his non-picture hook from a Prep 4 non-picture slot to a lead slot somewhere, if you would, please. I think you originally promoted him to Prep 5.— Maile (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to Prep 6. I think the image needs to be cropped to just a head and shoulders shot. Pinging @David Levy:. Yoninah (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that Maile cropped the image. Is that a good idea? I liked the original image, showing him with his hand on the book, it's still perfectly viewable at the given resolution and IMO is more compelling than just the face. Anybody else with an opinion? Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought the hand looked out of proportion because it's closer to the camera. But the crop is too tight for my taste. Could the image be made rectangular rather than square, with more air over his head and more of his tie showing? Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Rye railway station

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

@Ritchie333, Winged Blades of Godric, and 97198: To be honest, I don't really see how the hook as written could appeal to non-British readers. I understand that Grade II listing is similar to being listed as a National Historical Site in the US, but the hook lacks context to allow those unfamiliar with the concept to understand it. Perhaps a mention of why the signal box was listed (because, according to the article, it is one of only two such structures still in good condition) could be mentioned to give the article broader appeal? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never been in England, but I found it interesting that the signal box is also listed. Yoninah (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll have a quick look in my railway books tonight to see if I can find anything hooky that hasn't been covered in the article already. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the hook's fine, listed buildings appeal to middle-aged tourists from Nebraska who say "Wow, look at all your cool English things!" even when they're travelling on the M4 past Magor Services thinking "Is Gwasanaethau a real word, Brad?" I have linked "Grade II listed" to listed building so those unfamiliar with the concept can read our article on the subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "Grade II listed" may not be widely understood. Linking it does not give context without following the link. Why not tweak it:
How about, this: — Maile (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find any astoundingly hooky facts in any of my books, by the way, although Marcus Binney did describe the station as resembling a "miniature Italian villa". Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The original hook was fine. If people don't know what Grade II listing means then this will encourage them to click on the article to find out. ALT1 won't do because it's not clear why the place was listed. Often it is because the place is considered to be of architectural interest rather than historical interest; these are not the same thing. ALT2 is too long and has too many links which distract from the main one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As the hook is two queues away from being promoted and concerns have been raised about the hook, it might be for the best to move it down to a later prep until the issues are sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not in the UK, and I'm not a trains afficionado, and I found this interesting. The fact I don't understand the details of how the UK lists historic sites/buildings doesn't cause me any real confusion; it's somewhere on the scale of "worth noting". I'm fine with the hook as is, also fine with MB's ALT1. --valereee (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussing change to WP:DYKHOOK

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, Andrew Davidson, let's discuss. We don't actually prefer shorter hooks over longer, as long as they're shorter than the maximum. We need both longer hook and shorter ones in order to create a set that won't be too short. If we use all short hooks, we end up with a too-short set and sometimes end up adding a ninth hook. ----valereee (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the verbiage 'shorter hooks are preferred' was added in February 2007 and then in December of that year, length restrictions were codified to a 200 character max. --valereee (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be good to have some statistics about the variation in hook length and how they perform – the number of hits that they get. I just looked through the archive for November and every set seemed to have 8 hooks so the cases where 9 are needed must be infrequent. Other things being equal, I'm content if Valereee makes her hooks long, while I make mine short and others do as they please. The performance of the hooks will then give us some feedback on which works best and we can adjust accordingly. In the meantime, I like the guideline as it is because brevity is usually considered to be good for prose. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

    Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

    — Elementary Principles of Composition, The Elements of Style
I'm all for conciseness! This isn't me saying hooks should be long. They should be the length that is good for that hook. Whatever length is best for a hook is the preferred length for that hook. A shorter hook that isn't as good is not preferred simply because it's shorter. The reason there are so few 9-hook sets is because prep setters work very hard to achieve balance, and one of the things they'r considering is not choosing 8 short hooks. I've set a number of preps and been thinking, "No, can't use that one, already have too many short (or long) hooks in this set." ----valereee (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Main Page balance is an important consideration. A balance of both short and long hooks is important to maintaining a good looking Main Page. Having too many hooks below 100 characters is bad. So is having too many hooks near the upper limits. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:DYKSTATS also has many examples of long hooks that have performed very well. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some of the ones with the highest numbers are also the longest. ----valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The dead

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In Germany, 24 November is Totensonntag, or Ewigkeitssonntag, time to think of the dead. Hugo Distler wrote a piece of music especially for the occasion, Template:Did you know nominations/Totentanz (Distler). It's approved but was not moved to special occasions, which I may not do. Help? Squeeze in. Another one, dedicated to a person who fell in World War I, was finally just approved, Template:Did you know nominations/En blanc et noir. 17 November would have been perfect, but is past. I know you want to spread out and no two in one set. If we have 2 sets per day by Sunday, we could avoid that problem, otherwise please don't get it too close to Thanksgiving. Sorry for needing extra attention again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's too late for moving Template:Did you know nominations/Totentanz (Distler) to Special occasions, the hook needs to go in Queue 3, so needs an administrator's attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I've made room for it, anyone should feel free to promote to another prep, or if I get a chance to I'll promote it later. Gerda Arendt, we aren't allowed to move our own hooks into a special occasion slot? That seems silly. If anyone objected they could just move it back, couldn't they? --valereee (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee:, our Gerda is probably referring to a Sept 2019 lengthy discussion about clarifying the rules 1, and a rather lengthy explanation by @BlueMoonset: of why that restriction exists. In a nutshell, not all special occasion requests are granted, and the nominator is bypassing scrutiny by moving it themselves. Just like nominators aren't allowed to promote their own nominations to Prep. — Maile (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, ah, I see...the idea was that a prolific producer of DYKs might abuse the privelege. I dunno...putting a hook in the special occasion area doesn't actually guarantee it will run that date. It doesn't grant the request; it just makes sure promoters see the request. Sometimes another special occasion request for that date is more important, and the two aren't appropriate in the same set. Promoters still have to promote the hook to the correct prep. Putting a hook into the special occasion holding area is really just helping ensure that promoters are aware of the special occasion request. --valereee (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee:, I guess you could see it as a necessary check-and-balance of how DYK works. Gerda has recently had to defend why she makes so many birthday requests, which are usually on the main page when she wants, anyway. But at least with that step in place, there is the assurance that she is not abusing the system - i.e. it takes more than Gerda to get it there. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Radio stations

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Curious as to why the inordinate number of radio station hooks lately. Jmar67 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Raymie as they are the nominator of these hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I went on a tear and decided to do a DYK of a radio station in every US state. There are a lot of stubs out there, and with the existence of more sources (between Newspapers.com and David Gleason's excellent American Radio History website, containing the full archives of Broadcasting), I wanted to do some really good broadcasting DYKs. Additionally, there are enough materials now to write articles about defunct stations that never got articles. In general, it's not uncommon for editors to nominate DYKs in a series; we've had a string of excellent articles on New York City topics from User:Epicgenius, User:Gerda Arendt specializes in classical music DYK topics, etc. Mine just happen to be radio and TV stations. Raymie (t • c) 00:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I received flowers that made me blush for saying about what follows: some like flower arrangements all one colour, some all mixed, I like both. Back then, I defended that there was nothing wrong with a bunch of articles around Ghana. I did a series on Bach cantatas the speed that Bach produced them, one per week, and I'm not done because not all of them appeared on DYK yet, and for some it means upgrade to GA first. Comments welcome for The Christmas cantata for FAC, 'tis the season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
yesterday. we had a hook about Hevrin Khalaf, and I arranged it in protest like this. An image of her was found late yesterday:
 

Kurdish civil engineer and politician
Hevrin Khalaf,
who worked for tolerance
 among Christians, Arabs, and Kurds,
was killed
in the 2019 Turkish offensive into Syria?

Many of our problems seem minor, compsared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have been trying to space out the radio station and New York City hooks every other set, and I call on other prep builders to do the same. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I hope I'm not clogging anything up with my 3 nominations per week.   Like Raymie, I have a lot of source material (NYTimes.com and newspapers.com help a lot, plus there are just a lot of topics to write about). Though a few of the NYC nominations aren't even mine, which makes the queue even more crowded with NYC hooks, I guess. epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The encyclopedia can only benefit from this burst of energy on both your parts, epicgenius and Raymie. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
+1. I kind of like seeing these ripples of dyks. I often recognize whose dyk I'm getting ready to check before I look at the nom credits. We had a wave of cemeteries in Russia for a bit, and you can tell when Cwm has moved to a new phylum or whatever it is. It's like DYK has its own natural history. --valereee (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Just want to mention a bit of how it happened, because it doesn't happen without DYK. Back in February, I wrote up KXBR (Missouri) (originally at the title "KXBR (defunct)". It used a bunch of the OCR Newspapers.com pages but no clippings since I didn't have a subscription. SounderBruce reviewed the article and told me two things: the "(defunct)" disambiguator, which had been common in broadcasting articles, violated the WP:MOS (leading to a couple of RfCs and the changing of some 100 article titles), and that I should get a newspapers.com subscription through WP:TWL. That opened the door to quite a few new articles, and it isn't just DYK; one article I've held back for a GA nomination, there are countless corrections and improvements to other articles in the topic area (and even beyond, like Louisville Sinking Fund Building), and I've been able to find outright lies and urban legends that source materials show were blatantly incorrect. So thanks, DYK! Raymie (t • c) 21:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Raymie, newspapers.com is available through TWL? Wow, I did not know that. I have access to ProQuest, NY Times, and Wall Street Journal through my school and New York Public Library. But I totally forgot about TWL, so seriously, thanks for reminding me. epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The free site fultonhistory.com actually has a larger database of newspapers, it's amazing what you can dig up there. The main advantage of Newspapers.com is that it has more sophisticated search functions that make it much easier to find what you're looking for. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Fultonhistory.com is a good site that I use often, but that's assuming the website decides to play nice that day (sometimes, the landing page doesn't even load, never mind the individual PDFs). Also, it's really limited to NY and a few small papers in other states. But overall, I agree, it's a really useful source for NY editors. epicgenius (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The site works fine for me most of the time, but I have noted it is frequently down on weekends - this is apparently the time the site manager uses for uploading new pages. And yes, you are probably correct that the site is best for the New York region, but for that it's very good. Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

... was on the Main page, is in the DYK archive, but I can't find a trace of the DYK on the article talk. I added it to the stats anyway, but wonder what happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: "Could not tag Bengal famine of 1943 by {{ArticleHistory}}; please tag article manually". DYK bot error report I guess the error report went by too fast for anyone to notice. Good catch on your part. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, pure coincidence, I didn't remember the wording needed for the stats. Perhaps the bot could be trained to deal with a situation that an article already has a "history", having ben for FAC - and being open now? The easiest would be to just add it anywhere, - I don't particularly like the way the "article history" template "swallows" the information about the nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a template. All you need do, is copy one from another article that ran in the same set, put it on the article talk page, with the appropriate changes for that particular hook and nomination template. I've taken care of that necessity now. Hope all is OK on this one. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2:Another "first"

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
Hook issue resolved
@Raymie:
Could we add more interest to these hooks than they were the "first"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Good idea. Let's get some alt hooks running. For WOKO... Raymie (t • c) 18:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
WOKO: ALT1: ...that WOKO broke through in the Burlington, Vermont, radio ratings when it flipped to a country music format?
And for WXGM (AM)...
WXGM (AM): ALT1: ...that WXGM AM dumped coverage of William & Mary Tribe athletics for the smaller Christopher Newport University, because CNU offered to pay for the rights? (Source)
WOKO's alternate hook sounds a bit niche, it might be a good idea that it was a rock station before hand, otherwise people might think "so what?" if the see the hook as currently written. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
But we had a similar format change on a radio station hook a few days earlier. How about for the WOKO hook:
WOKO: ALT2: ... that Vermont's first radio station renamed itself WQCR in 1971, standing for "Wonderful Queen City Radio"? Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The WQCR calls were adopted in 1972, not 1971, and it was the first *FM* station in the state. This should be ALT2: Raymie (t • c) 02:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT2a: ... that Vermont's first FM radio station renamed itself WQCR in 1972, standing for "Wonderful Queen City Radio"?

ALT2a sentence is cited and source supports it. ----valereee (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hook issue resolved

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in Prep 2, I think this hook is somewhat ambiguous, as I thought at first that Wolf was commenting on relationships within the Trump family. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 15. We have a total of 306 nominations, of which 202 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from September and October.

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) 07:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 Nov 23

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Farthing Pie House

  • ... that the Farthing Pie House (pictured) was serviced by a chariot drawn by four muzzled mastiffs?

Andrew Davidson Cwmhiraeth Yoninah

I'm not sure about this hook. It's sourced, but what the source and the article both say is that a small chariot drawn by four muzzled mastiffs once ran between the Farthing Pie House and a nearby pond, giving rides to children. Is that really servicing the tavern? I was thinking to turn it around:

ALT1: ... that a small chariot drawn by four muzzled mastiffs once ran between the Farthing Pie House (pictured) and a nearby pond, giving rides to children?

...but that put the target article pretty far into the sentence, so wanted to see if anyone objected. --valereee (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose ALT1 as it's too wordy and overloaded for my taste while hooks are supposed to be brief and punchy. As for the word service, this is commonly used for a transportation route per the OED. "conveyance or transit afforded by vehicles plying regularly on a route". So, the original hook is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think it's quite accurate to say the pie house was "serviced" by the chariot, ALT1 implies that the chariot ran from the pie house to the pond. I've tried to come up with an acceptable alt hook but haven't quite managed it yet. If nobody else does, I will probably try to come up with one later. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that a small chariot drawn by four muzzled mastiffs once ran to the Farthing Pie House (pictured) from a nearby pond, giving rides to children? --valereee (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose ALT2 is much the same as ALT1 – overloaded with extraneous baggage. Per WP:DYKHOOK, "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones..." Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    Andrew Davidson, actually that probably needs updating. Short hooks aren't preferred; we need a balance. ----valereee (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC) ETA: I've updated that to reflect current practices. Andrew D, can you suggest some hooks? A regular route with a schedule "services" a location. This was a beggar who made money by giving kids dogcart rides between a pond and a tavern. I don't think we can count that as servicing the tavern. ----valereee (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, are you able to propose some alts, or should I move this back to approvals? ----valereee (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The hook has already been approved and built into a set and so there seems to be a reasonable consensus. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to move it to a later set for now, while this discussion is ongoing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Moved to prep 4 --valereee (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I like that a lot --valereee (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Great work, Gatoclass. ALT3 is AGF and cited inline. I'm replacing it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters

Rhain The C of E 97198

There are 23 unreferenced paragraphs in this article. We need a minimum of a citation on every one. Is there time to get this done, or should I pull it and replace? --valereee (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The game itself is used as a primary source for the relevant paragraphs, as they are essentially plot summaries (which is deemed suitable per WP:DYKSG#D2). This has also been discussed and cleared during the ongoing FLC. – Rhain ☔ 23:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Rhain, so characters = plots, good to know, thanks! --valereee (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2--Dinosaur Ridge (Gangwon)

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I recently nominanated Dinosaur Ridge (Gangwon) for DYK and it is currently in prep 2. However, today, I came accross this official document that states that the official name is "Gongnyong Ridge" (Gongnyong is dinosaur in Korean). I made the article move, but can someone change the title in the hook, or can I do it myself? Taewangkorea (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The hook has been adjusted in Prep 2, as has the DYKmake credit template. That's all that needs to be done; the nomination page should not be moved or changed at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I added the definition to the hook, or else it lacks all hookiness. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Charity bazaar

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This hook, currently in Prep 6, reads "... that women on display at a Victorian charity bazaar hard-sold wares to men in a sexualized way?"

The article also reads "At the charity bazaar, men purchased goods from women who were on display in a sexualized way."

The source ([5], no page numbers in this Google Books preview, but this is at Result 4 of 5 for "charity bazaar") reads, in part,

"In charity bazaars, ladies of the upper-classes found opportunities to demonstrate artistic talents that would otherwise have remained in the privacy of the domestic sphere ... Women, young and old, and sometimes several generations of a family worked at these bazaars to produce profits for selected charities. The business-like seriousness of this selling by women along with the inevitable public mixing of the genders that resulted from these bazaars frightened observers. .... The mixing of the sexes at the bazaars with ladies behind the counters conversing with gentleman customers brought the most censure. Seeing and being seen, display of oneself, ranked in importance with display of one's artworks or fancy articles, and for younger women it was especially important as an acceptable way to 'interview' various gentleman. ... Holland sarcastically compared the obvious display of respectable young women at bazaars to that of bar-maids in a public house. The classes attending and exhibiting at charitable bazaars, however, ranked much higher on the social scale. The best classes in their best dress, both men and women, were at the core of the exhibition."

I don't find that the tone of the hook, or the sentence in the article, fits with the impression that the source gives me - that "women on display" simply meant women serving behind counters, "on display" in the sense that they were visible in the public setting of a charitable bazaar, and the "sexualized way" that women sold to men was that women were actually conversing with and selling to men, rather than remaining in the privacy of the domestic sphere, and not interacting at all with men they didn't know.

Perhaps the hook would be effective, as readers might expect to find evidence in Victorian bazaars of what we today would think of as sexualised selling - but I find it (and the sentence in the article) rather misleading, without further clarification of what that meant in the Victorian context.

If others aren't concerned, I'll leave it, but otherwise I would offer to add more to the article to clarify the situations described, and perhaps suggest an amended hook too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ping @Rachel Helps (BYU): article creator, @Epicgenius: reviewer and @Yoninah: promoter. I also see that the DYK nom has another source for the hook, which could be added after the sentence in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Convenience link Template:Did you know nominations/Charity bazaar --valereee (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It's too early in the morning for me to think clearly about another hook. I'll look at this later. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Judging by what I've read of the source, the original hook looks wildly misleading. Might I suggest something along the following lines:

@Gatoclass and Valereee: I'm afraid that I'm not going to get to this article before Queue 6 goes on the main page. Just wanted to let you know in case you want to change the hook for another one - or if other editors could edit the article and approve the ALT1 hook. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's okay Rebecca, I have now edited both the article and hook to address the above raised concerns, thank you for drawing attention to the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi RebeccaGreen, I stand by my original nomination, with the evidence I provided there. In the Victorian era, the "women's sphere" was in the home, so it was unusual for upper-class women to be outside of the home selling anything. Additionally, since the items at a charity bazaar were unnecessary, luxury items, and the profits went to charity, the upper-class women selling them were unusually aggressive--a "hard sell" as it were. "The connection between women selling merchandise and selling themselves was already an old one in the nineteenth century." People associated women selling things with women selling their bodies. "Even the charity bazaars held by genteel women were viewed as sites of marriage market commerce if not direct sexual commerce." People associate women at charity bazaars with sexual commerce (these two quotes from Crime, Gender and Consumer Culture in Nineteenth-Century England).
So the women in the bazaars were sexualized. But were they considered "on display"? According to Leslie Thorne-Murphy's paper, yes. "As Gary R. Dyer states in his exploration of the charity bazaar in Vanity Fair, "Observers [of the Soho Square bazaar established in 1816] assumed . . . that the bazaars naturally would become sites of prostitution." As he goes on to explain, the bazaars became places where women could display themselves as well as their goods, so that "[p]eople perceived the women working in these temporary bazaars as the real merchandise."" (from The Charity Bazaar and Women's Professionalization in Mary Yonge’s The Daisy Chain Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have five DYK noms, but I am unsure how many reviews I have had. Link: Special:Permalink/927663327
Here are my questions:

  1. Does T:DYK/Wildlife of Uganda count as 1 or 3 reviews?
  2. If I review a nom and then propose a hook or otherwise request a new reviewer, does that count as a review?
  3. In T:DYK/Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, I offered up my review of T:DYK/Nanhaipotamon for my QPQ for a potential triple article nomination. The third article failed its GAN and never qualified for DYK as a result (making it a double).
    (A) Can I (re-?)nominate that third article if it later passes GAN?
    (B) Can I use T:DYK/Nanhaipotamon for a different nomination?

Please ping any responses. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For the second review, in most cases, the review can count as a QPQ even if a new review is requested, what is important is that the DYK criteria are checked. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
MJL, in order:
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Uganda counts as three reviews, one per article checked.
  2. So long as your review is complete, covering all the DYK criteria and including the appropriate icon, then it counts even if you propose a hook. Asking for a second opinion on a complete review is okay as well, though I expect that will be an infrequent occurrence.
  3. (A) You can certainly renominate Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi should it become a GA in the future, so long as it is done within the week. (B) Since the third QPQ wasn't needed for that nom, which ultimately went ahead with only two articles, you can reuse it later. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I can't believe I forgot to say thank you for the in-depth response, so THANK YOU!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Into thin air

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Something about WP:DYKN from November 23 onward is broken, starting with {{Did you know nominations/Deep biosphere}} not displaying, but I can't put my finger on it. The offending edit is this one. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This happens when there are too many nomination templates on the page. As soon as we start promoting/closing them, the page will open up. Administrators: We have 6 full prep sets and 6 empty queues. Please promote some more queues so we can move in more hooks. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have moved five no-longer-approved nominations back to the Nominations page, so we can temporarily see all the entries on the Approved page, but the ones at the bottom of the page will stop displaying as more nominations get approved and move there, unless preps get promoted to queues so that new preps can be built. We will be going back and forth between all displaying and some not displaying until we can sustain a period of two sets per day to get the backlog down, but that can't happen until our administrators have the time to fill up six queues and keep the level high for a week or so. Given the other demands on their time, this seems unlikely, but I'll ping administrators Gatoclass, Cas Liber, Maile, Amakuru, and Vanamonde just in case, and apologize for a third such ping in a couple of weeks. We greatly appreciate all you're doing in populating the queues; as you see, we're hitting the point where the Approved page starts getting overloaded on a regular basis until we can reduce the number of approved hooks, since we're getting nominations faster than we can promote them. (At last count, we had 214 approved nominations, not including any special occasion hooks. That's over 26 sets worth, and doesn't include the 114 unapproved nominations.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why valereee wasn't on my list above, but pinging her now. Apologies for my omission. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
okay freed up some space Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, family home for the American holiday. I should have some time this morning and tomorrow morning as they'll all want to sleep in, I'll go move a prep. --valereee (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Q 4 Dec 1

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Yang Enze

Zanhe

This article makes it clear that Yang was 99 by western reckoning, 100 by eastern reckoning, and I'm fine with using 99 in the hook, but since the subject is Chinese, should we use eastern reckoning? --valereee (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so I see no reason why we would want to use Chinese reckoning. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe in parentheses putting (100 by eastern reckoning) of something like that might be OK. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee and Taewangkorea: Nowadays both Eastern (called "virtual age") and Western (called "actual age") reckonings are widely used in China, so I think using the Western age should be acceptable to everyone. Including both would make the hook too unwieldy. -Zanhe (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Braithwaite

See source provided in nom to support this hook

Jesswade88 Achaea Whispyhistory Epipelagic Cwmhiraeth

This source is an interview; not sure that's enough to support that her research caused a change in the rules, and beyond that I'm not sure she's even claiming that herself in this interview? Whose rules is she claming it changed? From the hook I thought it meant some country's regulations had changed? --valereee (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Just some drive-by comments: Her research appears to be quite important, so I suspect that there may be independent reliable sources that say similar stuff? Taewangkorea (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Does this help "Her... findings have been widely replicated by other researchers and incorporated into the design of welfare guidelines for the research and farming of fish in the European Union and elsewhere".[6]? Whispyhistory (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Whispyhistory, it's getting closer, but I was expecting to find something that stated it much more clearly and probably mentioned the Home Office, which is in the lead but doesn't have a citation there. I had thought the hook needed to be changed to indicate it was UK rules that had changed and that I'd have to change the article to reflect that, but I didn't find it in either source. It's an interesting hook and I'd like to keep it. I'll go read the rest of the sources. --valereee (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is my nomination?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I kinda hate to ask this, but I can't find my nomination on the main nominations page. What am I dong wrong? I made it last night. I couldn't find it then, and still can't find it. Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Robert_Burns_(Stevenson) -Freekee (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Freekee: It appears that the nomination was not transcluded to the main page. You can find it here now. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! -Freekee (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 21. We have a total of 323 nominations, of which 184 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight remaining from October.

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) 03:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Fee

Zeromonk Usernameunique 97198

The sentence supporting that she wrote on the history of AIDS does not have a citation. I tried checking the two sources that are used in that paragraph, but the first doesn't mention this and the second isn't available to me. --valereee (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: her work on this is discussed in the Lancet source: “That came out big time in the struggles over HIV/AIDS... Liz was particularly acute at identifying this central issue and tension and in making the case effectively and powerfully for the social justice perspective." I see the second source doesn’t seem to be working any longer (sorry!), but if it helps, it’s also there in the source for the ALT hook (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305065) which states: “Ever attuned to the historical moment, Liz coedited (with Daniel Fox) two pathbreaking volumes on AIDS, as it was becoming a global modern plague: AIDS: The Burden of History (1988) and AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease (1992)." Zeromonk (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Zeromonk, thanks, can you add that to the sentence? DYK requires the hook support sentence(s) have their own citations. --valereee (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: have done! Zeromonk (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice article, btw! --valereee (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Magha Puja

Farang Rak Tham Thanissaro Gerda Arendt Yoninah

The sentence in the article which support the hook: This was intended as an alternative to Valentine's Day, in which Thai youth often aim to lose their virginity. does not have a citation. --valereee (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: It has a citation in the body of the article, which the lead summarizes. Section Thailand. I can put in a citation if you insist, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham, the sentence I quoted is the only sentence in the body of the article which includes the word Valentine's. Is there another sentence in the body of the article that supports the hook and has its own citation? The hook support sentence itself needs a citation on the exact sentence. The information in that sentence can't just be cited later in the paragraph. --valereee (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Valereee You've got the right sentence, but we need the second sentence Māgha Pūjā was therefore presented as a day of spiritual love and gratitude instead because it contains the part on spiritual love, mentioned in the hook. After that second sentence, the citation follows immediately.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham, yes, but the citation needs to be on the sentence that says it's supposed to compete with Valentine's Day. For DYK, ALL the hook support sentence(s) EACH need a citation on the sentence. That's the rule for DYK. I know it's not the rule for the rest of WP, but for DYK, that's what we need. You can find the relevant policy at WP:DYKRULES: Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. --valereee (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, I have added a citation after the first sentence as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham, thanks! I know this particular rule seems very nitpicky to a lot of people, especially when applied to a GA. It's intended to ensure that this exact bit of information -- the stuff we're actually touting on the main page -- is easily verifiable by readers, since there's a good chance thousands of people are going to be looking for that little bit of information. We've called it out as important; we want them to be able to easily verify it for themselves.
It also helps people promoting hooks or moving preps to queues, who are checking multiple articles at a time for those little bits of information. Having the citation on the sentence helps us find it easily to make those checks less time consuming. A GA reviewer gets to know an article well when they're reviewing it for you. They have plenty of time to go over it and all of its sources. Promoters and movers are doing 8 of these checks at a time. Having to read even two sources per article instead of one searching for the information that verifies the hook adds significantly to the load.
I know this is often an extra step for new GA articles coming to DYK. I'm not trying to be nitpicky. This is something the community has decided we need to do for stuff going on the main page. --valereee (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind, Valereee. At first, I thought you were confused but i get it now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Birthday 15 December

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Bernd Loebe, with his birthday in mind. Little conflict: I was happy about Vivaldi's Magnificat the same day, because we'll sing it that day. But in case it can be only one, the music could go a different day better than the person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

More bio hooks please

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Calling on reviewers to review more bio hooks! It's getting very hard to build balanced prep sets without them. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems one fell through the cracks

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like Template:Did you know nominations/Missouri v. Frye never made its way from Approved to Prep. Ergo Sum 04:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: It's in Prep 4. -Zanhe (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Ergo Sum 15:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This hook is 210 characters, which is a bit above the usual limits. It was ALT4 of the nomination, although a somewhat shorter hook (ALT3, which is below the 200 character limit) was also approved. Would it be a better option if the hook is substituted with a slightly revised version of ALT3 (reworded since the ALT3 wording since it reads a bit like a run-on sentence)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I think just drop "English engineer" as most will know who Isambard Kingdom Brunel is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with The C of E. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Close paraphrasing

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@AnuBalasubramanian:@Cwmhiraeth:@Hvmoolani:
This article has close paraphrasing; the line because sexual displays on the food source were not visible in the dimly lit forest is copied from the source. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Well spotted. It was a student project, so I have rewritten the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Straight mile

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, The ed17, one of the meanings of 'straight mile' is a full mile in length. It was a play on words. If you remove straight, I think you need to turn it into 'mile long' so it'll still make sense, but I think that change kind of robs it of the play on words. --valereee (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Valereee, I'm a little late in getting back to this, but is that a common use of that phrase? I'm not aware of it, and the only relevant results on a quick Google search for "straight mile definition" are very dated books. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The ed17, it's possibly an obsolete usage? I have a lot of those banging around in my head. :) --valereee (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: that well-written hook garnered nearly 30,000 pageviews! Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, wow, that is fabulous! I love seeing that! --valereee (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Workshopping a proposal for a new user group

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because in that case we would rather spend our time promoting queues than in organizing a large-scale RfC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So no one here has any opinion on this at all? I personally think it's a brilliant solution to our current problems, but I thought maybe someone would have an opinion. No one has any opinion? --valereee (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent idea, but the proposal as couched above only invites negative responses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: How do you mean? We're explicitly asking for all feedback; it's just that we'd like to know about strong opposition before we take this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Valereee Adding a general comment here; have previously left a lengthy comment on the page you linked. I admire what you two are trying to create. In a perfect world, it would help fill a needed gap. In reality, people reach burn out fairly quickly. You are proposing to set up yet another user right to trust those with the right to make decisions in the best interest of the project. In reality, they could either act on their own instincts, or by reading through a lot of feedback before making a change. Such feedback would be either here, at WP:ERRORS, or all the history/talk pages that relate to that one item. With any action they take, subject to, "Why did you DO THAT?" follow-up complaint. Burn-out, Burn-out, Burn-out - in a really short time. You are proposing to create another level of bureaucracy. According to Wikipedia:List of administrators, there are already 1,147 administrators who can edit anything on the main page. And you want to add more numbers by adding another group. Why are only 498 of the 1,147 of the admins considered active? You go into being an admin for all kinds of reasons, usually because somebody wants to nominate you, or you have your own reasons. The long-haul is that you find yourself in a damned-if-you-do situation many times. And you begin to cut back on the specific areas you don't want to be entangled with. It's wonderful what you two are trying to accomplish here. And I wish you luck with it. — Maile (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely that adminship is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation very often, and that risk exists every time we ask some users to take on more responsibility. Thanks for your kind words. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think maybe Cwmhiraeth interpreted "In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing" as meaning, "Please let us know if you're against this" when we meant, "We're interested in all reactions and are particularly anxious to hear negative reactions." --valereee (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 27. We have a total of 337 nominations, of which 217 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from October and the three from the first week in November.

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) 06:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Blank nomination template

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A new editor has posted a blank nomination template at Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know and posted it at WP:DYKN under November 24. I am in touch with the user on her talk page to guide her through the process. Could someone delete this errant template? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The page you link was deleted by @Alex Shih: on Nov 16, 2018. Did you perhaps mean Template:Did you know nominations/Ensemble Coding? — Maile (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: Yes. I see that that template is gone from the WP:DYN page now. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The image in today's DYK has been supressed as a likely copyvio - see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in Did you know .... Even if it is subsequently kept as free use this could take some time to sort out. Is there an precedent for what to do in such an instance? Perhaps swap the hooks around to move one currently in the DYK with a suitable picture up to the top? There is a good free use picture of Stanisław Lem that might accompany the A Stanislaw Lem Reader hook, though as yet the article does not include the picture. Other articles that have free use images, though of varying quality and usefulness, are Colleen Barrett and Tell Qudadi. Or would having no picture in this set be preferred? Thoughts? Spokoyni (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Update - User:Valereee has moved another hook and an accompanying image to the image slot, pending protection. Spokoyni (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotion needed for Queue 4

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Steven Koecher has been approved for a December 13 run date. Could an administrator swap out the second hook in this set, Laura Cooper, and replace it with this one? Pinging Maile, Casliber, Valereee, Gatoclass, and others. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It would also help if Prep 5 were promoted to Queue 5: we've hit the limit for transclusions on the Approved page, and with all the Preps filled, there's nowhere for the Laura Cooper hook to go except to be depromoted back to said overcrowded Approved page. Pinging Vanamonde and Amakuru, in addition to the others pinged by Yoninah above. Thank you very much for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have promoted prep 5 and swapped Laura Cooper and Steven Koecher as suggested. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. Is it possible for administrators to promote a few more prep sets so we can keep building new ones? Pinging Maile, Casliber, Valereee, Gatoclass. Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at another one later on if I get time. Obviously requires the usual check-over though, so can't just do it on the fly!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't promote prep 6 as I don't know if I can get that check done in time, but ping me if someone promotes 6 and I'll promote 1. --valereee (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Prep 6 has been promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Update late because ... human error

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

According to DYKUpdateBot/Errors, the update stalled because "Template:Did you know is missing a Hooks or HooksEnd" I looked into the template history and found two edits: The right-hand arrow was accidentally removed with one edit. 1 A second edit removed the rest of the word. 2. I never knew about the hooks before, so I hope I corrected it as it should have been. Those words already seem OK in Queue, so maybe it;'s just that the bot couldn't remove the old set without the "hooks" wording. This whole project is a classroom everyday. Oh, hooray! I see it updated now! — Maile (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, ugh, sorry! I previewed that and it gave me the word 'Hooks' above the set, and I thought it couldn't be right, so I just removed it. It didn't occur to me to check the earlier edits to see if the problem was there, I just removed the word. Yes, always learning something. Although I'm still not sure I've learned this, I'll have to go back over that whole series. --valereee (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Add that to the posting of an unprotected image in the first place, that makes two separate mistakes actually on the main page in a single day for me...is that any kind of record? Just wondering. --valereee (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I seriously doubt you've achieved a record among us. It's just that others aren't going to 'fess up about theirs. We err, we correct, we move on. — Maile (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Pointing out my own errors is such an effective strategy for preventing others from pointing them out. And now I see that the hidden comment seems to be some sort of an opening markup, and there's a matching 'hooksend' hidden comment after the hooks. I had no idea hidden comments could be a required part of markup. --valereee (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down ... update did not happen

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Shubinator: The DYKUpdateBot seems to be down, and no update happened since yesterday. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've started both bots back up, they're in action again - thanks for letting me know! Shubinator (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 – Magnificat (Vivaldi) and Ospedale della Pietà

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

Pinging Gerda Arendt and Cwmhiraeth: the Ospedale itself is not pictured, despite the claim of the hook. This is illustrated with a photo of a church that wasn't completed until twenty years after Vivaldi's death (and not started until four years after he died), which wasn't the Ospedale itself (though nearby; the original Ospedale building now houses, according to its linked article, the Metropole Hotel in Venice), and in which the Magnificat soloists in the hook were unlikely to have performed. (Additionally, the pictured facade is from the 20th century.) The hook itself seems otherwise okay, but the picture doesn't go with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. Why don't we just drop the image then, - it would be hard to explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As explained a little above, if that's for 15 Dec I'd prefer an image of Bernd Loebe anyway. In the article, I changed for a pic of the composer. If someone has a good pic of an Italian annunciation painting from the period, that would be better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The image is impressive but not really suitable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There is also this drawing of the Ospedale; Prep 5 already an image of a person in the prep, so changing over to Vivaldi or Loebe would result in two in a row. (Not sure whether the other one can or should be moved.) I'll leave this to Cwmhiraeth to replace the current image however appears best. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the image to the drawing and left a slot in Prep 6 for Bernd Loebe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, Cwmhiraeth, provided that the image is added to the Magnificat article as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
What do you want if not international recognition for leadership in opera? - It seems to summarize best what he stands for, - being loved by musicians, composers, technical staff, as one article says. Also it's English. I was amazed that he sees 8 performances out of 10, not premieres but ordinary nights, which explain the consistently superior quality at the house, - but would that be clear to our average reader? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • not sure what you mean. I was afraid that being loved and going to watch 8 out of 10 performances might not be considered encyclopedic, and too much detail. The three key things making his leadership are an ensemble (while many houses do without one now), international soloists (which are costly but attract audience), and highly unusual programming of rarities (and sell seats even with those). I could go into more detail about those, if needed. Only, right now I am late for a nomination, again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
ps: I didn't mean the details as potential hooks, only as illustration of his determination to quality = leadership. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The Magnificat could go a different day, and/or without image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't get to Loebe, - Brianboulton died, a shock even knowing that he was ill. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_163&oldid=1085471743"