Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 157

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 5 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
Archive 150←Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160

22 April

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales - I approved the bio of a woman in quite a position, with a great image, - her birthday is on 22 April. I know that the day is already planned, but can we work another miracle please? If not pictured, however, better later, - it's too good a smile to be missed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Der kleine Tag which would make little sense any day other than 23 April. Needs a review first, no image, rather quirky ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I slotted in the April 23 hook. The April 22 set is structured to lead with a non-person image, and is preceded and succeeded by person images, so this birthday hook will have to run another time. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I will accept if I have to, but do you realize that 22 April is still a festive day (second day of Easter) in parts of the world, and we have a virus transmission pictured? And that the lady is sort of a First Lady? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: no, I did not know people are still celebrating. But if I swap in a different set, the other sets are peppered with hooks about death. Is that okay for Easter Monday? Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Easter Monday#National observances - Couldn't you just swap the lead hook? - Requiem on Tuesday (The Little Day), a pianist on the Main page who recently died, - it's part of life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks lovely, thank you. How about swapping hooks 2 and 3, to not have two women in a row? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. You didn't mind it when lots of women hooks ran in March. I'll honor your request, but I think you're looking too closely at the hooks. And we try to alternate bios and non-bios, which is why it took me a lot of time to reorganize the sets for you. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for making you sigh. I was just noticing, and tried to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Der kleine Tag

I agree that the hook fact is really cute: however, the hook fact comes from the fact that 23 April is a plot point of the article subject (a story and later a musical). For clarification purposes, would this hook fact count as in-universe information and therefore not be allowed, or does it still meet the criterion of relating to the real world in some way? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's approved now, but the prep is full. And what about the lady above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's in prep, but looks to me like the 23 April hook is in the set for 24 April. And the lady? Happy Easter! (see my talk for an image and music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing credit plus a hayloft

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The following credit should be added to Queue 1:

* {{DYKmake|Yoga for women|Chiswick Chap|subpage=Yoga for women}}

(A {{DYKnom}} for the article is already present.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also in Queue 1, the seventh hook includes "hay‑loft". It should be "hayloft", unless that's British usage (which I don't think is the case; a Google search didn't find any instances of "hay‑loft"). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

These still haven't been taken care of. ‎Gatoclass? Maile66? Amakuru? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added the missing credit - I didn't change the spelling of "hay-loft" because it looks like a legitimate alternative spelling and I'm not sure the other spelling is preferable, but I have no objection if somebody else wants to change it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
On reflection, I've changed it to the requested spelling. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Renomination procedure?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I just did a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler). This was originally nominated after it was created, but it failed because it was outside of the 7 day window. Now it has passed GA and qualifies. The nominator blanked the original and replaced it with a new nomination. Just wanted to check here that this is ok, and that a separate nomination page isn't preferred. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's the usual practice here, what's usually done is that a new nomination is created even if there's already a previous one. The blanking should probably be reverted since an archive is still needed of the original nom. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I can do some copy/pasting, I suppose, but it would probably be better for an admin to preserve the history. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
A separate nomination page should definitely be made (with a slightly different name, or an added "2" to the template page), and the previous nomination should be restored to how it was when it was closed. Amakuru, Maile, can one of you handle this? The original page should go through 20 September 2018, while the new page should cover yesterday and today. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Rhododendrites: @Narutolovehinata5: @Diogenes99: I have done a history split on this, as requested. So the original nom, with the history up to 20 September, is still at the original page, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler), while the current nom is now located at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler) (2nd nomination). Hope this is OK, and let me know if there any further issues. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe the resubmission rules are easy to follow. Something in the original nom triggered a bot delete. 01:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ānanda

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Now in Prep 5: the lead hook saying that Wagner wrote an opera about Ānanda. No he didn't, - let's discuss that before we get to ERRORS. He wrote a draft for a libretto for an opera, - not even a complete libretto. That's not what is normally understood as "wrote an opera" which implies he wrote the music also. There are many other hooks in the nom, and chosing one of the others might be the easiest way out. - If a hook around Wagner is reworded, I don't think that we need "German" for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ps: Instead of "German", better link to the little bit that he wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have solved this by replacing the promoted hook by ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion

Ambiguous. Without scanning the article, I couldn't guess who was being eaten: the dire whelk, the prey, or the ochre sea star? Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I do think it's interesting that one creature eats the prey of another creature while the latter is consuming it. How about:
  • ALT1: ... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey of the ochre sea star while the latter is digesting it?
Cwmhiraeth are you available to comment? Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the word "shares" is confusing, if I understand the article. The ochre sea star everts its stomach (flips its stomach inside out, I think) to grab prey. While the ochre sea star is eating what it grabbed, the dire whelk invites itself to the meal and eats on what the ochre sea star is also eating. At least, that's what I think it means. However, I believe these kinds of hooks/articles would be interesting to a varied audience, not the least of which is school kids learning about sea life. Different strokes for different folks, but I think these kinds of articles should be on DYK. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Another possibility:
ALT2: ... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey the ochre sea star is digesting?
Simplifies ALT1. Suggested at WP:ERRORS (as ALT3). Jmar67 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • While I find the hook fact interesting, I nevertheless find it a little confusing. Sharing the prey with whom? Neither the hooks nor the article itself are clear on that aspect. If this can't be resolved, perhaps we may have to drop the suggestion altogether unfortunately.
We could try a different direction if the sharing thing can't be clarified. What about:
ALT3: ... that the dire whelk feeds on winkles, limpets, mussels, barnacles, chitons, worms and other invertebrates?
ALT4: ... that unlike most whelks, the dire whelk does not drill into intact shells, and instead seems to specialize on dead or injured prey?
Still, I think I'd rather prefer the original hook fact if possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT2a: ... that the dire whelk sometimes feeds upon prey that an ochre sea star caught and is digesting?
Is this clearer? MB 17:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It does, the problem is that the hook doesn't exactly reflect the article wording right now. The article itself probably needs to be reworded if ALT2a is to pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I have been unavailable for a few days so missed this conversation. I agree that the hook was somewhat ambiguous but thought that once the word prey had been used, it was apparent who was eating what. The ochre sea star is a voracious predator, and I thought that the fact that the whelk shared the starfish prey was very interesting, as it risked becoming prey itself. Most creatures flee from starfish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like 5,732 readers were intrigued enough to click on it! Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting?

  • This "interesting" is something that really bothers me. We have some hooks that say a worm eats mud, and I summarize the greatest achievement of a person, and am not only told that it's not interesting to the general reader, but also the hook struck. As above: general input welcome, Template:Did you know nominations/Bohumil Herlischka. To answer the question for the dire whelk: it's not interesting to me, but may be to others. It's not interesting to me because I am not told what that is, another worm, a fish, whatever in the sea? Readers are different. Some, like me, are foreigners who don't know what a whelk is. Others don't know what an opera is. I think we should broaden the horizon of readers to things they don't yet know and thus are not interested in yet, rather than limiting what we present to their assumed limited interest.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you are getting hung up by your own interest in the field as far as the Bohumil Herlischka nom goes. Yes, staging an opera is a lot of work and, yes, staging six is even more work, AND there's the aspect of introducing the works of one country to the public of another. BUT, at the end of the day, as a blurb, what you are saying is "opera guy does opera". And, yes, the "worms eat mud" hooks are just as bad. "Interesting" should be understood here as "exciting interest". Perhaps a better phrasing would be that a hook should be "intriguing" rather than "interesting". --Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You haven't seen the discussion, and what do you mean by my "own interests". He was instumental in introducing a neglected Czech composer to the Western world. But no, not intriguing, we need Nazi in a hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree, I've noticed hooks certainly tend to get more views if you mention the Nazis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
We have ALT7a now. You could approve it. And/or the one about his chief accomplishment. I don't even object to raising the question of "intriguing" in a comment. I was simply offended by the hook which I really thought was a unique thing to say about the man was struck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
1) You have no idea what I have or have not seen. 2) Your "own interest " means only that you know opera and understand what a hook is about even when it isn't explained. 3) "He was instumental in introducing a neglected Czech composer to the Western world." Where was that stated in any proposed blurb? Explicitly stated. Again, the idea is that the hook should not take outside knowledge to understand its meaning and significance. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, sorry that "interests" read to me like in "conflict of interest". More about interests below, #Opera role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ibrahim Ali Khan

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Please close the following DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/Ibrahim Ali Khan. I am unable to find other sources. RRD (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done with regret. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators needed to load queues

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could more queues be loaded so we have room to fill more prep sets? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Loaded three more queues. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago32 comments13 people in discussion

Is it just me, or is the hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review (which basically says "Northern Ireland's second city is called Londonderry, end of discussion") a really, really bad idea? If it hits the main page, in the light of the shooting of Lyra McKee and rioting in Creggan, people will see a statement appearing to give credence to one side of the Unionist / Nationalist debate, where people want a call for a calm and united condemnation of what's happened. Wikipedia has a good chance of getting in the news for all the wrong reasons. This is not a neutral DYK, and can never be. The C of E self-identifies as a British Unionist and Brexiteer, and consequently I can't help feeling this is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a (political) point. FWIW, I stayed well away from putting Bollocks to Brexit up for DYK for the same reason. Your thoughts, please. Full disclosure : Lyra McKee is a friend of a friend. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • *stares disbelievingly* That absolutely needs to be NOT on the main page, certainly for the forseeable future, and definitely not at the moment. And the author needs to have it made very clear to them that DYK is not here for them to push their political beliefs. WP:POINT violations are blockable, and they need to understand that very clearly. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not the first time that C of E has attempted to put up a hook that seeks to make a point. I'm too busy to dig diffs at the moment; I will later if someone asks for them; but they are either not getting the point, or are getting it and doing this sort of thing anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Examples that come to mind include Template:Did you know nominations/Peterborough recall petition, 2019, where he insisted on wording that involved the subject comparing herself to Jesus (until multiple editors objected), Template:Did you know nominations/From Dixie With Love (where multiple hooks were proposed and rejected until a compromise was reached), and Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness (where he initially insisted on a hook proposal that called Muhammad a thief and he had to be talked out of supporting that suggestion). As far as I can tell, while many of his articles and hooks are not problematic, sometimes his persona views become apparent either in the hooks themselves or in his comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously we can't do it now due to sensitivities but later on possibly. It was a notable court case I feel was worth writing about. There is certainly no disruption on my part and I am not trying to push any views with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
DYK of necessity presents vignettes, that cannot represent the entire article, and cannot present the entire picture. That isn't necessarily a problem. But when we have had numerous discussions here about hooks you have nominated, all of which independent editors describe as pushing the same points of view that you express support for on your userpage, that does become a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 
Wikipedia is in the real world
"I am not trying to push any views with it" You have a big userbox on your page that says "This user is a Unionist", and you're trying to put a hook about the Unionist name for Northern Ireland's second city on the main page at a politically sensitive time, and you're telling me you're not trying to push any views? You can't be serious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Being an English Unionist and writing an article about the court case that made the determination can be separated. I wrote it to the best of my abilities to try and keep accurate to the case and not to show favour in it. I am not trying to push anything. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the article per se (if I did, I'd have sent it to AfD), but the hook and its presence on the main page. You may not think you're trying to push a view, but good luck explaining that to the people who vandalised the road sign pictured. Have a bit of sensitivity. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of the politics in Northern Ireland and I am fully prepared for it to be held for a less charged time. I am open to any proposed hook changes if you feel it could be made better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This article could have been written at any time: the court case dates from 2007. The fact remains that The C of E wrote it on 23 April 2019, at a particularly sensitive time, and nominated it at DYK with a hook that was certain to be controversial. The reaction here was swift and predictable. My recommendation: the nomination should be closed as unsuccessful. The C of E has long pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable, and it's past time that the DYK community said enough is enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:, sorry, I do not understand your above decision. I am a total outsider. If my understanding is correct, you suggest that The C of E is not here to build an encyclopedia. If this is the case, the proper process should be carried out. An ad hoc decision could hardly be described as the proper process. Furthermore, I do not understand your reference to "a particularly sensitive time": are WP editors forbidden to write articles related to an issue if it is debated by two hysterically radical groups? I think this approach is extremly dangerous. We want to share knowledge and not hide information in "a particularly sensitive time". Do we really want to write only of teddy bears, unknown opera singers, nice small houses and monarchs died hundreds of years ago? Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No one is implying here that The C of E is not here to build an encyclopedia. What is being said here is that there are concerns that he may (intentionally or unintentionally) be using DYK to promote his own personal political and religious beliefs. Whether or not you agree with that observation, and/or agree or disagree that such actions are problematic, is of course up to the editor. From what I can see, the problem is not the article itself, but rather the hook, as editors are worried that such a hook would imply that Wikipedia is taking a side in the Derry/Londonderry name dispute (disclosure: I am not very familiar with said dispute). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
(1) If you read your second sentence, you will surely realize that you are accusing him/her of not being here to build an encyclopedia. I cannot decide whether you are right or not (that is whether your "concerns" are valid or not), but I am sure that such accusations can only direct our decisions about hooks or articles if their validity is proved during a proper procedure. (2) Please remember, a hook should be neutral. A neutral hook cannot suggest that WP is taking a side in a dispute. If we accepted your approach, we should not write hooks about controversial topics or personalities. Do we want to develop such a policy through precedents? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I admit not to know much about the dispute, but the wording "... that the High Court ruled that Londonderry is the official name of Northern Ireland's second largest city, which can only be changed by The Monarch or Parliament?" (italics mine) can be interpreted as taking a side in said dispute. As for your first concern, the second sentence was meant to be a reflection of the comments posted here and of the DYK page, not my own personal opinion (for disclosure, I do not find the article itself problematic and while I am uncomfortable with the hook itself, I would defer decisions to someone more experienced in the matter). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
(1) Sorry, I do not understand. If we do not think that he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia, we should not suggest it. If my understanding is correct, we have concluded that he/she is one of the thousands of editors who are entitled to write an article and a hook about anything. (2) I agree. The hook should obviously be modified. There is a page dedicated to this specific issue. Why do not we discuss the proposed modifications there? Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've generally had no problem with the C of E or the DYKs he brings to the table, but at Template:Did you know nominations/Treating (law), I was initially concerned about neutrality and he did get a bit defensive about Nigel Farage (I was actually agreeing with him), although we then got the article and hook fixed between us. Has Vanamonde has got more problematic examples? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Yes, it's happened before, take a look at these discussions; [1], [2], [3], [4]. There may be more, but these are the ones I remember. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Here's a couple more; [5], [6]. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This demonstrates phenomenally poor judgement by the CofE. I find it impossible to believe that the timing is anything other than intentional; as noted above, the case is over ten years old, but no, it was suddenly written five days later? They even admit "Obviously we can't do it now due to sensitivities"—so why nominate it at DYK if it's obvious? No, the truth of the matter is that, if a stink hadn't been raised, the CofE would have been perfectly happy for Wikipedia to have made his political point for him at one of the crassest moments possible. That is deliberation, not accidental. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I only said that comment in response to the opinion of Ritchie, indeed we often delay running hooks when people express a concern around timing. Second of all, I honestly was not thinking of that incident when I wrote it, I had been working on it for months prior and this was the time when I finished but I had not been paying that much attention to the news (an error on my part clearly) but I can absolutely assure you. There is no political thinking or view pushing behind this. Indeed I was aware of the controversy so I tried to minimize the use of Londonderry/Derry instead preferring to use "the city", "the council" instead of using the names. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is aware of the tensions in Northern Island in general but not in detail, I hope not to cause upset and apologise in advance if this suggestion is inappropriate in some way... but couldn't the hook be re-drafted to something like:

I find it interesting that a question like a city's name would be put before a court, irrespective of its conclusion. The phrase "country's second largest city" could be wikilinked to Derry/Londonderry, consistent with maintaining neutrality, but it's a redirect so we'd need to invoke IAR or leave the link out. Alternatively, (ALTa) could use a link to Derry/Londonderry name dispute, but that would be inconsistent with the principle of least surprise. I think options like these would not see WP taking a side, nor do they give the decision of the court directly. Of course, this all assumes that the article on the case is DYK and general editorial policy compliant, which I have not checked. EdChem (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer ALTb. It names the town. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, if we're going to change I would pick ALTb though I would, possibly add at the end "which they answered in the latter". That way you say what the ruling was without repeating the name of the city. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
EdChem has a good suggestion of an alternative hook with Alt B. I would not put the answer in the hook as The C of E suggests; leave readers wanting to learn more so they click the article.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
EdChem's suggestions sound like a decent compromise, presenting the matter while not giving credence to one side over the other. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

While we're discussing this article, I'm an outsider to this subject, but its "Aftermath" section comes off as decidedly non-neutral to me. The actions of Sinn Fein are described in somewhat pejorative terms (e.g. "irregularly") and are repeatedly written as "Sinn Fein did this but DUP responded" in a way that makes the DUP side of the affair come off as more definitive. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: That wasn't the intention. It was meant to read as in "at irregular intervals". As you'v mentioned you feel it is a bit ambiguous, I have reworded that line. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding to the general opinions above, I think this should not hit the main page for some time. Having this discussion is our collective opportunity to completely avoid the situation, and we should take it, rather than put something up with potential negative connotations. As in, a woman was just murdered because of the same tensions behind the name of this city, I'd certainly find it awful as an average reader seeing this on the main page because it would look like a conscious choice of Wikipedia's. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Weeks ago 50 Muslims, on Easter Monday 350 Christians were murdered. Should we avoid mentioning Muslims, Christians or anything which is connected to these topics on the main page? Do we want that fanatics' terrorist attacks influence our decisions? I think we should consciously ignore all terrorist attacks when making decisions. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
cygnis insignis closed the DYK nomination ([7]). His/her remarks imply that he/her also thinks that God Save the Queen is not here to build an encyclopedia. My concern is that this accusation has several times raised, but no editor has so far reported God Save the Queen. The above discussion shows that the subject of the hook is highly sensitive. However, do we think that any type of sensitivness can prevent us from sharing knowledge? Instead of developing a consensual (and neutral) hook, we are adopting ostrich policy. Borsoka (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
… that the palaeontologist Charles R. Eastman continued his research on fossil fish while awaiting trial for murder?
… that despite the testimony of his brother-in-law and others, Charles R. Eastman was found not guilty of murder?
Should I mention the brother-in-law was the dying man? cygnis insignis 08:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

IAR for Demographics of Filipino Americans

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Per Talk Page message, @RightCowLeftCoast: is asking if we can allow him to nominate an article that achieved GA on March 28, 2019. He nominated it to GA on May 1, 2018 and had not been notified the review was begun and completed on March 28, 2019. Inasmuch as he was not notified in sufficient time to open a DYK nomination within 7 days, would it be OK if he opened it now? Perhaps mention the circumstances on the nomination template itself. Anybody want to weigh in on this? I have no problem whatsoever if he opens a nomination now. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination: Demographics of Filipino Americans has been created. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how and why the bot was unable to inform them that the nomination was finished, and I can't help but feel that as the GAN nominator, RCLC could have at least checked at some point the nomination, to see if there were any updates. With that said, given the circumstances, I would be open to this being allowed as an IAR case, as it wasn't his fault that he wasn't notified. As a Filipino myself, more Philippines-related topics being featured on DYK won't hurt either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with IAR. As RightCowLeftCoast did not received bot notification, it wasn't their fault to miss the GA promotion. It often takes many months for a GA reviewer to come along, and it's not reasonable to expect nominators to be constantly checking the status. -Zanhe (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The GA pass occurred ten months after the nomination, and even assuming the nominator had the article watchlisted and checked their watchlist regularly over a ten-month period, the GA pass would have been very easy to miss (it was an edit to the article talk page with no edit summary). So I think it's reasonable to excuse the nominator for having not noticed the pass until receiving a very late user talk page notification, and to allow a DYK nomination now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should IAR in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely we should allow it in this instance: as pointed out above, the article had waited for (too) many months to find a reviewer, and it's easy to miss an edit to an article's talk page, even if it is on your watchlist. I think, however, that the nomination should be carefully reviewed at DYK, since this was a first-time GA reviewer who didn't find so much as a misplaced comma to note or fix (there might not be any, but that's unusual even for the most careful of editors), and while they make a point of saying that they'd checked the article before opening the nomination, the fact that it was opened and closed between bot runs meant that the bot never saw or recorded that the nomination was under review, so it just removed it without sending out any messages, templating the article, or anything else for that matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely IAR (in fact only one rule needs to be ignored in this case). As an aside, that's a shockingly long time to wait for a GA review. Suggests the process is a too much about who you know and what you're writing about (case in point, my recent GA was started and finished inside two days). Not an issue for this project here, but sounds like something may need to be done to make GA better and fairer in this regard.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind the length in time it took, this article is a daunting article to review. It is 268,267 bytes, with over 385 references (some of which are bundled references). When I initially brought it to GAN, I went on a long wikibreak so it was closed as a failure as I wasn't editing at the time. I have since come back, and renominated, and was fortunate that MrClog (talk · contribs) took the daunting task to go through the second GAN, and then passing it. If someone wants to copy edit it, to further improve the article, I would not mind. Although I put a lot into this article, I don't own it. I am also not perfect, nor believe that my work is perfect either. If others want to help to improve the article, I am happy to have the assistance.
The DYK Nomination can be found here: Template:Did you know nominations/Demographics of Filipino Americans --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago with 28 still-unreviewed old nominations, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 3. Right now we have a total of 256 nominations, of which 94 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from last year, the two from January, and the four from February.

Delayed due to April Fools' Day and other issues:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The bulk of these are still not reviewed, so I'm going to let the set run another week rather than let the bot archive this post. I hope that more of the old ones will be reviewed in the coming days. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Last minute fuck-over of hook by hidden hand. Who was this?

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Yet again, some complete idiot decided to fuck up the hook for Venetian Renaissance architecture, I think while it was actually on the main page. Who was this? - own up please. The nomination had been going since February. This ego-driven fiddling, which is now effectively untraceable, is just maddening. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It was a surly and rude ego-driven self promoter, probably, this is DYK. cygnis insignis 03:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
[8]... ——SerialNumber54129 07:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears to have been done while the hook was still in Queue 4, after a post at the main page Errors talking about redundancy in the hook. There were no further edits to this particular hook while on the main page, which can be seen by a check of the Template:Did you know‎ history. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A complaint was made at WP:ERRORS about the repetition of "architects" and "architecture" in the original hook. I took a look at it and couldn't see a way to rephrase that would avoid the repetition without creating an unacceptable "Easter egg" for the bolded link, so decided not to act on it. I noticed later that Maile66 had acted on the complaint, but only by creating such an Easter egg, substituting "Venetian Renaissance architecture" with "Venetian Renaissance",[9] which are clearly not the same thing. TRM later requested that the word "architects" be added to the bolded link, but that didn't solve the Easter egg issue either. In short, I agree that this was an inappropriate change, but I disagree with a lot of hook changes and in most cases no longer even bother trying to contest them. This is one case however where I think I should have objected to the proposed change at the outset; my apologies for not doing so Johnbod. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this - you're the last person who needs to apologize! But we really need to do something about the culture where these undiscussed fiddles are becoming normal. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
And excuse my comment, where that is sarcastic and unclear, more directed at the manner in which the query was made. A response to all the fucking swearing. cygnis insignis 07:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I saw this errors report and decided not to act on it, because I too couldn't see an easy rephrase that didn't introduce other significant problems. There are a number of people who nitpick endlessly about style at main-page errors. Some of their complaints are more founded than others. It's probably best to just state "not an error", if that's really the case to shut it down. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 and 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Prep 6

  • ... that the arrest of Gilberto García Mena marked a shift in how the Mexican government confronted drug cartels?

@MX and Kingsif: While I suppose this is an okay hook, it probably could be better. It seems too vague (i.e. it doesn't explain what kind of shift happened), and unless that was the point of the hook, then I don't really see this working out. Perhaps a more explicit hook (i.e. mentioning the shift from passiveness to aggressive actions against drug cartels) could be a better option here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought the vaguety made it rather interesting, I still do, but will concede that I have read the finely detailed article. You could say "that the arrest of García marked when the Mexican government stopped treating drug cartels passively and instead hunted them down?" Kingsif (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The vagueness was the purpose of the hook, but I'm perfectly fine with explaining what the shift was. Is this hook good enough? "... that the Mexican government shifted from a passive to aggressive approach against drug cartels when they arrested Gilberto García Mena?" MX (✉ • ✎) 14:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Kingsif's suggestion is the more hooky wording, though MX's wording is also fine. This probably needs a new reviewer to pick between the two. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAlain, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't really see why Vinzing and Rysanek need to be mentioned here when the focus is supposed to be on Norup. And if you take those mentioned away, you end up with an "actor X did role Y" hook, which is honestly not very intriguing (it would be like writing a hook that went "DYK that actor Josh Brolin played Thanos in Avengers?"). I took a look at his article and there seem to other possible hook suggestions that aren't "he did this role", such as him taking vocal lessons while being an apprentice in a bank, or that he appointed to the Order of the Dannebrog (which apparently is a big deal in Denmark). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, they don't have to be mentioned, but mentioning two leading ladies of opera (ever) gives hime more stature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Again: there are many who take early singing lessons, and many who get appointed to the Order, - nothing specific to him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If you're into opera, you'll know who these singers are and you'll click on the article. If you're not into opera, you won't click on it. I think it's hooky enough for people who are into opera. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If you are not into opera, you can be intrigued by the first half of the hook, saying that a Danish singer recorded a German opera in France. Why not add a bit for the others, who might find that less intriguing? See also #Opera role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The singer is on the Main page now, Danish with the two ladies from Germany and Austria, singing in France in German based on Greek mythology, - I like the multi-culti. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

@LouisAlain, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: As above, this is also an "actress X did role Y" hook. Can a different hook be suggested here? The fact about her being one of the most popular singers at the Salzburg Festival might have potential. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not for me, - add "one of her signature roles" if you have to (but that could go without saying), but don't say something that can be said about many others. Please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I promoted this, and I stand by it, The fact that she was singing the same roles at major festivals 12 years apart is noteworthy. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah! - I don't feel understood often on this page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Little apology of the "opera singer sings role" type of hook

Some users and I write about opera singers. When we name a role, we can say a lot in a few words (namely: role / composer / opera), including where she sits in a range between

  1. Renaissance to contemporary (period))
  2. light to heavy (voice type)
  3. servant to empress (importance)
  4. Italian / German / French / English / Russian / Czech ... (cultural background)
  5. mainstream work to world premiere (courage)

We couldn't say all this in prose, not in 200 chars. On top, opera stories are often dramatic, - if a reader doesn't know an opera, that's an invitation to investigate. So please, before you discard/strike a hook of that kind, please do investigate! - I hate trivia, and please assume AGF that we try to say something specific about a given subject by naming a role. In adition: when I am impressed by Jennifer Holloway's performance in Der ferne Klang enough to write about her, I am interestd in mentioning that, - a little pleasure in return for writing the article. If you don't know the opera, there's something to explore. I'm more interested in three readers wanting to know more about a woman who sings that role than in 3000 who want to know about an American opera singer who makes a career in Germany, one of hundreds that is. A sadly missed friend quoted on his user page: The only real nation is humanity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But the entire concept of DYK is trivia. It's short, easily understood tidbits that intrigue the reader into wanting to know more. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If the entire concept of DYK is trivia, that may be why some want to abolish it altogether. So far, for about 10 years, it was for me a way to make serious tidbits known. The time spent recently, with few users, in discussions about how serious a hook may be eats too much of the time I'm willing to spend. If every hook has to be trivia and crowd-pleaser, instead of something relevant to an often living person, I am out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hooks are supposed to appeal to a broad audience, not to a tiny clique of opera buffs who might happen to know that a particular singer is famous. And "a little pleasure in return for writing the article" is fine, but not if it comes at the expense of the readership, whose interests are paramount. There have been many complaints about Gerda's hooks in the past and not without reason. The bottom line here is that if you have to explain why a hook is interesting - "oh, because the singers mentioned are exceptional" - then the hook is lacking essential information, and probably should be failed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think you understood. Let's stay with the Holloway example. Saying that she sang a specific role which made her play a woman young and old does NOT require any interest in a specific opera, or knowledge thereof. It seems more specific about her acting abilities than saying that she came from the US and made a career in Germany, which hundreds do. I don't have to explain why something about her is more interesting than something about a group who do the same thing. Project Opera has a rich history of hooks, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Did you actually say that "Actress X played a role that required her to play a woman both as a youth and as an old woman"? Or did your hook simply say "Actress X played role Y"? Tell us why the "serious tidbit" is interesting. You know why it is interesting, this is your chance to explain it to a wider audience.
Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Holloway - I don't know if I got the question. I said "portrayed Grete ... as a girl, a queen of the demimonde and an old woman". - I used "serious" as an opposite to "trivia", - correct me when I'm wrong there. When you look at the nom, you'll see that the discussion is already longer than the article. Instead of explaining again and again, I'd prefer to write more articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
As someone in that discussion said, you tried to put too much into the hook. The ALT3 that Kingsif suggested seemed to get the point across with less jargon and less "assuming the reader knows opera". --Khajidha (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say a word against ALT3. My objection in that case is for ALT1 (only geography, no music) and ALT2 (a little song cycle instead of a great and too little known opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for IAR on SOLRAD 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Merely bringing here for discussion. Template:Did you know nominations/SOLRAD 2. The article passed good article status over a month ago on 17 March, though the DYK hook fact has only been added recently. Not much of an opinion, though I feel this would be a bit of a slippery slope. Spokoyni (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Spokoyni:! I agree, it's a little bit on the margins. On the other hand, 1.b. of the DYK criteria makes provisions for articles with 5x new info compared to old, and the article has essentially been rewritten from the ground up (with FA-approved language from SOLRAD 1 -- it shouldn't compromise GA status). Plus, the DYK is based on information just added to the article. I think it qualifies in spirit if not precisely the letter of DYK to spotlight fresh and interesting info on WP (and it is a compelling hook, as you noted). --Neopeius (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Support IAR We currently have too many biographies at DYK and need non-biography articles for balance. This problem has persisted for a while. This is a high-quality article that isn't a biography and deserves to appear on the main page. feminist (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for reviewers to focus on non-biographies for a while

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As Feminist noted above, we still have an overabundance of approved biography hooks as opposed to non-biographies - 56 out of 95 by my count, as opposed to 39 non-biographies. To rectify this, can reviewers please focus on non-biographies for a while? There are plenty of them on the unapproved nominations page - indeed, a lot more of them than biographies, so there shouldn't be a problem finding an eligible non-biography to verify. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Added recycled hook to live DYK per main-page balance issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I've added a recycled GA hook from February to address the problem of a short TfA lacking an image, versus a long OTD. Let me know if that's a problem. And in general, advice on a strategy to select such hooks in future would be useful. I went through recently promoted GAs to find the two that had run at DYK on promotion, then picked the one that fit the set best, but there might be fairer means of selection. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the main page has persistent balance issues. I propose narrowing the width of the TFA and DYK sections (currently 55%), and widening the width of the ITN and OTD sections (currently 45%). If both are set to 50%, this would be the result. It allows us to go back to four ITN items and eight hooks while maintaining balance. Thoughts? feminist (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, instead of adding/removing content, admins should set the width of the two sides based on a particular day's content. feminist (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: I think one might need an RfC to fiddle with the column widths? And in practice I wouldn't have a clue how to do it. (In general, it's much easier at present because ITN only has two Ongoing events; it breaks when that line flows/not depending on whether it fits beside the image. With four Ongoing items, it was a nightmare.) I've raised the problem of TfAs without an image being short more than once with the TfA coordinators in the past, but I don't think there's consensus there to compensate automatically for the missing image by increasing the text length. Pinging the TfA people in case they want to join the discussion here: @TFA coordinators Espresso Addict (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
When it was (more often than not) just me and Johnboddie working on blurbs, I could do more to accommodate preferences at ERRORS, but now that we're doing blurb reviews when FACs are promoted, I can't be asking people to learn complicated rules about how blurb length depends on the image (which might get yanked or added at the last minute). What's the downside to setting the column widths at 50-50? - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
50/50 is visually much less interesting. It also forces ITN to be long, which is great in fast news cycles but embarrassing in doldrums such as we're in at present. It does seem as if it would be possible to have two lengths – one with image, one without – so that routine cases would be covered. I assume there just isn't any free image of Jeremy Thorpe, rather than an image was selected but pulled at the last minute? Yanks at the last minute are just a pain...
I'll respond to this part in the current thread at WT:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Not trying to unhelpful and I know everyone's stretched these days, but I don't think the TfA team always realise quite how much work everyone else puts into the balance. I fiddle with it perhaps 7 days out of 10 when I'm active, and it often involves multiple edits to multiple parts, with associated checking when new material is added. At the moment, I seem to be the only main-page admin on duty between changeover and morning in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
So, why not set the width of the two sides by editing Main Page based on each day's content? The values that need to be changed are in 
| id="mp-left" class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%;
and 
| id="mp-right" class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%;
Just change 55% and 45% to whichever values would result in a balanced main page. It's easier than adding and removing content. feminist (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support feminist's suggestion were it proposed formally. This isn't the venue for it, though. I'm quite certain one of our many coding experts would be able to handle the technical details. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an intriguing idea, but (1) it would need formal community support; and (2) it would need to be made easier to edit. The risk of editing the wrong number and leaving the main page completely broken is just too great. Bear in mind that, when doing this, one needs the balance to work at all widths, so one is always resizing the window up and down at the same time as trying to edit two numbers that must add up to 100%. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on my testing (see Special:Diff/894679939) it appears that the second number can be removed altogether, thus there is no need to change two numbers and ensure they add up to 100%. feminist (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. This is not a bad idea, but surely there's a way to automate this? feminist has (or perhaps it was someone else; anyhow) previously proposed that the widths be automatically adjusted for no whitespace. Am I wrong about that? I don't think this idea is a bad one, but it does necessitate a readjustment after every post. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
No you didn't misunderstand anything, I only discovered that the second value is unnecessary after I initially proposed this above. Ideally the widths should be automatically adjusted for no whitespace, but I don't know how feasible that is under the current software. Readjusting the widths is the next best option, and it is still easier than adjusting content to fit the fixed widths, not to mention much less damaging. Alternatively we can have a bot that resets the widths to default each day, so that there is no need to change them back manually. feminist (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:VPT#Adjusting main page column widths based on content. Based on the comments so far, it appears that it's not possible for the widths to be automatically adjusted for no whitespace. feminist (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-bio special occasion request for May 17

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Memorial Cup for a May 17 special occasion. I hope this is sufficient notice. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of notice. Nice article! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
On a similar note, I've submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Citizens! During shelling this side of the street is the most dangerous for a 9 May special occasion (Victory Day (9 May)), a bit less notice alas, but hope this is still ok. Spokoyni (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Will do the review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Murder anniversary

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
@Hrodvarsson:@Muboshgu:@Cwmhiraeth:
The fact that the murder took place on the same day as Lennon's murder was said by the police to be totally coincidental. Stating the connection on the main page of Wikipedia implies otherwise. I believe a different hook should be chosen. Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, when I reviewed it, I took it to be a coincidence as well. I don't think the hook implies causation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I also don't think the hook implies causation. I didn't see it that way when I wrote it at least; it is just a simple, (somewhat) interesting statement of fact. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I also see nothing wrong with the hook. Flibirigit (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Did you know nominations. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: the above was placed at the very bottom of the Template talk:Did you know page, where no one will see it (and which should not be used for that purpose), so I have moved it here, the place to discuss all things related to DYK. Courtesy ping to feminist. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, this was automatically placed by WP:TW as part of an RfD nomination. feminist (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Dates off-by-one?

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I'm writing this at around 04:00 3 May 2019 UTC. The first DYK at Wikipedia:Recent additions#3 May 2019 is for Hermann Herlitz but its talk says the DYK may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/May which links to 2 May 2019. The Herlitz DYK was definitely on the main page on 2 May 2019. I tested several DYKs back to and including 15 May 2018 (see Talk:Krom Klone) and they all had a similar off-by-one issue. Earlier DYKs (see Talk:Distributed element circuit for 14 May 2018) are recorded at the date mentioned on article talk. Is this intentional? Perhaps because the entry was added on 3 May 2019 although it was on the main page for 2 May 2019? Has this been discussed? I mentioned it at DYKUpdateBot's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The solution is simple, just update {{DYK talk}} so that it points to the correct section. feminist (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on my testing, this change should work. It increments the section the link points to by one day. For example, a DYK dated 2 May 2019 will link to the section titled 3 May 2019 instead of 2 May 2019. Now I would need to gain consensus for this change. feminist (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a good idea but it's not ideal. First, Talk:Hermann Herlitz states that the DYK was on the main page on 2 May 2019, but the link would be to 3 May 2019 (a surprise). Second, old DYKs (14 May 2018 and earlier) would have incorrect links on their talk pages. For example, Talk:Distributed element circuit states that 14 May 2018 was the date and it links to that date, but the link would be to 15 May 2018 if 1 day was added in the template. A gigantic kludge could be added to the template so it only adds one day for dates after 14 May 2018, but that would require some thought. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The day shown is one day, the day updating (after shown) is often a different day, and for the 24 hours cycle we have, always a different day. This has been like it for as long as I remember DYK, which is August 2009. Yes, If you mind change for articles you care about, but I don't because I don't care. In my own archives, and those for project opera and project Germany, for which I care, I show the correct link. Check it out: 3 May (4 May) is not yet written but will be correct tomorrow, 1 May shows the 2 May archive, and 30 Apr points to 1 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The date is the date on the main page for the 14 May 2018 DYKs, per the example above and some others I tried. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
"The date" means which date? The date shown (2 May) or the day archived (3 May)? - I talked about days in archives I care for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Visiting Talk:Distributed element circuit shows that the DYK was on the main page on 14 May 2018 and the recent additions link is for 14 May 2018. Clicking that link correctly shows the DYK for that article. The same applies for a few other cases from earlier dates that I tried, whereas more recent dates are off-by-one. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
At that time, we had 12-hour-cycles, and one of the two of course hit the correct date. Back in 2009, we had 6-hour-cycles, and three out of four had the correct date, just not the one at midnight. NOW, every one is at midnight, - every single one is "wrong", but consistently wrong", - we got used to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I put a kludge in {{DYK talk/sandbox}} to add 1 day to the recent additions date but only if it is after 14 May 2018. I'm very hazy on the parameters and the purpose of {{DYK talk/date|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}. Perhaps I should have used that. At any rate, the general idea seems to work, namely that it corrects the recent additions link. If that were implemented (and if there were no glitches), the only remaining issue would be that it is less than ideal that DYKs are saved under the date they were archived rather than the date they were on the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't change any dates in the past, because that would ruin archives. Why not "repair" the links to the archive, and leave the date (24 hours) on which it was seen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to push the matter but the current situation (where links do not show the correct information) is unsatisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I guess we should get DYKUpdateBot to name the headers after when they were first shown on the main page, instead of when they are archived. Should be doable. feminist (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Doable, yes. Worth doing? You'd need when archiving to know if the last archiving was the same day, and by that logic calculate the date. If we leave it as it is, it's at least consistently wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A better approach would be for the bot to record the time of update each time it updates T:DYK, then use it when archiving. feminist (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5: MLS Cup 1996

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hook was changed after promotion and is now incorrect; Hurricane Lili had already passed over the area on the day of the cup, and the rainstorm was caused by another storm that was strengthened by the hurricane. SounderBruce 06:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: @Yoninah: this is what happened. Yoninah promoted it and changed it, and left an edit summary c. e. from source. The source you listed on the template says "caused by nearby Hurricane Lili". Looking at the storm's path on Hurricane Lili (1996), "nearby", in this case was halfway across the Atlantic Ocean. The article lead says, "heavy rain due to the proximity of Hurricane Lili" In the article Match summary is says, " ... played on a wet field and during a rainstorm due to the effects of a winter storm that trailed Hurricane Lili into New England." So, that's why it got changed. When you're talking about hurricanes, "nearby" is somewhat subjective. I'm changing it back to the approved hook. In my experience as someone who has lived along the Gulf Coast of the US, "aftermath" of a hurricane is the flooding it causes across a continent's entire coastline. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5:Conviction

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
@Piotrus, Royroydeb, and Cwmhiraeth: I'm kind of worried about this one: doesn't this technically count as a BLP violation? I know BLPCRIME, but a conviction (regardless of circumstances) usually feels like a negative event; aren't negative hooks about BLPs supposed to be avoided whenever possible? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this is OK. The arrest and conviction is not a slur on his character, but an indication of his bravery in standing up for free speech and what he thought was right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, through the main hook is even more clear than ALT1 we are discussing here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1:Ukrainian presidential election

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

@Moscow Connection, Dawnleelynn, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah: Is there a better way to reword this hook? As it stands, the current wording is kind of vague: it's supposed to say that it had the highest turnout of any Ukrainian presidential election, but the hook could also be interpreted to mean any election of Ukraine, or even elections in general. While it's fairly easy to understand the intended meaning, personally I feel that the possible ambiguity is too much for comfort. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are two music-oriented hooks back to back at the end of this set. Could Eric Milnes be switched with Leetsch C. Hsu? Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Maile66:@Feminist:@Casliber:@Amakuru:. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 12. Right now we have a total of 308 nominations, of which 122d have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a reviewer, to no avail.

Delayed due to April Fools' Day and other issues:

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No queue loaded

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Maile66: @Casliber: @Vanamonde93: just noting that there is no queue loaded for tomorrow's update at the present moment. Prep 3 needs to be promoted to queue 3. I would do it myself, but I have a hook in the set myself this time so not sure I'm allowed to promote that to the queue myself. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi friends. Last week while I was away my DYK hook ran and I was thrilled with how well it did. Sincere thanks to Mifter, Spinningspark, Hoary, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, Flibirigit, Yoninah, Maile66 for helping it through the process. I'm posting the thank you here because going through this made me realize how much work this DYK process is - a mind-boggling amount - so I'm also grateful in general to everyone who works on this part of Wikipedia. I don't know how you do it day in and out. Thank you all, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You did well yourself, O anonymous person. You are free not to use a user ID, but I think that you merit one. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May 9 special occasion request - Prep area 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

A request at Template:Did you know nominations/Citizens! During shelling this side of the street is the most dangerous was submitted last week for May 9. I promptly reviewed the nomination. It is still in the special occasion holding area. Is someone willing to place it in Prep 4? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The promoted hook (... that this side of the street is the most dangerous?) is unacceptable. It does not present any fact, and would not even be allowed for April Fools' Day. The first hook on the nom page appears to be okay. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: really? I thought something like this would be allowed for April Fools. Would ALT2 be acceptable for the quirky slot, or do we really have to spell everything out? Yoninah (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The article's name itself is a simple statement of fact. DYK has a precedent of using similar title-only hook as per below. Courtesy ping to Spokoyni, the nominator. Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Well as creator I don't see any merit in the objection. It presents a single and very simple fact, from a glance at this years April Fools DYK noms we run many hooks along these lines, and as Flibirigit points out, we also run exactly this style of hook in the quirky slot on a normal day. Spokoyni (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not present a fact. Which side? Which street? Where? And it's simply false to state that some unspecified side of some nebulous, unnamed street is the most dangerous, when it was actually 75 years ago. Yes, I know that hooks of a similar form have run before, but the fact that mistakes have been made previously is not justification for continuing to make them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It does seem very April Foolsy to me. @Gatoclass: should we hold this for next April, or should we run with ALT0 as Mandarax suggests? Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Without being asked, I don't think we should do anything quirky about a sadly serious thing of the past, not now nor on 1 April. Also, the word "is" in the quirky hooks is simply wrong in 2019. Make at least something like "a sign said". How about a picture, which would provide historic background? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not object to ALT0 being used. I did approve it as well. Flibirigit (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Amakuru for taking care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
But still not over because the siege of Leningrad seems not quirky at all. How about moving the town with its own Olympics there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
With Gerda on this^^^ I understand that sometimes, on Wiipedia, we can all easily lose track of real life implications (see recent events), but, really? The Siege of Leningrad, quirky? I can think of ~4,000,000 reasons why not. ——SerialNumber54129 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Paging a few admins (Gatoclass, Amakuru, Maile66) to get this out of the quirky slot. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
David Levy just worked on Queue 4, and Floq just helped me with something else. You don't have to read the whole thing, just swap the quirky (last) hook in that queue with the one saying Morpeth, everything else - credits etc. - can stay the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If there's a quirky hook, it usually goes last. But just because a hook is last doesn't mean we consider it quirky. Personally, I don't see the problem here. However, it is either a good thing to switch and I just don't get it, or it's harmless. I don't think it's a bad thing to put the town with its own Olympics in the last slot. So,   Done .... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Haven't seen a single time that the last was NOT quirky (or at least tried to be), in years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Today? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
As it stands, it's a powerful hook, I like it. If people must quibble about it, I should have thought "is" is the misleading word. But that and the other problem could be overcome by making the hook "... that one side of the street was the most dangerous? (NB, that looks like a mistranslation, but наиболее does mean "most", and not "more", so the English reflects the Russian.) Moonraker (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, even with the last-minute change, as well as the last-minute move out of the quirky slot, the hook still gained over 20,000 hits. Yoninah (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Change requested for upcoming main page set

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For hook 7 (regarding Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital) in the current Queue 2, which will appear on the main page tomorrow, can an administrator please link "retroactive rules" to Ex post facto law? Ergo Sum 00:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
...that billionaire diamond trader Ehud Arye Laniado died during penis enlargement surgery?

This seems a very callous hook to have about a recent death. We're not a tabloid. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Returning to noms page for a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fatwa

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can I get a quick second opinion on whether the hook here runs into close paraphrasing issues. That it is closely paraphrased is fairly evident, but the issue is rather whether the information is sufficiently essential that the presentation isn't problematic. GMGtalk 12:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1:FA Cup final...FA Cup final

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
I tweaked the hook in prep to get rid of the repetitive language:
ALT1: ... that Watford are playing in their first FA Cup final since 1984 in today's match against Manchester City?
But the nominator changed it back. This really doesn't read right to me. Yoninah (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's following on from the precedent of previous years where it has been worded similarly. Example 2017: "... that Arsenal are looking to win a record 13th FA Cup at the FA Cup Final against Chelsea today?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not the same. The Arsenal hook just repeats "FA Cup". Please suggest different wording for the present hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The original hook and C of E's example from a previous year both read horribly clunky to me. Yoninah's proposed edit seems much better. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree; Yoninah's tweak was a significant improvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah's is definitely better. The only other possibility I can think of is
ALT2 ... that Watford's appearance in today's FA Cup Final against Manchester City is their first since 1984?
You could possibly even lose their opponents, who aren't relevant
ALT2a ... that Watford's appearance in today's FA Cup Final is their first since 1984? Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
What bothers me here is that The C of E changed the hook back in prep. Once it's in prep, nominators should never edit them; if they have problems with changes, they should come here to discuss what the hook should be. This has come up before: The C of E should know better. No excuses. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Follow-on: I have restored Yoninah's change (ALT1) pending further discussion here; consensus is that it is better than what had been promoted. If "today's FA Cup Final" is important, then either of the ALT2 variants are fine; I don't mind including Manchester City if they'll attract eyeballs, but otherwise I think shorter is sweeter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As the original reviewer, I should have probably caught the grammar in the first read through. I agree with the others, the original hook doesn't read well. SounderBruce 23:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. But I'm going ahead and substituting it with Black Kite's ALT2a, which highlights "today's FA Cup Final". Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me, Yoninah. I like it better, too; I just wanted to be sure that your original change was restored, at least temporarily, so we hadn't taken a step backward. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

The license for the image in Prep 6 may not be valid, as it pertains solely to the photograph, and not the object depicted. I don't know if the object is public domain. Could someone who knows about such things look into this? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added the {{FoP-Canada}} license, which covers images of 3-dimensional objects taken at museums in Canada. The trophy itself is also in the public domain having been cast in 1919. Flibirigit (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Apart from pictures and graphic designs, the only physical objects subject to US copyright law are "sculptural works", within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976, and this cup and figures might be claimed to be one. The silversmith might well have lived another thirty years. The owners of his copyrights would need to make the case that there was ever any copyright in the work, as opposed to design rights, which are definitely long dead. The cup doesn't look new or original to me, but someone with money to burn might succeed on the hockey player figures. Moonraker (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think US law applies to a Canadian object in a Canadian museum? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Brandt Centre
I have a different problem with the image: it's way too dark, and has that flash reflection coming out of it. We could replace it with the arena image. Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Please do not put the arena image into the hook. I have better photos I have taken of the Memorial Cup, and will upload them shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 
The Memorial Cup trophy
 
The Memorial Cup trophy

Hook wording

  • I am requesting that the wording of the 2018 Memorial Cup hook be changed. The statement "junior ice hockey club championship" was put into the hook after its promotion, and is misleading and inaccurate. The present statement as is implies it is open to compeition by the many other junior ice hockey leagues around the world, which is not correct. The hook should indicate that the Memorial Cup is the "championship of the Canadian Hockey League" instead. I have also reworded the introduction at Memorial Cup to be more concise. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternate hook proposal below. Please note, we should avoid saying junior ice hockey championship of Canada, since there are some teams based in the United States which play in the Canadian Hockey League. Flibirigit (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Flibirigit: Great images! I think the second one with the red background will show up better on the main page. Thanks for the alt hook. I simply copied wording out of the lead for my revision. I'll replace it with your alt now. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James Bruce Lockhart

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The nominator is insisting on not using Lockhart's full name in the proposed hook, even though with the full name the hook only has a length of 128 characters, which isn't a long hook by any means. While there doesn't appear to be a rule against not using the full names of people in hooks (and I think I do recall seeing a handful of cases like this, usually when there is more than one article subject, although this seems to be rather rare), I'm not sure if this is an appropriate case to do so. Any opinions on this matter? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a tendency to go along with nominators' wishes, and this one explained the reasons well. Does the full name add to making the hook interesting? - If it was "my" nomination, I'd go for the full name for the simple reason that a long bold thing catches attention better than a short one. But back to the beginning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I struggle to see a serious quibble here. The rule on hooks says nothing about long or short form of names, but it says this: "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, as long as they don't misstate the article content." Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was against the rules here and made that clear in the original comment, I was merely asking for third party opinion on whether or not it is appropriate, considering that practice is relatively uncommon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I also agree that we should respect the wishes of the nominator, there is no rule saying that people here have to have their full names used, even if it is similar to someone well known (though personally, I don't know of any other James Lockharts of note and the only other person I'm aware of with Lockhart as a surname is Gilderoy). Furthermore I see no good reason to insist on using the full name if the nominator would prefer it not be used. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
My language, oh dear. How can it be not appropriate if it isn't against the rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda, I agree. In my humble opinion, the word "inappropriate" is the bane of the age we live in. By the way, it is quite wrong to say I am "insisting" on anything. On the contrary, I said on the nomination page "If someone wishes to expand this one, be my guest..." I am just not going to do it myself, as I like it as it is. As explained in the rules, hooks are subject to being amended as they go through the system. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Would I personally use the full name? Yes. Is it worth holding up the nomination over? No. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for having done that. I suggest you go over the other nominations you held up with hook concerns. If a hook is not perfect - which may result in some hundred (or thousand) fewer clicks - who really cares? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How much review vs. mere approval?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I have said before how much I like the DYK feature, but it is toe stubs like this that make me wonder about the 'review' process. I see mention of checking for reliable sources, for example, but concerningly the plain text often contains basic problems. Not asking for FA/GA scrutiny, but can these not cause ice cream headaches?

And yes I've experimented with checking through the queues, but concerns like mine don't seem to be the main thrust 'round here. Or am I mistaken in that? Shenme (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling errors are really not very important IMO as they are always quickly rectified once the article goes live, although reviewers should either fix them or bring them to the nominator's attention when they are found. Grammatical errors that render text unintelligible are more serious and should be fixed before promotion, so reviewers should be on the lookout for those, but inevitably they sometimes get missed. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
I agree with Shenme and I spend a lot of time copyediting articles before promoting them to the queues. We have many newbies and foreign-language editors submitting articles here which are not in good shape, English grammar-wise. In addition to all the DYK criteria, our rules must stress that articles should meet basic Wikipedia guidelines for grammar and presentation. Yoninah (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When reviewing, I often have a section for suggested improvements to the article. I think improving article quality, which will be for the reader for a long time, is more important than hook quality, which is for the day only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, minor grammatical errors usually don't disqualify articles from DYK, although it is considered good practice to either raise them up in the nomination or have them fixed before being featured on the main page. In cases where grammar or clarity are major issues, either rewriting is done or the article is brought to WP:GOCE. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Megumi Nakajima

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kindly requesting a quick review of this as I'm requesting a special occasion hook for her 30th birthday on June 5 (preferably with the image if possible, although it's okay if it runs without the picture). Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do and started, but not right now, being busy with recent deaths and sooner birthdays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Review needed for special occasion request

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Omer Yankelevich is nominated for an appearance on May 23, the Jewish holiday of Lag BaOmer. A timely review is appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Likewise Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Botha requires a review in time for the 18th to coincide with Eurovision please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

also done, some open questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 22. Right now we have a total of 313 nominations, of which 134 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A load of old cobblers

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can I get a second opinion on this? I like the hook presented ("... that this article is a load of old cobblers?" but I seem to recall (as stated in the nomination) that "meta" hooks like this don't tend to get passed through prep and queue. Is this going to be okay to pass? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I suppose it technically fails criterion 3 as it isn't mentioned in the article itself or cited inline, but I'd be inclined to IAR. Unlike the nomination you cited (The customer is not a moron), it presents a verifiable fact. If an ALT is nonetheless preferred, I suggest:
A larger concern is the last section of the article, which just presents a list of contemporary newspaper mentions. Why is this included? Is it really helpful to cite every instance where the phrase is used? – Teratix ₵ 03:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's demonstrating the preceding text, namely that the term is now common and inoffensive. It could be argued that the mentions are synthesis but it seems useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If that's its purpose, then yes, that's absolutely synthesis; no source has explicitly reached this conclusion from an analysis of those mentions. Is the preceding text itself not sufficient for the purpose? – Teratix ₵ 04:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest, I've just had a hook altered while on the main page and a stern telling off for being too April-foolsy, even though it was a simple and referenced fact, because it might mislead people. Similarly the fuss that originated over how to interpret Template:Did you know nominations/Citizens! During shelling this side of the street is the most dangerous leads me to think that there is no way a hook like this will pass muster for some. For the record though, I like it and would support it. Spokoyni (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin Needed - Queue 1 - holding area request

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Would it be possible if an admin could transfer Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Botha into Queue 1 for Saturday please? I ask as the hook is designed to coincide with Eurovision. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Espresso Addict: or any other admin. I can't take care of this, because I ticked off on the nomination page. Can any admin please help with this request? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, on it now. I'll add it just as an 9th hook without removing one for now, and we can look at the main page balance on Friday before it goes live. (More often than not, the left side is too short relative to the right side these days, so this may turn out fine). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've put it at the end for now, as I'm not sure the measles outbreak in the US is a suitably light-hearted topic for the quirky hook slot anyway. If anyone prefers a different order, feel free to juggle them around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The hook is good for the quirky slot, but it should be cut after "team" to make it snappier. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK update is late

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Did anyone else notice that DYKUpdateBot did not update the main page today? It's over an hour late now. Flibirigit (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Espresso Addict: @Maile66: ping several admins. Flibirigit (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: @David Levy: @GoldenRing: @Stephen: @Casliber: ping several other admins. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. My first time doing this, so please doublecheck. I'll assume someone knowledgeable will do all the non-admin stuff. I did check to make sure the image was already protected on Commons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The main page in updated, thanks. I guess we can figure out the corresponding credits later. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Admin needed to update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next to 6. feminist (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done Anything else admin-related while I'm here, @Feminist:? I'm going offline in a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just did Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/5 should be replaced with {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}. feminist (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done. Anything else will require an admin with a later bedtime. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm   Doing... the credits. feminist (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done As far as I can see, everything normally performed by DYKUpdateBot has been performed. feminist (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Wait, {{DYKfile|16 May|2019|type=image}} needs to be placed on File:Dejvice - Hotel Crowne Plaza Prague.jpg. feminist (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: sorry I was sleeping. Next time can I suggest you post at WP:AN? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I think we have usually posted here to keep everyone else at DYK informed, because many DYK volunteers do not read WP:AN. I suppose posting at both could work. Flibirigit (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hook not moving to Approved

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the Nominations page, I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke, but it has not yet disappeared from WP:DYKN and moved to WP:DYKNA. How does one manually move it? StudiesWorld (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Simply put the template in the relevant date section in WP:DYKNA (in this case, Articles created/expanded on May 4), and remove it from the same section at WP:DYK. I've just done it myself to get this over with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote directly to Queue 1 - Special occasion request for May 18

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

On April 21, Template:Did you know nominations/1919 Australian federal election was submitted with a request to run on May 18. It has not yet been reviewed. I am willing to review this asap. Is there a consensus to allow this hook to run in Queue 1 on that date? Flibirigit (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We can swap out one of those hooks. Note that 2019 FA Cup Final is timed for 18 May too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And Willem Botha too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The Australian elected hook is now approved. Could any admins please verify and follow-up? Ping to several admins, @Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Maile66: @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @HickoryOughtShirt?4:, Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I left a note on the nomination template. There is an issue with Citations 49, 50 and 51. Probably just mislabeled, but they need to be corrected. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI for anyone who is interested. If you install the HarvErrors script on your personal Commons.js, errors like this show in the References in can't-miss-Red error messages. Sure makes life easier when checking the references. — Maile (talk)
@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @HickoryOughtShirt?4: we need this promoted within a few hours. @Flibirigit: has made the necessary citation fixing I mentioned above, and I have re-ticked the nomination for approval. Also note that Queue1 already has 9 hooks, and appears to be a bit long for tomorrow's main page. Whoever handles this, please adjust. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You could postpone Hannelore Elsner. I had a DYK yesterday and today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  Doing...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And   Done. Many thanks to Gerda Arendt for volunteering to make way for this one! Cheers, and happy weekend to all  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
How about giving her a pictured slot then ;) - Alfred Kirchner, birthday 22 May as mentioned above, still needs a review, - can you leave a slot open for him that day, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: thanks to both you and @Gerda Arendt:. I just noticed something really interesting about the main page balance. I use two different browsers, each of which look slightly different on a zoom. But with either one, the DYK main page balance looks too short, or too long, or just right ... all depending on the browser and whatever zoom, or none. Hmmmm. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: yep, that's the way it is. Because each section has its words wrapping (and therefore a new line) at different widths, the sections don't have a fixed height relative to each other. What I usually do is to open the page in the browser and then resize the window gradually from wide to narrow, watching the bottom of the sections as I do so. They'll jump around quite a lot, but if the left is sometimes too long and right sometimes too long, and it averages out even then I think that's about correct. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Another reason why we should find a way to have the content widths adjust dynamically, although that isn't feasible right now with our current software. Or just get rid of the columns. feminist (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
So why do we even have columns? Everybody seems to get all upset when the balance between the columns is off, but then gets even more upset when you point out that they are basically doing it to themselves by having columns in the first place and the entire problem would simply go away if they went to a layout like an ordinary page. (Not to mention the fact that images in each section could then be made a more useful size, too.) You'd think that "Wikipedia's Main Page must have columns" had been handed down from on high by some deity. --Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

now in Prep 3 I'll Deal With Him Later

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Kingsif: @The C of E: Here's the source "Yes, the pink organza dress by Molly Goddard worn with black Balenciaga boots in episode three that subsequently broke the internet, but also what was to come." 1 I don't remember the internet being broken. The source does not provide any other information to tell us how the internet was broken. One would think such a phenomenon would have made international news. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the ping worked, but I found myself here anyway. I added that alt as short and witty (and it clearly means in the metaphorical sense of everyone immediately discussing the dress), but I also personally preferred the other proposed hook on this occasion so don’t mind either way Kingsif (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done - Well, that was an easy fix. I inserted the original hook into Prep 6, so this is resolved. Thanks for your quick response. — Maile (talk) 15:41, 18 May 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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@Bilorv:@Gerda Arendt: I've pulled this from the Queue, and re-opened the nomination. Per WP:DYK "Cited hook – 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 hook comes directly from the plot, which is not sourced with an inline citation. Plot summaries are not sourced, so you need to have a different hook, please. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments are requested on the nomination template. Nominator Bilorv believes they did what they were supposed to do, and this never should have been pulled. I leave this in the hands of one or more uninvolved persons who can add their expertise. Whatever you all decide, is what you decide. Thank you for your help, either direction. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Birthdays in May, last 23

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Birthdays in May come up, first 7 May for Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Milnes, approved, - any chance for a place in prep? There are more to come, including 9 May Template:Did you know nominations/Wilhelmine Lübke, under review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Promoted Eric Milnes. feminist (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
May I ask for another pair of eyes on the review for 9 May? She was the second first lady of the BRD, and an image might be suitable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Solved in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Next: Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke, her birthday is 11 May, but I guess we better pass it, for an image chance. Sorry for being late, - real life happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As one who spends a lot of time building prep sets, ensuring that the mix of hooks go together in terms of subject, country, and other variables; and also that each prep set doesn't conflict with the prep sets before or after (such as running the same subject in set after set); and also following an order for lead images (alternating between person, nature, building, and other types of images), I think these special-occasion requests for people's birthdays are getting out of hand. The May 11 prep set is already preceded by a person image and succeeded by a person image. It also has another one of your hooks in it, Gerda, which means more work swapping that hook out and rearranging later prep sets. Can we go back to nominating and promoting hooks to sets without creating such a fuss about the subject's birthday as a "special occasion"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think birthdays are an adequate special occasion request, however the lack of advance notice of these requests is difficult to accomodate. The guidlines say three weeks' notice. I think anything below two weeks is not enough notice without consensus. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Great in theory. In practise, I received the invitation to do something about women with a birthday in May, looked a bit later, found this one, wrote 4 May, was then overwhelmed by RL until today. It happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, @Gerda Arendt: you are #5 of the top DYK contributors at Wikipedians by number of DYKs. One retired a year or two ago. Two others are not active at DYK. Of the ones who are still active, only @Cwmhiraeth: has contributed more here. And yours are almost always on classical music, which are always good for the main page. But I have also noticed the increase in the birthday requests. I understand your explanation, but the sheer number of them do have the effect of, " ... excuse me, birthday here, can I go to the head of the line?" So, the promoters have to give your requests priority, while other DYKs have to go later. So, I agree with @Yoninah: on this. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I seem to have (another) language problem. Quote from above: "her birthday is 11 May, but I guess we better pass it". What in "I guess we better pass it" was unclear? - Advance notice: the next birthdays planned (and I always note them on my user page well before I write the articles, just not for this one because it was prompted - late - by WIR): 22 May and 27 May. There's the fifties anniversary of an opera premiere on 15 May, but I haven't decided yet if will expand the article. Did you know that I am turning more and more to ITN (In the news)? Many more readers, no hook discussions. Today: Georg Katzer. If you miss an infobox, it's on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I understood "I guess we better pass it" to mean that the nomination had yet to be reviewed, and then you wanted it to run on May 11. The more common expression is "I guess we better skip it". Yoninah (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, learning. Will hopefully get the 15 May opera in shape today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Das Märchen von der schönen Lilie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Both approved, thanks. Language: Yoninah, I thought it's Passover not Skipover ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Right! Another option for you would be "I guess we better pass on it". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For May 22, Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Kirchner is now ready for review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's reviewed now. - Last for May Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Werba, and sorry, late, 101st "birthday" 23 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Pink dress

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
@Kingsif: @The C of E:
We try to avoid putting names of people who are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the main page. In this case, it's not clear if Molly Goddard is a designer or actress. One option is to write up a short stub so we can link her name in this hook. Alternately, we can delete her name and write "... that a pink dress..." Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt fine by me, but made Molly Goddard anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif, hey, that's great! Let's keep the original hook, but I'm changing "similar dresses" to "pink dresses" per the sources, as not all the dresses are frilly or even monochrome pink. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Holloway

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Re Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Holloway, in Prep 1 with ALT3 which is the only one approved, but one I objected to. Sigh. Do I have to go into detail?

  • ... that Jennifer Holloway once played both a young girl falling in love and the same woman in old age in the same opera, and was critically applauded for doing so convincingly?
  1. "once"? - no, she does that in every performance.
  2. "played"? - no, opera singers perform (or sing) a role, and so far the word "opera" has not been mentioned, so "played" would imply an actress.
  3. "falling in love"? - no, her lover says bye when the first scene opens.
  4. "the same opera"? - without a name, but it's Der ferne Klang, played at the same house more than hundred years after its premiere there which made the composer famous, and the first time after that preniere.
  5. missing: if we want to focus on the role, why say young and old (rather common) but not demimonde (he meets her there and leaves her a second time) in between, which seems less common to me.
  6. missing: the singer is both a mezzo and a soprano, interesting.
    @Gerda Arendt: aside from the hook, a fine point on this issue. The only places in the article where her vocal range are mentioned, is in the lead and the infobox, not in the body of the article. No sourcing on that, and not sure if there needs to be. However, I mention this to say that not everybody knows mezzo-soprano and soprano are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of people would assume that saying "mezzo-soprano" automatically assumes that saying they also a soprano is a redundancy. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you read the nom, I didn't suggest to plainly and technically say "mezzo and soprano", but translated what a critic said "with a brilliant high register and still a warm timbre". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    In the article, the voice changed is supported by roles. You can't sing Salome as a mezzo-soprano (half a soprano). She still sings both ranges, so we can't say with a date - as in aother women's articles - when a singer switched from one to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  7. too much: all this longish critical applause. Please do better, reopen, there are many opportunities. Or replace by an ALT that is not officially approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You have to understand that we are writing for general audiences, not opera fans, and too many technical details can overwhelm those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. There's nothing wrong with namedropping the name of an opera and in fact it's perfectly acceptable: we namedrop media titles all the time. The issue here is that doing so would have made the hook unnecessarily long. If Gerda or any other editor here could propose a version of ALT3 that mentions the opera's name while keeping length to a minimum, then that could work, but it would need consensus. Gerda, I understand that English is not your first language, but from what I can understand in the article and the hook, ALT3 seems acceptable English to me: it's a nice summary of what happens in the opera without explaining every single detail; doing the latter would simply be unnecessary. "Once" doesn't literally only once before, it can mean "in the past", the "played" word can mean both playing and singing (I understand that in opera, they're technically two different things, but to the layman "played should suffice", similar to how in a musicals where actors who play roles both perform and sing). "Demimonde" is a concept is probably too obscure to the typical reader, unlike the contrast between young-and-old which is clear immediately. Another editor could probably give a better explanation than I can, the point I'm trying to say is that the wording issues with ALT3 aren't really issues at all, and making it more detailed or going with one of the earlier more detailed hooks is probably not a good idea to go with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I spent much time on explaining what I don't like in ALT3, but if that is too complex. here's short: it says nothing specific about this opera singer, nor about this opera. Character played was young, gets old, is applauded. This was an unusual performance of an unusual, rarely performed work, and I applauded. - "created" is not a difficult technical term, we could translate the opera title to "The Distant Sound" which seems interesting by itself (I didn't because it gets longer), - "once" can be a past, but this happened in 2019 and is ongoing. - Why do we spend any time discussing what makes which difference? 500 more clicks, or what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is now in the next prep to go to queue, and I am plain unhappy with this unprofessional, overly general and simply wrong hook. She doesn't play "falling in love". When the curtain rises, she is already in love, but he leaves her for his quest for the distant sound. She is sold by her father to another man, and is ready for suicide. - Reopen, or discuss here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Honestly this feels like a very bland hook. It basically says "fish is eaten by an otter". I understand that the nominator proposed the hook because he found the name of the fish funny, but I'm sure that another hook better than this could be proposed that also involves the fish's name. Surely something better can be proposed here? Courtesy ping @Mattvvg, Casliber, Dumelow, and Yoninah: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

How about something like
*ALT1 ... that the red Irish lord is not a yellow Irish lord?
Verging on the bizarre... ——SerialNumber54129 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: As the resident DYK expert on flora and fauna, maybe you can give some thoughts on this matter? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
How about (for the quirky slot):
I think it's supposed to be combining two facts: that the red Irish lord can change its color depending on its surroundings, and that it and the yellow Irish lord are two separate species (meaning that even if for example a red Irish lord changes its color to something yellowish [and I don't know if it can do that], it would still not be an yellow Irish lord). Sorry for the overexplanation but I thought the hook was cute and perhaps somewhat easy to understand. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing's happening on this thread, so I boldly went forward and edited the hook in queue, for a slightly tweaked version of @Cwmhiraeth:'s suggestion. I get it, and I think it's cute. So, if anybody objects, whap me with a trout come up with something better. Time's a-wastin', as they say in old cowboy movies. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6: Fay Biles

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Queue 6 is about to go live with this vague and unencyclopedically worded ("winningest") hook. I suggest replacing it with:
... that college field hockey and lacrosse coach Fay Biles was the most successful coach in Kent State University history? Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done Also in Queue 6, I suggest switching the Red Irish lord hook with the War Paint (horse) hook, as the former is more quirky. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good instincts on the Red Irish lord hook. Swap made. I'll leave the other hook to someone else. "winningest" is the exact wording in the source, and I see nothing wrong with leaving it to catch the eye of a reader. But if any other admin wants to change it, so be it. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I've changed it. "Winningest" isn't even a word here in the UK, and I'd guess the same is true for a number of other English-speaking countries. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
What about naming the sports she coached, Black Kite? It's rather weak to call a coach a "physical education advocate". Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago, so here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 2. Right now we have a total of 330 nominations, of which 150 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Kryczka

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last hook in this nomination (ALT19) is ready for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

In Prep 4:

... that on her 30th birthday in 2017, Kaylee Davidson-Olley became the longest surviving heart transplant baby in Europe?

This is false. The source does not mention her 30th birthday, but is, instead, about the 30th anniversary of her transplant at the age of five months. The source says "Kaylee was the first successful and longest surviving baby transplant in Europe", so, contrary to what the hook claims, she did not become the longest surviving heart transplant baby in Europe on her 30th birthday; that happened immediately after the operation, when she was five months old, and she continued to hold the distinction of being the longest survivor of a baby heart transplant in Europe when she was 30 years and five months old.

Pinging Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, and Edwardx (the credited editors) and Ritchie333 (the reviewer). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, change it to "that in 2017, Kaylee Davidson-Olley became the longest surviving heart transplant baby in Europe, surviving 30 years since her operation". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That would also be incorrect. She was the first surviving heart transplant baby in Europe[10], so for her entire life she's been the longest surviving heart transplant baby in Europe. All we could really change it to if we want to keep the birthday angle is some variant of "she turned 30 on her 30th birthday", which is obviously not a valid hook. ‑ Iridescent 09:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggested a humourous alt in the review, with this in mind, but I didn't think that would be popular. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Instead of suggesting hooks which you think are humorous, it would be much better to actually review what you're supposed to review, and reject the false hook which you instead approved. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
"... that Kaylee Davidson-Olley survived an infant heart transplant to win gold in a 4 × 100 metres relay?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good actually.   Should be good to go as it's interesting and cited inline. I'll leave this to another editor to move to prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I like it too. Thank you, Ritchie333 and Narutolovehinata5. Edwardx (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done Replaced in prep. And it earns the quirky slot! Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1 - Image in lead hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

DYK: C. W. Stephens

@Yoninah: I believe the image is copyrighted.

The approved hook was:

It appears that the image copyright of Harrods is 1905, so probably expired.

You promoted it as below, changing the image to a drawing of Claridge's.

And that image is the issue. When I click on the source link, it takes me to Claridge's with that image. In the bottom right-corner of that image is the Claridge copyright notice. There's also a 2019 copyright notice at the bottom of the page for Historic Hotels of the World. Do you think we ought to go back to the original hook and image? — Maile (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Claridges can claim whatever they like, but they're full of shit and if they're claiming copyright on it they're lying. That painting was painted by C. W. Stephens in 1897, and Stephens died in 1917. ‑ Iridescent 21:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Quite. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile I deliberately didn't use the Harrods image because it was rather uninteresting. If we do need to substitute the image, maybe an updated photo of Harrods? Pinging Edwardx and Philafrenzy. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to change it but the reason for that particular Harrods picture was that it was the right period and before more recent changes to the Harrods frontage. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: We don't need to change the image if it PD. It should be fine. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no particular preference as to the choice of image. Edwardx (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments11 people in discussion

This nomination is currently at a stalemate; a neutral editor, preferably an administrator, is requested to give a third-party opinion on how to move this forward. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said on the main thread, most of your hooks are interesting and relate to well-written and well-sourced content. Having one dropped on the floor is not going to result you from being sanctioned or anything silly like that. It might just be easier to drop this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
But there wasn't any policy based reason for rejection of the hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This nomination process has been my worst experience during my eleven years in WP. I have never thought that hidden accusations, biases, extremist views and the purest form of hysteria could prevent us from sharing knowledge. I decided never to propose a new DYK. Let's read only about nice rodents, unknown actors, "romantic" restaurants and uninteresting people who died hundreds of years ago. They cannot cause conflicts. Borsoka (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented in the earlier WT:DYK discussion, in which I offered alternative hooks that I thought (and still think) are absolutely neutral and suitable for the main page. I have not participated on the nomination page, however, though I note reference has been made to my suggestions. Questions posed here often raise the need for an alternative wording for a hook, and I have commented on these from time to time. In doing so, I look at the hook but am not addressing the question of the article's suitability as a whole, and the same applies in this case. I am disappointed to read that Borsoka is feeling discouraged and has found this DYK nomination unpleasant as I believe we encourage participation from all editors and across a breadth of topics. However, not every topic is suitable for DYK. Some articles have nothing worth highlighting. Some are controversial / offensive. And those issues may be unrelated to the hook itself. So, my view:
    • a neutral / main-page suitable DYK hook is available
    • the controversy here is such that a consensus to promote is needed and not a foregone conclusion
    • respecting the concerns that others have, even if you disagree, is the only path to a consensus to promote
    • there appears to be no consensus to promote at present, which means that:
      • The C of E, it is up to you to address the concerns / offer some response to the issues raised by Black Kite, Kingsif, and cygnis insignis (and any others) to persuade contributors to this discussion that they should support your views – or alternatively, withdraw the nomination / appeal and let the DYK side of this end;
      • I would like to express, and I hope others will comment, that the treatment of Borsoka has been unfortunate. Borsoka is not the most experienced DYK participant, but offered a reasoned review based on the DYK criteria, raising valid issues around the original proposed hook, and stated after being challenged that "I surely will not approve the hook until the discussion is closed" – a declaration consistent with consensus – and yet has been unilaterally overruled by others. Cygnis insignis commented (to The C of E) that "Doubling down to perpetuate discussion demands that your 'innocent' nomination stay in the lime-light, with pov and coi emblazoned during your topic of interest, not pointy, gamey, crass?" on 28 April, yet the article has had only three edits since that date, and is untagged for issues such as those mentioned. Surely we can disagree about a nomination and even raise concerns about the motives of the nominator and still show some respect to a colleague who has undertaken a review?; and,
      • most importantly (in my view), if there is a serious problem with the article, that needs addressing and not just its related DYK nomination being closed?
  • I ask, can we take a balanced and respectful look at the article and (if appropriate) the DYK nomination? Thank you, EdChem (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well said, EdChem. I agree that the hooks he proposed are neutral, and suitable for the main page. I also make no comment on the article itself. Flibirigit (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my above remark. I was not offended at all. The way other editors communicated with each other and how hysterical extremists could push their views was surprising for me. Sorry, I do not comment on this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@EdChem: The issue is that during that discussion here, much of the comments were attacking me and my motivations as well as stating that it shouldn't run at the time due to the recent death of a journalist. I am seeing very few comments regarding the article itself and those that were made, I have made the amendments to. Indeed much of the comments seem to imply I just plastered Londonderry everywhere I could in the article despite the fact that if they read it, they will see that such references are minimalised in favour of generic "the city" or "the council" and were in context where used. This is my concern here is that we have had much more controversial topics than this run on DYK, yet it looks like people seem so focussed just to censor this one only because it is a court case about the controversial name of a Northern Irish city. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm quoted in a sentence that appends ", yet the article …". My comment refers to the nomination, not the article. and (like my mock query) implies motives to those who disagree with an overtly partisan and provocative nomination. Or me, so it goes. I stand by my comment on the nomination, making it about the article and perpetuating the discussion is a crass use of some assumed privilege. Ask not what wikipedia can do for you … cygnis insignis 07:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Which one? The one where you say you are "triggered", call me "a pov editor", call the article a "footnote on steroids" (without any specific detail on what in the article you object to) and then tell me to "Feck away from DYK"? I fail to see how any of these WP:NPA have anything to do with comparing the article with the DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
One of those comments refers to article, a "footnote on steroids", the rest refers to my obvious distaste at someone feigning innocence and resorting to disruptive tactics for a DYK nomination that was already sufficiently opposed before I reviewed it. Entirely possible you don't see a concern for your nomination, and entirely oblivious to the disruption and attacks made by your only supporter against any and all opposing users, experienced editors and admins, also living people. I cannot assume you have been deliberately disingenous, and others have said you make good noms, but it is NOT about you. None of this discussion is okay with me, I prefer to see these sort of nominations censored, I am very open about that and believe it accords with our community's intentions in formulating the constraints of DYK. Being a patriot, or nationalist, or whatever is going on over there, then imagine if it was another. I imagine the possibilty of people playing out imagined religious, ethnic, or political culture wars, that drives sites that profit from drama, reddit, FB, twitter and so on. That is a million miles from what we do here, and utterly unsuited to DYK. So on this matter, dear colleague, you can bite your bum. cygnis insignis 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of our opinions on this matter, I think telling others to "bite their bum" is simply too much and will not help matters at all. We need to work together to improve the encyclopedia, not attacking others if we don't agree with their opinions. For disclosure: my sentiments are mostly similar to Tertatix's below in that I think presenting this on DYK in a neutral manner is possible, but there simply isn't consensus to do so at this point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't really my sentiment, but I agree that telling good-faith editors to "bite their bum" is not conducive to civil and productive discussion. – Teratix ₵ 01:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis, I am a very tolerant editor and I have turned the other cheek with some of your rude comments and personal attacks but this is getting tiresome and annoying, so I'm asking you please do not do it again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: Fair enough, but be careful with your phrasing (if we are still doing that). cygnis insignis 16:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything inherently wrong with the neutrality of the article's content, and I think ALT2 would have been a sufficiently neutral hook. Whether this hook needs to be delayed, even indefinitely, because of its topic, is a matter for reviewers far more experienced in British politics than me. I understand why The C of E might be a little frustrated, because he has done his best to write a neutral article. However, it may very well be the case that this topic is just incapable of being neutrally summarised in 180 characters or fewer. – Teratix ₵ 23:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that ALT2 is defiantly neutral as it can get it covers both terms, I really do not understand why people are objecting to it @Teratix:. Yes the city has a controversial name, yet we have run the flag of apartheid South Africa, confederate songs and loads of swear words so I really really cannot see how this is somehow so much worse than any of those. Honestly, this feels a lot like an attempt to censor to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't think that "defiantly neutral" is what you want to be saying, but since I think you meant "definitely neutral" rather than expressing defiance, it's an honest mistake. However, after proposing and fighting for so many controversial hooks to the last ditch over the years, too many of which were deemed inappropriate and unacceptable, claims of censorship don't help here. This is increasingly reminding me of "the boy who cried wolf". BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I certainly had no intention for "defiantly" to be interpreted as such. I am looking at it objectively, and ALT2 is because it simply states that the court was asked to decided whether the city was Derry or Londonderry and doesn't even say what the result was. I can't see how you can get more neutral than that. Besides, if I was so fixated on last ditch fighting I would still be pushing for the original when as you can see, I am very happy for this compromise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
To put it in perspective, I quite like Captain Ska's latest single (search the web), but I'm not crazy enough to do the obvious DYK for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that during the construction of Oklahoma City's short-lived KLPR-TV, a worker was trapped 200 feet (60 meters) in the air on its tower?

I understand I was the one who approved this hook, but reading it again, I have come to realize that the wording is a bit off. The hook talks about the "construction of... KLPR-TV", though it's actually supposed to be about the construction of the TV station's tower. I'm pretty sure that we don't normally use the word "construct" when it comes to the establishment of TV stations, instead using them for infrastructure. Can we have some assistance on rewording the hook to fit the intent? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---

@Ichthyovenator: @Cwmhiraeth: @MrClog:
I am having trouble finding the hook fact on p. 555 of the source given. Could someone point it out to me? Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
So there are sources in the article on King Iabdas warring against the Empire, page 555 of the source given then says (in regards to the Umayyad invasion) "...and the Byzantines even set up a Berber kingdom in Aurès (present-day Tunisia) to act as a resistance against the Arabs...". It seems to be an error that the Byzantines would have "set up" the kingdom, since there is evidence it existed hundreds of years prior, but I assumed the empire supporting them would be a valid interpretation of the quote. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I see it now. All is good. Yoninah (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bohumil Herlischka

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This nomination has been stuck for more than a month now, requesting that a new set of eyes take a look at this. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Captain and Our Trip to Africa

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hm...I misread the Captain hook, it's a film hook, too. Switch to a different prep? --valereee (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, but someone might want to check my work --valereee (talk) 17:57, 26 May 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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What happens if there are no filled queues?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just for my own ability to go watch reruns of crap TV with my son who is home for the long US weekend, what happens if there are no full queues when DYK is supposed to update? Does anything get broken, or do the current DYKs just stay there? --valereee (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The update bot posts the message you can see below on this page, and the hook set already on the main page remains unchanged until someone moves a prep set into the queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 3

Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion

This was raised in the nomination page, but the word "create" could potentially lead to reader confusion. I see that Gerda Arendt gave an explanation on the context of the word "create", but personally I don't think that the explanation was adequate since readers may not understand what was meant by "create" (for context, the hook was referring to the fact that Hesse was the first to play the relevant role during the opera's world premiere). Perhaps a different word or phrasing could be used here? Courtesy ping to reviewer Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not realizing that it could cause confusion. What about "first played"? StudiesWorld (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Substituting "first played" in that sentence makes me think that it was the first role that she ever played. But the bigger problem with this hook is the "so what?" issue. The entire hook basically says "opera singer sang parts in operas". --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I had tried to talk her out of the proposal and go in a different direction and she declined, and consensus appears to be that "Actor X played Role Y" hooks can be allowed depending on the circumstances (as seen in Yoninah's review). With that said, I really don't think that the current hook is hooky. Personally I think something better can be proposed here (I had suggested in the review that she could have focused on her visit too Japan instead); however we tend to respect nominator's wishes whenever possible and at this moment she is reluctant to accept anything other than this hook, so I'm not sure if we really need to propose a new hook in this instance and instead just let the current one stand. @Khajidha: Your thoughts on this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that too many of these hooks have been let slide. Gerda openly admits that people who don't like opera won't find her hooks interesting. I would think that she would want to write hooks that would show people who don't like (or at least don't know about) opera what she finds interesting about the articles she is writing. In several cases I've seen her explain why the fact that this actor performed that role was interesting, but have not been able to understand why she didn't just nominate a hook explaining that in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Khajidha's sentiments. There are two ways a hook can be hooky: (1) because the subject itself is funny/intriguing/surprising, etc., or (2) because the hook is written in a hooky way. When a subject is not so well known, a well-written hook can make people want to click on the subject. Gerda, the point is not to get "500 more clicks", as you say below. The point is to make the DYK column an interesting and lively place for readers of the main page to hang out. For too long we have let hooks that are not interesting to a broad audience slip through just because someone wrote a new article. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"created a role" is the standard technical term in opera for performing a role in the world premiere, which would be needlessly long and unprofessional. Please see the nomination, where the same question came up, and search for the phrase in past DYK, - more than 40, I'd say, and before I even joined Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
ps: opera singers don't (only) play, they sing or perform a role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to make here. The performing and the singing are both part of playing the role. If you are cast as character C, then everything you do on stage (whether movement, speech, song, or anything else) is part of playing the role of character C. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that Wikipedia is intended for broad audiences, and with that in mind DYK tries to avoid jargon whenever possible. That context of "create" might make sense to opera fans, but considering that presumably the majority of Wikipedia's readers are not familiar with opera, sticking to the current wording may not be a good path to follow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know that the question has come up before, it is just that no one has actually forced the issue. This is a major fault with the DYK process. There is a requirement that a hook be interesting to a broad audience but it is not always enforced. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not the question that has come up before, but that some 40 DYK hooks in the past used the term "created the role" without questions, beginning in 2010. - As for "playing", it's not just me but project opera using "sings" and "performs", but not "plays" for opera singers, and this should show in related DYK hook, - just sounds more professional. Repeating: "created a role" is not overly technical. - History: I didn't know the term, and thought that it's the composer who creates a role, but I was instructed and learned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
1) Just because a problem hasn't been noted before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out now. 2) Whatever the opera project does has no bearing on the fact that the plain English meaning of saying that someone "created a role" would be that they were the composer. --Khajidha (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Just trying to understand: if it says role how would you think of composer, who created all the roles. On top of there are few women composers. - Please don't undersetimate our readers, they seem to have understood in all former cass, - I don't recall questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the composer created all the roles. Which is why this sounds so weird. How could she create a particular character in the opera if the whole thing was created by someone else? If anything, it seems like you are saying that this performer added a role to the opera that was not put in it by the composer. Sort of like saying that my theater club is putting on a production of Macbeth and I've added a detective to come in and arrest the title character. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, I work for project opera, and I have been intructed to use certain phrases. It's not my private idea. It's been so long ago that I don't remember when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I would instinctively phrase it as "introduced the role of (name)" for a premiere. Jmar67 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Actors playing roles hooks

Speaking of these "Actor X played Role Y" hooks, I'm not really sure why opera roles hooks tend to be given a pass, but similar hooks about say Western or Asian subjects tend to be rejected instead. For example, in Template:Did you know nominations/Ayane Sakura, the original hook that was promoted was "... that Japanese voice actress Ayane Sakura has played roles in the anime series Love Live! and Love Lab?"; however objections were raised because the hook was basically an "actor played a role" hook and was considered too typical, and so a replacement hook was promoted instead. While no examples currently come to mind, I can recall that similar instances have happened before with articles about Western actors (in that simply saying "Actor X played Role Y" was not good enough, but "Actor X, who played Role Y, is Z" or "Actor X, who played Role Y, did Z" is acceptable). This is just an observation that has been bugging me for quite a while now; maybe an explanation for the differing standards could be given here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd have no problems with hooks about anime people playing a role. Much more interesting to me than who made them want to be one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Trying once more to explain what I do when connecting an opera singer to a role: there a many kinds of blue, there are many kinds of sopranos. When describing a blue, it's often by naming a flower of that colour, and by naming a role, I specify what kind of soprano, from light to heavy, - much nicer and with a story, the opera plot, worth exploring. Some don't know the flowers, some don't know the operas, but there are the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New hook for Ruth

In any case, due to the concerns raised over the currently-promoted hook, we might need to propose a new hook here. It's in a far-away prep so I don't think it needs to be pulled for now, but it might need to be should this issue not be resolved in a prompt manner. The below suggestions were struck by the nominator in the noms page, but I will be reposting them below to see if there will be consensus to use any of them instead. Note that ALT1 is basically a simplified version of the original hook and is still an "opera singer performed X and Y roles" hook, so I'm skeptical that it could work, but I am still listing it down in the interest of discussion. New proposals are also welcome. Ideally, due to concerns about broad interest, it might a good idea that the one who approves a new hook would be someone previously uninvolved in the relevant discussions. Pinging LouisAlain to see if he has any suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled it from prep: we can resume discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hesse. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I supplied an ALT at the nom. It's a role not a part. Singing in countries can be said about many, same for Kammersängerin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
ps: LouisAlain created the article, but has so little interest in DYK that he often removes credits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
another: search for "created the role" leads to more than 1000 articles, see? - This is the wording usd in articles about operas and musicals, - why not also in a hook?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, did you understand the comment said above? Just because it's been used in the past or that there were no comments about it before doesn't mean that it remains acceptable. Consensus can change after all. You may also want to read WP:OSE since it can apply here. You really have to consider the fact that, outside of opera singers, "created the role" is very strange wording, and hooks are supposed to be easily understood or catchy by people who do not follow opera. How difficult to understand is that? It's a point that has been repeated numerous times above already, and Khajidha's explanations should have made it clear. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you understand that "created the role" is the standard wording, used in more than thousand articles? Did you understand that nobody would say "created a role" when meaning the composer? - The discussion is in the nom, and ALT 5 is without "created the role", so needlessly clumsy, but yes, I compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I understand that it has been used in a thousand articles. No, just because it is used in a thousand articles means that editors are still fine with it. What may have been allowed in the past might not necessarily be allowed anymore, standards and consensus can change over time; if anything, it could be possible that those thousand mentions could all be changed if there was consensus to do so. Gerda, I think this is again another example of you overestimating how much the typical reader or editors is familiar with the world of classical music, so you have to understand why there has been confusion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Just because something has been done before doesn't necessarily mean that it is within guidelines to do it that way. It could just mean that it has not been seen by anyone who understands that it is against policy. Also, you said that it is a role, not a part. That sentence makes no sense to me. In a play, film, tv show, or opera those seem to me to be the same thing. I've never seen anyone try to draw a distinction. --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Calling Voceditenore for clarification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, this again. The standard terminology in the standard reference works on opera is "create a role" if the person sang it in the world premiere. Ditto: opera singers are referred to as singing a role (not a "playing" a "part"). Using inaccurate terminology like that is ultimately a disservice to the reader. And if you want to talk about "guidelines", Narutolovehinata5 and Khajidha, the most important one on Wikipedia is that we follow the standard sources, not our personal preferences. Having said all that, if there are objections to using that terminology on the main page because it will "confuse" people, simply say something like :
Frankly the original hook was rather cluttered with too much extraneous information crammed in. Sometimes less is more. Am I supposed to be taking these comments to Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hesse? Voceditenore (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds to me like all this "create a role" and "sing a role" stuff falls under MOS:JARGON. --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it's "jargon" in the sense used in MOS:JARGON, "role" is a perfectly ordinary word, ditto "sing". But in any case, the hook I've proposed contains no "jargon". Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It is jargon to draw a distinction between the synonyms "role" and "part" and say that only one of them is appropriate for opera. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with role, mo? These discussions about almost nothing are by now how many times thte length of the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Operatic terms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

New stage

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hesse. An editor who was told that singing a role in an important work is a good DYK fact marked the nomination for closure, arguing that Der junge Lord is not a well-known opera ("household name"). I say, even better, than we can make it known. I saw it yesterday at the Gärtnerplatztheater, so it's not an obscure work premiered and never played again, but on today's playlists of notable houses . Can we educate our readers that such things exist, or do we have to stick to what they already know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tiny template tweak

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The second to last hook in Queue 6 uses the wrong template, resulting in improper spacing (the "d" crashes into the apostrophe). The {{`s}} should be replaced with {{'s}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

prep instructions

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Ugh, moving a photo hook to prep for the first time and can't figure out what it means to "add an {{mprotected}} notice to the image description page". Where do I find a detailed instruction? Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: it does not appear that this image is public domain in countries other than China. There is a lengthy notice about this on the image page at Commons. I have moved it out of the image slot, and the page creator should be alerted that this image might have to be removed from the article too. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Clara dari Semarang and Ipigott on last point. Yoninah (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, weird, it says Public Domain on it and it's from the National Portrait Gallery? Is this something unusual? Sorry for the extra work for you, I probably need to just consolidate my skills on simply filling preps before I try to do a photo hook --valereee (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: whatever license you see is what the uploader put on it. You have to go to the Commons page to see where it came from and whether the licensing is correct. In this case, however, when I click on the image a whole text pops up (see here) that says the copyright is in dispute. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah! I appreciate the kind patience. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, if I recall correctly, the other image of Oei Hu-lan with her son was originally in the nomination, but Zanhe preferred the one that was ultimately used. If it is in dispute, however, perhaps we could go back to the original photo, so that the nomination can run in a lead spot in a later prep. Possible? (It should probably be cropped, if so.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset that's a good idea. I'll move it with the original image. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah, BlueMoonset, and Valereee: The photo was published in 1922, and the authors died more than 80 years ago, so it should be public domain in most countries, including the US and China. The warning is just a standard message from the "SourceNPGLondon" template (concerning a 10-year-old legal threat claiming copyright for photographs of old paintings from the National Gallery, which has apparently been dropped). As this work itself is a photograph, not a painting, the warning, even if it had merit, would not apply. -Zanhe (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: World's oldest

Latest comment: 5 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion
@Spokoyni: @MWright96: @Valereee:
Hooks like these are problematic because someone will always come up with someone who exceeds the record set by the subject. In this case, he was the "world's oldest surgeon" in 1994. The hook doesn't give any indication of what era we're talking about. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, yeah, I wondered about the 'former' too -- he was 90 at the time, so I imagine there's a very good likelihood he still holds the record. Not many people I know would go to a 90-year-old surgeon lol. Tweaking to mention 1994 seemed like it would get into wordiness. --valereee (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
... that among those buried in the Nikolskoe Cemetery was Fyodor Uglov, who in 1994 at the age of 90 was the world's oldest practicing surgeon? --valereee (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The cemetery article says he was 103 when he died. The article on Fyodor Uglov says he did not retire from medicine until the age of 102. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Well the hook was worded specifically to avoid such an issue. The key word here is was, not is. He was at one point the world's oldest practising surgeon. It should be fairly obvious from the fact that he is dead and buried that he is no longer the world's oldest practising surgeon, that record will now be held by someone else, who is both alive and practising. If someone breaks the record for the world's oldest practising surgeon ever, before or after, then that doesn't change the fact that Uglov was at one point the world's oldest practising surgeon. If we were saying that he was the world's oldest practising surgeon ever in human history up to this point in time, then that could be open to challenge, but the article and hook make no such claims. Spokoyni (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood from the get-go. I was merely commenting on the proposed hook that dates him at age 90. But as you say, it isn't an issue anyway. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, I agree, mentioning 1994 and age 90 makes it sound like he might have died then/stopped practicing then. --valereee (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
1:... that among those buried in the Nikolskoe Cemetery (pictured) was Fyodor Uglov, who at one time was the world's oldest practicing surgeon?
Not sure that's much better than formerly. --valereee (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, for sure, if he was the world's oldest surgeon at age 90, he certainly was at age 102. It appears the source of the original hook is the Telegraph. 1 Which is fine. I know the nomination is about the cemetery, not Fyodor Uglov. But, WOW and FYI, down at the bottom of the Telegraph article is this: "At the age of 102 he wore no spectacles and could still recite Pushkin's poems by heart." He attributed it to not smoking, "no vodka" and a cold shower every morning. In Russia ... a cold shower in the winter makes me cringe to think of it.— Maile (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, good point...do you think that it's synthesis if we just assume that as being obvious?
We do seem to be sort of getting into a hook about Fyodor here, but:
2: ... that among those buried in the Nikolskoe Cemetery (pictured) was Fyodor Uglov, who practiced surgery until the age of 102? --valereee (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Well do we need a new hook? As I pointed out, it is not about whether someone before or since has been a practising surgeon at an older age than 102. Uglov was the world's oldest practising surgeon, and he is buried in the cemetery. If in the future someone lived to be practising surgery at 103, it wouldn't change the fact that Uglov was the world's oldest practising surgeon. @Maile66: It does make you think if its worth reaching 103 with that sort of regime to have to go through to get there! Either way, a remarkable man. Spokoyni (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Spokoyni, the main page gets a lot of scrutiny. No one here is trying to be nitpicky; we're just considering what other points of view might be voiced once there are thousands of eyes on it. Hooks have been pulled from the main page in a panic, with general embarrassment for everyone involved. We don't want that to happen to yours. --valereee (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am aware people raise questions about DYK hooks, and no, I don't consider the link you posted on my page to be an objective representation - it is one user's pet project. The problem is always when one or two people struggle to understand, or otherwise misread a hook, as appears to have happened here. I am genuinely asking, do we need another hook or not? It seems to have been automatically assumed we do, and I am not opposed to one, but the original objection raised is based on a fundamental misreading of the hook. Spokoyni (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Spokoyni @Valereee: - Quite honestly, it would not have occurred to me that we need a different hook, if it hadn't been mentioned here. I don't know, either direction. Nor do I necessarily have an opinion. My mind is still trying to comprehend how anyone in their right mind would take a cold shower during a Russian winter. People get bent about hooks for less. If you really wanted to cover all bases, perhaps use the existing hook and add, "when he retired at age 102." — Maile (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Also Yoninah I'm not sure why you tagged Fyodor Uglov as needing more citations. It's a 187-word stub, and that includes the lead. All paragraphs are sourced with two sources in the Russian language. Maybe this might be better to use an in-line template to specify what you thinks needs better sourcing. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 I have no problem with the alt hook you suggest and I hope it will settle the issue. As an inhabitant of the Russian winter myself, I can say it's not impossible - so long as you don't go outside immediately after! We'd consider a room temperature below 25 celsuis to be cold. That said, I'd never do it...there's a hot tap for a reason :)

Barbie hook

On a related note, I'll also say I am very dubious about this hook - "... that Barbie likes welding?" Since the most famous Barbie is the doll, it intentionally misleads readers. It's pretty much the same case I had with one of my hooks "... that Red Square is now Alexander Nevsky Square?" Someone complained that the most famous square was the one in Moscow, an administrator insisted on clarifying which square it was with the admonition "that's just too April Fools-y. This is not the Red Square 99% of people would first think of. It is not OK to trick people into clicking on a link, or (if they don't click on the link) mislead them". Personally I like the Barbie hook as it is, but we are currently in a bit of a culture where if anyone objects, it is automatically assumed that a change is needed, rather than saying 'I didn't quite understand that, but perhaps other people do'. Maybe that's a positive change, we should aim to be understood by as many as possible, but its not something we are consistent about. If it was solely up to me, I'd say the Barbie hook is fine, but in this current climate, I think it needs to change, at least so we can be sure we are treating hooks and nominations consistently. Spokoyni (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Spokoyni, and in fact we've had a complaint that the Barbie hook would be more appropriate for April Fool's Day. :D --valereee (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm ah well I was afraid of that. Not surprised though alas. Personally it would probably be a good idea to have a community-wide look at what sort of hooks we consider acceptable to promote. Certainly having to idiot-proof every hook is somewhat discouraging for those trying to make the hooks 'hooky'. And I don't mean to be disparaging with "idiot-proof", certainly I have been tripped up by some - which is why I click on them to find out the story behind them. But there is clearly a school of thought that says everything must be immediately comprehensible and impossible to misunderstand. So where as one person sees a hook like "... that Barbie likes welding?" and thinks "Hmmm that can't mean what I think it means, I'll read to find out more" and another person sees that hook and thinks "I don't get it, confusing, unclear, misleading, can't be on the main page!" Spokoyni (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this should be moved to next April Fools Day. Pinging nominator Ritchie333. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't. The hook is funny, and a welcome juxtapose to the typical trope that women can only cook and look after children and do "girlie things". Nope, they can brandish a massive welding torch too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it's a psychological/generational thing as to which Barbie the reader jumps to conclusion about on this hook. My first thought was, "Oh, how cool! Barbi Benton has taken up welding!" April Fools Day is 10 months away. I think we should respect the nominator's wishes on this, rather than a mandatory shelving of it it for 10 months. It's one thing to provide oversight on errors, and quite another to take control. But it would have been pretty neat if Barbie Benton had taken up sculpture welding. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Last year, we had "... that a Trump resort is directly linked to Moscow?" and there were no complaints. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
We can have funny hooks on days other than AFD, we are not all humourless and very serious all the time. Honestly most of these complaints are usually IDONTLIKEIT and/or coverage for them not liking jokes/thinking we should all be firmly factual without any sense of a soul. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep original hook Barbie hook as is

@The C of E: has hit the nail on the head about a trend I've been seeing at DYK for a few years: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"1. Yes ... WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's OK to make sure everything is sourced, that the DYK rules are adhered to. If DYK has become dry as an old wooden bucket during a Texas drought, perhaps it's because we are used to looking over our shoulders. Let's have a funny hook once in a while, please. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC Ignore All Rules for the 100th anniversary of women obtaining suffrage in the Netherlands

Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion
Now that the image has passed the FP process, the question of whether to defer the DYK is moot, as we will run the POTD on that day instead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 28 May 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.

NOTE: On 18 September 1919, Dutch women were granted the right to vote. The GA on the leader of their movement, Aletta Jacobs, was approved on 27 April 2019. In accordance with DYK nomination policy it was nominated on that day, within the 7 day window and approved on 29 April.

Can we ignore all rules and run this hook on 18 September 2019 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the granting of suffrage to Dutch women? SusunW (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Assume that I'm not familiar with the DYK process - what rules are we being asked to ignore? Also, why is a RFC necessary? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, Hmm, the original request showed because "the approved nomination can only be held for six weeks". As for discussing it before, it has been discussed on my talk page and though there was support, it has now been brought up again on the nomination previously linked above. I do not want to change the hook to run it on an arbitrary day, as the improvement of the article was specifically done for Women in Red's year long focus to bring attention to suffrage. SusunW (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I have no problem with this idea. But thinking ahead a few months and pinging @Amakuru: ... the image with this article is already a Featured Picture. What are the chances this could be Today's Featured Picture on September 18? Quite frankly, SusunW, I think that would give this better exposure - an entire blurb and the image, rather than just a hook (which may, or may not, be the lead hook). What do you think? — Maile (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 I asked for it to run in the photo slot and I wasn't aware that the image had already been approved (The nomination was still open this morning, when I last checked it). It doesn't matter to me if it is bumped out of the DYK photo slot *if* Adam's FP can run that same day. The critical thing to my mind is the centennial and an image. SusunW (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Lots Yoninah 1919 in women's history has many of them. The push is leading up to the US centennial on 18 August 1920. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Well then, I'm not a fan of holding this until September if many others are in the works. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah that there are potential anniversaries that someone can write about and nominate really has nothing to do with this nomination. I personally have no others pending. Might I? Yes, I might, but at this point I am not working on any. Might someone else? Certainly, but do I know about it or their plans? I do not. I do not see why other possible DYKs, which may not even exist or come to fruition, have anything to do with this request. SusunW (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Because then we might see IAR requests every month :). However, if this is the only one in the pipeline, I'll support it. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru Adam has nominated it. 2 days until the voting period expires. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: oh yes, I just noticed that. Looks like it should go through, so I'll keep an eye on it and add it for 18 September if you think that's best. If you'd rather keep it in DYK that's fine too though. Up to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru I do not know how these things work, but if I understood what Maile66 was suggesting both the DYK and FP would run on the same day. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: I don't know what Maile had in mind, but as far as I know ordinarily we don't schedule the same article in two different areas of the main page on the same day. If something is TFA, for example, I don't run it in TFP. And items appearing in DYK/TFP/TFA aren't usually listed again in OTD. I would imagine it is a choice between either DYK (slightly higher up the main page, but only one line) or TFP (lower down but allows a full blurb to be written, with a large picture). But the article can still run in whichever of those is not chosen, on some other day. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
SusunW, Amakuru What I meant is that it would run in one or the other, but not both places. I meant that TFP gives it much more exposure, space-wise and content-wise. I don't recall this issue previously coming up in regards to an article and image of a single individual. I'm not in favor of it running in both places. TFP is better, if it passes, and looks like it will easily pass. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Maile66: Thanks for the explanations. So, if in two days the FP passes, it can be scheduled to run on this date and this request can be closed, as well as the DKY, since it will not run. Correct? SusunW (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for your help, Maile66. It takes a village ;) SusunW (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Since the DYK nomination has already passed the DYK rules, I assume you can still run it at DYK in the ordinary way in the next week or two, if you want to. Obviously this would require a change of hook text though.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Maile66, and SusunW: Do remember POTD is not shown on mobile. Also, the picture has not passed FP here, it passed on Commons. It's all-but-guaranteed to pass here, mind. I'd say, given mobile users, it would be worth the DYK as well, but if you don't want to double up, that's fair. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 22:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that... but as far as I can see, DYK isn't on the mobile main page either. It only shows TFA and ITN. Makes you wonder why we bother...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
That's just totally weird that neither DYK or FP runs on mobile. But, that being said, I don't want to take the space of another article being highlighted. When this one has cleared the hurdle for FP, I will request that the DYK be withdrawn. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW, Amakuru, and Adam Cuerden: Hey, ya know ... isn't it fun playing hopscotch through all this? Amakuru has an idea. The DYk rules only say, "Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible." BUT ... if DYK is first out of the gate on this - especially if the DYK is within the next few weeks - it can also run at TFP on Sept 18. The DYK hook is only one sentence. TFP is a full paragraph. Why not? Give it a shot, with a hook that would be different from the TFP blurb. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, threading that needle :) --valereee (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This request can be closed as the photo passed.[11]. Amakuru can you now reserve the run on 18 September and thanks! SusunW (talk) 15:10, 28 May 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.

Consensus requested

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
  • ... that former television executive Mark Horvath (pictured), who was once homeless himself, has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities with InvisiblePeople.tv?
On the nomination page, I have requested a different hook which does not name a person who doesn't have a Wikipedia page. The reviewer disagrees with me and asks where this rule is codified. We have been doing this for a year or two at least to avoid hooks being pulled by administrators watching ERRORS2. Is everyone else fine with running a hook that doesn't link the person's name?
Of course, an easy solution is to write a stub for the person, which I did after promoting this hook. Pinging nominator Levivich and reviewer GRuban for their participation in this thread. Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer (er, me) is not (am not) set on the hook, as such, but was rather surprised about this rule, first given that we had two DYK entries that likely violate it just this month, in Wikipedia:Recent_additions:
  1. 15 May 2019 Template:Did you know nominations/Sleepless (comics) .. ... that the premise for the comic book Sleepless came to writer Sarah Vaughn when she had trouble sleeping?
  2. 2 May 2019 Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Nasmyth ... that Robert Nasmyth was Surgeon-Dentist to Queen Victoria in Scotland, while his brother Alexander was Surgeon-Dentist to her in England?
and second, that it seems rather strange and legalistic that we wouldn't be able to mention the name of the founder of the organization in the DYK about the organization, especially given that it started as a one-man-band sort of thing (as they often do). --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, I never understood why there was this "rule" in the first place. If there are possible objections, there could be a way to reword it without mentioning Horvath's name (something like "that the founder of InvisiblePeople.tv, who was once homeless himself, has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities?"), but in this case I don't really see the problem with mentioning his name. DYK is being bogged down with too much bureaucracy and more freedom would be nice in this sort of thing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm too new to DYK and have absolutely no idea what the best practice is here, so I'll let the grown ups figure it out :-) – Levivich 21:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah I've searched through our rules at WP:DYK, WP:DYKSG and WP:DYKR and find nothing that even hints at rejecting a hook because a named individual does not have a Wikipedia article. I'll take your word for it that hooks have been pulled for that, but they shouldn't have been. If it's not in the rules, it's just someone's stylistic opinion. I can guess where someone might have pulled a hook because a name in the hook wasn't actually in the article. But if that name is in the article, and the hook is appropriately sourced, and the name is in the source therein, I don't think admins have grounds for yanking hooks because a name in the hook does not have an article.. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Admins should stop arbitrarily change hooks that are not obvious errors just because some random guy doesn't like them. Errors have actually been introduced this way because clueless people make clueless complaints. -Zanhe (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - my input on this would be that the three hooks mentioned above are all fine, because the individual-in-question's role is clearly identified, and they are an integral part of the story. What I would object to more are hooks like that which ran on 24 March: ... that Rosie Bernard's bar in Monte Carlo, The Chatham, was "one of the temples of grand prix racing"? This is structured as if we ought to know who Rosie Bernard is, and the hook could perfectly well be written without mentioning her at all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Church opens, closes, opens again

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
@Ergo Sum: @Wittylama: @Valereee:
Is this really a hook? It is singularly uninteresting. I notice on the nomination page that the reviewer suggested a different angle. Perhaps that should be looked into. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
— Maile (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Amazing, Maile! Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah sometimes it's easier with someone else's nomination. We get our heads so bogged down with details of writing and sourcing the article, that hooks elude our leaky human brains . — Maile (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
My god, I am having trouble with this nomination. Not because it's inadequate, but because all four hooks are really good and it's so hard to choose which one is the best! I'm going ahead and   approving all four hooks: they're all catchy and interesting, but I think ALT1 is somewhat less than the others so I'm noting my preference for any of ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, reading through this again, I think we can narrow down our options to ALT2 and ALT3, as the names involved would probably be those that would appeal to the broadest audiences. Like the global reader probably won't know or care who a US Senate Chaplain is, but they would about the US Capitol, Jefferson, or Scott Key. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Just so we know we've done all the DYK necessaries here, I added sourcing and a couple of phrases to the article to match those hooks. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone. I haven't been able to take a look at this until now, and I now find everything already worked out. @Maile66: Very true indeed. Ergo Sum 05:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6: Mahendra Nath Pandey

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I amended this hook earlier today, to include the information that the Emergency is something that took place in India, since otherwise the hook lacks context for readers unfamiliar with the topic. Although it's good to tempt readers into clicking through to the article, that shouldn't be at the expense of supplying basic information and history shows that hooks that lack context tend to be bypassed by readers. However, Winged Blades of Godric has objected to the change on my talk page, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. It seems to me there are three possible variants:

  1. ... that Mahendra Nath Pandey, who was imprisoned during the Emergency, went on to become a government minister? (original)
  2. ... that Mahendra Nath Pandey, who was imprisoned during the Emergency in India, went on to become a government minister?
  3. ... that Mahendra Nath Pandey, who was imprisoned during the Emergency, went on to become an Indian government minister?

Which one do people prefer? I would go with 2 or 3 myself. Pinging Royroydeb, DiplomatTesterMan and Flibirigit who were involved with promoting the hook. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not approve of the hook which was promoted. WBG chose to unstrike a hook I declined, and the promoter chose a hook which was not approved. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Should we send it back to the nom page then so this issue can be resolve there? Or is there an approved hook which should go up instead? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
To correct Flibitrigit, I was the one who was originally reviewing the DYK, and went off it for a few days. He jumped in, trying to promote a rubbish hook and struck one of my proposed hooks, both of which I objected to. I thereafter proposed another hook and left it to the editorial discretion of the promoter, who had chosen mine (or so it seems). There's no need to pull this (at all) and I am not much bothered about Amakuru's edit, either. But, more eyes are always welcome. ∯WBGconverse 16:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, this should go back to the nomination stage, since there is no approved hook without objections. Flibirigit (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: @Maile66: @Valereee: what do you suggest? Pull and discuss at the nom page, or just keep as is? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I don't know enough about the subject matter to offer a constructive opinion. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to the hook as currently written, and it seems WBG doesn't object either. Of the three variants above, I prefer 3. Kind of the best of both worlds, as it sets it in India but doesn't give any potential appearance of dumbing it down either. --valereee (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Concur with above choice. ∯WBGconverse 04:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done I've tweaked it to #3. Thanks all for a constructive discussion!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Raffaele_Contigiani

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

FYI, per discussion at User_talk:Philafrenzy#Raffaele_Contigiani I have amended the text of the picture hook which was due to run tomorrow. I've also pushed it out to Prep 2, just in case there are objections or someone wants to send it back to the nom page. I have promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Dieter Mathoi to Queue 1 in its place. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I suggest switching the names so the bolded target article will appear first. Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the order, because Chipperfield was the giant, and is mentioned first in references for a reason. The bolded stands out even in the modest second position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's what the BBC source says: It stood once for the ambition and poise of a young nation emerging from colonial rule, stretching its wings... and "The hotel is a unique witness to a certain age," Mohamed Zitouni, a Tunis-based architect involved in the preservation campaign, told the BBC. "It's one of the rare buildings after Tunisian independence that shows vision and maturity." That seems reasonable for being used to support "has been seen as symbolic of the modernisation of Tunisia in the 1970s" -- is anyone likely to object? --valereee (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Methodist Church Ghana

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The nominator for this nomination appears to have been a student of an editing course and has not edited since the course ended two weeks ago. The article is close to meeting DYK requirements, but there are some unreferenced statements, and no hook was actually proposed. If anyone here is interested in adopting the nomination, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 11. Right now we have a total of 321 nominations, of which 140 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two over four months old and those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail.

Over five months old:

Over four months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_157&oldid=1100086650"