Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 164

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160 ← Archive 162 Archive 163 Archive 164 Archive 165 Archive 166 → Archive 170

Queue 6

Just as a note, the Q6 Major League Baseball hook as "the MLB" which isn't right for the league. The "the" should be removed from the hook before it goes on the Main Page. Raymie (t • c) 00:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sara Braun

CLOSED
Discussion is at Talk:Sara Braun --valereee (talk) 13:40, 15 December 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.

This is a troubling DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Sara Braun.

The hook says that:

  • Sara Braun ... was involved in the genocide of the Selk'nam people.

The article says that:

  • In the 21st century, the Historical Truth Commission of 2008 and related scholarship uncovered the involvement of the Braun and Menéndez families in the genocide of the Selk'nam people, calling into question their laudable reputation.
Neither does the text support that Sara Braun herself was personally involved, nor do the cited sources. This is an alarming inaccuracy. It appears that the DYK nominator combined text from two different sources to reach this conclusion, which is original research.

This level of inaccuracy and original research calls into question the rest of the article, which should be carefully reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this on the article talk, Talk:Sara Braun, where it was first raised and where two reponses were given? (Removing the refs here because they cause error messages and don't link anyway. They are correct on the article talk now, and in the article, of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 15 December 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.

Q2 Dec 17

Template:Did you know nominations/Ms. Monopoly

Feminist Dream Focus Harrias Yoninah

I think we're going to need to tweak this. I followed a link in the source to another article that said Radia Perlman had 'paved the way for the development of the internet', and she's in the Internet Hall of Fame, but our article on Wi-Fi doesn't even mention her, and her article doesn't use the term 'wi-fi'. I kind of hate just removing Wi-Fi, as chocolate chip cookies all by itself is maybe not interesting enough. Maybe another hook altogether? Unless someone wants to update Wi-Fi and probably Radia Perlman. --valereee (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: You'll be looking for Hedy Lamarr. The hook is suitably referenced inline, that is all the DYK requirements ask for; if all other relevant articles needs to be updated too, that needs to be changed in the DYK rules, and for a change that big, you would need to start an RfC. Harrias talk 12:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Harrias, in my opinion the hook as written isn't suitably referenced. Stating that a woman or women invented Wi-Fi is bound to attract some readers who go looking to be able to verify that statement by reading the article and checking the sources; right now it's only verified by a statement in a CNN article that links to another article with a bare mention of Radia Perlman and the statement that she 'paved the way for the development of the internet.' Lamarr is also not mentioned at Wi-Fi, and her article states that she invented developed a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes, intended to use frequency-hopping spread spectrum technology to defeat the threat of jamming by the Axis powers...various spread-spectrum techniques are incorporated into Bluetooth technology and are similar to methods used in legacy versions of Wi-Fi so again, not actually supporting an assertion she invented Wi-Fi. We could say 'that Ms Monopoly replaces properties with inventions the game attributes to women, such as Wi-Fi and chocolate chip cookies' but that kind of turns it into a mocking statement since none of our related articles support that attribution. --valereee (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"It's only verified by a statement in a CNN article that links to another article with a bare mention of Radia Perlman and the statement that she 'paved the way for the development of the internet.'" In mentioned linked article, it states: "Actress Hedy Lamarr helped invent a frequency-hopping system to help the Allies communicate in World War II. It was never actually used during the war, but its principles led to the development of Bluetooth, GPS and Wi-Fi." How much contribution one has to have to be labelled as "the inventor" is beyond my remit, but if you Google "who invented wi-fi", she gets plenty of mentions. Harrias talk 13:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That all said, I would have no issue with the addition of "the game attributes to" into the hook. Harrias talk 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: I don't have this page watchlisted; if anyone wants my attention, they will have to ping me. Harrias talk 12:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Normally the article's creator is told when its nominated for this. No one told me. Anyway, perhaps list all the inventions in the game and have a cite note for this one clarifying the bit about wifi. Dream Focus 13:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry this is the first you heard of it, Dream Focus! I've added some sources and explanation to the article. Still might make people wonder about what qualifies as inventing the internet, so unless anyone objects I'll add the 'game attributes' wording to the hook. --valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I see two ways forward: Either replace Wi-Fi in the description with an undisputed invention by women, e.g. Spanx (per the video in the cited Fast Company article, see starting from around 3:00 or so); or, remove any mention of specific inventions in the hook. feminist (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added a mention of Spanx to our article. feminist (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's important that we only include inventions that are actually in the game. What the Hasbro page on Ms. Monopoly says is that these are iconic things that wouldn’t exist without women. WIFI, chocolate chip cookies, bullet proof vests and so on (these are the only three they list on that page). So if you replace inventions by women in the hook with inventions that "wouldn't exist without women" (or some paraphrase to avoid the quote), it could fly. (Note: the bulletproof vest probably comes from Stephanie Kwolek's invention of Kevlar.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gupta art

  • ... that ancient Gupta art of India includes gold coins commemorating the Ashvamedha Vedic horse sacrifice (example pictured)?

पाटलिपुत्र Johnbod Usernameunique Yoninah

The support sentence for the hook (first sentence under 'Coinage') doesn't have a citation. There is a source on the next sentence, but I can't get to that source to see if it's the same. Also the article sentence doesn't say the coins are gold, and silver/copper coins are mentioned elsewhere, can we get 'gold' into that sentence? Also first paragraph of Early chronology doesn't have any sources cited, we need at least one. --valereee (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Yoninah sorry, missed that! --valereee (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"gold" added, & now one sentence, with ";". Also covered by the 3 refs cited. User:पाटलिपुत्र, you added the first paragraph of Early chronology - can you add a ref please? Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I've added one from Pal, which covers the last point on coins, but please do one for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: For the first paragraph of Early chronology, I've added as a ref the presentation of the Gupta Era by Ashvini Agrawal. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both! --valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Berna Gözbaşı

... that Berna Gözbaşı is the first woman president of a football club playing in the Turkish top-level men's league?

CeeGee HickoryOughtShirt?4 Yoninah

This isn't an error at all, just wondering if we can spice up the 'first woman to' hook. The article says Gözbaşı commented on her presidency that "the chair would not have been offered to her if the team had not been at the bottom of the league table. I'm wondering if something like

  • ALT1: ... that the first woman president of a top-level men's football club in Turkey said the job wouldn’t have been offered to her if the team hadn’t been bottom of its league?

(May need rewording to correct sports lingo.) --valereee (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: that's a bit of a downer on women's promotions, isn't it? Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I guess it could be...to me it was telling more than a downer, and more interesting than that she was simply the first. It's her reality, and maybe the reality for women working in sports in Turkey. --valereee (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to wait to hear what CeeGee thinks, but I think the present hook wording is pretty hooky. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for asking my comment. However, I can really not understand the discussion. For me it is too much words about nothing. I don't thinks so as Veleree asserts. I stay with the formulation of the hook as above. CeeGee 09:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries, like I said, not an error or in any way an actual problem! Happy to leave as is. --valereee (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jacques Durand (publisher)

LouisAlain Gerda Arendt

Really minor, I'm tripping over 'published Debussy's compositions and edition of', and from the article it looks like I could tweak this to 'published Debussy's compositions and his edition of' -- would that be correct? --valereee (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, I also worried over the grammar. Your tweak is fine. Yoninah (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I was not sure, so thank you for language help. For my limited understanding, "his" could still refer back Durand, while it was Debussy's, and I didn't know how to really be clear without repeating Debussy's name. Re-reading, however, I see that without "his", it could mean any. How would this be:
... that Jacques Durand studied at the Conservatoire de Paris together with Claude Debussy, and later published not only Debussy's compositions, but also the composer's edition of Chopin's piano works? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Used 'both' instead of 'not only', just for less wordy, but done, thanks both! --valereee (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, also for closing the thread with alleged original research, inaccuracies, bad reviewing and sensationalism. Peace on Earth, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this happening to anybody else?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T218511

Template:Did you know has been on my watchlist for a very long time. When the DYKUpdate bot loaded the new batch on 22 December, the template totally disappeared from visibility on my watchlist, even though the page itself said I had it watched. When Bagumba made a hook correction per WP:ERRORS, the DYK template magically became visible on my watched pages again. As of the 23 December DYKUpdate happened, the template once again disappeared from my watched list visibility. I got it to reappear by doing a test edit and then reverting myself. And that isn't all ... this talk page I'm typing on disappeared from my watched pages visibility, until I made a test edit on this page. Template talk:Did you know is also on my watch list, but it isn't visible right now. @Shubinator: @BlueMoonset: have either of you encountered anything like this? Over at WP:VP, there is a thread about watchlist oddities. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Maile, I suppress bot edits from my watchlist, so I'm used to not seeing Template:Did you know on it or other bot-updated pages. I'm afraid I'm not a good test case here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, @BlueMoonset: I also had bot edits suppressed, so I have now unchecked that. Not sure how long that has been checked, or how it would affect my randomly not seeing WP:VP, but maybe it did. Anyway, I'm assuming that was the issue with my watchlist. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Maile, bot edits suppressed would definitely have affected WP:VP's inclusion in your watchlist—minutes before one of your posts, an archiving bot had edited the page, which would have prevented it from appearing in your watchlist. Other bots occasionally edit that page, and any one of them would have made the page "disappear" until a regular editor posted something and made it show up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How does MOS:EGG apply to hooks?

I've seen several debates about easter-egg links here. It seems that for April Fool's, it is accepted to use misleading links, although not untrue ones. Not on April Fool's, I also proposed this one:

The target is surprising. Is such astonishment desirable hookyness, or is it undesirable MOS:EGGiness? HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"MOS:EGG does not apply to DYK hooks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Aye, MOS is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply., not some kind of mandatory rule. Plus, "gryphon" is the proper name for these things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this sort of thing is good in a hook, regardless of date. It makes it intriguing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
That was surprisingly fast and synoptic. In order to avoid conflict, should we put something in the DYK rules, maybe here or in here? My attempt to summarize: "MOS:EGG should generally apply to hooks, unless an astonishing wikilink is deliberately used for hookiness. In this case, the link text may mislead, but should generally not actually be untrue; we can intrigue, perplex, and surprise readers without lying to them." Criticism welcome. HLHJ (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The "link text may mislead" part gives me pause and could be worked on further; hooks in the past have been pulled for being misleading, even if they were true. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Point taken. In my example, no reader is likely to go away with the impression that changes to the environment in California are causing population increases in mythical beasts, even if they don't click on the links. How about:

ALT2: "MOS:EGG should generally apply to hooks, unless an astonishing wikilink is deliberately used for hookiness. In this case, the link target may subvert expectations raised by the link text. The hook should generally not be literally untrue or propagate false beliefs, especially false beliefs likely to cause problems; we can intrigue, perplex, and surprise readers without lying to them."

I've collated a relevant subset of the most popular hooks. Interestingly, a lot of the popular text-only hooks are tricksy ones, but few of the picture hooks are.
Extended content
*Eggy links
    • ... that somebody stole the show in Ghostbusters, Breaking Bad, and SpongeBob SquarePants, and his name is—JOHN CENAAA!!! (pictured)
    • ... that Batman is half female?
    • ... that 14-metre (46 ft) tall Siberian crabs are being used in experimental breeding programs?
    • ... that a wanderer survived both the French Revolution of 1789–99 and the Russian Revolution 127 years later?
    • ... that the Thunderbolt was damaged by lightning and then destroyed by a hurricane?
    • ... that a terrible Mouse weighing 500 kg (1,100 lb) has killed three people in Spain in the last five years?
    • ... that even small amounts of dead cat can explode when heated?
    • ... that nesting is not used by breeding Mute Swans but they do use this thing?
    • ... that Romans like to drink out of large noses?
    • ... that humpbacked elves are rarely seen because their bodies are microscopic?
    • ... that extraterrestrial spiders have only six legs?
    • ... that the Queen's executioner lives in Windsor Great Park and feeds on weevils and nectar?
    • ... that He was gay?
  • Non-eggy links, but a bit misleading or perplexing:
    • ... that the Silver Cross Tavern (pictured) is the United Kingdom's only legal brothel?
    • ... that in order to save the Rollstone Boulder (pictured) from being demolished, it was blown up?
    • ... that the Door to Hell (pictured) has been blazing since 1971?
    • ... that a giant elephant (engraving pictured) in Paris was protected by a man living in one of its legs?
    • ... that the United States once sued 50,000 cardboard boxes and clacker balls? (seriously, did DYK miss United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries? EEng, are you OK?)
    • ... that Christina Aguilera had sex for breakfast with slow jam and honey drip?
    • ... that a typical Labia minor is chocolate brown, up to 7 mm long, and is equipped with pincers?
    • ... that John Glenn saw the Devil's Cigarette Lighter from orbit?
    • ... that Fowler's Ghost was first seen on the London Metropolitan Railway in 1861, nearly exploded and was never seen again after 1895?
    • ... that Clubfoot George was executed by vigilantes because they believed that he was innocent?
For deception, hooks with and without eggy links sem quite similar, but the collected hooks seem follow the ALT2 rule; the beliefs that they mislead you to are generally preposterously unlikely, utterly unimportant, or both (like the population trends of mythical beasts). Views? And do you want me to put in all the hook links in the collapsed list? HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to distinguish piped terms which are created to raise "hookiness", and those who try to just simplify something, to save characters in a hook. I recall having said "the symphony orchestra" with a link to Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie, because the orchestra name is long, German, and could be confused with a building. I like to say "in A-town", linking to the opera house in that town which may have a longish name in a foreign language, but have been criticised for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Referent links for brevity seems like a separate issue. I mean, these links are not trying to produce any astonishment. They usually don't, either; most of the time, it's obvious from context what sort of further info the link will provide, so MOS:EGG is not a concern. I used that sort of link to pack context into a caption at Cartel ship ages ago, and no-one has objected. If you left off the articles, so that symphony orchestra linked to the article on a particular orchestra, that would be eggy, and I think undesirable. Abbreviations like NWD-PO, Elphi and BPO seem acceptable, too, especially as they are common in reliable sources. HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Christmas sets

It's a month until Christmas Eve, so I thought we should be thinking of adding Christmas hooks to the special occasion holding area. Would Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Mocked be appropriate for this time frame, Dumelow? Other suggestions welcome. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Magnificat on 1 December would be a great start! I plan two for Christmas, Bach Digital which is not too christmassy but needs 25 Dec, and a carol which could go 24 Dec. I'll have a cantata for 26 December which is still Christmas in Germany. I you want I can produce more but I know the reluctance to have more than one per user in a set. Will nominate BD today, ut the others are not yet written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, as the prep set for 1 December is already full, and you have a request for Dixit Maria on 8 December, how would 15 December be for the Magnificat (Vivaldi)? From Advent#Four_Sundays, it looks like this could be appropriate? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
perfect ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Finally moved it, Gerda Arendt! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, - it's on the German Main page today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No objections from me for Christ Mocked being used for Christmas; though the event depicted in the painting, of course relates to the time of the Passion - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dumelow: Oh. Okay, never mind. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Christ Mocked is depicting Passion/Easter, not Christmas. I will be writing the obligatory Christmas carol for Christmas day in around a week or so and hopefully with have a more suitable Nativity image to use for the Christmas set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for Christmas nominations here please

  • If anybody has a Christmas-related nomination in the pipeline, please add it here so we have an overview. Additionally, if anybody has an idea for such a nomination but doesn't want to write it themselves or won't have time, please add your suggestion here as well, as somebody else may have time to create it. Also, please note that Christmas nominations that are not about Christmas music are particularly useful as we generally end up with a superabundance of the latter. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, if somebody wants to bring Flying Santa to GA for that purpose, AboutTheFriends is an explanation about a non-profit that drops Christmas gifts to New England lighthouse keepers and their families. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have Anthem Christmas tree ready to go. MB 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@MB: are you nominating it, or looking for someone else to nominate it? Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning to nominate in the next day or two. I have to think of the hook. MB 17:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Anthem Christmas tree is ready for review. MB 02:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Reviewed and moved to special holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Promoted. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I reviewed this, all nice and clear. I made a note on the review, but I'll add it here. I thought the open slot was in prep 3 (by my calculations, 24 December) but now I see that my hook has been bumped there instead of prep 4 (no objections at all!) HOWEVER, there is already an Arizona Christmas tree in 4. Could we work out some way of keeping them separate - if we do get two 12-hour sets, there'll be no issue! Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have my eye on it. When we open up a second set for December 25, we can run the Arizona Christmas tree image in the second set. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It's nice to see such an abundance of special occasion hooks for a change. Do we want to go to two 12-hour sets for December 25? Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I support this idea! (Back at DYK for Christmas, hi everyone) Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

24 December

  •  Done Reviewed and moved to special occasions holding area for Dec 24. Yoninah (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

25 December

  • Of course, Christmas Island hooks are always good fillers, but we presently have 4 of them, and two are already in the queue for December 24 and December 25. Unless we go to two sets for December 25, the flying fox and the wildlife pages will have to wait for another day. Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Now Template:Did you know nominations/Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi) Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
plan to review it, off for rehearsal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Very nice, Johnbod, something different from our oft-seen Nativity scenes. Please see my RfC below. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

26 December

Feel free to add, to have an overview of what's going to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Super League XXV

This article contains a list of stadia, including detailed ground capacity figures, which does not appear to be cited. I have therefore pushed it down from prep 2 to prep 5, to give time for this issue to be resolved. Pinging @L1amw90: @The C of E:, who worked on this article, please could you look into this and provide cites? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now removed that list @Amakuru:. Please restore it to it's original date. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Seeing as non of the other seasons needed citations, why does this need any? There's nothing wrong with it imo L1amw90 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Since Prep 5 will run for 12 hours on December 25, and will be filled with Christmas hooks, I moved this to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@L1amw90: the fact that other seasons are also missing citations does not mean that it's OK for this one to lack them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Per WP:V, "readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". If the information in that table isn't cited, then the article can't appear on the main page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru:

I didn't create the page. You might want to notify the creator, which I believe is/was The C of E God Save the Queen!? I could be wrong. I just edit it as I go along. If it doesn't meet WP policy, then delete it?. I don't even know why this has been brought up so suddenly. There's never been a problem with any of the other seasons... L1amw90 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(The C of E here) I didn't add the table when I created the article nor when I nominated it. Someone else added it later. The Royal C (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
L1amw90, I see that you've added references to the table for stadia size; unfortunately, those references are to Wikipedia articles, which is not allowed (see WP:CIRCULAR). If those articles themselves have reliable sources cited for the individual stadia size, you can certainly reuse those; if not, and you want the article to run at DYK, then the table will have to be omitted for now. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what this (DYK) is. Nor do I know why the article is being mentioned on here... By all means, remove it, but don't keep bringing me into this. Thanks. L1amw90 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced content again @Amakuru:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Run two 8-hook sets for December 25, Christmas Day

We are gaining more and more Christmas hooks by the day. With Prep 4 completely full, I propose running a second 8-hook set on December 25, with each set running for 12 hours. We have an excellent lead image (Template:Did you know nominations/Mystical Nativity (Filippo Lippi)), as well as:

I though that you don't want two hooks by the same nominator the same day. The above has three by me. Angels' Carol is meant for 24 December, and Kommet, ihr Hirten only if Bach Digital doesn't get approval (which is likely). That leaves one instead of three, as said further up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerda: we often double up (or even triple up) on the same nominator's hooks when it comes to a special occasion. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thank you but I don't want to dominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The Epstein nomination didn't have the Christmas jumper hook approved, another non-Christmas one was passed. As a result, I don't think this is appropriate to use on Christmas to have something about death when it is meant to be a joyous set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: OK, if the Christmas hook wasn't approved, I'll strike it. But we do have a military battle in our Christmas set because it occurred on Christmas Day. We look for variety in sets. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
If I get time (unlikely, looking at my calendar!), I might be able to sneak in a quick article for a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas. It's fairly hooky, and I've taken some nice pics (in my opinion!) if a second picture hook was needed. Wouldn't be until Saturday at the earliest though. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We also have Kingsif's support from the December 25 section above. Maile, could you make Prep 5 into a December 25 set also so we can start loading in more hooks? Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not available to work the Preps or Queues. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe Preps 4 and 5 are scheduled to run on the 19th and the 20th, respectively; they can be filled with Christmas hooks as soon after that as is convenient. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: ??? The last entry on the chart is Queue 2, scheduled to run on December 23. We're talking about Queues 4 and 5 after that. @Vanamonde93: Oh, I get what you're saying. Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Yoninah (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not an expert on the technical behind-the-scenes implementation of DYK, but I imagine it would be fine to fill the sets as suggested. Do we need someone to flip a switch on the bot at the relevant time on the 24th, and then flip it back again on the 26th? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You flip it to 12 hours after the first set for the 25th goes to the main page, then flip it back on the 26th. Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have two sets on the 25th, but why not continue having two sets a day for a few days to get the backlog down so the Approved page gets back down below the threshold where it can transclude all of the nominations on it? The Approved page is over capacity right now, and it would really help to reduce the backlog, even by 24 or 32 nominations. This would be dependent on how active the various admins could be in promoting preps to queues right around the holidays. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

before and after

As said further up, i suggested Angels' Carol for 24 Dec, and BWV 248 II for 26 Dec. Both are approved, and a slot is still free each day. I am not supposed to move to special occasions. In the latter article, I wanted the redirect bold, but was reverted. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Both hooks are in special occasions, waiting for a promoter. Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. On 24 Dec, I have already Mirko Ludwig in prep. I'd really prefer not to have to take care of two that day, company, celebration, singing (not Angels' Carol, ironically), - could the singer be moved to later, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

ps: I'd appreciate help with finding an image for Angels' Carol, some 20th century art about clear angels' voices, radiance, new hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3: Angels' Carol

I found this hook slightly confusing myself... the first part makes it sound like the carol was originally written in some other language, but that Rutter wrote an English translation or something. And in fact, the article itself doesn't mention "English" at all, so the hook may be including facts that aren't cited in the article. I assume the intention was to add hookiness by noting that an otherwise English carol has a Latin refrain, but I think this may need a bit more thought. @Yoninah: @Gerda Arendt: any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can drop "English" if you find it confusing. I thought it might help understanding that it's not Latin, as the refrain is. In the article, we know immediately, because of the fist line "Have you heard the sound of the angel voices", but that would be too long for a hook, no? Let them guess because of "Angels!" then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've tweaked it accordingly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Queen of Angels Hospital

The target article has been tagged with a "citation needed" and a "unreliable source" by Nikkimaria, and I have therefore removed it from Queue 3 and pushed it back to Prep 3, to give time for the issues to be resolved. @Evrik: please could you have a look at the article and resolve the issues? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Amakuru: All citation issues have been resolved. --evrik (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Evrik: thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

I probably have one more DYK that can run this year, on Dec. 29/30 or so. Is it possible to throw in one of my Washington, D.C. DYK articles before the year ends (either WOOK (AM) or WOOK-TV)? I've had a DYK in every state in 2019, and I'd like to be able to say I had a DYK in every state *and DC* in 2019. Raymie (t • c) 07:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If you nominate it and ask for the special occasion, I'm sure nobody would object for such a unique reason :) Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Raymie, we gotta problem, upon investigating the two articles, I noticed ‘Talk’ was highlighted in red, it was waiting for the WikiProject templates to arrive but has been in a state of uncertainty, however it has now been added and the red is now blue, mission complete but please ignore this text haha. Anyway, you’ve had a DYK in every state this year, that is awesome and I’m also sure nobody will object; the end of 2019 is approaching and there will be no going back, there is unfortunately no time machine too or the DeLorean, so we gotta, I mean you gotta do this, I support you, I approve, we can’t forget that D.C.😀 Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif, the articles already have approved nominations: WOOK (AM), WOOK-TV. Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Raymie: I'll move one to special occasions on the approved page, do you have a date preference? Or, ping Miraclepine, reviewer of one, to ask if they think WOOK-TV would be good around the 27/28/29? (move to any of those, the days to Christmas are pretty full) Kingsif (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif Just run one of them before the end of the year and I'm good! Raymie (t • c) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Since WOOK (AM) is already in Prep 5, scheduled for December 25 at 12:00 UTC, I'm going to move WOOK-TV out of the special occasions area, where it has been listed for December 28, to the normal part of the Approved page to be promoted in the regular way. I think two and a half days is too close together for two DC hooks with the same call letters; we should let the TV station wait at least until the New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early yesterday, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 10. We have a total of 373 nominations, of which 246 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five remaining from October through mid-November.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Anthem Christmas tree

Too bad we can't get a clearer image of this tree. Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging page creator @MB: Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but this is the only freely-licensed version I could find. There are much better ones we can't use on Flickr. File:Anthem-Christmas Tree-2017 (cropped).jpg is a cropped version that may be a bit better. MB 16:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll try that. Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@MB: I'm still trying to obtain a better image. I contacted a photographer at Flickr and asked him to freely-license his image, which is much sharper than this. We'll see what happens. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I considered trying that, but didn't think there was much chance of success. Has this ever worked before? MB 21:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@MB: yes, I've done it a few times. Another editor told me he did it so I signed up with Flickr for a password. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. Should this be documented somewhere? :) MB 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Yoninah for going to the effort! Although the original image isn't horrible at thumbnail size, the full size image truly is horribly blurry. The new image is litterally a million times sharper! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Stay at two sets per day for several days after Christmas

Our backlog has far exceeded what the Approved page can handle: 45 approved nominations from December 8 through 18 are not being transcluded, plus another four in the special occasions section. While the DYK hooks table shows 326 nominations, of which 204 are approved, those numbers should be 45 higher: 369 and 249 respectively. (The bot making the table can't read, and therefore can't count, untranscluded pages.)

This is way too high. (It takes 31 days to run through 249 approved nominations.) I'm suggesting that after going to two sets for Christmas Day, as already agreed, we stay there for the 26th and as long as we can sustain it, to get us down past the point where we can see all of the Approved page entries. (Wikipedia pages have a 500 templates transclusion limit: given that each nomination template requires a transclusion, and many of them incorporate multiple templates, our functional number is in the 200 to 235 nominations range.)

We can run for three to four days assuming a few prep to queue promotions in that time frame; if the admins (pinging Gatoclass, Cas Liber, valereee, Amakuru, Vanamonde, Maile, and any others I may have missed) can do an extra one or two following the holiday, we could extend it to five or six days, or even more, and give us some buffer for the inevitable influx of nominations that comes at the beginning of the year with the WikiCup. Please let us know whether you think you'll be able to do any extras.

Right now, we have all the queues through December 24 promoted, and the two Christmas day sets plus three after that in prep (waiting for a couple of hooks to be promoted into them), so we're in good shape there. I hope you'll agree that we need to do something now. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

agreed - keep at 2 sets/day Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy to do some admin queue promotions, as required.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
RL is pretty demanding for the next 10 days, but I'll check in when I can. I'll be travelling Dec 29-Jan 5 and am expecting to have plenty of free time and good WiFi for that week. --valereee (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's an awkward time of year for me too, but I'll try to make a contribution after Boxing Day. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And remember to swap them out at (e.g.) 1500 UTC, rather than 1200 UTC. ——SN54129

@Serial Number 54129: I don't understand what you're saying here. What should not be swapped at 1200 UTC?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Nor do I. Twice-a-day sets are updated by the bot at 00:00 UTC and 12:00 UTC. That's how this works: every 12 hours, with one of them at 00:00 UTC in conjunction with the other sections of the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Since we're going to 2 sets a day starting with Queue 4, we need more open prep sets. Pinging administrators @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @Valereee: @Amakuru: @Vanamonde93: @Maile66:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've done prep 5 to queue 5. Will do the checks over the next couple of hours and then mark it as ready when I'm done. If there's time I may do queue 6 after, or someone else can pick that one up. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I've moved P6 > Q6, will do the checks over the next couple days --valereee (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Liang Baibo and Yu Feng

According to the source, "Liang Baibo is credited with being China's first woman cartoonist, but she had at least one contemporary (and perhaps, predecessor) in Yu Feng". The qualifier "at least one" means that the hook as written isn't certain to be correct. There may have been other cartoonists around at the same time. @Gamaliel: @Zanhe: please could you reword this to reflect the situation accurately? I've parked it in Prep 3 for now, which is many days away from being promoted, so maybe no need to reopen the nomination completely, unless others think we should... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Words like "perhaps" make the hook look uncertain. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Would this be more accurate? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That sounds OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There are other sources that say they're the first two, but I'm on holidays and have no time to look into this. Let's just go with the revised hook. -Zanhe (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Is this good to go for rewording? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Time-sensitive review requested

I have just posted Template:Did you know nominations/Six13 with two hooks that would be great to run during Hanukkah (December 23-30). A timely review is requested. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif thank you! Could you move it to the special occasions holding area for December 23-30? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Will do, when it's been moved to approved :) Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5: WOOK

  • ... that religious ministers who bought time on WOOK radio in Washington, D.C., hid lottery numbers in references to the Bible, resulting in a successful challenge to the station's license?

Probably not a major issue, but I don't really understand what this lottery numbers story is all about. The article text, and even the source, [1] don't make it entirely clear what the issue was. As far as I can tell there was a lottery on May 26, in which the winning number was 782 and then, on June 8, the preacher gave a coded message representing this number (the 7th verse of the 82nd Psalm). But why would there be anything weird about revealing a lottery number two weeks after the lottery? @Raymie: are you able to shed any light on this? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: At the time, these were illegal lotteries. This was in the early 1970s. Raymie (t • c) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is why I suggested promotion of the other WOOK one - this hook is misleading and would take too much space to explain. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: but the reviewer, Tenpop421, struck the second hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I meant the other WOOK nomination, WOOK-TV :) Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Kingsif: Inserting the word "illegal" before "lottery numbers" should work, no? Raymie (t • c) 23:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I had assumed they were giving out lottery numbers that would win before a local draw or something, and I don't think "illegal" would lessen that confusion. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Perhaps this would be less ambiguous, Tenpop421 (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC):
  • ALT0b ... that religious ministers read out the winning numbers to illegal lotteries on WOOK radio, by hiding them in Bible references.
  • That one works - @Amakuru:? Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Kingsif: works for me. I have changed the text to that, assuming everyone's happy with it.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Yes that works, though I don't think the comma after "radio" is needed. Raymie (t • c) 18:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, it's ambiguous, since the past and present tense of "read" are spelled the same. It could be saying that it's currently happening. I suggest replacing "read out" with something like "announced". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    User:Mandarax - Good point. How about "revealed"?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me, and I like the dichotomy of revealing something by hiding it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, that looks great. Can you please make the change to "revealed" in the queue? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Gates of Tears

Could we have a third opinion on this nomination? Reviewer and myself have irreconcilable differences over what counts as paraphrasing and whether it is appropriate to cite quotes from a secondary source. Thanks! buidhe 18:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I asked our expert in close paraphrasing, Nikkimaria, to provide an opinion, which I see she has done. Hope it helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Preparation area 6

This is my own DYK, but need more opinions of whether in...

  • ... that blue-ice areas (pictured) are places in Antarctica where snow evaporation and wind have exposed blue-colored ice, which often accumulates meteorites?

using " snow evaporation" to refer to "sublimation" (a more technical term) is acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not link it (instead of meteorites)?

  • ... that blue-ice areas (pictured) are places in Antarctica where snow evaporation and wind have exposed blue-colored ice, which often accumulates meteorites? MB 20:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I like MB's idea and am substituting it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Late Christmas Day nomination - reviewer and promoter needed

I have just added a late Christmas Day nomination, which is at Template:Did you know nominations/A Rubber Band Christmas. I think it would do well in the quirky slot of the second Christmas Day set, but it needs a quick review and promotion, if somebody could manage that - Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Maile66 or Valereee perhaps? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed, but someone (also will add BlueMoonset to your list) will have to think about where and if to add it to tomorrow's hooks. Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It could go in Prep 6 in place of Christmas Island flying fox. Yoninah (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I think it would be best suited for the quirky slot in queue 5 Yoninah as this is a very quirky topic. I don't know why you would want to move another Christmas-related hook out, why not move out one of the non-Christmas-related hooks? - there appears to be plenty of them (and Christmas Island flying fox is in queue 5 BTW). Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass sorry, I meant Queue 5. The Tom Smith hook in the quirky slot isn't that quirky, so please move that up and take out either Odest Chadwicke Jenkins or Yoshi Kasuya, which are not specific to Christmas but I put them in there to fill the set. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Pinging @Amakuru: or Casliber to handle this promotion. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Done, but frankly it's 9pm on Xmas Eve and I've been merrymaking, Gatoclass now that I've made the move, I think you can make any needed corrections? --valereee (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Q 6

Template:Did you know nominations/Tetsu Yasui

97198 Moscow Connection Yoninah The article sentence supporting raised by devout Buddhists doesn't have a citation on it, and I searched the source for the following sentences for 'buddhist' but not all pages are available to me and I didn't come up with support for that so don't want to add that source to the sentence. Does anyone have access to the page that gives the statement that's in the source? --valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: page 138 of the source in question does verify that she was "largely raised by her grandparents, who were devout Buddhists" (text that's rather similar to the article's text, although it's only part of a sentence). Note that often Google books doesn't show some pages at first, but if you wait a while and scroll up and down a few times, often the missing pages do load. So the fact is cited. That said though, I think the page range mentioned, pp134-162, is far too large at present to meet the requirement for specific inline citations. So that should be fixed before this goes live in any case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, I'll add it with the specific page number, thanks! --valereee (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I remember checking this in the book. You can try reloading several times. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Moscow Connection, when you check a hook, if the article sentence doesn't have a citation at the sentence for the assertions in the hook, add that source to the article sentence -- or better, ask the nom to, as that's how they'll learn our rules. I'm happy to accept AGF a source I can't get to easily 'if it's already on that sentence, but if there's no source on the sentence and I can't easily get to it, I'll bring it here every time rather than reloading several times when I'm not even sure that piece of information is in that source. --valereee (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
But there was a source. It was there from the very start. Right at the end of the paragraph.
Try this: https://books.google.com/books?id=vJJyDwAAQBAJ&q=%22Largely+raised+by+her+grandparents+who+were+devout+Buddhists,+Yasui+developed+a+strong+religious+awareness+from+a+young+age.%22. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"At the sentence." – Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Und es waren Hirten in derselben Gegend, BWV 248 II

Gerda Arendt MWright96 Not seeing a citation for that article sentence asserting focusing on annunciation to the shepherds. --valereee (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, it ends with "there were Shepherds" and ends with "Glory to God on high". That is the Annunciation. It deviates from the prescribed readings, so is worth mentioning. Other options welcome. I'll try to find a citation for the obvious. Teh rulez, teh rulez. Merry Christmas when it comes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank goodness that was easy, Jones, translating Dürr, p. 120: "Part II of the oatorio departs from the readings of the day, being concerned with the announcement pf the Birth of Christ to the shepherds." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, thanks! I'm sorry to seem nitpicky; from the point of view of someone who is neither religious nor musical, my assumption is always that if something is worth mentioning in a DYK hook, it's not WP:BLUE. --valereee (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry for having shown my frustration too much. Merry whatever you celebrate! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, not at all. It is a nitpicky rule. I get the reasons behind it and do think it's necessary, but I also understand why it's very annoying for creators/noms. And Merry Christmas to you and yours! --valereee (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin(s) needed urgently

Pinging the usual set of admins (Gatoclass, Cas Liber, valereee, Amakuru, Vanamonde, Maile) in the hopes that one is available to do some time-critical edits:

  • edit User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to change 86400 to 43200, so we go from one set a day to two sets (we have two Christmas Day sets, so this is indeed urgent)
  • make the following changes to Queue 5, which is the next set due for promotion in about ten hours:
  • move one of the non-Christmas people hooks (Odest Chadwicke Jenkins or Yoshi Kasuya) to Prep 3
  • move the Tom Smith hook that is in the eighth slot up to replace the hook just moved to Prep 3. (The new hook is far more quirky than Tom Smith's is.)

Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am getting seriously fuzzy here. I've never done a time change before, it's best I don't screw with that now. I've done the rest, I think. Ping me if I've done something incorrectly and no one else catches it, I should be awake and sober before 7am Eastern. --valereee (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I made the time change, please check my work. I should not be editing anything this important right now. --valereee (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
valereee, the time change looks fine. Thank you so much. The promotion of Template:Did you know nominations/A Rubber Band Christmas is only half done: you added the hook to Queue 5 okay, but you didn't close the nomination template. If it turns out that you've turned in for the night, I'll put a note on it so that no one tries to promote it again, and you can close it in the morning. Enjoy the fuzzy! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, oh, thank you! I forgot because...well, alcohol, but also because of moving directly to a queue :) --valereee (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I checked the relevant templates and everything looks ok as of now. We need to wait after midnight, 00:00 (UTC) December 26, to change back. Don't be tempted to change back after noon today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, I think we're leaving it at twice per day for a while? --valereee (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, as valereee notes, we decided at WT:DYK#Proposal: Stay at two sets per day for several days after Christmas to stay at two sets a day for a little while to get the backlog down to a manageable level; right now, the last 11+ days of approved hooks can't even transclude on the Approved page. So we won't be changing back for several days; indeed, we've been loading the prep and queue sets on this assumption. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Parsons Boulevard station

Has this nomination been run yet? I see that it has been promoted two months ago, but I don't see a DYK template on the talk page. Just wanted to make sure that this nomination hasn't somehow been forgotten. epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging the promoter, Yoninah. epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, epicgenius. As far as I can tell, Gatoclass pulled the nomination from prep on October 29, when working on promoting the prep set to queue, because the hook couldn't be verified, but never reopened it. At least one issue was subsequently dealt with on the article's talk page. I'm going to reopen it now and put it back on the Nominated page, and we can figure out whether the issues have been addressed in the interim. It never made it to the main page, but there's no time like the present to work again on getting it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Bağlama artist

@CeeGee: @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:
There are a few problems with this hook. The piping of the second link leaves the reader with no idea which Philharmonic Orchestra we're talking about. And the hook is really not that interesting, compared to what could be said about this not well known art form of bağlama. The reviewer mentioned this on the review, and the nominator insisted on this hook. But if this fact is so interesting, it should be written in a more interesting way. I have copyedited the article and added a citation needed tag for one of the words. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added the "needed citation" ref as requested, although I have no idea for what it was needed. The reviewer asked for an alternative hook, but did not say "the current one is not interesting". I thought philharmonic orchestras play normally in their hpme philharmonie halls. That is why the the specific name of the orchestra was not mentioned. Sorry, if I am wrong. CeeGee 10:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added another clarification tag to the word "motives". What does this mean? Is there a link to a Wikipedia article to explain it? Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, for "motives" see motif (music) ("motif" and "motive" are alternate spellings, though I prefer "motif" as more immediately clear). It looks like the article has been updated to use the "motif" spelling and link to the relevant Wikipedia article. As for the hooks, I prefer ALT2 to ALT1 as more interesting, though it loses the fact that he performed with the orchestra (lots of non-orchestral concerts and other events are held in halls built for orchestras like the Kölner Philharmonie), and would be better with it:
  • Gerda are you saying you prefer ALT3a or ALT3b? Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not yet awake enough, but do you think I would have proposed 3b if I preferred 3a? The orchestra has a good name, and not even much longer, and Cologne has more than one symphony orchestra (at least 3, 2 of the WDR). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining. I'll swap in ALT3b to prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not awake yet, I've changed this back to 1996 because I believe it was a simple typo? If I've mixed up two different concerts or misread the source, please ping me, Gerda Arendt --valereee (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 31 Special Occasion

FYI - Posting here, because the Approved page looks too full for details to transclude on the newer ones. @KAVEBEAR: has made a Dec 31 special occasion request for DYK Kapiʻolani. @Gerda Arendt: already reviewed it, but it's just sitting in the unexpanded lower section of the Approved page. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Maile, I've moved the nomination down to the special occasion section and added a December 31 subsection for it. Even though prep set builders like Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah can't see the entries for the bottom section of the table, they can see the dates and nomination links and promote accordingly. The Chanukah hook will doubtless be promoted tonight (I've just reserved a spot for it in Prep 1). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Prep 1 already has 4 U.S. hooks, so I moved the reserved slot for the Hanukkah hook to Prep 2. Thanks,Yoninah (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Once the table resets to 12-hour slots, I'll be able to see clearly if I put it in the right place. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The reason I don't like Prep 2 for the slot is that Chanukah will be over in some parts of the world before the hook comes down, and it doesn't hit the main page until past the final candle-lighting everywhere. We can move another U.S. hook out of Prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I took another look, and the final slot in Prep 5 was open, so I promoted the nomination and placed the hook there, since the original request was for December 23-30. This is a noon to midnight UTC slot; if you'd prefer a midnight to noon slot, I can swap final slots between Prep 5 and Prep 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. I would prefer the Prep 6 slot, since it coincides with (nighttime) candle-lighting in the United States. Yoninah (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I'll be happy to do it after we've switched over to two-a-day in about an hour. However, Prep 6 doesn't really coincide with nighttime candle-lighting time except in the western U.S., since candles get lit just after sundown between 4pm and 5:30pm local time, approximately, depending on where in a time zone you are. Prep 5 runs 7am until 7pm Eastern Standard Time, 6am to 6pm Central, 5am to 5pm Mountain, and 4am to 4pm Pacific, so it's a split decision on the candles: Prep 5 gets Eastern, Central, the bulk of Mountain, and maybe a few fringes of Pacific, while Prep 6 gets some of Mountain, virtually all of Pacific, plus Alaska and Hawaii. (Of course, candles frequently get lit later than sundown, once people are home after work.) Prep 5 covers almost all of the U.S. daytime hours regardless of time zone; Prep 6 is mostly nighttime hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: it's nice that you're so knowledgeable about Hanukkah! Okay, you're right, leave it in Prep 5, it's better to have it appear during daylight hours in the U.S., where the group is from. Thanks for your close attention. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Will leave it in Prep 5. Thanks for letting me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: now that the queues are set up for 12-hour sets, I can see this more clearly. It's fine to run this hook during the daytime in the U.S., but the problem is that it's running on Shabbat (Saturday), when most of the fans of this group are not using their computers. Could it be moved to Prep 1? There's a U.S.-based person hook in the quirky slot there. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I'd be happy to—it hadn't occurred to me that it would be the Sabbath—but Prep 5 was promoted to Queue 5 by Cas Liber before I saw this, so we'll need an admin. Cas Liber, any chance you could swap the quirky hooks in Queue 5 and Prep 1? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hindi Medium

It’s been nearly a month since this nomination was promoted. I just wanted to remind of it. Mr. Smart LION 06:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Smart LION. We have a large backlog at the moment: yours is one of 246 approved nominations waiting to be promoted to a set, which would fill over 30 sets. We have just been able to make the switch from one set a day to two sets a day, so the backlog should gradually shrink. Some of the approved nominations have been waiting since early to mid-November, even longer than yours, so it may be a little while yet before yours gets promoted. We appreciate your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 243 approved nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 353 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 19 nominations that were approved over a month ago, between November 9 and 23. Since until yesterday we were promoting 56 nominations per week, these have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given in the list is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the nominations don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: Esther Tan

The article describes her as a "former naval diver", as she retired from the navy in 2017. Should we include "former" in the hook, or is it still accurate to refer to her as a naval diver? Ping: @97198: the nominator.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding "former". 97198 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Amakuru, and also admins Casliber, valereee, Maile, Gatoclass, and Vanamonde, since this hook will be moved to the main page in about eight hours, and if we're going to add "former" to it, we should do so now. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: if any of you have time, it would be great to get the final hooks in Queue 5 and Prep 1 swapped (see the most recent posts in WT:DYK#Dec 31 Special Occasion for details); that would require rechecking the Prep 1 hook to make sure it's okay to move to queue. Again, many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
For clarity, you'd like the Jewish a capella group, currently in the quirky of Q5, switched with the civil war historian currently in the quirky of P1? --valereee (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
That's it exactly, valereee: a swap, with Jewish a cappella moving from quirky of Q5 to quirky of P1, with the civil war historian moving from quirky of P1 to quirky of Q5. Thank you. But more urgent still is the Esther Tan hook edit in Queue 1, since we now have only six hours to change "naval diver" to "former naval diver". BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok I have added the word in question to the hook in question it the queue in question....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Cas Liber, for completing the quest. Now, dare you take on the Q5/P1 quirky swap? BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay......looking now......done now.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Melody (Spanish singer)

Is it possible to use the photo, please? (The hook is second in Prep 3 now. Is it possible to use it some other day, putting in the top spot?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: do you have any objections to an image slot? Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Not really, but since there are always more image hooks nominated than there are image slots available, we need to use these slots for the most encyclopedic images that add utility to the hook. In this case, the image of an attractive young woman does not add value to the hook in the way that the eyebrow shields I actually used do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: But I'm not asking to remove the eyebrow shields, I'm asking to move Melody to some other day if possible. Her photo is bright and colorful, why not use it? (And it's a good click bait.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I decided to expand the article and nominate it for DYK because it had a photo. And a good one, too. Kind of disappointing to see it not work out... --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage

I noticed that the word 'saccharine' has been changed to 'saccharin' in the quote at the end of this hook. The reviewer actually used the word 'saccharine', so it's incorrect to spell it without the e. If it's not OK to link 'saccharine' to Saccharin, it could be unlinked, linked to the Wiktionary entry, or perhaps linked to the Etymology section of Saccharin, Saccharin#Etymology, which says 'Saccharin derives its name from the word "saccharine", meaning "sugary". The word saccharine is used figuratively, often in a derogative sense, to describe something "unpleasantly over-polite" or "overly sweet" '. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch,  Done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: WXTV

From reading the article and the sources, it looks like the sale of WWIZ was only one of the reasons which prompted the closures. Another was the criminal record of the owner, for example. Wondering if we should clarify that? @Raymie:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Amakuru: He failed to declare to the FCC that his co-owner in WXTV was a convicted felon (making him ineligible to be a licensee), and that was a factor specifically in the WXTV license loss. Do you think rewording would be useful? Raymie (t • c) 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was supposed to be archived about an hour ago and in any event is nearly used up, so here is an updated list with all 27 non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 20. We have a total of 357 nominations, of which 245 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from October and November.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Awards

I just put this all in one place: Wikipedia:Did you know/Awards. --evrik (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice! --valereee (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nice! What do 1,500 get? We have 3. I like the 25 DYK design best. --

Queue 4: John Moutoussamy

  • ... that John Moutoussamy designed the only high-rise building in the Chicago Loop by an African American, with "colorful walls and psychedelic carpets"?

This sentence doesn't quite scan to me... it looks like it should say "the only building ... designed by an African American". Obviously that's not ideal though, as it already says "designed" earlier in the hook. Any suggestions for a reword? @Edwardx: @Evrik:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If it really bothers you, then I am a little surprised that you did not suggest a viable alternative. Perhaps ... that the only African American to design a high-rise building in the Chicago Loop was John Moutoussamy, with "colorful walls and psychedelic carpets"? Edwardx (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Edwardx: do you disagree that there's any issue with the current wording then? I don't pretend to be right on every point, I just wanted to check here. The proposed alternative is fine, anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it is a minor issue, but hooks generally work better if the subject is nearer the start rather than the end of the hook. But, I'm happy with either. Edwardx (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, let's forget about the matter then. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

New Year's Day

Assuming that we will still run two sets on 1 January, I dare to prosose another one for the day, Template:Did you know nominations/Die Himmel rühmen des Ewigen Ehre, because 2020 will be a Beethoven year (and a year of psalms), and we could show that early ;) - It would need a review first. I will do my qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've reserved the lead image slot in Prep 6, pending review. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that I have promoted another hook into the image slot in Prep 6, because (a) the "special occasion" aspect of this nomination is very tenuous, and (b) the nomination is not yet approved for promotion and I agree with Yoninah that none of the hooks suggested are particularly hooky. There is no reason this nomination can't wait a while to find a better hook and be promoted later in January. 97198 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd love to begin the anniversary year of Beethoven's birth, which the world will celebrate all year long, with a youthful image of the composer, rather than showing fossil teeth - all looking backward. Help in finding a suitable hook is welcome incase I'm not the only one thinking this way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Revert me if you like, I just don't think we should delay the whole DYK queue-building process for one user's preference about a certain hook running on an irrelevant day. 97198 (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Forgive me if it seems obvious - but also remember that most of the world actually doesn't care about Beethoven at all - but what do you mean by 'anniversary year'? I just checked, he was baptised in November 1770, that's 250 years, not a significant anniversary at all, not that it would be celebrated all year anyway. Is there something more important? Not that anything about this 'anniversary' is in the hook, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
May be I'm wrong but believe that Beethoven is perhaps the one composer known by readers beyond classical music. Here's a festival [2]. Countless New Year's concerts play his Ninth Symphony on New Year's Day or close, every year. Berlin Munich Krefeld world mdr, and why Nürnberg ... Even Vienna plays some Beethoven on 1 January in 2020, and more over the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The proposal for the special occasion was made only a few days ahead of time, and a hook hasn't been agreed upon. While it might have been nice to have the hook there to start out the quarter-millenial year, the hook can run at any time early in the year and have the same effect—indeed, if it waits, it might get a full day rather than a half day. We've tried to be accommodating, but we've run out of time, which happens. You do have the other special occasion hook running that day. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Correction: I see that a new hook has been ticked, though having just read through it my considered opinion is that it isn't good enough to be a lead hook in its present form. So even if an admin was willing to swap it into Queue 6 as the lead hook, I wouldn't recommend doing so, and wouldn't be in favor of a subsidiary hook either, since the main point seems to be to get the lead hook slot and portrait. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion was made "latish" because only when I realised we have two sets I dared to ask, because the hook in the other set is really date-related, Mary being saint of the day. - I still believe to start the year 2020 with an image of Beethoven would be a good idea (and more uplifting than an extinct shark's teeth), and may do so in "private" greetings on talk pages, but am not in any mood to fight. - Please define "same effect" a later day for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyway: Happy 2020 to everybody working for this lively project! Beethoven's image will be added there tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Within our 200-character limit, does DYK prefer shorter over longer hooks?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The general viewpoint is that good hooks are good hooks per se and shorter hooks are not necessarily better or preferred. The consensus is such that the statement (i.e. shorter hooks are preferred) in contention can be removed, especially given that that a 200-character limit already exists. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Background: In February 2007, before we had our 200-character limit, ‘shorter hooks are preferred' was added to WP:DYKHOOK

In December of 2007, length restrictions were codified to a 200 character max.

In current practice, within our 200-character limit, we don't seem to actually favor shorter hooks over longer hooks. We tend to prefer good hooks, which sometimes translates to shorter and sometimes requires longer. For the sake of main page balance, we need a variety of hook lengths. However, we had a recent argument about a problematic short hook being replaced with a longer, better hook in which the main reason for keeping the shorter hook was our ‘short hooks are preferred’ policy. My feeling at the time was that 13-year-old policy stating a preference for short hooks was probably obsoleted 12 years ago when we adopted a length restriction, and that in current practice, a 197-character hook that is good is preferred over a 100-character hook that is not as good. I made a change, but it was reverted, so I asked this question a couple of weeks ago but didn’t get much response, so I made a change, and Yoninah thinks we probably need an RfC. --valereee (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Strike "short hooks are preferred" from the rules

  • DYK is a living process in which the rules should be updated from time to time. It takes a combination to reasonably strike the right Main Page balance. We've sometimes run full sets of all short hooks, because none other were available. And we sometimes have multi-hook nominations that cannot possibly accommodate the 200-character limit. One size does not fit all, and we need to be adaptable. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that good hooks are better than short hooks, and the language isn't necessary given the 200-character limit. – Levivich 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Either we have a limit, or we don't. We currently have a hard-limit on length, but also a previso it needs to be short. I don't agree we need both - it pushed us to have short hooks when a longer one would read better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I support striking a preference for "short". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Levivich. Whether short hooks are better than long ones is kind of irrelevant when there's a 200-char max anyway. And punchy hooks are better than blathery ones. So we really don't need "short" in there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I support good (well-written and to the point) hooks that are under the 200 character limit, rather than short hooks. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support striking. With a 200-character limit, all hooks are short. I don't think the shortest possible is necessarily the best. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per all above, particularly Hawkweye7 and SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a reasonable proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not really supporting, though a reword might be good. As I've said (or endorsed) below, other things being equal we should and I think do prefer shorter hooks. Many hooks are not as tersely worded as they could be, & I often reword long ones, without any one complaining that I remember. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep it short and simple

  • We still seem to need this rule because we have a hook right now on the main page which exceeds the 200 character limit (Steven Matz is 205 and that's not including the ellipsis or (pictured)). That hook caught my eye immediately as being too wordy – it rambles on for seven lines with too much unnecessary context and clutter before it gets to the punchline: "one of the best duels I've ever seen". We routinely need guidelines to stop prolix editors from going on too long – advice such as WP:TLDR and the word count limits at arbcom. DYK is no exception. Andrew 🐉 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggested this rewording on Valereee's talk page:
* The hook should be concise. The character count (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ... or any (pictured) should not exceed 200 characters. In general, shorter, punchy hooks are preferable to long, narrative hooks that tell the reader everything they need to know about the subject. The objective is to "hook" the reader into clicking on the article. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I object to saying short, punchy is better than long, narrative. Punchy is better than narrative; the best length is what is best for producing a good hook. Length is irrelevant as long as it's within limits and is the best hook. Shorter is not necessarily better. Saying that it is means we end up arguing a shorter not-as-good hook is better than (or at worst, the equivalent of) a longer better hook. I would be good with In general, punchy hooks are preferable to narrative hooks that tell the reader everything they need to know about the subject. The objective is to "hook" the reader into clicking on the article. --valereee (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec)@Valereee: it seems to me that you have worded your RfC to ask: Does DYK like shorter or longer hooks? This kind of question is going to elicit a lot of comments and probably reach no conclusion. To have any hope of changing the rules, I think specific wording should be suggested and discussed. The way you've answered my post, it would be just as well to word the rule in question: The character count (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ... or any (pictured) should not exceed 200 characters. -- finito. But in my experience, new nominators need help understanding that they are writing a hook, not a sentence, and that even boring subjects can be pepped up with creative wording. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, hm...I'm not intending to ask whether we prefer shorter or longer. I'm intending to ask whether we prefer shorter over longer. That is, I don't think we should be preferring longer, either. We should be preferring the length that allows for the bst hook, as long as it falls within the 200-character limit. --valereee (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While there are times when a longer hook can be better than a shorter hook, I still think we should have some kind of limit on hook lengths. Also, ideally hooks shouldn't be longer than they need to be: this is not exactly the same as "short" since there are times that a hook won't work if it's too short, particularly when certain clauses are needed for context. But they shouldn't be rambling and go into too much detail unless necessary. I'd still prefer concise hooks whenever possible, while admitting that there are circumstances when this isn't feasible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Narutolovehinata5, we do have a limit on hook length -- it's 200 characters. --valereee (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is a badly flawed RfC. The choices, "Strike 'short hooks are preferred'" and "Keep it short and simple" are not opposites, with the status quo ante in no way encouraging "simple". Hooks still need to be interesting, which "simple" typically is not. I would prefer a version of the status quo ante that notes that brevity is a nice quality in an interesting hook, though by no means a requirement, and nominators should keep it in mind. I've felt a great reluctance post to this section, but it seems to be the only place to register my opposition to getting rid of all mention of the concept of brevity (the soul of wit), as if 200 characters was the ideal. It's the maximum (though we do allow for longer multiple-article hooks), we have traditionally allowed reviewers to ask for a bit shorter than that (just as we allow reviewers to ask for more than 1500 prose characters in certain circumstances), and I would be opposed to it or the note about 150 to 160 characters being a sweet spot removed from the supplementary guidelines as a result of this RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    BlueMoonset, agree, 'keep it short and simple' isn't a good characterization of what we're looking for at all. I would have headed this section: Better hooks are preferred, within our length limitation --valereee (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hooks should be as short as possible - while retaining all relevant information. The point should always be made as succinctly as possible, because that is just a principle of good writing, and it's especially the case with a project like DYK where you are looking to catch the reader's attention. The only reason to ever have a longer hook is if the point can't be made any other way. Why would we want to encourage people to write hooks that are longer than necessary? It doesn't make any sense. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

  • Just to clarify here, we're having this debate about changing long-standing guidance because one person doesn't understand the meaning of the word "preferred", and mistakenly believes it means "required". Do I read that correctly? --Jayron32 13:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks that way. @Valereee: has been trying to clean-up the verbiage on all our instructions. The sentence ‘shorter hooks are preferred' is redundant because we have a 200-character limit, and the hook length really depends on the individual nominatiion. Towards that end, she removed the sentence. Diff 1 with appropriate edit summary. She was reverted by @Andrew Davidson: who claimed no concensus. Diff 2. She then posted on this talk page, with not much response either direction. a couple of weeks ago Valereee revised her edit to clarify. Diff 3 She was again reverted by Andrew Davidson. Diff 4. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would disagree that its redundant, because within the 200-character limit, we should be (if and only if all other considerations are equal) be favoring shorter hooks, however shortness should not itself override other considerations, such as quality, clarity, or accuracy. So no, it is not redundant, but neither is it the only consideration. --Jayron32 13:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with this. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate, is it really ever going to be true that all other considerations are equal? I'm not sure we need to worry about something that might occur once in a thousand hooks. It's not like we need a tiebreaker rule. That said, I don't object to that language if that's what makes others comfortable with a change. --valereee (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that we're looking for a true "tie breaker", it is just that, in this one instance, someone appeared used a single criteria in isolation (shorter is preferred) and misinterpreted the word "preferred" to mean "we must choose it always" and I don't think that changes to policy should be done based on singular bad decisions. --Jayron32 17:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, this isn't a change to policy. It's a clarification of what we are actually currently doing. We don't currently, in practice, favor short hooks over long ones. But our instructions could be interpreted to say that we do. This is just to fix the instructions to be consistent with policy.
The history of the policy (you can see it in the original statement here) was that shorter hooks were indeed preferred thirteen years ago, before we put the 200-character limit in place, which effectively prevents overlong hooks. We simply never seem to have updated the instructions to reflect current practice. So right now our instructions don't reflect current policy. This is just to fix that. --valereee (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
valereee, the instructions did reflect how DYK has typically been dealing with hook length, at least in the 8+ years I've been here, and based on how I was taught by my mentors. The idea that setting a maximum of 200 characters on hook length meant that we weren't also concerned with hooks being as tight as they could be is not my experience at all (200 characters is a long hook): it's a way to call attention, especially to new DYK participants, that hook writing should (as Gatoclass notes below) be succinct and interesting, with the latter an absolute requirement. If reviewers think this means that short is preferable to good, then they need to be educated to the contrary. Removing all encouragement toward brevity feels like throwing out the baby with the bath water, and not at all what I learned when I joined DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I believe in practice we're regularly choosing better hooks, and often the better hooks tend to be also not 200 characters because few hooks require 200 characters. I'd be happy to change the wording to something like "In general, shorter hooks will often be better hooks, as they'll tend to be snappier and less convoluted." All I'm really looking for here is consensus that the argument "ALT0 is better because it's shorter (and here's the policy that says we prefer shorter hooks)" is a non-starter. --valereee (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The supplementary guidelines talk about length in WP:DYKSG#J8: In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has. As it says on the nominations page, the 200 character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length—the ideal length is probably no more than about 150–160 chars. However, some hooks cannot be reduced in length without losing essential information, so don't assume that every hook that is 200 characters long requires trimming. This has always struck me as a reasonable way to look at the issue. I think it's important that people be encouraged to think about being concise and "punchy" here, and "short" has been a way to get it into the discussion: if we don't prominently urge brevity where feasible (conveying the same with less), it won't be part of the consideration when people go about constructing their hooks. If someone has preferred a clearly inferior short hook over a superior long hook when selecting for the main page, then they're misapplying the intent of our guidelines: short and adequate does not trump longer and compelling, and "in general" does not mean "invariably". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Speaking as someone thoroughly unfamiliar with DYK, but quite familiar with Wikipedia, this is more of an issue with Wikipedia culture being overly rigid, and forgetting the ignoring all rules pillar ("shorter hooks are preferred" can be ignored if it prevents you from maintaining or improving DYK, which is a part of Wikipedia), than an issue with the guideline itself. Because IAR exists, it's a systemic issue, not a "this guideline is causing problems" issue. (Summoned by bot)  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unarchived from Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 164 until the 30-day RfC period is over and this discussion is closed. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enacted. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

7 Jan

It would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Willi - just approved - could make it to prep for 7 January, subject's birthday, BLP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Promoted. Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wellacre Academy

Steven (Editor) just nominated this article for DYK, having expanded the article back in October. He only has one prior DYK credit, which was only given this week. The article otherwise appears to be in good shape and the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad audience. Should a one-time exemption from the newness requirement be granted here, or are the circumstances not permitting at this time? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm super gutted I didn't nominate this in October, I did expand it more yesterday and a few days ago but I guess this is probably not enough — I will in the meantime try to find more info I could add, but this is one of those moments where I wish I had a time machine :/ Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem exempting --valereee (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, one big problem here is that prior to expansion the article had 2054 prose characters and is currently at 6041 characters after the latest edits, just shy of a 3× expansion. It would need to be 10270 prose characters to achieve 5×, so another 4229 prose characters would need to be added for it to be eligible simply in terms of size. (If the seven-day rule is enforced, it would be a 5× expansion from a base 3602 prose characters, requiring 18010 characters). Steven (Editor), you're a pretty long way from 10270, which would have been pointed out had you nominated this back in October. Before we go any further down this road, would you be able to add those 4229 prose characters of new material? That's another 70% above what's in the article now. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset, I see, I will see what I can do but I just have to ask, before I started editing the article was awful — completely unsourced (just one reference for an Ofsted report that doesn't work), single line school excursions section, unnecessary list of school uniform as well as a table of GCSE results which I had to remove — does this have to count? Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), maybe take it to GA? That'll solve both problems. --valereee (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, that's a good idea but it will take a while, and also another problem for this school is whether there are independent sources available to further expand it, which is starting to become a bit difficult. I've come across a lot that wouldn't be suitable for an encyclopedia but I'll keep searching and if there's anything of value I'll add — there is some stuff that could be taken from the school's website, such as admissions and a brief mention of its uniform, so I think I may be able to add those additional characters but I'm not sure. Let's see and it would be awesome if I could get a DYK in Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), to answer your question above, the previous article does have to count, even given its issues. As it says at WP:DYKSG#A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5, noticed you closed this per the users comment below at the DYK, but I was adding the above additional characters, is this no longer possible? Also pinging Valereee and BlueMoonset for comment (GA issue mentioned above) Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It would really depend on how many characters would be added and if the additional would have been enough to make it a 5x expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Mission accomplished I think on adding those additional characters, if you could please check BlueMoonset. Also pinging Narutolovehinata5 and Valereee 🙏🙏 Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), good job in adding over 3000 prose characters to get the article to 9195, but you will need another 1075 to reach the required 10270. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset, I just had to put this on hold while I was dealing with a category issue at the Infobox school talk page as well as other things. Hope this is ok, I will see what I can do, not much left to add now Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Mission accomplished on adding the additional characters, I apologise for the delay, I had put this article on hold per above and did some other Wiki stuff, plus busy with Christmas, hope this is ok 🙏 - BlueMoonset, Valereee, Narutolovehinata5 - also a bit late but Merry Christmas, ya filthy animals (just in case you don't know, only joking about the last part, have been watching the classics haha) Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the comments about the late nomination, and the expansion. I would shoot for GA. --evrik (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Since a 5x expansion has been done, perhaps a new nomination can be started. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
No, if we're going to allow it, we should reopen the nomination and continue from there, not start a new one. Unless there's an objection to allowing the delayed expansion, that is. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's fine with me if someone wants to reopen the nom --valereee (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reopened the nomination, and it is ready to be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 218 approved nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 335 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 9 nominations that were approved at least a month ago, between November 24 and December 3. These have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given in the list is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever feasible so the nominations don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted WikiCup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. Good luck! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Reviewing guide#Finishing the review

The consensus is to leave it as is.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (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.

I would like to make a suggestion.

Background:

On occasion, I have noted that after someone has passed an article with the , other editors raise issues with the article, leaving the review moot. When this happens to me, I have changed the green checkmark to the template, {{DYKtick}}. I have done this to retain the history of my approval, but to visually remove the checkmark in light of the other concerns.

Sometimes, editors revert me and say, "this is not the way." Problem is, there is nothing at Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Finishing the review that speaks to this, either way.

Proposal:

Add the following sentence at the end of: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Finishing the review

If, after an reviewer approves a DYK nomination with a , or a , and other issues are raised, the reviewer can change their check mark to the corresponding templte (e.g. {{DYKtick}}) to show agreement with the points raised. The reviewer should make note of this change in the comments.

Thanks, --evrik (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Add a clarifying sentence

Leave it as it is

  • For a number of reasons, as noted in my discussion comments below. The non-icon-displaying templates are confusing and unnecessary; we've never had a problem with superseded tick icons in the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's important for later readers to be able to understand the preceding debate, if the original icon is changed, it makes it harder to understand what occurred, whether "a note" is made of the change or not - especially if there are multiple approvals for ALT hooks which are later overturned, as often occurs. Also, the note alone will be sufficient if the original reviewer wants to signal his concurrence with a later objection. This is an example of instruction creep IMO, it's neither necessary nor helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we can use U+237B ⍻ NOT CHECK MARK when an approval is withdrawn or made moot.--evrik (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want to supersede a tick mark, use one of the other approved icons on a later comment. But I think it's preferable to leave the superseded mark as is, to make the history of the review clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't change a thing. (1) For the reason Gatoclass mentioned, and: (2) WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" Changing the icon changes the meaning of what occurred. DYK nom templates are talk pages, as surely as WP:AFD templates are. The possibilities of those "who did not get the memo" on the rules change are uncountable. Sometimes DYK old-timers resurface to nominate; if they don't know things changed, I can see an edit war over an icon change. Most nominators and reviewers are familiar with the process - the bottom-most icon is the current status, and all other icons above are the history. Same thing at WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:GAN or any other review process, where nobody gets to edit another reviewer's comments or icons. Please leave as is. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Per above. If in case there's an issue with a nomination, it would still be important to know how the reviews and comments originally went (ticks and all) to allow for context to be understood. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

  • I support this is the progenitor of the idea. --evrik (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • One problem with this is that it adds to the number of stray templates to be transcluded. There is a maximum of 500 transclusions per template, and right now (and whenever we get a major backlog), we have too many templates on the Approved page—over 200 approved nomination templates plus their internal templates—to transclude them all, meaning that we can't see the last of the nominations. We had over 50 nominations that weren't transcluding before we started running two sets per day at Christmas, and we still have 14 as I type this. Among other problems, this can result in special occasion hooks not getting moved, because people can't see that they need to be moved. Converting from the icon symbol to the template is not useful, and it has a demonstrable drawback. I don't understand why people feel the need to obscure the fact that the icon has been superseded by events; it happens all the time and has not heretofore been a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC) (added text, 05:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC))
    • Perhaps you can start using U+2705 ✅ WHITE HEAVY CHECK MARK --evrik (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean everyone should start using this character? For what purpose, and why should we all change? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators needed to promote preps to queue

Things are moving fast; we have 4 open spots in the queue. Pinging Casliber, Vanamonde93, Gatoclass, Amakuru, Valereee, Maile. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I will do one now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I@ve done sets 2 and 3. Will make sure to thoroughly check both over the next 24 hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: thank you! Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Casliber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, Valereee, Maile: Preps 4 and 5 are ready for promotion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
We're now down to a single queue (all preps are full): pinging admins Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that one or more of you have some free time today. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
ack, I'm still checking Q4...--valereee (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 4

Wir pflügen und wir streuen is the original German version of the familiar English hymn We plough the fields and scatter. So it isn't really a new article. I suppose they should be merged. Or at least link to each other. Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping @Gerda Arendt:. Yoninah (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a new article which I wrote independently, because I doubt that readers of the English hymn really want to know the details about the history of the German. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In English Wikipedia, shouldn't it at least say "Sung in English as ..."? Art LaPella (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I translated now the last para, - problem: no reference. I'll try to find something, but you are welcome to beat me to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
found something --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Thanks. Art LaPella (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I rather doubt this will be the case, but please remember that if the new article contradicts the prior one, any contradictions need to be resolved per WP:DYKSG#D10 before the new nomination can be run. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

QPQ selection

I'm guessing I choose from the "Count of DYK Hooks" table at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Ones that are old are highlighted in pink. Does that means it's too late for them. Or are they high priority? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

High priority - they were nominated a while ago and still haven't been reviewed if that's the case. Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like the older pink highlighted ones are mostly reviews where there's some sort of issue between reviewer and nominator. Is there some list of oldest noms that haven't been reviewed? Am I missing something. I was going to pick the oldest one, but it was already in the middle of a review. I scrolled for a while and it seemed like mostly articles in the middle of a review. So I went down to the recent ones and chose one that wasn't being reviewed. The system seems janky, or I'm looking at the wrong page, or something. What is up? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, some scrolling is usually required. The system isn't 'janky'. But there is a list - it's near the top of this talk page at #Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers. Kingsif (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peregrine Fisher: yes, the reviews that haven't been started are the easiest to deal with. But you can also look for the red icon — — to know where the original reviewer is calling for a new review. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The top article in that section is Template:Did you know nominations/Nocturnes (Debussy) which has a ton of review comments. I'm still missing something. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: you're right, that is a very strange icon. @Evrik: are you reviewing this, or are you calling for a new reviewer? Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed deadline

I missed the deadline by one day; could I still submit a nomination? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, and say here which one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, please also mention it on the nomination page when you create it, and that you brought it up here on the DYK talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you; the nomination is Template:Did you know nominations/Lviv pogroms (1941). --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4 (Jan 6, 00:00 UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alternative law in Ireland

  • ... that the Land League's "rival government" surpassed the power of the British government in many parts of Ireland during the late 19th century?

Buidhe Johnbod

Which sentence in the article is supporting this assertion? Is it Lloyd and other observers believed that the League was not just a competing government, but the only effective one in many parts of Ireland."? 'Observers believe x was the only effective' seems different from 'they surpassed the power of.' --valereee (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Well, if the Land League was effective in an area and the British govt wasn't it seems that it was more powerful in those areas. If you don't accept that reasoning, is the original hook OK? buidhe 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe there is a reasonable support in the nom, but I can't find that source in the article -- it's at https://books.google.com/books?id=FSCnlibWakgC&pg=PA594&lpg=PA594&dq=Land+League+British+government&source=bl&ots=6k0h1gh6JP&sig=ACfU3U3OXhfuZZtCR56fK-8tsSx5UpcJpg&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX1uKQzfrlAhXOvJ4KHb82CMsQ6AEwEXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=Land%20League%20British%20government&f=false , bottom of the second full para on p 594. If you can just add it to whatever sentence in the article supports 'surpassed the power' that'll work! I just couldn't find that sentence. :) --valereee (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good - are we ok here? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, we just need to add that source to whichever sentence is intended to support 'surpassed the power,' let me go look...okay, yes, I just added a sentence and the above ref to support the hook. Thanks so much! --valereee (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry I meant to do this earlier, but I was distracted. buidhe 15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Heat-pipe tectonics

Graeme Bartlett Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, Maile, BlueMoonset, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Gerda Arendt

This page appears to be a student project for a user whose first language is not English, and I am not familiar enough with this subject to provide much assistance. The DYK hook is supported, but I have no idea what the section head 'Inspiration from Io' means or whether the explanation in that section is sufficient/in reasonable English for those who have some familiarity with this subject. I am a little concerned whether this should be replaced until the article is worked on a little more. Can we get some input from others, especially anyone with a scientific background, and if it needs replacing what should we replace it with? --valereee (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I can take a look at this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
valereee, it looks to me that a solid copyedit should be done before this hits the main page. I'd definitely move it out of Queue 4 before it hits the main page in four hours and would suggest reopening it for further review rather than moving it to another prep; one of the non-bio quirky hooks from Prep 1 or Prep 2 would probably make a decent replacement, while not interfering with needed prep to queue promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, ok, moved it to prep 6, in case Jo-Jo E can fix it, moved the quirky from prep 2 in. --valereee (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hrm. The grammar needs work and I am a little concerned about the fact that "heat pipe tectonics" does not appear to occur in many of the sources cited. Sometimes that is OK but here I wonder why the sources were selected; Kenwongtk? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's a student, 46 edits total and last edit 12/18, the semester is likely over. --valereee (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, valereee, this is one of a dozen or more articles nominated by Graeme Bartlett every November at the end of a class; as such, they are the one person who is available to deal with all issues in the DYK noms of these articles, from sourcing to prose. It usually takes a couple of months until the last of these nominations are either approved or closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have copyedited Heat-pipe tectonics, so hopefully grammar is better and some jargon explained. The selection of the sources is up to Kenwongtk, and I will not go to the effort to read every one to provide an explanation of how it supports the facts. This is seldom done even for a featured article nomination. But I can assure you that this is a notable topic in planetary geology. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so here is an updated list with all 28 non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 29. We have a total of 342 nominations, of which 233 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five remaining from October and November.

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) 03:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Ping me to this at a good time if the October ones are still around. Kingsif (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Are these really articles that need reviewers? I see now it's not articles needing a review, because I checked some and they have that. Is this articles that need more reviewers? Like you add an icon or something saying "I need help". Or is it just old articles that haven't passed or failed? Or what? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, yes, these are all articles that need reviewing, either from the start, or to finish up. They are articles that have either never been reviewed (most of the later ones on the list), or ones that have the icon as the latest icon and need someone new to either check the hooks, because sometimes the previous reviewer has suggested a new hook and isn't allowed to also review it, or give a second opinion, or do a complete new review. Every once in a while, someone will put on the "review again" icon when there are still outstanding issues, which I may not catch; in that case, just go on to another one. As of when this list was posted, every single entry from December 23 on had never been reviewed (two of the fifteen had a couple of comments, but no review). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Good response. I'm starting to get a clue. I don't get "sometimes the previous reviewer has suggested a new hook and isn't allowed to also review it". If you suggest a hook, your...? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because the quality of the hook is an important part of the review process, and nominators obviously can't review their own noms, if a reviewer writes a hook it follows that they can't review it, so a different reviewer has to review any hooks written by a previous reviewer. Kingsif (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DYKStats tool

ErrantX's DYKStats tool is no longer working, "No webservice". It is noted under rule 1 in WP:DYKSTATS. What is the status of this? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Labs has webservice, so it just seems to be that tool. @ErrantX: does not seem to have been very active for a while. If you go to WP:VPT, at the top of that page are instructions of how to report a bug at Phabricator. Either that, or just ask at the VPT page if anyone can shed some light on this. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Maile: Thanks, reported the problem at Phabricator. Zeete (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hook balance in preps

I was looking for hooks to promote on Sunday, and it seemed to me that there were more non-bio hooks than bio hooks on the Approved page. I've just done an actual count, and that's true: out of 212 hooks currently transcluded on the page (through the first hook on 1/1), 132 are non-bio, and 80 are bios. Under the circumstances, rather than adhere to our typical mix of 4 bios and 4 non-bios, it probably makes sense to average 3 bios and 5 non-bios for a little while (almost exactly the current ratio), until the balance is more even. (Our guidelines are not to exceed 50% bios in any set, but that doesn't need we need to hit 50% in every set.) The approved noms from the oldest dates are mostly non-bio: including October through 12/6 there are 11 bios and 42 non-bios. Pinging our most frequent set builders, Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah, so they can plan accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC); updated 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have also noticed the scarcity of bios and am already incorporating three bio hooks into sets rather than four. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed this going on for a while. I've been building preps along the lines of using 2 non-bios for every one bio, and counting non-bios that mention people as "bios" too. Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandarin Patinkin

@Ravenpuff: Regarding this at Prep 6:

Linking just "a mandarin duck" in "a mandarin duck (pictured)" seems misleading, since the link goes not to "mandarin duck" but to "a mandarin duck that appeared in Central Park". "Whom" also reads as awkward to me here. I'm content to leave it at that and defer to you and the others with more experience preparing hooks than I have, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: the edits by Ravenpuff seem reasonable to me. It's true, it is a (specific) mandarin duck (as opposed to just mandarin duck, which would go to a different page). I think Ravenpuff shortened the long bolded link a mandarin duck which showed up in Central Park in order to link Central Park for our non-U.S. readers. And the "whom" refers to the followers, who are people. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I mean, if it were in the article, I'd likely remove the "whom" because it's just not necessary there, but I only feel strongly enough to respond to say as much :) -- like I said, I'm content to defer to others on this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Now Prep 3: Buried spring

@RTG:@Kingsif:@BlueMoonset:
The article doesn't say that it was buried under the opera house, but was found in the area of the opera house and two plazas. Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
A few sentences earlier it's clearer: It was buried 8 m (26 ft) deep, along with the spring's source, and was paved over to prepare for the building of the Teatro Real Kingsif (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: why aren't you quoting the whole sentence: It was buried 8 m (26 ft) deep, along with the spring's source, and was paved over to prepare for the building of the Teatro Real, the Plaza de Oriente, and the Plaza de Isabel II? Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, because the line ends at 'Real' on my screen and I stopped reading, thinking it was the end of the sentence. Could alter the hook to 'its burial in the area of the Teatro Real'. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Or "in the vicinity of the Teatro Real opera house", to tell readers what it is. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It was definitely buried. In fact, much of it still is, they just dug up some of it and kept it underground. This source says, in the translator, "For an unknown reason the source did not move, nor was it destroyed, but only buried." and though burial is not specifically stressed, it was a 30-40 meter length construction, large enough to fill a small valley, put 8 meters under a huge plaza. Any sort of cavern constructed over it would have been a monumental and historically remembered project. It was definitely buried to a degree of certainty which, though exact sourcing is preferable for every detail of information, it is a definite given that it was buried under the weight of the Madrid city centre. ~ R.T.G 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@RTG: no one's questioning that it was buried, just under what it was buried. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
How about something more like "after it was buried so the Teatro Real and two plazas could be built?" (193 characters) It wasn't buried in the area of the Teatro Real because at the time it was buried, the opera house didn't yet exist. (I suspect it still needs a bit of refining, but this might be a better approach.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Or.. "under the foundations of the" Teatro Real. ? ~ R.T.G 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I did study the map on the article and Google maps, and it is likely the fountains structure begins somewhere between directly under the theatres front wall to as much as ten or fifteen metres to the front of it. It may be fair to claim this to be a foundation for the theatre. Maybe the DYK for the plaza could be joined into this one, however I can see how the underneath of the huge theatre building would be hooky to anyone familiar with it. Apologies for the misconception o/ ~ R.T.G 23:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: The hook wording is still misleading. Right now it is saying that the spring was buried under the Teatro Real (which obviously didn't exist then); we would have the same problem with saying it was buried under the foundations of the Teatro Real. Here are some solutions:

ALT1: ... that an historic spring which fed the Royal Palace of Madrid and supplied its guild of aguadores was rediscovered 200 years after it was buried so the Teatro Real and two plazas could be built? (suggested by BlueMoonset)
ALT2: ... that an historic spring which fed the Royal Palace of Madrid and supplied its guild of aguadores was uncovered during the construction of the Teatro Real opera house? (suggested by Yoninah) Yoninah (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, it was the reconstruction of the metro's "Opera" stop, not the Teatro Real itself, that uncovered the spring, so I don't believe ALT2 will fly. I agree that we can't do as RTG suggests, not only because of the timing but because "likely" in terms of where the fountain is relative to the foundations is not good enough for a hook, especially since there is no source stating that specifically (drawing inexact conclusions from a map is OR in this case). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. I think it's time to return this to WP:DYKN for another hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it wasn't discovered from the building of the theatre, it was buried under the foundation for the theatre to be built over it. The inaccurate part is just that it isn't directly beneath it, though the edge of the fountains could be just beneath the edge of the theatre. It was rediscovered when the subway station was being refurbished. The first alt above would be accurate if you changed it from "buried under the Teatro.." to "buried under the foundations of the Teatro..." @Yoninah and BlueMoonset: ~ R.T.G 20:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@RTG: the discussion has been moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Fountain of the Pear Tree Canals. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

QPQ Question

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/La Saline Natural Area for a DYK, and I got a lot of extra space at the end and one extraneous character, and I'm not sure what code is causing that. Also, I tried to review 608 Fifth Avenue (my first attempt at a review!) for my QPQ. Do I need to add that QPQ it to my nomination, and if so, how? I'm trying to learn how to do this correctly.Georgialh (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The spacing looks fine to me, the template looks much as the others do, though sometimes the addition of a picture(s) causes the whitespace at the bottom to be longer than usual. Which is the extraneous character that's appeared? When you create the template there is a field for adding a QPQ - it looks like " | reviewed = " and there you can link to the QPQ. If you miss this step, it can be added in manually later, as I have done for you. Template:NewDYKnomination/guide has more guidance on the specific fields and usages. Spokoyni (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The extraneous character was a ")" that had been tacked onto the end of the transclusion to WP:DYKN: {{Did you know nominations/La Saline Natural Area}}). It wouldn't show if you just looked at the individual nom, but did appear when viewing it on the nominations page. I removed the ")". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Sealy

For the above DYK, the 2nd QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Sealy was provided on an article that I was already in the middle of reviewing and there had been no indication that a second full review was needed. I was waiting for the nominator to return. My assumption per the rules is that the nominator should need to do a QPQ on another article as I don't think piggybacking on someone else's review counts. Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you comment that on the page itself, but I'll ping reviewer @Cwmhiraeth: here anyway. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting issue, so far as I can tell, it relates to Template:Did you know nominations/The Marine Cemetery. Cowlibob reviewed the article, but while waiting for some issues to be resolved before promoting, Schwede66 (talk · contribs) commented that they had moved the article title and queried a reference link. Cowlibob then otherwise approved the nomination, pending a review of a hook that they had proposed, a third party review which is still pending. Cowlibob then used this review for their QPQ for their nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Virginia Crosbie. Schwede66 has also claimed a review of Template:Did you know nominations/The Marine Cemetery for their own nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Sealy. So the question I think being asked is - does Schwede66's work on the "Marine Cemetery" nomination count as a review? And can two users claim a review of this same nomination? There doesn't seem to be any guidance on rules pages, and I have known QPQ claims to be rejected if a review has already occurred, though as I recall that was a clear instance where a nomination had already been explicitly rejected. Spokoyni (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been active on DYK for a few years. When I was active, a 'second pair of eyes' was encouraged and provided the second reviewer actually did something, there were no qualms with that being counted as a QPQ. If things have changed in the meantime, let me know and I'll review something else. The reason I did review the article was because when I scanned the list of potential candidates, I spotted this article as potentially not complying with naming conventions. I had a look at all the references and that confirmed my suspicion; I thus moved the article. One of the reference URLs wasn't correct so I pointed this out. I might say that the original reviewer should have picked up on the latter issue themselves; checking the references should always form part of a review. Schwede66 02:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Second opinions definitely benefit this process and I would welcome it. I have made a number of comments on other DYKs that I didn't formally review to pick up on issues that may have been missed. I wouldn't be averse to the same DYK being reviewed multiple times as long as it was clear that the criteria had been checked by each reviewer. I just wanted some clarity on whether this could be claimed as a QPQ as described above it is not so clear cut and I previously recall QPQs being rejected based on this. My review process is to try to go through the article a few times with the reference check being the last bit before approval as article content can change based on earlier amendments and therefore references present or not can also do so. Cowlibob (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Since the current rules state that you don't need to be the one signing off to claim the review as a QPQ, I would say that naturally means any editor who has completed a substantial review can use it as QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4 — WHSR

For disambiguation reasons, as I noted in the nomination, the WWNN ALT1 hook for WHSR cannot run without "(980 AM)" as the WWNN call letters currently reside on 1470 AM in the same city. Raymie (t • c) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging admins Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, since this queue gets promoted in a couple of minutes. Raymie, you might want to post this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors if it isn't fixed before the bot moves it to the main page. Thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done Not totally convinced that would be a major error myself, as the link takes you through to the correct radio station, but not a big deal I've put it through just now so it should be included in the update. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4: Cigarette sales

@Giantflightlessbirds:@Cwmhiraeth:@97198:
Where does it say this in the article or source? The source indicates that the sale of cigarettes and biscuits was done as a fundraiser, in order to decorate the staff room with artwork. No mention is made of a "common room". Yoninah (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It's stated more fully in the Art New Zealand article (unfortunately not online) that the cigarettes and biscuits were sold to staff in the staff Common Room (which is the staffroom, where morning and afternoon teas happen) over some years, not as a one-off fundraiser. The cash pool had gotten so large they were debating what to do with it (one lecturer wanted to buy a hi-fi system). Thankfully, they spent it on art instead. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Giantflightlessbirds: so please add another inline cite to that sentence. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done I've added the Brooker reference to that sentence and expanded it a bit to clarify, so it matches the hook. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The weird ping bug when a nomination you reviewed is promoted is still happening to me

Does anyone else still get it and know how it can be fixed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at your own: Preferences/Notifications/Notify me about these events - and seeing if anything should be unchecked? — Maile (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be the case, all the preferences seem to be right. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I am having the same issue too! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It's even more annoying than I thought. When promoting/rejecting, not only is the reviewer pinged, but if the reviewer had pinged someone else, the "someone else" gets pinged too. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have also been getting it, it happens if adding the promotion template changes the layout enough that the text edit (the view of what's been changed in history, which we all know sometimes looks a bit different to the changes actually made) effectively re-adds all the pings and the reviewer's user template. This doesn't seem to have a fix, besides being very strict about not adding extra spaces when promoting. It's not annoying to me, though. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a workaround which will prevent this from happening. Template:DYK top currently adds a signature and timestamp with ~~~~ when a nom is closed. If this is changed to {{User0|User={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ~~~~~, a plain signature and timestamp will still be added, but the ping bug will be averted. (A "subst:" could be added before "User0" if desired.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, you made the last edits to the template. Any thoughts about making this change? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done with this edit — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: could you link me to an example or two so I can investigate? — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My most recent closings: Template:Did you know nominations/Bicol region generated a ping for BlueMoonset, and on Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob S. Kasanin, both BlueMoonset and DoctorAB were pinged. (As for the comment above about "not adding extra spaces", I did not add any; in both cases, the only characters I added were "subst:" and "no".) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mandarax: both those seem to have been closed before the recent change; have you (or anyone else) noticed this happening in the last 24 hours or so? — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you wanted examples from before you made the change. I haven't closed any noms since then. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious Plastic

The nominator on Template:Did you know nominations/Precious Plastic asked to add a second article to the nomination after the fact; would someone mind checking that I updated the tags correctly? Thanks. Morgan695 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. I added back the history for Precious Plastic in DYK nompage links, and inserted a DYKmake for the Dave Hakkens article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Lotus throne

Guanyin from Japan
Guanyin from Japan
  • ... that around 200 CE, the Indian monk Nagarjuna exhorted a king to make "Images of Buddha with fine proportions / Well designed and sitting on lotuses" (example pictured)?
Buddha sculpture on a lotus throne
Burmese Buddha
Burmese Buddha

@Johnbod, Kingsif, and Cwmhiraeth: I think the hook's alright, but if we're specifically mentioning Buddha images, wouldn't it be more accurate to use a picture of a Buddha sculpture rather than a painting of Guanyin? The picture to the left is one alternative from the bolded article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no preference, both look like they're sitting on lotuses. Kingsif (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: They are, but I feel that it would be more appropriate to use an image of the Buddha instead of Guanyin on a lotus throne, to avoid confusing readers, considering that the hook explicitly reads "Images of Buddha" and "(example pictured)". It's just a suggestion; the current picture isn't unsuitable per se. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 03:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff, Kingsif, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't feel a change is necessary myself, but if one is made, I've added the Burmese Buddha pic to the article, which is better at stamp size. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the image in Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pubal

  • ... that in 2007, a rescued European bison calf dubbed Pubal grew so attached to humans in southeastern Poland that he could not be successfully reintegrated back into the wild?

Samotny Wędrowiec Raymie Cwmhiraeth

The sentence that seems to be the hook support sentence, By early 2007, Pubal continued to resist all efforts made at reintegrating him into the wild by breaking out of his enclosures multiple times isn't cited, and I can only get to one of the sources for the following sentence. --valereee (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I had to assume good faith on the sourcing because it was all in Polish, unfortunately. Raymie (t • c) 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Raymie, happy to AGF for sourcing, but the sentence has NO citation to a source. DYK rules require hook support sentences to have citations at the sentence. --valereee (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you need to worry about it too much, because it is the main topic of the article. I have changed the punctuation and the hook facts now have an inline citation! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for not catching that. Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. Raymie (t • c) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --valereee (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Nun lässest du, o Herr

@Gerda Arendt: a quick query about the assertion that it is "a paraphrase of the Nunc dimittis". Is that cited in the article? It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the "History" section, but there are no cites after that until the end of the first sentence of the next paragraph, which is ref [3], Limburg 2013. Does that source cover it? Or can you provide another one. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll check - never occured to me because the wording is a very (!) close paraphrasing, but of course you see that only when you know Latin and German, - sorry abot that. I wouldn't mind that pulled and better appear on 2 February, the day when Visitation is celebratad, - I was almost ready to ask before but was too tired, and wanted to spare (you) the extra work. It's also in a set with something else Christian following. I'm on vacation, need to de-tag the article of someone who recently died before even looking. - We sang the song as the Nunc dimittis in an Evensong of which it is a regular part, daily, Magnificat and Nunc dimittis, or Mag & Nunc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Parliament Oak

  • ... that King John of England is said to have convened an assembly in 1212 at the Parliament Oak to order the hanging of 28 Welsh boys?

"It is said" appears to be a WP:WEASEL term to me, and the article itself also uses this phrasing, without saying who said it. Please can we reword the article and, if necessary, the hook to make it clearer what the status of this assertion is, and who it is that said King John did that? Pinging Dumelow and Whispyhistory who were involved in the nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, the hanging can be found in a number of places, including here for the hanging of the 28 young Welsh hostages (there are a number of sources; most give 28 victims but one had 24, and only some mention the ages of the hostages). The one I found that gives the detail of the Parliament Oak is top paragraph of this one, taken from the 1904 book A Short History of Nottingham Castle, including the phrase "it is said", though it's unclear to me whether that covers the whole tale or merely where John got the news. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a mixed case with the sources: The Illustrated London News in 1843 says "tradition states that King John held a parliament under it" Country Life in 1913 says "the legend, runs with some probability of truth..." though Hight writing in 2011 is more certain: "It was so named after King John who, whilst out hunting, hastily assembled a parliament there to deal with a Welsh uprising in 1212". I suspect any records are lost to time. Happy to change to "tradition states" or "Hight (2011) says" if you prefer? Or else run with ALT2 which relates to the modern era - Dumelow (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Jellyfish bloom

  • ... that jellyfish blooms can clog coastal power plants, causing up to US$84,000 in losses per day?

Hi, I have a few queries about the monetary value that is given with this hook.

  1. The conversion from INR to USD doesn't appear accurate with today's values - 5.5 million is currently worth around $77,500. The source actually gives a conversion, and it mentions $100,000. Perhaps that was the exchange rate a few years ago.
  2. The hook says costs are "up to $84,000" as if that is some kind of upper limit globally. In fact though, the citation in question,[3] refers to a specific incident at a specific Indian power station, in which the cost was assessed at approximately (not "up to") 5.5 million rupees. This tells us nothing about incidents in other countries such as Japan or Sweden, where the cost of running a power station might be a lot higher than in India.

My suggestion would be to simply drop the monetary value from the hook altogether. Otherwise, if more time is needed then I can send it back to the nomination page and promote a different hook in its place. Pinging Yerkes-Dodson, Animalparty, Skeletor3000, who were involved in the nomination. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I missed the deadline for pulling this so it's gone live now. Given the above concern I have amended it to say "tens of thousands" rather than saying there is a precise upper limit to the costs. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, wouldn't it have been better to use the {{To USD}} or {{To USD round}} templates? These templates use IMF values however the latest data is 2018, Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with all 28 non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 6. We have a total of 312 nominations, of which 215 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two remaining from November.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Admins needed: the queues are all empty

The last of the queues were promoted about 45 minutes ago; we'll need at least two preps promoted to queues in the next 24 hours, and hopefully more. Pinging Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that some of you can help out.

We also need preps filled: four are, but the remaining two just have lead hooks, and hopefully as preps are promoted to queues those can be filled as well. Many thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

coming Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved Prep 5, will check tomorrow morning --valereee (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

{{DYK talk}} template showing at the bottom of the talk page

At the talk pages of the recently promoted DYK pages, the {{DYK talk}} template appears at the bottom of the page. Earlier, it was in the same place as the WikiProject templates. If GA and FA/FL templates appear alongside the WikiProject templates, why is the {{DYK talk}} template being placed at the bottom of the talk page? Getting at article to the Main Page under DYK section is also an achievement, though lesser than GA and FL/FL status. I'm sure the community too feels the same. The problem I have mentioned here might be a technical issue but needs to be fixed immediately.

Some examples include :

Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Skr15081997, that's not the bottom of the page, it's the bottom of the list of templates that go at the top of the page. See Talk:Cincinnati chili --valereee (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of this, was there a consensus to add {{Did you know nominations}} to the talk page? It's already linked in {{DYK talk}} which I think is sufficient. I find including the whole discussion to be extra clutter. MB 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think, this is happening to the talk pages with the {{Did you know nominations/Article title}}. Previously, when an article appeared on the main page under DYK section, the text in the template {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} didn't appear on the talk page even though the template was still there. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how the template is showing the text in this 5-month old DYK, but not in this two year old one. MB 02:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed MB Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that it the opposite of the fix I was after. Before, the template would expand on the talk page while the nomination was active. After the hook had been promoted, {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} did nothing on the talk page (or at least that is what I think I remember. Now, it is expanding even after the hook has been run and {{DYK talk}} is placed on the talk page (which neatly summarizes everything and includes a link to the nomination discussion). I preferred it that way; I have been going back and removing the template after the hook has run just to clean up the talk page. I was asking if this change (as I think it is a change) was intentional? MB 03:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, lately I have been using SD0001's great time-saver script (DYK-helper.js). Maybe that does something differently? MB 03:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ohhhh, I thought you wanted to know why one was showing and the other wasn't which was missing the code. I see, I have no idea whether a change had occurred, I didn't have DYK's back then so wouldn't know. But they look terrible when transcluded on talk, if what you are saying did that before that is better. Also, just as you said, {{DYK talk}} neatly summarizes everything and includes a link to the nomination discussion - I also like that it matches the WikiProject templates perfectly and takes far less space. Maybe the DYKUpdateBOT could remove {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} when adding {{DYK talk}}, that might be a good solution? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing Pornographic Content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
OP has been blocked Sock puppet Admitted being blocked or banned previously. The burden of proof that their block has either expired or been lifted is on them. - Closing as trolling by OP. If folks want to do an RFC please start a separate thread. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020‎ (UTC)

Remove the explicit content of the prostitute from DYK. It's one thing if people go looking for that in articles, but it's on the main page, and little kids doing homework are going to see that and be traumatized. Also, would you want your great-great-great grandmother on vulgar display like that?

I know the drill. You will ban me on a technicality of protocol, but since it was impossible to reach any of the e-mail address listed to complain, you left me no alternative but to hope beyond hope here that maybe a few of you might not want Wikipedia turned into a digital brothel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusader316 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Crusader316, you will not be banned from Wikipedia merely for expressing an opinion. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, including the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir or madam, for allowing me to speak. I've been suspended/banned on Wikipedia over such matters before- accusing me of vandalism as if I were just randomly messing up pages because I could, so I give you credit for fair-mindedness and consistency.

I would wish, however, to address the ethical and even the legal ramifications of such content on such an easily viewed page, or potentially, anywhere in Wikipedia. You see, Wikipedia is essentially a public forum, not a private publisher. The latter could hide any content behind a broad interpretation of the First Amendment in the US (or similar documents in other countries), but would be legally liable for defamation for harmful rumors, speculation and such in articles, which, given current political polarization, would destroy Wikipedia, so the corporate people in San Francisco completely disavow any responsibility for the content in Wikipedia, and I know this not only because of stated disclaimers but because every e-mail I tried to send to the listed e-mail addresses bounced back to me with an error message. I sent them from ordinary Gmail.

What this means is that Wikipedia is not like a privately published book for which the publisher could be sued, but rather more like a physical billboard or (physical) message board on public property. Now, I have been in some rather liberal, bohemian cities, but I have never seen full or even partial nudity on public billboards and such. I've heard that perhaps that is allowed in Amsterdam, but since I would rather lose a limb than go there, I'll never know for sure, and at any rate, the address given as the closest thing to Wikipedia "headquarters" is San Francisco, which, permissive as it may be, would still probably not allow a billboard with that particular photo on it.

I would also point out that there is an international, cross-cultural consensus in societies religious and secular (including Communist), East and West, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish alike that such content is not to be shown to minors. If it makes any difference to you, it's not just conservatives like me who would want to remove that photo, as I'm certain that many feminists, including in San Francisco, would object to the use of such photos of women, in desperate circumstances, taken by a male photographer and treated as "art". I do not think there is a single nation on earth, except perhaps for failed states with no law enforcement, that generally allows such content in public, and unless the San Francisco corporate people agree to take responsibility as publishers (and brave all the lawsuits), then Wikipedia has to self-censor to such an extent as fits with cultural norms that are, nearly everywhere, written in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusader316 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but I don't see anywhere that you've provided any evidence that the image is offensive, but that still amounts to one personal opinion, and allot of assertions you haven't actually backed up. I can equally state that I am not offended by it, and now we are at one person to one person, and no one can claim to be right. Can you actually back up any of your wild assertions about the universal offensiveness of the image, or are you just going to make unsubstantiated claims and think that everyone will just accept things you say because you say them? --Jayron32 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, since you keep bringing up California law, by statute AND court decisions in California (see In re Dallas W. (2000) for example) non-sexual nudity is not a violation of the code. Unless the intent is to cause sexual gratification, the mere act of exposing any body part is not, according to California law, of its own accord, illegal. --Jayron32 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the picture following a report at WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, as I said there, I think this was a mistake. Like the – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are we using a photo of an unknown naked woman rather than a photo of William Goldman, who is the subject of the DYK? This seems sexist and gratuitous. And before you accuse me of trying to censor Wikipedia, I would be perfectly happy if we used the naked photo of William Goldman. Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I think you made the latest image change. I agree that William Goldman's image would be more suitable. Also, the hook says "collection of photographs of prostitutes (pictured) ", but the image you swapped to, is not identified as a prostitute, not in the article, and not on Commons. Not all of the images in the article are specifically identified as prostitutes. There are some images of naked men, also, which do not seem to have been chosen. We don't censor, but this seems more like Clickbait. Why not an image of Goldman? — Maile (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, discussion was happening at WP:ERRORS, can we take this over there? --valereee (talk) --valereee (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not underage and it isn't showing any sexual acts. While it may not be to my personal tastes, I think NOTCENSORED applies sensibly here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ERRORS
The particular image chosen was recommended because it shows the woman looking through an album of the photographs concerned. I would judge that a naked woman in a non-sexual pose would not be considered "vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers", which is the guideline in WP:Offensive material. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I support Ahecht and the removal of the image. WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, i.e., Wikipedia isn't censored, so the article nudity has nudity in it. There is a clear reason and expectation that a reader will experience certain content. There is a big difference between that and the Main Page, especially if there are other photos that can be used to get the point across. I believe MOS:SHOCK is of some relevance to this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Ahecht as well. I know Wikipedia is not censored, but I think we should try to avoid this kind of stuff. Maybe it will not be considered vulgar by most readers, but I feel the other image would have been way better. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that non-sexualized nudity is considered offensive or vulgar by a preponderance of readers. Certainly, a non-zero number of our readers will be offended, but a non-zero number of our readers are offended by something on the main page nearly every day. Nudity is not, of its own accord, a widely offensive thing. --Jayron32 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about whether nudity is offensive, but what is the best photo to explain the article that is being featured in the WP:DYK section, which might I add is William Goldman (photographer). An example of one of the photos of the prostitutes (I.e. File:William I. Goldman photograph 11.jpg) provides just as much encyclopedic value without being shocking to a number of our readers. Per MOS:SHOCK, we should try to use the image with the least shock value for the lead of an article, which can be easily expanded to the Main Page. I must also point out that many users may inadvertently run afoul of their workplace rules on nudity on work computers, just by going to the Main Page. Again, this is about expectation for our readers, not whether nudity is offensive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg is of better encyclopedia vale, since it was the key photo that allowed the entire collection to be dated and identified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your suggested replacement is not as good an illustration of Goldman's work because (1) it does not show the collection of his pictures assembled into an album, and (2) it shows a fully clothed woman. One of the unusual aspects of Goldman's work that makes it socially interesting is that many of the models are naked. Incidentally the image as it appears on the main page is pretty small and grainy, besides being monochrome; the nudity is really not so "in your face". If you choose to click on it, well, ... Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Jmchutchinson, File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg is definitely a naked woman, so not sure what you are referencing. It is also one of his photos, so not sure how that is a bad representation of his work. Lastly, in the original photo you can barely see the small photos in the album, so not sure how that is super helpful. If that is what is encyclopedic about it, I doubt many readers will be able to discern that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed (commented out) the picture as it is clearly controversial. I don't have a problem with William Goldman (photographer) as an encyclopedia topic, or the images appearing there, but Wikipedia:Offensive material says "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Anyone wanting to find out about Goldman's work and subjects can still click on the article and look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how the image can "be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers"? --Jayron32 17:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I request that you reconsider. There is nothing wrong with nudity, especially non-vulgar photos like that. This sets a bad censorship precedent. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. I would recommend File:Woman_reading_the_Reading_Eagle.jpg being added as a compromise. It is very relevant to the article and provides the necessary support to the hook (i.e. it is an example of one of the photos that the hook references) while also having the benefit of not unnecessarily showing nudity on the Main Page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Have not seen the image in question - but there are many readerships for WP (and readers may have different preferences for different contexts).
Some topics may be seen as acceptable off the MP but cause issues when featured on the MP (smallpox a while back being one example0. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also, I can't stress enough that no one here is saying that the photo in question is inherently offensive. However, it definitely does have shock value, especially when used on the Main Page. It comes down to whether it is necessary for our readers to understand and be "hooked" by the article. I don't think this is the case, since there are a number of free photos that provide similar encyclopedic value while avoiding a lot of shock value. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: since there are numerous freely-licensed images in the article, please put something in so the column won't go picture-less. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:, ditto what Yoniah said. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333 is not online right now. Pinging Vanamonde, Casliber, Valereee, Gatoclass, et al. for immediate action. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As stated in the opening comment, File:William I. Goldman photograph 11.jpg would perhaps be a less controversial image. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I chose the original for a reason that it shows the albums. It's not about the nudity and not in the least shocking. Put it back please. Who doesn't know that women have breasts and hair? This is censorship for no valid reason. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, File:Woman_reading_the_Reading_Eagle.jpg is an even better and less controversial option. And, Philafrenzy, I am not sure how showing a photo of an album of photos that are too small to be seen is better than posting an actual photo from the collection. A photo from the collection, one that has less WP:SHOCK value, should be adequately encyclopedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It IS a photo from the collection. But use the Eagle one if you like. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. I think people are arguing that the image is inherently offensive, but they are trying to talk around it as many ways as possible to avoid saying those exact words. All the arguments made against this image only make sense if you start with the assumption that the image is offensive.
This sort of wink-wink nudge-nudge consensus has the same effect, and should be treated the same, as if people had just come out and said "This image is offensive."
Either admins can remove images they find offensive, or they can't. This game where everyone has to come up with a variation on "It's not offensive to me but..." is very silly in its predictability. ApLundell (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
But it isn't offensive. Some things are likely to be offensive to most readers. Some things are likely to be offensive to only some readers. Just about anything is offensive to at least one reader. What was it about this picture that makes it over the line that removal was required here, where other pictures are not. Is it because a small number of motivated people expressed their own, personal, singular offense? How is that counterbalanced by the thousands and thousands and millions of people who were not bothered. People who aren't bothered don't complain. Why does only the tiny, but loud, voice get to decide for the rest of the world? --Jayron32 19:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Put the picture back. It perfectly demonstrated the hook! It not only showed an example of a subject but also showed the collection of photos being discussed. You have made the hook so much weaker for the sake of few who find it offensive. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added the File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg while we're discussing, but I need to figure how what magic David Levy works to make it the right size and also add it to protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I completely oppose this compromise. This photo is significantly less relevant to demostrating this hook. Anyway, replace the line with this to fix the image size:{{main page image|image=Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg|caption=Woman reading the ''[[Reading Eagle]]'', photographed by William Goldman|width=190}} --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm up for any solution we can come up with, and open to the idea this isn't the right choice. While we discuss, I thought a photo would be good, and this one seemed to be middle ground. I'll fix the image size, thanks! --valereee (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I disagree. The fact that this photo was going to appear on the Main Page was well known. Dozens of editors were aware and not bothered. By giving into "the compromise" you allowed the minority opinion win out and allowed Ritchie333 a super vote. No one will now have the guts to put it back. This last minute pull is really discourage to us that regularly work on the Main Page every single day. The only difference is her nipples and vaginal area were showing. This was typical "Think of the children mentality". We often have gratuitous paintings of women being raped on the Main Page. This was nothing close to that. I am extremely disappointed in the judgement of the admin who removed it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I forgot caption= . --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, nah, I'll have the guts to put it back, as long as I agree there's consensus. I'm missing something at The fact that this photo was going to appear on the Main Page was well known.?
  • Valereee if you look at the posts on this page and at WT:DYK, the original image was opposed by Ritchie333 and two other editors. The rest (majority) of admins and editors preferred the original image. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We ignored the vote of the reviewer who approved the hook and image. The editor who promoted it. The admin who loaded the hooks to the queue. The dozens of editors that regularly peruse the preps and queues. AFAIK, this photo went unchallenged through several processes to get here. Pulling it here it just not how consensus works. The fact of the matter is that it was pulled out of process. There was no consensus to remove it. Jmchutchinson, Muboshgu, Jayron32, and myself were fine with the photo. There was no consensus to remove in the first place and the photo should be reinstated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    I count Ahecht, Gonzo, Ritchie, L293D, Amakuru for removing original photo
    Jmhutchinson, Jayron, Muboshgu, C&C, Phila, Yoninah, MX for keeping original
    neutral/not clear/please just put something in Jackiespeel Yoninah APLundell
    Support using File:William I. Goldman photograph 05.jpg Gonzo, Phila, Amakuru
    Unless someone considers me involved, I'm comfortable declaring a very rough consensus for photo 05. Please speak up if you think involved and I'll wait for someone else to step in. Also if I've mischaracterized, also speak up --valereee (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was the promoter, so I approved the use of the original image. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Also Casliber who loaded the queue. I would rather have the current image that #5 which is of bad quality and barely shows the collection. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    I also interpret ApLundell opinion to be don't pull. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Careful, I detect a nipple in 5. Someone might be shocked. Perhaps the only human being who doesn't have nipples. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I spotted this earlier and was slightly uneasy about it, but decided to let sleeping dogs lie. For the record I prefer the replacement image to the original one. My opinion is that the main page should be confined to images which one could safely open anywhere, and I think that nude, tasteful though it may be, would raise a lot of eyebrows if I opened it in the office or in a public library. Incidentally we still have an upcoming RFC to get through regarding the current choice of Picture of the Day for Template:POTD/2020-03-28 (do not open that one at work!). I was instructed to wait until February for an RFC to determine its suitability...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about that POTD. I am glad you have got the matter in hand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I wondered whether I should do something or just have a quiet life, but I just don't think it's a particularly good advertisement for our main page out to the wide world. To try and give another example, if I wrote Juden Raus (board game) (which does have sources), got it through DYK and onto the main page with an image of the box, don't you think people would complain it was needlessly provocative and offensive? I think they would. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
They might but this one wasn't needlessly provocative or offensive. It was a carefully chosen image with minor nudity that was contextually justified. If you think I was trying to shock anyone you have it very wrong Ritchie. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I'm not concerned with nipples or vaginas, although I'm not sure they're necessarily a plus. Er, well, of course in many cases they're a major plus, but in terms of illustrating that William Goldman took photos of prostitutes, I'm pretty sure most readers know the average prostitute in 1892 had both. The argument that the photo shows the albums is a good one, and that the first photograph shows the album better than photo 05 is a good one. I'm feeling like we have no consensus for change here after all, in which case I think the decision has to be do revert to the original. --valereee (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Someone will always find some content as offensive. By the same argument, I find many of the religious themes we feature as offensive. Glorifying religious dogma, I believe, is offensive. Many people consider featuring photographs of Nazis as offensive. I also find the many depictions of old gods raping women as offensive. But that does not give me the right to complain about them or remove them from view. We have to stop saying that Wikipedia is not censored and in the same breath advocate to censor Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the test shouldn't be whether an image offends anyone. It should be whether it is contextually and encyclopedically justified, which this one was. If it is, it doesn't matter whether it offends anyone. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Totting names up, add me in support the use of the original image. Both sides have made solid points, but I think these are best decided on a case by case basis and here the "needlessly provocative or offensive" criteria falls short. Additionally there needs to be an attitude adjustment that a complaint at WP:ERRORS justifies an immediate response without waiting for a discussion or consensus to emerge. Not everything posted there is an error, sometimes the poster has made an error, or is expressing an opinion (and this was not an error at all and ought not to have been posted there) and an admin deciding to change an element of the mainpage as a result should be aware that they are overriding the consensus that has brought that to the mainpage in that way. By all means open a discussion to evaluate or establish a new consensus, but do not pre-empt that process by changing it arbitrarily, unless it is an obvious error in terms of spelling, grammar, etc. Spokoyni (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The results are in - over 27,000 views. (that's 54,000 nipples) Philafrenzy (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that her right hand nipple is visible? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to the readers Martin and the fact they all have them and therefore can't have been surprised to discover that other people had them. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah shucks. Now I feel like a right tit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am shocked by your use of language Martin. I have never heard that word before and don't know what it means but suspect that it is rude. I demand it be redacted from this page to shield me from harm. Ritchie? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry that you have been traumatized by this exposure. I'd recommend a little background reading. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't click that Martin, I am surrounded by shut-ins who are unaware of the ways of the world, or even of the components of the human body. I don't want to spoil their innocence. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's ok. No one's expecting you to be a clit hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats. - I missed thid, but count me, too. as not finding anything pornographic in the original image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on the page views, @Philafrenzy:, we can all agree that the article is good and that it's deserving of people's attention so well done. And yes I agree with all the stuff about it being encyclopedic and not pornographic. No doubt about it. I just think our main page has to fit in with the scruples and illogical standards applied by the world-at-large though. The bottom line is that if a particular image would not be accepted for publication in a national newspaper, or viewing at work, or pinned to a public noticeboard in a library, then it should not be on our main page. And there will be parents who see this and will feel uncomfortable with their children viewing it. Again, illogically, but that's the way it is. If we end up in a situation where people start feeling that they or their families shouldn't look at Wikipedia because nude images might appear, then we've lost out. We lose potential new younger editors, we lose readers, and for me that's not a price worth paying. Others may differ of course, and no hard feelings!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
None here either, but isn't that the censor's argument, "I am not shocked but other (unnamed) people may be" so we should self-censor ourselves in anticipation that people may be offended. Where does it stop? Are we going to censor something critical of the Chinese government because it might get someone in trouble if they are caught reading it there. What about Turkey? Subject to a test of encyclopaedic value and relevancy we should publish and be damned. It's not our job to worry about other people's reactions (legal considerations notwithstanding). The trouble here is that it was censored due to the opinion of two or three loud voices while the 27,000 who clicked, and probably 1 million who saw it and didn't click, were unheard, and everyone else earlier in the process was overridden. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So the Catholic crusader, who suggests he may be a block evader, is concerned that kids might see nudity here, while his beloved church continues to cover up real-life abuse of kids. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this something we need an RfC on, or has the question of whether some images shouldn't be included on the main page been decided before? As Coffeeandcrumbs pointed out, this image had been seen by multiple people before it hit the main page -- at minimum, the nom, reviewer, prep setter, and the admin who moved it to queue, and certainly multiple others while it was on the nominations and approved noms pages. Philafrenzy I'm not sure I agree that it's censorship to say that any image that's appropriate for an article could be inappropriate for the main page. I find the argument that the main page is like a billboard or front door to be pretty compelling. People can read the blurb that refers to photographic nudity, look at a photo that doesn't include photographic nudity, and decide to click to the article or not to see further examples. Do we want people who might be offended or embarrassed by an image to just avoid the main page? --valereee (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, do we want a vocal minority to dictate what can and cannot be censored? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Censorship comes in many forms and in many disguises. It rears its ugly head in varying degrees. It can come in the form of "I am all for NOTCENSORED, but this is going to far." "Sure, you can have it on the article but not on the Main Page." This argument may seem reasonable but it is no less of a censorship. Relegating some material only to the hidden corners of Wikipedia is the same thing as censoring Wikipedia. The only question we should ask is what is the best and most representative image we can choose for the blurb. If it is a nude image, so be it; that is the image we should choose. We should not kowtow to the minority that find it offensive. They will not go away forever. They will return because we remain the best source of NPOV information. We should stick to our principles and the rest will fix itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) We most certainly do not need any of that, NOTCENSORED has to be above all. We cannot allow us to get into a situation where we allow a small group of editors to control what is expressed freely. I myself have got the apartheid flag of South Africa (twice), images containing the Confederate flag (several times), a Fag on a Crag, a hymn calling Mohammed a "fiend" and a proclamation that Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Easter plus I've lost count how many times they've included a swear word, Fucking Hell. Would any of these have run had we had such a censored system? Often the more controversial they are, they more they get improved. It is often by breaking the taboo and using it that people will come to improve them. Though some may find them distateful, it is through a free enclopedia that must allow creativity and debate to flourish and sometimes showing a controversial image is the best way to do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Religious zealots, such as the OP in this case, cannot be allowed to dictate Wikipedia content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please rise above it. There is no need for personal attacks. Be Best! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
We occasionally get Muslims griping about depictions of Muhammad in his article. We don't cowtow to them, and we certainly don't need to cowtow to Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
But we also don't need to attack them for their beliefs or call them "zealots". Just thank them for their opinion and move on. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Or invoke the old Captain Kirk response: "Your complaint has been noted and logged." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 15 January 2020 (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.

c:COM:FOP Hong Kong

File:LIHKG Pig on Lennon Wall.jpg
Prep 5

Like U.K. law, FOP in Hong Kong is a bit complicated. I am no expert but the mosaic of the pig in this image, I think, qualifies as a "graphic work" and is therefore not eligible for FOP in Hong Kong. The newspapers are de minis and therefore not an issue but the pig is certainly not and therefore the image is a c:COM:Derivative. Without FOP protection, this file is a COPYVIO. If it was made of tiles (i.e. "work of artistic craftsmanship"), there would be no problem. But since it is made of paper and affixed to the wall like graffiti, it is a "graphic work". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm removing it from prep and nominating it for deletion. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, btw, any 3-D work should be fine. So most Lady Liberty Hong Kong should be O.K. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: but the hook is about the frog and the pig. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_164&oldid=1217092545"