Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 159

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161→Archive 165

Prep 4 - image licence

While I'm a bit rusty on such copyright issues, I believe the copyright tag for the image in this set is incorrect, as it pertains to the object not the photograph. For 3D objects, the copyright tag must pertain to the photograph not the object, and there is no evidence that this photograph is free of copyright restrictions.

Pinging the nominators Johnbod and G. Du Laney. Please note that I may be unable to further assist with this one as I expect to log off soon. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the WRONG HOOK - please use the right one!!! The photo is self-taken by the uploader, Daderot, as the file says. What tag should he use? For 3D objects, a copyright tag for the object is surely still needed? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct Johnbod, I assumed the photograph had been sourced from the supplied link, but it appears that was just provided to add some further detail. So the tags look okay. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, that was misleading, which I've tried to clarify - it's a different version there with palm-tree. Can we swop the hooks - I should have struck the other one. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I can see a potential issue arising from the fact that the second link is Easter-eggish. Might I suggest the following tweak:

Fine, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is FA excluded from the criteria?

Couldn't quite find the answer to my question looking through the archives, but the current criteria allows that a newly promoted GA can be nominated for DYK, but why not a newly promoted FA? I have an article (it's been GA for a few months) that I think would be great for a DYK and I will be taking it to FAC soon. I didn't know about the 7-day rule beforehand, or any of the rules for DYK for that matter, and it seems a bit odd that new GAs can be nominated but not new FAs. --JDC808 ♫ 10:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so odd, JDC808: the DYK process is designed to give the opportunity for main page exposure to articles that couldn't otherwise get it. Featured articles, on the other hand, already have their place on the main page, and broadening the dyk criteria as you suggest would effectively result in double the number of FACs being shown. ——SerialNumber54129 10:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It's the same reason why you can't do DYK, if the article has already been WP:ITN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
GAs used to not be part of DYK, and had no opportunity to appear on the main page, while DYK, FP, FL and FA had their own spot. A consensus was reached at DYK a few years back that GA would be incorporated into DYK main page space. — Maile (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I still find it odd, as I don't see the big deal in FAs potentially getting more exposure (that in itself could be limited, like only one FA a week, or even only one a month). I also find the 7-day rule to be very constricting. A lot of people, myself included, may not know much or anything about DYK, and then they find out about it and unfortunately, an article that would be great for it can't be nominated because it's been past 7 days. Perhaps a better promotion of DYK is needed. --JDC808 ♫ 23:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
No one but me will admit it, but the arbitrary 7-day limit is an intentional feature of DYK; otherwise the system would collapse under the flood. EEng 00:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be a limit, just that 7 days seems too short. --JDC808 ♫ 04:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:DYKSG, technically the seven-day limit can be ignored as long as there's no backlog over at WP:DYKN (which in practice is pretty much never), and the rule is regularly loosened for new nominators who may have been unfamiliar with the criterion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
That's the issue though. What if someone did not become familiar with the rules until a while after the article was created (like the one I was referencing in my original post)? That article is about three years old, and been GA for about 6 months. I doubt that would be accepted even with me being unfamiliar with the rules prior. --JDC808 ♫ 01:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that some nominations hang around for weeks while issues get resolved, I'm generally willing to WP:IAR and relax that criterion if the nomination is only a few days overdue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Two ways round, if you want longer, are 1) do a draft in your sandbox, & move when finished or nearly so (the clock only starts then), and 2) remember that you can continue to improve the article once it's nominated - if you need to do a qpq it generally won't be reviewed until this is done. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not really what I was asking, but okay. With that in mind, what happens if while you are sandboxing an article, someone else goes and makes the article? --JDC808 ♫ 01:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK helper

I used User:SD0001/DYK-helper for Template:Did you know nominations/Warming stripes, it was easy and intuitive, and apart from PEBCAK on including the image, it worked as promised. --valereee (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Megabats - prep 6

I have pulled this hook from prep 6 because one of the two sources provided for the hook argues that this phenomenon may not be true lactation but something called "galactorrhoea".[1] So I think this needs to be sorted before this one can be run. Pinging the nominator Enwebb. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the sources, it seems like an unsettled scientific controversy that is to some degree about semantics ("lactation" has a particular meaning in science). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, precisely. Which is why making an absolute statement like "males can lactate" is problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass thanks for being diligent about checking sources. While the use of the word "lactation" has been challenged by that publication, it is frequently used to describe this phenomenon (lactation, after all, simply means the secretion of milk by the mammary glands)
  • "Whether lactation in male bats is an aberrant condition or has functional significance remains to be clarified." Kunz and Hood 2000
  • "However, male lactation has been documented inpopulations of free-ranging Dayak fruit batsDyacopterusspadeciusin Malaysia (Figure 1) and the masked flying foxPteropus capistrastusin Papua New Guinea" Kunz and Hosken 2009
  • "(to my knowledge, there has been only one rather anecdotal documentation of lactating males in free living Dayak fruit bats, Dyacopterus spadiceus; Francis et al. 1994)" Konig 2006
  • "Lactation is considered a female-exclusive quality trait, although mammalian male lactation (supplementary to female lactation) wasdiscovered in two species of old world bats (Dyacopterus spadiceusandPteropus capistratus)(Franciset al. 1994)" Zilkha et al. 2017
In regards to the publication you're referring to, the authors state "However, we suggest that the term lactation, with its suggestion of care, is not yet appropriate because it has not been established that male galactorrhoea is beneficial in terms of kin selection". I think the bigger question is, is the reader being mislead into thinking that production of milk in males is related to caring for offspring? If you look where it is mentioned in the megabat article, I am very explicit that this is not the case
  • "...male individuals of several megabat species have been observed producing milk, though there has never been an observation of a male nursing young.[75] Male production of milk has been observed in the Bismarck masked flying fox (Pteropus capistratus) as well as the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus); it is unclear if the lactation is functional and males actually nurse pups or if it is a result of stress or malnutrition"
Truly, I think this is very semantic, but if you feel it would be more appropriate to replace the word "lactate" with "produce milk", then I'm fine with that. Enwebb (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
One of the problems is that none of the sources are all that recent. But given the challenge to the terminology in that source, I think "produce milk" would be the safer option. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass the last source that uses "lactation" is from 2017. Like I said, that's fine though. Enwebb (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mueller probe

FYI There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Current_DYK regarding the final hook in the current set. My view on "quirky hooks" is clear - they are OK as long as they don't present inaccurate or misleading information. I think the current quirky hook crosses the boundary into misleading, as do others. More opinions welcome though.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong European and Anglo bias

Today, June 2nd 2019, is just one of many days the DYK entry in the Main Page consist almost exclusively of content related to the English-speaking countries or Europe. The only exeption was Aslı Canan Sabırlı. Is it worth considering a way to have more balanced content in the DYK entry?

There are policies of this kind when selecting "on this day":

As much as possible, the array of topics should include a variety of years (e.g., not just limited to the 20th/21st centuries), geographical areas (e.g., more than just the English-speaking world), and subjects (e.g., not too many articles on war or technology).

any ideas or thoughts? —Mamayuco (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The DYK rules state that since most submissions are U.S.-based, no more than half of the hooks should be U.S.-centric. This rule has been followed in the set you mentioned. The fact that the other hooks are Canadian and Euro-centric reflects the lack of hooks on non-English-speaking subjects on our nominations page. It also reflects a general dearth of Wikipedia coverage of non-English-speaking countries and subject matter. You are welcome to create and submit more articles on non-English speaking subjects to DYK. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way @Mamayuco:, today is the 2nd of July, not the 2nd of June. :). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Mamayuco, I have also observe this problem. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we can resolve it, given that, as far as I can tell, it is simply reflective of the general bias in Wikipedia, as Yoninah said. However, if you have an interesting way to try to fix this problem, I, for one, am all ears. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I completed this hook set. When creating sets I try to keep a balance of biographies and other subjects, geographical content, sport, politics, natural history, culture etc, basically reflecting the available approved hooks, and trying to vary the topics from day to day. At a later stage, hooks sometimes get swapped around with another set which may upset the balance. It's not perfect, but we do our best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:, I understand there are other balances also. But the geographic imbalance is one of the most persistent ones in Wikipedia. @Yoninah: and @StudiesWorld:, is it not worth considering modifying the rule that "no more than half of the hooks should be U.S.-centric"... For example, albeit there are few NZ and AU entries in DYK I am quite sure both countries are well represented in in DYK given their size. If you ask me I would re-write it "As a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on topics related to English-speaking countries...". Then I would be worth to considering adjusting the Review requirement (QPQ) as to make it easier for underrepresented topics to get (one a personal level one of the reasons I do not submit many DYK is the time reviewing other DYK takes). Mamayuco (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that idea is not going to work as long as we have an overabundance of U.S. editors nominating articles about U.S. subjects. If you look at the unapproved and approved nominations, you will see that the vast majority of articles are U.S. based. We will not be able to process the backlog by limiting U.S.-based articles to a fraction of the "English-speaking country" hooks. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Besides, this is the English Wikipedia. The majority of our readers are from English-speaking countries, so these subjects are obviously of interest to them. Yoninah (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Florrie Redford

ALT1 is ready for promotion to a special occasion slot in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Done! --valereee (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Valentina Tereshkova picture hook?

Valentina Tereshkova - I have been asked by Coffeeandcrumbs to do the GAC review, for the DYK nomination during the moon landing related tributes. The article is in its final phase of honing the editing of the article. While nothing can be done here until an actual nomination is submitted, I'm hoping that when it's promoted as an approved hook, we can find room for Tereshkova to be a lead hook. She really did go where no woman had been before. And there's a really good image in the infobox. Crossing my fingers on this one. — Maile (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. I also have similar hopes that Valentina should be a photo hook. Besides the completion of the GA review, I am also waiting for the outcome of an RfC, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Apollo 11, which will affect what date I suggest for Valentina. I have several different ideas about scheduling of DYK depending on how the RfC is closed. The RfC has been open for about 24 days ago and should hopefully close soon. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Maile, but I hate the proposed hook: ... that Valentina Tereshkova (pictured), the first woman in space, is also the youngest woman to go to space and the only woman to do it solo? Substitute the word "man" for "woman" and tell me if we would ever run such a hook. Even to run one of her "firsts", I wouldn't say it's lead image worthy. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You don't think "the youngest woman to ever go to space" at 26 and likely to remain the youngest for a long time to come is hooky enough? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "the only woman ever to go to space alone"? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah Where do you see this proposed hook? Is there already a nomination out there? I was not aware of that. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. We haven't finished the GA process yet, so how could there be a DYK hook written? Please show link. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The hook is from a mockup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/DYK/July 21/2 which I was using to think out loud. Maybe this discussion is premature. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
SHEESH!!!!— Maile (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I really hope this is not frustration you are expressing, Maile66. I believe I discussed this (on my talk in 2018 and here at the top of this page) and that was working towards a space theme on the Main Page including DYK. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I asked you on your talk page if you had a mock-up of the prep sets for July 21, to make it easier for us prep promoters. I wasn't aware that these were not approved hooks. Sorry for jumping the gun. Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Tereshkova and Template:Did you know nominations/Félicette are the only ones that have not been approved yet. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The "SHEESH!" was more surprise about the instant response of Yoninah. Coffeeandcrumbs I was one of the early cheerleaders of your above proposal. Go-team-go and all of that kind of cheers. I do believe, given the July focus on space at DYK, that Tereshkova should receive as much consideration for lead hook as all the birthday/special occasion hooks in this project's history. As for the hook, I hadn't even been considering one. I would like to agree with Yoninah on those particular sentiments, in the fact that I have long dismayed at a lot of women's hooks that rely on "the first" or "the youngest" or whatever ... and totally missing a remarkable hook about an achievement. That said, since I'm doing the GA review, I don't think I should be involved much in the DYK nomination. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I will suggest a different hook at the appropriate time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah Just catching up on all this. For clarification, I wanted to reply to your above comment that the image you were looking at was , "I wouldn't say it's lead image worthy." I missed that comment, but it might be moot since Coffeeandcrumbs said what you were looking at was only a mock up. It looks like that image was taken about 6 months before her flight, which I'm guessing is why Coffeeandcrumbs used it for the mockup. The image I was referring to is the 2017 color image in the infobox. It never clicked in my head to match an image with the date of her flight. But that infobox image is nice for its color and digital detail. That was all - we were looking at different images. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Maile, no, I was looking at the hook, which as you've pointed out was also a mock-up. I did think the b/w image was poor; glad it's being replaced. Yoninah (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 10. Right now we have a total of 362 nominations, of which 175 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those from April.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

July 26 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Lloyd Pollock with a special occasion request for July 26. I hope three weeks in advance is sufficient notice. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Second opinion requested. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook Portal in Prep 1 (next up)

  • ... that a five-star Amazon review of Facebook Portal by a writer who claimed not to be a big Facebook user before buying the device was traced to a Facebook employee?

I'm concerned that this might fall foul of concentrating on negative aspects of a living person, even though that person is not named, and would like a second opinion. Pinging @Kingsif, Yoninah, and Newslinger:.

I had written a note about this a couple of days ago and deleted it unposted because I thought I was being overly sensitive, but a current hook for Eddie Gallagher was pulled today by Ritchie333 for a more serious violation of the same rule, so I thought I'd run it past people. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who tweaked the hook wording. It makes the company look bad, not the employee. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I could replace "including a head of supply chain and strategic sourcing who claimed" with "including one who claimed" in Facebook Portal § Amazon reviews, if this would help redirect attention from the employee to the company. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Needs more commas. Also, some of the hook is too close paraphrasing of a quote there in,the article "historically not been a big Facebook or other social media user" before purchasing the Portal" . So, I guess either include the quotes or adjust the phrasing? — Maile (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
​Where should the commas be placed? I would prefer to have "big Facebook user" in quotes, but the review doesn't use the words in that order. The correct quote would be "big Facebook [...] user", which is precise but unwieldy. — Newslinger talk 22:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I note that the original review reads, "I have historically not been a big Facebook or other social media user, but I took a chance of and got 4 Portals and 1 Portal plus for the family just before Thanksgiving." The hook would not be a close paraphrasing of the source text. It should be okay to closely paraphrase the Wikipedia article, as it is permissively licensed. — Newslinger talk 22:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Does "... that a five-star Amazon review of Facebook Portal by a writer, who claimed not to be a big Facebook user before buying the device, was traced to a Facebook employee?" address the lack of commas? — Newslinger talk 22:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes ... commas fine like that. I wonder if it would work if you just put "big Facebook" in the quotes? That would break it up enough, perhaps. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it would look like this:

... that a five-star Amazon review of Facebook Portal by a writer, who claimed not to be a "big Facebook" user before buying the device, was traced to a Facebook employee?

I'm just a little concerned that "big Facebook" in quotes resembles the phrase "Big Tech" too closely, which gives a different meaning. Perhaps "big" Facebook user would work as an alternative? — Newslinger talk 22:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that would work. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made the punctuation adjustments to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 in Special:Diff/904840513. — Newslinger talk 22:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: -- That's an improvement, yes, and the quotation marks address Maile's concerns. It doesn't look as if Ritchie is online at present, so I guess we'll have to see what they think tomorrow chez Errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Espresso Addict and Maile66! — Newslinger talk 23:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
So, Espresso Addict are we leaving the hook in this Prep, so we can promote the hook to the next Queue? — Maile (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I'm cool with that, as the individual Facebook employee is now not identifiable from the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Golden goal - prep 3

I can't see anywhere in the provided source where it states that this was the first to be won with a golden goal. It does say it was the last time it was ever won with a golden goal, though it is unclear whether this refers to only the women's final or to world cup soccer in general.

Pinging the nominator SounderBruce and the reviewer Hawkeye7. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No men or women's World Cup final other than the one above was won with a golden goal (and it was phased out after this, if I remember rightly.) I'll see if I can come up with some sourcing. European finals, yes, not world cups. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
As time is running out for promotion to the main page, and the nominator seemed to want this to run on July 7, I suggest this alt:
Thanks, Yoninah, I have tweaked the hook according to your suggestion and promoted the set. It's disappointing that we didn't hear back from the nominator or reviewer, but I think the substitute hook is viable. Gatoclass (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: yes it is, and your wording is more succinct. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I changed the hook before seeing your response and have since updated it with your suggested wording as I think it's better. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: "Golden goal" is less a play and more of a rule; therefore I think the hook should read "... that Germany defeated Sweden in the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final (pictured), which was the last to be won with a golden goal?" to avoid confusion. SounderBruce 23:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, I think "play" is a perfectly valid description and the fact that the golden goal was eliminated from the competition is an important fact to be included, because stating that it was "the last" implies merely that it's just an accident that there hasn't been one since. Yoninah's hook is more informative IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @Gatoclass: maybe go back to your original tweak:
The main issue is that the golden goal is a rule, not a play (which describes a tactical move). The ability to score goals in extra time was not removed, but rather whether or not the first goal in extra time would end the match (hence a rule). SounderBruce 00:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, on reflection I think you have a valid point. I've changed the last phrase to "the last time this method of deciding the final was permitted". Gatoclass (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It can be shortened further to "the last time it was permitted", though I still prefer "last time it was used". SounderBruce 00:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed "permitted" to "approved". I'm still not 100% happy with the hook, but I still disagree with your suggestion that "last time it was used" would be sufficient. This is what happens when people nominate and approve unsourced hooks. Normally I would have pulled this one for further discussion, but since it was date sensitive, I couldn't do that. Anyway, I think the existing hook is at least acceptable now. Gatoclass (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this interesting? Without further information, it might be any competition, in a local school for example. IMO a better hook is required.

Pinging the nominator, Gerda Arendt. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I found it interesting, because normally church music has a serving function in church, while this is so demanding that ... - actually I found it interesting regardless of which kind of competition, and certainly would not want to promote a specific competition. What I left out for brevity's sake: in the highest category. Anyway, how is this:
ALT1: ... that the Missa brevis by Knut Nystedt for choir a cappella is one of his around 300 choral compositions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
That's better, thank you Gerda. Now we are just waiting on a resolution of the football hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Album

@AppleWormBoy: @Hawkeye7: @Cwmhiraeth:
Oh please. Wikipedia is not a fan magazine. And for international readers who don't know who Winehouse or Ronson are, the hook is meaningless. The hook also avoids talking about the bolded subject itself. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
And they passed over the hook that the album won a Grammy award. How about this: — Maile (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I actually kinda like the first hook better in this case. ALT2 seems even more niche or the "doesn't make sense unless you know these names" type of hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So maybe I should tweak the ALT1 a little bit. How about this: ALT1: ... that when Amy Winehouse first met Mark Ronson, a co-producer for her second and final album Back to Black, she initially expected to see an older sound engineer? -AppleWormBoy (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@AppleWormBoy: please talk about the album in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: You mean the album material itself or the things surrounding it? -AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@AppleWormBoy: anything hooky that can be said about the album itself. Tracks, production, critical reception. But not that the artist thought the producer had a beard. Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Then you can convince Gatoclass to use Maile's suggestion. It seems very informative to me. -AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@AppleWormBoy: Here's ALT3, as another option. Your choice, of course. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that Back to Black, the final studio album by Amy Winehouse, topped the European Top 100 Albums chart for 13 non-consecutive weeks?
ALT3 looks a lot better, in my opinion. I'll definitely prefer that over ALT1 now. -AppleWormBoy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 is not tagged with {{DYKbotdo}}

I think the queue 5 is not tagged with {{DYKbotdo}} 14.232.160.139 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass has temporarily removed it. Looks like he intends to do a final review of the hooks before putting the DYKbotdo back. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct Maile. I moved a couple of unreviewed sets into the queue because Yoninah asked for more space in prep. I've since reviewed one of those sets, and intend to review the other tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hypericum olympicum

In Queue 5: ... that while Hypericum olympicum (pictured) has antidepressant, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties, it is currently cultivated only as an ornamental plant?

The article says it's "not widely used as an antidepressant", which implies that it is sometimes used as such. I don't think it's accurate to say it's cultivated only as an ornamental. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: @Enwebb: @Mandarax: the article doesn't specifically use that wording. I like the ALT2 that was struck during the review process, but does adhere to the article: — Maile (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT2:... that Hypericum olympicum (pictured) was awarded the Award of Garden Merit despite being toxic to dogs, cats, and horses?
I am personally fine with either of the two, whichever is more fitting for DYK should be used and that isn't my call to make. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT2's okay with me, more or less. I don't want to be too nitpicky, but the "despite" seems to indicate that the award might not normally be given to toxic plants. That's not among the criteria listed on the award's page. How about tweaking it:
ALT2M: ... that Mount Olympus St. John's wort (pictured), an Award of Garden Merit winner, is toxic to dogs, cats, and horses?
This also avoids "awarded the Award". (Piping of the name optional, but I prefer it). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RFU Championship - queue 5

The source provided for this hook only states that the plans to abolish promotion and relegation are under discussion, not that they've already been blocked.

Pinging the nominator The C of E and the reviewer Icewhiz. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • As far as I remember, there were plans to scrap promotion and relegation, and Pirates did suggest they would take legal action if that happened [2], but it was never proceeded with - indeed the current idea is that the division is expanded to 13 teams with a play-off system to decide promtion/relegation instead of the current automatic system [3] but that won't take place until next season now anyway. The RFU did reject a plan to expand the lague to 13 sides this year [4], but I can't see that the RFU ever actually blocked a concrete proposal to scrap promotion and relegation. This says that the clubs abandoned the idea after the RFU vetoed a similar idea for the women's league. I certainly can't find anything that said the RFU were influenced by the Pirates' threat of legal action - unless there's a source that says that, the hook is synthesis. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Black Kite, on the strength of that it looks as if we will be needing a new hook. I'll give the nominator some time to propose a new hook as it will save me the trouble of having to pull the nomination and replace it with something else, unless somebody else can come up with a suitable alt hook in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes - this is a problem. The cited source covers - "The RFU has already rejected a plan from hawkish elements of the professional game board, which represents the Premiership clubs, RFU and players’ union, to immediately expand the league for the start of next season, which would have saved Newcastle from relegation from the top flight this season." - what was blocked was a proposal that would've eliminated the relegation from the prior season (retroactive). Future plans (2019-20 and beyond) were still in discussion. Sources subsequent to the nomination - e.g. [5] - state that that in September 13 2019 a proposal will be discussed to end increase the premiership from 12 to 13 (which means there will still be promotion in 2019-20 - possible plans to nix that may have been nixed), with a subsequent move to a playoff system. There are a multitude of sources discussing possible legal action - however I don't see a tie-in to the decision or postponing of it. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The article subject is quite niche and is dry of interesting details that may appeal to non-rugby fans. Right now the only thing I can think of is this:
ALT ... that the 2019–20 RFU Championship is planned to have a delayed start due to the 2019 Rugby World Cup?
I have to admit that this seems rather pedestrian, but I can't see any other options. If this won't work out, pulling is the only other option at this point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Source - same one.[6]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks viable, albeit a tad parochial. I think I will wait a few hours to see if anyone can come up with something better, otherwise we can run this one. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If the hook is as you say "parochial" (meaning it has a limited audience), then it probably fails the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Newcastle Falcons will play in the 2019–20 RFU Championship after a plan that would've saved them from premiership relegation was rejected by the RFU?
Same factoid, a tad more conspiratorial spin, a bit more hooky. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Check both sources. One covers the plans being shelved, the other covers the threat of legal action. I'm going on holiday soon so I don't really have time for this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Or if needs be, just a simple reword: ... that plans to abolish promotion and relegation in the 2019–20 RFU Championship were blocked by the Rugby Football Union which also had threat of legal action if it was proceeded with?. (also no need to link P&R as the majority already know of these concepts). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not in the source. They blocked the immediate expansion of the premiership (which would've cancelled the 2018-9 relegation) - but they're still discussing changes to P&R - see this source - up for a vote on Sep 13. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It is that the plans were blocked and there was also a threat of legal action if they proceeded. They are separate issues which I have combined in the hook, hopefully by the reword to clarify. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point - it was the plan to expand the league to 13 teams that was blocked by the RFU (which would have saved the relegated team, but promotion would still have taken place), not the plan to scrap promotion and relegation completely, which the RFU don't appear to have addressed at all (yet). And the threat of legal action was against the latter proposal, not the former. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have substituted ALT2 as the best of the proposed alts, as a rejection of a plan to expand the premiership league is more interesting than the fate of one given team. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It has an extra comma in the end. 14.232.160.139 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't see an extra comma anywhere, but I did remove some whitespace. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How about a tweak to ALT2 (ALT4) " ... that Newcastle Falcons will play in the 2019–20 RFU Championship after the RFU rejected a plan to expand Premiership Rugby, thus saving them from relegation?"

A bit too complicated IMO (and it's incorrect anyway, presumably you meant to say they were relegated because the league wasn't expanded, not saved from relegation). The existing hook is nice and concise. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I changed it from "will play in" to "were relegated to play in". Thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, do you want to add a link to the word "relegated", piping it to Promotion and relegation? I did that in the original hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, the hook starts looking very busy with five links. Maybe it's better as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm against it. Promotion and relegation are common themes that the majority of the world is familiar with so I do not want to see that linked please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't need that. The vast majority of people are familiar with the concept (and not only from sport). Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: Max Blue line

... that Portland's MAX Blue Line (train pictured) was built as a result of freeway revolts in the 1970s?

Truflip99 SJ Morg Shuipzv3 Yoninah

I'm not seeing a sentence w/citation in the article that uses/supports "freeway revolts"? The source listed in the nom doesn't use this term, and neither of the sentences it is used as a citation for do either. The lead uses this term, but then it isn't used again. Nom link --valereee (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The relevant sentence and source is under Early freeway proposals, in this sentence: Amid mounting anti-freeway sentiment and further delays to the project, the Portland City Council voted 4-to-1 to abandon the plan in July 1974. I linked "anti-freeway sentiment" to Highway revolts in the United States. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If you require the actual phrase "freeway revolt", which should honestly be deduced from the words "opposition", "anti-freeway", etc. then here is another source: [7]: 18  --Truflip99 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Truflip99, I'm sorry, I know it feels nitpicky. The main page gets a lot of scrutiny, and I'm trying to make sure it doesn't get called an error. Yoninah, I added the source in at that point, thanks! --valereee (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee no I apologize, I didn't mean to sound all snappy! Happy MondayT_T --Truflip99 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Truflip99, no worries! I don't disagree with you at all! :) --valereee (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gustave A. Mueller currently in prep 1

... that Gustave A. Mueller of the Homeopathic Hospital of Pittsburgh was considered a leading specialist in the treatment of the eye, ear, nose, and throat?

The description is actually from his 1912 Pittsburg Press obit, any objection to adding that for context, changing perhaps to:

... that Gustave A. Mueller of the Homeopathic Hospital of Pittsburgh was described in his 1912 obituary as a leading specialist in the treatment of the eye, ear, nose, and throat?

Zigzig20s Skyes(BYU) Cwmhiraeth --valereee (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all! --valereee (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arab Serai in prep 2

  • ... that the Arab Serai, a 16th-century roadside inn in Delhi, may have been built to shelter 300 Arab priests who accompanied the Mughal emperor's widow on her hajj to Mecca?

The sentence within the article that supports this hook doesn't have its own citation. Is it the same as the source for the sentence that follows it in the article?

Royroydeb CAPTAIN MEDUSA Cwmhiraeth --valereee (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The source concerned is Naqvi's book. I have changed the punctuation and this should no longer be a problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't want to make an incorrect assumption --valereee (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/De novo gene birth in prep 2

There are a couple of paragraphs within this article that don't have a citation; DYK requires each paragraph to have at least one. The paras in question are the first one in the Estimates of numbers section and the final one in the Genomic phylostratigraphy section. (What I took to be the article hook sentence was its own para and didn't have a citation, but it was provided in the nom so I've added that one in.)

Jogmiez Evolution and evolvability Joannamasel Shyamal MrClog --valereee (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, sorry for missing that when promoting the article! I have no clue on the topic itself so I won't be much of help, unfortunately. --MrClog (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
MrClog, it's such a long article that I'm not sure two shortish paragraphs even matter. If one of the creators doesn't respond, I don't think it's worth pulling for. --valereee (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Cwmhiraeth since she might know something about this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! I've gone through to check and clarify. They were summaries of subsequent paragraphs so I've reused the key or most general references from the setion they were summarising. For the start of the 'Models and mechanisms' section, I reused one of the very general review references, since it's basically stating that there are lots of models, the subsections below are those models, and that they are not mutually exclusive. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There is one empty hook in prep 3 and 4

There is one empty hook in prep 3 and 4 and prep 3 will appear on main page 2 days later 2001:EE0:4141:9AB3:F57A:E2EA:91F4:2EA4 (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, we're aware of that. The preps are being promoted one at a time. We're waiting for Prep 2 to be promoted now. Yoninah (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Need someone to look at Template:Did you know nominations/Nanjing Golden Dragon Bus

Been a while now. I don't want this to be lost in the archives. Ominae (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

check my work?

So I moved prep 6 into queue 6, would someone please check my work? Not the various article and hook checks, I did those, but if someone could make sure I did the actual move correctly. In particular I'm not seeing that the image has been protected, but I'm not clear on what I did wrong. The instructions say to check that the image is protected during preview, but that didn't seem like it could be correct -- maybe I just haven't waited long enough for Krinklebot to get to it? Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It all looks good to me. You don't have to protect the image anymore because it's done automatically. And congrats on the bit! (sorry not to add my !vote, but I was busy elsewhere and forgot to get back to it. But it's not as if you needed another one :) ). Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, thanks! And no sweat re the rfa! And cool re the image! --valereee (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know you were an admin, valereee. Congratulations! With you, Gatoclass, Maile, and Amakuru, we have a very good group of DYK admins. (Apologies to anybody I forgot to mention.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK categories

Hello, DYK regulars,

I tag empty categories that appear on the Empty categories list and we've been seeing two DYK ones, Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2019 and Category:Failed DYK nominations from July 2019. It's unusual to see empty DYK categories so I wonder if you stopped using whatever system you use. The two categories are marked as tracking categories so there is no prospect of their deletion but I thought I'd inquire to see if this would become a regular thing. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: who created both of these. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In the case of the "Failed" categories, it's common for them to be empty when first created or even for a while since more DYKs pass than fail. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I just expected by July 8th that they'd have some content. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There is such a long backlog at DYK at the moment that we have probably not yet run any July nominations. When I promote hooks, I always try to promote the nominations that have been around longest and there are still plenty from May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Liz, I typically create such categories most months, when I happen to think of it, any time from a few days to a few weeks in. They're usually populated by this point in the month, but there's no predicting when the first nomination will be passed (it's usually special occasion noms that show up quite this early) or failed (which can happen quite quickly with completely ineligible noms). Sometimes the month is half over (or more) before I remember that the categories will be needed. It's nothing so regular as a "system"; at some point, someone realizes that the month categories are needed and creates them, but whether it's before or after the first passed/failed nominations for the month have been closed is pretty much random. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/J. Schmuck Block

I came by to promote this hook and raised several objections to it. Here is the hook:

I feel that the use of the term "schmuck" is stupid and probably offensive. The nominator and reviewer disagree with me. Opening this up to wider consensus. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The article for schmuck (pejorative) does say it's considered by some obscene, according to a 1968 book. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added my comments on the template. As written, it's racially offensive. This can't go on Wikipedia's main page. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Replied on the DYK page and ... I feel that the use of the term "schmuck" is stupid and probably offensive. The nominator and reviewer disagree with me. well, I wasn't aware that it was offensive, I was not "disagreeing" in any sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Image size of lead hooks

It's been a while since I nominated an article, but it seems to me that the nomination template image is automatically sized as "width=133x150". Once promoted as a lead hook, an admin usually adjusts that, either in Queue or while it's on the main page, to something more like "width=150". Should the coding be changed on the nomination template so that it automatically shows the correct size? I don't know enough about the technical details to know. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Maile, my understanding is that the best size/width value depends on the actual dimensions of the image: tall rectangles vs. short rectangles vs. squares (or near squares). Pinging David Levy, who makes the bulk of the width changes so the image is the appropriate size to match other images on the page. We've typically adjusted the nomination module in the past when image size changes are warranted; they've grown in size over time. David, are we at that point? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I set the 133x150px default width in response to the most recent size increase (from 100px to 120px). It functions as a fallback (in the event that no size is specified manually), intended to accommodate the variety of aspect ratios as reasonably as possible.
Optimal sizing usually requires case-by-case attention, which I'm happy to provide (though others are welcome to, of course).
Square images should be about 140x140px (sometimes adjusted slightly to match other images on the main page). Typically, portrait-oriented images should be 120px in width and landscape-oriented images should be 120px in height. For images with extreme aspect ratios (e.g., 2:1), this is reduced significantly. (As a rule of thumb, the greater of the two dimensions shouldn't exceed 200px.)
If I leave the default 133x150px image size unchanged, this probably means that it generates an appropriate result (and doesn't require replacement). —David Levy 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Quetzal1964, Royroydeb, and Cwmhiraeth:The hook is okay but somehow I feel that it could be better. Like perhaps additional context could be added here? Since I don't think more readers know what a moray is, which could hurt the appeal of the hook. A picture of either species would have probably made the hook a lot more appealing. One other option could be to state that Diplecogaster refers to the belly, though since that fact applies to the whole genus rather than the species, I'm not sure if it would be an acceptable alternative. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The source does not have any more information on the cleaning activity. The clingfish is tiny compared to the moray eel, but then cleaning fish normally are. You could try

POTD/Parkes Observatory and DYK/Maspalomas Station

There appears to be a conflict between the above two blurbs from different sections of the Main Page. Both seem to claim to have received the signal from Apollo 11 during the Moon landing. Pinging DYK nominator Cnbrb and the reviewer Mike Peel. Also Gronk Oz and Dmmaus who contributed the most to the Parkes Observatory article + Ravenpuff.

@Kees08 and Hawkeye7: were radio signals sent separately from the televisionvideo signals? The Apollo 11 article does not mention Maspalomas Station. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, multiple ground stations were used to receive signals transmitted from the Moon, in order to maintain a constant transmission as the Earth rotates. Parkes Observatory and Maspalomas Station are on opposite sides of the world, so it's entirely plausible that both were used to received signals from Apollo 11. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the Apollo 11 article says: "The signal was received at Goldstone in the United States, but with better fidelity by Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station near Canberra in Australia. Minutes later the feed was switched to the more sensitive Parkes radio telescope in Australia." No mention of Maspalomas Station.
The DYK hook claims that "signals broadcast from the first Moon landing in 1969 first arrived at Maspalomas Station in the Canary Islands". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the definitive answer to this, but I note that the DYK for Maspalomas mentions that it received Armstrong's words upon stepping onto the moon. This took place some 6.5 hours after the landing. This would be enough time for Goldstone/Parkes to receive the landing, and Maspalomas to come into view by the rotation of Earth ready to receive the stepping on the moon 6.5 hours later. -dmmaus (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
All my sources say that the words were received by Honeysuckle and Parkes. The story there is rich in detail. CSIRO NASA I also checked Tracking Apollo to the Moon by Hamish Lindsay [8] specifically pp. 236-237, which includes radio transcripts. There is no mention of Maspalomas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no other information than the sources that I added to the article. If they are reliable sources and then other reliable sources contradict them then I have no idea which is correct. I don't think I can add any more to this discussion. Withdraw the DYK if it's not up to standard - I just thought it might be a nice addition on the anniversary. Cnbrb (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The Maspalomas Station article says that 'Maspalomas was the first place on Earth to receive the transmission of Neil Armstrong's famous words, "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"' with several sources. So a small change to the DYK hook to clarify which signals it is talking about should do the job.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
gran-canaria-info.com is the only one source that says the station received the "one small step.." message. The other two more reliable sources (I think) say that Maspalomas was the first to make contact with the astronauts "sixteen minutes after its launch" on July 16. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to point out that there are several other sources in Spanish that claim that Maspalomas first received the 'one small step' - e.g., [9], [10]. There's an ESA page at [11] that says "For the Apollo 11 Moonlanding and first Moon walk, Maspalomas station was the real-time, 'hot' back-up for the MSFN station at Fresnedillas, Madrid." - but that just adds another contender here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, some Spanish sources do make the claim of being "the first" to receive Armstrong's transmission. I've re-checked the ESA interview with Valeriano Claros-Guerra and while he seems to support the claim, we might also infer that Maspalomas was secondary to the Madrid station: "For the Apollo 11 Moonlanding and first Moon walk, Maspalomas station was the real-time, 'hot' back-up for the MSFN station at Fresnedillas, Madrid." I've added "according to some accounts" to the article, hopefully to make it a more reliable description of events in 1969. Cnbrb (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We should refocus the hook on 16 July instead. Cabañas, Nadjejda Vicente (2009), La cuenta atrás. De la carrera espacial al turismo cósmico makes the undisputed claim that "At 16 minutes into the launch of Apollo 11, the voice of Neil Armstrong came loud and clear to Maspalomas... it is estimated that some 200 Spaniards participated in this historic mission in one way or another."
I believe the fact that Maspalomas was the first to re-establish a signal with Apollo 11, when Houston lost signal after 16 minutes into launch, has been conflated and exaggerated over the decades to get us to this point. The evidence that stations in Australia were in contact during the first steps on the Moon is overwhelming. Europressa even makes the stupid claim that the Astronauts landed on the Moon on 16 July. But the fact that Maspalomas Station was crucial during launch day (16 July) is indisputable and can be heard here. You can hear specific discussion about switching to Canary Island and the station remains in contact for several more minutes after Houston losses contact. I suggest focusing the hook on that claim. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's up to @Cnbrb:, but refocusing sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with refocusing. Cnbrb (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cnbrb, Mike Peel, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and Maile66:
  • Alt 3 "... that about sixteen minutes after the launch of Apollo 11, Maspalomas Station in the Canary Islands was the first ground station to make contact with the astronauts in Earth orbit?"
Below is a rough translation of the source:
It was time to take the flight to the Moon and the Gran Canaria station continued to play a fundamental role: it was the first to detect the entry into orbit of spacecraft and to communicate with astronauts after insertion, thus providing a "unique coverage" for the command centers of Cape Canaveral in the initial phase of the missions, when the capsule was still close to Earth. "Maspalomas, the first station in the world that comes into contact with the spacecraft", was the headline of the newspaper La Vanguardia on July 17, 1969, the day that the most famous astronauts in history were heading towards the Moon.
At 16 minutes of the launch of Apollo 11, the voice of Neil Armstrong came loud and clear to Maspalomas. The station recorded everything the astronauts talked about, recorded their heart rate and kept in touch with the crew during their journey to the Moon, remaining closed to all contact with the outside world. In coordination with the Madrid station of Robledo de Chavela, it is estimated that some 200 Spaniards participated in this historic mission in one way or another.
It would be great to have this hook run on 16 July. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If other editors agree that this is factually accurate, I am happy with this change. 09:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a little longer than I'd prefer, but looks OK to me. Can you copy this over to Template:Did you know nominations/Maspalomas Station please, for the record? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have shortened and copied into the template. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 20. Right now we have a total of 347 nominations, of which 169 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those over two months old, three of which just need hook reviews.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Erik Werba

Please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Werba. Narutolovehinata5 found the hook not "appealing", and marked for closure. He then also closed it. First question: how is that a person taught at one of the leading Academies for Classical music (Vienna) for decades not interesting - which I believe is not equal to "appealing"? Second question: should't someone else perform any closing? Third question: do we need to discuss again if "interesting" is equal to "appealing". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, at the same you were writing this, I noticed that a nom I had given an "" to had not been transcluded to WP:DYKN. (I had come across it in Category:Pending DYK nominations.) I took the extra step of adding it to the noms page where someone else will see it and close it. So, this is my long-winded way of saying that in my opinion, the answer to your second question is yes, someone other than the reviewer should do any closing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, there's nothing against the rules where someone who has marked a nomination for closure is not allowed to do the closure itself later on if circumstances permit it and in fact is not uncommon, as Yoninah can attest. Secondly, the reason I had closed the nom was becausae Gerda was unable to propose a new hook and it had been over a month since the reply, which made be believe that she had abandoned the nomination; I apologize if this was not the intent. Thirdly, the issue with the hook is that it didn't make clear what is so important with Werba in the first place. If you, as you say, that he taught at a leading academy for music, then the hook doesn't imply it at all, and this knowledge is not something that should be assumed to be known by the average reader. Had the connection been obvious or explained better, then perhaps a hook that focused on that could have worked. As it stands, the hook only makes sense to those who are familiar with the European classical music scene, especially since the hook actually not only mentioned his stint at the school, but also mentioned two other personalities who are also obscure outside of classical music circles. I would suggest that, if this is to move forward, I would suggest that for the hook, it would be a better option to just stick to the Wiener Musikakademie association and drop the mentions of Seefied and Schreier. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Mandarax. Narutolovehinata5, thank you for reopening, and we should not discuss here and at the nom, - only there, which I did. In a nutshell: no, you don't have to be familiar with classical music at all to be impressed by someone teaching whatever subject at whatever institution with an article (so somewhat notable) for more than forty years, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Mosque

@Jupitus Smart:@Chetsford:@Cwmhiraeth:
As this is the English Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate to pipe the name to "Great Mosque of Algiers", which would also identify it as a mosque (rather than a "building"), and also give its location. It might even be a good idea to move this page to Great Mosque of Algiers, in line with Great Mosque of Mecca. The conversion figures in the article and the infobox do not match in reference to the height of the roof and the top floor. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Great Mosque of Algiers is already a page referring to Djamaa el Kebir. I think hatnotes are needed on both articles. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that link for the Great Mosque of Algiers is a redirect page to Djamaa el Kebir. Perhaps the redirect could be changed into a dab. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
A dab might be in order, as the other Great Mosque has also used the original name, and using the English name may be misleading, even though this is probably the greater of the two mosques now. The roof height has been changed to be in consonance with the other references (it allures to the roof of only the mosque) with the other value being that at the apex of the tower. Jupitus Smart 02:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Djamaa el Djazaïr mosque under construction
Djamaa el Djazaïr mosque under construction
I promoted this hook and I put it in the image slot. I have asked David Levy if he could straighten the image up and crop it a bit, and I suggest we move the hook to a later image slot when one becomes available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I moved it into the image slot in the same set (Prep 5). The above issues still have to be addressed. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I made a dab page and fixed all the links to the other Great Mosque of Algiers. I'd just like to note that the image shows the mosque and minaret under construction, but the hook says it's newly constructed. We need to adjust the "(pictured)" wording and the image caption. Yoninah (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I think it's pretty obvious from the picture that the mosque isn't "the tallest building in Africa", but the minaret is. In fact, the lead and source says it's the tallest minaret in the world. I would like to suggest tweaking the hook as follows:
ALT2: ... that the new Djamaa el Djazaïr mosque (pictured) has a 265 m (869 ft)-high minaret, the tallest in the world?
Pinging @Jupitus Smart:. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay with me. The reason why I didn't harp on the minaret part was because unlike a normal minaret, this one is bigger with museums, halls and the like on different floors. Anyway I don't mind Alt2 as well Jupitus Smart 03:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What about a variation of the original hook? Something like "... that the minaret of the Djamaa el Djazaïr mosque (pictured) is the tallest building in Africa?" ALT2 is also perfectly acceptable to be, but lacks the punch of not mentioning the "tallest in Africa" part. Of course the two hooks could be combined to mention both hook facts, but that could look rather cluttered. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems good enough. I am okay with either. Jupitus Smart 01:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart: I think you have enough good information in the article to write a better hook. You could focus on the size of the building and describe some of what it contains, and/or you could mention the minaret. For a lead image, the hook should be better. Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I reached this article when I read somewhere that this was the tallest building in Africa. That was what piqued my interest to search for this article, and when I landed here, I couldn't leave without improving it. I personally feel that being the tallest building is its USP, and while we can always consider changing the specifics - like whether to include the fact the taller part is only the minaret, I would want the hook to remain true to its claim of one of the tallest structures. Jupitus Smart 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with the appropriate skills improve this image, now in Prep 5, by making the minaret vertical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-pinging @David Levy:. Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah: Apologies for the delay. I've cropped, rotated and enhanced the image. —David Levy 23:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@David Levy: I didn't think it could be done, but you did it! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange: no views

I can normally see the views for articles but not for Two Motets, Op. 74 (Brahms). Help? Explanation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, do you mean in here? I'm able to load it and can give you specific dates, if you would like. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
When I click on the link, I get a noscript warning. - Yes, please, the peak in July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I see a peak of 691 on 6 July; I have no idea why the link may not work for you, Gerda. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Gerda has NoScript on her browser, as do I (Firefox). I just got the same error message, and it's saying that there is a script that might be dangerous. Today, it was telling me that about anything on xtools.wmflabs.org. The error message gives options to block, allow one time, or allow all links to there. I've had it before, and I click to allow all. I mean ... what is the choice? — Maile (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: WNSW (Maine)

I think this hook violates gen4: hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals. It takes trivia from the deep recesses of Stephen King's life and magnifies it. I know its supposed to be funny, but I bet King won't find it funny. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Raymie: Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad. It was a business decision, and King is still in the radio station business. Would it be easier to handle if "killed off" were changed out? Raymie (t • c) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
After having read numerous books written by King, I don't believe the hook focuses negatively on King. This is a guy whose specialty is making our hair stand on end with creepy characters, a killer Saint Bernard dog, mentally unbalanced teens, or demonized automobiles. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I won't stand in the way. But how about "... that a Carpenter sold a WGUY to Sherwood who sold it to Stone?"
Because at one time there were two WGUYs. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Where did I lose you? Sherwood? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It was in the Bangor area, but not actually in Bangor. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Does ALT2 take it out of the quirky? I was a little hesitant about the hook too, but it was over twenty years ago and the source says no jobs were even lost. --valereee (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
We can swap with Prep 5: Roosevelt hook and think about it some more. There should be no U.S./BIO imbalance since both hooks are similar in type. Roosevelt is definitely dead. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, switched. --valereee (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Since Prep 5 could be promoted to queue at any time, I've pushed WNSW back further, to Prep 3. (Even if the source says no jobs were lost, the point here is that the impression is left that King did a bad thing, which is what will stay with people who see the hook but don't read the article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend against ALT2; it goes far off-topic about the radio station itself. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4 - 5-1/2 hours to main page

Casliber Rockwarbler

Hook:

  • ... that the cave-nesting rockwarbler was once known as the "hanging dick" because of its pendulous nest?

Source:1

  • "The Rockwarbler was once known as the ‘Hanging Dick’ because of its pendulous nest, which is a domed structure with an entrance at the side. "

A little too close to the source wording. I was looking at the nomination template, and the suggested alts pretty much are close paraphrasing of that one sentence. Could you come up with another, please? — Maile (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dammit I wasn't thinking - had it different in the article. Will look now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC) ok I changed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Trickster

  • ... that Agadzagadza is a trickster from Nigerian mythology who is responsible for bringing death to humankind?
@You've got Koalatee: @Gardneca: @Lee Vilenski: @MrClog:
The article has been tagged with several uncited paragraphs and statements that must be taken care of before this hits the main page. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It's been nearly 48 hours, and the nomination has been scheduled to be promoted in little more than a day. I've pulled it from prep and reopened the nomination while citation issues are being worked. The discussion can continue there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrator needed

Could an administrator promote Prep 5 to the queue so we have more time to work on the July 21 Moon landing set (Prep 5)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

France men's vs French men's?

... that Patrick Francheterre played for, coached and managed the France men's national ice hockey team, and helped cover expenses when the French Ice Hockey Federation went bankrupt?

Should this article be at French men's national ice hockey team? I don't sports, so this is something I'm not super familiar with?

Flibirigit StudiesWorld Cwmhiraeth --valereee (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it should not be French men's. The article title uses the standard naming conventions accepted at WP:HOCKEY for national teams. Flibirigit (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, I'm not sure about any particulars with hockey, but just a few days ago ITN had the United States women's national soccer team and this would seem to be the equivalent phrasing. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Okey-doke, just wanted to make sure we weren't going to have someone moving the article halfway through its appearance on the main page. :) --valereee (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5

@Gerda Arendt, SJ Morg, and Cwmhiraeth: Is it me or is this hook a bit complicated? It seems to be filled with too much information, when given the hook fact, it could probably be shortened to something more succinct. At the very least, the hook probably needs to be reworded. Alternatively, if a more succinct hook won't work, there are other possible hooks. For example:

Finally, the sentence "It was the first production by the company that had produced the world premiere in 1912" sounds off to me. How can the new production be the "first production" if the company had also produced the work's world premiere? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The hook could be stopped after "Klang", but what follows gives him more prominence: this Italian director was invited to stage a very important German opera in Germany (where good directors are abundant, and it's quite remarkable that he wasn't hired for an Italian work, - which actually happened because it was his preference). ALT2: yes but those two operas are commonplace, I'd prefer the one banned by the Nazis, as you worded for Herlischka, remember? We (project opera) don't only want to introduce him, but also a work that deserves more attention. ALT3 is unacceptable as something you could say about hundreds of stage directors, striking. Will work on the sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Also: "for his work" is unprecise if we don't say what kind of work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The "It was the first production by the company that had produced the world premiere in 1912" sentence appears to not have been resolved. Does "It was first production of the opera by the company since its world premiere in 1912" sound better, or is that inaccurate? As for the "those two operas are commonplace" statement, opera readers are unlikely to know that it is so. Finally: "We (project opera) don't only want to introduce him, but also a work that deserves more attention". There's probably a better way to accomplish both objectives while not sticking to the original hook wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know when you looked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That's strange, when I checked it was still under the old wording. In any case, the wording is clearer though could probably still be rephrased further (like changing "after" to "since"). Second opinions on the hook would also be welcome here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:@Narutolovehinata5: I have been a little under-the-weather (tired or not feeling well) this week, or else I would have commented sooner. That aforementioned edit was to an earlier sentence (the one most relevant for DYK), not to the confusingly worded sentence mentioned by Narutolovehinata5, and previously mentioned by me on the review page. I have reverted it because no source has been provided to support the claim that the 2019 production was the first production of Der ferne Klang at Oper Frankfurt since the 1912 one there. The original hook had included that claim, and I was obliged to reject it due to lack of a supporting source. It was a more interesting hook, but the nominator was unable to provide a supporting source, a DYK requirement. With regard to the confusing sentence, "It was the first production by the company that had produced the world premiere in 1912", I have removed it entirely, for now, because it remains unclear (but it is not needed to support the DYK hook facts). In my review, and then again on her talk page, I asked Gerda Arendt to clarify it, but I did not understand her response on her talk page. I intended to seek clarification again, or delete the sentence, but forgot. As to the wording of ALT1 (the hook at the top of this discussion): I do not feel that it is too long, and I accept the nominator's arguments for preferring it over the three alternatives suggested here by Narutolovehinata5. However, I am not sure that the last phrase – "where the world premiere had been performed in 1912?" – is needed to support the goals Gerda said that she and WikiProject Opera were trying to accomplish here, so maybe the hook should end after Oper Frankfurt. SJ Morg (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue with the original hook, if you remove the mention of the world premiere, is that it's basically a "director directed a play" hook, which isn't really interesting in the grand scheme of things. It would be like saying "did you know that Director A, who directed Film X, recently directed Film Y?", which isn't a hooky format at all without additional context. And the term "recently" is too vague, even if we had to go with Gerda's suggested wording. There has to be a better way to fulfill WikiProject Opera's goals while still sticking to the spirit of DYK's rules; we can't give opera-related hooks special treatment just because they have certain goals, we should treat such nominations with the same standards as any other nomination. As it stands, I don't think the original hook is going to work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I was out all day, and not sue I read this right. Why should we not mention the premiere, which adds weight to the production? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on repeat DYKs

Question: if something has previously appeared at DYK due to being a new article or 5x expansion, then is subsequently promoted to GA or FA, is it eligible for a repeat appearance? Chetsford (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Chetsford, articles may only appear on DYK once. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Got it - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There is one exception though: occasionally, a previously-run DYK hook will sometimes be used again to replace hooks that have been pulled, or if the DYK section is too short compared to the rest of the new page. It doesn't happen very often though and when it does happen, the hook that is repeated tends to be a random one (i.e. not a pre-selected one). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Waiver for The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright?

This article was created June 25, but because the World Heritage vote to list did not occur until this week, most editing (and news coverage) did not occur until this week.[12] Much of this weeks additions occur in the formation and Description prose in the list (which is not usually included in "readable prose size"). If we include this in readable prose size it perhaps meets expansion criteria (5X) but at any rate, requesting a waiver? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't have any problem with IAR on this. We're only talking about a gap of 10 days. What do others say? — Maile (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
According to the QPQ check, if you nominate the article for DYK, it would be your first DYK credit. We tend to relax the seven days requirement for DYK newcomers so I think this case can be allowed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but no, not my first DYK. The first author of the stub, perhaps, their first DYK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
That's strange, the DYKcheck tool lists no previous credits for you. With that said, while the date requirement could be ignored, the expansion requirement is somewhat more strictly implemented and is usually only relaxed in exceptional circumstances. Thus, if you still want it to run, the 5x expansion requirement needs to be met as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 What DYK check tool are you referring to? The one I use to check the date, length (etc.) of the article, does not mention the nominator's history, only the history of the nomination. On any nomination template, in the right-hand toolbox, is a QPQ check tool that tells you how many previous nominations a person has. Even with that one, I understand it's not always 100% accurate. — Maile (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I was actually using QPQ check. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. But to explain my thinking this is how the article appeared at the close of the 25th and this is how it appears after all the recent edits when the 'new' info hit this past week. That change seems to be within the 'spirit' of the rules, if not the letter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
We are really talking about granting two waivers here, for date and for length. However, it's a quality article and just the sort of new article that DYK should be displaying, so I agree that we should IAR in this case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Same, ignore the rules in this case. The article could easily meet the length and date rules formally by moving descriptions to prose, but please don't, - it looks much better as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded, and for your time, due to various circumstances, I am withdrawing this request. Thanks again Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

@Epicgenius, ComplexRational, and Cwmhiraeth: This hook sounds really niche and is honestly kinda hard to understand. Can something else be used as the hook instead? I know the reviewer stated their preference for this hook, but looking at the nomination again, ALT0 and to a lesser extent ALT1 actually sound more appealing to a broad audience. Another potential direction, which wasn't raised in the nomination, could be to mention that the tubes have a sharp curve to avoid demolishing basements (the specific quote is: This sharp curve, which follows the streets above it, was necessitated to avoid the demolition of preexisting basements during construction.). Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, sure. How about this: ... that the Uptown Hudson Tubes in New York City make sharp curves to avoid the demolition of preexisting basements during construction? epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Could be rephrased to something like "basement during its construction" or something to that effect, but it sounds better. Would like to hear ComplexRational's thoughts though since they were the original reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
When I originally suggested ALT2, I will admit that I found it interesting, and it stood out more than ALT0 and ALT1 because it seemed that many other engineering projects took several decades to complete. I can see how it may sound niche, so I will suggest a possible rephrasing, but will not object to dropping it altogether if no satisfactory wording is found. I'm also fine with ALT0 or the new hook proposed here (which I'll call ALT3) with a small correction.
ALT2a:... that two more sets of subway tunnels were later built around and below the Uptown Hudson Tubes under Sixth Avenue in New York City?
ALT3a:... that the Uptown Hudson Tubes in New York City were constructed with sharp curves to avoid the demolition of preexisting basements?
ALT3b:... that the Uptown Hudson Tubes in New York City make sharp curves to avoid the demolition of preexisting basements during their construction?
Any other suggestions or alternate phrasings are of course welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT2a is clearer but ultimately doesn't solve the nicheness issue. A new reviewer here is needed to make a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
As this set is about to be promoted to queue, I have returned this nomination to the approved page for further work on the hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The 50th anniversary of the Moon landing is almost here!

After nearly a year's wait, the special occasion hooks for July 16–24 are ready to run! There are a lot of image hooks, not all of which will run. I'd like to run the first image hook on July 16, and have returned the XIX Army Corps image hook to WP:DYKNA as it is the third in a series of WWII black and white people hooks running in the same week. This hook can be re-promoted later.

In the meantime, has a mock-up been made for the set (or two sets) for July 21? Then we promoters can start checking them. Pinging Coffeeandcrumbs for guidance here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Below is my recommended schedule for the week:
July 16
July 17
July 18
July 20
July 21 (please save these for July 21)
July 22–24
Really, I would have no qualms if you did whatever you felt best for the days outside of July 21. I recommend spreading them out. I have a special set prepared for July 21 (missing one hook). Hopefully, either Luna 2 or Valentina Tereshkova will be ready in time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs, your clear outline is much appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Luna 2 has been nominated for DYK. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: since Maspalomas Station is a definite special occasion hook for July 16, can we move Roger B. Chaffee to a different set? We have too many U.S.-based hooks in this set. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I am only seeing four in the set. Isn't the rule to avoid more than half (i.e. > 4)? I was hoping to put gap days in to avoid complaints of too many days in a row with a space theme. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but two U.S. astronaut hooks is a bit too much. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: if we have to fit in everything between July 16 and 24, I think the above schedule works. I moved Roger B. Chaffee to July 17. Slowly getting readers excited about the Moon landing anniversary. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You don't need my blessing. But if you want it, you have it, unequivocally. If I see an issue I will say something. But right now, for what it is worth, I could not be happier. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: another question. The set for July 21 seems to be focusing on all aspects of space flight, not singularly the Moon landing, which to me means that the hook selection is not written in stone for July 21. IMO the image hook for Mae Jemison really deserves main page exposure, but you have other (male) astronauts lined up for the image slot that day. Can we run Jemison a different day? Yoninah (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My original goal for the July 21 slot was to showcase other 'firsts' that occurred during the Space Race, and to try to advertise Soviet Union accomplishments (Luna 2, Zond 5, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova), that other countries were launching rockets too (Felicette), that animals were launched in tests (Felicette again), that women were involved (albeit not in great numbers due to policies at that time) (Tereshkova again). Then Collins was the lead so he had the photo at DYK, Armstrong at TFA, and Aldrin at OTD. With all that, maybe switch Jemison with Chaffee? That way she can have the lead image slot, and the July 21 day stays focused on the Space Race era. With all that wall of text, whatever happens I am happy with, feel free to make whatever choices make sense. Just wanted to write out the rationale for the articles that we expanded so our intentions were clear. Kees08 (Talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
All of the July 21st hooks are Firsts in Space: first satellite, first impactor on the moon, first docking in space, first Earthlings, first cat, first man, (I'm missing first woman), first black woman, and the photo spot (special occassion) for the man who was part of the Apollo 11 crew (first humans on the moon), who was also the first man to walk in space twice.
There is a theme that traces the history of space exploration. I know the Mae Jemison photo is nice but she will have her day on September 12 as a picture of the day. And I will get that article to FA by next year and get her on TFA. Please keep the set intact. I and @Kees08: worked hard to put that set together. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I am cool with this suggestion (or the other, really). I am mostly happy these important articles are in good shape now :). Kees08 (Talk) 17:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Michael Collins in prep 5

@Mandarax: The addition of previously is not necessary and gives the confusing impression that somehow that distinction has been lost. Collins is/was/will always be the first person to perform EVAs twice in his career. He also will forever hold the distinction of being the first person to perform EVAs twice in the same mission. See list of spacewalkers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We should also use the technical term Extravehicular activity or the very commonly used acronym EVA. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Before my edit, it said "that Michael Collins (pictured), the command module pilot for Apollo 11, was the first person to perform two spacewalks in an earlier mission?" That sounds like it's saying that someone else may have done two during that particular mission, but he was the first. I changed it to make it clear that he was the first to do it in any single mission. It seemed that "earlier" was there to make the distinction that this didn't happen during Apollo 11, which is why I added "previously", since "earlier" was no longer there. But you're right that "previously" isn't necessary, so I've removed it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"EVA", even if linked, is far less comprehensible to the average reader than "spacewalk". Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah and Mandarax, if you will permit me to nitpick some more considering I maybe one of those blamed for any errors. To avoid late complaints about the Collin's first EVA being a "standup" EVA ... ("A "Stand-up" EVA (SEVA) is when an astronaut does not fully leave a spacecraft, but is completely reliant on the spacesuit for environmental support.") ... I suggest changing spacewalk to extravehicular activity. After thinking about the wording some more I suggest the following:
That is only 187 characters. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: but it is too wordy. If we're going to have 9 hooks and not leave out David Scott, the hooks have to be short and punchy. ALT1a is not. Please come up with one short, pithy, immediately understandable hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nozomi Nishida

As the subject's birthday is coming up, I hope it's okay if I ask that a second review of the hooks proposed in the nomination be done as soon as possible. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Giving this another ping since July 22 is coming close. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Re|Zanhe} are you by any chance active, and available to give a second review of the hooks? — Maile (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Wait, never mind. Completely forgot that Gerda already approved this a few days ago. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I moved the hook to the Special Occasions holding area for July 22. We'll have to move one of the current person hooks out of Prep 6 to make room for it, and will do so after another prep set opens up. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Help needed

Editors are needed to promote these hooks to their reserved slots in Prep 5 (I reviewed them):

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note.... All five hooks currently in Prep 5 are "first"s. So are the above four. This will be the first time we've ever had nine hooks, each about the first of something. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the point. Also, this is the first time we've had 9 (or 8, depending on how long the set turns out to be) hooks all credited to the same nominator. Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. I thought it was appropriate, to commemorate a historic first, but I somehow wasn't sure if it was intentional. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at the Main Page for the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing. The 3 pictures in FA, DYK, and ITN jump out at you and leave no room for doubt as to what day this is. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I was well aware of the commemorations, but, urggh, I hadn't seen how the Main Page would appear. I imagine that using three nearly identical photos was by design to, as you say, "jump out at you", but in my opinion it was a poor design choice. Oh, well. I guess that's just me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's nice, and POTD is Apollo relayed too that day. Although, looking at that link, Megan Rapinoe is a bit incongruous there in her white football shirt. At first glance one might think she was the fourth astronaut on Apollo 11. 😏 Chances are that she'll be replaced as ITN pic by then, it would be fantastic of something space relayed could be slotted in then too...  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Spektr-RG has a chance but it won't hold for 5 days. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Mae Jemison was my review, so you could promote that one if you wanted. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5

Digital media use and mental health has been pulled for further information.

@Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: I have pulled this for further review. @Farang Rak Tham: did both the GA review and the DYK review. Additionally, Farang Rak Tham is listed as one of the editors, along with nominiator @E.3:. Farang Rak Tham has a note on the nomination template that they didn't actually do the editing, but the article statics page shows Farang Rak Tham made 46 edits. I leave the decision here for other eyes. If I erred in pulling this nomination, then put it back in. But at the least, I don't believe the GA reviewer should be the same as the DYK reviewer. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), it's either not allowed or it's strongly discouraged that GA reviewers also review the DYK; they are however allowed to nominate the new GA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, and I will keep this in mind, though I'd appreciate a link to the policy or guideline concerned. Regardless, Yoninah has already approved of the alt4 hook, after I asked him for help, so this seems to me an abundance of caution.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham - Supplementary guidelines-Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles "H2: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). DYK novices are strongly discouraged from confirming articles that are subject to active arbitration remedies, as are editors active in those areas. Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor." — Maile (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My apologies to everyone that this was a last-minute pull. As you can see by the timeline, it was 7 minutes away from being on the main page. I have referenced the policy directly above this, which I just found this morning. I seriously wish we had all our rules and policies condensed on one page. Farang Rak Tham it may well be that a neutral reviewer may pass this nomination with no issues. But we have numerous admins out there in different time zones who may have pulled this off the main page, with little more than a couple of words in the edit summary of the pull. I would prefer nothing gets pulled while on the main page, and caught this in a last-minute spot check. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Historical Dictionaries series prep 1

The source for the hook assertion links to 'requested page could not be found', and I couldn't find it at wayback. Can anyone recreate or find that statement somewhere else?

Whispyhistory HickoryOughtShirt?4 97198 --valereee (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Philafrenzy --valereee (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Annoying, looks like they have revamped their website and deleted the old pages. Only the recent newsletters are still there. We can just AGF like a print source. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I see the archived urls such as "Archived 2016-06-02 at the Wayback Machine" but shouldn't they go after the existing reference not in the middle, and without the ambiguous dates (6 Feb or 2 June)? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, philafrenzy, moved to queue. The archived urls get inserted by IABot, are you saying you think it's glitching? --valereee (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how it is supposed to work but where we had:
Historical Dictionary of Japanese Cinema, Review by Roger Macy, The Japan Society. Retrieved 12 June 2019.
We now have:
Historical Dictionary of Japanese Cinema, Review by Roger Macy Archived 2017-11-12 at the Wayback Machine, The Japan Society. Retrieved 12 June 2019.
which seems confusing to me. If I had done it manually I would simply have put this (Archived here) at the end of the original ref. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sol-20

I'm trying to recall what happened to the nom for Sol-20. I recall posting this some time ago, but looking back now it appears it never made it. Can I re-post it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sol-20. In case you don't remember, you withdrew the nomination after you had declined to provide references for some statements that were not sourced, an issue that was brought up in the original discussion. As for renomination, unfortunately as that was way back in August, the nomination can't be reopened. If you wish to renominate the article for DYK, you either need to expand the article content 5x, or to bring the article to GA status, after which the article would again be eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahhh yes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Vice-Chancellor

@Royroydeb: @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:
How is this hooky? Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, the lead and infobox give the date of his death as 3 Jun, but in the "Dehradun" section it's 3 May. This discrepancy should be fixed before it hits the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There were other hooks proposed, one included a variation of the promoted hook but with additional context, and another discussing Tagore's resignation following a controversial relationship. It appears that the promoted hook (i.e. ALT0) was approved by Gerda due to it being RRD's preference, despite concerns about hookiness raised by other editors. ALT2 remains available as long as a quick policy check is done, or as Gerda had suggested at some point in the discussion, some form of ALT1 could be used instead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT2 is certainly better: ... that*[[Writers Theatre?
However, the part about his father being the founder isn't sourced in the article. ALT1 cannot be used due to BLP issues. If the nominator doesn't respond soon to the issues mentioned in this thread, I'm moving it back to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
His father is a famous poet (I was hooked because I recognized the name). So, perhaps . . . that Rathindranath Tagore, vice-chancellor of the Visva-Bharati University, was was the son of the famous poet Rabindranath Tagore.
Thanks for the suggestion, but as notability is not inherited, the hook should be focusing on the subject himself. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Just as a clarification, Rathindranath died in 1961 so I don't think BLP applies in this case, so ALT1 could still be used. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
"I was hooked because I recognzed the name", you say, - same for me. If the name alone is "hooky" why add anything? Those who don't recognize the name will possibly not enjoy the article anyway. The whole thing was discussed in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Concerns have been raised that simply using the name "Tagore" is simply not enough to make it an interesting hook. Personally I disagree with Yoninah and think that there's nothing wrong with the proposed hook that mentions Rabindranath, but let consensus decide. And right now, consensus appears to be that the original hook is a no go. Gerda, hooks are intended to be interesting to a broad audience, and not just to niches. They need to have appeal, especially to those who "cannot recognize names". "Those who don't recognize the name will possibly not enjoy the article anyway" is simply not the right attitude to express when working on DYK. If anything, it should the opposite: ensure that even normally uninterested readers could find value in whatever they see on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Should I thank you for another lesson, and this time about the "right attitude"? I approved the hook because I didn't like speaking about an affair, nor saying that he had a famous relative. I am out of this nom, did my part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: you did the right thing to reject the unsuitable hooks. But what you and other DYK'ers are reluctant to do is reject a nomination if a suitable hook can't be found. People here seem to bend over backwards to get every hook on the main page, even if it's boring. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Notability? That makes no sense. If the subject is not notable, there is no article. The issue is interest, which you just argued (some) notable subjects are not 'interesting', I guess to you. The hook I proposed is about the subject but a subject having a famous Nobel prize winning father is a 'damn' interesting thing about a person. But another, '. . .that Illinois State University agronomist, Rathindranath Tagore, vice-chancellor of the Visva-Bharati University, took the job at the urging of his famous father? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Your new hook proposal is fine, but I kinda don't think the ISU mention is necessary, makes it look a bit too cluttered. Maybe instead something like (I put "agronomist" in brackets since I'm not sure if the hook should mention it or not):
... that [agronomist] Rathindranath Tagore, who was the first vice-chancellor of Visva-Bharati University, took the job at the urging of his famous father?
The problem is that "his famous father" might be considered synthesis since you'd need a sourced statement in the article saying that Rabindranath is famous. So while this has potential, a reword may need to be in order anyway. One solution could be to replace "famous" with "Nobel Prize-winning", but I'm not sure if there would be consensus for that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I've returned the hook to WP:DYKN so a better hook can be worked out. Please add further comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Rathindranath Tagore. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IAR? Question re planned event July 21 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing

Can an article never before featured on DYK and was recently promoted to FA qualify for DYK nomination? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the rationale for their exclusion is that FAs get their turn in the sun via TFA. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that expressly forbids featured articles from being run on DYK, but practically speaking, it would likely be too late to nominate an article for DYK after it was promoted to FA quality. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@feminist, I believe what C&C is asking is whether something promoted direct to FA—i.e., skipping the intermediate GA stage—can still qualify under "newly promoted good article". I'd be inclined to say "no", but I don't believe there's ever been a formal policy written on the matter; it's not something likely to come up very often as few of the people writing at FA level have any interest in DYK. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger B. Chaffee. I have it penciled inTFA is penciled in for February 15, 2020. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the Main Page history and early history, it appears that Chaffee has never appeared in bold anywhere on the Main Page before. It has appeared twice at OTD on 2017 January 27 and 2014 January 27 but was not in bold.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs The GA inclusion dates to Good Article RfC-July 2013. The push for this to happen, was because FA and DYK had their own main page section, but GA had been ignored in that regard. So, just getting something to pass FA, a formidable achievement in and of itself, is not a qualification for DYK. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To qualify this a little more, the intent of this is for a special occasion. WP:S2019 is a planned event (discussed a little on DYK last year) to fill the front page with space related articles for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (July 21 2019). At one point I was going to try to run Apollo 11, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin all at TFA, but it seemed like giving them their own day at TFA was a better idea. My alternate plan is to have Armstrong run at TFA, Aldrin at TFP, Collins at DYK, and Apollo 11 at OTD. Unfortunately, I thought of this after Collins was promoted to GA (and A in MILHIST). He will be running through FAC shortly and should be promoted in time, so we are hoping for an exception for him so he will not be left off the main page when Aldrin and Armstrong are on it. THe other issue is shear number of DYKs; I have been working really hard to get eight Space Race firsts promoted to DYK before the anniversary, but we are trying to have a couple of backup contingency DYKs in case we do not finish in time. Chaffee is one of those. So the second thing I would ask for a concession on is for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if I do not finish the other articles in time. If the other articles are finished in time, we just never run Chaffee at DYK and that is fine with me. To summarize, the two things I am hoping for:
  • Concession for Collins to run at DYK on July 21, 2019
  • Provisional concession for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if we do not have the other articles ready
Sorry if that is a bit rambly, I was about to head out of the house. Let me know what you all think. Kees08 (Talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's the question, the answer is a clear "no", WP:IAR notwithstanding. feminist (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: Why? It's a clear IAR. It's an important anniversary. I'm all for it. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, brainfart. feminist (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the collaborative esprit de corps is best fostered by addressing other editors as "brainfart". EEng 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
EEng: My interpretation of Feminist's comment (accompanied by a relevant strike-through) is "Sorry, [I experienced a] brainfart." —David Levy 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, it's me -- remember? Think. THINK. Review my user page if necessary. EEng 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your bon mot seems to have been perceived as bon not. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tough crowd. EEng 02:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It had me cracking up.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, brainfart.[FBDB] EEng 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08 why don't you all write this up as an RFC subsection here. Is this a basic request to IAR and make this the lead hook for July 21, 2019? Do you want other editors to aim for a full 8-hook Moon Landing set specifically on that date? Clarify what you want, then people can Support or Oppose, and otherwise offer comments. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think a full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years, would be great, and fully justified. EEng 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you be able to formulate the RfC? Rationale for Collins could also include that I got him to GA recently (ish), but thought he would be run at TFA so did not bother with DYK. EEng, the plan was for one day of hooks that had spaceflight firsts (first earthlings around the Moon, first payload to impact the Moon, etc (try to make it not all about America and diversify it, there is even a French article!)). If we could miraculously get even more DYKs ready in time, we could maybe do a couple a day during the eight-day mission. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin are all now FA, and can be run during the anniversary. I've renominated Michael Collins for FAC. What we need now is some intrepid reviewers to go up there and do their thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have never created an RfC unless you count the one or two move discussions have started. I would hate to inadvertently sabotage it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC Ignore All Rules for 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing

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.

NOTE: The lunar module landed on the moon July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first walked on the moon the next day, July 21 02:56:15 UTC.


Currently the DYK nominiation policy is: Within 7 days of nomination - newly created, or 5X expanded (2X for unsourced biographies), or achieves GA status

Proposed by Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08: Ignore all rules policy in effect to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the July 21, 1969 Moon walk.

Second idea from EEng: A full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years

New articles could be created. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of existing articles and their status:

  • Apollo 1 - GA June 6, 2016 - the first crewed mission of the Apollo program for the moon landing. All died in the January 27, 1967 launch rehearsal
Roger B. Chaffee - FA on March 9, 2019, currently a DYK nomination
Gus Grissom - GA on June 1 2017
Ed White (astronaut) - C-class article
  • Apollo 11 - FA January 13, 2019, numerous main page appearances in OTD
Neil Armstrong - FA - nominated for TFA by Hawkeye7
Buzz Aldrin - FA
Michael Collins (astronaut) -currently FAC Michael Collins (astronaut) needs reviewers

Support/Oppose/Comments

  • Support - We have an opportunity for a once-in-our-lifetime commemoration of the event. Today's Feature Article, whatever they select, will be only one article. POTD (Picture of the Day) has scheduled Buzz Aldrin's bootprint. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A great idea - 2 hooks a set for the entire 8-day mission. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to support a) relaxing the nomination time limit, allowing an article (or multiple) that has passed GA but wasn't nominated at the time to be nominated for DYK, and b) the construction of a special occasion set. It's a little unclear whether the list of proposed articles above includes things that have previously been featured in bold on the main page; I would not support running those at DYK, because that's a dangerous precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds like a good plan, and will calm my nervousness about the fact that the POTD is set to be similar to the TFA. If DYK joins the party too then there's safety in numbers. Of course, the Americans will be celebrating this event on July 20, due to their inconsiderate decision to position themselves in the western hemisphere, in a negative timezone... But WP operates on UTC and the articles all quote figures thus so it seems a resasonable choice to do it on that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, actually, on the time zone issue. I've added the UTC figures above, from what is listed in the Apollo 11 article. Moon Landing was July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, followed 19 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Yoninah has mentioned above a 2-hook set each day for 8 days of the mission, which might even be a better idea taking into consideration that Wikipedia is global. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but I have some concerns that this may lead to some kind of double standard: i.e. why do this only for Apollo 11 but not for other similar milestones? This would be a support if this proposal could leave open to the possibility of similar projects being done in the future instead of being a one-off. I also share Vanamonde's sentiment that the DYK stuff should probably be limited to GAs and not articles that don't meet the 5x expanded requirement. Another possibility of course could be a DYK drive for making more new space-related articles for that date, but I guess that's a topic for another time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Conditional support Sure let's relax the rules upon occasion. It should only be done so in the way that Vanamonde proposes and only for events that are of substantial global historical importance. We should not do it for some countries centennial/bicentennial for instance. If this rule had been in effect some of the WWI anniversaries might have thus qualified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support relaxed rules, but keep in mind hat there will probably only few pictured hooks, so if you want something pictured, consider an earlier request. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the current proposed July 21 DYK list is: Michael Collins (lead article), Sputnik 1, Luna 2, Félicette, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Alexei Leonov (Maspalomas Station will replace one of them, TBD). I plan to have them all at the GA level at a minimum. If we decide to do 2/day for the other days of the mission, we can select from existing spaceflight articles that are GA and above, if not enough new GAs are generated. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support being able to run occasional events like this, for exceptional historic events of indisputable global significance. I expect this topic will be well received by readers and draw positive attention. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial support: This is big enough that I'm willing to bend the rules for July 21, though I agree with Vanamonde that articles that have previously been featured on the main page in a bold link should prevent them from running again at DYK. I do, however, oppose the idea that we should mine long-standing GAs if we decide to include hooks during the rest of the mission, as proposed by Kees08 just above: if we have the hooks available through regular processes, then we can include one or (at most) two on those days, but only those articles that are new, newly expanded, or new GAs between now and then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, would you be opposed to Collins appearing in DYK on July 21 if he has not appeared in bold before (pretty sure he has not)? Kees08 (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Collins talk page has no listing of previous DYK, ITN, or OTD appearances, so I have no reason to oppose there; if someone were to find one, I'd still allow it because it wasn't recorded at the time. The exception being allowed here is that the article was not nominated back in October when it became a GA, so it will be a very late GA nomination. (Get it nominated and approved before it loses GA status and its DYK qualification, which happens if the current FAC succeeds...) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be near unanimous support to invoke IAR (including myself) in this very special case. I don't see the need to rely on a technicality when the GA-basis would also require IAR to ignore the late nomination. I can nominate it today; I just did not want to preempt the conclusion of this RfC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the "very special case", the next time we would possibly apply such an exception will be in 2025 (the 80th anniversary of end of WWII).--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, @Hawkeye7:, @Coffeeandcrumbs: I want to make sure I understand your meaning above, BlueMoonset. Are you saying that if we nominate Michael Collins now, based on its Oct 2018 GA review, you feel we could IAR for the special occasion? But if we don't nominate it now, and it passes FAC, then the GA qualification is nullified and it would not be eligible for IAR? But if we do nominate it now and get the review passed before FA, the FA rating won't affect it? If all you are talking about is to hurry up and nominate it here, and get it approved, then we should run up a nomination template for it. Hawkeye7 or Coffeeamdcrumbs, if you will open the nomination template, I will review it. Or I would be willing to nominate it myself. A DYK hook is never a set-in-granite situation, and we could make changes later on the hook. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 26 March 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.

TRM discussion at ARCA

Editors of the DYK project, including regulars, are invited to join the ongoing ARCA discussion on TRM at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: The Rambling Man. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert E. Lee on Traveller

@Valereee and Maile66: The image for the Robert E. Lee on Traveller hook looks very unclear at thumbnail size, so I did not use it when promoting this hook to Prep 6. I anticipate that others may think differently, but the main reason I am posting here is because I can't archive the template properly, it only archives down to the second image and I can't see why. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I think it had something to do with the bare "main page image" template down where the archiving stopped. I've put it inside a div tag, like the one earlier, and that seemed to do the trick when I tested it out. Please try substituting the template now, and see whether it works for you. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That seems to have solved the problem, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks, I was hoping the second image would show it well enough. Statues are always hard when they're against a dark background. --valereee (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 is very short

It's looking like it'll be six empty lines. I've never been all that allergic to having a bit of blank space at the end of DYK, but I know that's something a lot of folks prefer we avoid, and this queue does have a lot. Should we add another hook or even two? --valereee (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's only three lines short on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Some issues

- I have pulled the above hook from Queue 1 as another user has identified that the hook appears to be erroneous, namely, it says that the mine was of a "previously unknown type" and that this is why the subject received the George Cross, when in fact it appears from the sources that the mine was a known type and the subject received his award for disarming the mines in very difficult conditions. Pinging the nominator Peacemaker67 and the reviewer Hawkeye7. Gatoclass (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, however I think "very difficult" is a bit mild, "unusually hazardous" perhaps? Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No doubt, Gatoclass. I'd be happy with "unusually hazardous". Not sure of the process from here, am pretty new to the DYK game and haven't had one hit a hurdle once it had been promoted before. Any suggestions? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
No great mystery about "the process from here" Peacemaker67, it basically just amounts to when we have an agreed-upon substitute hook, the nomination gets re-promoted. And we seem to have one now :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

- In the lead of this article (hook currently in prep 6), it states that he won a seat in the Peruvian Congress, but so far as I can tell, this statement is unsourced in the article. Pinging the nominator Vycl1994. Gatoclass (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I reviewed this nom. I did not even notice that in lead (now removed). But the hook, I have checked at least three times now and it checks out fine.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the hook is fine Coffeeandcrumbs, thank you, however, I think that given that the election took place in 2016, the article should state whether he was elected or not - the article looks very incomplete without that information IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I have added the results of the election to the article body and mentioned that he was unsuccessful in the lead. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This hook (currently in prep 2) seems to be saying that the same design was used from 1986 to 2009, but when I checked the sources a couple of days ago, they only seemed to be stating that the subject was the set designer for the same opera over that period. Pinging the nominators LiamRowe and Gerda Arendt.

Please note that I will be going offline shortly so will be unable to respond here for some hours. Gatoclass (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am online only now: the source says: "of the 1986-2009 Met Ring production", stress on "production". He was the designer in 1986, and the unusual thing is that it was shown until 2009. Different singers, I bet, but same set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This has a pic from 2009, and mentions the 1990 broadcast. Will add, if only for the pic. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The Met archives show that the operas were mounted from 1986 to 1989, and then the production kept unchanged until 2009. Btw, he had also designed the set for the previous Ring at the house, and five others, which - as the source says - may be a record, but. I'd prefer to stick to one, quality not quantity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, do you have a link to the Met archives? It sounds as though they should be in the article as a source. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I think it would be undue - within his whole life - to have those also
For the previous production in the 1970s: [13]
For the "new" one: LAT review 1986 to 1989 · several, but missing some, such as Walküre · Götterdämmerung 1989 · Siegfried 2009 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how these links verify the hook. Anyone else with an opinion on this one? Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the links, and while they verify that Schneider-Siemssen's sets were used in the Met Opera, they do not specifically mention that they were used from 1986 to 2009, only that they were used in those specific years. Due to this, I don't think that the hook is suitable anymore due to sourcing issues. Note that an ALT1 and ALT2 were proposed in the discussion that avoid the problematic facts entirely; the nominator struck ALT1 but was open to ALT2, but either might be worth giving a second look. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have a problem with "1996 to 2009", make it "between 1986 and 2009". A Ring Cycle - four giant works - is usually not given every year. The key fact is that the same stage set was kept over more than 20 decades, which is unusual, and it received a prize. I see no reason to look for other hooks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
What is it you don't see, Gatoclass?
Please click at the different entries in "seval",
Production..............Otto Schenk
Set designer............Günther Schneider-Siemssen
Costume designer........Rolf Langenfass
Lighting designer.......Gil Wechsler
Only the first have "New production" as the second line (GöDä 1989), the others - up to 2009 - are the same production (GöDä 2009). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, can be we please keep in mind that the ref used in the article does support the hook, speaking of the 1986-2009 production? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay Gerda, getting back to basics: you have one source which states the following:

The Anton Seidl award has been given to James Levine, Birgit Nilsson, Jon Vickers, James Morris, Speight Jenkins (director of the Seattle Opera), Otto Schenk and Günther Schneider-Siemssen (director and designer respectively of the 1986-2009 Met Ring production) ...[14]

On reflection, that quote does refer to the 1986-2009 production singular, rather than productions plural. So I'm thinking perhaps that might be sufficient to verify the hook. It's just that I don't know that much about how the word "production" is used in an operatic context. Anybody else with an opinion on this? Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The Met did several productions (plural) in history, one of them - the one we talk about - began in the 1980s (actually sources differ for the first year, several 1986, but the (incomplete) list has Rheingold in 1987, - they may have started with the more popular Walküre in 1986, - which doesn't really matter much for the set designer. There was no new production, but repeats of the former (same set, same costumes, same stage direction) until 2009. Singers changed, but here even the conductor was the same. It was a also the first production that presented the music completely, - I didn't know that ;) - There's a new production out now, and I heard parts of it on radio this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Relief: Yes, as suggested, Walküre was first in 1986. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: the extra-picky ones can of course argue that it wasn't the whole Ring yet in 1986, only Walküre, and not complete until 1989. We might say "for two decades" but would miss the dating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about promoted article

The article I nominated, Episcia cupreata, was just reduced to 1,335 characters (per DYK check) when an editor made it so that some of the text was indented. It is currently on the main page and I am seeing if this would cause any problems or if it could be a WP:IAR issue since it was the needed length before it hit the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed this section earlier because myself and the editor worked it out, but I will keep this here for any needed reference (instead of having people check the edit history). SL93 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Who was that masked man?

I love DYK, but sometimes wonder about... things. So I start from the DYK entry for Lancelot Barrington-Ward with its hook

that Sir Lancelot Barrington-Ward removed the appendix of Prince Albert ...

and read the article. Didn't know Albert had an appendectomy, so link off to George VI and get to George_VI#Military_career_and_education which in the second paragraph informs me that

his appendix was removed by John Marnoch.

and find in section John_Marnoch#Operation_on_the_Duke_of_York

Marnoch performed an appendectomy on Albert ...

So, friends, who was that masked surgeon? Shenme (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: your comment underscores the "extra step" that page creators need to take, and DYK reviewers should check: to follow through on subjects linked in the article and especially the hook, checking that the same information is included in the linked source. Pinging @Iainmacintyre: and @No Swan So Fine: re this hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Shenme: @No Swan So Fine: @Yoninah: What an interesting discovery after some impressive detective work. I used 2 sources for this information. Plarr's Lives and B-W's BMJ obituary, both of which state that Barrington-Ward performed the procedure in 1918. As Plarr's is derivative I imagine that they simply lifted the information from the BMJ. There is no mention of the operation in B-W's DNB entry. I have to say that I find the account on the Aberdeen Med-Chi website much more convincing. It describes in some detail Prince Albert's journey from Collingwood to Aberdeen, giving the year as 1914, and describes post-operative telegrams to King Edward VII. On checking Lamont-Brown's Royal Poxes and Potions p227 I found that the operation took place in Aberdeen on 9 Sept 1914 and was performed by Marnoch. Sir John Reid was in attendance and wrote the official bulletin. There is no mention of B-W. Could he have been present at the procedure, as he would have had time to travel from London while the Prince was heading for Aberdeen? That seems highly unlikely as he had only been appointed assistant surgeon at Great Ormond Street that year. I'm in no doubt now that Plarr's and the BMJ were wrong. Marnoch was the surgeon and I'll amend the article accordingly. Many thanks for pointing this out. Papamac (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Possible more than one operation is under consideration here? Here are two more sources for the 1914 appendectomy: Source 1: "Reid and Fleet Surgeon Lomas diagnosed a grumbling appendix. The condition worsened and Prince Albert underwent surgery on 9 September 1914 at the Northern Nursing Home in the care of Professor John Marnock." Source 2: "Prince Albert was transferred to the hospital ship Rohilla at Wick and examined there by Sir James Reid...Reid and Fleet Surgeon Lomas, having examined the Prince, decided it was not safe to move him...On 9 September he had his appendix removed by Professor Marnoch, Professor of Surgery at Aberdeen University, with Reid in attendance, reporting to the King by telephone." BUT, the prince had at least one digestion-related operation later per Source 3 "...poor Bertie is to have an operation to-morrow as he does not seem at all well & has constant pain,' his mother noted in her diary for 28 November 1917... 'they found the cause of all the trouble he has been having since 1915.'" So it could be that he had yet a third operation in 1918 under the care of Barrington-Ward. However, not for appendicitis since the appendix came out in 1914. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, such problems he had! Even his guts stuttered? Shenme (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely fascinating, and noble scholarship from you all! This is where we really become historians. 99 Glimpses of Prince Albert anyone? Thank you all. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Changed hook per discussion at errors --valereee (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, sorry, just saw the alert from yesterday's errors about such a simple hook not being promoted. I wondered about just pulling it, but the DYK was already significantly short, so I made the change per the new wording at the article. Do you think we should have switched in a hook from prep? --valereee (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes. It was no longer hooky. Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Shenme: @No Swan So Fine: @Yoninah: @Valereee: Following up on the suggestion that B-W might have been involved in Albert's later operation, there is an account of this in King Maker, the biography of Louis Greig, the prince's companion and a surgeon himself. According to this source the operation on 29th November 1917 was for peptic ulcer , involved 4 royal surgeons Rigby, Treves, Dawson and Hewitt but not B-W. Papamac (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: Choreographer

Hi, I'm not able to tweak my own hook in prep, but Antony-22 has tweaked it and the hook fact has been distorted. Here is the original hook:

Here is the tweaked hook:

The cars weren't stuck in a real traffic jam; the traffic jam was created for the opening number. I think the original hook should be restored.

Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Actually, the reason I changed the hook was the word "created", as many people were involved in creating the song (songwriters, director, singers, dancers, technical staff, and so on). It's not great to say "choreographer Mandy Moore choreographed...", and I felt dropping the initial "choreographer" would be confusing since there's a singer with the same name. I'm not sure how the second hook implies it was a real traffic jam, but feel free to suggest another wording? Maybe "stuck in a fictional traffic jam"? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
How about:
Why not hook them in for real with a little wit and fun:
I guarantee that would get over 5000 views. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs, great idea! Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Coffeeandcrumbs: The last alt is fine. (For the previous one, arrangement specifically refers to musical composition, so it's not the right word here. I know I'm being picky, but I have a musical theater background.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Antony-22: Right. I also toyed with "orchestrated", but I figured that would also be questioned. :) Yoninah (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2

Prep 2 was just updated by @Cwmhiraeth: and I'm asking for opinions on the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Bukit Gasing that was reviewed by @Andrew Davidson: - ... that a female jogger was murdered in the Malaysian tropical forest reserve, Bukit Gasing? Like @EEng: said on the nomination page, crime can occur anywhere. I don't think that a murder happening in a certain place is interesting. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bejinhan: SL93 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The hook was reviewed as adequately interesting and I see no reason to re-open the matter. We will find out which does best by running the set and I reckon that some of the others are likely to do worse. As for the details, the jogger died shielding her daughter from the attackers; an edifying example of maternal devotion. The bird is just a bird; common throughout SE Asia and not a special feature of the reserve. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    "The rest of the set is even worse" is a new low bar for DYK hooks, I guess. Maternal devotion is also common throughout SE Asia, and not a special feature of the reserve. In any event it's not in the hook. One possibility is that there's nothing interesting to say about the subject at all, and it shouldn't be a DYK. We don't do that enough.But I see someone just pointed out that part of the reserve has been sold for development; that's a good hook. EEng 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn’t an article about the murder, but rather an article about Bukit Gasing. The murder is an uninteresting thing that unfortunately happens a lot. SL93 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, the hook should be changed. The hook should focus on the bolded subject, not an extraneous detail which, in this case, is very sad but could have happened anywhere. Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I returned the hook to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I expanded Stripe-throated bulbul in case you wanted to use it in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I see now that's a bird. I thought it was a disease. EEng 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/NASA Astronaut Group 3 in Prep 4

  • ... that four of the fourteen astronauts in NASA Astronaut Group 3 were killed in training accidents before they had a chance to fly in space?

Hawkeye7 SounderBruce Yoninah All of these deaths are mentioned in table in the article, and there are references in the column next to the column in which the deaths are mentioned, but none of the individual sentences that support the hook has a citation, which DYK rules require. --valereee (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, in the Legacy section, there is a single sentence with an in-line citation that has everything you need. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, oh, thanks! Sorry, I missed that! --valereee (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jew with a coin

I had marked this nomination for closure as it had been stuck since May (it has since been closed by SL93). In my comment, I mentioned that there appeared to be "possible fringe topics concerns", referencing the objections left by MyMoloboaccount and concerns about neutrality left by Piotrus. The nominator Icewhiz has taken issue with my wording, saying that the person being used as a source (which, from my admittedly limited reading of the nomination, appeared to be the main issue bogging it down) was reliable, contrary to the claims made by MyMoloboaccount. I am starting this discussion to see if a third party would be willing to take a look at this and see if there is a possible way forward or a compromise that could be reached. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The nomination should be good to go - it was waiting, since May, for an actual uninvolved editor to come and make a review. MyMoloboaccount (who is involved) objected specifically to Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (who is Chair of the Ethnic and National Relations Study, Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw - [15] - and certainly is not fringe!). There are no tags on the page (and haven't been for a while), Piotrus agreed to some of the hooks, MyMoloboaccount objected specifically to Tokarska-Bakir (without much policy basis) - even if we accept this objection - this leaves 3 hooks that are good to go (no Tokarska-Bakir, present in current stable article) - the main one, ALT1, and ALT4. Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with it being reopened for more discussion, but the thing is that I don't know how to undo a closure. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@SL93: The way I undo a closure is to click "undo" for the appropriate edit on the DYK nomination's page [16]. I think you also need to return the DYK template to the appropriate place on the not-yet-approved nominations' page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: There have been two subsequent edits so I can't undo it. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reopened this nomination. I will try to do the review myself but I am have limited time right now. I placed it back into the list of nominations needing review, for anyone that is interested in doing the review. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't see much wrong with the article, there are lots of sources quoted other than Tokarska-Bakir, who really only gets a couple of lines. Since her claims have been challenged however, I would strike the hooks referencing her views as UNDUE. I personally like the original hook as it is the most explanatory. I find ALT2 and 4 to be the least interesting as ALT2 is a predictable response and ALT4 doesn't say much about the tradition itself, but again, so long as the hooks mentioning Tokarska-Bakir are avoided, the nomination looks acceptable to me and would probably do well as a lead (though I note the copyright status of the image is currently under discussion). Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The article is an indigestible jumble of conflicting statements by various people, and I'm amazed that some of the suggested hooks are being offered with a straight face. This really needs more eyes. EEng 23:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's basically a classic WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources in the article are mostly in-depth academic sources or NEWSORG coverage of this item, and the article reflects coverage of these items as available in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah and that doesn't contradict the fact that the article is a stitch-up of various quotes found on the internet. And actually, let's not get crazy with claims about "in-depth academic sources". It's mostly newspaper articles. There might be one or two "academic" (kind of) sources, but they appear to only mention the subject in passing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Additionally it seems that the one academic source that is in there (book chapter by Ruth Ellen Gruber) is actually talking about other figurines (parochial "folk art" from the 1990s and before) rather than these figurines, so this is a case of ... faulty, sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is sourced to journal articles, academic book chapters, and newsorgs - or in other words top-notch WP:RSes and not "the internet". Gruber describes Jewish figurines with coins - as well as Jewish figurines predating the money clutching ones.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's not exaggerate. Now that you removed the Gruber source because it was being misrepresented, there appears to be one academic source left, the Cala article which is specifically about one particular exhibition. I guess the book chapter is the one by Michilic? In all, these "in depth academic sources" (sic) source two or three sentences in the whole articles. The rest, about 93% of it, is newspapers and stuff found on the internet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roy J. Snell

This DYK was nominated on May 15 so I'm trying to get opinions on a reference that is used to support the hook. The nominator hasn't posted for a while either. My explanation - "It looks like it's just a typed version of a 1941 journalism class paper. The website is hosted by Dartmouth College, but the paper is from Wheaton College. I did some more research by removing part of the url to this and it shows that this portion of Dartmouth College's website was hosted by the article subject's son who is now deceased, J. Laurie Snell. Strangely enough, the paper wasn't written by his son J. Laurie Snell and neither of them attended Wheaton College". SL93 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed I replaced that source with a Goodreads, Inc.source. I replaced the Find A Grave reference with a clipping from his newspaper obit at the time of his death. — Maile (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Something is not right with DYK nomination pages from the past few weeks

Something has changed in the way DYK nomination was changed to <includeonly>. I can't remember for sure but once the nomination was promoted and closed, it used to disappear from the Talk page even though it was still transcluded there (see for example Talk:Landsat 4). But now it stays visible permanently, sometimes in strange placements on the talk page (see Talk:Eleanor C. Pressly).

If this was an intentional change the we need to find a way to make Please do not modify this page. switch to Please do not modify this section.. Otherwise, it looks like the article's entire talk page is closed. And we also need to teach the DYKUpdateBot not to place {{DYK talk}} below {{Did you know nominations/Eleanor C. Pressly}}. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot could safely replace the nom template which is linked to in the bot credit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a better option I had not considered. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed that at the bottom of a closed nomination it has a link that says, "Mark this page as patrolled". I've never seen that on a nomination template, either before or after it's closed. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I can help narrow the time frame of when this began. Mae Jemison closed July 15 and does not have the "Mark this page as patrolled". Valentina Tereshkova which closed today has "Mark this page as patrolled". So, whatever the change, it's happened since Monday July 15. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, I think only people that can mark pages as patrolled can see that. Are you sure that is not a new functionality from elsewhere? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs New pages patrol/Reviewers, who are registered accounts over 90 days old, can see the notation. Which is most people who work DYK. This is not a new functionality. New page reviewers look at Special:Newpages. I was seeing that on my first created article 13 years ago. Something is now reading the closing of a nomination template as creating a new article. This should not be happening. @Wugapodes: you understand these things, I believe. Do you know what happened? — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the reviewer right so, I can't see it. I was asking to make sure it is not on all pages or all templates. Sorry for stumbling blindly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I didn't realize New page reviewer rights had to be specially assigned. Maybe the process has changed over the last decade. I've had that right seemingly forever, and never asked for it.— Maile (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Answers

The above section asks a lot of questions, so for clarity each one is summarized as a header for the answer.

Why aren't closed nominations disappearing from article talk pages automatically?

This is the result of a change to {{DYKsubpage}} proposed by Wugapodes and implemented June 30th. The nomination disappears from WP:DYKN but stays visible on talk pages for a number of reasons. It is helpful for later editors to easily see comments from others so that they can improve the article, even if they weren't around for the DYK nom. Being visible means that it won't clutter the WikiMarkUp, and also means that editors are more likely to archive it than outright delete it.

Why does the template sometimes wind up on the talk page in weird places?

DYKUpdateBot apparently searches the page text for the first level 2 header and places {{DYK talk}} above it. If there is no such header, it places the template at the bottom of the page. Because, at one point, the process of automatically transcluding nominations resulted in the section having three consecutive headers, WugBot was changed to not add its own level-2 header outside the transclusion markup. This is likely why the script Coffeeandcrumbs uses also does not add its own level-2 header. So when the nomination gets transcluded, it has no header in the page's markup---even though editors can see it---and DYKUpdateBot doesn't know to put {{DYK talk}} above the nomination. When these discussions disappeared, this caused no problem, but with the changes mentioned above it now gets sandwiched like at Talk:Eleanor C. Pressly

Wugapodes, I don't use a script. I just follow the instructions at Template talk:Did you know#To nominate an article. This issue is unresolved. As can be seen at Talk:Kent Angus for example, the template has its own level-2 header. We are not supposed to add a header. Changes to {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, or to DYKUpdateBot still need to be made. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: My bad, I thought I remembered you saying you used a nomination script, but maybe that was someone else. Also did you mean to link to Talk:Kent Angus? It has a level 2-header, but that level-2 header is not in the source code, it's in a template inside the nomination template. I don't know the specifics of DYKUpdateBot because Shubinator maintains it, but if it's anything like WugBot, when it reads the page it gets the same text you see in the text editor. My guess is that DYKUpdateBot searches that text for the string pattern ==[arbitrary title]== and places {{DYK talk}} right above it so that it's with the other talk page banners. Because the level-2 header is produced by a template-within-a-template, DYKUpdateBot may not see the ==[arbitrary title]== string where it expects to and so places {{DYK talk}} in the wrong place.
The easiest solution is probably changing {{DYK conditions}} to not make a level-2 header and just change the instructions to tell people to add their own header. {{DYK nompage links}} adds a level-4 header which isn't the biggest problem our templates are currently causing, so I'm not too worried about it. (Also, I refactored your comment above to include {{DYK conditions}} to the list of things that may need changed). Wug·a·po·des​ 21:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Can {{DYK top}} be changed to say "do not edit this section" instead of "...page" when transcluded?

{{done}} Wug·a·po·des​ 20:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrums: This change had to be undone. See User talk:Wugapodes#WugBot not deleting Approved transclusions after they've been closed?. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are we seeing patrol links on nomination subpages?

This may be related to recent template changes. This seems unrelated to the recent template changes.

It might be something that happened in the template before closing - some coding missing. Below are two closed by @Cwmhiraeth: today. Luna 2 has "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom right of the template. Bank of England £100,000,000 note does not have that notation. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, my best guess is that because the template is new, there's a bug where it causes the link to appear on pages that transclude it. I've submitted a bug report and see what kinds of answers the devs can give. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for filing the report. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nozomi Nishida Prep 6

... that Nozomi Nishida is a member of a Walküre music group which exists both in real life and in the anime Macross Delta?

Narutolovehinata5 Yoninah

I'm not seeing this clear a statement with a source in the article. The article says in the lead unsourced, "She became part of the music group Walküre, which performs songs for the Macross franchise" and in the section, sourced to an article that doesn't seem to say Walkure is a group in real life too, "In 2016, she was cast as the character Makina Nakajima in the anime series Macross Delta, also becoming part of the music group Walküre." But I can't seem to find in that source a statement that supports that the group is a real group. Also, is "a Walkure" correct? The a seems out of place unless walkure is a type of group rather than its name. If it's the name of the group, it needs to be something like "...of walkure, a music group which..." Sorry, know nothing about anime. --valereee (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Walkure has performed in real life as well, which can be seen on their official website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated/provided that source in the article to make that clear, thanks --valereee (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"... that Nozomi Nishida is a member of a Walküre music group which exists both in real life and in the anime Macross Delta?" Could somebody please translate this to English? That sequence of words makes no sense. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The hook has been promoted to Queue without the "a" before Walkure. The hool means that Nishida is a member of the group, which appears in an anime but also performs in real life. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Now I need someone to explain to me what a hool is. Is it like a hula-hoop without the ahoop? EEng 20:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
So what it is trying to say is "... that Nozomi Nishida is a member of the music group Walküre, which has also been animated for appearances in Macross Delta?" "--Khajidha (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit complicated if you aren't familiar with Macross. Basically, Walkure is a musical group in the anime series that is composed of much of the main cast. In real life, the voice actors were grouped into a musical group also called Walkure, which performed the songs that are used in the anime, and also perform them at real life events and released singles and albums including those songs. If you or other editors still believe that the current hook isn't clear enough, there are other ALTs still available in the nomination (such as ALT1 or ALT2, which avoids the mention of Walkure entirely). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tundra orbit Queue 6

The article says that the ground track is a figure of eight, while the hook says that it traces out a figure of out "in the sky". As someone not familiar with this topic, (and TRM mentioned the same thing too at WP:ERRORS2), but I'm not sure it's obvious that those are the same thing - one is the path when you look down at where the satellite is, above the surface, and the other is how it appears to move if you're an observer standing on the ground. Pinging @Bejinhan: @Coffeeandcrumbs: @Spacepine: @Yoninah: who were involved in the hook, for comment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of noting that the mirror image of an 8 looks like an 8. --Spacepine (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 27. Right now we have a total of 350 nominations, of which 171 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those over two months old, plus the one from June 21, which has a special occasion request for July 29.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Îles Ehotilés National Park prep 2

Cwmhiraeth Kosack SL93

I'm a little concerned about the wording "revered by the local people as representing their ancestors" when the article says "the local people believing these animals to be a sign of the presence of their ancestors." A "sign of the presence" doesn't necessarily mean the same as "revered as representing". The source uses phrasing that translates to sign of the presence and that the bats are of great importance in the people's lives, but I'm not sure we can say revered as representing. Change to 'considered by the local people as a sign of the presence of'? --valereee (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy with that change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
sorry, edit conflict, thanks! --valereee (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Desmond Barker

In Prep 6: ... that Desmond Barker flew 58 different types of aircraft during his career as a test pilot with the South African Air Force?

This does not appear to be supported by the source, which says he's accumulated "7,200 flying hours on 58 different types of aircraft" but does not say they were all during his time in the military. To the contrary, it says that he "remains self-employed as a civilian experimental test pilot", so presumably some of those 58 were in that civilian capacity. Maybe the hook should be shortened to just say he's flown 58 different types of aircraft. Or should an entirely new hook be substituted? (There was another one proposed on the nom page.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That alt hook is IMO too boring to stay on. As for that sentence, He is a qualified flying instructor and a display pilot with 7,200 flying hours on 58 different types of aircraft. to me does not indicate that the planes he flew as self-employed test pilot are also counted and the prior career was as part of the SAAF so I am not so sure about that interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
How about -

I don't find it all that unusual to read that a test pilot has flown 58 different types of aircraft - isn't that what you'd expect a test pilot to do? On the other hand, 72,000 flying hours is a heck of a lot - it's 3000 24-hour days, or 8.2 years, so I think that should be in the hook as well.

  • ALT3: that South African test pilot Desmond Barker has accumulated 7,200 flying hours and flown 58 different types of aircraft?

Other than that, you could have a hook highlighting the "the major role he played in establishing and developing a formal flight test capability in the South African Air Force", according to the source. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's actually 7,200 hours. With that adjustment, ALT3 would be fine. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Mandarax: I would be happy with Alt3 Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be consensus to go with ALT3 so I've substituted it in prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roy J. Snell in prep 2

EncyclopediaUpdaticus SL93

This hook is sourced to goodreads.com. I don't think we can use it. Can we find a better source or a different hook? --valereee (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If Goodreads can’t be used as a source, a good chunk of the article will need a different reference as well. SL93 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking this hook needs to be returned for review. Now if I can just remember the steps... --valereee (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and pulled it. Note though that the nomination may have to move forward without the nom's input as, apart from a single edit yesterday and a few edits back on June 23, they have mostly been inactive since the nomination began. As for Valereee's statement, to pull a nom, all that is needed to do is to undo the edit at the DYK nomination that promoted the hook (and optionally add a comment stating that the nom was pulled from Prep or Queue), then to blank its part in the prep and replace the "DYKmake" template with "{{DYKmake|Example|Editor}}". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Pulling a hook to work on it further, also involves relisting it under the appropriate date. If it's warranted to pull it, then it should be relisted. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I have relisted it on the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seal of Somerset County, Maryland in prep 2

The C of E Jo-Jo Eumerus Yoninah

The only part of the linked Royal Arms of England that is in that seal is the lions. The source says it "bearing a very slightly modified version of the Stuart royal arms." Then we link to something that looks completely different, just the lions. I see this has been discussed at length in the nomination, but readers aren't going to have benefit of being able to have this explained to them. I think this needs a major change. I am going to move on to do the rechecks of the other items in the queue while we discuss, but Yoninah, if we don't get this banged out in time, which other hook would you prefer I replace this one with? --valereee (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, it is based on the Royal Arms, even if only in part. "Based on" is a comment on the process by which the seal was formed, not on the proportions the process covered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    The source for the hook sentence does not support based on Royal Arms of England. It doesn't even mention the Royal Arms of England. The source supports Stuart royal arms. The sentence in the article itself needs explanation; as it is, it is confusing. Clicking to Royal arms of England just increases the confusion. The only solution I see is to change the sentence IN THE ARTICLE and then also change the hook, both to read what the source says: Stuart royal arms. The article could then say that the Stuart arms contain a bit of the Royal Arms or whatever, I don't know, just an ignorant Yank here, but as it is, I don't feel I can move it to queue. valereee (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, it's this edit that is the problem. The previous version was a bit closer to the source insofar as it speaks of the "royal coat of arms during Stuart time". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it back to what it was please, Royal Arms of England at the time were the same as the arms of the House of Stuart. You take away all the hookiness if you remove the reference to England because more will recognise England (Especially the Yanks) than the House of Stuart. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
CofE, I'm not going to edit war with you at the article; I made the change there and this one because I think it helps prevent reader confusion. I was confused; that's why I poked around to figure out why the royal arms you were linking to in the article -- that the Maryland arms were supposedly only minimally different from -- looked nothing like it. At all. If another admin wants to make this change, I won't object, but I think saying the seal looks like the one we're linking to when it doesn't is a bad choice. --valereee (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you will find that the arms are in the Royal Arms article In the development section where it does look like the Royal Arms used in the Stuart's time. Hence why it says based on rather than copied. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify @Valereee:, take a look at the image title of the arms in the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I see that it's titled that way. We could change it to link to that section, perhaps...Hm, is linking to a section kosher here? --valereee (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds better @Valereee:. Yes we can link to the section, I know we have done it before with 2018–19 EFL Cup and there is no rule saying we can't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The C of E, check my work, please! --valereee (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Looks good to me. Thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
no worries! --valereee (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Script of interest to prep builders

An example of the DYK promoter interface.

I've been working on a user script to help with closing and promoting hooks at DYK. As of 24 July 2019, it only shows the hooks proposed in the nomination and allows you to preview prep areas that have free spots for hooks. May not be particularly useful at the moment, but the grand vision is a script which allows editors to select a hook from the nomination and automatically add it to a prep area. Let me know what kind of feedback you have, and feel free to edit the documentation as needed. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep promotions

Could administrators start promoting 2 prep sets at a time? It gives us more room to build more sets. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could start calling out which preps we're going to work on promoting to queue? It often takes me at least a couple hours to do at minimum 8 checks, deal with any concerns, maybe shuffle a hook and then do another check on the new hook, rinse, repeat. I was planning to work on prep 4 tomorrow morning, for instance, if someone else wants to claim prep 5 and promote them both tomorrow. Or if someone else promotes 3 and 4 today, I can start working on 5 tomorrow instead. --valereee (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Replacement

@Bejinhan: @Zigzig20s:@Cwmhiraeth:
Could someone explain to me what's hooky about this? It just seems like an effort to get the article on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't suppose ambassadors get assassinated very often, and besides courage, the qualities required of the successor ambassador are considerable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe tweak to focus on how fast it happened? He was there four days later from a different post to take over because the US government wanted to send a message. valereee (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem at the moment is that said hook fact (about the four days or message thing) isn't at the article at the moment. I see that ALT0 was struck for being too long, but perhaps a shortened version of that (since it mentions he was the ambassador to Yemen) could work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I also have to note that Bejinhan hasn't been active in over a month, so if issues need to be addressed promptly, it may have to be done without her. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm returning this to the noms page for further work on the hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mrinalini Devi in queue 2

I was trying to take care of the clarification needed tag on Mrinalini Devi about how old she was when she died. I know Google Translate isn't the most reliable, but the Google translated text of the reference says "Mrinalini Devi died at the age of only 20 after suffering a long illness." Another issue that I found while searching was that the birth date seems to be wrong. The article says that she was born on 1 March 1874, but this book states that she was born in 1872. @Royroydeb: @Cwmhiraeth: SL93 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

SL93, do we have a reasonably good source for both dates? If so, I'd say we change her dob to being reported as either 1874 or 1872, providing both sources in the statement. --valereee (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I think that I took care of the issue. What do you think? SL93 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
SL93, I went ahead and inserted the 1872+source into the section, too, just so it wouldn't be in the infobox but not in the article, but yeah, I think that solved it! --valereee (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's entirely another aspect as to what the heck is hooky in the hook. A wife selling off her personal properties for the sake of her family/husband was not at all an uncommon story, back in those times. If someone had read the offline biographies of Tagore, there are ample hooky stuff but ...... *Sigh* ∯WBGconverse 09:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I had proposed other hooks in the nomination but the nominator said they preferred this hook (i.e. the properties one), and the reviewer signed that off. Should the other proposals be revisited and/or the hook be pulled while the issues are being sorted out? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_159&oldid=1085471677"