Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 166

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168→Archive 170

DYK bots are down; admin needed to manually promote next set

DYKUpdateBot, which normally handles promotions from queue to main page, is currently down, and missed the promotion at midnight (about 40 minutes ago). I have notified bot owner Shubinator, but have no idea when they will see my post on their talk page. It could be many hours.

I'm hoping there's an admin around who can handle a manual promotion—in this case, Queue 3 is the next one in line. Gatoclass has taken care of several in the past. I think Amakuru has done one or more previously, so pinging them. I can't remember about Vanadmonde or Maile, so I'm pinging them as well. Although he isn't a DYK regular, Materialscientist has helped us out in the past, so I'm adding them to the list. Thanks for anyone who can help us.

There are instructions at the bottom of every queue page on how to promoted a queue to the main page in the "Posting the new update" section, if anyone needs a refresher on how it's done. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - I've posted the hooks from Q3 to the main page, hopefully I did it correctly. Will now go through and do the other tidy up bits associated with it, and give the credits. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. The one crucial page still to be updated is Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, which needs to be updated from the 26th to the 27th—we're still showing that the main page update needs to be done—to prevent the bot (should it come on line) from doing another update. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks... I had just got to that bit! I'm working through the things that the bot did when it updated yesterday. Hopefully it will be back online by tomorrow, because it's a bit tedious doing it manually!  — Amakuru (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, Gatoclass, the bots haven't been restarted. (I just checked, and DYKHousekeepingBot is still down; it would have run immediately if Shubinator had restarted it.) I'm hoping one of you will be around shortly after midnight UTC (about an hour from now) to see whether DYKUpdateBot is back up then, and if not, to do a new manual update. I have no idea when Shubinator might be back online; the bots are usually back on overnight, but on a few occasions in the past, we've had to do manual updates for several days running. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Today it's down again Thingofme (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

{{doing}} wish me luck — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done Giving out credits now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is back online! Thanks everyone who chipped in to keep things running. Shubinator (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot is back, but queues are empty

It's great that the bot is back, but we need to fill a queue so it has something to work with later today. Pinging all the usual admins in the hopes that at least one of you are available to do a prep to queue promotion in the next seven hours: Gatoclass, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Vanadmonde, Maile, valereee, and Cas Liber. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article of a black physician, Template:Did you know nominations/Emerson Emory, hook is fine, only qpq missing. I wonder if we could have that one as lead hook for the close of American Black month tomorrow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm out at the moment but can probably do it in a couple of hours if nobody else does first.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I've promoted one, but I don't have time to do more. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Shubinator, the bot is still down or Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has a problem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, are you around to do another update. You did great yesterday! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
{{on it}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done but will give out credits later. I was in the middle of some template stuff and will be busy in meat space for the next couple hours, so if anyone feels like they can beat me to it feel free. Side note In the course of updating the timer, I realized that this update was posted 23 hours and 59 minutes after the last one. I think the bot may actually be working, it just was waiting until 1:07 to update the template. When reseting the timer manually, should I not be using the timestamp provided by the edit notice? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, Wugapodes, the bot was indeed back (as was noticed too late). You can always looked at the Queues page to see when the next run is set to begin (which is currently Template:Did you know/Next update/Time plus 24 hours, or in this case, at 01:07 UTC, which was the time Wugapodes had assigned the previous night). To answer your question, Wugapodes, if you're doing a slightly late update (say, within three hours), just set it back to midnight, which is what the bot does automatically. (When you come back to finish things, set it to 00:00 on February 29 from 01:06). That way people don't get confused and call for manual updates that aren't needed. If you leave the time as it is, the bot will eventually move back toward midnight in three hour increments. (Note to Shubinator: as best I can tell, the bot is still up from when you started it yesterday, and the earlier ping was a false alarm, but that's because DYKHousekeepingBot is still up; I haven't actually seen DYKUpdateBot in action for obvious reasons.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Further note to Wugapodes: I just took care of the archiving step of the previous main page DYK section to the Recent Additions page for yesterday's and today's manual updates, so that's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
0 for 2? Surely this streak can't last — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Requesting an admin to at least get the manual update to the point where the queue that was used to update the main page, Queue 5, is cleared and the "next queue" incremented to be Queue 6; it's very bad to have the next queue for promotion be the same set that's already on the main page. Credits can be given afterward, but let's get the rest of it into a safe state. Pinging Gatoclass, Amakuru, Vanadmonde, Maile, valereee, and Cas Liber, in the hopes that one of you sees this soon. Many thanks. And if any of you have time to promote Prep 6 to Queue 6, that would be wonderful. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I incremented the counter and cleared queue 5. I'd rather leave promotion of prep 6 to someone else; I think DYK could use a brief break from my helping (though let me know if you need something urgently, of course). — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The queues are empty again, with about five hours to go before the next main-page bot promotion. Pinging the usual DYK admins, Gatoclass, Amakuru, Vanadmonde, Maile, valereee, and Cas Liber, in the hopes that one or more of you is free in the next little while. Thanks as always for moving preps to queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done queue 1. Looks like User:Casliber has done queue 2 as well. Will perform the checks for Q1 in the next few hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
hehehe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiener Hofmusikkapelle

... now in prep 4, we read:

That's misleading, sorry. It would make me think that the Hofmusikapelle was also a boy's choir, but it was singers and instrumentalists, almost with stress on orchestra, compare Staatskapelle Dresden. Am I the only one? Also, I dislike to call the former by its name in German, and the latter by an English name, instead of Wiener Sängerknaben (literally: Viennese singer-boys), which is well-known and has more Viennese charme ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Cwmhiraeth: for nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The name Vienna Boys' Choir is the common name for the group in English, and is more recognizable than its German name. The English name Vienna Boys' Choir is reason that this is hooky. I do not read this as the Wiener Hofmusikkapelle was also a boys choir. Perhaps the word predecessor could be changed? I'm open to ideas. Will wait for a response from Cwmhiraeth. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Even discogs has the name of the choir in German [1]. They participated in the recordings by Harnoncourt of all sacred Bach cantatas, of course under their original name, - and that's probably the internally best-known recordings they made, a first in historically informed performance for many of these works. When we speak of The Beatles in German, we don't translate their name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
English Wikipedia refers to the group by the name Vienna Boys' Choir. Why should a DYK hook ignore consensus and go against the common name? Flibirigit (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
And this is the English Wikipedia. Most of us don't know German. Yoninah (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
While I hear you, I believe that some performers are known under their original name, untranslated, and I believe this group is one of them. It's not about German vs. English, but which name is common, and used in serious sources. I won't spend more time on this, nor on a move request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Please get back to the original concern over the wording being misleading. Is there an alternate being proposed? We should wait for a reply from Cwmhiraeth before any decision. Flibirigit (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For the hook, it's about what will be most recognizable to the English-reading audience, and that's "Vienna Boys' Choir" by miles. It is the most famous, under that name, and the best known. If you substitute "Wiener Sängerknaben", hardly anyone will recognize it, and the hook loses its effectiveness. As for the Hofmusikkapelle, its composition seems to have varied quite a bit over its 500+ years, but the singing boys component was a primary component at the beginning, and it's that component (Hofsängerknaben) that became the Wiener Sängerknaben. I was going to suggest a possible alternate hook that incorporated the 1922 disbanding of the Hofsängerknaben mentioned in the article, but the 1922 date is not in the given source and the Wiener Sängerknaben source doesn't mention any interregnum at all—they still consider themselves formed in 1498 and a successor to the original Hofmusikkapelle. So perhaps a hook could indicate that the VBC is a continuation of the boychoir aspect of the Hofmusikkapelle? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The article says it's the fore-runner to the VBC, and included boys in its choir until 1922. To dilute the link from one to the other, which does not seem as explicit in the article as suggested in the hook, perhaps ... that the Wiener Hofmusikkapelle founded by Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor in 1498, was a fore-runner of the Vienna Boys' Choir? Bazza (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
If we use this, I think it needs some minor adjustments:
ALT3 looks good. I still want to wait for the nominator's input. Courtesy ping to @Narutolovehinata5: who was also involved. Flibirigit (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
ALT3 sounds fine, but I was also thinking of a slightly revised wording which instead mentions the Vienna Boys' Choir first, which would have said something like "The VBC traces its origins to the Wiener". However, I'm not sure how accurate would that be, and it would have been a passive hook since the subject would come later, so ALT3 sounds good to go on my end. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
ALT3 is approved. Could someone please update Prep 4? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about three hours ago, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 22. We currently have a total of 222 nominations, of which 87 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from December and four from January, including four from the previous list that have still never been reviewed at all.

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) 04:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Sellwood

Is currently running in Prep2 as a non-picture hook, possibly because the image source needed clarification, but that has now been done (1891). So could it be moved to an image slot? It's a strong hook when combined with the image I think and should get a lot of views in that combination. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The photo looks blurry at a low resolution. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks fine at a low resolution and the word Murder really stands out. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
We disagree. At a low resolution, the image is very confusing and unclear. Flibirigit (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to be able to see every detail in the thumb. You never can. It's clearly an action shot of someone shooting a gun in a confined space with the word MURDERS at the top. Combined with the hook and the caption, the overall sense of what is going on is clear. People can click through for the details. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I also thought it should be an image hook. I moved it to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Querida Amazonia

I missed Template:Did you know nominations/Querida Amazonia, the hook is now in prep 6, and I think thet

is tough reading for quite a while into it. How about saying first that the Synod called for married priests, and then come with Latin and phrases such as "apostolic exhortation"? Readers also probably just heard it on radio and would say "yes" to the DYK question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Centenary 16 Mar

Template:Did you know nominations/Günter Kehr, for a centenary on 16 March, review begun a while ago, but the reviewer is now blocked, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Feminist, only thing needed will be a move to the Special area once moved to approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2020 (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, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

International Women's Day and Women's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month, so we should be promoting more women's articles to prep sets. I have just moved an international selection of women's hooks to the Special Occasions holding area for March 8, International Women's Day. Pinging SusunW and Ipigott over at Women in Red for more articles and nominations for this month. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Yoninah. I've alerted several editors and included a word on the WIR talk page. I'm not too good at manipulating DYK nominations myself but I'm always happy to see my articles featured there. If you are short of submissions, you or your DYK friends are welcome to include Angelina Atyam, Eulalie Nibizi or Grace Kodindo. It would be good to have a least one black African woman.--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
A timely review is requested for this article suitable for International Women's Day on March 8:
Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Another one suitable for day would be Jessye Norman, provided the GA review gets done in time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
We need more women's hooks to fill out the March 8 prep set. Here is another nomination:
Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Kodindo
Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I have a DYK nom from the last few days for Mary Helen Johnston, if you want to add that. However, I would rather like the image to be included with the hook and think a non-American woman should get the image for the March 8 box, so perhaps not unless you're still short. Kingsif (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Reviewed the Johnston nomination, and it's ready to go. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Kingsif. I agree this should go into an image slot during March Women's History Month. Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I reviewed the only other obvious Women's History Month nomination, which was yours: Grace Kodindo. Scrolling through what is out there, I only see a couple more that might work for the occasion:
  • Haʻaheo Kaniu, which would need a new alt hook for that. I think a high chiefess might be something for the occasion, but I think @KAVEBEAR: would need to come up with the hook. This Hawaiian history stuff can be confusing to sort out, and KAVEBEAR knows a lot more abouit it.
  • Llerena Friend. I did some minor editing on the article, in the way of referencing. I'm not sure what would be hooky, but the nomination is out there.
— Maile (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the only thing holding up Template:Did you know nominations/Cristina Alberini is whether this is acceptable as a source. If I can't get a clear answer by, let's say, March 6, it can simply be removed along with the (minimal) content it supports. feminist (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kateryna Skarzhynska is a new article by SusunW that could also be nominated. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm ready to nominate that one but for Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll also add a nom for Kathleen Pelham Burn, an interesting woman. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting that administrators hold off on promoting Prep 1 for a few days so we can get the run list for Prep 1 in order. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cristina Alberini is now ready for promotion. feminist (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Moved to Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

now in prep 1, Frieda Nadig and a reference to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Believe it or not, I hear that expression for the first time, - thinking so far that Grundgesetz was simply the "Constitution of Germany". I believe that others may have the same problem to make a connection, and wonder even if "basic" is the correct term for something the law is "based on". Anyway, how about at least a pipe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Piping to "constitution". Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm ok with "constitution" to make it easier to read, but there are more Basic Laws that are deliberately not called "constitution" for some reason. There's the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, for example. The German Basic Law was supposed to be used only for a short time and replaced by a constitution after reunification. —Kusma (t·c) 15:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Glad you're okay with it, Kusma, because "Constitution of Germany" automatically redirects to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Besides, we're linking it in the hook in case someone wants more info about it. Probably one of the later amendments gave women equal rights. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    Yoninah, that's in the article about Nadig: equal rights for women were voted down in two committees, then Elisabeth Selbert and Nadig organised a large-scale campaign of women's organisations and women in politics, then got equal rights accepted in the draft constitution in January 1949. I proposed something like "... was initially voted down" to hint at the point that equal rights were in the final constitution although the first attempt did not go through. —Kusma (t·c) 19:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Promoted. Yoninah (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4:Belief

@Abductive: it is unclear to me what "unquestioningly" adds to this hook. Can a professor "doubtfully believe"? Do you think we should send this back to WP:DYKN for new wording? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Also pinging nominator Yunshui. Yoninah (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Since the preps are being promoted to queue, I've returned this to WP:DYKN and reopened the nomination. Please comment there. Yoninah (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wording on Prep templates

This wording is at the top of the Prep templates, and transferred to the Queue during the promotion process . It's also on the Template:Did you know/Clear

NOTE: Because a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are biographies or are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given update, but never more than half of either. Further information is available at WP:DYKSG#J. Thanks.

Since this has been there for years and not necessarily reflective of DYK for several years, should this be removed? And would the removal be manual, template by template, or would it be on a bot somewhere? Thoughts, anyone? — Maile (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. From what I can tell a significant proportion of hooks remain related to the US. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Do we know that it is no longer reflective of DYK? What are the statistics on subjects/geographies covered? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? Do you think anyone would actually compile statistics on such? It is to laugh at the very thought of that. I see a lot of British/European hooks, and a lot of German composer and German music hooks, a fair scattering of Asian hooks. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the preponderance of hooks are US based, and I think these instructions are redundant. The prep builder merely needs to choose a varied selection of hooks from those that are available, and I don't think any particular quota is necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the current set of 8, we have 4 US hooks, 2 European, 1 Mexican and 1 Caribbean. Which makes it seem like the rule is still relevant, as half the hooks are still US based. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the part about biographies is out of date. Sometimes we have too many biographies and sometimes too few, so we adjust the ratio of bios to non-bios as needed. But the part about the preponderance of U.S.-based hooks is certainly current. I think this line should just say:
NOTE: Because a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on U.S. topics in any given update, but never more than half. Further information is available at WP:DYKSG#J. Thanks. By the way, the wording in WP:DYKSG#J3 should also be changed. Yoninah (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see much harm with keeping this rule. When the hooks available are diverse enough to not require including multiple biographies or US topics, the rule doesn't need to be invoked; but when we have too many biographies or hooks on US topics the rule is still worthwhile. feminist (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotions to queue

@Amakuru:@Casliber:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Vanamonde93: is there any reason why prep sets aren't being promoted to the queue until the update is almost due? We usually have 2 prep sets ready to go; right now Preps 3 and 4 can be promoted. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: apologies, I just haven't had quite as much spare time recently as I usually do, which limits how much hook-set checking I can do... and with only one set going up per day now, it has seemed like things were more under control lately. I take your point though, and of course I shouldn't just leave the job to other admins all the time, so will try to promote a few more going forward. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: point well taken. I guess we've all been distracted with other things. 12:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, sorry! I dislike promoting unless I'm sure I have time to do the check, and I've been busy IRL for the past several days (and am now out of town and using cell to connect). Last time I couldn't finish a check, a hook got pulled from the main page. Embarrassing! I'll see if I can find time/coverage to promote at least one while I'm out, I think there's a coffeeshop nearby. --valereee (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Been busy - did a couple now. Agree a bigger cushion is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all! Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Technical error at a nomination page

Any of you Wikipedia tecchies out there know why my review on Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship of the Bible isn't appearing? The only way I seem to be able to get it to show is if I put it under the "do not edit below this line" line. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

fixed the malformed nom - in case something is missing check previous versions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
A qpq is missing but I couldn't find one in the version I shortened. You shouldn't approve a hook without qpq ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
He didn't need one, it's his first nomination. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
thank you, I was too fast - the name seemed familiar --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Q6 Mar13

Template:Did you know nominations/Possession (Joywave album)

RESOLVED
A citation has been added to the relevant sentence in the article. feminist (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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


Aria1561 Paparazzzi Feminist

The sentence in the article that supports the hook doesn't have a citation. --valereee (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

valereee, the citation for the claim is placed at the end of that paragraph, because the claim that follows it up is also sourced by that citation. Aria1561 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
DYK rules require that the reference confirming a hook fact must be duplicated for the sentence mentioning it, even if the reference is already provided elsewhere in the paragraph or article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Article updated. Aria1561 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur V. Sellwood

This 1979 book cover shows an 1891 illustration, which is out of copyright; does that mean the book cover is out of copyright?

Philafrenzy Whispyhistory BlueMoonset --valereee (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

valereee, I don't know whether you can copyright a book cover if the image is out of copyright and the only other element is the font chosen to go with it. Pinging Nikkimaria, who knows much more about image copyright than I do. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding plain text around an out of copyright image doesn't create a new copyrightable work. You have to do more than that to rise to the level of producing a new creative work. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
In principle that is correct: so long as the underlying image is PD in both its source country and the US, given that the text is not a copyrightable element the image will be PD. However I'll note in this particular case that the image is missing a tag for the US status of the underlying image. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Added now. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations has requested some leniency in the requirements for this to be promoted due to its current relevance and the work in overhauling the page. As it stands, it falls short of the 5x expansion rule and I was inclined not to promote based upon that. Just looking to gauge opinion on whether any other editors would support this going through in spite of it falling short of the normal requirements. Kosack (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance and Kosack: to be clear, this falls short on the length of expansion, not the dates of expansion. As is, it was 3166 characters before you started expansion. 3166 x 5 = 15,830. The current size is only 8334 characters, just slightly over half of what is needed. The most obvious solution to this, since it is not a lengthy article, is to find an editor who would be willing to do a quick GAC review for you. Bring it to DYK that way, and there will not be an issue over 5X expansion. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I would be more willing to support an IAR case here if it reached 5X regardless of how long it took, but since it hasn't happened at this point, I'd suggest going with Maile's suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that the expansion requirements are based on prose characters, not bytes, and the expansion so far has gone a bit over 5000 characters, with another 7500 to go. Under the circumstances, it may be best to try for the Good article nomination process, but that can take quite a while, and the GA criteria requires a level of quality that DYK doesn't. It's not too late to continue expanding the article by any means, but it's almost doubling what's there now. This is one of those rules that doesn't get an IAR exception, unless it's a matter of a small number characters, not several thousand; the shape of the article before expansion (unless there are copyvios) doesn't figure into the calculus. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Kosack, Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, sorry about this, but it seems that I got the definition wrong re the expansion criteria (prose characters vs bytes). There is no chance unfortunately that there is enough further prose to get to a 5x prose expansion (I wonder if this isn't too high a bar?). Thank you for all your collective help and consideration – much appreciated. How do I withdraw the DYK (do I just delete it from the queue)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You can simply leave a message on the nomination page that you have decided to withdraw it, after which another editor will close it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was able to expand the section of their investments to date using a research paper and am at 12,420 (which 3.92x expansion). I think I can add a Structure section that should get me to 5x. Maybe I will hold on. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there anybody at DYK who can help with the last little bit of bringing the size up? It's now up to 4X expansion. It would probably need about 500 more words, and I personally don't feel comfortable writing on medical subject matters. But if anyone does feel comfortable doing that, please join in. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just suggested on the nomination page that the Structure section, with the exception of the list of 12 board members, could easily be converted to prose, which would add about 1,600 prose characters to the current 12,800, for a total of 14,400 or more. Since the goal is 15,830, that's most of the distance already done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Girard (ice hockey)

Hi all,

I apologize for this but I am having trouble installing the five fold script. I was wondering if Samuel Girard (ice hockey) qualifies as five fold expanded? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, I'm sorry to say that it isn't. The article had 2,402 prose characters prior to your expansion, and is currently at 5,965, nearly a 2.5x expansion. To get this to 5x, it will need a total of 12,010 prose characters, or another 6,045 to go. Best of luck getting there! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, is it good now? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Still not yet, HickoryOughtShirt?4. The article's at 7,975 prose characters, so you need another 4,035. (Although you added over 7,500 bytes, most of that was the new source citations accompanying the new text, and they don't count toward prose; the prose increase was 2,010 characters.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I may just nominate it for GA. I think I’ve expanded all I can and only added +4K bytes.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
HickoryOughtShirt?4, GA is the way to go if the expansion can't be met. Right now the article's at 9,789, which means another 2,221 prose characters are needed for a 5x expansion, but that's not relevant in a GA nomination, just that it meets the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here is an updated list with the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 26. We currently have a total of 237 nominations, of which 80 have been approved, an increase of 15 nominations but a decrease of 8 approvals. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from December and first four from January that remain from last time, and also including 15(!) from that list that have still never been reviewed at all.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of the Madalorian

So after today, we have had eight entries about the Mandalorian in the last 6 weeks, or one entry every five days on average. How on earth did this kind of commercial promotion get through the review process? Too late to change the previous entries now, but we'd better stop this now, or we'd look even more suspect than we already do. Even if this is just overeager fans creating articles, the significant introcution of systemic bias because of this should infect DYK.

  • 14-3: "... that comedian Bill Burr disliked Star Wars and regularly mocked the franchise until he portrayed a character in it?" - Attempt to hide by easter-egging the link, possibly more of these I haven't yet found
  • 8-3: "... that Jon Favreau, creator of the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian, also voiced the character of Paz Vizla?"
  • 4-3: "... that Moff Gideon of The Mandalorian has been compared to Darth Vader?"
  • 26-2: "... that Werner Herzog, who plays The Client in The Mandalorian, has called the show's producers "cowards" for considering the use of computer-generated imagery for "Baby Yoda"?"
  • 10-2: "... that Nick Nolte, who voices Kuiil in the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian, was seriously considered for the role of Han Solo over 40 years earlier?"
  • 9-2: "... that actor Carl Weathers agreed to play Greef Karga on the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian on the condition that he direct future episodes of the show?"
  • 8-2: "... that Jon Favreau created the role of Cara Dune in The Mandalorian with former mixed martial artist Gina Carano in mind, and did not audition any other actresses for the role?"
  • 3-2: "... that IG-11, from the Star Wars series The Mandalorian, so closely resembles the character IG-88 that fans and journalists initially confused the two?"

I rest my case. Fgf10 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • So your case is "eight articles were written or improved within a certain period of time". You accusing the editors of "commercial promotion" is neither assuming good faith, nor realizing that articles get written about what people like - a group of Wikipedias like the Mandalorian, so what? Wikipedia is nothing but systemic bias, as we write about what we are interested in, DYK is no more, or no less an example of this than the entire site. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So we should we be showcasing our systemic bias on the main page or try to counter it? I would think the latter. Fgf10 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We should, A) not attack the people here with bad faith assumptions such as How on earth did this kind of commercial promotion get through the review process? B) Not act like you coming here saying "hey these are all on the same topic, you apparently never saw this before" C) Not introduce topic censorship on topics. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's replace them with some hooks about a niche area. German opera? This is sarcastic. We get lots of hooks about German opera, because a lot of work is done on those articles. Nobody challenges that. Sure, Disney is a commercial property, but chances are an editor who likes the Mandalorian is also invested in the DYK process. They should get a thumbs up. Kingsif (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, niche areas are exactly what we should be posting. That is the entire point of of DYK, to show the breath of our coverage. Not to be an American entertainment ticker. And indeed, anyone who creates quality articles should get the thumbs up. I have no issue with the articles being there whatsoever, it's the excessive promotion of them that is the issue. Fgf10 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
And we are trying to space them out. Except for the back to back to back appearances in February, they are running at least 4 days apart. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I am very much aware it is a common way of working. That does not mean we should be promoting a single subject, which has significant commercial implications, in such a short amount of time. If you think eight entries in six weeks is spacing them out, we are clearly on very different planets. Fgf10 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Might as well get rid of all of the snooker hooks while we're at it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This just appears to be yet another variant on "how dare Wikipedia feature articles on topics in which I'm not personally interested!". As Hawkeye correctly says, this is a completely expected pattern on Wikipedia, since writing all the articles on a given topic in a batch means only having to take the books out of the library once. And not to personalise the dispute, but someone with 2.8% of their edits being to mainspace is probably not best qualified to lecture the people who actually do the work on how they should be working. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Never edited an article more than once?! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see how this is an issue. I don't think DYK is particularly here to promote niche things, its to promote our new content. It's often that people write on the same topic, and sometimes, people write about the same ideas, as it's part of a WP:GT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey, Fgf10, I get it. We often have runs like this because certain people who contribute to DYK are very interested in a single subject. I, too, am concerned when we cover a commercial subject so frequently that we might be perceived to be promoting that subject. The answer is for those reviewing entries on currently available commercial products to question whether all of these hooks are actually interesting to a general audience and cull out the ones that aren't. Personally I'd question many of these hooks. The Nick Nolte hook, I find interesting. The Carl Weathers hook, no -- that's just business as usual, and if it was the most interesting thing about that article, that article doesn't belong at DYK. --valereee (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Q4 17March

Template:Did you know nominations/Tum Hi Aana

CAPTAIN MEDUSA Paparazzzi

  • ... that composer Payal Dev used multiple instruments in the 2019 Hindi ballad "Tum Hi Aana" to "give it the right amount of emotions"?

Article says: Nautiyal played multiple instruments on the track, including the sarangi, flute, piano, and mouth organ, "to give it the right amount of emotions". Source for that doesn't actually say Nautiyal played these multiple instruments, and our article on him describes him as a singer. I think what we're trying to say is that Dev composed the piece for multiple instruments? --valereee (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Yes. I was trying to say that she composed it. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA, so we don't actually know that Nautiyal played any of the instruments? --valereee (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, Nope. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Irish Central Committee for the Employment of Women

Joseph2302 Feminist

The Irish Times source noted in the nom mentions only Central Committee for Women’s Employment for Leinster, Munster and Connaught, is this the same organization? Also I'm having a hard time finding support for the hook statement that the committee 'aimed to pay etc.', in that source? Also I'm finding the construction 'aimed to pay' confusing. They aimed to (themselves?) pay equal wages, or they were trying to get manufacturers to pay equal wages? --valereee (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Irish Times article says Irish women workers, previously paid at lower rates than women in Britain, won pay awards at equal levels for the first time. and These committees, under royal sponsorship, provided work for unemployed women but their workshops were frequently dismissed as “Queen Mary’s Sweatshops” since they paid women so little. so I'll assume they pay wages themselves.
Looks like the sources cited in the article (Irish Times, TUC History, "Ireland and the Great War") do tend to refer to the org as "Central Committee for Women’s Employment". However, this Women's History Review article cited in Central Committee on Women's Employment#Other states Nathan thought this unnecessary as an Irish Central Committee for the Employment of Women (ICCEW) already existed. Two ICCEW committees were launched, one which covered Munster, Connaught and Leinster and another which covered the nine counties of Ulster. This is probably why our article on the Irish committee is entitled "Irish Central Committee for the Employment of Women". This statement in the WHR article is sourced to Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, 1915, British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), [Cd. 8016], p. 377 which sounds more authoritative than a modern-day newspaper article. feminist (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: TL;DR: The hook can be modified to say "paid" instead of "aimed to pay" for clarity. The difference in naming between CCEW and CCWE doesn't seem like a major issue. feminist (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Feminist, so the committee were actually paying the women themselves, not advocating for pay equity? Glad I asked, that is exactly the opposite of what I'd assumed. Thanks, I'll make that change. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles MacTavish

Andrew Gray

Sentence supporting 'was signatory' doesn't have a citation. And 'stood for' = BrEng for 'was elected' rather than 'ran for'? --valereee (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: The cite really covered all the paragraph to that point, but I've added another to that specific sentence. Stood for = ran for election. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Gray, thanks! For DYK, the citation needs to be at the sentence. --valereee (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'd like to ask a second opinion from the community. I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone but I am unsure if it is neutral enough to run. Originally it was written in very poor English, which has largely been fixed. However I do still have concerns that title is provocative and seems to violate WP:NDESC. Also I had concerns that the hooks violated WP:NPOV which means I am a lttle reluctant to promote them. Would people be able to give an extra opinion on this please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Nepal

DYK 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Nepal

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Epicgenius, and Yoninah:

Two items -

(1) perhaps we should remove the word "isolation" from the hook, as it seems fuzzy to me in the source.
The Hook - "that one man suspected of coronavirus in Nepal ran away from the hospital isolation?"
The article - "A fourth man, a Saudi Arabian national who only spoke Arabic and appeared to object to being kept at the hospital, had fled the hospital and could not be located."
The source - "The ministry, however, said that they were still struggling to locate a Saudi Arabian man, who had gone missing from STIDH premises. He was suspected of showing symptoms of infection. “The government is serious about the matter and will make him undergo every test after locating him,” Shrestha said. The Saudi Arabian man, who had arrived in Nepal, after a stopover in China’s airport around a week ago, had complained of cough and fever. But, he fled from the hospital after being taken there."
(2) It would be helpful in general, if when submitting a really long article with a detailed source, if the reviewer had a little more guidepost to quickly find the info in the source. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I'd personally remove "isolation" as it's not directly in the article or the source. epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. "Hospital" is enough. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done removed "isolation" from hook. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
On a broader note, we may need to keep an eye on the volume of CV related content coming down the pipe. Currently three hooks that I see. But there are a lot of these sub-articles that are being created ATM. GMGtalk 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, this goes back to the complaint posted above. We are always going to have a run of articles on the same subject. First it was Pennsylvania rivers, then European operas, then every radio station in the U.S. There are many more examples. I think all these articles are important and build the encyclopedia, and the best we at DYK can do is space them out every few days. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, the difference may be that these other articles were all created by the same person. E.g. Jakec's rivers and Raymie's radio stations. These coronavirus hooks seem to be by different people. epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: sorry, I don't see the difference? From DYK's point of view, we're just going to have another slew of articles on the latest news topic, and we have to manage the flow. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, there might not be much of a difference at all. In the cited examples (rivers, radio stations, operas), the nominators know that they are making articles about the same topic. With coronavirus, most of the nominators don't know that they are creating similar articles. Not that it matters much, though. epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington Hall (hotel) - Prep 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Hall (hotel)

Hook: * ... that the Washington Hall hotel was destroyed during the Battle of Atlanta as part of General Sherman's scorched-earth policy?

@JJonahJackalope and MB: Neither the scorched-earth policy nor General Sherman are mentioned in the source. It merely refers to "the Federal Army in 1864" I otherwise see the sourcing that says the Atlanta Hotel was destroyed in 1864, and so was the Washington Hall. For those readers not familiar with the American Civil War and its terminology, maybe you could add a source that puts it in context of General Sherman and the burning of Atlanta Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The source "Atlanta and Environs" P.237 says "The Washington Hotel suffered the same fate as the Atlanta Hotel in 1864." That is the direct citation that the hotel was burned. The same source discusses Sherman's destruction of Atlanta in general in several pages starting around p.650. It includes "To that end, [Sherman] ordered the destruction of the city's industrial and railroad plant, public building, and warehouses. Execution of the order, unfortunately, resulted in the destruction of many dwellings and other structures not of military or industrial value, some accidentally and some on purpose". So I think that aspect of the hook is covered in the same source, just in a different chapter. (But without the "scorched earth" terminology). MB 02:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Rather than wait for the bot to pipe up in four hours or so, I thought I'd mention that the queues are empty and the preps are almost full, and it would be nice to adjust the ratio before the bot comes up empty when it tries to promote a queue at midnight. Pinging our many admins in the hopes that one (or more) will be available before UTC day's end: Gatoclass, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Vanadmonde, Maile, valereee, and Cas Liber. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks for the spot. Sorry, I have been largely absent from DYK recently. Real life has gone a little manic, and for more than one reason. I have promoted prep 1 to queue 1 and will endeavour to do some checks on it before midnight. If someone else wants to do Q2 we can share the load a little. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll start looking through prep 2; many hands make light work. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to you all: four sets were promoted by four different admins. We're in good shape, though additional promotions over the next several days will keep this section quiescent for a while. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Art_pottery - 4 March

I'd be grateful if this could get reviewed, as I have a bunch of spin-off biogs in the pipeline (Max Laeuger being the first), & would like to space them out. This, the main article, is longish, but I would think a fairly easy review. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hook in Prep/Queue 2

  • ... that video game director Aya Kyogoku created Animal Crossing: New Leaf with a team that was half female, and credits the team's diversity for the game's critical and commercial success?

If my math is correct, this hook will appear Saturday UTC, about a day after Animal Crossing: New Horizons is released. I know hooks about phones running around the time of phone releases have been controversial in the past, and wanted to run this hook by others. It's not overtly promotional, and I only recognized the potential promo connection because I like Animal Crossing; personally I think it's a fine hook (and timely), but more opinions on when to run this would be helpful. Ping nom and reviewer @Morgan695 and Hunter Kahn: — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's problematic in this case, it doesn't sound promotional and instead only gives an opinion of a staff member. If the hook was more promotional (something like "DYK that ACNF received positive reviews?") or something to that effect, then I don't think that would be allowed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Have we had this video game/franchise linked to at DYK before this, or do we have a bunch in the hopper? My concern is the kind of thing we saw with the Mandalorian above, with over a period of six weeks 8 different hooks for the same television show/franchise. --valereee (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There was an Animal Crossing DYK last month, so a gap of one month sounds long enough to not be another Mandalorian case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vs. the World hooks

Hi all, we thought of this yesterday but I only thought to mention it to others/prep-builders when I saw the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World nom moved to prep today.

I nommed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (the film) after it became GA, for a women's history hook. I then expanded and nommed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (soundtrack) a little over a week later; since the main hook for the film (the one that had been approved, though it's not the one at prep...) mentioned the soundtrack, I suggested at the soundtrack nom they could run together, if possible, though I now realize I could have mentioned that at the film's nom.

And then a few days ago, Nice4What nommed Template:Did you know nominations/Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2, another album with art inspiration from Scott Pilgrim, and named for the film. I suggested there that it could run on the same day as the film soundtrack. It would perhaps be better to not have the film and soundtrack hooks run together, then, to not have three Scott Pilgrim hooks up at once.

That's the intention, so we can hold the Scott Pilgrim soundtrack and Lil Uzi Vert album for the same day? (I also wonder why the approved hook for the film isn't at Prep 5?) Kingsif (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, we typically don't bunch related hooks on the same day unless it is a special occasion. So two album hooks wouldn't run at the same time, nor a soundtrack for a film and the film itself, etc. Aside from varying the mix of hooks in a set, this gives the Scott Pilgrim–related hooks three different chances to be on the main page, and makes it more likely that readers would see at least one of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Well, that is a fair trade off! Kingsif (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2

"... that Samantha Lowe, who was initially not selected for the 2002 Commonwealth Games..."

The wording on this hook has been changed from my initial wording:

"... that Samantha Lowe, who at one point was not selected for the 2002 Commonwealth Games..." (emphasis on the changes)

It's true at one point she wasn't selected, but she was initally selected, then deselected, and later reselected again.Do original wording is factually correct, mew wording isn't
Yoninah can we switch back to my wording, or find a better wording of my hook that doesn't change the meaning? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion / new DYK substitution not working

I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/George Dudley with a special occasion request for April 19. The template is not substituting properly, can anyone see what went wrong? Flibirigit (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by co-nominator User:HickoryOughtShirt?4. A review is welcome, but not urgent since it's a month away. Flibirigit (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6:"I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the Prince of Wales"

The original hook as proposed by @MWright96: had Edna Deane's bolded link first:
Either way, the song title is probably going to get the most hits. As the song page was a stub, I've slowly managed to work it up to a 5x expansion over the past 3 days. I would like to know if it's okay with MWright86 if we make this a double hook, and if so, if someone could review the expanded article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A double hook is a good idea here. I will be happy to do a quick review. We may need to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Edna Deane, and have someone else promote? Is there a QPQ which can be provided? Flibirigit (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection on making this a double hook. MWright96 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, MWright96. @Flibirigit: the hook has already been promoted to the queue by Casliber, so we just need to ask an administrator to bold the link and add my DYK credit. You can put your review on this talk page. Here is my QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Raphael Warnock. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber: thanks, but isn't the edited version (the first hook above) that has the song title first better from a grammatical point of view? Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(shrugs) ummm maybe. I will change it back Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears that this is already approved in Queue 6 and presumably reviewed by an admin. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4 - Brimham Rocks Article

I am asking you to consider pulling the above article from DYK exposure for the moment, on the grounds of social responsibility regarding the attraction of uncontrollable crowds to an unstaffed and unfenced site where on busy weekends there are always life-threatening accidents to unskilled climbers. Normally there are first-aiders at the site and air ambulances available, but during the current coronavirus emergency there are no first-aiders and almost certainly no available ambulances. Please see the discussion on Talk:Brimham Rocks. I do not want to have to ask this, because this one is good click bait, but human lives come first. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the next queue to go live. I have no problem pulling the hook in the interest of public safety, but would appreciate comments from others here before I do. Since the current health crisis looks to continue through the summer, can we put this nomination back in the approved section, with a prominent note not to promote until the Coronavirus crisis passes? — Maile (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised by such a request. Since when is it Wikipedia's job to safeguard public safety? We are an encyclopedia, not the health service. I also fail to understand how telling people in the lead that the site is closed is going to stop them from going there. Here in Israel hundreds of people keep disregarding the rules to stay home and avoid public places. The hook and image are just talking about the site; whether or not people are worried about coronavirus really doesn't figure in here. Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Storye book: I don't see anything in the article about understaffing and life-threatening accidents. Perhaps that should be added in a separate section. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I have done a quick google for accidents at the site, and it looks as though there might be some suitable citations. I shall shortly attempt to add a brief section about that, as suggested above. Thank you for that suggestion, Yoninah. As for whether the article should feature in DYK right now - well we all do what we feel is the right thing, and for me the right thing was the above request, although I absolutely agree that it is very late to have to make such a request. It is now up to the above people, and any other interested DYK admin, to make the final decision. I just ask one thing - that the page be protected while it is in DYK so that the information about the site being closed is not removed. I say that because there has been a recent attempt to remove that information. Thank you to the above for your helpful comments. Storye book (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My 2p on this is I don't think any Wikipedia readers will see this article and immediately decide they want to go there in the middle of the UK lockdown. Amd if they do, that's their responsibility for being stupid, Wikipedia shouldn't have to try and mitigate for idiots. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you may have just lost 2p, re the question of how the "idiots" will behave. When the National Trust announced a few days ago that they were going to close facilities but leave the Brimham Rocks park open with a free car park (usually £6 to non-NT members I think) the place was inundated on Friday 20 March with many hundreds of people, and predictably one man fell off a rock and had to be stretchered off. Meanwhile, if the article gets its DYK exposure tomorrow, I'm not going to argue. I am happy that the information saying that the site is closed will now remain within the article. I have added a section on tourist accidents as recommended. We are all doing our best in our different ways. All the best. Storye book (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so here is an updated list with the 30 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of February. I’ve limited the number of new additions to the three from February 29 since all but four of the rest are left over from last week, and most of them have never been reviewed at all. We currently have a total of 264 nominations, of which 103 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from December and two from January that remain. There is also the April Fools’ Day nomination from February 3 that needs to be reviewed soon.

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) 04:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2020 JNU Attack

This nomination was created back on January 6 by DBigXRay, who was blocked for disruptive editing on March 1 and subsequently retired and had their account name changed to one of the long Renamed user+random string names on March 10. The nomination has never been reviewed, despite having been on multiple "Oldest nominations needing reviewing" lists on this page, though the originally proposed hook was struck due to neutrality issues and three alternates proposed.

How should we proceed from here? Is anyone willing to take over the nominator's role? Is anyone willing to at least look the article over and see whether there are likely to be further neutrality or other issues, which would keep it from being approved without someone willing to work on it? Or should we treat the retirement as sufficient reason to close/retire the nomination? I'd like to know what the DYK community thinks, including any possibilities I may have overlooked. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've looked over the article, and if just from experience of writing overloaded articles on protests and attacks in relation to Venezuela (and since getting better at it), I know that it needs a lot of clean-up. It's a vaguely chronological narrative of everything, and inconsistent. If nobody seems interested in picking it up, I'm not sure it's worth it. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, for the sake of accuracy, please be informed that the editor formerly known as DBigXray had never been blocked. I am not sure where "blocked for disruptive editing on March 1" is coming from. If no other editor volunteers to take responsibility for the nomination, it would be best to close it, as it is highly unlikely that DBigXray would return to work on it. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, the editor formerly known as DBigXray was doxed for his editing and wasn't blocked for editing. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for mischaracterizing DBigXRay's departure; I thought I read "disruptive editing" somewhere, but must have been mistaken if the reason for their departure was that personal information had been revealed about them (that is what you mean by "doxed", right?). It looks like someone has volunteered to address the issues that would come up in the review, so the nomination will continue to be active; I hope a reviewer will finally take this one on. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Van Gogh's birthday

I requested March 30 for Template:Did you know nominations/Rain (Van Gogh) but I realize now that POTD also has a Van Gogh themed post for that date: Template:POTD/2020-03-30. Do with this information what you will. I will be happy with any outcome including postponing the DYK or posting it sooner or posting it simultaneously. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's run it in Prep 6, when western times zones are still in March 30. Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Van Gogh is Dutch; why would we run it any time but on his actual birthday where he was born, which is March 30? There have been overlaps between DYK and TFA before; I don't see the problem with running the hook on the actual day, rather than have an overlap of between four and seven hours in the Americas, basically evening hours only. Put it in Prep 5 where it belongs, and move the "Jenny" hook to a later date. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Yoninah, who just promoted this to the lead hook on March 31, to note my intention of moving this to March 30. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 DYK archives missing?

Where are the main page DYK displays for March? Only January and February are listed for 2020. At one time you could view the DYK main page listing for the previous days and weeks. How would one find the DYK listing for yesterday, the day before, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. All of March to date is listed on that page. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: scroll down on that page. You won't see a separate March link at the top until the month has passed. All of March is below that linked list, below the "Search archives". — Maile (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, it's quite easy to not realise that section is there, because of a big splodge of whitespace. Perhaps March should actually appear as an archive link, but just flip the editor down the page to the next anchor. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the latest DYK archives are not visible without paging or scrolling down. Didn't there used to be a link for the last ten days, right below the current DYK listing? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The January and February link to completed separate archives, while March is still "recent", not yet archived at all. I always write links to the March archive to come, in order not to have to change later, when it gets filled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Special request

Is there any chance that Template:Did you know nominations/Igor Matovič can get on the main page tomorrow (21 March)? It's the day he will be sworn in as Prime Minister of Slovakia. buidhe 17:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I will look to review it. The lead is too short. Once I'm here, Jessye Norman missed Black history month, and shouldn't miss Women's month also. The GA review was diligent, so even if it's long there should be no major problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
buidhe: realistically, no, as you've seen. Giving less than seven hours advance notice is a virtually impossible situation: not only do you need to get an immediate review, but there needs to be an admin around to do the promotion checking and the last-minute insertion into an already filled queue. Might there be another special day coming up, or should it just be promoted to prep in the usual way. And, while I'm here, the Jessye Norman DYK template is Template:Did you know nominations/Jessye Norman; it was nominated on March 6, and as Gerda Arendt notes it needs a review soon if it's going to appear on the main page this month. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe began the review, thanks. Hooks proposals welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Still looking for a hook which is acceptable to a reviewer, - some are proposed, and you could be that reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
3 hooks are now approved. Could she please find a place pictured in March, women's month? She's great any day, but Wikipedia could a make s atatement ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Q2 27Mar

Template:Did you know nominations/Twelve Bens

  • ... that according to academic Paul Tempan, "nobody seems to know exactly which are the twelve peaks in question" of the Twelve Bens mountain range in Connemara, Ireland?

Britishfinance I'm having a hard time with the grammar of this hook, would

  • ... that academic Paul Tempan said of the Twelve Bens mountain range in Connemara, Ireland, that "nobody seems to know exactly which are the twelve peaks in question"?

...work for you? --valereee (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, that works for me - thank you for that. Britishfinance (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

request for moving quickly through system?

Hey all, I'd sincerely appreciate an expedited process for this timely hook, if possible: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States There's no actual deadline, but the issue is being dealt with by multiple governmental bodies right now, so thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a bunch of coronavirus-related nominations, and I'm wondering how to space them out so we don't get complaints like the one above about The Mandalorian. The approved noms are:
Template:Did you know nominations/Catch it, Bin it, Kill it
Template:Did you know nominations/Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
Template:Did you know nominations/Corona Rintawan
Template:Did you know nominations/Disease X
Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States
Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I'm thinking that a major current event -- maybe the majorest of our lifetimes -- is different from a commercial release? --valereee (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll start promoting more coronavirus hooks, though the image ones will have to be spread out. Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally --valereee (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rei Matsuzaki

I noticed that this nomination was closed a few days ago as the original nominator was blocked and none of the approved hooks were deemed suitable. I just saw this nomination again in the Failed DYK nominations category and didn't realize that it had been closed; as the topic (Japanese voice acting) is something I tend to work with for DYK, would it be alright with editors here if the nomination is re-opened and I adopt it? I took a quick look at the article and I think there were some facts that could have been proposed as hooks. Courtesy ping to the original reviewer Dee03, as well as to Yoninah and BlueMoonset. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me if you can salvage it. I'm reopening it for you. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The hook I had in mind was "ALT ... that Japanese voice actress Rei Matsuzaki wrote a newspaper sports column on the Tokyo Yakult Swallows?" or something like that. It's the only option I can think of right now, so if it's not considered suitable I'm fine with the nomination being kept closed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Nomination approved. Thanks for the new hook, Narutolovehinata5. Yoninah (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

April Fools hooks

We currently have 11 approved hooks in the April Fools Day queue. If we're going to run 2 8-hook sets, we need a few more. I'm wondering if this hook, currently in Prep 6, would also be good:

It would be helpful if someone could organize the April Fools hooks into sets so it will be easier to promote.
Pinging @Gatoclass: for input here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Given how short April Fools' Day hooks tend to be, we might want to aim for one set of 12 hooks (there's a twelfth nomination under review at the moment). Or there might be a nomination or two that would work as well on a different day in April. (And Preps 1 and/or 2 will need to be moved to a later prep, once the later ones open up, to make room for said April Fools' set or sets; I completely forgot about it when making room for a special occasion hook just now.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
While I usually work hard to ensure quality control on the April Fool's sets, I have a health issue at the moment and consequently decided that I could do without the stress this year. So I've reluctantly avoided the project this time around as I know that if I even look at the page I am going to get caught up in trying to improve things. But with regard to the above proposed hook as an April Fool's candidate Yoninah, yes I think that might be passable if you are short of hooks. But BlueMoonset is probably correct that you could run a single set with 11 or 12 hooks, assuming they are as short as they usually are. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If you wanted to, I do have Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box and Template:Did you know nominations/Potters Crouch as possible additions to make it a nice round 14 for 2x7. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Two sets of seven brief hooks will make an excessively short DYK section on the main page, causing a significant unbalance. Also, those additional hooks are not ideal for the day. (Queen Bess could work, but it's a very short hook, and won't help the balance much.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We're currently running at one sets of hooks per day, it seems like we're putting in a lot of effort just to accommodate 2 sets per day for April Fool's. Wouldn't it be easier to just run 1 set on April Fool's, then nobody will have to change the bot, and we can all get on with other things? Don't see why April Fool's is so important that it needs 2 sets at any cost. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph2302. I wonder if readers are really in the mood for raunchy jokes right now. Yoninah (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that April Fool's Day is not worth the extra effort. One set only will suffice. I won't be bothered to read any of the hooks anyhow. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Prep 1 is now free, and ready for an April Fools' Day set to start being assembled. I've set it up to be 12 hooks long. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I've only just had the chance to respond to this. Personally I do think that at a time like this, when people are stuck in quarantine/isolation, people need a good laugh to break up the mundanity of this nonsense. Especially when people who don't often come on here, come just because of April Fools Day and a quick browse of Twitter shows that people do appreciate that we do it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I've promoted 8 hooks and left notes on several others. One seems particularly inappropriate for April Fools Day. I moved Queen Bess to the AFD set as a placeholder. Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aggie Kukulowicz in prep 2

The hook for Aggie Kukulowicz in Prep 2 has been altered from its approved form at Template:Did you know nominations/Aggie Kukulowicz, and no longer agrees with the cited source. The original hook read:

    • ALT1:... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years without speaking, but reportedly bought him an ice cream cone? [2]

The altered form reads:

  • ... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years without communicating with him, but reportedly bought him an ice cream cone?

It is incorrect to assume that the two men never communicated. The cited source [3] only says that they did not speak. Giving an ice cream cone to another person without speaking is still a form of communication, and makes this revised hook incorrect. I strongly recommend that hook be changed back to its original form to avoid being reported at WP:ERRORS. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I found the hook difficult to parse. You can see I thought it meant something else entirely. Is this better:

I still don't understand the concern about the original ALT1. Here are some slight tweaks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    • ALT1b:... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years without them speaking, but reportedly bought the agent an ice cream cone? [4]
    • ALT1c:... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years without them speaking, but reportedly bought an ice cream cone for the agent? [5]

Yoninah, I am unsure why the word "reportedly" was removed from the hook and the article. I feel it is necessary to temper the statement, since the incident is the recollection of Kukulowicz's son. Flibirigit (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the hook in Prep 2 with the ALT1b wording, which I preferred to ALT1c. I think it's preferable to have "the agent" rather than "him" as in ALT1a. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4 tomorrow

St. Johnston railway station

St. Johnston railway station has a mix of St Johnston and St. Johnston. The majority of the (online) refs omit the dot and per MOS:POSTABBR "placenames should follow the most common rendering found in reliable sources". If it should render as St without the full stop, the article needs to be moved and hook changed? (Wasn't sure whether to post this here or at Errors.) JennyOz (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: — Maile (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The very minor issue has been fixed in the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, The C of E, the question here is the proper name of the article, and it hasn't been addressed at all aside from adding a number of (but not all) "." characters to the article. One telling point, to my mind, is that the article for the town is at "St Johnston". I don't know how it works in Ireland, but my understanding is that in the UK, the "." is typically omitted before "St", and the disambiguation page Saint Johnstown omits the ".". We should probably address this now, to avoid someone doing so while the article is on the main page; it looks to me that JennyOz has a point here. (MOS:POSTABBR specifically addresses the "St" vs. "St." issue.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Fine, then WP:BOLDly move it. No need for a big discussion about it over a full stop. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Pinging a few admins—Maile, Amakuru, valereee, Cas Liber—to make the following adjustments to Queue 4 in the next few hours to reflect the article move:
  • In the Hooks section, adjust the second hook to remove the period from the "St. Johnston railway station" bold link
  • In the Credits section, please adjust the second field to remove the period from "St. Johnston railway station", but retain the period in the final "subpage" field (very important!)
Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: thanks for the ping, but I'm a little sceptical that the article should have been moved myself. Where's the evidence that a majority of sources omit the period? Certainly several of those used in the article itself include it: [6][7][8][9] and those look like higher quality sources than those in the article that omit the period. I would suggest that the solution to this issue is to standardise on the "St. Johnston" form, as suggested by The C of E earlier. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, I went to check sources on the town, and also to see whether it was "St." or "St" in general for Ireland, and found "St" in the majority of cases for the town (for example, here, here, and here), so I went from there. I figured The C of E wouldn't have encouraged me to boldly move the article if he thought doing so would be wrong. I also standardized the article on the town, which was also mostly "St" (as the railway article was initially). However, I will be the first to admit that I don't know what the standard orthography is in Ireland, and I'm perfectly happy to be reverted if I'm wrong. I do think it's important that the hook and article match, so if the hook doesn't change, the article should be reverted and moved back; I'll leave that decision to someone more knowledgeable than I am. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Oh well, I don't feel that strongly about it - I suspect it may be part of a general move towards omitting such characters in language generally, meaning that older sources (many of which the article is based on) are more likely to include it. Our house style on this seems a bit confused, given that we also insist on periods in titles such as Manchester United F.C. despite most sources not including them. And indeed S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, which appears in the very same set as the St Johnston one. But that's not an issue we can resolve here!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Jessye Norman

Template:Did you know nominations/Jessye Norman

Yoninah promoted ALT4 to the Queue; however, ALT4 was never actually approved by any reviewer, only ALT6/ALT7/ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I IAR'ed. Everybody and his brother sings for presidential inaugurations. I agreed with Gerda that it's better to actually say something about what she does. Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, No. None of the approved were just inauguration, and all said something about what she did, and its historical reach. No one in the world could do what she did and no one in the world can ever do it again. It's utterly poor judgement to assign her to obscurity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
What are you saying? That ALT4 assigns her to obscurity? If you'd like, I'll reopen the nomination. I cannot see any of the approved hooks, which Narutolovehinata5 believes appeals to a broad audience, in the lead slot:
Yes, reopen since you want approval. You have assigned obscurity to her. For the last, just add operatic before soprano. Your not being able to see it in the first slot, makes no sense to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that choosing ALT4 can be considered "assigning obscurity"; being involved with names like Maya Angelou is not "being obscure" at all and can be considered a huge achievement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Maya Angelou was removed from the formerly promoted hook. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that the hook is safely in Queue 4 and ready to appear on the main page tomorrow. Alanscottwalker, I don't understand why you added "also" to the ALT6 wording after it was promoted to prep; it isn't necessary to the sentence, and because of that seems to me to suggest a (non-existent) connection between the inaugurations and anniversary with regard to La Marseillaise. Can "also" be removed? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Won't stand in the way but: "Also" actually makes a greater distinction between two things, what follows 'also' is new information and emphasizes its distinction from what came before. Of course, here we have to do it all in one sentence, so 'and also' rather than the usual way of two different subject sentences for new information: 'She performed there. Also, she did this interesting thing elsewhere.', or 'She also . . .' .Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"Also" does seem pretty superfluous. We're actually comparing her operatic career with her performance at popular events. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Maile again to delete the "also". Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done OK, done. I'm putting all these Jessye Norman threads in one place here. Too much, too many places. — Maile (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4

Same queue, pictured Jessye Norman, the hook was a compromise. After the compromise, the leading "operatic soprano" was added, and I'm not happy with it, because - after we talked so long about pigeonholing - that seems too limited. Yes, operatic, but also lied, rock, gospel. Yes, soprano, but also mezzo. Her first roles in New York City, Cassandre and Didone in Les Troyens - so somthing the world knows her for - are mezzo-soprano roles. Can we discuss to drop "operatic soprano", or did we have enough discussion already? Would need an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: — Maile (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, your own ALT7 contained the phrase "soprano voice", so to drop the "soprano" with a soprano vs. mezzo argument seems odd at this point, and I think it's a helpful inclusion. The hook has expanded to over 200 characters, however, so dropping "operatic", even if it is what Norman's best known for, would at least get the hook down to 200 characters. (There's also a discussion in the earlier section about the nomination about deleting an even later addition, the "also".) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: just drop "operatic", leave "soprano" and let's be done with it already. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done the word "operatic" has been dropped, and it's 198 characters now. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Gerda: "operatic" was initially added by me during the discussion because you seemed upset when you said that "Opera . . . [is] not even mentioned", so its fine to get rid of it, if that is what you want. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for having seemed upset. To my recollection, I was upset only once: when it looked as if we needed the names of two men in power to make her look great. - Otherwise, a mixture of frustration and sadness. - I am calmer now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6: Image

Maria Josep Colomer i Luque
Maria Josep Colomer i Luque
feminist, who reviewed this hook, has just switched the hook in prep. The reason I didn't use this picture was because her face is completely dark. If someone can lighten up the image I won't object to this hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I just reverted feminist's change, which should not be unilaterally done by a reviewer unless the promoted hook had not been approved (and it had been). Prep set builders are allowed to choose what they feel best works from the approved hooks. When there's disagreement, we discuss which hook and image is best here on the talk page. (I thought the image Yoninah picked was more effective, and a woman flying thousands of people out of Spain at the end of the civil war struck me as quite interesting, but Mary Poppins also resonates.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I'm not too much of a fan of "first woman" hooks (unless that's the only notable thing about a woman), but the "flown thousands of Republicans" thing can stand. feminist (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just read through the "Mary Poppins" part of the article and the sourcing, and it's quite weak: the "like Mary Poppins" comes from a 2015 article, and the original event, a seven year old Maria jumping out a window holding an umbrella and breaking both of her legs when it inverts on her as she falls to the ground, is an enormous stretch, as is the hook. It's incidental that her ill-fated leap took place 14 years before the the first Mary Poppins novel was published, and I rather doubt the so-called "Mary Poppins" pose was done with any knowledge of Poppins at all, merely a recreation of the inverted umbrella (and not, in any event, flying of any kind). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind what is used - many sources mention the Mary Poppins story, supposedly recounted by Colomer years later (and meaningful enough that she did it again for the camera), if you want more detail in the article - I had kind of assumed the longer hook about the civil war would be used. Kingsif (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: April Fools hooks

I've started to load the set. If anyone has any suggestions for ordering them, please comment here. There are only three images—a crest, a kitten, and the Volkswagen sausages. The Volkswagen one might work best without the image, but I felt the image was better than all the others. (The kitten hook also seemed like the kind of thing we always promote.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, it looks to me that you've got everything loaded that needs to be—I think you're right that the other two don't fit an AFD set—and the only order change I'd make is to make sure the New York and South Dakota hooks are separate once you remove the no-longer-needed blank twelfth hook, because it would otherwise look like two U.S. state hooks one after the other, even if that isn't what it actually is.
For the two hooks that remain, I'd just put them back on the Approved page so they can get promoted in the usual way, Harrison under December 9 with ALT1 (striking ALT2) and Gourds under January 11 with the original hook (I don't think ALT1 would fly, and apparently the thought is that it doesn't translate to autumn in Australia and New Zealand, since the article doesn't mention any activity in the southern hemisphere's autumn, which is indeed now). I can do that if you'd like, but don't want to preempt any possible reconsideration for their inclusion on April 1. The set, even at eleven hooks, looks like it's going to be shorter than our usual eight-hook sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
There is always Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box as a backup to add if you're short. It is very much in the style of AFD and I doubt it would get through unscathed the way its written now on any other day. Plus certainly more foolsy than the Potters Crouch one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: OK, I've moved those last 2 back to the Approved page. But maybe we can hold off condensing the set another day to see if something else comes along. @The C of E: you have 6 out of the 12 slots on this page. Maybe we can get another editor's hook into this set? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Corona Rintawan

In prep 4:

Wouldn't this work better as an April Fool's Day hook? SounderBruce 21:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's worse off on another day. I also think that it's a bit tasteless for April Fools. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree. Even I, who despises censorship, think its not suitable for AFD. There are people who only come here on April Fools Day for a good laugh and escape from the gloom, not to be confronted by the miserable thing that is causing so much nonsense in the world. Best to leave it where it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the others. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Yoninah, I have just undone edit changes to a couple of hooks by Ravenpuff, who added "the" before "Queen Bess" (which wrecks the intended AFD misdirection that this isn't a person), and changed "15" to "fifteen" to match the official title of the court case (better as a number to match all the other similar numbers in the prep set, like 17 million and 60 years). The question is, are there any others where the ability to use slightly different orthography on April Fools' Day to preserve a joke should hold sway? (For the lead sausages, according to the description at Wikimedia Commons, the picture has actual Volkswagen currywurst sausages in the pan, albeit four half-size ones [the equivalent of two full-size ones], so I'm wondering whether the added "examples" will give the impression that these are sausages resembling the VW ones rather than actual VW ones). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: how about changing the image caption to: VW parts? Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: could this hook be of use in the April Fools set?
Granted, it's a little weak when you click on it and see it's a book, but IMO most of the other AFD hooks are pretty weak too. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yoninah, for the Volkswagen hook, I like the idea (and also the change to "parts pictured" in the hook itself), but perhaps "Volkswagen parts" since "VW" is never used in the article proper or the hook.
For the Baby Be-Bop hook, I'm reluctant to include a hook that's for an article where a significant focus is book-burning and prejudice; it doesn't fit the AFD mold. You'd also need to omit the italics for it to work on AFD, and because it's not ideal for the day, I don't think it's worth it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll change the caption to "Volkswagen parts". Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: you know you're not allowed to edit your own hooks in prep. Please discuss your desired changes to Prep 1 here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: First of all, I object to the additional links being added because it will draw views away from the main hook article plus it adds more to the mystery if it is unlinked so they can click through and find out whom it is. As for the Pepsi hook, it was written especially under WP:DYKAPRIL rules where it grants the opportunity for the hook to be worded as such a way, I can cite the precedent for this where we had Jaggln written in a similar fashion last year. Please can I ask if we would be able to return it to what was originally approved this once? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I think The C of E has a good point about adding the unnecessary wikilink to "a Brit", so I've removed it. Readers can easily discover the name of the Brit by reading the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The Pepsi request also sounds reasonable to me. I'll change it back to the approved version. Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

17 Million Fuck Offs

An article about a very controversial political issue in April Fools? Really? Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way on whether or not the hook should be run or not (although the apparent pro-Brexit stance of the hook, as opposed to a more neutral wording, gives me pause), but after the whole "Trump is connected to Russia" hook brouhaha we had a couple of years ago, I can see where the concerns are coming from. The C of E Just in case there are objections here, would you be open to the hook running on a day other than AFD, or to a less sensational and less obviously pro-Brexit version? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
No, this hook was written specifically for April Fools Day. I seem to recall with that Trump one, there was a lot of hand-wringing on here with people thinking "oh, its politicial and might offend someone" but actually there was very little comment from the community at large. So no, I do not think we should be changing it. The fact is due to the nature of it's title, it will always say "fuck off" in connection with the European Union no matter what you do so may as well leave it alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it as a normal DYK, but it's neither funny nor quirky, just rather sad and reflecting poorly on the person who created it (the song that is, not the article!). Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
There must be a way to write it better for April Fools Day, toning down the a Brit has told the European Union part. Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that "Brit" may be an offensive term. Do we really want to offend two birds with one hook? Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm British and it doesn't offend me. Urban Dictionary isn't really a reliable source. But if you want to change it to Briton, that is OK with me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that. Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Emergency! Pepsi can sex!

Is it too late to change

... that you might have had sex on Pepsi cans in 1990?

to

ALT1 ... that in 1990, if you put one Pepsi can on top of another they would have sex?

or

ALT2 :... that in 1990 you could have sex with two Pepsi cans?

I'm rusty so I'll leave the formalities to others (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pepsi_Cool_Cans). EEng 00:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The two newer suggestions sound much funnier, the first one (while "accurate") is a bit too vague to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the second suggestion to the first, and think it's more effective than the original approved (and newly restored) hook. Yoninah, can you think of a reason why we shouldn't use it instead? Also pinging The C of E, whose nomination it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
My work is done here. Up, UP, AND AWAY! EEng 03:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Well the second one is acceptable. The first proposed one just ruins the joke. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that in 1990, two Pepsi cans could have sex? EEng 13:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the second suggestion is good. Thanks, EEng. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great, though I've made a slight typo fix ("two" was repeated twice). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3: MLK Day

  • ... that Illinois wasn't the first state to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as Connecticut recognized a holiday in his honor on June 14, 1973 although it fell on a Sunday?
@Jon698:@3family6:@Cwmhiraeth:
This hook is very hard to parse. Why would I think Illinois was the first state? Can we just start the hook at "Connecticut"?
@Jon698:@3family6:@Cwmhiraeth:@Yoninah:
ALT2 ... that passage of Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States took 15 years and multiple attempts after initial efforts by Congressmen John Conyers and Charles Samuel Joelson? — Maile (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The wording in the article is found the section History - National - Prior Attempts. And here are the sources.
  • "Timeline: Career of U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr". Detroit News. "1968: Introduced bill to create federal holiday for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. after assassination"
  • "Dr. King Day Proposed". The Morning Call. April 8, 1968. "US Representative Charles S. Joelson will introduce legislation to establish a Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day"
  • I don't mean to be a party pooper, but while the Morning Call cite says that Joelson intended to introduce the legislation, I can't find anything that says he actually did so; it wasn't mentioned in his New York Times obituary, nor is it in his Charles Samuel Joelson article here. His plans may even have been preempted by the Conyers bill. What I can find about Joelson relates to a quote he gave regarding the gun legislation from later that year, after the King and Kennedy assassinations. Jon698, Maile, is there anything more to indicate that Joelson did ultimately introduce a bill in the House? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jon698: I was also wondering about a hook like this. Do you think you could find the source where you got this information?— Maile (talk)
  • This source says it was also introduced "each subsequent legislative session" after 1968 until it passed (Shirley Chisholm, who is also mentioned in the source, wasn't elected to Congress until November 1968, and retired at the end of 1982 so she might not have been included in the 1983 introduction). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposing ALT5 (based on ALT4) to reflect this (200 characters):

Support ALT 5 - I had to look up what the 1968 session dates were, since MLK was not murdered until April. The 1968 session ran January 15, 1968 – October 14, 1968, so your hook would be correct as written. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I substituted ALT 5 for the hook originally promoted to Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Catch It, Bin It, Kill It: problematic

Half an hour or so ago I first read the article Catch It, Bin It, Kill It (whose DYK is already in the queue a preparation area) and found its English oddly strained in places. In particular, two quotations (one of them appearing twice) were syntactically bizarre when taken as a whole. I therefore looked in the cited sources. The quotation that only appeared once was easy to fix (by completion). The other quotation -- which first appears in the lead -- simply does not appear in the cited source. I daresay that something similar is in there, somewhere, via some sort of confusion, but I didn't look. And that's because I rather lost confidence in the quality of this article as a whole, worthwhile and timely though it is. I've spent half an hour or so examining the article and I believe that at least two other experienced editors should do the same before it's publicized to many people via the top page. (Its accuracy seems to me far more important than the question of whether "It" should be so capitalized.) Pinging Yoninah, who promoted this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Error (not queue but preparation area) fixed Hoary (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory and Yoninah: — Maile (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, @Philafrenzy:. ... My own set of minor edits was done more hurriedly than I'd like, some of my changes might benefit from improvement (or even reversion). However, I'll stay clear of the article (unless/until invited), in order to reduce the risk of edit conflicts. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Prep 4: I thought there'd be a rush to fix the misquotations. But as it turned out ... nothing. So I fixed them. Please see what MOS says about original wording. I don't like to say this, but for me, the article as a whole is now suspect. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I only see one quote in the lead–the one you fixed, Hoary–which is appropriately sourced. I read through the whole article again and it reads fine. Do you have more specific concerns about it? Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have just re-read it and made some very minor grammatical changes. It reads well and Whispyhistory is to be congratulated on a very comprehensive piece of work. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it reads like a good article. Here are the changes I made to it (some of them perhaps debatable, and anyway before you made your own recent changes). I'd started to read the article because the subject interested me, but even in the lead had been stumped by
"without a vaccine, the most effective way of preventing the spread of flu is changing behaviour such as hand and respiratory hygiene as summed up in the NHS's 'Catch It, Bin It, Kill It' campaign, can slow the spread of the pandemic"
which I couldn't parse. (What's the subject of "can"?) So, expecting to be able to fix it by restoring an accidentally omitted word or two, I looked it up in the cited source. But I couldn't find it: no "without a vaccine"; no "most effective way". As you've seen, I did eventually find the paragraph that it misquoted, and fixed the quotation. But there was also
people can act themselves by "especially washing hands more; and the catch it, bin it, kill it strategy for those with coughs and sneezes – also help in delaying the peak of the infection."
which too I couldn't parse -- Had "the CIBIKI strategy [...] also helps" perhaps been intended? -- but which was easily fixed by comparing it with the original and starting the quotation somewhat earlier. ¶ Four editors have tweaked the article after I left it, and the article now reads even more smoothly. I just hope that wherever it cites a source (which of course is very often), it faithfully represents what the source says. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so here is an updated list with the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 10. We currently have a total of 308 nominations, of which 130 have been approved; the number of unapproved nominations has jumped from 161 to 178 in the past week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from January and the three from early February that remain.

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) 03:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April Fools Day set

Well I said I wasn't going to do this, but I couldn't help but take a look at the April Fool's set, and although the hooks are not as bad as I feared, some of them could probably use some improvement.

New York hook

In particular, the New York hook "* ... that New York's coal mine closed in 1966?" is pretty weak and I'm not even sure it is accurate, as the mine that closed was not "New York"'s, just a nearby mine. A possible substitute might be: "... that New York was originally a mining village?" Another: "... that New York at one time neighbored Philadelphia?" The facts might have to be added to the article, but are there in this source. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'm open to the Philadelphia one providing we don't wikilink it. @Gatoclass: I have just added it to the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Substituted, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
But given that there is also an article for Philadelphia, Tyne and Wear, I think the hook would work better with the additional link, IMO it would create better deception as not linking makes it more obvious that it isn't the Philadelphia. I know you like maximum page hits, but I think it very unlikely that people would click on the "Philadelphia" link in a hook of this type - in fact, you might get more hits because of the better deception. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. It has the potential to ruin the joke and I am not a fan on extra links that don't need to be there. Plus, it is actually a WP:DYKAPRIL rule that allows for that to happen The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
No rule there that I can see. Regardless, how would a link ruin the joke? It's "ruined" the instant either link is clicked on, so it makes no difference at all to the joke. And those few people who clicked on the Philadelphia link would still have to return to the "New York" article in order to find the hook fact. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It's the second rule where it says "Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards may be disregarded only if adhering to them will tend to give away the joke". Plus its just as likely that people will go to the Philly hook and not go to New York when they see it isn't the American one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
So maybe you will miss out on 50 page hits. You could try putting those concerns aside occasionally and thinking about what's best for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass, and I also would like to ask The C of E to stop considering the April Fools set his own personal page. Once you put something up on Wikipedia, it's not yours anymore. In fact, you can monitor whether you're getting your point across correctly if other people also get the same point. Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it should not be using the British spelling, because that gives away that these aren't the American cities—the whole point of the April Fools' Day hook—but the British towns. April Fools' Day lets us avoid that requirement. If we go with "neighboured", then the hook should be saved for a completely different day with different wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Volkswagen hook

Also, I would still like to get the Volkswagon hook out of the lead as the image is a spoiler. Would it be possible to find an image for one of the other hooks to run in the lead spot? Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There were 2 other options for pictures I recall. My one was the picture of the cat for the South Dakota hook with the description of "a possible defendant" if that's of any preference to you @Gatoclass:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that The C of E. The problem is that I think many people would object to a caption like that. I'm trying to think of a possible substitute that might work, but nothing so far. In the meantime, if somebody can come up with an image for one of the other hooks, that would be very useful. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Here is a bacon butty:
Here is Queen Bess; this image could easily be added to the article, which mentions it:
Queen Bess
Queen Bess
Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, bacon butty might work - and it sure looks tasty :) I don't have time to pursue this further tonight, but I'll take another look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
You might be able to include the bacon butty image in the Clinton article, but I can't see any justification for inserting the painting of Queen Elizabeth I in the Queen Bess article as written, and the images need to be in the article to be included in the AFD set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Queen Bess
Queen Bess
I have discovered that there is an image on Commons of the actual pub sign, which could certainly be cropped and added to the article, and a more severely cropped version that appears to be a squarish portrait absent the wording rather than a sign be included in the lead hook. It may not be crisp enough, however. If it is okay, it might be used provided that there is freedom of panorama for this image and the sign artwork, dating from 1959 or after, is free as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Pepsi hook

This isn't entirely accurate, because whether you could "have sex" or not with the two cans was a matter of perception. For greater accuracy (and hopefully amusement) I suggest the following tweak:

Again, dragging it out too long and the current one is specifically designed to meet the AFD brief. I've already agreed to a change above on this from what was originally approved so for this time, I'm sorry, it will have to be a polite no thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I don't believe the original hook is completely accurate - whether or not "sex" was on the cans was a matter of perception. And I still think my suggested tweak is an improvement. So let's see what others have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Support having sex with Pepsi. Er, uh, that is ALT1, the shorter hook that doesn't dilute the fun with "consumers claim". It's April Fool's Day. Readers expect to be fooled. We should be able to have some fun. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay then, I'm not going to push it - one usually needs a little time to consider whether an April Fools hook truly works or not anyway. If the original hook gets challenged for accuracy, the suggested alt can still be offered as a substitute. Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this is for April Fool's Day, I have no problems with ALT1. ALT2 would have been fine had the hook ran on a different day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand the "SEX" part, but am quite baffled by "limited edition designed Pepsi cans". -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
So, um, you understand the sex part, whorey?[FBDB] EEng 01:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the System! "ALT1" works for me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

president Clinton

@Gatoclass: revert me if you think I'm not correct. I made "president" lower case in the president Clinton hook. It's not capitalized in the article. — Maile (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely capital P, and let me say that the hook will be much funnier if you just keep the bacon butty and leave out the tea, because that way it has more of a naughty sound. You know what I'm talking about. EEng 03:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Maile, this is one of those occasions where a capitalization would be allowed per Proper capitalization, title formatting, and linking standards may be disregarded only if adhering to them will tend to give away the joke. If you don't capitalize "President", the joke dies, so I've reverted you. I rather like the cup of tea, however, because of the contrast, so I've left it intact. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the image be added to the article? And can we write a funny caption, like "The presidential breakfast/lunch/snack" (choose one descriptor)? Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
... that former President Clinton said his day would be ruined if he didn't get some butty? EEng 12:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
LOL. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed April Fool's set

Okay, I have re-shuffled the April Fools set (necessary after swapping out the lead hook per the above discussion) and made a few (relatively minor) proposed tweaks along the way (as I normally do). Since this set generally attracts more attention than most, I'm posting the proposed revised set here for discussion. (Since updated with the latest proposed tweaks). Here it is:

A bacon butty
A bacon butty


I will follow up momentarily with some explanation of changes I am proposing here, but in the meantime, I request that users make no changes to the above set as it will only confuse things, where there are disagreements let's try to get consensus first. Feel free however to propose your own shuffle below if you think you can improve on the above. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's been changed yet - some changes are just under discussion - that's what this thread is about. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, with regard to "neighbored" - remember, the hook is intended to deceive readers into thinking this is the US New York and Philadelphia, so the US spelling is needed to reinforce the misperception. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

President Clinton

This is the one that got moved up to the lead per the above discussion. Now, the original hook was:

I changed it to:

Reasons for the changes as follows:

  • Firstly I think "former" is necessary as many non-Americans will likely be unaware of the US tradition of referring to former presidents as just "president". Also, I think it helps with the deception.
  • Secondly, I removed the "and a cup of tea" from the hook - I agree with The C of E that the additional phrase is superfluous and detracts from the punch.
  • Thirdly, my reason for changing "if he didn't get" to "if it didn't include". I could say a lot about this, but I'll try to keep it brief. It's become very clear to me over the years that many contributors do not understand some basics of good comedy writing - they think it helps to present their hooks in informal language and that is absolutely not the right approach. Funny content, or content which aspires to amuse, should in most cases imitate formal language and phraseology as closely as possible. Why? Because the comedy is in the incongruity. Why is John Cleese so funny? Because he delivers his lines with an absolutely straight face - it's the incongruity of the absurdity of his words with the serious delivery that makes it so funny. Or take a look at Andy Borowitz's work - the laughs and outrageous statements are carefully wrapped in the formal, cliched language of press releases. Same thing with, for example, The Onion (when it's done well). The point here is that in the April Fool's sets, we should be striving as much as possible to wrap the funny and outrageous statements in the same formal language we use for DYK any other day - the laughs have to creep up on the reader. Employing flippant, casual language in place of the usual presentation just defeats the whole purpose. More to come ... Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, it was EEng - you use similar colours for your sigs :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are already showing the image, there's no punch in ending it on bacon butty. I think the hook flows better with a cup of tea, since then the whole hook sounds like an English breakfast.
I also think the image needs a funnier caption, like: The presidential breakfast (or lunch). Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, admittedly the suggestion of a US president needing an "English" breakfast didn't occur to me, but then again, it might also alert readers to the fact that it's not the President Clinton. With regard to the image caption, again I'm not in favour of levity in the image caption per the third point above - and also, I was unable to determine from the source which meal Clinton was referring to. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO this hook doesn't belong in the lead slot at all, just because it has an image. It works better as a non-visual hook. Couldn't we find a generic image for one of the other hooks? Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It works fine in the lead - and you are the one who originally suggested it. We already tried to find an alternative image and this was the only viable one we could find. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggested it because it was the best image. But seeing the hook in the lead slot, it puts too much emphasis on the sandwich. Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on that, I think it works fine. Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
part number 199 398 500 A
  • I was the reviewer for the Clinton article and still prefer the original hook (ALT2). We should also consult the author for his views.
As for the picture, I reckon the the VW hook may be best. Its lead picture (right) is more directly of the subject, seems clearer visually and more humorous in nature. It also echoes the breakfast theme and so works to some extent for that too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said, the VW hook loses its intrigue with the image, so I'm opposed to leading with it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
To repeat something I said in an earlier section, I rather like including the cup of tea in the hook because of the contrast—I'm in agreement with Yoninah in terms of it being restored to end of the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, I wrote the Clinton article (and the VW Currywurst one which has also been considered for the pictured slot). I personally prefer my original wording ("if it didn't include" reads weirdly to me and I liked the mention of a cup of tea) but I appreciate the target audience for this one will be American so what sounds best to me might not be the hook most likely to fool the audience. I am happy for any variation of wording to run - Dumelow (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, does he actually use the word "ruined"? I couldn't see the source, but if so you could just do it with a quote, ie:
* ... that President Clinton's day would be "ruined" if he didn't get a bacon butty [and a nice cup of tea]? Gatoclass (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The actual quote from the source is: "I build my life around getting a bacon butty and a cup of tea on the train and when that's impossible, it ruins my day", so may be a bit hard to shoehorn in. Like I say, I am happy for it to run as currently proposed if consensus is with it - Dumelow (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

New York

I agree with Gatoclass's comment in an earlier post that linking Philadelphia is optimal and would increase the believability of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Atheists

Original hook, followed by revised version:

Two reasons for the change here: firstly, accuracy - it just isn't true, as the hook implies, that all atheists believe in these ten commandments - but also, we don't know that the atheists who say they do actually do believe in them - they just claim to - see WP:ATTRIBUTION. And again - referring to point three in the Clinton hook above - formal, accurate language is generally better, and avoids leaving the reader feeling that he's been shortchanged when he goes to the article and discovers that the hook isn't 100% accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

    • Au contraire, if anything April Fools Day is the day when we should not be using formal language. It's meant to be loose and light-hearted but I think trying to be too formal ruins the joke. The reader won't be short changed using the original wording because they'll think its interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
On the general point, I could not disagree more strongly with regard to choice of language - see my comments regarding the Clinton hook (point 3) above. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I also don't like the formal language here. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Could we at least keep "some"? Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I was just saying I prefer believe to profess belief. Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with "some"—it's more accurate—and, like Yoninah, prefer "believe". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Queen Bess

Original and revised:

Okay, I know I'm breaking my own rule of thumb mentioned above regarding the importance of accuracy, but honestly I think the original hook sucks so much that it needs a major boost. Yes, I know it's a stretch to make this change, but the pub is after all named after Elizabeth I so we might be able to get away with it. Failing that, I'd be inclined to pull the hook as it just isn't working for me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the new piped link at all. The pub is named Queen Bess, not Queen Elizabeth I of England. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said, it's a stretch. Maybe we should just drop the hook altogether, as IMO it's not a good fit with the others. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Changed to "the Queen of England" - shorter, less specific and hopefully less likely to raise objections on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Changed to a Queen. That is actually accurate! Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I rather like the original hook, but of the proposed changes, I think "a Queen" is the only workable one, though less effective than the original because it could be a queen of anything. The others are far too great a stretch. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the other two hooks didn't really work; I have now struck the one above for clarity. I think "a Queen of England" works very well as an AFD hook because of the element of deception - "Queen Mab" could refer to absolutely anything so there is no deception involved, which means it doesn't work as an AFD hook IMO, though it would probably be fine as an everyday hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Pepsi cans

Original, revised:

Not a lot of difference here, but again I think the more formal language works better. The original hook also just reads a bit weird to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from personally liking the original, the alt is lacking the "two cans". Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't see any point in the "two", it's an inessential detail that just makes the implied act sound more unlikely and therefore less believeable as a hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, how about something like:

It's a triple entendre - it means on the one hand that one of the cans has to be twisted a bit to line up the word "sex" - but it also of course implies that a person trying to have sex with tin cans would have to be a bit perverted, ie twisted. Alternatively, it could mean one can has to be twisted in some novel way to make the sex possible. Either way, IMO it should be more intriguing to the reader. You could also try:

We need a decision on this one quickly as we are on the eve of the day in question. Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, Amakuru, Valereee, Maile66, EEng and anybody else with an interest, please register a !vote for either ALT1 ALT0 or ALT3 if you have a preference.

  • Support ALT3. I think ALT1 ALT0 is clunky at best. ALT3 adds some wordplay (see above) that I think many readers would appreciate, as well as adding some additional intrigue. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT3. I'm not really a fan of the wordplay hooks we tend to roll out on April Fools' Day, most of them don't really work when you say the sentence literally which sort of ruins the point. But anyway, out of the options presented ALT3 seems to convey the point most accurately, while still retaining the joke, so I'd support that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT0 - there are no policy based reasons to change what was originally approved. Adding "twisted" just ruins the joke by conveying the turning of cans. If it said "screwed" I'm more likely to support it because that fits better with a double-entendre. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
ALT0 is not an option in the strawpoll: it's either ALT1 or ALT3 for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Actually I think you'll find it is as ALT1 is crossed out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
It's crossed out for now but it's still offered as an option here. If you have issues with that, talk to Gatoclass since they were the one who started this straw poll. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would object. Given that the first part of the hook says you can have sex with two cans, it wouldn't make any sense to then say that one would have to be screwed. Sorry, Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
At the very least can please change the word "with" to "on" as that was the original intent and more amusing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"With" works better IMO. I'm not sure that "on" would even make sense in ALT3. It's a little late to be making such proposals anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • My problem with ALT1 is that it's missing the "two", and with ALT3 that "would" is too definite for accuracy (though "might" would be acceptable). So, if both changed, ALT3 over ALT1, if only one changed, then that one, otherwise no vote. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I screwed up somewhat by naming the choices as either ALT1 or ALT3 when it should have been ALT0 and ALT3 (not sure why somebody didn't point this out, given that ALT1 had already been struck). Fixed now. Regardless, I think the one !vote for ALT1 can safely be assumed to be for ALT0, since the point of contention is mainly on whether or not the "twisted" phrase should be included. BlueMoonset, I did ask myself if "would have" would be too strong and decided it would not, given that, for example, nobody thought it inappropriate to say "atheists believe" rather than "atheists profess belief" and so on. However, since you apparently want to make an issue of it, I have adjusted ALT3 to say "might need", which was the turn of phrase originally employed in ALT2 - I just thought the stronger wording might work better, but on reflection, I think the old wording probably works just as well if not better. In any case, there is no more time to quibble as the set is going to the main page in just over an hour. Gatoclass (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Captain Kirk

Original, revised:

Very minor change here, I just delinked "for a fee" as I think the bolded link is too long and contains too much information. Oh, I also changed "offers" to "will offer" as I thought the latter more accurate, but am not fussy either way.

No changes made to the other hooks - I think they are probably okay as they are. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Changed "will offer to" to "might". Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Shuffle

The last 3 hooks all have numbers in them. This detracts from the punchy number in the quirky hook. I suggest switching the "bim bam boom" and "Pepsi" hooks. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to a possible reshuffle, but I would be opposed to having either the "17 million fuck offs" or the "sex with Pepsi" hooks high in the set, because to me hooks of that type are like a poke in the eye early in the set and just detract from the other, more subtle hooks. But I'll take another look and see if I can come up with a different shuffle that we can both agree on. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Shuffled. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers

The nominator is pushing for the following hook:

I opted not to include this in the April Fools set because we already have one "fuck" hook there, and also because the title essay refers to the autumn season, not the spring. The nominator has requested that this run anyway in the spring, since it's the autumn season in the Southern Hemisphere. I fail to understand this reasoning; it certainly wasn't the intention of the essay's author to refer to the Southern Hemisphere. I also think there is nothing hooky about running a title with a dirty word in it. Requesting input from other editors. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As the reviewer, I thought that it would be good for AFD because I knew that there would be issues running it any other day because people (rightly or wrongly) will jump on it for having a swear word in the title. I think if it matches up with the Southern Hemisphere Autumn/gourd season then as long as right context is in the article, then I don't see an issue. But if you think it can work on another day with the same hook, I will defer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to defer to Gatoclass on this one; it doesn't personally excite me, and the hemispheric argument is one that would work better if the article had caught on there (nothing in the article to indicate that it has). One thing that we should be clear on is that the nomination cannot be held for six months to run in the fall, and there's no reason why this hook exactly should be run on a regular day; the ALT0 hook is a possibility, or maybe another one could be decided on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Variety applies to the April Fool's day set just as it does to any other day. We don't need two "fuck" hooks in a single set. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO we need a different hook, and then it can run on a usual day. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
We ran "...?" as a hook in 2012. There is room for weird hooks and it fits the verbal pattern. Having a curse word shouldn't make it ineligible. If you don't want to run it on AFD, then shelve it for September. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Q2 April 2

Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny (orangutan)

  • ... that the human-like behaviour of Jenny (depicted), a resident of London Zoo, reinforced Charles Darwin's view that man was descended from animals?

Whispyhistory Philafrenzy

I see the sentence in the lead and in the body without a citation, but the closest one I see that has a citation is "More humble and I believe true to consider him created from animals." There is a sourced sentence that says, "On 28 March 1838, two years after returning from his world tour on the Beagle and more than 20 years before he presented his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin paid a visit to London Zoo and saw Jenny, who was the first ape that he ever met." My question is the 'reinforced' bit. It was twenty years before he presented his theory, do we know that Jenny reinforced his view? We know that he already held that view? Is there something we could add from the sources that indicate he already was thinking this? --valereee (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ping Dave souza and Samsara who took Charles Darwin to FA and may be able to offer insight. --valereee (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
That's from notebook C (1838) and I think the wording is clear enough "Let man visit Ourang-outang in domestication ... and then let him dare to boast of his proud preeminence." (79) and "Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy the interposition of a deity, more humble & I believe truer to consider him created from animals." (196-197). But I am open to alternative wording such as that Darwin saw Jenny's behaviour as evidence that man was descended from animals or similar. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, it wasn't that I didn't think he saw it as evidence of man being descended from apes, but whether it reinforced a belief he'd already held (rather than sparked that belief, for instance.) I'm totally on board with the sentences in the article saying it was evidence of his belief, for instance! Sorry for not being clear! --valereee (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Nice sources in the article, for this point van Wyhe relates the experience back to Darwin's shock at seeing uncivilised Fuegians in December 1832 on the Beagle survey – "Darwin's troubling experience of witnessing the hunter-gatherer tribes of Yahgans in Tierra del Fuego may explain his view of orangutans as of such direct relevance to humans and his unusual lack of discomfort to relate apes and humans. The Yahgans had convinced him that the distance between highly civilized humans and the most degraded animal-like savages was narrow indeed. And therefore the much exalted differences between humans and animals were greatly exaggerated. It was thus only a small and painless step further to see great apes as human cousins." In conclusion, van Wyhe makes the point that "Darwin's observations were infused by his evolutionary theory and particularly by his interests in human evolution. .... Darwin, possibly because of his early shock with the (for him) animal-like Yahgans in Tierra del Fuego, treated orangutans as close cousins and therefore as good sources of evidence of human evolution." As Inception of Darwin's theory#Transmutation notebooks discusses, Darwin theorised about human evolution and an evolutionary tree diagram in July 1837. Inception of Darwin's theory#C notebook: animal observations notes his seeing Jenny in 1838, and thinking that there was little gulf between man and animals (based on Desmond and Moore but currently lacking page numbers).
Suggest the article should make it clearer that Darwin's letter to his sister was on 1 April 1838 (Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 407,” accessed on 30 March 2020, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-407.xml ) and long before his books The Descent of Man and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. . . dave souza, talk 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Dave souza, okay, so there absolutely is evidence that he already believed it, that's the only thing I was concerned about -- whether someone who knew Darwin's history better than I did would say, "But it was Jenny who first made him think this! That's been shown!" or something. :) --valereee (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, thanks. It's a good question, and there's a whole topic of why Darwin took so long from getting his idea of common descent and natural selection to making the theory public (basically, he needed time to get it well supported by data before publication). As shown by the long quotation, it's there in van Wyhe's paper but not immediately obvious and it's a long paper! Also interesting that at first she was called Lady Jane, not to be confused with Lady Jane or Lady Jane. Indeed, there seem to be lots of Lady Janes, not sure if Jenny should be added to that disambiguation page. . . . dave souza, talk 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Riyadh International Book Fair

  • ... that publishers have had their pre-approved books confiscated, or their stalls secretly dismantled overnight, during the Riyadh International Book Fair?

HLHJ Smny2018 Hoary

I'm not finding a sentence in the article supporting 'stalls secretly dismantled overnight'? --valereee (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In the section on the 2014 show, our article says: "The Arab Network for Research and Publishing, arriving at the former location of their stall on the Friday morning of the 2014 fair, found that their books had been confiscated, their materials scattered on the floor just outside, and the signage on their stall replaced by signage naming another publisher." It's sourced here and here. The latter shows before-and-after photos, from which I infer that "dismantled" is euphemistic. "Overnight", because the reader infers that it was business as usual the day before. "Secretly", because they'd been given no notice of the impending/completed destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It's my bedtime, so if there's a follow-up question/request I hope that somebody else can respond. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hoary, I've added a bit into that section to make it easy to find, plus removed 'secretly' from the hook, but we've got plenty of time to continue to discuss if those changes aren't okay! --valereee (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, your edit looks good to me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aggie Kukulowicz

  • ... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years without the two men ever speaking, but reportedly once bought the agent an ice cream cone?

Flibirigit

I'm finding the wording slightly awkward, would you have any objection to

  • ... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years, never spoke to him, but reportedly once bought him an ice cream cone?

--valereee (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Though I prefer Valereee's version, I'd suggest "never spoke with him". -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hoary, I agree, with is an improvement --valereee (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It would have to be "with", since neither spoke to the other, and "to" allows the agent to have spoken. Pointing everyone to the earlier discussion on this hook's wording, and the issues considered, and pinging Yoninah, who also participated in that discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with valereee's version. Maybe connect the clauses this way:
ALT1a: ... that Canadian ice hockey player Aggie Kukulowicz was followed by a KGB agent for six years and never spoke with him, but reportedly once bought him an ice cream cone? Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
ALT1a is satisfactory. Flibirigit (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all --valereee (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: please change the hook in Queue 2 to ALT1a above. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
, > and, though I think it's six of one --valereee (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

Nonsense. Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Out of respect to all coronavirus victims, I do believe the admins had to cancel Wikipedia's April Fool's Day traditions this year. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz, can you link to this, please? Otherwise, it sounds like a rumor to me. I checked the Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page, its talk page, and the 2020 page for AFD, and there's nothing about it in any of those venues. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, ? --valereee (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
valereee, I have no idea what this is about, but I can't find anything to support this supposed cancellation. What I tend to see around the web is that we need humor at a time when there's so much stress. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I just checked the Village Pump and other relevant pages and there's nothing AFD-related either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a troll, after Germany just announced it's cancelling AFD to stop misinformation through 'jokes'. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Google cancelled their April Fool's traditions SpinnerLaserz (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed, this isn't Google. Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYKUpdateBot down?

DYKUpdateBot didn't update the DYK at 00:00 UTC. Can someone please do it manually? --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

New article

I just created the article J. C. "Sonny" Gilbert Wildlife Management Area. I don't know anything about DYK. Someone submitted a hook (Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November#2 November 2010) for me close to 10 years ago. It is interesting that the rolling hills of the WMA, in a state known for being relatively flat, are from 35 to 245 feet above sea level. Another feature of the WMA is that it contains three waterfalls, the tallest being the 17 foot Rock Falls, which is absolutely rare in the state. Anyway, if someone thinks this is equally interesting it seems it would be worth mentioning as a DYK. Otr500 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: can you help us out a bit. Every paragraph needs to be sourced. And you should be careful not to copy text verbatim from the source to the article - it will show up as copyvio. This is what Earwig's tool found. If that the tool stalls out on you, what it is flagging is this:
Article:
"Tree species are magnolia, sweetgum, blackgum, loblolly pine and shortleaf pine, hickory, elm, white ash, red ash, cherrybark oak, water ash, and post oak, beech. red maple; and hophornbeam."
"The understory species include deciduous holly, baccharis, flowering dogwood, rattan, huckleberry, oakleaf hydrangea, blackberry, silky camellia, sourwood, downy serviceberry, Crataegus, and many other grasses and herbaceous plants."
Source:
"The main tree species are magnolia; sweetgum; blackgum; loblolly and shortleaf pine; hickory; elm; ash; white, southern red, cherrybark, water, and post oak; beech; red maple; and hophornbeam. The understory species include Vitis sp., deciduous holly, Smilax sp., baccharis, flowering dogwood, rattan, huckleberry, oak leaf hydrangea, buckeye, blackberry, silky camellia, sourwood, downy serviceberry, Crataegus sp., and many other grasses and herbaceous plants."
Thanks in advance for your help in rewording the above. — Maile (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Alright, and I don't know enough about it. If a 17 foot waterfall in an unusually flat state is "hookable", someone may find it interesting and doable. Otr500 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Otr500: Hi, I came by to help out, and did a bit of copyediting and reorganizing. What happened to the flora and fauna section? It's a glaring omission. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Otr500, when you do unhide and rewrite the flora and fauna section, please be careful that you don't misrepresent the source material. In the "Source" quote above, there's a single ash listed, and then five oaks (white through post), but the article turned it into three ashes and two oaks, which is not accurate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

All prep sets are full

Pinging valereee, Vanamonde, Casliber, Amakuru, Maile to promote more sets to the queue so we can keep filling 'em. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have promoted prep set 4, and will check it tonight or tomorrow morning.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK Update bot is down

@BlueMoonset, Shubinator, Gatoclass, Amakuru, and Vanamonde93: The DYK update bot played its own April Fool's joke on us and didn't update the set. I manually copied the set to Template:Did you know. I haven't done anything else. Don't have time to do the individual credits. But please check what I did just changing the main page. I don't remember how to - or if I should - rotate that Queue, in case the bot wakes up. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reset the time so the bot will not do its thing regardless for 24 hours, so it's not going to suddenly wake up and fire. I'll do a bit more cleaning up but I'm not going to do the credits now as I'm about to log off - anybody is welcome to do them in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Might be good idea if we added step-by-step admin instructions to cover the DYK update bot failure at DYK Admin instructions. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly it needs to be written down somewhere - if it already is, I can never find it, as I always have to do it by memory. Gatoclass (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
A "Posting the new update" section, which describes how to do a manual update, is at the bottom of every individual Queue and Prep page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I make a request? If you don't know how to do the basics of a main page update to get it to a point that it's safe, do not only move the new hooks in. The set can safely wait until someone who knows what they're doing to come along, or someone who knows where the instructions are can guide you to them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. I pasted a copy of those instructions at DYK Admin instructions. I'm guessing that Gatoclass might be one of the few admins around here who knows how to do that without instructions. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I've started manually giving out the user credits, and will try to finish all eleven. I'll post here again if it looks like I can also encompass the eleven article credits. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Working on the article credits; one down, ten to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. If someone could check to be sure they're all okay, that would be great. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The bot is still down. Pinging Gatoclass, Maile, Amakuru, and Vanamonde, in the hopes that one of you can do the manual update. We should probably get the April Fools' set off the main page as soon as we can, though be sure to also update the time to prevent the bot from automatically doing what you're manually doing. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done and credits given out. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Wugapodes. It looks like you completed the user credits but not the article credits, so I took care of the latter. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Bot is back up and running :) It was thrown off by a missing HooksEnd tag in queue 1. Thanks everyone for keeping things chugging along! Shubinator (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I just added this to DYK Admin instructions. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6:Overlong canal hook

@MIDI:@Johnbod:@Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is 205 characters long. Could you suggest some way to shorten it? Are the dates between 1797 and 1805 really necessary? Yoninah (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Nom and article creator here. From my POV the hook must point out that the three methods weren't used at the same time (i.e. climbing the valley didn't need three methods, but over the space of eight years, three different methods were used). Taking the above suggestions into account, and that the years themselves aren't necessary (this is the heydey of Canal mania in the UK; the timing itself is not notable), here's a suggestion (sub-200 chars):
MIDI (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Q1 April 7

Template:Did you know nominations/Teikō Shiotani

and held the photographic paper curved during exposure under the enlarger, "rendering the feeling of that day of hard winds and stressing my first impression by [adjusting] the deformation of the curve". This exaggerated the convexity of the horizon,

Hoary Piotrus

These sentences have no citation, and I can't get to the source that they seemed most likely to have come from so I couldn't fix it for you. Can you please add a source to both sentences? --valereee (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything in that paragraph that comes after "According to Shiotani's own account,[14]" comes from the source identified at the end of the paragraph. I'm surprised by BlueMoonset's request for what's merely a repetition. But anyway, I've repeated it, after checking that Takeuji does write it. (And indeed she does, on pages 20 [English] and 13 [Japanese].) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hoary, DYK requires all points of the hook be cited at the sentence supporting that hook. Blue Moonset was likely just making sure you knew what I was asking for. --valereee (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, OK. But if we're really going to be scrupulous about this, then: According to Shiotani's own account,[14] -- I specify where this was originally published (a source that I have examined directly): very few libraries in Japan have it, and I'd guess that no library outside Japan does. And I also specify two sources that reprint it: sources that are easy to find in Japan, but probably not elsewhere. (I haven't looked in Worldcat to check.) -- he took the original photograph from his window, using his Vest Pocket Kodak. He trimmed it, and held the photographic paper curved during exposure under the enlarger, "rendering the feeling of that day of hard winds and stressing my first impression by [adjusting] the deformation of the curve".[1] -- I specify Takeuji, who both presents Shiotani's original, in the Japanese original of her essay, and presents it in a good English translation (by Yukari Nakayama and Tim Groves). I've recycled the translation. Should my reference perhaps read something like "Translation by Yukari Nakayama and Tim Groves, appearing in Z, of Takeuji's Y, which quotes Shiotani's V, which itself is reproduced complete in both W and X"? I wouldn't have thought so, because I'm not here attempting to build a bulletproof legal case. Instead, "According to Shiotani's own account [which is identified] [...], '[...] my first impression [...]' ", so pretty obviously it's by Shiotani. But I can't be bothered to retranslate what's already perfectly well translated, so I credit Takeuji: anyone clicking through will see that I credit the translators; meanwhile, readers of Japanese can see details of the Japanese. Anyone who looks in Takeuji can immediately see that it's by Shiotani ... though they'll already know that. ¶ Not that I much mind any of this; it all adds to the bizarreness (to me) and (presumably unintentional) hilarity (to me) of the DYK vetting process. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to AGF your sources, DYK just needs them to be cited at the sentences that support the hook. :) --valereee (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rei Matsuzaki

Narutolovehinata5 Dee03

I see this has been changed since the nom, I feel like wrote vs has written might be better? --valereee (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: you're right. Please change it to your version. Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This was changed from "wrote" to "has written" in prep by Ravenpuff, so I thought they should be pinged as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think she does that column anymore, so "wrote" might be the more accurate wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue that "has written" already implies that she doesn't do the newspaper column any more; I changed it from "wrote" to indicate that she's still a living person. If Matsuzaki still writes the column, the correct form would instead be "writes". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
To my (limited) understanding of English, "has done" means it continues, "did" says it's past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
To my understanding of grammar, active verbs make for stronger sentences. Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Saying someone wrote something doesn't indicate they're no longer alive. --valereee (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Using "wrote" simply indicates it's something that had been done in the past but is no longer being done. To me, "has written" allows for the possibility that someone might well do so again. There's nothing in "wrote" that implies that the person stopped doing so because they died, though it can also be used in that circumstance. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2: Gavin Dempsey

... that Gavin "Tweek" Dempsey was once considered the best Bowser Jr. player in the world, but only started winning tournaments after switching to other characters?

Bowser Jr. isn't a game. The hook doesn't mention SSB at all. Pinging those involved: @The Squirrel Conspiracy, Raymie, and Cwmhiraeth:. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: This is the result of my attempt to trim an overlong hook. The original hook was:
Perhaps you could suggest a different way of shortening this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I trimmed out a few words, bringing the hook from 207 characters down to 188. That's as much as I feel comfortable trimming. I've put the new version in prep; it's now no longer the longest entry there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This looks fine to me. Raymie (t • c) 19:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. Hook substituted in prep. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April Fools' DYK to be banned?

I guess someone forgot to notify the DYK project about a related discussion... Please look at this:

Note.
As far as I can see, some people on Wikipedia are very upset by the whole coronavirus situation and aren't in the mood for April Fools' jokes. On April 1, an IP proposed to 1) ban joke AfDs, MfDs and RfDs, 2) to ban all pranks from talk pages and 3) to ban joke RfAs. Most of the proposals are likely to be supported. But then, yesterday at 22:52 UTC, someone posted a proposal to ban the special occasion DYK. And he placed it at the very top, too. And it's getting some support... --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That was proposed at nearly midnight UTC of the evening of 2 April. That's a bit late, and currently irrelevant. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, this discussion is not happening at the Main Page talk page. This is at Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and specifically says at the top, "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." They have no jurisdiction here. We have our own guidelines. Some people dig in and do the work - and we all know who is doing that here. And then others hang to the rear and complain. Keep on trucking DYK buddies. Wikipedia does not censor. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
They posted a notification to Talk:Main Page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Something strange is happening there. I don't understand how anyone can seriously vote to mark the DYK section with the {{humour}} template. The template is too big to fit anywhere. And it will completely ruin the joke. As far as I can see, the April 1 DYKs always get some extra effort. If the proposal is accepted, there will be no reason for the people who do all the work in this project to try hard anymore. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
As the biggest progenitor of April Fools (Clown-Prince of DYK if you wish), I know I will certainly be disincentivised to contribute if we are not allowed to have fun on one day of the year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all — regarding "they have no jurisdiction here", sorry, but the discussion there is listed via WP:CENT, so a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS will not be able to override it. More generally, I just want to say that I do appreciate all the work you all put in to creating the DYKs. The proposal is not targeted specifically at you but would apply to every main page section. You are free to react to it as you wish, but I would ask for your understanding that it arises from good faith concerns. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks

We need someone to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Jo Vincent to the reserved slot in Prep 4, and Template:Did you know nominations/I Know That My Redeemer Lives to the reserved slot in Prep 6. Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note that for the latter, Yoninah and I voted for one ALT, the nominator for another. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a !vote. Also Yoninah didn't express a preference. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that ALT3 is best. Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You think striking is no expression of a preference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I have stuck ALT2 on the template, to prevent an edit war. The source does not say that a miracle occurred. Nobody certified any miracle, and without certification, perception of a miracle is just ... a POV The source says this, "The next morning when the surgeon came to examine his wounds, he lifted up his hands in amazement and said, "This is little short of a miracle"." — Maile (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 17. We currently have a total of 339 nominations, of which 155 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from January and the five from February that remain.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Friday - prep 4

Already archived, it was decided that the hook for Psalm 31 should run on Good Friday, but it still sits in Special occasions, and prep 4 has only one free slot, the quirky. It's certainly not quirky ;) - Today I wrote a hook for Jo Vincent, which would also be good on Good Friday, but if not then better before Easter, so the next day. Mentions the St Matthew Passion and Spring. Needs a review first, Template:Did you know nominations/Jo Vincent. I have the Paul Mägi hook in the set which could run any day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a clarification. My calendar says Good Friday is April 10, with Easter Sunday on April 12. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. What we have now is the Psalm in the quirky slot, - no idea why last words of someone put to a cruel death would be quirky, Mägi remaining, so no room for Vincent. I therefore suggested a different hook for Vincent for 22 Apr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a helpful reference on where Easter and Good Friday fall on the calendar, since those dates vary from year to year. — Maile (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't get it, - didn't I say prep 4? Which seems to have been understood, because the psalm WAS added there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The comment wasn't meant for you. It was meant for anyone looking at this on an electronic device who doesn't want to flip back and forth to see what preps are in line, or any other thing. It doesn't matter, either way. — Maile (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to understand: as long as we don't have an easy way to find which prep is for which day (except the table you first need to find), how would the date help such a user? Btw, it's mentioned, bolded, in the link to the Vincent nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Easter prep 6

... and thanks to BlueMoonset who moved the last [psalm] words from the quirky position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Could someone kindly review Jo Vincent? Link at the beginning of the thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done Reviewed and ready for promotion to Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April 1 2021: too soon?

When does DYK start accepting April Fools nominations? I've got an idea for a new article which would be a perfect candidate for next year. Too soon? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion on the Village Pump on whether or not AFD DYKs will even be permitted next year, so it might be a good idea to wait for that to finish before doing anything AFD-related for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, nominations are accepted year-round: as long as the article is started after April 1 of one year it is eligible for the next, and can be nominated at any time—the seven-day rule doesn't apply to AFD DYKs. However, you might want to nominate it within seven days of creating it in mainspace so that if AFD does go away (which seems unlikely last time I looked), it can be repurposed for a regular DYK set. Start the article whenever you're ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, where's the discussion? I saw some stuff on VP specifically about this year, but not to eliminate the practice in general. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Pointers are in an earlier section on this page: WT:DYK#April Fools' DYK to be banned? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

About hooks...

Hello, just going through the current hooks, I see the one about the feminist Alice Birch. It said some of her work was inspired by the "SCUM Manifesto". I've seen the term SCUM Manifesto before, but I've never really read about it. Here being told what it was I immediately opened it, but I had to remind myself to open the Alice Birch article, so that it got a hit, for the sake of proving that it gave me enough interest to deserve the +1. I wonder if the manifesto was not linked from the hook, would I have simply opened the Birch article and used that to find the link to the manifesto? Just food for thought. ~ R.T.G 02:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we've discussed this before. But unlike other Wikipedias which only link the bolded subject, editors seem to want to see unfamiliar terms linked. The nominator could have suggested a different hook without a link that will undoubtedly get more hits. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Well it hasn't occurred to me before but the same hook with only the new material linked has a chance to get all the hits it generates :)~ ~ R.T.G 03:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/KXJZ - in Prep 5

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/KXJZ
 – — Maile (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Help! Na Lani ʻEhā

@KAVEBEAR: we aren't supposed to move DYK templates to a new title. I don't know how to fix this, and it does not redirect to the new template. @BlueMoonset and Amakuru: anybody - can someone who knows how, fix this please? — Maile (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve done it before for other noms. It currently redirects to the moved title. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You're not supposed to move DYK templates, or create secondary templates. It creates problems. I've changed the template back to the original one under the nominations. I think you made an orthography change, but the change(s) are so fine that I can't even tell the difference with a magnifying glass. Meanwhile, I think the erroneous nomination template you created {{Did you know nominations/Na Lani ‘Ehā}} needs to be deleted. It's OK to move an article when the template is in the nomination queue. But then you are supposed to just change the link in the hook, not the template. @BlueMoonset: can explain this a lot better than I can, as I don't deal with it much. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, as it says at WP:DYKN#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name: Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page. This is definitely a mess: we have two apparently identically named template nomination pages so far as Wikipedia is concerned; there's some difference between ‘Ehā and ʻEhā in the coding in terms of the initial character, but the two are identical when displayed. At this point, it's easier to go with the new nomination page—I believe I've made sure there aren't any issues that might come to bite us later—but in future when an article moves, just mention that this has happened on the nomination template and someone will be along to make the necessary adjustments. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_166&oldid=1085471776"