Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 502: Line 502:
:[[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] was mentioned above as someone who might be able to help out. But he [[Special:Contributions/Gatoclass|hasn't edited in over six days, since an unpleasant encounter]]. I hope he'll be back. [[User:Bells, bells, bells|<SPAN STYLE="COLOR:orange">Bells</SPAN>, <SPAN STYLE="COLOR:green">bells</SPAN>, <SPAN STYLE="COLOR:purple">bells</SPAN>]] ([[User talk:Bells, bells, bells|talk]]) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] was mentioned above as someone who might be able to help out. But he [[Special:Contributions/Gatoclass|hasn't edited in over six days, since an unpleasant encounter]]. I hope he'll be back. [[User:Bells, bells, bells|<SPAN STYLE="COLOR:orange">Bells</SPAN>, <SPAN STYLE="COLOR:green">bells</SPAN>, <SPAN STYLE="COLOR:purple">bells</SPAN>]] ([[User talk:Bells, bells, bells|talk]]) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::I should be able to do a few sets over the next few days. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::I should be able to do a few sets over the next few days. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Likewise. I did notice the above-mentioned altercation between TRM and Gatoclass as it was happening, looks like a classic WP argument in which both sides should have de-escalated long before they actually did. I really hope we see Gatoclass back, and this hasn't put them off editing. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


== [[Template:Did you know nominations/Saadat Ali Khan I]] ==
== [[Template:Did you know nominations/Saadat Ali Khan I]] ==

Revision as of 15:00, 22 August 2019

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and processes can be discussed.

Prep 3

Hi there, this is about my hook which is currently in Prep 3:

... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make the automated white blood cell differential, a common blood test, possible?

I find the hook a little long and clumsy and I'm wondering if it would be better to change it to

... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make a common blood test possible?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SpicyMilkBoy: I'm not sure why you think your hook is in Prep, but the nomination template is still open, waiting to be promoted. I have copied this discussion to the template, where it is OK to continue the discussion of your hook suggestion. 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/White blood cell differential

Maile, it's in Prep 3, but the template wasn't closed after promotion. Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SpicyMilkBoy: the new piped link is a little Easter egg-y, no? Yoninah (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah Is that a good or a bad thing? :) I'm open to other suggestions on how to improve the hook, or keeping the original hook, if others think it's okay. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SpicyMilkBoy: I don't see in the article that the test is "common". It says it "may be ordered" as part of a complete blood count. How about:
ALT2: ... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make one of the tests in a complete blood count possible? Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. I think that's good - but maybe a little vague. What about just
ALT2a: ... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make the automated white blood cell differential possible?
At first I wanted to explain what it actually was, but maybe it'll be more interesting if the reader has to click on it to find out... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SpicyMilkBoy: no, that's too vague. Even I wouldn't click on it. Either "blood test" or "test" should be added after the bolded link. Yoninah (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we're back to the original hook. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with the original hook then, or your ALT2. Apologies for my indecisiveness. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT2 better, I think. Inkjet printer is currently a redirect to inkjet printing, just FYI. --valereee (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with ALT2. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook is in Queue 3 now, so I've provided a source for the test being common. [1] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to 2 sets a day?

@Yoninah: @Gatoclass: @BlueMoonset: @Cwmhiraeth: @Narutolovehinata5: @Gerda Arendt: @Vanamonde93: @Amakuru: @TonyBallioni: @The C of E: @David Levy: @Mandarax: @Valereee:

When we temporarily went to 2 sets a day back in February, we had 334 nominations, with 201 of those approved. Right now, all 6 Queues are filled. Prep 1 is full, with Preps 2, 3 and 4 nearly full.

Of what is not yet promoted, we have 344 nominations, with 155 approved. At 8 hooks per set, one set a day, it would take 20 days for all the currently approved ones to appear on the main page. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very active with DYK these days, but if you want my thoughts, I think it'd make sense at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there would be more people willing to check every set and make sure no errors slip through. The last time we went to two sets a day there were noticeably more error reports than usual. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: That isn't a useful statistic...twice the number of hooks will mean twice the number of errors, no matter what our error rate actually is. We're only doing badly if there's more than twice the number of errors. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Vanamonde93. I was composing basically the same response at the same time, which resulted in edit conflict when I clicked "publish" :) -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it with comparative diffs, please. This rationale comes up everytime we need to go to 2 sets. But nobody ever provides comparative diffs to prove it. My memory says it makes no difference. When we went to 2 sets during the Christmas season, and I was one of a small skeleton crew working DYK, there were fewer errors than normal. And here's my diff. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it means much, but TRM brought up that point a lot in the past. At the very least, it might be a good idea to be extra careful, just to make sure he won't point out more stuff. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion a while ago. Instead of shifting back and forth between one and two sets a day, I think we should just change the interval to 18 hours, resulting in four sets every three days, or slightly more than 10 hooks per day, which roughly matches the average rate of submission. -Zanhe (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
16-hour interval could work too, which results in three sets every two days, or 12 hooks per day. -Zanhe (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen anyone prove that there are more errors than normal with two sets a day so I don't see any problem. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe: Please see my reply below.
An 18-hour interval would be even more problematic; it would add the issue of coordinating DYK images/sets with other main page sections spanning two days, with four different DYK changeover times (and no easy way to predict the next one without keeping track or checking).
I humbly request that the update interval remain a factor of 24. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: In the previous discussion, I was assured by multiple admins that there's no reason the interval should be a multiple of 12 or 24. Several people even advocated using bots to adjust the interval dynamically to match the number of submissions per day. 18 is at least a multiple of 6. -Zanhe (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe: With all due respect for those admins, they don't deal with cross-section image size/formatting coordination – a task that I handle on a daily basis.
When I check Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, I see the next day's TFA, DYK and OTD sets and coordinate their image sizing/formatting accordingly. Sometimes, this entails cropping one or more for parity (in addition to the various enhancements and other modifications that I often perform). ITN isn't updated at regular intervals, but I include its images in this process as well.
A 12-hour DYK update interval complicates matters, as the second image of the day might vary in its nature (and appropriate sizing / aspect ratio) significantly. But the timing remains consistent and easily predictable (barring the occasional delay); it's simply an extra 12:00 update in addition to the one at 00:00, each and every day.
An 18-hour interval would result in a cycle in which updates occur at 00:00, 18:00, 12:00 and 06:00 (instead of at a finite number of consistent times each day). On top of coordinating the other main page sections' images with two DYK images, this would require coordinating half of all DYK images with the other main page sections' images across two different days.
Of course, Wikipedia is not about us, let alone me. It's the readers' experience that matters most. And in my view, varying DYK's update time(s) from one day to the next would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, who would be less likely to recognize the schedule and find the content that they seek. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updating DYK more frequently than once per day disrupts its synchronization with TFA and OTD, making main page coordination (with respect to image sizing and overall balance) more difficult.
From my perspective, increasing the number of hooks to 11 or 13 would be preferable. I'm aware of the concern that this is too many for a reader to get through, but I would argue that few readers will see both 12-hour sets (because they expect a daily update and won't check more often than that), so an accelerated schedule results in a greater likelihood of hooks being missed. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with. But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period. We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with.
That goes without saying. I hope it's clear that my participation in this discussion (in response to your kind ping) is intended to contribute to the consensus-building process, not to impede it.
But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period.
Yes, that's my preference (for the reasons cited above).
We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page.
It's mainly a matter of consistency. If DYK varies in length considerably from one day to the next, this causes imbalance (and measures to address it must be taken on the fly).
Conversely, if DYK were longer every day, the other sections (and ITN in particular) would be planned and maintained accordingly. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy makes some valid points and I would support returning to two sets a day so as to reduce the backlog of verified hooks. I would also encourage people to review additional hooks because there is an accumulation of around two hundred unreviewed nominations, and that results in too long a gap between creating an article and having it appear on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against 18 hours, because it's not in sync with the daily other changes. Two sets is accepable for a while, but I'd prefer 10 hooks on a daily basis. The DYK section is too short on many days that I observe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, 18 hours is just too inconsistent. I don't mind either way on the 1 or 2 sets as we have got a bank of 149 at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer adding hooks when we need to dig out. Even an extra hook a day moves us in the right direction. And is there a reason we repeat old hooks rather than using a hook from a current prep set? Repeating hooks when we've always got a backlog doesn't seem to make much sense.
Is 155 in the list of approved hooks a problem, or is it just that we're creeping up? I actively like having plenty of hooks to choose from when setting a prep. More approved hooks sometimes means more variety, so balance can be easier when we've got plenty to choose from. I'm not too concerned about the amount of time it takes; we're pretty good about making sure hooks requested for a particular date get moved along smartly. Is there a range we'd consider "ideal" for approved hooks? --valereee (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: the problem with the hook backlog, is that it just grows if not dealt with. Eventually, we have no empty slots to promote the hooks to. It's getting close to that now, so we need to clear out some, so the prep builders can work. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader and occasional contributor of DYKs, I think increasing the number of hooks slightly is a good way of addressing this long-term, but would support a period of two per day to reduce the backlog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We generally go to two sets a day these days when the approved page is no longer displaying all the nominations in full because of software limitations, has that occurred yet - or have they altered the software so that is no longer a limitation?

Other than that, two sets per day is the best way to resolve backlogs, we can get through it quickly that way - within two or three weeks - and don't have to worry about doing it again for months. I am strongly opposed to reducing the backlog by increasing the number of hooks per set, it's much harder to create a balanced set with more hooks, it looks like a wall of text and does a disservice to the readership, and it's much harder for admins to verify longer sets, so IMO we should stick to the two sets per day solution as we've always done. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More daily sets vs. added hooks concept: I tend to agree that increasing the number of sets is the better of the two options. Having worked both ends, as a prep builder and as an admin promoter, I believe prep builders give careful consideration to even distribution of topics and global interest. Prep builders can spend a lot of time coordinating hooks for an overall prep set. An admin adding a hook or two later can be a last-minute grab based more on the Main Page esthetics. More sets is a cleaner way to reduce a backlog. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of filled sets and no relevant special occasion hooks, so what are we waiting for? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, since I was pinged, that I'm OK with two sets a day. It does mean more errors (twice as many per day, and possibly also more per hour, given that admin/reviewer resources will be more stretched). But we've done it before and the world didn't end, so if you guys feel it's necessary then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also means twice as many error-free hooks on the main page. It just depends on which end of the telescope you're looking through there. — Maile (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not ok about there are many unapproved hooks, nearly 200. We would review unapproved hooks to clean the page 14.232.160.139 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a newcomer to DYK, I do/would find it confusing if the timing of the sets changes. I would not know how often to look for a new set, nor when a hook of mine might make it to the main page once it's in a queue. And how would the stats for page views be calculated and compared? I think it would make more sense to have more hooks in each set, and have one set per 24 hours. That is also more likely to be seen by readers in both hemispheres - changing every 12 hours would make it less likely for all readers to have a chance to see them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

For Template:Did you know nominations/History of West Palm Beach, Florida, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a better hook than the first mayor being arrested when he was later acquitted. The fact that his charges were dropped makes it not interesting. I also find the hook to be misleading because it makes it seem like he was found to be guilty. Maybe ALT1 would be better. @12george1: @Epicgenius: @Yoninah: SL93 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the rest of what happened there, but this impacted the nation's history:

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list was archived about an hour ago with only nine nominations remaining, so here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 29. Right now we have a total of 319 nominations, of which 133 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from April and May, and the six from early June.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

Since I suggested the wording of this hook (and the fact that it's now in Queue), I can't do this request myself. But it appears that the hook has been revised in such a way that it's now 204 characters long. Could there be a way to shorten the hook and bring it under the 200 character limit? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Character Count tool says 203 characters. I think we can leave the 3 extra characters without doing any harm to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Maile couldn't you do without "constituency"?
ALT1: ... that despite being described as a "weak candidate", Arvind Sawant defeated his nearest competitor by more than 120,000 votes to represent Mumbai South in the 2014 Indian general election? Yoninah (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: I haven't been ignoring you, but I've been off my computer most of the day. 2 or 3 extra characters - Meh! Ain't no big thing and probably should be IAR on such trivia. They had to come up with an agreed upon hook length a decade or so ago when they set up this project. I'm sure we've had others, but nobody said anything. Whatever extra room those 2 or 3 characters took up, was by far offset by the hooks that were less than 200 characters. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bug involving being pinged or pinging other editors when archiving nominations

So I just closed Template:Did you know nominations/Principality of Hutt River, and after doing so I received a notification saying "your message of BlueMoonset was sent". This is despite the fact that nowhere in my edit did I ping BlueMoonset. Conversely, I have been on the receiving end of such pings in the past when some nominations I reviewed were promoted or rejected. Is this some kind of bug? It only seemed to have started when the DYK talk page transclusion thing was implemented. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in to confirm that I was pinged, and this is functionality that I don't find useful. Wugapodes, is this something you have added? Or was it someone else? I would greatly appreciate it if it were removed right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is something I did. @Anomie: do you know if anything has changed with the ping system recently? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of anything, but it's not terribly likely I would. Perhaps it got confused by the fact that the line with BlueMoonset's signature was modified by the edit? You'd do better to ask at WT:Notifications. Anomie⚔ 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes has suggested that this issue is to do with this edit. If so, an examination of the added lines (those with the blue border) on the right shows the Wikimarkup 
constructing short, interesting hooks. Thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]]
- it is that link, in conjunction with Narutolovehinata5's signature in the fourth added line, that has triggered a notification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine this is the first time my regular sig has been the last thing on a nomination page prior to promotion, with those changes seen in the diff having been done. Plus, I've closed a number of DYK templates before, and it's never happened to me on the other side. It remains very odd behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's anything to do with DYK; this happened to me earlier this week, elsewhere. I was pinged by this edit. It's certainly odd, but the ping feature has always been buggy, I think...Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have similarly received several notifications in the last ten days or so, when my signature has been the last thing on a DYK nomination template of a hook just promoted by someone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPP as part of DYK

Hi there,

I was a bit surprised when, on clicking one of today's DYK's (the Grampian - interesting hook and article) that it hadn't actually been patrolled (it now is).

Is checking the patrolling status articles sourcing DYK's that have made it through review and been added to a prep queue something that happens? Should it be?

It just seems that if we have DYKs to highlight a few interesting, usually new, articles, they should be prioritised for patrolling. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved nominations awaiting promotion for a very long time

It's hard for promoters to find the nominations that were approved a long time ago, so here's a list of all eleven nominations that have been waiting for four weeks and more. The date given is where you'll find it on the Approved page; the date following in parenthesis is when the approval tick was given, with approval dates from June 11 to July 19. Thanks to the prep builders for all their hard work; I hope they'll give these nominations extra attention.

Over two months old:

Over four weeks old:

Please remember to cross off entries when you promote them, so other prep builders don't go looking for them. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 typos and overlinking

Please edit as follows:
Please edit as follows:
  • ... that the first job of new Austrian Finance Minister Eduard Müller was as a tax inspector?
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to cause trouble: WRT Müller, it seems to me that the fact that the tax man started out as a tax man scores maybe a 2/10 on the interestingness scale. EEng 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4:Image caption

Pinging page nominator @Calliopejen1:
The image caption is linking back to the article. We usually don't do this because the hook links to the article, but the Spanish term is not mentioned in the hook. Can someone else suggest a better caption? Would "Communal meal during Carnaval in Ecuador" work? (BTW there's no page for Carnaval; we just have Carnival#Ecuador.) Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to slightly change the hook first:
ALT1
Then the image caption from the article: "Pampa mesa during Carnaval in Parcoloma, Ecuador" — Maile (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6: Digital media use and mental health

TRM has raised the issue that the hook implies that the report into media use by disadvantaged kids was described as "overuse", whereas the source for that research makes no such claim. The hook was approved with a note that it didn't look like WP:SYNTH, but I think I'd disagree with that. The second part of the hook directly references the first, and states a cause and effect that no individual source has mentioned. I'm tempted to pull this one before it goes live at 12:00 UTC today, to allow more time for discussion on this and possibly a better hook. Unless anyone has a strong reason why the above issue is incorrect. Pinging Reidgreg, Maile66, Yoninah, Farang Rak Tham, E.3 who were involved in this one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS - the text of TRM's finding on this is: the report doesn't describe the level used by disadvantaged kids as "overuse" so nor should we. Plus it's a bit of a non-hook because "may affect their mental health" works both ways, indeed, the report highlights the fact that "a growing body of research conducted over the past decade suggests that time online can actually benefit young people." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Digital media use and mental health
 –  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Rugrats Kwanzaa

For some unknown reason, I received a DYK credit on my talk page for A Rugrats Kwanzaa, an article I have never edited. I did however review it for DYK here. It was brought to good article status by Aoba47 and he did not receive a credit on his talk page. The hook was promoted to Prep 6 on 14th August, but I am unclear what happened next. Could someone sort out Aoba47's credit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I re-posted the page after removing it from prep with the correct credit line, but the credit line seems to have been erased when the promoter, a new DYK editor, promoted it. This promoter then inserted your name in the credit line in Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed the credit while in Queue and was surprised to see it. But, Cwmhiraeth, you're such a prolific writer, I figured you were branching out from your usual subject matter, and, unfortunately, didn't investigate. Although anybody can issue a credit, the ideal situation would be for Maile66 to move the credit from User talk:Cwmhiraeth#DYK for A Rugrats Kwanzaa to User talk:Aoba47. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piece of cake to correct - just cut and paste from one user page to the next. When @TheAwesomeHwyh: promoted this to prep, they manually inserted Cwmhiraeth in the DYK make. And I missed that error when I moved the Prep to Queue. One more thing we need to be checking when we move up to Queue. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1: Prep 6: The toilet hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Toilet training

Saying that most children can be successfully toilet trained sounds too obvious to meet the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement. Any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It might not be obvious if we were from another planet. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's crap. :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: @GreenMeansGo: @Amakuru: for lack of a more immediate idea, I swapped Toilet Training to Prep 6, and moved The Air Force Blue from Prep 6 to Queue 1. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might this sentence have hook potential? An examination of data from hospital emergency rooms in the US from 2002 to 2010 indicated that the most common form of toilet training related injury was caused by falling toilet seats. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well...It's not necessarily obvious if you're currently trying to potty train a toddler. (/me looks around) The possibility that you should consult your doctor for issues that do not require medical intervention are real and tempting. GMGtalk 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need the nominator GreenMeansGo to verify the sourcing, but there are a couple of beauts in the first paragraph that could be fashioned into the quirky slot hook:
ALT1 ... that toilet training in Ancient Rome included the earliest known children's toilet?
ALT2 ... that toilet training in European Middle Ages including bedwetting remedies of consumption of ground hedgehog or of powdered goat claw and having dried rooster combs sprinkled on the bed?
@EEng: if there's anybody at DYK who could come up with an interesting hook or two from the subject matter, it would surely be you. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gives new meaning to the term "Good to go". I'll take a look. EEng 23:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, much as I was hoping to fashion a hook disgusting and scatological but at which you still can't help but laugh, I think the best might be

ALT3 ... that at least one source in 1940s linked authoritarian toilet training to European fascism and the Holocaust?

However, that's a bit mealy-mouthed ("at least one source", "linked") because I don't know exactly what the source says, and it's an extraordinary-sounding claim, so I'd like to ask the esteemed GreenMeansGo (NOT THAT KIND OF 'GO'!) to quote the source for us. EEng 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @EEng: Full quote (p. 172): Punitive toilet training, the authors contended, led to authoritarian personalities with sadistic fantasies who oppressed minorities; preoccupation with cleanliness was part and parcel of a mind-set that sent people "into the oven." And indicatively, although, as the Lankwitzers analysed how abjected minorities were treated, they were clearly referring to Jews (and, above all, the way Nazis demonized Jews by associating them with sexual lasciviousness), they were also speaking about themselves.
This was quoted in one of the other sources I used, but I couldn't tell you which one without significant digging and re-reading. But that's how I found it IIRC. (I just wanted a nice wholesome child-development thing, and you guys went straight for the gas chambers.)GMGtalk 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. You can reject any of the hooks we offered above and request that the hook stick to the basics. But you need to meet the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement to the satisfaction of the promoters. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm just being sarcastic because it's EEng, and we've shot the shit a time or two. There's...there's probably something to be had here with the 40s era Freudian circle jerk pseudo-philosophy. Lemme sleep on it and I'll see what I can come up with. GMGtalk 01:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. We just don't want your nomination pulled, so I'll leave this in your hands. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

shot the shit – All, right, that's enough of that. You're starting to piss me off. Now then... after reading the full context of GMG's source on Gbooks [2] I'm striking A3 in favor of:

ALT4 ... that radical some German child-rearing theorists of the 1970s tied Nazism and the Holocaust to authoritarian, sadistic personalities produced by punitive toilet training techniques?

If you guys want that one I'll be happy to modify the article to cover that hook. EEng 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dang!! ... that's quite a grabber there ... — Maile (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did a shit-load of research. EEng 03:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're yanking our chain, you did really well to flush that one out.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That one's a real strain. --valereee (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide, I moved the hook out of the quirky slot and reserved a slot for it in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching (too many distractions) but feel free to ping me if I can help further. EEng 23:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: I was thinking about combining the bit about Nazi authoritarianism along with the bit about Japanese imperialism. Given, that may cause issues with conciseness. This hook is fine as far as I'm concerned. The only bit that I'm not seeing is exactly where it describes the Lankwitzers as radical child rearing theorists. The book doesn't seem to give a very in-depth introduction about who exactly they're addressing, and seems to kind of assume we know who they are. GMGtalk 12:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest I allowed myself that inference from the title of their pamphlet (Revolution in Education, or Education for Revolution?) plus the fact that one parent suggested that they allow their kindergartners to masturbate and play sex games in class, but I suppose we can change radical to some, though it sounds wishy-washy. It would be hard to shoehorn in the Japan angle. EEng 13:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about ALT5 ...that in the mid-20th century, errant toilet training was blamed as a cause of both European Fascism as well as Japanese imperialism? Sources for Japan is this pages 201-203 specifically, discussing Geoffrey Gorer's unique perspective, where he blames toilet training on all the "aggression and sadism" of the Japanese military and the "most important single influence in the formation of the adult Japanese character". All of this was patent nonsense of course (but was still probably on average preferable to competing contemporary theories of racial character). GMGtalk 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my unbiased opinion I think A4 is better. Errant doesn't fit; punative gives the reader a better idea what we're talking about; was blamed (passive voice) leaves the reader wondering who did the blaming (or mistakenly concluding these were common ideas); the different things said about the Japan connection are too varied. EEng 18:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC) The title of this thread ("The toilet hook") has given me nightmares.[reply]
Meh. That's fine. GMGtalk 18:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin stuff the rest of the week

@Yoninah: @Amakuru: @Valereee: Just an FYI. I'm going to be online much less the rest of the week, so I don't think I'll be doing the promotions from Prep to Queue until whenever. And I probably won't be around to make changes in Queue content. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Cas Liber and Gatoclass, in the hopes that they might be able to help while Maile is unavailable—at the moment we're down to one queue filled, and promoters are working on the last unfilled prep, so checking and moving a couple of preps to queues will both make sure we have queues for the bot to promote to the main page and lets more prep sets be filled. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm around Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Also around. I'll keep an eye on things.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Here, just been distracted by other things the last few days! Thanks for letting us know, Maile! --valereee (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 - Curzon Street Baroque

Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque

@Yoninah: @Giano: @Gerda Arendt: Please be advised that @JHunterJ: has tagged the article for its citation style being incomplete. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot understand what the problem is [3]. Giano (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giano:I think that the lack of page numbers is the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. All the books used have page numbers, only the web pages don’t. Giano (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I began formatting the first 4 refs using harvard citations. I can continue later. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's no need for that. The problem WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED MUCH MORE CLEARLY for an article in a prep queue is given in his edit summary - there are two Tinniswoods in the references & the notes don't distinguish which is used. @Giano: or someone has now sorted this. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page number for current reference number 29, "O Sitwell, Rat Week" is the only one missing. The book is 80 pages, so a page number is desirable in this case. The other two short citations without page numbers refer to online articles which naturally have no page numbers. --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was indeed the problem THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE FIRST PLACE, which I stated clearly in the edit summary AND ALSO IN THE COMMENT NEXT TO THE TAG. Go yell at someone else, Johnbod. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you didn't miss the comment, as both Giano & I did yours! I hope you have read Rexxx's comments on your edit, at the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help to have gotten the article improved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

@Gerda Arendt, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: To be honest, I don't really see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It basically seems to be a "conductor conducted" hook, which isn't exactly something that people unfamiliar with the subject could appreciate. Could an alternative hook be proposed here, one that could appeal even to non-fans of classical music? One option could be to focus more on the Germany-Canada connection, though I'm not sure how to word that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you normally expect one of the most brilliant brass ensembles, Canadian Brass (playing Penny Lane which they declared classical music because written before most of the boys were born), to work with a German boy's choir on Volkslieder, of all music? I don't know of any other such collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but that information honestly sounds very niche. It may be remarkable or unusual in the realm of classical music, but unless a reader is into that interest, the likely reaction would be something like "who cares?". I think there might be some potential in the relationship you're discussing, there's probably just a better wording that could be used here, one that highlights it better or in a more eye-catching way (i.e. one that even non-classical music fans could appreciate). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Classical music? Not here. Volkslieder = folk songs are the songs of the man and woman and boy and girl in the street, and it's remarkable that two high-profile of great diversity unite to highlight those, in a highly unusual concert program presented at various high profile festivals. [4] [5] [6] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see how the man in the street would find that remarkable. EEng 05:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: "one of the most brilliant brass ensembles" is definitely a POV. If Penny Lane is a classic, it's because the Beatles made it so, not because of who performed it half a century later. I'm sure your perspective on Jörg Breiding makes him remarkable, but the way I'm reading the article, he's the conductor of a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location. In our global environment, there is nothing out of the ordinary about musicians and performers collaborating with each other across the world. The "interesting to a broad audience" requirement doesn't seem to have been met here. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I told you a joke, nothing about Penny Lane, sorry. That boys' choir IS notable internationally for tours and recordings, and it's not the internationality of the collaboration, but the German folk songs with Canadian brass band aspect. I confess that I find at least half of DYK not interesting to me, but don't mind thinking that they will be interesting for others. Trying to be interesting for everybody will result in unspecific or sensational hooks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I didn't suggest to include "brilliant" in the hook, just to give you a short summary of "Canadian Brass has a library of more than 600 compositions and arrangements specially and uniquely fashioned for them" from our article. Private tipp: if you can see them go! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK that Bach cantatas (Teldec), the first recording of all sacred Bach cantatas in historically informed performance, an international collaboration, features the Knabenchor Hannover as one of four boys' choirs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, we're probably gonna need a new wording for the hook here. I don't think the new suggestion is suitable as it's even more niche than the original (i.e. you can't appreciate it unless you are familiar with the terms and names mentioned). I don't agree with Maile's statement though that musicians from around the world collaborating is "nothing out of the ordinary": a good hook based on such a topic could still be proposed as long as the wording is right and the details used can catch the attention of people unfamiliar with the subjects. For this nomination, Gerda seems to want to emphasize the German-Canadian connection, so it might be a good idea to start with that for a new hook. Perhaps RebeccaGreen, who helped propose new hooks for an earlier nomination, could help out? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by new suggestions. I only explained the current hook proposal, and don't believe that a new wording is needed. I know of nothing similar to this project, which is always something I go for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the "Bach cantatas (Teldec)" hook you wrote above my last comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? Just because I was too lazy to spell out "Did you know?" - In response to your "a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location", I wanted to point out that it is one of four choirs involved in one of the most prestigous projects of classical music, well known globally. Mr. Breiding, chosen by the conductor of 40 years to be his successor, is interesting for that fact alone, but I thought that folk muic and brass would make it more colourful. Again, this thread is already longer than the article, and it's past midnight where I live. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location comment was Maile66's, not mine. And I'm not sure if you understood what I was trying to say, which is that the hook you proposed (the one about Teldec) is probably even more niche. With the Canadian Brass hook at least, readers could find it interesting that a Canadian collaborated with a German. With the Teldec proposal on the other hand, readers will likely not find it interesting unless they know what a cantata is, what "historically informed" means, and the choir. Which to be honest might be too much to ask for from our readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about about my mistake as to who thought the Knabenchor Hannover was only of regional importance. The Tecdec recordings were in the 1970s, when Breiding was still a boy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the article itself, although the original hook says that Breiding conducted folk arrangements with the Canadian Brass, the article only mentions the Knabennchor Hannover singing arrangements with the Canadian Brass. The source used does appear to confirm that Breiding conducted the arrangements, but the paragraph discussing the fact for the original hook does not mention Breiding by name or his conducting. If we're going to go with the original hook or a variation of that, this discrepancy has to be addressed first.
  • Meanwhile, reading through the article again, there seem to be other potential hook facts that could be used, such as the countries he's performed at, or one of his cantata collections receiving an award. Would any of these suggestions be acceptable to you?
ALT1: ... that German conductor Jörg Breiding has collaborated and performed with ensembles in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Canada?
ALT2 ... that a recording of cantatas conducted by Jörg Breiding won Germany's most prestigious award for classical music in the choral recording category?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again: that an ensemble performs in many countries is so commonplace, that ALT1 is out, and ALT2 i about cantatas, a topic we had here gundreds of times, - while folk songs and brass is new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be relevant if the sourcing or wording for the conductor, choir & Canadian brass performing together is not clear, but here is a suggestion from me of a possible reworking of ALT0:
ALT3 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in seventy years, conducted the choir singing folk songs accompanied by the Canadian Brass quintet?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5 and Gerda Arendt, I have edited that section of the article, so it now reads "In 2019, Breiding conducted Knabennchor Hannover singing arrangements of folk songs accompanied by the Canadian Brass quintet, in a series of concerts in the Kuppelsaal and at summer festivals such as the Rheingau Musik Festival,[5] in a program for a new CD." As the article is about Breiding, it seemed important to focus that information on his conducting, regardless of which hook is chosen here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ALT (which I numbered 3) and the wording. I'm sorry that I missed the conductor's name in that sentence in the article to avoid repetition, who else? (I mean, if you go to festivals with your latest showcase thing, wouldn't you do it yourself?) - "accompanied" is not fair, they really carried a lot more.
ALT4 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in almost seventy years, conducted the choir singing folk songs in arrangements for them and the Canadian Brass quintet?
ALT5 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in almost seventy years, conducted the choir and the Canadian Brass quintet in folk song arrangements?
The arrangements were written especially for these concerts, four sets by theme (shanties, animals ...), and within a set connections from song to song played by the band. To say all that in the conductor's article would be undue weight, - just as background for how to describe it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I guess I was using "accompanied by" in a more general sense of "together with", not a perhaps technical sense of "accompanist". Of your suggestions, I prefer ALT5. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Me too. I'm substituting ALT5 in prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

Template:Did you know nominations/Callum Wilkie

Teratix Kosack 97198

I'm wondering if we can punch this up a little; it seems to me the fact he was overlooked in four previous drafts is one of the more interesting facts. Maybe

--valereee (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thanks for suggesting this. On one hand, mature-age recruits (22+ years old, as opposed to the teenagers who are usually drafted) playing in state leagues like Wilkie are being drafted more and more often by AFL clubs, so it's not so terribly unusual in the context of the sport. On the other, it's probably quite interesting to a general audience who may not be familiar with this trend. If ALT1/2 is preferred I recommend changing "drafted" to "selected" to avoid repetition, and perhaps specify they were "national" drafts. – Teratix ₵ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix, can you add 'national' to the article in the appropriate place? I'd do it but I don't want to screw up if the source that's already there doesn't support that, and my knowledge of AU rules football is limited to knowing how to spell it. :) Yoninah, yes, I think that's better! --valereee (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – Teratix ₵ 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: Boardwalk

@Epicgenius:@Muboshgu:Cwmhiraeth
I'm not sure how much interest this has to readers who don't know who he is and have never heard of the boardwalk. I'm wondering if this would work better:
Sure, seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks all. Substituting the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

Template:Did you know nominations/Randolph County High School

  • ... that the principal of Alabama's Randolph County High School refused to allow interracial couples to the school's prom, and months later part of the school was burnt down in an arson attack?

Bmichelleh Thats Just Great SL93

I see this has been discussed at the nom, but I'm still concerned that putting these two together in the sentence implies some connection between them, which is not in the article. And if these are two unrelated points, it's not really interesting, so we still need a new hook. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Valereee I recall we had the same issue with a different school-burning-down article, and that hook was pulled too. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
ALT1 ... that after Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned down in 1910, the town's church and courthouse were used as temporary classrooms?
ALT1a ... that after Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned down in 1910, the town's church and courthouse were used as temporary classrooms while the school was rebuilt?
I also found it interesting that the school burned down twice in its history. Perhaps a hook based on that could also work? I also have to note that the nominator hasn't edited in over a month, so in any case the discussion may have to move forward without them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT1. The article is currently in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I like that, but the second time, only one of four buildings burned so I think we probably can't say 'burned down' as that seems like it would imply the entire thing both times.
ALT2 ... that Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned to the ground in 1910 and in 1994 was partially destroyed in a suspicious fire?
ALT2a ... that Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama has burned twice in 119 years?
--valereee (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's most interesting that the racial incident took place in 1994.

Can someone confirm whether the movie still at Template:Did you know nominations/London to Brighton in Four Minutes is properly licenced under {{PD-textlogo}}? Daß Wölf 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader here: I uploaded to image to Commons on the basis that it is below the level of originality in both the US and UK. Commons:Threshold of originality. If it is OK in the US but not UK it could be uploaded here. Thincat (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a catch-22. If the still lacks originality and is just deemed to be generic text, then why are we showing it? Seems like it might be better just to not make this one a picture hook , the image doesn't add that much to understanding the topic anyway...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

I misread the article partially when promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Rowe. The article states that she was an "operational support guard" (whatever that is) rather than a prison guard. This says that she quit before her professional debut and not that she did both at the same time. The source actually doesn't mention guard anywhere. Nominator - @Kosack: Reviewer - @Nehme1499:. Admins to pull hook if needed - @Amakuru: @Casliber: @Valereee: SL93 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point, the source you state is for her professional club debut in December 2015, however she made her international debut before this in September 2015 and I provided the sources for this time frame in the DYK nomination. The source you question is there to signify when she quit her role, which is after the international match. The operational support guard role is explained in the article, but her role is definable as a prison guard I would say given that she was guarding gates and contractors within prisons. Kosack (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest either changing the hook to say operational support guard or clarify that is the same as a prison guard. It's great that the sources mention it, but the article should also. Operational support guard is also only in Early life, but nowhere in the International career section. Right now, with just reading the article and not checking the sources, it makes it seem like she was a guard before her international career. SL93 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't state say that she was guarding gates and contractors. It says, "The role included performing vehicle checks and escorting contractors onto prison wings to perform maintenance work." SL93 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well escorting contractors onto active prison wings would be considered guarding. What I mean is the role is explained in the article. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The role is also mentioned in club career, but I've added a mention in the international section now as well. Perhaps the hook could be changed to "working as a guard in the prison service"? Kosack (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so because the article doesn't even state what she guarded. SL93 (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article states, "The role included performing vehicle checks and escorting contractors onto prison wings to perform maintenance work"? Kosack (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so since it doesn't say what she guarded and doesn't use the term prison guard. I don't think you're lying about the terms meaning the same thing and I'm guessing it might be because I have never heard the term used around where I have been. I don't think escorting means guarding. She could have also been, but that would be original research. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear what I mean by original research, there is more than one definition of escort. SL93 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggest changing the hook to your new suggestion. If it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the hook. SL93 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WalesOnline source includes her own quote of "We'd be on the wings with all the prisoners, while providing a secure area to work" so I wouldn't consider that OR. I think you're taking the term too literally, prison guards do more than simply "guarding" so to speak. I'm fine with changing the hook either way though. Kosack (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might be due to having Asperger's Syndrome. I know they do more than guarding, but I was just going from reading the article because I think the typical reader doesn't read the sources. SL93 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get what you're saying. As I said, I'm happy for the hook to be amended to "working as a guard in the prison service" or similar if it helps eliminate any potential confusion. Kosack (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3: Song

@Bilorv:@MrLinkinPark333:@Cwmhiraeth:
This hook is very wordy. Why not just say what it is?
ALT1: ... that the fourth eponymous song by The 1975 is actually a spoken word speech by Greta Thunberg (pictured) about climate change? Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hook contains two important facts—this is the first of their eponymous songs to differ from a fixed set of lyrics; the song features Thunberg speaking about climate change—and this alt contains neither does not contain the former. The word "actually" is meaningless in it. The hook that was decided was approved after a lengthy and thorough review and I don't understand why you want to relitigate this. I'm sick of people trying to tamper with my DYK hooks at the last minute. Getting consensus on a hook is what the review is for. If you haven't found a factual error then don't try to pull the hook. — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure about this but first of their eponymous songs to differ from a fixed set of lyrics kinda sounds niche and might not appeal to those who aren't fans of the band or are otherwise familiar with their work. As for ALT1, the hook wording does seem to mention Thunberg and the climate change part, so I don't really see what's wrong with going with that. I would have to agree that the original hook, while it had potential, seemed too long to have that "hooky" punch. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, of course it did; corrected. Originally wrote something different as the second fact. As for the rest, your personal preference is not relevant to a hook that has already been approved. You have not pointed out an error in it. — Bilorv (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about personal preferences, it's about editors raising concerns about hooks or articles. And these can occur at any time, even if a nomination has already been approved and promoted; after all, the review process is not perfect and we try to ensure that the hooks we show on the front page are as good as they can be. As for the original hook, if you wanted to emphasize that the song did not use the same lyrics as the previous eponymous songs, perhaps that could have worked as a standalone hook without mentioning Thunberg's spoken word speech. And while not an "error" per-se, length and conciseness is a legitimate concern that DYK usually takes notice of. For disclosure, I have to clarify that ALT0 sounded fine to me, but I can see where the concerns about wordiness are coming from and I kind of agree to some extent. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't like is that I participated in a week-long 2000 word review of every inch of the article; it was separately approved by an uninvolved admin; and now I have to be online 24/7 to stop anyone from coming along and saying that they don't like a thoroughly-vetted hook and therefore we have to restart the whole process, at the last minute. I've answered your concern already at the review which no-one in this conversation has deigned to read: I believe both parts are important: they deviated from the lyrics because of the importance of the message. Omitting the first half would leave out the contextual significance in the band's action and omitting the second half leaves out what they actually did (telling you only what they didn't do).
Yet again, length and conciseness is a factor in the review, but here we are with an approved review and a hook that meets the mandatory requirements for length. If ALT0 sounds fine to you, sounded fine to me, sounded fine to the reviewer and sounded fine to the admin who approved the nomination, then I don't believe it sounding unacceptable to Yoninah alone is justification for deviating from what we have already approved. I can also see where the concerns are coming from but they are an issue of personal preference. I would take issue with a hook that doesn't contain an interesting fact, like ALT1. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was wordy. And hooks that go into the image slot should be good hooks, not roundabout wordings of what, as Narutolovehinata5 aptly expresses it, is a "niche" topic familiar only to followers of the band. If you're so insistent on leaving the original wording, let's take it out of the image slot. Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Point me to the rule that image slots need to be "good hooks" and other slots need not be, please. The hook is not niche at all. What it's trying to convey is this: The 1975 always begin their albums with a song called "The 1975"; up until now, it always had the same lyrics; they changed the lyrics in the most recent one as a protest about climate change; the song instead is a spoken word speech by Thunberg; here's a picture of Thunberg.
If you can convey all of this information in a new hook in a more eloquent way (when compared to the current hook, which both fits within guidelines and contains the essential parts of each of those five things) then I'm open to discussion. I'm going to pre-empt your "that's too much for one hook" by saying that no, it already fits in the hook I've suggested, which falls within guidelines; the details together form a complete picture of the production of the song, but excluding any one of them removes meaningful context for the others.
If you can't suggest a hook in this format and will not accept the current one, then I own neither the article nor the hook so you can do what you want with them, but if you pull, move or change the hook's content or positioning or scheduling then you will have succeeded in ensuring that I never return to DYK again. If you can suggest a hook in this format then I'm very willing to discuss it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. WP:OWN rules again! Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Oiginally when I started reviewing this article, I was split between two directions of interest (the different lyrics in comparison to their previous songs, and the song featuring a message about climate change). However, @Bilorv: explained to me why both halves were needed in the hook. If the main hook needs to be reworded in order to keep both halves, then that works with me. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this wording be acceptable?
ALT2... that unlike The 1975's previous eponymous songs, which use the same set of lyrics, their 2019 song featuresis a spoken word speech on climate change by Greta Thunberg (pictured)?
It's far shorter than the original hook and mostly gives the same intent, though I'm still not sure if it addresses my earlier concerns about the "same lyrics" part sounding niche. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, both the ideas of eponymous song titles and that multiple songs by the same group have the same lyrics sound unusual/interesting, and that the group would use new lyrics on a new eponymous song when being consistent with the lyrics previously is also interesting. Add in Greta/climate change, and it's still intriguing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sounds good to me, but can we change "features" to "is"? Thank you Narutolovehinata5 for a sensible suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed "features" to "is", and substituting the hook in prep. Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 and Bilorv. Yoninah (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

admin stuff me too

Am suddenly called out of town, probably out tomorrow morning and back late Monday. --valereee (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass was mentioned above as someone who might be able to help out. But he hasn't edited in over six days, since an unpleasant encounter. I hope he'll be back. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to do a few sets over the next few days. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. I did notice the above-mentioned altercation between TRM and Gatoclass as it was happening, looks like a classic WP argument in which both sides should have de-escalated long before they actually did. I really hope we see Gatoclass back, and this hasn't put them off editing.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Saadat Ali Khan I

I had closed this nomination as it had been marked for closure by Wuerzele earlier this month and the nominator Royroydeb had not edited the article in over a month and had been inactive for weeks. Several hours later, Dharmadhyaksha reverted my closure, saying that Your first review took a month to start. Why do you expect the nominator to be prompt within 3 days?. Afterwards, I reclosed the nomination, saying that it had already been closed, and if there was a desire to re-open the nomination, a discussion should be made at WT:DYK. I am voluntarily putting up my action for review here to ask if my closure was proper, or if the nomination should be allowed to continue while waiting for a response from Royroydeb. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know you’re trying to keep things moving but just in passing recently I’ve seen several instances of you saying “I will give you X days to do Y” or “I will allow Z”, and it all seems quite bossy. You’re not in charge. Lighten up a little. EEng 08:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that your closure was proper, but Dharmadhyaksha actually does have a good point. I have noticed some of your reviews take awhile to complete in a timely manner despite you being pinged. I do remember myself nominating articles for DYK with you picking them up for review and I felt frustrated when you took a long time to see my fixes, despite the fact that you were working on other DYKs the past few days. Your only response was that you were busy with other things which I'm not sure if that is so great of an excuse when you're going through other DYKs. Plus nominators have been already waiting a very long time for a review. I do appreciate how smoothly you help keep DYK running, but that is my view. SL93 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I have to apologize for my tardiness, as when I don't reply immediately, it's either: 1. I would wait for further responses from either the nominator or other editors before replying again, or 2. I spend some time away from a nomination due to burnout and would rather return to it later on once my mind is clear and I can give a fresh look. I'll try to keep the promptness concern in mind in the future and try to finish reviews more promptly in the future. As for the "I'll give X days", I try to avoid it and mainly do so only to let things move forward and hopefully result in quicker responses. I apologize if my wordings have sounded "bossy" and I will refrain from using such wordings in the future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is not the only one responsible for getting a hook approved. Just like how you meddle in other reviews with your "un-interesting-ness" aspect, there are editors out there who can help nominators in their DYK reviews. I am in fact fed up with your constant remarks of something being un-interesting. And in recent past you have made it a point to stall so many Indian DYKs with this lousy reason. If you want something "interesting" propose it so. If not, simply check for the truthfullness of the proposed hook, check it and approve it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the "interesting to a broad audience" is a rather controversial criterion, and much drama has resulted from how to interpret it. I have to admit that many editors such as myself usually can't agree on what counts as "interesting". As for the Indian hooks, I am not singling them out and in fact I have approved several India-related hooks in the past with little-to-no complaints. My only suggestion at this point is that you have to realize that not all Wikipedia editors and readers are Indian or are familiar with India-related topics. We are writing for a global audience, not a predominantly-Indian one, so hooks should ideally be written in such a way that international audiences would find it interesting too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So until you establish what is interesting, please do not stall nominations based on this comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb I normally use would be something like, for example: "This is a hook about someone or something from/about [country or field X]; is it likely that a typical reader who is not from or is not familiar with [country or field X] would find it interesting?"; other editors may have different interpretations. If you have other concerns about the "interestingness" criterion, you are free to start a discussion on that, asking if it should be changed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dharmadhyaksha, if you want to try to get what you think across, it is best to assume good faith about other editors. SL93 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think am assuming bad faith? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making it seem like Narutolovehinata5 has an agenda towards Indian hooks. SL93 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3: Image of Greta Thunberg

@Bilorv: just enquiring why we're using the image File:FFF Berlin 2019-07-19 113 (cropped).jpg for Greta Thunberg, which has her eyes partially closed and the top of her head obscured by a microphone, rather than the better-quality File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (46705842745) (cropped).jpg, which appears in the infobox of Thunberg's own article? I don't think the former image has any particular connection to the 1975 album, so would suggest swapping it for the other one in both the article and the DYK hook, unless there are strong reasons otherwise? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=911994686"