Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
please wait a bit
Line 616: Line 616:
:::::::'''ALT3''' ... that [[Emperor Dezong of Tang]] elevated '''[[Qi Ying]]''' to imperial attendant in 784 because Ying agreed to hold the [[bridle]] of the Emperor's horse? -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::'''ALT3''' ... that [[Emperor Dezong of Tang]] elevated '''[[Qi Ying]]''' to imperial attendant in 784 because Ying agreed to hold the [[bridle]] of the Emperor's horse? -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] verified Chamal's hook (ALT1). Article length and history have already been verified above, and the fact in Chamal's hook is verified (it's the same as the fact in the first hook, except the "disregarding his safety" bit, which in a quote in the article and can be verified AGF); as I mentioned above, Chamal's hook is 189 chars by my count. As I said above, I prefer Chamal's hook; Gatoclass's hook is also verified in the text, if you are still concerned about Chamal's being non-notable. Anyway, let's just get this hook out of here! &mdash;[[User:Politizer|Politizer]]&nbsp;<small><sup>'''[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]'''</sup></small>/<small><sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]'''</sub></small> 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] verified Chamal's hook (ALT1). Article length and history have already been verified above, and the fact in Chamal's hook is verified (it's the same as the fact in the first hook, except the "disregarding his safety" bit, which in a quote in the article and can be verified AGF); as I mentioned above, Chamal's hook is 189 chars by my count. As I said above, I prefer Chamal's hook; Gatoclass's hook is also verified in the text, if you are still concerned about Chamal's being non-notable. Anyway, let's just get this hook out of here! &mdash;[[User:Politizer|Politizer]]&nbsp;<small><sup>'''[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]'''</sup></small>/<small><sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]'''</sub></small> 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

*... that the term '''[[Hindu Taliban]]''' is used by some tolerant or "secular" [[Hindu]]s to describe the supporters of the [[Hindutva]] movement? (new article, self-nom) '''[[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus|<font color="002bb8">Otolemur crassicaudatus</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus|talk]]) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:*Note: Reference for the above statement is ''India: A Global Studies Handbook'' by Fritz Blackwell. Reference number 1. '''[[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus|<font color="002bb8">Otolemur crassicaudatus</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus|talk]]) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) '''Comment''' At present the article is AfDed by a user. Please wait a bit until the AfD is closed. '''[[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus|<font color="002bb8">Otolemur crassicaudatus</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus|talk]]) 09:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::*[[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|18px]] Length, date, and hook verified. There does not seem to be anyway that the AfD will result in delete or merge. At worst, it would be no consensus, but that seems unlikely as well. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><font color="#FF8C00">☼</font></big></b>]] 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 06:03, 14 November 2008

Exterior of the Stonewall Inn
Exterior of the Stonewall Inn

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page.

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}}

Instructions

List new suggestions here, under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.

Remember:

  • Proposed articles should:
    • not be marked as stubs;
    • contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
    • cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
    • be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles whose main body text has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
  • Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
  • Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
  • To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (instructions on the talk page), a free website like this, or an external software program that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. For Mac users, Apple has a Word counter widget available for Mac OS X 10.4 or later. Note: The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.
  • Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
    • interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
    • short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
    • neutral,
    • definite facts that are mentioned in the article, and
    • always cited in the article with an inline citation.
Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all.
  • Suggested pictures should be:
    • suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely licensed pictures;
    • attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
    • already in the article; and
    • relevant to the article.
    • formatted as [[Image:image name |right|100x100px| Description]] and placed directly above the suggested fact.
  • Suggested sounds should have similar qualities to pictures, and should be formatted using the format {{DYK Listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}
  • Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. List of architectural vaults), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.
  • Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~
  • When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
  • Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
  • If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|June 28}} Thanks, ~~~~
  • For more details see the previously Unwritten Rules.

Symbols

  • If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined. You may use {{DYKproblem}} to notify the nominator
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix. You may use {{DYKproblem}} to notify the nominator
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Next update

Backlogged?

This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on November 14

... that Hurricane Boris was the first hurricane of the 2008 Pacific hurricane season? Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day`

Articles created/expanded on November 13

  • ... that director Robert Rossen's 1935 play The Body Beautiful, despite running only four performances, so impressed Warner Bros. director Mervyn LeRoy that LeRoy signed Rossen to a screenwriting contract?

(alt) ... that after initially refusing to testify in 1951, director Robert Rossen named 57 people as Communists to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953 to escape the Hollywood blacklist? - self-nom, article expnded 5x today. Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Cyril Hilsum is the only scientist to have held both the Faraday Medal and Glazebrook Medal? 3295 chars, and this one may cause a problem; the previous article was written in an irregular list format. If you include the "listed" information the article in its current state does not beat the five-fold expansion rule, but I've always been led to believe lists don't count. Nevertheless I'm fine with you kicking this DYK out; you can find a "before" version here. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Technically it is a 5x expansion if you go by official counts done by page size. But as you pointed out, a lot of the editing was in converting a bulleted list into prose, rather than actually adding new information...so the expansion seems to be more of a change in how the article is counted, than an actual expansion. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an open (unresolved?) Copyright thread at DYK talk mentioning Ironholds. -- Suntag 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, one that isn't related to this in any way. If you've read the thread you'll know it is ODNB related; if you've read the article you'll know it doesn't reference the DB at all. Politzer: I actually scrapped the information (I prefer to remove all unreferenced crud if possible and start over to avoid BLP issues with it remaining) but I appreciate some of the content may be the same. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Based on my glance at it, there is some new stuff and summary, but also a lot of the new prose is writing out what used to be the lists (for example, the bulleted list of awards has turned into "he won X in 1967 and Y in 1970 and Z in 1975" or something like that). The only way to ascertain the true extent of the expansion would be for a reviewer to go through and individually pick apart every fact that can be traced back to the original list and every fact that can't and then do a count based on the facts that can't...and that is a job that I have no intention of doing (although if any other reviewers want to do it, don't hesitate to undo my DYKno and jump in there). I think this is one of those instances where it's just not worth the amount of labor it would take to figure out how big the expansion was. (Maybe this is some still-unwritten corollary of Unwritten rule A3.) —Politizer talk/contribs 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Suraj Tal, Lake of the Sun God, located at a high altitude of 4950 m below the summit of Bara-lacha-la Pass in the Lahaul and Spiti Valley is the highest lake in India?--Nvvchar (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This hook gives a lot more stats and information than we need. I will suggest a new hook later, but there are other things that need to be worked on first: the article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker (which might be me; we'll see where the evening takes me) and the refs need to be cleaned up. There may be peacock terms (and weasel words in the Tourist section); I cleared some out just now but I haven't had time to go through the whole thing. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Womman Taken in Adultery.JPG
afterthought - Maybe I should remove that last bit...Imperat§ r(Talk) 01:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 12

Pls bold the link to the DYK candidate article. --76.64.77.189 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done Sasata (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Beijing Communist Party chief Li Ximing was a leading supporter of military action against the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 that resulted in the deaths of hundreds to thousands of protesters? -- new article, self nom by Alansohn (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Oh hell no. Just because the guy died 4 days ago doesn't mean BLP is immediately thrown out the window (in fact, it probably means we should be even a little more respectful than usual). There's no way we can feature a person's name on the main page saying "HEY THIS GUY KILLED THOUSANDS OF PPLZ." Maybe if you suggest another hook we can look at this. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some clarification (and apologies for my yucky language—I struck it out because I immediately realized that this nom has more gray area than it appeared to at first). If Li played the role in Tiananmen that your article says he did (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't had a chance to look at the sources yet), then we can all agree that he was probably a pretty bad dude as far as history is concerned. But suggesting this hook so recently after his death makes it look as if you (or we) were just sitting around waiting for him to die so we could say bad stuff about him. (Of course, the more likely is probably just that there was a bunch of stuff in the news about him because he died, and that's what brought him to your attention...still, that doesn't change what this looks like). And even if we did run a hook like this, there has got to be a more sensitive way to put it; even with people who we know (or at least think) are nasty people, we still need to remain neutral. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Full disclosure. I will admit that I have started trolling the Deaths in 2008 article and the Obituary page at The New York Times website as sources for new articles that should exist and expansion of ones that are already active. An obituary usually categorizes details about someone that are unobtainable while they are alive. I will also disclose that I am not Chinese (and I am not of Asian ancestry, despite a surname that is also common in Korea), that I am a supporter of democracy in general, and that I supported the protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989 from my comfortable seat in front of a computer in the United States. I personally feel that China could have been a very different country if it had responded differently to these protests and the number of protesters killed shocks my conscience. All that said, I did my sincere best to remain neutral while writing the article. While I did include details about the results of the military crackdown, and discussed Li's support of the Army's actions, I did not assign blame to Li for the deaths or their number. Nor did I assign blame in the hook, though the 200-word limit makes what I wrote a bit more potentially ambiguous. While I am sure that the article and the hook could benefit from improvement, I still stand behind the hook and the article it leads to. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go ahead and give a thumbs up. The hook is well supported and in my opinion neutral. I'm inclined to assume WP:Good Faith as well in regards to the nominators actions. Length, date, references, and hook verified.Nrswanson (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork - The "thousands" portion in the hook is speculation. Also, "of hundreds to thousands of" reads too closely to "hundreds of thousands" (100,000s). Also, the article is not a biography. It seems to read: -- Li Ximing was born in 1926. For the next sixty three years, he didn't do anything and had no parents, wife, or children. Then he killed hundreds of people. Then he died. -- This POV fork should be merged into Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, not put on Wikipedia's Main Page. -- Suntag 12:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A POV fork of what? This article was created from scratch, using an obituary from the Associated Press published in The New York Times (Click here for the version in the Times or see here for the AP's original text). The AP didn't provide any details regarding his education, hobbies, parents, spouse, children, friends, acquaintances, social organizations, philanthropic contributions, military service or job history that might have fleshed out this article, nor were there any anecdotes about his background that might have livened up the article. The official Xinhua News Agency was no more helpful in their article on his death (here). Using the AP obituary as a base, I searched for other articles -- some based on what I found in the AP obituary and others based on what I found in the New York Times archive -- and provided descriptions of Li and his actions in neutral terms. The AP, hardly a POV institution, described the result of the military response as "Hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed in the action, most of them ordinary citizens seeking to block the troops’ advance." I tried various rewordings to reflect the discrepancies in the number of victims, but "many" was far too vague, and picking either "hundreds" or "thousands" would provide tacit acceptance of one account and ignore the other, either way. At no point in the article or in the hook have I stated that "he killed hundreds of people"; the article (and hook) state that he supported military action, and that the military action resulted in hundreds or (not of) thousands of deaths. The one possibly useful element of the AP obituary that I did not include in the Wikipedia article was a statement that he previously had been a "longtime bureaucrat in the power and water conservancy fields" but I could find nothing to work with to expand this, nor would it have fleshed out his character. The article I wrote for Li is properly sourced, written neutrally and in direct proportion to the prioritization that the AP believes is appropriate. As with all articles I have created, I hope and expect that others will come along to add material and expand the article. I again stand behind what I have written as being in full compliance with any and all Wikipedia policies. If anyone has any questions or issues about this article, they can be addressed by editing the article or discussing the issue on the article's talk page. If there is any perceived policy violation, there are noticeboards for every policy where the claims can be considered. If anyone believes that Li is not independently notable, then WP:AFD would be the place to take it. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think the article itself needs to be moved, although I maintain that it should not be put on the main page. Articles can be good but still not appropriate for the main page; look what happened with Who's Nailin' Paylin a few days ago. It's one thing to have this article sitting around; it's another thing to take the single most negative thing from the article (wording it in a way so as to make it more negative, what with the "hundreds to thousands of deaths") and shout it from the rooftops by putting it prominently on the main page. Having an article (or at least a subsection of the Tiananmen article) contributes to the amount of factual information in the encyclopedia, and that's good; distilling it into on negative fact (don't get me wrong, we can all agree that what we did something pretty bad, but that doesn't change the fact that featuring it is very negative) just seems to be mean-spirited. (Again, I'm not meaning to call you mean-spirited; I'm just saying that's the way this hook comes off. You are an excellent and prolific contributor; it's just this hook that I disagree with.) —Politizer talk/contribs 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly disagree with politizer's take on this. In this case the hook contains the essential information that makes this person notable enough to have an wikipedia article in the first place. The hook features the most well known and highly publicized fact about this individual. To suggest that this is somehow unfair or biased just because it is negative sets a bad precedent here at DYK. In the case of Who's Nailin' Paylin, we had the more pressing need to avoid promoting a commericial product that was about to be released. The other side of it was an obvious issue of tact and taste which doesn't exactly apply here. We have featured articles on serial killers and other people with negative hooks so I don't think there is a precedent already in place to deny this one a DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nrswanson has a good point; I do disagree, though, that there the "issue of tact and taste" doesn't apply here, as I think we still need to be tactful about a hook this sensitive, given the recency of the person's death. Anyway, I am not going to try to outright prevent anyone from promoting this article as I have too much vested interest in it now; I just wanted to throw my two cents in as to why I disagree with it. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Li Ximing was known for something other than Tiananmen Square than I might agree with you. But as it is, this is really the only interesting thing about the subject. Also, tact and taste with regards to a hook about an individual who has recently died is very different than tact and taste in regards to an article about pornography. In the case of Li Ximing the questions are really revolving around the language and content of the hook and not so much whether the main page of wikipedia should link to his article at all. In the case of porn, we are questioning not the hook but whether the main page should link to articles about pornography at all. Two very different contexts. See the current discussion about porn on the DYK talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's part of the reason I revoked my initially very strong reaction to the hook...I was going to just reject it, but once I looked at the article and then noticed there's not much else to say about the guy, it made the issue much less black-and-white. Anyway, I've said everything I can, and what to do with this hook is not my decision, so I'll shut up now. —Politizer talk/contribs 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
galoshes
galoshes
(alt) ... that wine writer Malcolm Gluck has been involved in a row with Salman Rushdie over who is the quicker book-signer? hook by Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think anyone thought tainted corks were a good thing, obviously tainted corks are bad. So I suggest :(alt) ... that wine writer Malcolm Gluck has been involved in a row with Salman Rushdie over who is the quicker book-signer? hook by Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- expansion fine, ref ok, no pic, original and on date. Thanks ... another good'un Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QV.1
QV.1
Eduard August von Regel
Eduard August von Regel
Ghits are found under new spelling. Dr.K. (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Author submitted the article as Augustin Trébuchet (French soldier). —97198 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did. I corrected the entry. Thank you for your help. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both these facts are referenced to her own official website. Is that alright? Also, was her interracial romance the first shown on daytime television anywhere in the world, or just America? - Mark 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rahr West Art Museum
Rahr West Art Museum
Sounds good to me - adds more context - so I altered the hook. Royalbroil 13:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of nomination, the article needs in-line cites, but this is a fascinating story that deserves a place on the Main Page. Hopefully, it will be cleaned up. The core facts are verified at pages 31-34 of this Columbia University publication. [1] Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the incredible bit for a "sculptor of the Confederacy" was that he was born in 1863! He (as an adult) missed the Confederacy by a number of years Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, but I couldn't think of a good unclunky way to word that. The fact that he's Hungarian is curious thro.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to "Hungarian"; at the time it was all part of Austria-Hungary.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 05:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 How about ... that the "sculptor of the Confederacy", George Julian Zolnay‎ (pictured), was born in Hungary seven years after the end of the Confederacy? Also, the article could some inline cites. -- Suntag 12:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't work, as it looks like he was born in Roumania, not Hungarian (although Hungarian is his nationality). Also, he was born in 1863, the day after Gettysburg and the day of Vicksburg, not seven years afterward. Also, what do you mean it needs inline cites; it's full of them.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Wow. I was wrong on three accounts. I review the article and don't know how I came to those conclusions. I have to plead BLATTOMR ("being loopy at the time of my review") on this one. -- Suntag 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that ancient Greek klismos chairs became fashionable again at the eve of the French Revolution?--Wetman 03:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Nice hook, but the article doesn't verify this. There is no mention at all of the French revolution, and although it does mention that the chairs became popular around 1788 (you should still mention somehow that that was the eve of the revolution, for readers who don't know), there's no inline citation for that. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it really necessary to spoon-feed the French Revolution link in the article just to match the hook? Also there is an inline citation for the date at the end of the sentence. Yomanganitalk 12:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is necessary; there should never be anything in the hook that isn't in the article, and you shouldn't expect the average reader to have all the knowledge you do (if you did, why would you have bothered writing the article?). As for the inline citation at the end of the sentence, if you are referring to citation 1, that citation is useless for verifying. It's not a citation to a source, it's just a citation saying "by the way there's a picture of a chair in this one painting," and it only links to another Wikipedia article. And, that citation isn't verifying the fact that the chairs "became fashionable again" at that time (your wording in the hook), or even the fact that they "were first widely seen in Paris" at that time (your wording in the article); it's only verifying the fact that the chair happened to appear in this one painting. Call it "spoon-feeding" if it makes you happy, but you need to put your stuff in your article. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not mine to put my "stuff" in, but I applaud you for your insistence on the inclusion of the words "French Revolution" in the article just so there's no confusion for those reading the hook. Wait! It said the "eve of the French Revolution" in the hook, but here it just says 1788. How can that be? I'm sorry the term "spoon-feeding" seems to have offended you; I wasn't expecting the reader to have all the knowledge I do, but I was crediting them with the ability to a) click a link and b) work out that 1788 and the eve of the French Revolution weren't mutually exclusive. Yomanganitalk 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, that's not how it works. The onus to work things out is on you the editor, not the reader. Don't assume that all readers have the same educational background as you do. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, putting together the date, the French Revolution event, and the chair interest to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the article sources would seem to be original research. In this case, the DKY hook implies that the French Revolution somehow influenced the interest in the chair. While this may be true, there is no sourced evidence of that and Wikipedia should not be the originating source for that thought. -- Suntag 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where to put "(pictured)"? --76.64.77.189 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how about ... that the soil-dwelling nematode-killing fungus Paecilomyces lilacinus has also been known to cause human eye infections? Sasata (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR:

Articles created/expanded on November 11

:* Nice article. Length & date okay. I'm with you at "began in the 15th Century", however I don't see "largest and richest" anywhere in ref #10. Mitico (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does one determine which highways are "major?" The refs just point to maps (google, for instance). Also, expansion just shy of 5x (stub = 776*5=3880; currently 3771). -Mitico (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 1623 Dutch version of Robert Hues' book "Tractatus de globis et eorum usu" ("Treatise on Globes and their Use")
A 1623 Dutch version of Robert Hues' book "Tractatus de globis et eorum usu" ("Treatise on Globes and their Use")
"a Union memorial? A "Yankee" (slangy pejorative) is an individual.--Wetman 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Better?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHould be over 1500 characters now. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - 1500 characters exactly. A first? I'll leave the rest for someone else to check as I'm not very sporty (and we don't play much American football here in Australia). —97198 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's 1559 chars now :) Anyway, even though it's short, it's very well referenced. I don't see any reason not to put this on the main page. Length, date, refs verified. Good luck with the FLC! Chamal talk 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues I agree with Suntag. Unless some other source specifically says the two guys are "tied," I don't think it should go up. The main problem is the use of the word "tied," which makes it appear as if they were in some sort of widely acknowledged contest to coach the most playoff games. Of course, if you remove that and say something like "this guy and this guy have both coached 13 games" the hook becomes outrageously boring. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues 205 character hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date verified. Offline hook reference accepted in good faith. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Chadwick
Henry Chadwick
The hook is pretty long-winded. Please shorten it. There seems to be nothing wrong with it actually; I may've been reading it incorrectly in the edit screen. Length, hook and date verified. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where to put "(pictured)"? --76.64.77.189 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 10

  • The article says that the second tunnel hasn't been completed yet, but it doesn't assert that the second tunnel has been planned since 1981. How about:
We decided last week to not feature pornography-related articles on DYK in the case of Who's Nailin' Paylin?. Royalbroil 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the decision on the Nailin' video, given the use of a slang term for sexual intercourse that many consider crude. But was there really a consensus that no hook involving the adult film business can ever be featured on DYK? I have not nominated such an article before, but this individual's nomination for a "Best Actress" award despite being a man (pre-operative), is pretty extraordinary and unusual. I intentionally avoided a hook that uses any crude movie titles or the like. And we have had transsexual hooks before, e.g., the hook in July about Bethany Black being "Britain's only goth, lesbian, transsexual comedian." I don't think there should be a blanket rule about someone truly interesting just because he/she's an adult film star -- or a transsexual. Cbl62 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I definitely think it was right to avoid "Nailin Paylin", but this hook is very modest in comparison - not crude or offensive at all (IMO). It does seem unfair to "disqualify" the hook simply because of the nature of the article (assuming that is does satisfy all WP policies and guidelines such as verification, tone, NPOV). —97198 (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the Jenna Jameson article could have a summary that wouldn't be crude either, but it won't be going on the main page as the TFA. I'm not questioning the notability of the subject. I'm questioning whether or not we want to see a porn article on the main page. I ticked it "no" so there's time to do a discussion instead of a last minute knee jerk reaction. I don't think it belongs. I hope others will see it and comment with their opinion. Copied to talk page - let's discuss it there. Royalbroil 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact reasons that Who's Nailin' Paylin got rejected (I assume because, like you said, we judged pornographic content to be objectionable), but my personal objection to it wasn't so much the pornography thing as the BLP issue, since it objectified a living individual and portrayed her in a negative light. This hook doesn't say anything bad about a living individual, and Mizuasa's career is (as far as I know; I haven't read the article) her own choice. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a pre-operative transsexual, the hook should say that Miki Mizuasa is an "actor" nominated for the "Best Actress award." --76.64.77.189 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One to point out that the subject is a porn actress (as opposed to a regular actress), the other is part of the official name of the awards ceremony. I don't think there's any way to get around having the word twice, unless we were to replace "adult video actress" with "pornographic actress," and I doubt that would go over well with anyone (including me). —Politizer talk/contribs 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... that pre-operative transsexual Miki Mizuasa was nominated for the Best Actress award at the 2007 Adult Broadcasting Awards even though she was born a male? -- Logically, she must be an actress in the adult entertainment field to be nominated. Anyway, this all seems academic since a reasonable amount of the 1,500 DYK characters for this article should come from secondary sources independent of the topic rather than from blogs and websites. -- Suntag 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being we can't give this article approval. The current discussion regarding porn on the talk page has concluded that we need to gain a community consensus beyond DYK before allowing such material onto the main page. In other words, we're declining all porn related articles right now until the community at large gives us a thumbs up or thumbs down.Nrswanson (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the Survival of the Shawangunks is a triathlon boasting seven transitions between events, and requiring competitors to swim with their running shoes? --new article, self nom by otherlleft (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit:... that the Survival of the Shawangunks is a triathlon boasting seven transitions among events, and requiring competitors to swim with their running shoes? --grammar was incorrect, sorry!--otherlleft (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like nothing more than to see a triathlon article on the front page, but could you de-orphan this article first? Also, the hook isn't cited in the article, although I think that can be fixed easily. Finally, the first hook is actually the correct one. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, do you have information on how many people (on average) compete in it each year? The fact that the same guy has won it eight times makes it sound like a rinky-dink road race (which I assume it isn't, but still, we should make sure). —Politizer talk/contribs 23:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tweaked the wording to put the hook right in it, found three relevant articles to link to it, and added information about the number of finishers. Hope it's enough! Oh, and I updated which hook should be struck out . . . "between" is correct for two, but "among" is correct for three or more.--otherlleft (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are correct that "between" is for two and "among" for three or more (take it from me, a grammar stickler who spent several years working as a writing tutor), but keep in mind...when you make a transition in a triathlon, you are only making a transition between two events at once (ie, biking to running), not among multiple events at the same time (ie, I think it's physically impossible to transition "among" three different events simultaneously, unless you have multiple bodies)—there are seven transitions that are each between two events, not one transition that is *"among" seven events. In fact, as a rule of thumb, the word "transition" almost always takes "between," and almost never takes "among," not just in this context but in most English contexts where you'll ever see it. ... I'll take a look at the article in a moment; I just wanted to clear up this between/among thing. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues I just checked it out and, while your edits are a major improvement and I was happy to see that the article has been de-orphaned, I noticed that there is no source for the statement that SOS is the "only" triathlon to have this many transitions. That's a fairly serious issue, so you'll have to either suggest a new hook or dig up a source for this statement. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) You win on the grammar, I submit to the master! Regarding the transitions: the article claims that it is unusual, not that it is the only one to do so, because even though I suspect this is the case, I have not yet found such a source. I don't recall if a prior version did use the word "only," but I believe it was removed early on if it was ever there. If you think a further rewording is in order, I'm open to suggestions.--otherlleft (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ota Minoru.jpg
Pitkin watch
Pitkin watch
  • Looks good. However, there should be a footnote in the image caption "here in Ollie Hayes pub, the song was first performed", which appears to be the article text from which the DYK hook is derived. -- Suntag 12:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Central Park
Central Park
  • Perhaps a brief description of what JUNOS is. Readers such as myself could easily assume that it was a website or machine or anything. Otherwise, date/length/refs verified. —97198 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on November 9

Which citation verifies this hook? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence with its two citations: "It is the most widely used such assessment in the world,[1][2]". — BillC talk 02:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They all have their own little fence that they carry around with them? Fence and rock really don't need linking either. Yomanganitalk 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humans built the fence solely to protect the snails (perhaps unusual?) and the rock comment is that the snails typically are observed within 1 meter of a rock feature. Apparently they are obsessed with the rock feature for some unknown reason. It is interesting that these snails have three teeth. to the Nom - In summary, please supply an alternate DYK hook. -- Suntag 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Maack
Richard Maack
Date, length, English reference confirms fact. Struck out "popular" as it is a WP:PEACOCK word. Royalbroil 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the "popular" is in there specifically with a reference in the article. I wouldn't have included it otherwise. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A foreign-language reference with no translation given in the footnote. Various sources have lots of ways of interpreting whether or something is "popular," and this is one of those cases where we can't just blindly trust the source without first looking into it and seeing what its evidence is. For example, some sources will tell you X website is "popular" because it got 100,000,000 page hits last month (or something like that), but lots of people think page hits are meaningless as a measure of popularity. I know that's not directly related to this manga, but it's an example. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've translated the title of the article, which gives the source for the claim of popularity. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single website (and I don't even know anything about what kind of website that is) calling it "popular" once in a headline doesn't prove that it is popular, it just proves that someone called it popular. It's not valid. Better just to let this whole "popular" issue drop and put the hook through without it; the hook really isn't any better with "popular" in there anyway, it's not worth worrying about. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues I'm not sure how this got passed. There's no inline citation to the fact that the series is "about an all-girl baseball team set in Taishō era Japan"; in fact, there's not a single reference in the entire Story section. It just says "the first book begins in Taisho 14"—I don't even know what Taisho 14 is. (the Taishō period article never once uses that term.) I don't think we can feature the article when it's in this state. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues 205 character hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh come on your don't tell me your declining my hook because it's over 5 chars?Alexnia (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... that Werner Krieglstein, an internationally recognised philosopher, is the founder of a neo-Nietzschean philosophical school called Transcendental Perspectivism? Shorter. Yomanganitalk 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making it shorter Alexnia (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"his goal of" isn't required in that hook. Yomanganitalk 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Words were removed, as suggested. Alansohn (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before clicking and reading about it, I thought "Erikson Institute" is a kindergarten with a "grown-up" name. :) --76.64.77.189 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the protests lead to Shoal Creek admitting the new PGA rules, or did they lead to the new rules themselves. If the latter, a "to" is required after the "and". Yomanganitalk 12:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were two separate results, and the wording was changed, as suggested. Alansohn (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
202-character hook, and that's even before adding "country club" (I think it should read "Shoal Creek country club" rather than just "Shoal Creek"). Will have to shorten it. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the word "to" put me just over the limit. The article's name is Shoal Creek, and I tweaked the wording to add the word "club" to clarify what Shoal Creek is. That it was the site of a golf tournament should also add appropriate context. The wikilink should allow anyone to confirm the nature of the club. I am willing to consider any proposed rewording. Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it further in a sandbox of mine, then moved it to mainspace. iMatthew 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Julia Butler Hansen Bridge as seen southbound from Cathlamet.
The Julia Butler Hansen Bridge as seen southbound from Cathlamet.
  • It seems to me that this hook is more about the first link in it than the state route. And how do you open something remotely via telegraph? That isn't really explained in the article or the citation given. - Mark 15:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that decommissioning in Northern Ireland was a process in the Northern Ireland peace process? new article, self nom. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked through the article trying to find material for a more interesting hook, and I noticed that the "breakthrough" by which the IRA finally decided to decommission hardly gets any coverage at all. We get the sentence "On 7 August 2001, the IRA agreed on a method of destroying its arsenal," but no indication of why that breakthrough was happening (given that "the peace process was on the brink of collapse" before that, I would imagine something big must have changed to allow this breakthrough). The article mentions one source's speculation that the September 11 attacks played a role in the breakthrough, but the breakthrough apparently took place over a month before the attacks. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes this statement then has no inline citation for it. It then goes on to say that over 40% live under the "new" poverty line, and that somewhere around a quarter live below the "national" poverty line. There's a lot of ambiguity there and I can't see where the one third figure comes from. - Mark 14:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between the second and third figures is based on the standard, it seems...40% are below what the international community deems poverty, while 20-27% (different figures given in the footnote) are below what the Indian government deems as poverty (on a side note, footnote #43—the poverty report from the Planning Commission of India—should really have a page number in it). But you are correct about the first number, I still don't see where one-third came from. And honestly, is this the most interesting hook? I feel like this is the sort of thing that most readers, even if they don't technically "know" already, will not be surprised by. There has to be something more eye-catching here. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an inline citation for this? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
236 character hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this that unusual? 30 Rock and Arrested Development both also got third seasons with the same combination of minimal ratings and critical adulation. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be an omit for that if the article can't have anymore sentences put into it? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 03:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is a few more sentences (maybe four or five). Isn't there any more info that can be included? Since it's a list, just getting over the 1500 character margin will do. Chamal talk 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be truthfully honest, I cannot think of ANYTHING that I can add into the lead. :( -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Cited source implies that the band sings in English but doesn't say so explicitly. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He is considered one of the most learned Alvar and the most superior Alvar in the context of composition of verses.[2]" and "Unable to bear the heavy expense of feeding a thousand people, Thirumangai resorted to robbery. Legend has it god Vishnu met him on such a robbery and transformed him by teaching the mantra "namo narayanaya".[1]" reference 1 is for the whole para.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to what you have given, he wasn't "initially" a robber, he was just a robber for a while before he was a saint. So how about this: ... that Thirumangai Alvar, who is considered one of the most learned Alvar saint-poet in Hinduism, was a robber before he became a saint? —Politizer talk/contribs 17:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length, date verified. Offline refs accepted in good faith. I prefer the second hook (it was proposed by Politizer by the way, looks like he forgot to sign) Chamal talk 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I as the nominator support the second hook, thats what I really to convey. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring noms

Articles created/expanded on November 8

  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Unfortunately, I don't think either of these hooks is of an appropriate standard. If this fellow never did anything more important than hold a horse's bridle he doesn't belong in mainspace. Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The hook should state why this act was important. How about this;
ALT1 ... that Qi Ying, disregarding his own safety in order to protect Emperor Dezong of Tang, held the bridle of the imperial horse when the emperor was fleeing after the rebellion of Li Huaiguang?
That's the best I can come up with. Not sure if that will do, though. Chamal talk 14:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict): Better, but too long. Might I suggest something along the lines of:
I think the reason that was suggested for the hook was because it's the most interesting thing he did, not the most important thing he did. In the article, it looks as if he has done a lot of important but boring (official-ish) things. Also, given that the emperor at that time was a godlike figure, getting to hold the reins for him must have been a big deal. Just my two cents. Anyway, I prefer Chamal's hook (i flipped the word order in it a bit). —Politizer talk/contribs 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 ... that Emperor Dezong of Tang elevated Qi Ying to imperial attendant in 784 because Ying agreed to hold the bridle of the Emperor's horse? -- Suntag 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
verified Chamal's hook (ALT1). Article length and history have already been verified above, and the fact in Chamal's hook is verified (it's the same as the fact in the first hook, except the "disregarding his safety" bit, which in a quote in the article and can be verified AGF); as I mentioned above, Chamal's hook is 189 chars by my count. As I said above, I prefer Chamal's hook; Gatoclass's hook is also verified in the text, if you are still concerned about Chamal's being non-notable. Anyway, let's just get this hook out of here! —Politizer talk/contribs 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length, date, and hook verified. There does not seem to be anyway that the AfD will result in delete or merge. At worst, it would be no consensus, but that seems unlikely as well. -- Suntag 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also