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
Wadewitz (talk | contribs)
→‎Lori Padilla: verifying and offering alt hook
Line 118: Line 118:
</div>
</div>
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px]] Source does not say he received his dissertation in 1886 nor that he was the first affiliated with JHU. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px]] Source does not say he received his dissertation in 1886 nor that he was the first affiliated with JHU. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Also... I can't help but think the length of this article's intro has been artificially inflated by including lots of extra detail about Nobel prizes rather than leaving most of it on the other side of the [[Nobel Prize]] link. I don't have experience writing lists like this so maybe that's just par for the course, but I thought I'd at least point it out. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 14:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
{{-}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line.-->
{{-}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line.-->



Revision as of 14:39, 14 March 2009

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}}

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

Purge

Instructions

Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below 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. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination.

DYK criteria

Official criteria: DYK rules and additional guidelines
Unofficial Guide: Learning DYK

Sample DYK suggestion strings

Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.

  1. Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
  2. Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
    To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook: |article2= |article3= |article4= | (etc)
    To include more than one author: |author2= |author3= | (etc)
    To include alternate hooks: |ALT1= |ALT2= | (etc)
    To add a comment: |comment=
    To add the article you reviewed: |reviewed=

Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however.
Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you.
Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template.
Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.

An example of how to use the template is given below. Full details are at {{NewDYKnom}}:

{{subst:NewDYKnom
 | article       = Example
 | hook          = ... that this [[article]] is an '''[[example]]''' ''(pictured)''?
 | author        = User
 | nominator     =
 | image         = Example.png
 | rollover      = An example image
 | comment       =
}}
  • Note that you should only use one of the above templates for the original hook. If you want to suggest a second, alternative hook for the same article submission, just type it in manually. The above templates output useful code for each submission and if you employ them for alternative hooks, you will mess up the page formatting.
  • 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|September 16}} Thanks, ~~~~

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 DYK Ready? 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 DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem}} on the user's talk page, in case they do not notice if there is an issue.

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.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.

If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on March 14

Created by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 11:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Sephiroth BCR (talk). Self nom at 11:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Scolaire (talk). Self nom at 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Sephiroth BCR (talk). Self nom at 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also... I can't help but think the length of this article's intro has been artificially inflated by including lots of extra detail about Nobel prizes rather than leaving most of it on the other side of the Nobel Prize link. I don't have experience writing lists like this so maybe that's just par for the course, but I thought I'd at least point it out. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 07:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Daemonic Kangaroo (talk). Self nom at 07:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that in 1996 the Japanese Kinjo family sued Lori Padilla for ¥ 62 million (US$ 580,000) blood money after a car Padilla was driving killed three Kinjo family members?

Created by Esemono (talk). Self nom at 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT 1...that in 1996 the Kinjo family sued Lori Padilla for ¥ 62 million (US$ 580,000) blood money after a car Padilla was driving killed three Kinjo family members in Okinawa?
  • Source, length, and history verified. I've proposed an alternative hook that mentions Okinawa, which at least hints at why this accident would ignite controversy and reworded it a bit. Awadewit (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Rlevse (talk). Self nom at 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 13

Created by Maias (talk) and further expanded by Casliber (talk) at 13:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Strikehold (talk). Self nom at 09:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Expanded by Strikehold (talk). Self nom at 09:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by [[User:|Rjm at sleepers]] (talk). Self nom at 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Dmadeo (talk). Self nom at 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Wikiolap (talk). Self nom at 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 03:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both hooks verified (offline refs accepted in good faith), length and history good. I prefer the original hook (although the ALT is also acceptable); I think this will get a lot of clicks if we put it as the lead hook. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Wikipedical (talk). Self nom at 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This hook does not have an inline citation in the article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Cirt (talk). Self nom at 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Mad Universe is a noteworthy science fiction book by notable author Fredric Brown. Stranger than Fiction was a major motion picture starring Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, and Queen Latifah. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying, if I didn't recognize them, I'm sure plenty of readers won't either. That doesn't mean we can't pass this or anything; I'm just wondering if there's any possibility we could get a more "hooking" hook. If this is the best that can be done, then I guess it's fine. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the article What Mad Universe, specifically the subsection: "Accolades". I think it is pretty noteworthy and lauded within the genre of science fiction. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning that it's noteworthy, I'm just wondering if it'll grab people's attention. Unlike me, main page readers won't have the benefit of getting to hear you out at T:TDYK and see all the reasons why the hook should grab their attention; they'll just see the hook and either click it or pass over it. But I guess we pass hooks far less interesting than this every day, so maybe it's not a problem. I suppose we'll go ahead with this hook. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is unfortunately subjective, and in fact as the book What Mad Universe has received accolades and praise, and the film Stranger than Fiction did in fact star all these A-list actors - that in fact there will actually be many readers that have heard of both of these, or at the least one of them. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, we can use it then. Length, history, and references verified. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic Cultural Center of New York

is the first mosque to be built in New York City? Created/expanded by Malik Shabazz (talk). Self nom at 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the hook should mention the year, as I was surprised it was this recently. ... that the Islamic Cultural Center of New York (pictured) was the first mosque built in New York City, opening in 1991? Grsz11 23:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. I would just move the date a little:
  • ... that in 1029, the ransom of the Hiberno-Norse prince Amlaíb mac Sitriuc included over 1200 cows, 140 horses, 60 ounces of gold and of silver, "the sword of Carlus" and a large number of Irish hostages?

Created by Grimhelm (talk). Self nom at 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Shoy (talk). Self nom at 18:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that an unfertilized female date stone beetle will have sex with her first son to reach maturity, and then will eat him?

Created by AxelBoldt (talk). Self nom at 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length and date verified. Hook source verified that female mates with a son;[1] a "first son" implies the first son of the original male generation. Perhaps what is meant is that she mates with a first-generation son; then mates with a grandson to produce daughters. "Mated females produced males and females, whereas unmated females gave rise to males only."[2] The phrase "to reach maturity" must mean attaining the ability to have male and female offspring. The information that female eats the sons can be accepted on good faith from book sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My formulation is probably unclear. She has sex with the first son that reaches maturity, i.e. with the son that reaches maturity first; she doesn't have sex in order to reach maturity. Maybe it's better to simplify thusly:
... that a virgin female date stone beetle will have sex with her first son, only to eat him afterwards? AxelBoldt (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Grsz11 (talk). Self nom at 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's on a Nixon kick today.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve a big part of the blame. Besides, it's that much more challenging to kick Dick Nixon around, especially now that he's dead. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you it is really your fault for being asleep at the switch on Zetterberg and leaving it to me to write his article, which got me into the whole Nixon thing!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Grimhelm (talk). Self nom at 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Chzz (talk). Self nom at 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No substantial addition made, just a new section. Article has actually contracted in the last five days.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that pediatric toxicologist Michael Shannon, known as the "dancing doctor", starred in a 2008 production of the Urban Nutcracker, his eighth year appearing in the annual performance?

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by ISD (talk). Self nom at 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by JKBrooks85 (talk). Self nom at 11:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 10:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nom at 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps make it clear they moved outside the city?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Wehwalt (talk). Self nom at 03:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is fine. Chotiner is my current project, as I told you Mattisse, gunning to have it TFA for his 100th anniversary of birth in October. Starting with this and working my way up.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Mitchazenia (talk). Self nom at 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • ... that Trembling Before G-d was put out on a general release on October 21, 2001 in New York City, where it then broke Film Forum's opening day box office records, which grossing were more than $5,500 on the first day of release?

5x expanded by User:Staffwaterboy (talk). Self nom at 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by User:Staffwaterboy (talk). Self nom at 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 12

Created/expanded by Scapler (talk). Self nom at 21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk). Self nom at 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZPAP Main Office
ZPAP Main Office

5x expanded by Poeticbent (talk). Self nom at at 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 04:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian bridge (passerelle) at Lac De Monteynard-Avignonet
Pedestrian bridge (passerelle) at Lac De Monteynard-Avignonet

Created by mbz1 (talk), Herbythyme (talk). Self nom at 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


5x expanded by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Ealdgyth (talk). Self nom at 18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Ernest Trova was best known for Falling Man, a series of works "about man at his most imperfect" depicting an armless human figure that appeared in sculptures, paintings, prints and wristwatches?

5x expanded by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Mgreason (talk). Self nom at 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by BigHairRef (talk). Self nom at 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admins considering this should be aware of this article which was created and nominated yesterday. BigHairRef | Talk 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that American art historian Charles Rufus Morey published a pamphlet on library planning called "Laboratory-Library"?

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Ravichandar84 (talk) at 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by JKBrooks85 (talk). Self nom at 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The hook isn't true, and it isn't what the reference says. The reference says Eagle Summit gets midnight sun because when the sun is near the horizon, it appears a couple degrees higher than where it really is, due to the phenomenon described at atmospheric refraction. It doesn't say it's rare and it doesn't mention the Antarctic Circle. Atmospheric refraction should bring the image of the sun above the horizon, anywhere within a couple degrees of the Arctic or Antarctic Circles if there are no mountains blocking the horizon. Midnight sun should therefore be especially un-rare a couple degrees north of the Antarctic Circle, because (excluding the Antarctic Peninsula) that latitude is in the ocean, with nothing blocking the horizon at all. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. How about:
  • ... that the poisonous mushroom Lactarius chrysorrheus (pictured) bleeds white milk which quickly turns sulphur yellow when cut?

Created/expanded by Luridiformis (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I usually de-stub if the tag wasn't added by creator/nominator and the article has been expanded since. The creator knows more than I do on the subject, so I defer to them if they tagged it in the first place. Take this to WT:DYK if you want more discussion. Shubinator (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Boston (talk). Self nom at 09:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]). Self nom at 07:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded from a redirect. -- Yzx (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that salsa music promoter Ralph Mercado got his start with "waistline parties", live music events where women paid based on their waist size (thinner women paid less) and Mercado measuring at the door?

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 04:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


5x expanded by NocturneNoir (talk). Self nom at 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page size script doesn't seem to count the character profiles in its prose count, so the current character count, 1963 B, is inaccurate. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says tacos seem to increase her skill at mahjong. Maybe tweak the hook to seems to play better? Can could be construed as always. Otherwise, length and history good. Shubinator (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Benea (talk). Self nom at 01:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... that HMS Castor, a Royal Navy frigate..." would work a little better, I think. Shimgray | talk | 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running a bit behind, so I'll do the infobox tomorrow; I also have images for it. I would like, if possible, to request that this DYK run on March 15, as that's Peter Francisco Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 04:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 11

Created by AdjustShift (talk). Self nom at 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by FingersOnRoids (talk). Self nom at 01:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Adolph Diesterweg (pictured), a German educationist, is thought to have originated the maxim 'learn to do by doing'?

Created by Mentifisto (talk). Self nom at 22:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Simon Burchell (talk). Self nom at 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the Gable Mansion is one of the last Victorian Italianate mansions of its style, size, and proportion in California?

Created by Killiondude (talk). Self nom at 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Apoc2400 (talk). Nominated by Rjanag (talk) at 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that in the Battle of Lalakaon in 863 AD, three Byzantine armies, marching from different directions, managed to converge on time and surround an Arab army?

5x expanded by Cplakidas (talk). Self nom at 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Billy Hathorn (talk). Self nom at 22:29 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • ... that the black swallower (pictured) can swallow fishes over twice its length and ten times its weight?

5x expanded by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 01:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section of the paragraph covers a single topic, and thus shares the three citations at the end of it. -- Yzx (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, changed it anyway. -- Yzx (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Abraham, B.S. (talk). Self nom at 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the recently discovered dracula fish lost its teeth then re-evolved a set of bony fangs from its jawbone?

Created/expanded by Sillyfolkboy (talk). Self nom at 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::* This article incorrectly quotes the source, and when I corrected it, I was reverted. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem. I've given it a little more expansion on description and diet. Would that count as a "start class" now? It still looks stubby to me but not in a bad way, it's certainly no two-line stub. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Bsimmons666 (talk), Kevinalewis (talk). Nominated by Bsimmons666 (talk) at 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to this as POV, given that Shlaes has credibly defended herself, and several other economists have criticized Krugman's attack as unfair. THF (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. ALT2: ... that during the Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Republican Senator John Barrasso read a passage from The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Davewild (talk). Self nom at 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • ... that Charles S. Lieber found that baboons given a normal diet plus the equivalent of 25 ounces of alcohol daily for four years got cirrhosis, disproving dogma that malnutrition triggered the disease?

5x expanded by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(alt)
(alt)
File:Bignosegeorgey.jpg
  • ... that Wild West outlaw Big Nose George was the only man in American history to be made into a pair of shoes after his death?

Created by Myosotis Scorpioides (talk). Self nom at 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(alt)... that Dr John Osborne wore Big Nose George (pictured) when Governor of Wyoming? Suggestion by Victuallers (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (for April first?) I like it!-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(alt)... that when John Eugene Osborne was elected Governor of Wyoming, he wore Big Nose George as a pair of shoes? DS (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I like that too!! You could play it fairly straight as well, I guess. Something like ALT3 ... after Wild West outlaw Big Nose George was hanged, his skull was made into an ash tray and his skin into a pair of shoes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myosotis Scorpioides (talkcontribs) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by BigHairRef (talk). Self nom at 12:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hook ... that Nolan Bushnell, founder of both Atari, Inc and Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza-Time Theaters, was made a fellow of BAFTA at the 5th British Academy Video Games Awards? BigHairRef | Talk 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Alternate with two new articles ... that Grand Theft Auto IV failed to scoop an award despite leading the nominations at the 5th British Academy Video Games Awards replicating the "feat" managed by Gears of War after it also got six nominations and failed to win the year before? BigHairRef | Talk 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that although the NTSC introduced color television standards in 1953, consumer purchases of color sets remained very slow until GE introduced their Porta-Color set in 1966, sparking off a rapid downward price trend in the late 1960s?

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion ... that until GE introduced the Porta-Color set in 1966, due to high prices NTSC color televisions were consistently outsold by black and white? BigHairRef | Talk 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion2 ... that before GE introduced the Porta-Color set in 1966, the higher priced NTSC color televisions were outsold by black and white? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or even ... that before the GE Porta-Color TV in 1966, color televisions were outsold by black and white ones? Victuallers (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that having suffered a stroke in 1972, neuroanatomist Alf Brodal published the article Self-Observations and Neuro-Anatomical Considerations After a Stroke in the journal Brain in 1973?

5x expanded by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 09:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created/expanded by Scapler (talk). Self nom at 03:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Boston (talk). Self nom at 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that count as synthesis? DS (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, having worked with the material, I honestly don't think so, but I offer the first hook so we can move ahead without agonizing over it. --Boston (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is copyrighted and not free, and therefore not eligible. Shubinator (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing problem with picture. I thought the authorization "for any purposes" made it okay. --Boston (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, a copyrighted image is still copyrighted, no matter what the owner "authorizes" us to do. If they really want it to be usable for any purpose, they have to release it under GDFL, CC-BY-SA, or a comparable license, which they can do by e-mailing OTRS and specifying the license (or by e-mailing you, and then you would have to forward it to OTRS). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Gwinva (talk). Self nom at 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 10

Created by Oceanh (talk). Self nom at 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Bellhalla (talk). Self nom at 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Moorec4 (talk). Nominated by Gatoclass (talk) at 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Ikara (talk). Self nom at 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created/expanded by Ravichandar84 (talk). Self nom at 12:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Anonymous Dissident (talk). Self nom at 06:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is quite technical and not exactly very "wow", but math articles are very rare on DYK and something out of the ordinary might be desired. I'm not sure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that despite attracting the highest ratings ever for a comedy show debut on BBC Three, Horne & Corden was described by one critic as, "about as funny as credit default swaps"?

5x expanded by ISD (talk). Self nom at 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Jan Lindblad, apart from being a writer, photographer, film maker, and artist, also kept two tiger cubs, named Lillan and Rani, in his residence?

Created by Hapsala (talk). Nominated by Decltype (talk) at 12:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good suggestion. That's much better. decltype (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a reference saying he was an artist (unless you mean whistling artist?). Also, the reference for the tigers says they were named Lilian and Rani. Shubinator (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whil the pets are unusual, it seems a little POVy to say "rather unusual". The fact they are unusual is already implied by their inclusion in DYK. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the second paragraph (mainly the whistling). The spelling was inconsistent in the article itself as well. I still think Lillan is correct. I'll try to locate a source. decltype (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Boston (talk). Self nom at 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length and date verified. Need someone to access this web source for article to verify quality of source and quotation:

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boon store
Boon store

Created by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nom at 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Ealdgyth (talk). Self nom at 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The hook does not make sense to me. The phrase "(flourished 1142–1161)" refers to the town of Oxford or to William de Chesney? (I could not find that time range in the article). What is the significance of the citizens calling someone their "alderman" in quotations marks? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flourished is a synonym for Floruit, which basically means we don't have birth or death dates for the guy, but he was active in this year range. The range is from 1142 when he first appears and 1161, when he last appears in my sources. As for the significance of the alderman comment, there were no real aldermen at this time, but he was basically their representative. You're welcome to come up with another hook, I freely admit I suck at them. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the article well enough to write a hook. Else I would. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"alt ... that the medieval citizens of the English town of Oxford called William de Chesney their alderman before such honorific was in common use?" Is that better? Seems to answer questions pose above. No need to ad dates since the medaeval reference establishes the time frame. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that military advisors responsible for the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy admitted in the book Unfriendly Fire that their suggestions were based on their own prejudices and fears, not empirical data?

Created by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self nom at 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article sources are questionable. A quote from the book is sourced to a TV show, The Rachel Maddow Show. Another part than seems to quote the book is source to an opinion piece by the book's author in the The Huffington Post and not to the book it purports to quote. The third source is to a video of The Daily Show (although I watched some of it but it was about CNBC, Obama, the British Prime Minister, and Hilary Clinton). Presumable the book Unfriendly Fire is a serious book. There are no reviews of the book from serious publications? Should not quotes that purport to be from the book actually reference the page of the book it is on? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source isn't the book, it's from a Huffington Post article written by Nathaniel Frank (the author) discussing the sources he talked to for his story. As for the Daily Show and MSNBC reports, those are actually one-on-one interviews with Frank; the quote isn't a quote from the book, but a quote from Frank himself in that interview. Obviously those kind of things are used as reliable sources in lots of articles; maybe I need to just fix the reference tags to clarify? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interviews with authors are not necessarily reliable sources all by themselves. The Huffington Post is an opinion blog. You need some reliable sources, like a New York Times book review, that is, some reliable third-party sources about the book. Otherwise, it is just this guy's opinion about his own book. All you have is his opinion in his book and his opinion about his book (and about his opinion) in an opinion piece on a blog. Please read reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for any one person's opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The most you can say is the following (if you can prove that the "military advisers" used those words, which seems unlikely):
          • alt ... that, according to the author of the book Unfriendly Fire, military advisers responsible for the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy admitted that their suggestions were based on their own prejudices and fears, not empirical data?
            • Somehow, I can't feature "military advisers" saying, "My suggestions were based on my own prejudices and fears, not on empirical data." Or anything close to that. It would be interesting to know what they actually did say, that Frank construed that way. The book should have some book reviews where third parties weigh in on this issue. If reliable sources agree, then use their opinion so you will avoid undue weight. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll look for alternative third party sources either tonight or tomorrow. (I doubt it's worth much, but Stewart and Maddow both said in the interview that this was the case described in the book. It wasn't all from Frank, although I would have thought his interview would be enough.) I'm also willing to consider a tamer hook, just so long as a DYK on the book goes through. For the record, it was said in these interviews that these advisors did flat out admit their suggestions were based on prejudices and fears, because so much time had passed they were willing to admit it. There is even an exact quote from one of them saying, it was "based on nothing. It wasn't empirical, it wasn't studied, it was completely visceral, intuitive." Unfortunately, I can only cite these sources on that, not the book itself since I don't have a copy. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hook is linked to a dab page Victuallers (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dab'ed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that source is a third party evaluation. It would be good if you had more. When editors write articles on bands, comics, anything else, they give pro and con reviews—or at least a cross section of the reviews, even if most are positive, for example. It is basic to WP:NPOV. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Celtus (talk). Self nom at 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Student House in Helsiki
The Old Student House in Helsiki

Created by Kaspersu (talk). Self nom at 06:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added references. A few paragraphs still lack explicit references, but are included anyway since they were translated from the original Swedish-language article (and as a member of the choir I know most of them to be facts, and will work on finding explicit sources). Kaspersu (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added reference to a news item in Mariehamn-based paper Nya Åland about one of the choir's concerts, stating various facts about the choir. It may be assumed, though, that most third-party references available use the choir or its representatives as sources. An alternative for the DYK would of course be to remove the part "Finland's oldest". Kaspersu (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Dark Prime (talk). Nominated by DragonflySixtyseven (talk) at 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He left the band, and then claimed that the others could not use the name any more. DS (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of like Roger Waters did to the other three members of Pink Floyd, IIRC. But in this case the hook is great because of the names (I can just imagine the poor clerk stuck reading the filings out loud in a courtroom ...). Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King's brief departure from Gorgoroth in 2006 wasn't the direct cause of the name dispute, although it's implied the two were connected. He was readmitted into the band a while before the dispute began, in October 2007. The genre of music in question was also black metal, not death metal. Dark Prime (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 9

Created by Heresbubba53190 (talk). Nominated by Hunter Kahn (talk) at 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the inexperienced 395th Infantry Regiment defended its lines during the Battle of the Bulge so well it was later assigned to multiple divisions, earning it the nickname Butler's Blue Battlin' Bastards?

Created by btphelps (talk). Self nom at 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the Tang Dynasty official Zheng Yin opposed issuance of commissions for eunuch commandants on hemp paper, reasoning such use was reserved for commissions of imperial princes and chancellors?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Date, length, reference checks. Nom moved from April Fool's Day noms - I don't think its funny enough. If you disagree, please comment to me and we can reconsider. I get no nom credit for this article. Royalbroil 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Bigtimepeace (talk). Self nom at 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I've wikilinked MC in the hook above and in the first sentence of the article which I think should be sufficient (I just wikilinked to the general article on Master of Ceremonies - there's a particular section on hip-hop and I could wikilink to that but the former seemed more advisable). Let me know if you see any other issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Danish mass murderer Peter Lundin, who was convicted first for killing his mother then for killing his partner and her two sons, got married twice in prison?

5x expanded by Lilac Soul (talk). Self nom at 10:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


5x expanded by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new article Billy Hathorn (talk). Self nom at 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article length and date verified. Article offline sources would be accepted on good faith, except there is no "References" section that gives the full publication data, including the ISBN's so that at least the existence of the books and topic can be verified. (The "References" in current article should be called "Notes" or "Footnotes" and the "References" should contain the full publication data.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cobbe portrait c.1610
Cobbe portrait c.1610

Created by Ronnotel (talk). Self nom at 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We must be careful that the claim doesn't contradict the information in Portraits of Shakespeare, where six possible contenders are mentioned. It is true that the NPG recently concluded that the Chandos portrait is so far the only life portrait, but this is not definite. Therefore the second hook is probably better. Btw: shouldn't it be "from life" rather than "from the life"? Lampman (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been further expanded, another 2.4 k of prose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a reference for never introduced (I can't find the statement in the article actually), and the reference for avionics says CRTs based on the Penetron were used from the 1960s to 1980s. Shubinator (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenskwatawa (The Prophet), by Charles Bird King
Tenskwatawa (The Prophet), by Charles Bird King

Created by Charles Edward (talk). Self nom at 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nice simple hook and catchy picture. Please can you put an inline cite at the end of the first article sentence and then it can be checked easily Victuallers (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Punkmorten (talk). Self nom at 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Salvia tingitana (pictured) was grown and studied for hundreds of years without botanists knowing where it came from?
  • ALT1:... that Salvia tingitana (pictured) was named after the town of "Tingi", now known as Tangiers, even though the plant has never been found growing there?

Created by First Light (talk). Self nom at 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chateauneuf du Faou
Chateauneuf du Faou

– 5x expanded by Mbz1 (talk), Invertzoo (talk), Herbythyme (talk). Self nom at 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by KudzuVine (talk). Self nom at 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by kelapstick (talk). Self nom at 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that in 1892, future I.C.C. commissioner Henry C. Hall (pictured) was journeying to California for his health, but stopped off in Colorado and liked it so much he settled there?

Created by Wehwalt (talk). Self nom at 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by kwib (talk). Self nom at 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by EA210269 (talk). Self nom at 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(checked using User:Shubinator/DYKcheck) Length, history, reference verified. Shubinator (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Royalbroil (talk) and Ched Davis (talk). Self nom at 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Hamiltonstone (talk). Self nom at 11:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Anoopkn (talk). Self nom at 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that after the death of the Tang Dynasty general Wu Chongyin, more than 20 of his officers cut off flesh from their thighs and burned the flesh as sacrifice to him?

Created/expanded by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by NocturneNoir (talk), NuclearWarfare (talk). Nominated by NocturneNoir (talk) at 05:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean you don't want the "nominator" credit? Right now, the template automatically prepares a credit template for both the article writers and the nominators, so if you don't wan't to receive it you can manually remove the line {{DYKmake|xxxxx|NuclearWarfare}} after nominating, as Shubinator did for this one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Wehwalt (talk). Self nom at 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you like: ALT1 ... that in the 1890s Princeton professors Woodrow Wilson and Winthrop M. Daniels (pictured) helped train the school's debaters for their championship matches against Harvard and Yale? --Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read this article and I remembered reading a similar one before; then I saw that one of the links on my page was purple. Turns out I reviewed that one too :) Good luck with your project! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It all appears to check out. Reconfirm if needed. Some of the sections are short, but I AGF that they will be expanded and not abandoned. It appears to meet all of the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, as the sole member of the informal "Wikiproject:ICC", I have a book reference coming in the mail on the first fifty years of the ICC, which I hope will give a lot of interesting details about the ICC members. I never abandon articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations

  • Nominations must be posted no more than five (5) days after the creation or the beginning of the expansion of each DYK candidate article.

Articles created/expanded on March 8

5x expanded by Cannibaloki (talk). Self nom at 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Scorpion0422 (talk). Self nom at 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit of a cheat because I only managed to expand it 4.5 times. Before I started, the readable prose was 8178 B (1395 words) (although it needs to be noted that the size of the references was 0) and the most recent version is 35 kB (5953 words) (roughly 4.5 times expansion. In terms of all wikitext, it was a 6x expansion). If anyone thinks the current hook is a tad dull, there are a lot of other possibilities, so I can replace it. -- Scorpion0422 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that, but can't an exception be made considering how large it was to begin with? It's not like it's only a 2 or 3 time expansion, it's well over 4 times larger now. -- Scorpion0422 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Stetsonharry (talk). Self nom at 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or even
I think people will realise which Groucho Marx you mean :-) Victuallers (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Definitely. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first hook is best because it implies that a notable comic wanted to play a dramatic role. Marx was a Depression Era icon, and I wouldn't assume Gen X or Y knows too much about him, if anything. Law shoot! 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self nom at 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volhynia
Volhynia

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self nom at 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that six recently-excavated idols from the Sivagurunathaswamy temple in Sivapuram, India, were secretly smuggled out of the country when repairs were commissioned in 1954?

Created/expanded by Ravichandar84 (talk). Self nom at 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by The Little Blue Frog (talk). Self nom at 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Bongomatic. 5x expanded by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by kwib (talk). Self nom at 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added missing ISBN for citationKwib (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Russ.frag.jpg
  • ... that the flesh of the mushroom Russula fragilis (pictured) tastes hot, while its smell is fruity?

Created by Luridiformis (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size and date fine. AGF hook ref. Law shoot! 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the Cape Kumukahi Light (pictured) was saved from destruction in the 1960 eruption of Kilauea when the lava flow parted and went to either side of it?

Created by Mangoe (talk). Self nom at 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic stingray
Atlantic stingray

5x expanded by Yzx (talk). Self nom at 00:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic stingray
Atlantic stingray
  • ... that Operation Cockade, a series of deceptive operations, was “at best a piece of harmless play acting”?

Created by Tartarus (talk). Self nom at 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Galen T. Porter was a New York City police captain who led the defense of the NY Draft Office when it was attacked by angry firefighters and mobs during the 1863 New York Draft Riots?

Created by 71.184.53.166 (talk). Nominated by Akradecki (talk) at 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Nick-D (talk). Self nom at 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by TheCatalyst31 (talk). Self nom at 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Cabe6403 (talk) at 16:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I repeat my Alt hook to set right any confusion.

Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by J Milburn (talk). Self nom at 12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs, length, age all check out. It took me a few moments to work out how the hook was referenced from the source cited, but i got there. I feel like the hook could be strengthened, but I'm not sure how. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Joshdboz (talk). Self nom at 09:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length, creation date, and fact referencing all verified. Well-written article! The hook is fine as is, but I personally thought the part about having to cut Kerry's line "no red states or blue states" out of Obama's speech was interesting. I can't quite think of a way to word that into a hook, however, and if anybody could that'd be great. Cheers, JamieS93 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Abraham, B.S. (talk). Self nom at 06:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is important to state the position as there have been three varients of the head of the Australian military, the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee being the first of the three but not holding the same amount of power as its successor positions. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • ... that the operation of malthouses in the UK were once strictly regulated to comply with the malt tax?

Created by Derek Andrews (talk). Self nom at 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 7

Created by Matthewedwards (talk). Self nom at 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Shimgray (talk). Self nom at 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Rcbutcher (talk). Nominated by the_ed17 (talk) at 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You don't need all these words ... that James Newcomb, Secretary of State of Texas was a scout for the the longest desert trek by U.S. military? ... leaves room for another hook even if you put some words back in Victuallers (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ALT) ... that the Secretary of State of Texas from 1870–1874, James Newcomb, was a scout for the the longest desert trek by U.S. military? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Belasd (talk), Philip Baird Shearer (talk). Self nom at 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by ChildofMidnight (talk), Drmies (talk). Nominated by ChildofMidnight (talk) at 04:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about (ALT 2) "that Doris Abrahams and Kermit Bloomgarden produced Equus which was considered the best play in 1974? Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disambiged Equus (play) in hook above. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by User:siddiqui qadri (User talk: siddiqui qadri).Nominated by User:siddiqui qadri at 8:00, on 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Created by Offenbach (talk). Nominated by Alansohn (talk) at 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now there's a hook. Length, date, and hook verified. Unfortunately, the prose often skirts far too closely to the sources; phrases and sentence structures are taken verbatim from the sources. BuddingJournalist 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the relevant section and added some additional sourced information. Let me know if anything else needs editing. Offenbach (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Jwilkinsen (talk). Nominated by Alansohn (talk) at 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nom at 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The leader of the Hells Angels was convicted of the four murders 18 years after the crime. The fact that it took so long means it wasn't an open and shut case. Could you reword the hook with believed to be ordered or something like that? Shubinator (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A court found him guilty, there is no re-word needed. It took how many years to convict the Unibomber or Gary Ridgway, and they still haven't convicted D. B. Cooper? Time is not a necessarily a factor in whether or not it was an open or shut case. Just because it takes the police a decade or two to figure out who killed who can have more to do with resources, technology, and the craftiness of the criminal, not as to the soundness of a conviction. If he didn't do it, its been about as long and he has had amble opportunity to appeal and clear his good name. But ultimately, the court and the reliable source used said he did it, its not up to us to decide the merits of the case. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Another Believer (talk). Self nom at 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by User:Johnbod, User:Qp10qp, User:Wetman. Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length and date verified. However, I don't see in the article that Erasmus knew three unrelated people called Jacob Faber. I see a list which names another person as known to Erasmus. Where is the third? The hook, or something similar to it, has to actually be in the article, I believe. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one can't you see he knew? The subject, or the Etaples or Deventer ones? I suggest you look again anyway. Sorry, my mistake; the most central relationship was not spelled out - now added. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Billy Hathorn. Self nom at 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check for rewording so the article is not as close to the source.
  • (article) He was Elvis Presley's friend Ed Galt in Presley's screen debut, "Love Me Tender." He also played the police officer who discovered Joan Crawford's body on the beach at the end of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
  • ( source) He was Elvis Presley's buddy Ed Galt in the King's debut film "Love Me Tender." Mr. Conway played the police officer who discovered Joan Crawford's body on the beach at the end of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" —Mattisse (Talk) 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Warofdreams (talk). Self nom at 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Świętochowski

5x expanded by Nihil novi (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded size and date verified. Off-line source for hook accepted on good faith. AdjustShift (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Boston (talk). Self nom at 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm familiar with our general guidelines about sources and I see nothing in them which excludes information taken from hobbyists. It does say "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used" and I consider people obsessed with keeping, breeding, talking about, and writing about gobies to be a reliable source for the simple statement made in the hook. --Boston (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is no Wikipedia guideline or DYK guideline I am aware of that says those are the only sources we use. Quote with emphasis added: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.--Boston (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be inclined to accept these sources in this case. The authors of the one source identify themselves, and both sources are published on sites that, while not academic, care enough about themselves not to post junk. If this were a FAC I would say go dig up a better source (since I'm sure this claim is mundane enough to be found in any fish book that mentions gobies), but the standards here don't need to be so rigorous, and this claim is not a controversial one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not appropriate sources. Please provide moar. Kthnxbai. Synergy 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they don't post junk is irrelevant. It's an unreliable source, and as Awadewit says, we don't have any reason to believe what these people are saying, because the information is not fact checked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A book from 1822 does not represent modern scientific knowledge. The way species are differentiated has changed considerably, especially with the discovery of evolution and genetics, both of which took place after 1822. Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ALT hook is not acceptable. It strongly implies that the information given by Hamilton has since been proven incorrect or is no longer used and there is zero indication of that. In fact, we have contemporary expert sources that are in agreement. We use pre-20th century sources for hooks all the time. We use non-academic sources for hooks all the time. The level scrutiny and lack of AFG given to the first hook in this discussion is not appropriate and is in no way consistent with the way DYK hooks are generally scrutinized. What is going on here? --Boston (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the ALT necessarily implies that...my reading was that, if it implies anything, it implies that the anal fin is what made them first recognize it as a different species. Anyway, like I said above, I thought your sources were acceptable, but unfortunately consensus is against us. Can you dig up a more modern source that says this same stuff, just to appease everyone? I agree that you shouldn't have to here, but in any case it would be the easiest way to satisfy everyone and get this all taken care of. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I thought of it too but I'm not sure that solution would leave me feeling satisfied as it sets a precedent with which I'm not comfortable. If we are going to hold DYK to FAC standards, let's decide that and revise DYK guidelines to state such explicitly. In the meanwhile (so far) only one editor has expressed opinion that the hook, as currently cited, is not acceptable. The objection mentions evolution and genetics, but state-of-the-art genetic determinations are involved only with high-profile, well-funded species -- zebra, gorilla, etc. This research has not been conducted on the majority of plants and animals which are differentiated by differences in physiology. There is little funding to map the genome of snakebark maples, copepods, or gobies. Besides this point, the differentiation referred to in the hook is a human process; people differentiate these fish by the means indicated. Is this point under dispute? If so, why? Perhaps I am out-of-touch, but I still tend to regard DYK discussion as one of the most goodwill-filled and well-functioning areas of Wikipedia. In this case I am getting a different impression. The review of this innocuous hook seems to have become an inexplicable contest and I am curious why. --Boston (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just one. Ed, Awadewit, Synergy, and PeterSymonds have all complained about the source. I thought the source was fine, but to be honest, rather than seeing this nom become a rallying point for a crusade for or against sourcing standards at DYK, I would prefer to just see everyone work together to reach a consensus and get this to the main page. If it takes adding another source, then we can add another source; if it takes choosing a different fact for the hook, we can choose a different fact for the hook. There's no need to drag this out by turning it into a fight that people are going to pile onto. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaken. Since Hamilton was added only Awadewit has objected. We now have Weber and de Deaufort in addition to Hamilton. I can choose a different fact but its going to come from the same sources so what is the use? On the other hand, on second review I agree that the ALT doesn't necessarily imply what I said it does so there's no great harm in using it. While the "originally" part is real annoying, debating about the ass fins of a 4 cm long fish I never heard of a week ago us making me want to shoot myself. --Boston (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. There is no expiration date on biological species descriptions - Hamilton's original description will remain valid until/unless the species is re-described by someone else, which as far as I can determine has not been done. For what it's worth, Weber and de Deaufort's The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago (1911) corroborate Hamilton's description. Don't know if that's recent enough. -- Yzx (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I just want to support the comment from Yzx - Hamilton (1822) is a source of original taxonomic description - far from being "old" or "unreliable", it is in one sense the most reliable source as it forms the basis of the species current taxonomy. See the (cited) Integrated Taxonomic Information System, for example. I'm also a bit surprised at the level of concern about the sources for this article, at DYK stage, though the early refs were limited. In any case, it appears to be a problem now solved. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a) the hook is, and (b) where? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Eline Berings is new, Lucie Škrobáková is expanded. Self nom by Punkmorten (talk) at 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by EA210269 (talk). Self nom at 09:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length and date verified. Needs fix-up, as all its paragraphs are one sentence long, with a few that are two sentences. Also, almost all the references are to the website of the Wild Rugby Academy, except for a press release in German, and a couple of articles that do not refer to the WRA. Is this a private academy or what?—Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I know, its a private academy but has the approval and support of the German rugby federation. Regarding English sources on it, international rugby and the IRB has not yet noticed that rugby is played outside the handful of traditional nations, finding non-German sources is therefore almost impossible. EA210269 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by yousaf465 (talk). Self nom at 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hook has been adopted.Did checked the length beforehand it was almost 2100 or something.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
  • The character count is currently at 1238. There is simply no way we can pass an article with just one sentence in three of the five sections. The other two sections are very short too. You need to include more info, and a few more refs would help. I will elaborate more on the article talk page. Chamal talk 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chamal is correct. Regardless of the overall article length (which, for the record, is not enough yet), the sections need to either be expanded, or merged into a single section. An article with single-sentence sections is not acceptable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single lines removed.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
  • The article links to no other articles. It is a total orphan. Are you sure this is the real name? I notice in the sources various names are used, or the name is used generically, without capitalisation. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have had concerns about the naming. For example, the article claims they are also known as the "Police Commandos," but the reference for that just refers to them as "Pakistani police commandos," which is probably a generic term. I think there is a bit of a language barrier here, and it would help if we could get some input from someone else to find out what the real name of this group is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It links to Punjab police and opertaions in which they were invloved.It's offical name is "Elite force",with some districts calling it "Elite police"[7],but in common use/slang they are also Know as Police commandos.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Articles created/expanded on March 6

Created by Bencherlite (talk). Self nom at 09:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length and date verified. Hook is from the one source for the article, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which is a subscription. I would feel more comfortable if someone with access would check out this article. (Just one source for sizable article.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouzo effect of anethole in absinthe
Ouzo effect of anethole in absinthe

5x expanded by Una Smith (talk). Self nom at 04:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Rosiestep (talk). Self nom at 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fashionologie is the musings of a twenty-something American girl who wishes she could have a Freaky Friday incident and switch bodies with Carine Roitfeld. http://www.fashionologie.com/page/36Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30 of the 35 models have WP pages and this can be confirmed. The remaining five could probably be confirmed using www.fashionmodeldirectory.com.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would rather we could go with (alt hook)... that the first Victoria's Secret Fashion Show featured models Stephanie Seymour, Beverly Peele and Frederique van der Wal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that George Keverian won election as a 21-year-old in 1954 to the Everett, Massachusetts Common Council, using a new MIT high-speed camera to put pictures of homes on fliers customized by address?

5x expanded by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Created by Alansohn (talk), Bongomatic (talk). Self nom at 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length OK, but few fixes would make Tom Cole (writer) article better (don't know if needed for DYK though):
  1. You shouldn't have only one sentence in a paragraph.
  2. The lead would be nicer if expanded. Maybe add death cause in the lead.
  3. Infobox would be nice.
  4. You shouldn't wikilink every time The New York Times occures in the references.
About Time (play) would also look nicer if sectionized. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that editor Hedley Donovan was responsible for redirecting TIME from a biased magazine to a more neutral one?

Created/expanded by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk). Self nom at 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that editor Hedley Donovan was responsible for redirecting TIME from a conservative magazine to one "more toward the middle"? Law shoot! 10:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length, history and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I can get into the NRHP listings (you have to have a special Java thingy installed). Verified on p4 of the listing document; the tree was "estimated at 168 years old" when the doc was written in 2002. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how does that help to date its construction, that the tree was "estimated at 168 years old when the doc was written"? Is there evidence the tree was planted at the time of construction? Or evidence the tree already there, or that it was planted after construction or what? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The document says, verbatim, "A shagbark hickory tree, estimated to be 168 years of age, is growing against the house, helping to establish the date of construction". It isn't clear explicitly what they mean by this, but the source definitely does assert that it is useful for that purpose. (Personally, I'd assume what it means is that the house must predate the tree; you're going to plant a tree outside a house, but you're never going to choose to build a house two feet away from a tree!) Nonetheless, I don't think we can really challenge the statement... Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this hook open-ended enough that this really isn't our concern? When I read it I wanted more, but that's all there was. So I wrote the hook this way. Must we apply our own standards to all the sources we use (See this somewhat comical AfD that starts out doing just that: "Andy Greenberg — the author of the Forbes article — doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does). The source has been verified, it says what the hook says and at this point the discussion is for the article's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you make anything up. Perhaps there is a more substantive fact from the article that states something more specifically. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a problem at all. For all I know there's some really neat technical explanation to do with the branch structure or the growth pattern that makes it obvious to a specialist - the source doesn't say. We routinely accept statements that are not immediately clear to a non-expert, if they can be attributed to a reliable source which has itself done the research - the idea is that the expert does the heavy thinking and we just report their conclusions. Those conclusions are explicitly stated here, and whilst it'd be nice to know more it certainly isn't essential for an encyclopedia article... Shimgray | talk | 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by History2007 (talk). Nominated by Boston (talk) at 04:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length and history verified; offline ref accepted IGF. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by David Eppstein (talk). Self nom at 04:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says sixteen always suffice in three dimensions. Granted, math is not my strong suit. Is this phrased some other way that I didn't pick up on? Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nom at 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length, history and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A toxic indian burial ground? Maybe
ALT1: ... that the Bay Street Emeryville mall was build on a Native American burial ground and a former nuclear waste dump site? ∗ \ / () 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2... that the Bay Street Emeryville mall was built on top of a polluted Ohlone Indian burial ground and shellmound? would be more acceptable however i see nothing wrong with the original proposal. toxic indian burial ground is a very unique thing about the location and it is well sourced that the mall is built on an Ohlone burial ground and that it is toxic, it is therefore a mall on a toxic site/burial ground Troyster87 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indian burial ground is a redlink... ∗ \ / () 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is not the encyclopedia title Bay Street Emeryville Mall? Surely we can avouid the phrase "toxic Indian burial ground" on Wikipedia's Main Page, no matter how it's justified.--Wetman (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"is not the title" "avouid" riiiight. anyways, what is the problem with toxic indian burial ground? that's what it is, that's what makes it interesting, that's what makes it unique. what's the argument for disinclusion? why should we avoid it? because you think it sounds bad?Troyster87 (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This editor is a now-banned sock puppet. While the article seems okay on first inspection, I had to remove a key fact from the article since the references do not mention this as a waste dump, nuclear or not, just that toxic waste was found on the site. There is no mention of "nuclear" anything in the source articles. I've added an ALT2 suggestion below.
ALT2: ... that the Bay Street Emeryville mall was build on a Native American burial ground and a former toxic waste contaminated site? - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by User:Billy Hathorn (talk), Billy Hathorn (talk). Self nom at 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference about first Hispanic actors corrected. This series was on the air for six years and has not had its own story.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Velela (talk) and Triskele Jim (talk). Nominated by SriMesh (talk) at 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The hook isn't very strong, but it also is not clearly tied to an in-line citation of a fact. See DYK rules at top of page. The article needs work on its references generally, but this wouldn't stop it going ahead for DYK if an editor just wants to make sure the fact(s) in the hook are based directly on an in-line cited source. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self nom at 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • / Everything good to go but the hook's something like 250 characters. I know under normal circumstances the hook is supposed to be less than 200, but are exceptions made when there are multiple articles? Otherwise though, perfectly fine. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Bender235 (talk). Self nom at 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by HerkusMonte (talk). Self nom at 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This hook is far too long. DYK hooks are supposed to be a short, punchy, and interesting fact, not just trying to say as much stuff as you can (in fact, it's better to say as little as you can, while still keeping it interesting and "hooking"—the usual goal is about 150–160 characters). For an example, you could write this same hook in a much shorter way:
  • ALT1: ... that the Prussian general Karl Wilhelm von Willisen was forced out of the Grand Duchy of Posen for being pro-Polish?
  • That being said, I don't know how interesting this hook is, so if you could take some time to try to find a good, interesting fact in the article, it would be helpful. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my first attempt at DYK, so I beg your patience. It's rather the fact he had to leave after 2 weeks as a Royal envoy because he became unpopular among the populace, I thougt might be unusual and interesting. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length, history and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by HerkusMonte (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (note to DYK editor: you are right; the comment above belongs here. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Articles created/expanded on March 5

Created/expanded by Rodhullandemu (talk). Self nom at 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length, date and source for hook verified.
OK, if 19th century political corruption is not to your taste: ALT ... that Gabriel Goldney, M.P. for Chippenham, is commemorated in a stained glass window of The Foundling Hospital? --Rodhullandemu 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by ekem (talk). Self nom at 02:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the bitter and inedible mushroom Russula fellea (pictured) smells of geraniums or apple sauce?

Created by Luridiformis (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 11:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phaistos Disc
Phaistos Disc

Created by Neddyseagoon (talk). Nominated by Ghirlandajo (talk) at 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date, length and reference for hook verified. However, the only reference in the entire article is for the hook. The article is poorly written with incomplete sentences. An obvious "rush job". I don't know what the DKY rules are regarding the quality of the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the subject is fascinating :) DYK is not about featured stuff, it's about giving Main Page readers a chance to pick up an interesting article and to improve it. There is very little information about Pernier in English. The page about sums up everything that we know. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it with {{morefootnotes}}; there are sources given at the end of the article, so adding inline citations should be an easy task for someone who speaks the language and has access to those sources (ie, the person who wrote the article). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ghirla ... I have added two footnotes Victuallers (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new refs are helpful, but I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the {{morefootnotes}} template...there are still entire paragraphs that are uncited, and both the sources in the bibliography (the Italian source and the Nature editorial) are not footnoted anywhere in the text, they're just sitting there. I guess it's not enough to block this from DYK, but it should still be cleaned up for its own sake. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think DYKs should send the right message to the community. At this moment, FAC is thinking about raising the standards for reliable sources, as FAC editors perceive the community as failing to understand the importance of correct referencing. I don't think DYK should lower the standards from what is Wikipedia policy. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the German wikipedia article from which this one was translated did not have inline citations, hence the initial lack of them here. However, I do not have access to the sources cited in that original article's 'Sources' and 'Links' sections. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also discussions about translations, that is, that automatic translations not be used without consulting a person who is fluent in both languages etc. Other Wikipedias have lower sourcing standards that the English Wikipedia, so it is especially necessary to source the information translated. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, just not in-line yet. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For most purposes on Wikipedia, something that is not source in-line is effectively not sourced at all. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Not sure if we can promote this if the sources of the information aren't clear even to the article creator. I know in the past DYK has had a reputation for promoting articles with a single footnote, but that doesn't make it right. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DYK should observe not set policy. We ask that the hook is cited inline. Does anyone suspect this story is untrue? If so then fine, but we must also assume AGF and that the German wikipedians also deserve some respect. This is not the place to develop policy. Articles are meant to improve by going through the DYK process. This one has. Promote. Victuallers (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the hook itself, shouldn't "is suspected of having forged it" really be "has been accused of having forged it", based on the text in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky (talkcontribs) 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Marcus334 (talk). Self nom at 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • N11 does not forbid linking to a disambiguation.
  • The reference uses the word survey, though Wikipedia meaning (precise geometrical measurement of land ) is off the mark. I linked to Scout because first sentence there does convey intended meaning. Scouting for Medical intelligence was his assignment, but medical intelligence term is not used in the article or references. Maybe leave it alone, link to medical intelligence or avoid issue entirely by de-linking the word survey?--Marcus (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N11 doesn't technically forbid linking to a disambiguation, but it says to correct such links. I recently copied that rule from WP:DYK, and for a more authoritative guideline see WP:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. The sentence at Scout is about a soldier performing reconnaissance, so I don't know how that could be better than linking to Reconnaissance. For now I just unlinked it. Art LaPella (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 4

  • ... that, to defeat the warlord Wu Yuanji, the Tang Dynasty general Li Su launched a surprise attack in a heavy snowstorm against Wu's capital?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 06:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's at #Wu Yuanji. --74.14.21.186 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article also has a bare URL; same one I think. Shubinator (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not the same one — they're both links to the Academia Sinica's Chinese-Western Web-based calendar conversion program. The reason why I did not "unbare" the link is because the program does not have an official English name, and I didn't want to impose one. --Nlu (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be Bold Nlu ... decide its name for now. A single bare url is not a reason to hold the hook. Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that a decade of development by several major electronics companies failed to turn the Plasmatron into a successful television system?

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said with Geer tube, this just isn't unusual. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that Plasmatron television screens combined rows formed from liquid crystals with columns formed from plasma cells? (this hook would need, as does much of the article, better inline referencing but it's hookier) - Dravecky (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the alt! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Jack1956 (talk). Self nom at 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt ... that Greek Cypriot academic Anastasios Christodoulou was named 'Anastasios' ('Resurrection') by his parents as he was born on Easter Day? Jack1956 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to use the 2nd hook might we save this article for Orthodox Easter 2009 (April 19)? --Boston (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's. That's the only way it would become interesting enough ... I'm sure he's not the only Anastasios in the world who got that name from being born on Easter. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on March 3

5x expanded by Gak (talk). Nominated by Carlossuarez46 (talk) at 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

long, resolved discussion collapsed, ALTs reproduced below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a lay reader, I have no idea what this mean...I assume vector means "carrier" but I'm not sure. Please reword the hook to be more accessible and interesting to non-specialists. Linking "vector" (I assume to vector (biology)) would help, but I think more rewording would also be good. Also, on the side, should the genus name be italicized? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't look at this before, but right now the article's not long enough; an article for DYK has to be at least 1500 prose characters (not counting references, formatting, etc; the easiest way to count it is to use User:Dr pda/prosesize.js.
  • Assuming you guys can expand it a bit, I still think the hook is a bit confusing (personally, I don't know the difference between a carrier and a vector, and if I don't know then I imagine most of the dumb dumbs reading the main page won't either), and would suggest the following truncated version:
  • ALT2: ... that mites of the genus Leptotrombidium are carriers of Orientia tsutsugamushi, the germ that causes scrub typhus? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I think ALT2 is clearer and more interesting. Anyway, the article is long enough now, but I'm having some difficulty understanding the second paragraph (about how the mites are not vectors). Is it supposed to be saying that an adult can't infect a human because it's already feeding on a rat, but when it gives birth then its babies might move on to a human in infect it? If so, it would be useful if you could clarify that within the article (right now it's only vaguely mentioned, through a linked jargon word that I had to click to find more information, and to be honest the Transovarial transmission article is not very helpful). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to say that I disagree with dropping "vector" from the hook. I am presuming that the only reason for doing so is that there is an objection that not everyone will understand it. The term has a precise meaning in epidemology which a rewording cannot exactly convey. Wikipedia would be a very sad encyclopedia if it only used words and terms that absolutely everyone understood (and if they understand already, why read any articles). It is especially sad as there is a perfectly good article that can be wikilinked to help anyone who needs an explanation. SpinningSpark 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was originally thought that rodents were the main reservoir for O. tsutsugamushi and that the mites were merely vectors of infection: however, it is now known that the mites only feed once in their lifetime, which means that transmission from rodent to human is impossible." I read that as "it was originally thought that the mites were vectors, but now we don't think so anymore." I was under the impression that that means they're carriers, not vectors. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that means that it was originally thought that mites were the vectors, and rodents were the reservoir of the disease. It is now thought that mites are the vector and reservoir of the disease. SpinningSpark 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that paragraph in the article needs to be written. If we already have two intelligent people reaching different conclusions about what it means, then it's not ready to be shown to two thousand people on the main page.
  • As for the vector/carrier wording in the hook....if the mite is both vector and reservoir, I don't see why it matters which term we use for the hook. As far as I know, "carrier" is the most common and easily recognizable term for the general public, and would make the best and most readable hook. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one person reaching a different conclusion in this conversation as far as I can tell. In any case, you should not be using a term in the hook that is neither in the article, in the source nor proposed by the author. SpinningSpark 16:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm simply saying, I couldn't understand the article, and we shouldn't be promoting an article that I couldn't understand. If the wording confused me, there are plenty of other people it will also confuse. It should be easy to clean up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I think it is a poor reason to reject an article because you are having difficulty understanding one sentence in it. I don't really know whether or not it is reasonable to change vector to carrier, but what is perfectly clear after looking at a few epidemiology text books ([8][9][10]) is that they all make a careful distinction between vector and carrier when defining terms. As you appear to have no more knowledge of the subject than me, I think it would be very unwise to make a change to a technical term as you have done in ALT2. The author has offered ALT3 which avoids using both terms so probably does not agree with your change either but does not want to say so. I think someone should review this article now for the usual requirements, I will do it myself as you do not seem willing and everyone else is steering clear. I have also taken the liberty of wikilinking "vector" in the original hook in case that is the one that is chosen. SpinningSpark 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to go with ALT3 then the fact you think is unclear is no longer in the hook so the hook does not have a problem. There may still be improvements needed in the article but DYK does not require perfection. SpinningSpark 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 is verifiable, yes, but the point is that this hook directs the reader to a part of the text that is confusing, and there's no point doing that when cleaning up that text should be quite simple. I don't see any reason for us to fight tooth and nail over keeping in some awkward text, which is why I have contacted Gak to try to have that section fixed so we can forget about all this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not fighting tooth and nail to keep in some awkward text. I am perfectly happy for the text to be improved. What I am trying to do is prevent you from rejecting a perfectly good article on the spurious grounds that it is difficult to understand. I understand it, we must presume Gak understands it since he wrote it and Carlossuarez46 has expressed astonishment that you could even put that interpretation on the text. No one else has commented. That leaves you. The hook is good, the article is good, the source is good. It is well above the average for quality of sourcing seen on DYK. It should be approved whether or not the text gets improved before its DYK nom runs out. SpinningSpark 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am going to reproduce the various suggested hooks here so we can choose one:
  • I prefer ALT2 and ALT3, as the first two are not very accessible to lay readers. There are some problems in the article that need to be cleared up, though. Mainly, none of these hooks are referenced with a direct inline citation; there are three footnotes for the fact that the pathogen is passed from mite to mite transovarially, and one footnote for the fact that it mainly affects humans, but no footnotes for anything about how the disease gets to humans. And since no dois are given for the references, I can't check them myself. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to transmission to humans;
  • Ref 5 says "Scrub typhus (tsutsugamushi disease) is an infectious disease transmitted by attaching of the larval trombiculid mites of a particular colony infected transovarially with a Rickettsia species, Orientia tsutsugamushi."
  • Ref 6 (in the context of human disease) says "The main host and vector were Rattus norvegicus and Leptotrombidium (L.) deliens respectively.
  • Ref 9 says "From these results, we conclude that Kawasaki-type rickettsiae are transmitted by L. scutellare and Karp-type ones are transmitted by L. pallidum"
  • That all seems clear enough, humans get the disease from mites, as if there was really any doubt. I might also point out that humans were not mentioned in the original hook and the problem does not arise at all if you use that. Ref 6, by the way, confirms the use of the "vector" terminology. Alt-2 should be struck altogether as none of the sources, or indeed the textbooks I linked to above, support Alt-2's terminology. It is OR and quite possibly even wrong. SpinningSpark 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That leaves us with ALT3; the original and ALT1 are not good hooks. If someone cleans up the references in the article then it should be ready (even if the refs you cited above do support the hook, they need to appear in footnotes directly after the hook; also, we can't pass an article with a {{refimprove}} cleanup tag). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is acting entirely in bad faith to call for a discussion on the choice of hook and then to immediately strike out the alternatives the moment someone disagrees with your choice. It is also disingeneous to fail the article because of a cleanup template you have just put there yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that DYK rules reject articles with cleanup templates in any case. I maintain that the article is, in any case, very well referenced - what did you have in mind when you templated it? The purpose of the DYK rules calling for an inline cite immediately after the fact is to make it easy for DYK to find and check the references without reading through all of them. Since we have now gone to the trouble of looking at the refs in detail, I would suggest that requirement is now superfluous and an obvious case for WP:IAR. SpinningSpark 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I templated it because there were multiple paragraphs that were totally unreferenced, and I said so in my edit summary. As for striking out the alternatives, I only struck out the ones that I already said (weeks ago, before I had ever even put forth my own) were not acceptable; it had nothing to do with the fact that you "disagreed with my choice"; there's nothing "bad faith" about my striking hooks that were deemed unacceptable 10 days ago, since no one challenged my criticism of the hooks back then. And I left ALT3 for people to work with. Try assuming a little good faith. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You rolled up all the previous discussion and then restated the alternative hooks as if you were open to discussion. This was clearly not the case. It would have been more honest of you to state only your chosen hook, or to strike the others out from the start to indicate they are not acceptable. It is dishonest to pretent to have a debate to make it look good. In regard to the unreferenced paragraphs, you are applying FAC standards to DYK, and on parts of the article that have little to do with any of the hooks so far discussed. SpinningSpark 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rolled up the previous discussion because it was getting to be a pain to scroll through all of it, and it was all resolved anyway (the discussion was focusing on the vector/whatever distinction, which Carlossuarez cleared up); I reproduced all the hooks there so they could be compared together, since before that they were scattered all over the place. I wasn't trying to hide anything from you, so stop accusing me of being "dishonest" or "pretending" to do anything. If you haven't noticed, I am the one who's been going around contacting people and trying to get the article cleaned up, so you really need to lay off the accusations and stop assuming that my entire goal in life is to fail some article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, you misunderstand, I was not accusing you of trying to hide anything. But by rolling up the previous discussion you were indicating that it is no longer relevant. By relisting all the hooks you are indicating that it is possible to choose any one of them. You had previously declared your preference, but by displaying them all you are inviting comments from others. You got one comment in favour of the original hook. You then struck that hook. Do you not see how that comes across as not being willing to collaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningstark (talkcontribs) 21:26, 13 March 2009
  • That tag is indeed listed on the template dispute tags page but it is just a copy from the sources of articles templates page. Does this really amount to a dispute? I have not heard Rjanag actually dispute anything in the article as possibly innacurate. I think it would be better if the two unreferenced paras were tagged "cite needed" and the top template removed since the article does have substantial referencing. SpinningSpark 21:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logic of this is that an article that is not 100% referenced will get a cleanup template from the DYK reviewer. The article will then be rejected for having a cleanup template. The result of that is that only articles with FAC level of referencing will get through DYK. I'm not sure that is the result that is intended by rule D5. SpinningSpark 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're exaggerating. Things that are "not 100%" referenced, but mostly referenced, get a {{fact}} tag or two. Things that are extremely lacking in references, or have large chunks with no references at all, get a cleanup template; that's not a FAC standard, it's a Wikipedia standard. Above, you questioned why I used a general cleanup template rather than fact tags; this is why. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence of bad faith here. The article does need more inline citations as currently large chunks of the article are essentially unreferenced. The work to add these should be simple and, once it's completed, this fine hook can be promoted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it might be time to remove this one...there is still outstanding cleanup needed that is probably not going to happen (given the author's unresponsiveness) and it's over 10 days since the article was started. I'm not going to {{DYKno}} it or remove it myself, as I would probably be accused of having ulterior motives, but there's my two cents. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion holding area

Articles created/expanded for Saint Patrick's Day 2009 (March 17)

Created by Grimhelm (talk) in 2005; expanded fivefold by Grimhelm (talk) on 3 March 2009. Self nom at 14:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I have referred this to the Norse history and culture Wikiproject. We should be able to get something done on the weekend before St. Patrick's Day. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hella long hook! ALT: "... that Brodir and Ospak of Man were two 11th century Danish brothers who fought for King Sigtrygg Silkbeard of Dublin and High King of Ireland Brian Ború respectively? --Boston (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Sigtrygg Silkbeard article hasn't been expanded yet, 1st hook only approved. --Boston (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the length of the hook. Maybe we could keep the Brodir and Ospak of Man hook on its own, and have a separate hook for Gormlaith and Sigtrygg Silkbeard? I have already started drafts (U:G/G and U:G/SS), and should have them at target length next weekend. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Thundering disgrace" is tagged with {{fact}}. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with a number of different sources (just in case). Thank you for not giving it a delete vote. --Candlewicke ST # :) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't enough, yes... --Candlewicke ST # :) 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to holding pen. ∗ \ / () 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



  • That's all very fine and well but does Blarney Castle have a Saint Patrick's Day connection? Or is it anything Irish goes? In which case I could take over DYK for the day... --Candlewicke ST # :) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created/expanded by Cottonshirt (talk). Self nom at 05:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: it has be reassessed for the Ireland WikiProject as a C-class article. ww2censor (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by FruitMonkey (talk). Nominated by Ww2censor (talk) at 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first hook is fascinatingly cryptic. The second hook leaves me cold. I think it's good for some hooks to be teasers that pique curiosity without being self-explanatory factoids. There's lots of precedence for this kind of hook although lately hooks have gotten less playful and more pedantic. --Boston (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I was going to find out what Fat Cupid was, but the alt hook told me Victuallers (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded for April Fool's Day 2009 (April 1)

Please suggest hooks at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, not here. Royalbroil 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also