Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Suggestion

I suggest that once a hook is approved, it isn't altered. Unless there is an obvious error, I don't see why the co-ordinators here feel it necessary to constantly tamper with the hooks. This is an example of what I'm talking about [[1]]. Firstly, if people want to know Velters Cornewall Berkeley's nationality, or when the event occurred, they can click the link and read the article. This is after all the purpose of Did You Know, is it not? Secondly, and more importantly, mistakes were introduced. Berkeley wasn't even at the Battle of Cape St Vincent, and the affair happened several days after and some distance away. The hook went to the main page with these errors.--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the tweaked hook needed further tweaking per WP:ERRORS2. The QPQ and promotion process here is continually letting editors and readers down. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not an error, that's just semantics. You have inferred from that, that all his peers were infuriated but it could just as easily mean two. And indeed, when you read the article as you're supposed to, this becomes clear.--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually that’s called a clarification, and a reduction in misleading readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

When you next tell your kids to put their shoes on, be sure to clarify that you mean a single pair and that they're to go on their feet.--Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

When you next write a hook, try to remember that most of our audience need help putting their shoes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is that then why you appear to support these additions, because you think our audience should be given every minor detail? Because to me, that seems counter-productive to the purpose of DYK.--Ykraps (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I actually do support not misleading the readers, and what you probably considered minor may well not be to those not so close to the article and details in question. Glad you corrected your there/their faux pas! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There would be no need to make alterations to the approved hooks if nominators and reviewers examined them more critically in the first place to make sure they were accurate and comprehensible. I often need to make alterations when I promote nominations to Prep and TRM is adept at picking up the errors missed by others. Greater care is required all round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

What possible reason could there have been for altering the hook in this case?--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

My edit that you cited was simply a followup to a previous edit by a different editor. The original hook seemed fine to me as I scrolled through the prep sets, but when I saw this addition, I reread the article and didn't see any mention of the new hook content. So I put in what I understood the article was saying. It's a good idea in general for nominators to watchlist Template:Did you know/Queue so they can watch their hook advance through the preps and queues, and if anything untoward happens, to comment on it either here or at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Or, of course, WP:ERRORS2 where much more comprehensive attention is paid to the myriad issues that pass through this project on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we are suggesting things... How about... if someone gives a green light during a review and there are obvious errors, DYK rules not being followed and so on, they lose their qpq credit? Rewarding people for doing a bad job with reviews seems to make no sense at all. 91.97.240.54 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case the additions made the hook factually wrong. The article makes clear the engagement was after the Battle of Cape Vincent, not during it. Might be helpful if hooks that are proposed to be altered at any stage (including post-approval) are removed from the queue and the changes flagged with the nominator, rather than just changed without that input and sent on their way. If that severely reduces the number of DYK's on the main page then so be it - better we have fewer but accurate items than more inaccurate ones. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I do of course realise that 'fixing' the hook got messed up in this case. But how often does that happen in contrast to how often the actual review is flawed or completely disregards DYK rules etc.? I mean, go ahead and pull hooks with issues from queues and preps to fix them without time limit to get it right together with the nominator. But why should a reviewer get a qpq credit when doing a bad job, no matter if it gets fixed after. The reviewer rubber stamped it, so should be held accountable for obvious and large issues and not get rewarded for it. Either do a proper review or not get a qpq credit. 91.97.240.54 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the good work done, fixing spelling mistakes and making sure people follow the rules, makes up for changing a hook to something that is factually incorrect? And where do you get the idea that the reviewer rubber stamped it?--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No i am not suggesting any of that. I was not even talking about your hook in particular, which indeed was messed up in a way that it should not have been. But one should also realise just how bad the qpq review process works and how many errors get by(multiple issues pretty much every day, both big and small). Nothing should ever be changed to be incorrect, just as nothing, or at least A LOT less, should get past the review process which is factually incorrect or otherwise not in line with project or even basic Wikipedia rules. All i was suggesting is that a bad review not give qpq credit because it makes no sense to reward sloppy review work. I just piggybacked on the title of this section, "suggestion". 91.97.240.54 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been accosted on my userpage by Yoninah for being the origin of this by adding incorrect information myself, so I guess I'll defend my edit. I disliked that the original hook had no reference point in history. I understood from the article text that the engagement was not part of the Battle of Cape St Vincent, which is why I used the name of the entire war instead, adding the text during the Anglo-Spanish War to the hook, and I still believe that is an entirely correct statement. I guess Yoninah surmised that because Anglo-Spanish War doesn't appear in the text of Velters Cornewall Berkeley, it can't be allowed in the hook. (The lead paragraph actually uses the somewhat wider-scope French Revolutionary Wars.) They then replaced it with the incorrect statement on their own volition. If the standard is to not alter hooks in the prep areas (beyond copy-editing) without a discussion on this talk page, I'll respect that in future edits. Modulus12 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in why you felt the need to give the hook some reference point in history. I thought the purpose of DYK was to get as many people as possible to read new material. If you had to read the article to satisfy your curiosity, that's a good thing, isn't it?--Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't come here to point fingers. I can see who did what and why. I came here to try and get some agreement on when editors should stop pissing about with the hooks, or discuss a way of preventing this happening again. So far, only Euryalus has attempted to find a solution. Secondly, I wanted to try and understand why there can't be an element of mystery in the hook; why does it have to be spelled out which war he fought in, whose side he was on, when it happened etc.--Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hookiness is definitely achieved by not spelling out everything in the hook. We expect readers to click on the bolded link to learn more. Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Yet here is another example.[[2]] Here the word 'war' is changed to 'war of the fifth coalition' because the editor in question didn't think he should have to read the article to find that out. Why? Surely that's the point. The original wording wasn't wrong and changing it only made the hook less interesting.--Ykraps (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't doing anything that other hooks haven't done before. Plenty of them have "unnecessary" amounts of detail that "ruin the mystery," because they weren't attempting to be mysterious. Modulus12 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So does this last-minute edit by Amakuru cross the line into "pissing about with the hooks"? It's not error-correcting, but just a vague hook made more specific at the behest of a certain userpage. Should admins be allowed to unilaterally (without talk-page discussion) add information to a hook about to go on the Main Page? (Shouldn't we be preserving the "mystery" of why he's "the best"? Think of all the clicks we'll lose!) Modulus12 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I would say that that is correcting an error because first top-100 hundred, doesn't mean only top-100. What I am talking about is unnecessary additions such as mentioning someone's nationality, when it is irrelevant.[[[3]] But I do think there could've been a discussion about it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, my "certain userpage" does not "behest" anyone to do anything. Quite wrong, and you should stick to the facts in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Behest can't be used as a verb. Your userpage is certainly written with the intent that administrators will act on it, just like when I post errors at WP:ERRORS, where I am expecting an administrator to act on it. And I was only mentioning you for context; I did clearly note that it was Amakuru who made the actual change. Why do we need (SA) if it's not used in the hook or elsewhere again? Funnily enough, when I tried to remove this under the exact same reasoning as you in the prep queues a day or two ago, I was reverted and beaten back for not gaining a talk-page consensus first. And, while I entirely agree that your suggestions craft a better hook, your request to "correct" Rose Connor has to be way too far into the "pissing about with the hooks" territory: "I don't like what this says, so delete what I don't like and add something I do like." (And it was fulfilled by Fish and karate.) If we can't piss around in the prep queues, why are unilateral deletions and additions allowed at the last minute? Modulus12 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you're missing the point. My user page is writ, as I have said numerous times, for my benefit. If admins wish to contribute, that's fine, but entirely up to them. If they don't, I have no recourse, so what's the beef? In any case, as you've already seen, ERRORS is pretty much second fiddle now to ERRORS2, as most of the trivia brought up at ERRORS is already noted by me, or is of little consequence. As you have decided to personalise this issue, I suggest you piss about with someone else who cares to answer you. I think Americans refer to it as "butt hurt". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The Rose Connor hook was just about the worst I've seen in a month or two. We're not just "pissing about" with hooks, we're thinking of our readers too you know. Well, some of us are. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no beef with you. "A certain userpage" may have been a little impertinent, but I only brought you up as part of clarifying the provenance of the edit. Modulus12 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It didn't need provenance, it was fixing one of the worst hooks in living memory. Why you felt it needed clarifying is utterly mystifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Behest can't be used as a verb - I think you may be missing the point a little bit there . As for the pissing about with the hooks, I personally don't always act on the suggestions made at WP:TRM. Things like "the hook is too boring" or "reword it this way to make more hooky" aren't true errors, so I pass them by. Other admins may act on them, I don't know, but if they're improving the main page, and ensuring hooks meet the DYK rules then it's probably not a bad thing. The case you mention above was an actual error, because the hook said something different from the source, so I did change that one. As for whether you are allowed to "piss around" with the hooks before they reach the protected queue, I'd have thought that was legitimate, and your constructive changes shouldn't have been reverted, but that's a separate argument that you'd have to take up with the DYK powers.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was just the most convenient at hand that I thought conveyed the idea that some admins are willing to make fundamental changes to the facts that the nominator proposed for the hook and which passed through the DYK process. I don't know what the rules should be, but I think they should apply equally to admins and non-admins both in the prep queues and in the last-minute changes to the main queue. Modulus12 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we charge our admins with (among other things) the responsibility of keeping the main page free of crap and errors. And that includes the often terrifyingly bad stuff that's passed through this project. That it's modified at the last minute should be applauded as it's always in an attempt to keep the main page from embarrassing the project. You'd be better off spending your time working out why so many poorly reviewed DYKs make it all the way to queues, instead of complaining about the treatment they get when they're moments from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Emil Mattiesen

• ... that Emil Mattiesen published musical compositions such as song collections as well as books in German on parapsychology?

@Gerda Arendt:@West Virginian:

I don't understand the wordiness of this hook ("published musical compositions such as song collections" as opposed to "published songs and ballads"?). I do understand you're trying to draw a contrast between his musical and parapsychology work, but it would help if you "show" it, not just "say" it, like:

ALT1: ... that musician and composer Emil Mattiesen also published books on parapsychology, one of which listed several phenomena that seem to prove empirically that the soul lives on after death? Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind, but "song collections" are lost for a very general musician and composer, - what do readers think then? Symphonies? Piano sonatas? - His article was written because he was one of the people (like Reger and Strauss) who composed for Lula Mysz-Gmeiner and performed with her. Also psyche = breath is needed for singing. Any way we could be a bit more precise about his music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: do you mean you want to write:

ALT2: ... that Emil Mattiesen, a composer of Lieder, chamber and organ music, also wrote books on parapsychology? Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I don't care too much about chamber and organ ;)

ALT3: ... that Emil Mattiesen published his song collections and books on parapsychology? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry, your hook doesn't read right grammatically. It sounds like he published song collections on parapsychology. If you're fine saying he composed Lieder, do you want to say:

ALT2a: ... that Emil Mattiesen, a composer of Lieder, also wrote books on parapsychology?

However, those who don't know what Lieder is won't understand the compare-and-contrast with parapsychology. That's why I added a few musical descriptions after Lieder. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And I said fine to ALT2, no? Past midnight ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Since better known as a writer, why not

ALT4: ... that Emil Mattiesen not only wrote books on parapsychology but was also a composer of art songs?

"Lieder" is too technical for the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why it's linked. Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The hook needs to present a clear contrast without asking the user to first find out what "Lieder" means. We don't have to pretend that "Lieder" are so special that they need to be mentioned in the hook. The fact that Matthiesen was also musically notable is what counts. That's an interesting combination. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on the possibility to link what you don't know. Lied is the standard term in English for an art song in German, as mélodie is for an art song in French. Most people who don't know that will not enjoy the article anyway. Keep simple, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify. Also, the term "lieder" in the article is lowercase. The lead of that article refers to the alternative "art song" for English usage. The appeal of this hook will be for parapsychology, however. Jmar67 (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as Gerda Arendt concurs, I support ALT4 as it strikes a balance by mitigating all the concerns expressed here. I completed the original DYK review of the article and hook, and find that this too meets all Wikipedia and DYK criteria. Thank you to everyone who worked to strengthen this hook, and thank you to Gerda for another phenomenal article! — West Virginian (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it suggests the wrong chronology, he first wrote music, then the papapsy books. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut to nomination?

Is there a shortcut for going to the nomination for a particular page? I have had to enter "Template:Did you know nominations/(page name)", which is cumbersome. Even if the nom is in my watch list, it doesn't appear there (using mobile version) and I have to call it up manually. Jmar67 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any way unfortunately, other than the fact that you could shorten it slightly by using "T" instead of "Template". Subpages of pages with a redirect don't automatically become subpages of the redirect itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

For "my" articles, you have a link on my user page. For any article, I go left, click on "What links here", then scroll to the bottom, - normally it's the very last item. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a good technique, which you may have mentioned before but which didn't get my attention. I avoid the desktop version whenever possible because it is somewhat awkward on a mobile phone. Jmar67 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't the nominations held at the relevant page and linked to from a central page? That is, the DYK nominations page would have a list of all articles currently being discussed linking to "Talk:Article/DYK nomination"? With a further link on the article's main talk page saying "This article has been nominated for DYK, to participate in the discussion CLICK HERE".--Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:DYK checklist has enhanced error checking

There is a new version of the module underlying this template that now checks the status field, and displays an error if anything but one of the valid values is entered.

The problem has been that instead of using the correct alphabetic values, some people have been putting icons into the status field. The icon isn't displayed, since that isn't how the template works, and worse, if the purpose had been to approve the nomination, it doesn't show as approved and the bot that moves approved nominations to the Approved page can't tell that it is passed, and won't move it.

The error message for an incorrect status value is posted in bold red and reads: Invalid status [invalid text in quotes] - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again". To make the message go away, just use one of those five correct values listed. Note that they are case-sensitive, and the exact letter, mark, or word must be used; for example, "n" is not valid, nor is "yes" or "Y". The complete documentation for the template is available at Template:DYK checklist/doc. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is an abbreviation used for yes but not for no, maybe, or again? Seems like it should be one way for all or both ways acceptable for all, but not this mixture. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Palace

• ... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace, contains a Renaissance palace (pictured) which consists of four wings around a courtyard?

@Gerda Arendt: @HLHJ:

This hook really is not hooky, more like an architectural lesson for kids. It's also unclear why a palace contains a palace. Isn't there something interesting to say about Schloss Weilburg? Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we might start to need a few more eyes on this kind of hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the nomination. There are not many of the kind, most Baroque builders demolished what they found, these just had not enough money. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

ps: we can drop the description as the rare thing should be pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

But the point is the hook isn't hooky because people don't read the nomination. And if the hook isn't interesting, they won't read the article either. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How is keeping something 200 years older not hooky? Do we really have to explain? Link Baroque and Renaissance? Say that it's rare? Yoninah, you found Psalm 269 quirky, don't you realize that this is similar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

* ... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace, contains a Renaissance palace (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's just me, where I come from 200 year old things are completely commonplace. My old fireplace surround was 150 years old, and I owned it. The house I lived in was 130 years old (not rare, thousands of them in the same town, thousands of towns with the same...). It's just not hooky, especially when you have to explain the timeline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I read the article to try to suggest a hook, but I'm drawing a blank. It's a little hard following the timeline (maybe it's late), but it seems they built Baroque buildings around a Renaissance palace and called the former buildings a palace, too. Perhaps a hook could be built around the different uses of the Baroque buildings. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Starting over: you can have different uses of Baroque buildings many places, but that the very centre of a Baroque place is Renaissance is here (and to my knowldge only here, although Fram will probably find a few others). I love the image and would like to use it. Call it a confession. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not really following. What's the hook? More importantly, what's the hook that will engage our readers who have no concept of the timelines of baroque and renaissance, and for those readers who have 150-year-old front door knockers? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Modified ALT3:

1655 engraving by Merian

... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace from the 18th century, contains a Renaissance palace from the 16th century (historic engraving pictured)? - I hope the image will engage our readers, even if my words are clumsy. (forgot to sign, but who else) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty basic hook, but it's better than the original. But it's still not clear how a palace contains a palace. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Schloss means the whole complex, how can that be translated and or explained if palace doesn't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If Gerda Arendt is attached to the image, but not too attached to the hook, we could pick another hook about the Ren. palace. I think the old palace was renovated to make it more defensible in the 1660s, the story behind that might be interesting if we can source it. How about the circumstances around the creation of that image? The perspective has been carefully chosen to make the palace look more regular. We could also write a hook about the let's-collect-Europe attitude to styles (Gothic bits, Dutch dormers, Venetian columned arcade, one might be able to dig out a few more). HLHJ (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, HLHJ. I'm moving the hook to Prep 5 while this discussion plays out. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No prob. My fault, I approved the hook. On the query, they just carried on building around the old palace; the Baroque palace is a maze of buildings in extensive gardens, some of them fully detached form one another. It's not obvious from the hook image, but the images in the article should make it clear, if not exactly obvious. HLHJ (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble giving a suggestion here as well, but I think the contrasting styles (i.e. the parts about Gothic, Dutch, Venetian elements etc.) could work as a hook. The problem would be how to word it. @Gerda Arendt: Do you have any ideas? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT4... that Schloss Weilburg, a 18th-century Baroque garden palace, was built around a 16th-century Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured), which contains adaptations of Gothic, Dutch, and Venetian styles?

ALT5... that Schloss Weilburg's Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured) contains adaptations of Gothic, Dutch and Venetian styles, and is now surrounded by a French-style Baroque garden palace over ten times its size?

...not sure if either of these will appeal... For background, the Baroque renovators cheerfully demolished over half the town, including the town walls, rebuilding the bits that did not become gardens, and put in a really expensive new water system to accommodate the increased water consumption, and used so much wood that the German article states that the Fuerst had to change the forestry regulations, which changed the forestry practices of the entire area. And they had money left over for a church built in an exciting and elaborate style that some modern structural engineers are having fun re-waterproofing. Given the "Expense? What expense?" attitude, I'm sort of surprised that they kept the old palace; I presume they liked the history.

Note that English distinguishes a palace (primarily residential) from a castle (primarily defensive); in this case the Baroque palace was built with no thought of defense, while the Renaissance palace seems to me to be sufficiently un-defense-oriented to be called a palace, but this is a judgment call, as the German-language sources use "Schloss". HLHJ (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the thought is in the right place, but those hooks feel too complicated to be what the DYK rules call "snappy". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is something short and snappy to consider: MB 03:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT6... that the kitchens of the Schloss Weilburg's Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured) were previously the palace stables?

ALT6 is snappy, memorable, and ingenious. Well bethought, but let's get Gerda Arendt's view. HLHJ (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think you should all stop bullying Gerda, forget about "interesting to a broad audience", and go back to the notion that DYK showcases an article that an editor has crafted. I don't suppose Gerda cares two hoots about how many people read the article but she wants to draw in those readers who are interested, like she is, in the palace's architecture. The hook should be the nominator's choice, or at least acceptable to the nominator, and not a baton to be squeezed out of the text and passed around by everyone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I heartily agree; I also note that we have a section above complaining about something very similar indeed. This suggests that the very culture of DYK needs overhauling. Possibly with an towards making some of the fundamental tenets noted below...slightly less funda, and certainly less mental :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. We could of course say something about some kitchen (sarcasm). The thing special about this place is that, although some Baroque Duke tried to have something like Versailles, we - thank goodness - still have a mostly intact 4-wing Ren palace, which - thank goodness - was pictured by Merian in a way modern photography can't do. Wordsmiths? I tried to keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  You mean just drop one of the fundamental tenets of DYK for this specific editor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cwmhiraeth feels I'm bullying the nominator. I just don't see how talking about four wings around a courtyard is going to interest anybody, especially in a lead hook slot. With all the talk in this thread about the practice of historic demolitions in the town and elsewhere, perhaps a short, sourced background could be added to the article about why the preservation of this palace is unusual. That would make a good lead hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Gerda proposed a hook about incorporating a Renaissance palace into a Baroque palace and that seemed interesting to me. I like the idea that someone who has written/expanded an article can choose a suitable hook, and I don't like the idea of putting a block on a hook's progress just because somebody at a late stage thinks the hook is uninteresting. Perhaps it won't get quite so many hits, but what does that matter? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT6: ... that Schloss Weilburg consists of a 16th-century Renaissance palace (depicted on an engraving), expanded around 200 years later by several buildings, including orangeries and a church, and a formal garden in seven terraces? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Striking, wrong number anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...just because somebody at a late stage thinks the hook is uninteresting. sorry, them's the rules. If you don't like the DYK rule about broad interest, please seek to change it or remove it entirely. Certainly don't complain when it's being enforced. As for "at a late stage", well as you well know, QPQ means just one or two people look at a hook before it's in the queue for the main page. And QPQ encourages individuals to pass reviews to ensure their own hooks get passed too. You should be thankful that people are working on these issues at a late stage in order to preserve the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of funny to call it at a late stage. Who else has evaluated the hook other than the nominator, reviewer, and promoter? Isn't the whole point of having a bunch of prep sets filled in advance to allow more eyes to evaluate the hook? And we all know what happens when the hook reaches the queues; now all the administrators suddenly see it and begin tweaking it to their liking. Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

TRM, my father always used to say "Constant dripping weareth away stone." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I need to keep reminding you to recall the DYK rules. Eventually it will get through, so your father was spot on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I proved again and again that I am open to wording changes to hooks that may be clumsy and even wrong due to my lack of English. What I don't like is the notion that I ruin the integrity of the Main page, as I didn't like to be counted among nationalists (also yesterday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's simply a question of whether we enforce the DYK rules unilaterally or not. If we don't, which is being advocated by some here, we should change the rules. If we do, we need to enforce them to maintain the main page integrity, whether it's due to poorly-worded hooks or articles which simply aren't of sufficient quality. It's nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit that comes across as insulting is "integrity". You will have to convince me that a poorly worded or boring hook touches the "integrity" of the page (as a BLP violation would, or a copyright violation). But perhaps that's another of my shortcomings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. I'm working exclusively around here to ensure that hooks meet the basic tenets of DYK and the myriad rules. If articles and/or hooks fail to meet them, I will flag it up. Simple as that, nothing insulting, nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I appreciate your dedication to the rules of DYK, and your disavowal of insult and personally-based conflict. DYK needs both. Impartiality is a hard row to hoe, and persuading people not to feel insulted is a difficult social skill, especially over a plain-text communication channel (and the rules are plain-text, too). I hope I'm succeeding at it here, and that people will tell me when I fail, or when I misinterpret them. Gerda Arendt, I'm sure that The Rambling Man does not consider your behaviour to be dishonest, or your hook to be inaccurate (nor do I, nor anyone). And if Walter Görlitz were to believe that anyone wishing to wikilink the word "Estonia" in the article Arvo Pärt is a genocidal right-wing extremist, I would say that he was more to be pitied than scorned. Your interests are not boring banal ones that everyone shares, but that's a good thing for Wikipedia, and I have every sympathy with it. We're all idiosyncratic here.

As humans, we tend to overestimate other people's hostility to us, even with the much richer cues of in-person interaction.[4] It's horribly easy to write messages that come off more hostile than they were intended. I seem to have done it here, and I apologize. I should have been more patient and not WP:Bludgeoned the discussion. Spending some more time thinking about my replies would have done them no harm.

Returning to our sheep, several people find the four-wing-courtyard line boring. Gerda is OK with dropping it (she requested that it be dropped at the top of this discussion, and it's also in the nom), but she wants a hook about the Renaissance palace. A building incorporating 200-year-older elements is not very unusual, although a Baroque Versailles-mimic palace with a well-preserved Renaissance palace at its heart is. How about something like this?

ALT7: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, a smaller 1500s palace (depicted in engraving) is now surrounded by Versailles-style orangeries, a church-cum-city-hall, extensive stables, and a seven-terraced garden of 3.8 hectares?

That really is multiple orangeries. For when one just isn't enough. I'd like to give some impression of the church, as it is notably impressive, but I can't figure out a concise way to do so. Perhaps it is obvious from context? Comments? HLHJ (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time! I obviouly wasn't clear that I don't mind having a hook discussed, again, and again, and another, again, and again, but I don't like the term integrity being used, as if a boring hook, or one with a language mistake, touched the integrity of the Main page. So: I suggested ALT6, and no reply, and in ALT7, I don't understand "small". It's only small in comparison. As for the church, it's quite unusual that it's under one roof with the town hall. I am no fan of any sizes in figures, because they need "convert". So, a good start. I tried to keep it simple, and like modified ALT3 best. If others like ALT7, I won't protest, and formatted it for the purpose. Someone will have to do the hectares ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Modified ALT7 accordingly; I think you're right about dimensions, sadly, and I'm not sure if "smaller" is needed at all. MB has converted the figures in the article.

ALT8: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, an 18th-century Baroque garden palace contains a 16th-century Renaissance palace (historic engraving pictured)?

ALT9: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, a Versailles-style 18th-century Baroque garden palace contains an eclectic 16th-century Renaissance palace (historic engraving pictured)?

I think the old palace's architecture can safely be called eclectic, and it's concise and hooky. The articles Palace of Versailles, Baroque architecture, and Renaissance architecture in Central and Eastern Europe might give context if needed. We could leave out the word "garden", and call the Renaissance palace a quadrangle or courtyard if it is confusing as-is. HLHJ (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been reading carefully enough again, Gerda Arendt. Your ALT6 (we seem regrettably to have two ALT6s) has some English which sounds slightly off to me; "expanded by several buildings" and "garden in seven terraces". As fixes, "...the addition of several buildings" and "seven-terraced garden" would work, although the bit about buildings still sounds a bit strange. The first "and" can be dropped. My ALT7 suggestion was derived from your ALT6, but could be closer. Yoninah's comment on ALT3, "still not clear how a palace contains a palace" could be resolved by using the colloquial phrase "palace complex" for the sprawling Baroque palace, and "palace" for the contiguous Renaissance building. Discussion seems as though it might have stalled here. I'm not sure how to move on; should we sweep all the hook suggestions into the nomination template (as was done for the European pilchard), and agree on one to offer for promotion? HLHJ (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the lesson ;) - Both ALT8 and ALT9 are fine with me, ALT8 preferred. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I may make you fix my far worse German at some point :). Glad this is sorted, I was feeling bad about it dragging on. HLHJ (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Being moderately new at DYK, I've found reviewers' comments on my hooks really helpful, and I hope to learn to give similar comments. I am learning to judge the degree to which one should pressure a nominator on matters of judgment, and may err; obviously there is some range of views in community standards on this topic, which seems unavoidable. We may also have a source translation problem; the sources use "vierflügeligen Renaissanceschloss" and "Vierseitanlage" as a description of the old palace, which suggests that "four-winged" is a concrete descriptive concept in German in a way that it isn't in English (unless we count courtyard or quad). On proposed hooks, we'd need "in an engraving". Separately, "some Baroque Duke tried to have something like Versailles" made me laugh, and is actually sourcable. Versailles knock-off, with a Renaissance court smack in the middle. HLHJ (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I like that the short version made it, look. Design by a missed friend, banned six years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Working Definition of Antisemitism

This has been stuck for several weeks now even though the RfC that was holding back the nomination has already been closed. A new reviewer is requested to finish reviewing the nomination. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: A daughter and a woman

• ... that in 1903, the 25-year-old daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant became the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives?

@Ivar the Boneful:@Cwmhiraeth:

The wording of this hook is strange; the daughter and the woman refers to the same person. I suggest rewriting it as follows, including the woman's name as also suggested by Gerda Arendt:

ALT1: ... that in 1903, Selina Siggins, daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant, became the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives? Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I like ALT1 better too, since her age is not exactly needed, and more inline with the norms of a standard hook. Alex Shih (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Subbed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That hook is factually incorrect, as she was known as Selina Anderson at the time of her first candidacy. I think her age is interesting enough to be part of the hook. As I said in the nomination, I'm not sure whether the bolding should fall on "first woman" (which might imply we're linking to a list of women candidates) or "25-year-old daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant" (which is quite long). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What about a pipelink then? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Such as:- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that in 1903, the daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant became the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives?

Tomorrow's DYK: query about last hook

At WP:TRM it has been reported that the hook at Template:Did you know/Queue/1 about East Sutherland Gaelic doesn't make much sense, and I would tend to agree - it's not clear from that short passage why some text is quoted, or really what it's all about. Furthermore, I think the fact about it having Jessie Ross as its one and only speaker, which was the first suggested hook at Template:Did you know nominations/East Sutherland Gaelic, is more interesting. @Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: @Catrìona: @Daniel Case: as the noms and reviewers involved with this, do you mind if we change it to something like ... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining speaker?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection to "... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining native speaker?" adding the word native for clarification. Catrìona (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: OK thanks, I've changed it to that now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona thank you, that's a much more impactful hook. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I thought the first hook was much more impactful:

• ALT1: ... that Jessie Ross is the last speaker of East Sutherland Gaelic? Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not really, Jessie Ross is not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Wording it that way implies that she is, and she isn't. Like DYK "that Warwick Armstrong was nicknamed The Big Ship", correctly implies that Warwick Armstrong is notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, that was the reason I omitted her name when I suggested above that we use that version of the hook. It would immediately leave readers wondering who this Jessie Ross is. There might be a way to word it such that her name is put into the mix without implying that we should have heard of her, but I think it's fine as it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining native speaker?" is fine, but please don't use the name "Jennie Ross" in the hook because, as I pointed out in the review, the name is very likely wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty queues

Eight hours to go, nothing populated for tomorrow's main page, tick tock, chop chop! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over fifteen hour ago; here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through September 27. Right now we have a total of 304 nominations, of which 150 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one that remains from August and the five from early September.

Over one month old:

• August 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Meligalas
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Sociophonetics
• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Kaiser Franz Joseph I-class cruiser
• September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/O clap your hands (Rutter)
• September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Mufti Nemat
• September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Black Orchid (comic book)
• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Donte Ingram
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Hines (customizer)
• September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jos Canale

Other old nominations:

• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Willie Borsch
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Raúl Meza Ontiveros
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dorsey Crowe
• September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/CadZZilla (custom car)
• September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Roller
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Germans convicted of war crimes committed in Italy during World War II
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilles Courteau
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Holzer
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Ed McCulloch
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Adipati Dolken
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Ryder Jackson
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS divisions involved in war crimes in Italy
• September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearing World (TV series)
• September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesuit Community Cemetery (Georgetown University)
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Wilhelm Kempf (bishop)
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Apotheosis (film)
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane response
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Hews
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Marienstatt Abbey
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Ledumahadi
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Dennis Albaugh
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Tania Tetlow
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert of Nantes
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 133
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Lamaria
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Vorombe
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilles Bouchard
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Cristatusaurus

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wheels Up

A third opinion is requested here on whether or not the Advert tag added to the article still applies. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Opener (baseball)

Could this be promoted in the next 2 weeks (by October 27 at least) while the playoffs and World Series are going on? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What about timing this to October 23, the first scheduled game of the World Series? By the way since this is a relatively new phenomenon, I think a more generalised hook can be suggested? Alex Shih (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. @Muboshgu: what do you suggest? Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I was saying, I think the approved hook is a bit technical for non-baseball enthusiast. I would personally go for something like ... that the "opener" strategy was employed in the opening game of the 2018 American League postseason? Source: [5] Alex Shih (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliever Ted Power began a game in the 1990 National League Championship Series. Is he the first playoff opener? If he's not, another interesting hook would be explaining why so. Otherwise, Liam Hendriks was called the first playoff opener during this years playoffs.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can retroactively call Ted Power a "opener" in that game when the term did not exist, for the same reason that we would not call Bruce Sutter the first closer in the modern sense to win a Cy Young Award. I agree that explaining why would be interesting too, I imagine it would be something like ... that the idea of "opener" has only been put into practice during the 2018 Major League Baseball season? Source: [7] Alex Shih (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to Template:Did you know nominations/Opener (baseball) so we can continue fine-tuning the hook there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Feuerstein

@Gerda Arendt: "Münster" is not sufficiently well known to stand alone. Propose adding "Germany" (unlinked) at end. Jmar67 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a link to the church (which was on DYK recently) and to Münster, and both mention Germany. It doesn't matter where in the world that is. The artist worked all over Germany. I was included among the nationalists rather recently, and still suffer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Münster is linked. Perhaps the name of the country will be the degree of mystery to get people to click on the hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel strongly that Germany should be mentioned in the hook to provide a frame of reference. And now I would even prefer to replace "Münster" with "Germany". The church link is sufficient otherwise. Jmar67 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6

There is a special occasion hook for October 17th, Ana María Campos, that needs inserting into Queue 6. The request is that the words “190 years ago today” be added to the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There is another hook in the special holding area, Landing of the first Filipinos, that is due to be included in Prep 1, but that one has not yet got a tick for the precise wording of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: For Landing of the first Filipinos, ALT7 has already been given a tick, and while not formally ticked, ALT8 was also approved by the reviewer. I suppose either of the two can be promoted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I promoted the October 18 date request to Prep 1. But I am unable to work with the October 17 date request, as that prep has already been promoted to Queue 6. Could an administrator bring it back? Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Vanamonde93:, @Alex Shih:, @Maile66:, @Casliber: for help here. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

On it. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized there's no flaming hurry, as this queue only appears 24 hours from now. I will make the swap before then, but since we have time, I wonder what folks think of using the image, which is fairly unusual for DYK? The current image is Radamel Falcao, which is an underwhelming image (and an underwhelming hook, to be quite honest). We need to swap one hook out anyhow. Yoninah, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: both images are too dark IMO. Can someone lighten the Campos statue image? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've done that: take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: thanks, that looks a lot better. The hook that was approved for this nomination was not so hooky for a lead slot, but I have been in touch with the nominator, and he suggests this alt:

Ana María Monument, in a square and street both named after her in Maracaibo

• ALT1: ... that Ana María Campos (monument pictured), who died 190 years ago today, was one of the heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence? Yoninah (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that it would be just as effective without mentioning that she died 190 years ago:

ALT2: ... that Ana María Campos was one of the heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence (monument pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash

Just wondering about whether this nomination is technically new enough. It was created eight days before its nomination, but the real time period between the first (non-hidden) edit and the time of nomination is around 7 days 10 hours. I'm pretty sure this qualifies since it's no more than 7 days old, including additional hours. I wanted to get another opinion on this, because one of my own nominations a year ago was proposed a few hours past the 7-day deadline and was still passed. epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Considering the added time was very close anyway, and few really take into account the extra hours, I think that this could have just been allowed anyway per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bockenheimer Depot

Template:Did you know nominations/Bockenheimer Depot - The reviewer left it at the discretion of the promoter, I'd expect the promoter would take one or the other of the hooks. Instead, a different one came up (Prep 4) which has no approval, of course. I don't like it, because the building is not just "a theatre" but a stage for the German Opera which has been the leading one in several years includig 2017, which I tried to say implicitely by mentioning a specific German premiere of an international work. Can we take that? I also believe a picture would say more than 1000 words what kind of building that is, 1900s with modern addition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. But since we have a special occasion image hook for that day, and there are no more open prep sets, I'm returning this to the Approved nominations page for promotion on a different day. Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about struck hooks

Just a question: if a hook is struck by a reviewer in a nomination, is the nominator allowed to unstrike the hook if they disagree, or is unstricking a struck hook frowned upon? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it, if the nominator disagrees with the reviewer's decision. And if they can't reach an agreement, either one can call for a second reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

not a valid user name?

In Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Sibella Brown, I'm getting:

"RoySmith>" is not a valid user name; check for bad characters

My template-fu is not strong enough to find what I did wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Fixed, maybe? I'm no expert, but I mucked around and something seemed to click. Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that fixed it, thanks. I wonder what the original problem was? That text isn't what I actually entered, so I assume it's the result of some transclusion/subst magic. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Super League XXIV

As the nominator and I are unable to come into an agreement on how interesting the propose hook is, a new reviewer is requested to take a look at the hook and review it. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)