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
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
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.

IAR? Question re planned event July 21 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing

Can an article never before featured on DYK and was recently promoted to FA qualify for DYK nomination? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the rationale for their exclusion is that FAs get their turn in the sun via TFA. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any rule that expressly forbids featured articles from being run on DYK, but practically speaking, it would likely be too late to nominate an article for DYK after it was promoted to FA quality. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@feminist, I believe what C&C is asking is whether something promoted direct to FA—i.e., skipping the intermediate GA stage—can still qualify under "newly promoted good article". I'd be inclined to say "no", but I don't believe there's ever been a formal policy written on the matter; it's not something likely to come up very often as few of the people writing at FA level have any interest in DYK. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I am talking about: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger B. Chaffee. I have it penciled inTFA is penciled in for February 15, 2020. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking through the Main Page history and early history, it appears that Chaffee has never appeared in bold anywhere on the Main Page before. It has appeared twice at OTD on 2017 January 27 and 2014 January 27 but was not in bold.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs The GA inclusion dates to Good Article RfC-July 2013. The push for this to happen, was because FA and DYK had their own main page section, but GA had been ignored in that regard. So, just getting something to pass FA, a formidable achievement in and of itself, is not a qualification for DYK. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To qualify this a little more, the intent of this is for a special occasion. WP:S2019 is a planned event (discussed a little on DYK last year) to fill the front page with space related articles for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (July 21 2019). At one point I was going to try to run Apollo 11, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin all at TFA, but it seemed like giving them their own day at TFA was a better idea. My alternate plan is to have Armstrong run at TFA, Aldrin at TFP, Collins at DYK, and Apollo 11 at OTD. Unfortunately, I thought of this after Collins was promoted to GA (and A in MILHIST). He will be running through FAC shortly and should be promoted in time, so we are hoping for an exception for him so he will not be left off the main page when Aldrin and Armstrong are on it. THe other issue is shear number of DYKs; I have been working really hard to get eight Space Race firsts promoted to DYK before the anniversary, but we are trying to have a couple of backup contingency DYKs in case we do not finish in time. Chaffee is one of those. So the second thing I would ask for a concession on is for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if I do not finish the other articles in time. If the other articles are finished in time, we just never run Chaffee at DYK and that is fine with me. To summarize, the two things I am hoping for:

• Concession for Collins to run at DYK on July 21, 2019
• Provisional concession for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if we do not have the other articles ready

Sorry if that is a bit rambly, I was about to head out of the house. Let me know what you all think. Kees08 (Talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If that's the question, the answer is a clear "no", WP:IAR notwithstanding. feminist (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: Why? It's a clear IAR. It's an important anniversary. I'm all for it. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, brainfart. feminist (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the collaborative esprit de corps is best fostered by addressing other editors as "brainfart". EEng 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng: My interpretation of Feminist's comment (accompanied by a relevant strike-through) is "Sorry, [I experienced a] brainfart." —David Levy 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

David Levy, it's me -- remember? Think. THINK. Review my user page if necessary. EEng 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your bon mot seems to have been perceived as bon not. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tough crowd. EEng 02:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It had me cracking up.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, brainfart. EEng 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I changed the above section heading a little for you. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08 why don't you all write this up as an RFC subsection here. Is this a basic request to IAR and make this the lead hook for July 21, 2019? Do you want other editors to aim for a full 8-hook Moon Landing set specifically on that date? Clarify what you want, then people can Support or Oppose, and otherwise offer comments. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think a full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years, would be great, and fully justified. EEng 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you be able to formulate the RfC? Rationale for Collins could also include that I got him to GA recently (ish), but thought he would be run at TFA so did not bother with DYK. EEng, the plan was for one day of hooks that had spaceflight firsts (first earthlings around the Moon, first payload to impact the Moon, etc (try to make it not all about America and diversify it, there is even a French article!)). If we could miraculously get even more DYKs ready in time, we could maybe do a couple a day during the eight-day mission. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin are all now FA, and can be run during the anniversary. I've renominated Michael Collins for FAC. What we need now is some intrepid reviewers to go up there and do their thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have never created an RfC unless you count the one or two move discussions have started. I would hate to inadvertently sabotage it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC Ignore All Rules for 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to IAR. SITH (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

NOTE: The lunar module landed on the moon July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first walked on the moon the next day, July 21 02:56:15 UTC.

Currently the DYK nominiation policy is: Within 7 days of nomination - newly created, or 5X expanded (2X for unsourced biographies), or achieves GA status

Proposed by Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08: Ignore all rules policy in effect to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the July 21, 1969 Moon walk.

Second idea from EEng: A full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years

New articles could be created. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of existing articles and their status:

• Apollo 1 - GA June 6, 2016 - the first crewed mission of the Apollo program for the moon landing. All died in the January 27, 1967 launch rehearsal

Roger B. Chaffee - FA on March 9, 2019, currently a DYK nomination

Gus Grissom - GA on June 1 2017

Ed White (astronaut) - C-class article

• Apollo 11 - FA January 13, 2019, numerous main page appearances in OTD

Neil Armstrong - FA - nominated for TFA by Hawkeye7

Buzz Aldrin - FA

Michael Collins (astronaut) -currently FAC Michael Collins (astronaut) needs reviewers

Support/Oppose/Comments

• Support - We have an opportunity for a once-in-our-lifetime commemoration of the event. Today's Feature Article, whatever they select, will be only one article. POTD (Picture of the Day) has scheduled Buzz Aldrin's bootprint. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Maile66, TFA isn't necessary a single article; it's just that it's rarely appropriate for there to be a double or triple TFA as it means that there need to be two or more existing FAs on the the same topic, neither of which has already run. (Plus, when there are multiple articles on the same topic they're generally written by the same author, and most people aren't overjoyed at the prospect of monitoring multiple articles for the bombardment of stupid to which TFAs are generally subjected; it also has the potential to cause interminable arguments over the order in which the articles are mentioned.) See Nazi blockhouses in France, the Sedin twins, triangular constellations, the Northern and Southern Crowns, the 2008 US elections or pilots shot down on 7 September 1940 for other examples of multi-article TFAs. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. feminist (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, definitely, this sounds like a great idea.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support all hooks related to the spaceflight on July 21, 2019. In terms of the 8-day mission, I could see up to 2 hooks in each set, but not more. Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A great idea - 2 hooks a set for the entire 8-day mission. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm willing to support a) relaxing the nomination time limit, allowing an article (or multiple) that has passed GA but wasn't nominated at the time to be nominated for DYK, and b) the construction of a special occasion set. It's a little unclear whether the list of proposed articles above includes things that have previously been featured in bold on the main page; I would not support running those at DYK, because that's a dangerous precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - sounds like a good plan, and will calm my nervousness about the fact that the POTD is set to be similar to the TFA. If DYK joins the party too then there's safety in numbers. Of course, the Americans will be celebrating this event on July 20, due to their inconsiderate decision to position themselves in the western hemisphere, in a negative timezone... But WP operates on UTC and the articles all quote figures thus so it seems a resasonable choice to do it on that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, actually, on the time zone issue. I've added the UTC figures above, from what is listed in the Apollo 11 article. Moon Landing was July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, followed 19 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Yoninah has mentioned above a 2-hook set each day for 8 days of the mission, which might even be a better idea taking into consideration that Wikipedia is global. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but I have some concerns that this may lead to some kind of double standard: i.e. why do this only for Apollo 11 but not for other similar milestones? This would be a support if this proposal could leave open to the possibility of similar projects being done in the future instead of being a one-off. I also share Vanamonde's sentiment that the DYK stuff should probably be limited to GAs and not articles that don't meet the 5x expanded requirement. Another possibility of course could be a DYK drive for making more new space-related articles for that date, but I guess that's a topic for another time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Conditional support Sure let's relax the rules upon occasion. It should only be done so in the way that Vanamonde proposes and only for events that are of substantial global historical importance. We should not do it for some countries centennial/bicentennial for instance. If this rule had been in effect some of the WWI anniversaries might have thus qualified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support relaxed rules, but keep in mind hat there will probably only few pictured hooks, so if you want something pictured, consider an earlier request. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the current proposed July 21 DYK list is: Michael Collins (lead article), Sputnik 1, Luna 2, Félicette, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Alexei Leonov (Maspalomas Station will replace one of them, TBD). I plan to have them all at the GA level at a minimum. If we decide to do 2/day for the other days of the mission, we can select from existing spaceflight articles that are GA and above, if not enough new GAs are generated. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support being able to run occasional events like this, for exceptional historic events of indisputable global significance. I expect this topic will be well received by readers and draw positive attention. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support: This is big enough that I'm willing to bend the rules for July 21, though I agree with Vanamonde that articles that have previously been featured on the main page in a bold link should prevent them from running again at DYK. I do, however, oppose the idea that we should mine long-standing GAs if we decide to include hooks during the rest of the mission, as proposed by Kees08 just above: if we have the hooks available through regular processes, then we can include one or (at most) two on those days, but only those articles that are new, newly expanded, or new GAs between now and then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, would you be opposed to Collins appearing in DYK on July 21 if he has not appeared in bold before (pretty sure he has not)? Kees08 (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  The Collins talk page has no listing of previous DYK, ITN, or OTD appearances, so I have no reason to oppose there; if someone were to find one, I'd still allow it because it wasn't recorded at the time. The exception being allowed here is that the article was not nominated back in October when it became a GA, so it will be a very late GA nomination. (Get it nominated and approved before it loses GA status and its DYK qualification, which happens if the current FAC succeeds...) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• There appears to be near unanimous support to invoke IAR (including myself) in this very special case. I don't see the need to rely on a technicality when the GA-basis would also require IAR to ignore the late nomination. I can nominate it today; I just did not want to preempt the conclusion of this RfC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Just to clarify the "very special case", the next time we would possibly apply such an exception will be in 2025 (the 80th anniversary of end of WWII).--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset:, @Hawkeye7:, @Coffeeandcrumbs: I want to make sure I understand your meaning above, BlueMoonset. Are you saying that if we nominate Michael Collins now, based on its Oct 2018 GA review, you feel we could IAR for the special occasion? But if we don't nominate it now, and it passes FAC, then the GA qualification is nullified and it would not be eligible for IAR? But if we do nominate it now and get the review passed before FA, the FA rating won't affect it? If all you are talking about is to hurry up and nominate it here, and get it approved, then we should run up a nomination template for it. Hawkeye7 or Coffeeamdcrumbs, if you will open the nomination template, I will review it. Or I would be willing to nominate it myself. A DYK hook is never a set-in-granite situation, and we could make changes later on the hook. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - sounds good. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - this celebrates exciting milestones in the history of humankind. I like the discussion above about this being a "very special case." = paul2520 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a good ideaa, and I would not object in principle to further items of this type. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Just as an update, here is a mock up of how far we have gotten on this project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Prep 2

First of all, the set has two hooks by the same author, which is something that is usually discouraged here. Would it be possible to move one to another set? The Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz hook probably could run on another day since the other hook is intended for Good Friday.

And speaking of Good Friday, I don't really understand what's so quirky about the Popule meus hook. It's hard to understand, seems to focus on too many aspects (is the focus the Improperia or the Trisagion? I would suggest sticking to just one fact), and speaking as a Christian myself, is frankly very bland. Surely, since this is a Good Friday hook, something better than this can be suggested?

Finally, I'm not sure if the current hook for Sophie Alexander is a good idea; isn't that technically a BLP violation? At the very least, it seems a bit too negative for me. How about a hook about her studying nursing or previously playing basketball? Those seem more interesting (and positive) than her getting a concussion.

Courtesy ping nominators Gerda Arendt and Teratix, reviewers 7%266%3Dthirteen and Zanhe, and promoter Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Both the Seven Words and Popule meus work on Good Friday and no other day. (Not on Thursday when not yet on the Cross, nor on Saturday when He doesn't speak. Both are about what Jesus presumably speaks.) Sorry that I wrote both the same year. Popule meus was planned, and the other a spontaneous inspiration. If we have strict rules about no two in a set by same author, drop Popule meus, at all. If you don't want to drop it, you can write what the two terms mean. I thought they are familiar for English-speaking people, because they are the common names used as article titles. How could I possibly know that this is not so? If only two liturgical texts use old Greek, how is it bland to say that this one uses it? It could probably come out more clearly, - always open to wording help. But again, if we can have only one of the two, take the more substantial - unusual - inspiring later composers up to the 21st century - Schütz. Most people where I live will have Popule meus anyway, every Good Friday. I couldn't believe that it had no article. It's not at all quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If the current hook is not at all quirky then that's all the more reason that the current hook can't work. Like I mentioned to you before, not all Wikipedia readers are Catholics, let alone Christians, and many won't even understand what any of these concepts are. Hooks would need to be written in such a way that even, say a Buddhist or an atheist would understand. I actually think the Popule meus hook should be the one that must run on Good Friday, since the reference to the crucifixion there is more explicit. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry: I didn't know in this case that the terms are not familiar. Repeating: when I see Improperia as the article name, I assume that it will be known to the average English-speaking person, and how could I know that it is not? Same for the other. I didn't mean the hook to be quirky, the topic is not quirky.

The approved hook was ... that Popule meus is a motet by Tomás Luis de Victoria, setting refrains from the Improperia for Good Friday, including the Greek-Latin Trisagion?

Both terms appear in a connection to something known, Improperia with Good Friday, and Trisagion with Greek-Latin. I don't think that a reader who doesn't know what Good Friday, Greek and Latin means, will enjoy the article. Someone who does can learn two new terms. If you think that is teaching too much:

fewer terms: ... that Popule meus is a motet by Tomás Luis de Victoria, setting refrains from the liturgy for Good Friday, including the Greek-Latin Three-times Holy?

How is the following "deal": I don't write the article meant for Easter (meant a bit higher up), and may IAR have two on Good Friday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the issue here, hooks are meant to be enjoyed by those who are unfamiliar with the subjects in questions. Hooks are intended to be interesting to a broad audience, not a limited one. You mentioned that you don't think "a reader who doesn't know what Good Friday, Greek and Latin means, will enjoy the article", and that is the main problem here. You seem to be implying that the hook intentionally isn't meant for wide readership, which is simply not how DYK works.

Take for example, the Prep 3 hook on Shah Faesal. Speaking as someone who is not very familiar with Indian or Kashmiri history, I nevertheless find the hook easy to understand and interesting. It appeals to me, an layman. Another example would be the Prep 6 hook on Lydia Purdy Hess. I admit not to know much about paintings other than the most famous names, but I still find the hook interesting because it focuses on an aspect of her life that would be appreciated even by those who aren't familiar with art. And similarly, the said hook is clear, its main hook fact (sketching and painting while flowing on a river) has a broad appeal, and is easily understood. By contrast, the Popular meus hook is something that won't make any sense to those who are not "in the know", and indeed, I would argue that it isn't really good even for people who know what Good Friday or Greek/Latin are.

WP:DYK states that The hook should include a definite fact that is ... interesting to a broad audience, and the appeal of said hook is anything but broad. Think of this way, when writing a hook, try to write a hook as if you're explaining classical music or religion to, for example, a video game player or a fashion designer. Don't try to write a hook that only your fellow classical music enthusiasts would get, that defeats the purpose of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting the following hook for Popule meus, which uses some more familiar terms and adds an interesting fact that may give it more punch:

• ... that in the Good Friday motet Popule meus by Tomás Luis de Victoria, setting the Reproaches, two choirs alternate Greek and Latin versions of the Trisagion? —BlueMoonset (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Adding): while we like to avoid more than one hook by a single author in a set, we sometimes end up running more than one on regular days, so I think a second hook for this one day is not so outre that we should exclude one of them for that reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to reword that BlueMoonset? It's still a bit tricky to read, considering the clause in the middle. Is there a way to present the hook in a straighter way? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) Thank you. I like the hook, and the exception-making. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, we could displace "Good Friday" into that middle clause, which I had considered doing, and attach the clause to the initial segment:

• ... that in the motet Popule meus by Tomás Luis de Victoria of the Good Friday Reproaches, two choirs alternate Greek and Latin versions of the Trisagion?

Does that help? I thought about an initial "in the Good Friday Reproaches motet", but it seemed like an up-front indigestible lump, as opposed to a later mention of "Reproaches" (an interesting word) almost as an aside. This version restructures it so it isn't an aside. It's fine, though I don't think it's quite as graceful as it would be with the bracketing commas. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the version with the bracketing commas, just for comparison's sake:

• ... that in the motet Popule meus by Tomás Luis de Victoria, which sets the Good Friday Reproaches, two choirs alternate Greek and Latin versions of the Trisagion? —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the last option is the best one thus far. Gerda Arendt If you're fine with this wording, it can probably be put back in Prep. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I like the last option too. Gerda? Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As we're talking about the Good Friday set, May I posit that it may be more suitable to use one of the images of the crucifixion in the set on this day which has significance to the majority of the world opposed to the current one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: for a special occasion, we do not adhere to one hook per nominator. See the April Fools set, where The C of E had about 3 hooks per set. The same happens with sporting events when one editor supplies numerous hooks. So Gerda's two hooks are not a problem.
• I opted not to use a Christian image for Good Friday because I thought Easter Sunday would be more widely celebrated around the world, and I would like to use an image for that day. Yoninah (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! currently awaiting approval has such an image @Yoninah:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• @The C of E: thanks. I know you always provide images with your hooks. The reviewer, though, thinks a different image might be in order, and I also left a note about the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I was out, so don't know where to put comments.

• I like the Popule meus hooks by BlueMoonset, and I accept that no image. However, while Easter is widely celebrated, images are a problem, and the one suggested in Christ is risen simply has nothing to do with that specific hymn. In the German Wikipedia, I had a suggestion with abstract art, thinking that Resurrection is better abstract, but the image is threatened with deletion because the art is still under copyright. It's sad because a person pictured just died, - you may have seen that on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll substitute the last hook into prep. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• To answer the OP's concern about the Sophie Alexander hook, concussions are common in contact sports, and there's no shame or negativity (other than in a physical sense, obviously) associated with them. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, but I can't help but feel that a hook that focuses on an injury is not a good idea, it just seems to negative instead of a feel-good story. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when do hooks have to "feel good"? This isn't in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Concussions are accidental and do not reflect poorly on the victim. The hook is neutral, not negative; as Yoninah said, there is no requirement that hooks be positive. Australian rules football is a very physical sport and in a twisted way brutal bumps are part of its appeal to viewers. For example, Steven May's 2016 bump which concussed Stefan Martin made headlines in the UK and US. Being concussed in your first match of professional football is especially unlucky. As the sport is not widely followed outside its native country, it is difficult to compose hooks which will have international appeal. A great many of my previous hooks focus on injuries as they are one of the few ways to ensure they have universal interest. – Teratix ₵ 00:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Easter Sunday image

I would like to ask for broader consensus from the community on the inclusion of this hook in the lead image slot:

Jesus after his Resurrection

• ... that the 1862 Easter hymn "Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen!" (Resurrection scene pictured) by Gurney was virtually unknown until two revised versions were sent to the United States?

Please comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen!. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I have approved ALT2A with the image, and Gerda has approved ALT2 without the image. Promoter's choice. We don't have time to putz around on this, with Easter Sunday being 4 days away. The approved hook has been moved to the appropriate special holding area. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Maile. Since I wrote the hook, someone else will have to promote it. If it doesn't make the image slot, the HMS Splendid has a nice image of the crew (it wasn't submitted with the article, but it's freely-licensed). Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I would say this but I feel it would be more appropriate if we did use the image for Easter, especially if we're not using a Christian image on Good Friday. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I also think we should use the Easter image. I honestly don't see what is the problem with it. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I also would like the image. @Gerda Arendt: posted on my user talk page that she had looked through Commons and saw no image she thought suitable. That being the case, it really needs to be an uninvolved party to make the choice - the promoter should decide. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we please promote this now? The lead image slot for Easter has been kept vacant for this and I am mindful we're running short of time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is on the template, please comment there. The lead slot for Easter Day is open, but not necessarily for this image. It could be a different image, or a different article in the lead position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'd prefer the image to be used but as Easter is tomorrow, this needs promoting either with or without the image as it has hooks approved for both. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aporometra wilsoni has a catchy image, and Template:Did you know nominations/Venetian Renaissance architecture is a substantial article which could go with the bright image of a famous villa, somewhat down in the nom. (I had nothing to do with either.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1

• ... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey of the ochre sea star while it is being eaten?

Ambiguous. Without scanning the article, I couldn't guess who was being eaten: the dire whelk, the prey, or the ochre sea star? Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Also how is this interesting at all? Joseph2302 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I do think it's interesting that one creature eats the prey of another creature while the latter is consuming it. How about:
• ALT1: ... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey of the ochre sea star while the latter is digesting it?

Cwmhiraeth are you available to comment? Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the word "shares" is confusing, if I understand the article. The ochre sea star everts its stomach (flips its stomach inside out, I think) to grab prey. While the ochre sea star is eating what it grabbed, the dire whelk invites itself to the meal and eats on what the ochre sea star is also eating. At least, that's what I think it means. However, I believe these kinds of hooks/articles would be interesting to a varied audience, not the least of which is school kids learning about sea life. Different strokes for different folks, but I think these kinds of articles should be on DYK. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Another possibility:

ALT2: ... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey the ochre sea star is digesting?

Simplifies ALT1. Suggested at WP:ERRORS (as ALT3). Jmar67 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• While I find the hook fact interesting, I nevertheless find it a little confusing. Sharing the prey with whom? Neither the hooks nor the article itself are clear on that aspect. If this can't be resolved, perhaps we may have to drop the suggestion altogether unfortunately.

We could try a different direction if the sharing thing can't be clarified. What about:

ALT3: ... that the dire whelk feeds on winkles, limpets, mussels, barnacles, chitons, worms and other invertebrates?

ALT4: ... that unlike most whelks, the dire whelk does not drill into intact shells, and instead seems to specialize on dead or injured prey?

Still, I think I'd rather prefer the original hook fact if possible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ALT2a: ... that the dire whelk sometimes feeds upon prey that an ochre sea star caught and is digesting?

Is this clearer? MB 17:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It does, the problem is that the hook doesn't exactly reflect the article wording right now. The article itself probably needs to be reworded if ALT2a is to pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I have been unavailable for a few days so missed this conversation. I agree that the hook was somewhat ambiguous but thought that once the word prey had been used, it was apparent who was eating what. The ochre sea star is a voracious predator, and I thought that the fact that the whelk shared the starfish prey was very interesting, as it risked becoming prey itself. Most creatures flee from starfish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like 5,732 readers were intrigued enough to click on it! Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting?

• This "interesting" is something that really bothers me. We have some hooks that say a worm eats mud, and I summarize the greatest achievement of a person, and am not only told that it's not interesting to the general reader, but also the hook struck. As above: general input welcome, Template:Did you know nominations/Bohumil Herlischka. To answer the question for the dire whelk: it's not interesting to me, but may be to others. It's not interesting to me because I am not told what that is, another worm, a fish, whatever in the sea? Readers are different. Some, like me, are foreigners who don't know what a whelk is. Others don't know what an opera is. I think we should broaden the horizon of readers to things they don't yet know and thus are not interested in yet, rather than limiting what we present to their assumed limited interest.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you are getting hung up by your own interest in the field as far as the Bohumil Herlischka nom goes. Yes, staging an opera is a lot of work and, yes, staging six is even more work, AND there's the aspect of introducing the works of one country to the public of another. BUT, at the end of the day, as a blurb, what you are saying is "opera guy does opera". And, yes, the "worms eat mud" hooks are just as bad. "Interesting" should be understood here as "exciting interest". Perhaps a better phrasing would be that a hook should be "intriguing" rather than "interesting". --Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't seen the discussion, and what do you mean by my "own interests". He was instumental in introducing a neglected Czech composer to the Western world. But no, not intriguing, we need Nazi in a hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree, I've noticed hooks certainly tend to get more views if you mention the Nazis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We have ALT7a now. You could approve it. And/or the one about his chief accomplishment. I don't even object to raising the question of "intriguing" in a comment. I was simply offended by the hook which I really thought was a unique thing to say about the man was struck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

1) You have no idea what I have or have not seen. 2) Your "own interest " means only that you know opera and understand what a hook is about even when it isn't explained. 3) "He was instumental in introducing a neglected Czech composer to the Western world." Where was that stated in any proposed blurb? Explicitly stated. Again, the idea is that the hook should not take outside knowledge to understand its meaning and significance. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

22 April

Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales - I approved the bio of a woman in quite a position, with a great image, - her birthday is on 22 April. I know that the day is already planned, but can we work another miracle please? If not pictured, however, better later, - it's too good a smile to be missed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Der kleine Tag which would make little sense any day other than 23 April. Needs a review first, no image, rather quirky ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I slotted in the April 23 hook. The April 22 set is structured to lead with a non-person image, and is preceded and succeeded by person images, so this birthday hook will have to run another time. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I will accept if I have to, but do you realize that 22 April is still a festive day (second day of Easter) in parts of the world, and we have a virus transmission pictured? And that the lady is sort of a First Lady? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: no, I did not know people are still celebrating. But if I swap in a different set, the other sets are peppered with hooks about death. Is that okay for Easter Monday? Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Easter Monday#National observances - Couldn't you just swap the lead hook? - Requiem on Tuesday (The Little Day), a pianist on the Main page who recently died, - it's part of life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks lovely, thank you. How about swapping hooks 2 and 3, to not have two women in a row? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. You didn't mind it when lots of women hooks ran in March. I'll honor your request, but I think you're looking too closely at the hooks. And we try to alternate bios and non-bios, which is why it took me a lot of time to reorganize the sets for you. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for making you sigh. I was just noticing, and tried to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Der kleine Tag

I agree that the hook fact is really cute: however, the hook fact comes from the fact that 23 April is a plot point of the article subject (a story and later a musical). For clarification purposes, would this hook fact count as in-universe information and therefore not be allowed, or does it still meet the criterion of relating to the real world in some way? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's approved now, but the prep is full. And what about the lady above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's in prep, but looks to me like the 23 April hook is in the set for 24 April. And the lady? Happy Easter! (see my talk for an two images and music) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Current image has reported copyright issues

There is a complaint about the copyright status of the current image on main-page errors. Could an expert look into this urgently, please? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the evidence I would say likely copyvio. Kees08 (Talk) 05:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have hidden it and requested protection of the similar image, but am going offline now, so someone else will have to add it, if they judge the copyright status adequate (I'm not sure if such a close variant can be free if the original is protected, but I am no expert on US copyright). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ETA: The bot protected it as I was typing, so the variant is up now. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As a note, that replacement image is also a copyvio, as it is a clear derivative of the original 1990 image. --Masem (t) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (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 #4 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) 22:07, 20 April 2019 (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 #5 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, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago with 28 still-unreviewed old nominations, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 3. Right now we have a total of 256 nominations, of which 94 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from last year, the two from January, and the four from February.

Delayed due to April Fools' Day and other issues:

• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Kryczka (two hooks ready for review)

Over three months old:

• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir
• December 27: Template:Did you know nominations/XIX Army Corps

Over two months old:

• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Composite Nationalism and Islam
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Mazeno Peak
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Nubra River
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Dolo hospital airstrike
• February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Charibael
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

Over one month old:

• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Ramesh Sumant Mehta
• March 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Werner Schneyder
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Montgomery Williams
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahendra Nath Pandey
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Morpeth, Northumberland
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Given (manga)
• March 18: Template:Did you know nominations/J. H. Curle
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Coach's Corner
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang Meyer
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Captain (2019 film)

Other old nominations:

• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Hesse
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Raja Koduri
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Sylvia Geszty
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Croydon Aerodrome robbery
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Strong and stable
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Samra (rapper)
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Noel Marshall
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Amazing Grace (2018 film)
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/János Gerendi
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Miriem Bensalah-Chaqroun
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Pavlos Kouroupis
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on North Korea's embassy in Madrid
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Knüffeln
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Five precepts
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nasir-ud-Daulah
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Shirou Emiya
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Vera Deakin White
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Mubarez-ud-Daulah

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) 06:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing credit plus a hayloft

The following credit should be added to Queue 1:

* {{DYKmake|Yoga for women|Chiswick Chap|subpage=Yoga for women}}

(A {{DYKnom}} for the article is already present.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also in Queue 1, the seventh hook includes "hay‑loft". It should be "hayloft", unless that's British usage (which I don't think is the case; a Google search didn't find any instances of "hay‑loft"). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

These still haven't been taken care of. ‎Gatoclass? Maile66? Amakuru? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added the missing credit - I didn't change the spelling of "hay-loft" because it looks like a legitimate alternative spelling and I'm not sure the other spelling is preferable, but I have no objection if somebody else wants to change it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I've changed it to the requested spelling. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Renomination procedure?

I just did a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler). This was originally nominated after it was created, but it failed because it was outside of the 7 day window. Now it has passed GA and qualifies. The nominator blanked the original and replaced it with a new nomination. Just wanted to check here that this is ok, and that a separate nomination page isn't preferred. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's the usual practice here, what's usually done is that a new nomination is created even if there's already a previous one. The blanking should probably be reverted since an archive is still needed of the original nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I can do some copy/pasting, I suppose, but it would probably be better for an admin to preserve the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A separate nomination page should definitely be made (with a slightly different name, or an added "2" to the template page), and the previous nomination should be restored to how it was when it was closed. Amakuru, Maile, can one of you handle this? The original page should go through 20 September 2018, while the new page should cover yesterday and today. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: @Rhododendrites: @Narutolovehinata5: @Diogenes99: I have done a history split on this, as requested. So the original nom, with the history up to 20 September, is still at the original page, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler), while the current nom is now located at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coles (settler) (2nd nomination). Hope this is OK, and let me know if there any further issues. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 and 6

Prep 6

• ... that the arrest of Gilberto García Mena marked a shift in how the Mexican government confronted drug cartels?

@MX and Kingsif: While I suppose this is an okay hook, it probably could be better. It seems too vague (i.e. it doesn't explain what kind of shift happened), and unless that was the point of the hook, then I don't really see this working out. Perhaps a more explicit hook (i.e. mentioning the shift from passiveness to aggressive actions against drug cartels) could be a better option here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought the vaguety made it rather interesting, I still do, but will concede that I have read the finely detailed article. You could say "that the arrest of García marked when the Mexican government stopped treating drug cartels passively and instead hunted them down?" Kingsif (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The vagueness was the purpose of the hook, but I'm perfectly fine with explaining what the shift was. Is this hook good enough? "... that the Mexican government shifted from a passive to aggressive approach against drug cartels when they arrested Gilberto García Mena?" MX (✉ • ✎) 14:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• ... that Bent Norup, a Danish heldenbaritone, recorded the role of Orest live in France, alongside Ute Vinzing as Elektra and Leonie Rysanek as Chrysothemis?

@LouisAlain, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't really see why Vinzing and Rysanek need to be mentioned here when the focus is supposed to be on Norup. And if you take those mentioned away, you end up with an "actor X did role Y" hook, which is honestly not very intriguing (it would be like writing a hook that went "DYK that actor Josh Brolin played Thanos in Avengers?"). I took a look at his article and there seem to other possible hook suggestions that aren't "he did this role", such as him taking vocal lessons while being an apprentice in a bank, or that he appointed to the Order of the Dannebrog (which apparently is a big deal in Denmark). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, they don't have to be mentioned, but mentioning two leading ladies of opera (ever) gives hime more stature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Again: there are many who take early singing lessons, and many who get appointed to the Order, - nothing specific to him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're into opera, you'll know who these singers are and you'll click on the article. If you're not into opera, you won't click on it. I think it's hooky enough for people who are into opera. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

• ... that Rosl Schwaiger appeared as Mozart's Blonde at the Salzburg Festival in 1945 and the Glyndebourne Festival in 1957?

@LouisAlain, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: As above, this is also an "actress X did role Y" hook. Can a different hook be suggested here? The fact about her being one of the most popular singers at the Salzburg Festival might have potential. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not for me, - add "one of her signature roles" if you have to (but that could go without saying), but don't say something that can be said about many others. Please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I promoted this, and I stand by it, The fact that she was singing the same roles at major festivals 12 years apart is noteworthy. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah! - I don't feel understood often on this page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ānanda

Now in Prep 5: the lead hook saying that Wagner wrote an opera about Ānanda. No he didn't, - let's discuss that before we get to ERRORS. He wrote a draft for a libretto for an opera, - not even a complete libretto. That's not what is normally understood as "wrote an opera" which implies he wrote the music also. There are many other hooks in the nom, and chosing one of the others might be the easiest way out. - If a hook around Wagner is reworded, I don't think that we need "German" for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ps: Instead of "German", better link to the little bit that he wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

Is it just me, or is the hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review (which basically says "Northern Ireland's second city is called Londonderry, end of discussion") a really, really bad idea? If it hits the main page, in the light of the shooting of Lyra McKee and rioting in Creggan, people will see a statement appearing to give credence to one side of the Unionist / Nationalist debate, where people want a call for a calm and united condemnation of what's happened. Wikipedia has a good chance of getting in the news for all the wrong reasons. This is not a neutral DYK, and can never be. The C of E self-identifies as a British Unionist and Brexiteer, and consequently I can't help feeling this is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a (political) point. FWIW, I stayed well away from putting Bollocks to Brexit up for DYK for the same reason. Your thoughts, please. Full disclosure : Lyra McKee is a friend of a friend. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• *stares disbelievingly* That absolutely needs to be NOT on the main page, certainly for the forseeable future, and definitely not at the moment. And the author needs to have it made very clear to them that DYK is not here for them to push their political beliefs. WP:POINT violations are blockable, and they need to understand that very clearly. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• This is not the first time that C of E has attempted to put up a hook that seeks to make a point. I'm too busy to dig diffs at the moment; I will later if someone asks for them; but they are either not getting the point, or are getting it and doing this sort of thing anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)