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.

More preps?

It seems a common problem is that prep areas get filled up before an admin can move them to queue. Is there any reason why the number of preps is limited to 6? Could we just add more preps or is that like widening a highway? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is really looking at the filled sets until they're moved into the queue. So I don't see why the queues can't stay filled and the preps empty and ready for more. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

After having several times moved preps to queues that I knew I wouldn't be able to personally check, I've been reliably informed that violates WP:ADMINACCT, and that's not something I want to be accused of. I don't know the answer to this other than we need more admins willing to work at DYK or we need to let non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues. There's a good likelihood I will have a quiet uninterrupted chunk of time the morning of the 9th; I can probably move at least one set then. --valereee (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: believe in yourself as much as the majority of us believe in your being a danged good admin we are proud to have among us. And grow a thick skin. There are a lot of reasons why admins aren't promoting, some of them personal that we will never know. Some just have other priorities at a given time. And some wanted a break from being "reliably informed". Get my message, babe? You're one of the best we have. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: As the guilty party here, let me second what Maile66 said. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: and @Vanamonde93:, you're both very kind! I didn't mention that to complain about being informed, just to explain why I was reluctant to continue to do that. I literally do not want to be consistently doing something that goes against what we've as a community decided our policy/procedure should be, even if I was doing it for the "right" reasons. :) I was absolutely not upset or offended or anything else bad in any way to have it brought to my attention, and appreciated it. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: A possible answer to your question: It's an orderly process that works. Please note that the Queue number is filled with hooks from the like-numbered Prep. You promote Prep 1 to Queue 1, etc. The chart that gives local update times, gives a prep promoter an idea of which prep should be filled with any given Special Date request. Start having more prep sets than queues, and it gets confusing on that issue alone. Also, you open the door to whether or not the next prep was moved to the next queue. Maybe some admin would like a different Prep better than another, and decides to move that one to the top of the list. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good reason to not add more preps. Valereee floated the idea of letting non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues; has anyone ever considered lowering the protection level of the queues to template protectedMight and assigning WP:TPE to some regulars who build preps? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There used to be less preps than queues. The number of preps was expanded from four to six in September 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Might help to know who have that right Category:Wikipedia template editors. I would trust you to do that, and maybe a few others on that list. Might be a good discussion to have. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers/templateeditor is a more complete list of users with the right. Lowering to template protection would increase the number of people who can edit queues by about 175. We'd probably want a discussion wider than WT:DYK before doing so since it would effectively change policy on who can edit the main page and change the scope of template editor rights. Who knows, maybe ITN or OTD would want to go in on a mainpageeditor user right and mainpageprotect protection level to go along with it. Or maybe it's time to spin-out editfullprotect from the admin tools. I'm just thinking out loud at this point though. Let's see what ideas others have. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a template editor. The idea of allowing template editors has been floated before more than once, and always foundered on the fact that the main page is sacrosanct. I would feel reluctant to undertake such work given that the community rejected my application for the admin toolkit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I would favour broader access for the queue pages, because I can't help but think that it would lead to more issues, not fewer - and unresolved issues are the real concern. It would be easy for me, for example, to move a bunch of preps to the queue pretty much every day, but like Valereee I am very reluctant to do so if I haven't had time to do a thorough check of the set. And since I got into the habit of only loading a set when the queue was empty, I haven't had much to do lately as every time I drop in there are sets in the queue. But it really doesn't matter if the prep area is full, so long as there is a set in the queue ready to go to the main page. If the prep area is full, that means virtually a full week's worth of sets ready to go, there's no rush to prepare yet more. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of having 6 prep areas and 6 queues, we can load hooks straight into a date specific page, e.g. Template:Did you know/2019-10-18. This page would automatically get cascade protected within two days of being transcluded to the main page (this system works perfectly with WP:OTD). Advantages include:

• No need for admin intervention (unless hooks are changed within two days of featuring).
• Simplify the whole process. No need to copy to prep, then copy to queue, then copy to main template.
• Better archive of what hooks appeared on which day.
• Easier to manage hooks for specific days. The "Special occasion holding area" would be superceded.

In fact I don't think I can think of any disadvantages apart from the work involved in the transition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: @BlueMoonset: @Cwmhiraeth: @Amakuru: @Gatoclass: Please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. So, your idea is to eliminate admins from the process. If nothing else, admins are supposed to add a layer of checking if everything was done correctly in prep. Prep builders can be just about anybody, whether they have a day's experience on DYK, or a year. Do we really want something hitting the Main Page without that final level of eyes checking the set? Also, not everybody who requests a special date gets one. There are requirements for that. Please see Date_requests. Your suggestion seems to be one where the nominator can request a special date and automatically get it because they want it. It seems to me that your proposed method eliminates a final level of checks and balances for what appears on the main page. Is that what we want? If so, why not just completely eliminate the restrictions on all levels of what is on the main page? — Maile (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, in fairness to prep builders, it can be a complicated process. By your method, how does the system choose which is the lead (picture) hook? Our prep builders work very hard to strike a geographical/subject balance within the prep sets. And in the process, prep builders often move hooks around from one prep set to another. It can be a complicated process, and I'm not sure prep builders ever get adequate credit for the hard work they do behind the scenes. Not sure how your suggestions affect human talent for that. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Maile, I have no idea why you pinged me. I never said anything about eliminating administrators from the process. All I said earlier was that all the preps were full and I had nothing to do. So I've gone back to reviewing nominations and content creation. Personally, I feel it's good that administrators like Gatoclass and others review the nominated articles. And there is so much last-minute activity at DYK, what with people reporting to ERRORS often in the last hour before promotion, that we need administrators on board to continue doing their thing. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh ... I pinged you because you are such a prolific prep builder and might want input, or otherwise have a feel for what would happen if admins were eliminated from the process. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ's suggestion is basically what we used to have years ago. The reason we went to separate prep and queue areas is because users would come along and make last minute changes that were problematic, so we made it that only administrators would be able to edit the sets that were ready to go to the main page. Having DYK geared to specific dates wouldn't work either because we go to 12-hour or even 8-hour cycles sometimes. OTD is also basically run by one administrator, and there is no self-interest involved because people aren't trying to promote their own articles or get their own preferred hooks onto the main page as occurs with DYK, the two projects are very different. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose MSGJ's proposal: not a good idea, doesn't fit our process, removes admin oversight of material being moved to the main page (oversight is a plus, not a minus), and locks us into one set per day, which is clearly inadequate to handle our load over the long term: in short, lots of disadvantages. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• (No need for the bold statements BlueMoonset, this is just a discussion.) I am certainly not interested in changing the DYK rules or reducing the amount of oversight. My only motivation is improving the mechanics of the process. I know that OTD is a different process but I still think the way it operates would work here and be an improvement on the current clunky system. If you wanted to maintain the admin oversight, the admins would be checking the pages rather than actively copying it them to a different page. It would be also straightforward to preemptively protect (e.g. extended confirmed) all those pages in advance if this was thought necessary. (I only mentioned it because on other parts of this page, some people are discussing the lack of admins to do this work, or whether the protection of the queues could be lowered.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• MSGJ Just a thought on your statement that " ... the admins would be checking the pages rather than actively copying it them to a different page." In theory, everybody could be checking them. Everybody can also check the Main Page. If they were not, there is no way to prove the negative. If they checked, but nothing needed changing, there is no way to prove they checked. It is AGF that all admins check the individual hooks when they move a set from Prep to Queue. The edit history, as well as the bot template placed on the individual Queue, is proof of who made the move, and we AGF they made the checks. Remove that step, and there is no proof whether admin eyes looked at a hook or not, unless they had to edit a given hook. And without that, it would be natural for admins to assume some other admin checked, so they don't have to. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

I know different people have different ideas about what's interesting (or even understandable), but what is interesting about someone being engaged to marry someone they've known since childhood? (... that property developer Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is engaged to marry Princess Beatrice of York, whom he has known since childhood?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC) -- and nominator Surtsicna. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As suggestions, I think something like these would be more interesting:

ALT1: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, helped to design the engagement ring himself?

ALT2: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, co-founded a charity in Rwanda that aims to use cricket to buildfoster social change?

RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally, ALT2 (which I've relabeled since "ALT1" was listed twice) sounds more interesting, although ALT1 may be of interest to royal family enthusiasts. My only concern is that ALT2 is a bit vague on what kind of "social change" is involved, though I suppose it might entice readers to read the article to find out more. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I only started the article as a redirect to Beatrice and had no role in the hook, although I agree that is hardly "interesting". We are somewhat constrained by it being a BLP, but perhaps some sort of meta hook might be worth considering. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, has a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia?

As cute as ALT3 is, if ALT3 isn't in the article and/or can't be cited, it can't be used. Sorry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. His biological father and both stepfathers are linked to from his article, and his relationship to all three of them is cited. Obviously, we are not going to find a third party reliable source for "a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia", but it is manifestly self-evident. Surely a case can be made for not complying with one of the DYK rules, in the spirit of WP:COMMONSENSE? Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that's likely, considering the rule that hook facts must be in articles is perhaps the most strictly enforced DYK rule, and in the past many hooks have been pulled for not properly complying with it. I think the only time such a hook could fly would be on April Fools Day, when rules are more relaxed, but otherwise a more serious hook would be needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think ALT2 works best; hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, Narutolovehinata5. And I agree with you and Yoninah that ALT2 is better than ALT0 or ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and subbed in ALT2 in prep; courtesy ping to Surtsicna to inform them of the change. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I somehow missed both these pings and was wondering when the hook was changed. Anyway, thanks for chipping in! Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Full protected edit-request

On Template:Did you know/Queue please change the line

Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed.

to

Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and the nomination re-added to Template talk:Did you know.

WP:DYK/Removed is historical and not used. This talk page is the de facto place where removed hooks get discussed. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's be careful with the updated wording. While the /Removed page is historical, it is not always necessary or even desirable to discuss a removed hook here. Sometimes the removal is straightforward, and the place to discuss the removal is the reopened nomination template—it happens all the time. The idea behind the /Removed page was to have an ongoing record of how often nominations had to be pulled from prep/queue/main page, and what the reasons were. If it wasn't desirable to retain that information, I see no reason to post to this page unless necessary. (Usually, the discussion takes place here in the hopes that a removal will not be necessary.) What does need to be done in the case of a removal is having the nomination template reopened and (as you note) the template transcluded to the nominations page. So I'm opposed to the proposed wording as is, since it's not what we do. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: is there a phrasing you'd prefer? Maybe something like ...should have their nominations re-added to WP:DYKN and, if necessary, notification to WT:DYK? Feel free to edit this proposal as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, let's keep it simple: Hooks removed from the prep areas or queues for unresolved issues should have their nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. If someone wants to post to WT:DYK, they obviously can, but it isn't a necessary step. Similarly, hooks removed from the main page may or may not be reopened depending on how long they actually ran on the main page (a couple of hours, probably yes; many hours, probably no)—it's a similar process, but doesn't involve preps or queues. We don't want an exhaustive description here, just the minimum that needs to be done to get the pulled nomination back into the DYK system. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, perhaps nominations reopened and retranscluded at WP:DYKN instead of nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. Just a thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, could we just move the header information to a subpage and transclude it? That way we could make this kind of change through the regular brd cycle, and the info could be kept more up to date since more than just admins could maintain it. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I know this came up around 2016 on that discussion page. And I understand why you say it was established (c. 2011). But the fact of the matter is, each nomination going back that far has a closed nomination template. The record is there on each of those templates. If we ever wanted to go back and do some kind of analysis, there is surely a bot that could do it better. If we delete all those pages, and keep the closed templates, we are deleting nothing but a bunch of lists that were never really used for anything. So why re we keeping this? — Maile (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why delete those pages? Is there a crying need for disk space? There is historical information there that may prove valuable... or not. (Should a bot be created that can do the analysis you suggest, and matches the Remove data, then a deletion could make sense.) I also don't think moving some information onto a subpage is going to help with a protected page; protections tend to propagate down to subpages, at least if done properly. And never really used for anything isn't accurate; I know I was paying attention to trends at the time, and doubt I was the only one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note as far as I can tell, there is no need for this subtemplate to be fully protected because it is not transcluded on the main page. Can anyone confirm/deny this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, the page itself controls which queue is considered to be "next", which in turn is what the DYKUpdateBot uses to decide which queue to promote to the main page next. Allowing non-admins to edit the page means there's a chance a vandal can mess up what determines the queue that gets promoted next, which would be highly unfortunate. Unless you see something I don't, I wouldn't remove the full protection. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We could always lower it down to template protection as a compromise, although I understand that it's an unpopular opinion among Main Page regulars. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the "what is next" coming from Template:Did you know/Queue/Next? In any case "directions" should not be fully protected, if necessary to keep the page content protected, move the direction to a /doc page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which instructions you to refer to. The "Instructions on how to promote a hook" is merely a transclusion from a template. There are a lot of templates in the DYK process. I couldn't say right off which are protected and which are not, but they probably have template protection. Don't know for sure. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, in looking at the above link, everything on that link is a transcluded template from elsewhere. With the exception of the lead paragraphs, but even within those are template transclusions. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux for confirming my suspicions. I have lowered the protection of this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've created Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions which is a fork of the existing instructions. Can the page be edited so that the subpage of instructions is transcluded on the Queue page? For those who aren't familiar with this pattern, see WP:GAN which has its instructions on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines and has a lower protection level (none) than the page it is transcluded on (semi). We can do something similar here: transclude Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions on Template:Did you know/Queue and give the instructions page a lower protection. This way the rest of DYK regulars can maintain the documentation without needing the ability to edit through full protection and there's no risk of vandalism making it to the mainpage. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have lowered the protection, so you can edit this page yourself now. If you still think the instructions should be in a separate page, then go ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  MSGJ, Wugapodes, at the moment, it appears that all non-level-2 sections on the page have two edit links, one to the source of the protected queue, and one to the code that generates the proper queue for that section. Can we please have this page restored to the point where there is only one edit link? This is incredibly confusing and not at all helpful to people who use this page regularly. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have added __NOEDITSECTION__ to suppress these extra links — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hopefully, all is ok on this now. I personally object to instructions being moved elsewhere. DYK is convoluted enough with rules and instructions being in different places, and users not knowing what is where - much less that they are supposed to know about something they never knew existed. Please, let's leave the instructions where they are. Don't make it more of a maze for the users. Enough is enough. — Maile (talk)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The late-summer run of twice-daily sets was so successful in reducing the backlog of unpromoted and unapproved nominations that there are still many fewer than usual non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are only ten such nominations, those through October 5, all listed below. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ten.

Over one month old:

• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Mai Khôi
• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Madara Uchiha
• September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/bbno$

Other old nominations:

• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Hadley
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943
• September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Mohr (tenor)
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Renatus Mészár
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Niamh McEvoy (two articles)
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/WACH-TV (Virginia)
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Toki Pona
• October 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Memory: The Origins of Alien
• October 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Drosophila subobscura
• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Tijl Faveyts
• October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Der Ring in Minden

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) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As already above: the birthday of Thomas Mohr is 17 October, a hook is already found, should be an easy review althought the discusion was longish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for Queue 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Mohr (tenor) has been approved for an October 17 showing. Could an administrator please replace one of the bio hooks in Queue 1 with this? Pinging Maile, Valereee, Gatoclass, Casliber, Amakuru. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah. To offer more work - sorry that we argued over the hook for too long, and I forgot to add the facts to the article ;) - how about a two-step swap: there's a tenor in the queue for 16 (Enea Scala), who could go any time later, to avoid two tenors (and also two of "my" hooks) in close succession. - Even more: the Naked-rumped tomb bat, wouldn't that be better on Halloween than 16 October, even with that image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For Halloween, there's already a Halloween darter and a Coffin Cave mold beetle, with the possibility also of a skeleton frog! If it's OK to have half a set filled with fauna, we could add the Naked-rumped tomb bat to the line-up! Will there be any non-fauna hooks relevant to Halloween, I wonder? (Actually, Lilias Adie would be a possibility.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, RebeccaGreen. I moved the witch to the special occasions holding area for Halloween. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have moved Thomas Mohr to queue 1 - but I'm thinking the current lead in q1 q6, "Nighthawk Cinema", would also fit in quite well with the Halloween theme, should we move it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the Mohr move, indifferent to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

... which is in Q6 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually I changed my mind about that - Halloween is still two weeks away and we should be able to find a better lead. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Naked-rump tomb bat - halloweenish by just the name, no? Do we really want to waste that tomorrow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Per Rebecca, we already have three Halloween-related fauna hooks, so I don't think we need a fourth. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Another possibility for Halloween might be the Grateful Dead song Dire Wolf. I'm not even really into Halloween (it's pretty new in Australia), but it's fun thinking of hooks that relate to it! RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And we have the witch in Scotland; I placed it in the special occasions holding area for Halloween. Yoninah (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 28 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Roxburgh with a special occasion request for October 28. Thank you for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed, minor questions. The move request should be solved before it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help tweaking ALT2? I have done my best to reword it, but I am having writer's block today. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How about tweaking the original, as suggested in the nom. I can't, or we need a different reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: Jelly Donut

• ... that Merryll Saylan's Jelly Donut (pictured) is on display at the Mint Museum in Charlotte?

@Soulbust:@Gerda Arendt:@97198:

I've been watching this nomination and am surprised that it passed with the hooks that were suggested. The artwork is not notable (no Wikipedia page) and the hook tells us nothing about it. Maybe the hook should focus on the artist instead, and use the artwork as illustrative of her work. I've moved it out of the image slot to accommodate a special occasion request a few prep sets back, but I would like to see a better hook for the lead image slot. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We are told again and again that something doesn't have to be notable as long as it appeals to the general reader. I don't know any rule requesting that everything mentioned in the hook has to be notable, and found it a bit quirky, and raising interest. The hook tells us that her art is in a notable museum, - not every artist achieves that, and that she has a sense of humour, which is enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, looking at it without an image, do you really think the hook is hooky? Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I do, with or without the image, because I wonder how a jelly donut can be on display in a museum. So then I read and discover that she made it out of wood and other materials. So yes, I think it's a good hook. If the hook said "turned wood and polyester resin", it would tell us too much. And I think it's more interesting than something like "did you know that Merryll Saylan is one of the few women woodturners / helped to pioneer woodturning", or whatever. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that Merryll Saylan made a wooden jelly donut? Sometimes saying less is more intriguing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Very true - though I think that ALT1 tells me more than ALT0, and is therefore less intriguing! RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, so we'll leave it in a non-image slot and see how many hits it gets. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: 1959 San Diego F3H crash

F3H-2N Demon of Fighter Squadron VF-121 in 1956

• ... that in 1959, an estimated 700 people on the ground were saved when Ensign Albert Hickman stayed with his stalled aircraft (pictured in 1956)?

@RightCowLeftCoast, Maile66, and Yoninah: This set has a picture of an airplane of the same model and from the same squadron as the one that crashed. The hook currently implies that Hickman's plane is the one in the picture, but I can't find any evidence for this in the associated article, the file description page, or otherwise. Can someone confirm that this is the case? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually on nomination 1959 San Diego F3H crash, there was never any "pictured" in the hook. Only the image offered. Suggest the below solution. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• ... that in 1959, an estimated 700 people on the ground were saved when Ensign Albert Hickman stayed with his stalled F3H-2N Demon aircraft (example pictured)?
  • According to this serial number search, the F3H 3573 (the pictured aircraft was "modified as test bed for AN/APQ-50 radar for F4H-1 Phantom". So sounds like definitely they are not the same. I know its not the most reliable of sources, but that's the best I could find. Maile's solution seems good. Kees08 (Talk) 15:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Replaced in prep. Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Shiwei, Inner Mongolia

This may be a case of ENGVAR, but I find the wording of this hook a little strange:

• ... that Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, near the China–Russia border, is home to descendants of mixed marriages of Han Chinese and ethnic Russians starting at the end of the 19th century?

To me, it would be more natural to say something like:

• ALT1 ... that Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, near the China–Russia border, has been home to descendants of mixed marriages of Han Chinese and ethnic Russians since the end of the 19th century?

What do others think? Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs or it is a case of WP:ENGVAR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree your wording is better, but the hook is still hard to parse.

• ALT2 ... that about 2000 Russian-Chinese live in the Mongolian village of Shiwei, near the China–Russia border?

What about this? MB 14:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Or,

• ALT3 ... that Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, near the China–Russia border, is home to about 2000 people of Russian-Chinese descent?

RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add the 2,000 people figure into the article because I wasn't sure if it was accurate. I've added more content related to the Russian descendants from an academic source to bring some clarity to the history of the mixed marriages. Villagethings (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I also thought something was strange about the hook wording, but I don't know if ALT1 is correct. I thought the hook was trying to say that the marriages started in the late 19th century, not that the descendants have lived there since then. Let's ask the nominator Villagethings. Yoninah (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

ALT3 is definitely the clearest, but to me it seems a little too... mundane. It seems quite unremarkable that a border region would be home to people of mixed descent. Is there another fact that could be found for this article? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The nominator's first suggested hook was thought too mundane as well. The only other thing I can see is this, perhaps:

• ALT4 ... that the bridge at Shiwei, Inner Mongolia across the China–Russia border is not open to passenger traffic?

or something like that. Or,

• ALT5 ... that Chinese tourists travel to Shiwei, Inner Mongolia to look across the border at Russia?

RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I like the wording "ALT1 ... that Shiwei, Inner Mongolia, near the China–Russia border, has been home to descendants of mixed marriages of Han Chinese and ethnic Russians since the end of the 19th century?" a lot better too! Villagethings (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another birthday

Template:Did you know nominations/Dirk Müller (stock trader), - his birthday is 25 October, review needed first. I am happy about today's quirky Thomas Mohr (tenor) on his birthday, - thanks to all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was reviewed! Thankful --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The first flight of the second production of the first jet aircraft designed in China

In Queue 2, nominated by Zanhe:

... that Yu Zhenwu conducted the maiden flight of China's first indigenously designed jet aircraft and, decades later, became Commander of the People's Liberation Army Air Force?

The article does not say who piloted the maiden flight of the first aircraft; it only says that it crashed in its test flight. Yu Zhenwu test piloted the second one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: The maiden flight of a new aircraft normally refers to the first successful flight. Failed tests are not considered maiden flights, at least in all the sources I've seen. See GlobalSecurity article, for example. -Zanhe (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the usage on Wikipedia, a maiden flight is "the first occasion on which an aircraft leaves the ground under its own power". That article lists a notable maiden flight of a rocket which "flew for 80 seconds until an engine failure caused it to crash into the sea". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yu Zhenwu is supported by multiple sources calling his flight the maiden flight (one in English and several in Chinese), whereas the maiden flight article is almost completely unsourced. Besides, the criteria of maiden flight for aircraft and rockets are different. Aircraft flights must land safely to be considered a success, whereas rockets only need to be successfully launched, as they always crash on landing, whether on target or not. If we really want to be pedantic, we could change "maiden flight" to "first successful flight", so we don't waste our time arguing over the minutiae. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So change "maiden flight" to "first successful flight". I don't care how terrible our article maiden flight is, to me (and I'm sure most other readers) it means "first flight" regardless of how that ended. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite. Yes, that would be a good change to make, and I disagree with the characterization of this as being pedantic. As far as I can see, the English source listed does not refer to it as a "maiden flight" (nor does it mention the crash of the first one). While people in the aviation industry may have a different standard for the term (although I haven't seen any proof that that's the case), the general use of "maiden" is very clear to the average reader. Nobody disputes that the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage. Yes, ships and airplanes and rockets and puppy dogs are all different things, but people know very well what a maiden voyage is, and will assume that a maiden flight is a maiden voyage of an aircraft, and will perceive it as an error if we say that it was the maiden flight of the first aircraft, when in fact the first one crashed, and the one being referred to was actually the second. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I disagree that "most other readers" would agree with you. If you search up the first flight of the Wright brothers, virtually all reliable sources (e.g. US NPS and The Wright Brothers: First in Flight (Chapter 9)) refer to their first successful flight on December 17, 1903, not their failed attempt (or "partial success" as they called it) a few days earlier. BTW, the Wright brothers article is far better sourced than the maiden flight one. That being said, I don't mind changing the hook to "first successful flight", just to avoid wasting more time on this pointless argument. -Zanhe (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I also interpret "maiden flight" as not including unpublicized test flights hence why I approved that hook. I see the concern but it seems like it's more a matter of different people using the same term for different purposes. Note that e.g Collins Dictionary uses "It is more than 40 years since the original jumbo jet's maiden flight from New York to London." as an example of using "maiden flight" but our article strongly indicates that it was not the first flight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone was unaware, there was an RfC recently related to these terms. Not trying to influence anyone one way or the other, just some reading material that can possibly help with the decision :). Kees08 (Talk) 01:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Q3

Template:Did you know nominations/Werner Haseleu

• ... that Werner Haseleu appeared as Moses in Schoenberg's Moses und Aron at the Staatsoper Dresden, and as Holofernes in the world premiere of Judith by Siegfried Matthus at the Berlin State Opera?

LouisAlain Gerda Arendt Wikiman5676 SL93

Neither of the hook support sentences have citations, can someone familiar with them/able to read them add them? --valereee (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has three refs, the 1) Kutsch/Riemens and 2) the obituary. Both 1) and 2) have both facts, I added 1) to the single sentences, - sorry about that lack of formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --valereee (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kang Woo Kyu

• ... that Kang Woo-kyu hid a grenade between his legs like a diaper to pass through the Russian–Japanese border and try to assassinate the Japanese governor-general of Korea?

Won96 RebeccaGreen SL93

I can see please let this image disapper from my head soon a grenade hanging between his legs like...well, like something, but not like a diaper. I can't read the sources, maybe diaper is what they are saying, maybe Korean diapers at the time were different than US diapers are now, but would anyone object to my simply removing 'like a diaper' from this hook? I think it still qualifies as quirky. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine that that. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier, and sorry also that this hook has been moved from the quirky spot (I see nothing quirky at all about a journalist taking leave from his job to write a book). I don't know Korean either - Google translate gives "carried a bomb like a diaper" or "carried in a bomb-like diaper". I imagine that he wore a diaper or loincloth with the grenade inside it, so it probably should have said "hid a grenade between his legs in a diaper". I have made that change in the article. Sorry I didn't pick up on it in the review. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agreed with Valereee that "like a diaper" made no sense, so I made the change she requested. With regard to moving the hook out of the quirky slot, firstly, it's not unusual for would-be assassins to hide explosives on their persons, and secondly, while we don't have a hard-and-fast rule about it, quirky hooks in general are supposed to be light, upbeat and preferably somewhat amusing, and there is nothing amusing about an assassination attempt. With regard to the book, it's certainly quirky IMO that somebody wrote a book in just two months, still more so that it went on to win a Pulitzer. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen, I'm not sure it's something that anyone necessarily should have been expected to pick up on, and I actually felt it was probably being nitpicky on my part. I just suspected there might be some sort of language/translation/idiom issue, and wondered if the original language was saying he'd carried the grenade in a diaper-like contraption. --valereee (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Michael Hargrave (pictured)

Hi Cwmhiraeth and other prep builders, I guess you know that a related article was in the picture slot on 11 October? ("that in 1945, a group of London medical students (pictured) travelled to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp to treat the survivors?") I personally think the image with this article about Michael Hargrave is stronger, but just wondered about having similar hooks/images in the main slot so soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It won't appear until 25th October and I would have thought that a fortnight gap was long enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I also thought that, RebeccaGreen, and swapped it out before reading this post. Yoninah (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah...Sorry to trouble. Is it possible to still change the slot and use the image? This image is clearer and no further students are planned for dyk in the near future. Later date is ok if you think 2 weeks is too close a gap. The image really caught me when I first saw it...there are a number of images of Hargrave in his student journal. I think I would kick myself if I didn't ask you. Thank you Cwmhiraeth and RebeccaGreen too. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem holding it for later. Returning to prep. Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Yoninah:...Whispyhistory (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Another first female general

• ... that Akissi Kouamé was the first female general in the army of the Ivory Coast?

@Dumelow:@Zeromonk:

We're starting to get another flood of women "firsts" on the nomination page. Could something more be added to the hook please? Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

She's also a paratrooper and has a doctorate in medicine. Those might be useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, but the article doesn't seem to explicitly mention that her doctorate was in medicine, only that she studied at a medical school and had a doctorate. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

She achieved her doctorate in Medicine on 23 June 1983 seems pretty explicit to me. The only sourcing is at the end of the paragraph, and I haven't checked to see whether it covers the doctorate, so that could be something that needs addressing. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't see the "doctorate in Medicine" part when I checked earlier. Must have overlooked it. In any case, I did check the source and it does mention the Medicine doctorate. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that before becoming the first female general in the army of the Ivory Coast, Akissi Kouamé had initiated the appointment of midwives to the army health service? — Maile (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds good, but the sentence that mentions the appointment of midwives doesn't have a footnote (it appears to be cited to the French language source that's a footnote at the end of the paragraph, though the footnote would need to be duplicated for DYK purposes). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely the paratrooper angle should be mentioned? And really, you should be able to get all three facts into the hook - paratrooper, doctor, general, that would make for a pretty compelling hook IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy with ALT1 proposed above, any similar proposals or else holding this one for a while to space the female general hooks out a bit - Dumelow (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So are we good to go with ALT1, or people here still want to use a hook that mentions the paratroopers? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6:

• ... that the Springs Mills Building, a New York City landmark built in 1963, has a hexagonal tower that may have been inspired by the United Nations headquarters?

• As far as I can see, United Nations headquarters links to the current building, but the source ([1]) in the article is talking about a previous unbuilt design ("High-rise projects that may have influenced Abramovitz and Abbe’s approach include: various unbuilt trapezoidal schemes developed by Le Corbusier for Algiers (1938) and the United Nations (1946), the hexagonal Pirelli Building (Gio Ponti, 1958-59) in Milan, and the Pan Am Building"). The two are not the same thing; the current UN building does not contain a hexagonal tower. Perhaps the hook should actually mention the Pirelli Tower instead, but even so it's still a guess on the part of one person as to what the architect's actual inspiration was. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: is the person who can deal with this query. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch Black Kite, I noticed this myself while verifying the set a few minutes ago and replaced it with the Pirelli Tower, which is in the same source. The United Nations headquarters also contains a bunch of buildings and it wasn't clear which building was supposed to be the inspiration. Gatoclass (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) For a quick fix, we could use the Pirelli Tower. The MetLife Building - formerly PanAm - is octogonal and less suitable. All three were in one of the proposed hooks. - Do me a favour: give the article title in the header. "Prep 6" didn't catch my attention. Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Cwmhiraeth, and Gerda Arendt:, I agree we should use the Pirelli Tower, as that was actually built, as opposed to Le Corbusier's plans for the UN and Algiers. epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Gerda - I meant to copy the article title into the header alongside the Prep queue, but clearly I messed up. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)