Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:fb1:39:cf36:95bd:e0b5:da63:41ef (talk) at 09:32, 8 May 2023 (→‎Coronation hooks - some tenses may need tweaking: Comment for User:JennyOz and User:Schwede66). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Hook in Prep 2 Nom

An opinion on the hook which has no reference point. Is it too bare? ALT: ... that the title of Lemnis Gate refers to lemniscate? Bruxton (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great quirky hook, @Bruxton! BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will rejigger it to the quirk. Looks like it is just me and you today. Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can still hear my high-school calculus teacher talking about "Your friend the lemniscate". Thanks for the memories. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of those girls who barely survived math classes, so I don't even know what that thing is. Lol... BorgQueen (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I passed pre-algebra with a C+. Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You guys missed out on a great class. The teacher (damn, I wish I could remember his name!) was a riot. He would tell you that you needed to go to the hospital. You can imagine what he did with latus rectum. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: your pre-algebra teacher taught you intro-to-calculus material? wild. My algebra class was the first one i took at a local community college, much fun :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

I have re-promoted the hooks for the coronation. I trust that we will figure out what we are going to do with the set. Perhaps @BorgQueen: can remember details about this set. I think there was an additional hook that I have not promoted here because of previous discussion. Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of Wales Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do. But let's resolve the copyright issue of the image first. Its license says This work is not in the public domain in the United States. If that's true, we can't use the image. BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Pinging @Dumelow Bruxton (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is this image but it is used for the un-promoted glove hook. File:Crowning of Edward VII (by John Byam Liston Shaw) – Royal Collection RCIN 922540.jpg. I imagine it can be repurposed. Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did address this above in the Coronation section. I am confused by the license but proposed File:Crowning of Edward VII (by John Byam Liston Shaw) – Royal Collection RCIN 922540 (cropped).jpg as an alternative. I'm going to be away travelling between now and the Coronation, I will try to keep half an eye open for any issues but will be limited to what I can do through my phone. - Dumelow (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: I promoted the Cross of Wales to Prep 4. It makes sense to run on that day. If edditors disagree we can move it. Bruxton (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton, there are two sets on May 6. Prep 3 runs from 01:00 to 13:00 in England, and Prep 4 from 13:00 on May 6 to 01:00 on May 7. According to a timetable I found online, the coronation begins at 11:00 and runs for a little over an hour—that's during Prep 3. At some point after 12:00, the coronation ceremony ends and the entertainment begins, and at 14:00 (Prep 4) is the procession back to Buckingham Palace. Having all the hooks in Prep 4 doesn't make sense; many of them clearly belong in Prep 3, though I'd imagine that the Caroline of Ansbach one could stay in Prep 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could, however, stick everything into Prep3 and then run that set for 24 hours. I suppose there would be enough interest in the material to justify this. We've done this (i.e. display sets for 24 hours while we are in a 12-hour-cycle) before. Schwede66 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Hi all, I've just run through the current preps and queues and want to flag up a few potential issues. Some minor hook suggestions are listed below, and I've put my other comments into individual subsections.

  • Queue 4: ... that Mary Taft said, in 1799, that stopping women from "bringing souls to Christ" would, one day, be unbelievable? – Too many commas? I think at least the commas around "in 1799" should be removed. More importantly, the quote doesn't quite match the article; this can be fixed by changing it to read "bring[ing] souls to Christ".
  • Prep 4: Supertunica, Stole Royal and Robe Royal (examples pictured) – It appears that the image was swapped from this to this due to licensing concerns, but the new image doesn't depict all three articles of clothing. If we know which robe is depicted here, the parenthetical can be changed to "(example pictured)" and moved to the appropriate spot in the hook.

—Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Radomir Lazović

  • ... that Radomir Lazović and other activists opposed to a redevelopment plan for the Belgrade Waterfront chose a rubber duck as a symbol to represent the project being perceived as a scam?

This was altered in prep following discussion here, and then "perceived as" was added for NPOV. The result reads very awkwardly to me, and almost suggests that Lazović is opposed to other people perceiving the project as a scam. There's inter-language nuance here that's hard to capture in a hook; could it not be simplified by focusing on what the protesters did rather than what it represents? E.g. "... that Radomir Lazović and other activists protested against the redevelopment of the Belgrade Waterfront by bringing a giant rubber duck to the House of the National Assembly?" Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Vacant0 and Daniel Case. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5: N54 road (Ireland)

The source used for this is the Irish Daily Mail, which is explicitly included in the deprecation of the Daily Mail. Here's a source that contradicts the hook claim: uniformed Gardaí in decorated squad cars cannot use [the N54] without prior consent from the PSNI – indicating that they can use the road with prior consent, or in an unmarked car. They can also access Coleman's Island via a longer route around local back roads. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ritchie333 and Onegreatjoke. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 seems to be on a break since 27 April. BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly clear though that they're not "untouchable", so the hook needs to be amended at best (quite apart from the hook being sourced to a deprecated newspaper). Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might take some time to resolve so I'm going to swap it out. BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. @RoySmith: would you please check the newly added one? BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. I looked at the N54 hook when I moved it to the queue and wasn't sure if the "untouchable" was excessive, but eventually I decided to let it go as a quirky. In retrospect, a bad decision and good to know you folks had my back on that. Lydian–Milesian War looks good. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use the original hook? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 looks fine to me except that the length of the section of road is also sourced to the Irish Mail. But I don't know whether we actually need a source to state the length, or if it counts as blue-sky since it can be verified by looking at a map. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith any opinions? BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate relying on unreliable sources, it's hard to get too worked up over how long they think the road is. FWIW, Google Maps says 3.6km. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6: Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility

I'd like a third opinion on whether the cited source is appropriate for this. It's essentially a blog post, and the author appears to be uncritically repeating what she's been told by Veolia employees during a tour of the facility. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Michael Barera and Soman. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add allegedly to the hook? BorgQueen (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be uneasy because it's such a self-serving claim, I think at minimum you'd need inline attribution. If others agree that the hook is problematic, then I think it should be swapped out for something else rather than watered down (no pun intended). I can see several other potentially hookable facts in the article – the plant is a listed historic building, it was one of the first in the world to produce a marketable fertilizer, and it's surprisingly popular with tourists. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Better? BorgQueen (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I hadn't actually checked the sourcing for any of those claims, I was just throwing out ideas for potential hooks. Looking at it now, the source given for the National Register listing is non-independent; I found a better source here which I'll add to the article, but I can't find the actual listing. The databases are searchable but I'm not seeing anything for Jones Island. Possibly it had another name at the time of the listing. I suppose the magazine source is good enough for DYK though. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6: 2023 New York City parking garage collapse

The hook says that Digidog was the first robot dog to analyze a structural collapse, but the article only says that this was the first time the NYC Fire Department used the Digidog for this purpose. The cited source doesn't appear to say even that much: This is the first time that we've been able to fly inside in a collapse to do this and try to get us some information. This seems to be talking about the use of aerial drones rather than the Digidog. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tails Wx and MaxnaCarta. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this looks like Spot [1], albeit in an unusual (but fire-department appropriate) paint job. I assume "digidot" is just the FDNY's name it, like you might name your dog rover or fluffy. So it's not "the Digidog". And, yeah, doing examinations of dangerous environments is one of the main reasons these things exist, so it's hard to imagine some other agency hasn't sent one into a collapsed building before, and we should be clear about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Removed the "first" claim. BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6: Mihailo Tolotos

Tolotos' death, as reported by the Hartford Courant of Hartford, Conneciticut, on December 24, 1938
  • ... that Greek monk Mihailo Tolotos purportedly never saw a woman in his entire life?

I added two "better source needed" tags following the AfD; I don't know whether this is an issue for DYK, just pointing it out. Also, I think it's fairly certain that someone will ask at ERRORS how it happens that Tolotos never saw his own mother; just to save argument later on, it might be worth amending the hook to read "in his entire adult life". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Knightoftheswords281 and Alessandro57. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I'll have to pull it... BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted that the Hartford Courant - December 24, 1938 gave the explanation. We can't accept this as a reliable source and plausible explanation? Bruxton (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the source is American-based and not Greek-based, would that be a factor in how reliable claim is? Would changing the hook to have attribution solve the issue (i.e. something like "... that [source] claimed that Greek monk Mihailo Tolotos never saw a woman in his entire life following the death of his mother?") or would that not help? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it as RS, but since it beggars belief - the word "purportedly" is in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 @Bruxton @Sojourner in the earth
Rephrased. BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think purportedly covered it without all the qualifiers. It is now un-quirky. Bruxton (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So don't use it as a quirky hook. The better-source-needed tags still need to be taken care of, otherwise we'll have to pull this anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag as it runs counter to our guideline about what is WP:RS. Purportedly is the only qualifier needed. The explanation in the RS is that his mother died after four hours. Bruxton (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron @Valereee @RoySmith any comments? BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with the obligatory ST:TNG clip. Overall, I'm dubious about this whole thing. I did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything I consider a WP:RS. I think it's telling that the BBC's Why are women banned from Mount Athos? doesn't mention anything about Tolotos. The BBC is surely a RS, and surely were aware of the story, but apparently made the editorial decision to stick to things they could verify. As for the Hartford Courant being a RS, I think you need to evaluate that in context; while I'd trust them for news reports, this isn't a news report; it's a bit of human-interest fluff plucked off the wires to fill a 1 column-inch hole in the day's layout. I don't put any stock in it. I'm not terribly surprised the article survived AfD, but that just reinforces the low opinion I have of AfD. DYK should aim higher. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will de-promote the article and revert my removal of the "better sources" tags, you all can decide to re-promote or reject the hook. If the main concern is whether our WP:V policy is the issue we should certainly reject the hook. Bruxton (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to comment here to explain the "better source needed" tags, but then Bruxton's self-reversion made that somewhat moot. I've summarized my main concerns about the sourcing at the article talk page instead. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, Bruxton, Sojourner in the earth, and BorgQueen: Strangely, this does seem plausible to me. Tolotos seems to have lived in the monastic community of Mount Athos most of his life. That community does not allow women to enter, and it hasn't allowed women for at least a millennium; there are plenty of scholarly sources about this phenomenon. However, a short obituary in the Hartford Courant from 85 years ago seems like a relatively weak source for this particular claim; it's not really well-known outside the Northeast US, and newspapers from that era didn't have the fact-checking capabilities that today's newspapers have. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all right, but "his mother died when he was born" is such a weak explanation that i don't feel like the Hartford Courant did much digging either. This seems like one of those urban legends someone'll have to sort through, or it's lost to history and an RS needs to report that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius The monks reportedly never bathed, so I probably wouldn't want to visit them anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY The nom has been closed. BorgQueen (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: Wie als een God wil leven

The source is an unvarnished PDF titled (according to DeepL Translate): "Songs from the new Gotteslob that have proven themselves in youth services: Compiled by Martina Steinhauser-Kampelmann (pastoral area musician)". This appears to be one person's Top 100-or-so youth hymns from the Gotteslob; I'm not sure that inclusion on such a list is at all significant or interesting. Additionally, the hook's wording seems a little off to me; Wie als een God wil leven is not "a hymn in German", it's in Dutch. It's the German translation that's on the list. Maybe that's just pedantry, I don't know. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Gerda Arendt and 4meter4. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the hook says in other words is that the songs of this Dutch writer became highly successful in Germany (although he left his church). If you can say that better, I'll be glad. He was the first foreigner to receive the Predigt prize. The list is not one person's list but help for people selecting which songs to use for services. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: the idea that this song - as four others - were in danger of not being taken to the second edition edition of the German hymnal is discussed in more detail and was the hook for Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen (long discussion in the nomination). We could just say that this song was his first, being written when he became student parish priest, but that would omit how popular it became altogether. Again, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest pulling the current wording as, while I think the hook fact is okayish, the source does indeed not appear to be a definitive or significant ranking. I took a look at the article and the "successful with young people" part is the only thing that seems to have promise, so to be frank I'm kind of skeptical the article should even run on DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
German version is in the given source. Regarding "interesting", we go through this from time to time, one person's interesting is another person's meh. There is not a Billboard Hot 100 for this genre. I find coins interesting and RoySmith finds math interesting. Leeky and I both found West Wing interesting. I am not for rejecting hooks/articles based on subjective criteria. Bruxton (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with the criticisms being raised by Sojourner to a point. The CHORUS website is a part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (its managed and staffed by their employees) and reasonably anything they post on their website is work product approved by the archdiocese. The website seems to be designed as a resource for musicians involved with church music for youth, so reasonably a list of this kind on a website under the umbrella of the archdiocese would seem to have some more credibility than just a random individual person's favorite songs list. I do think we could attribute it to the archdiocese in the hook (and in the article) given that is is one of their websites that is the publisher of the list. That said, the significance of the song's inclusion on the list is debatable. However, I can't see anything else in the article that is hook worthy.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing else in the article that's hook worthy, we don't need to force the nomination. Sometimes, articles just don't work out for DYK because of a lack of suitable material, and this might be one of those cases. However, there could be a possible alternative wording if there's still potential in that particular angle. Maybe this would be better?
ALT ... that the 1965 song "Wie als een God wil leven" was included in a 2013 list by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne that listed church hymns successful with young people?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a reasonable alt hook but the text of the article should be updated to match it.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question now is if 4meter4's concerns about the list and inclusion being significant have merit or not. If they do, the hook probably has to be rejected for lack of non-specialist interest. If it they don't have merit or if they are not really an issue, then perhaps the ALT could work rather than the original hook. As I mentioned earlier, rejecting the nomination entirely is a possibility and if consensus determines it won't work out, there's no shame in rejecting the nom. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 did you mean Sojourner in the earth? I am not the one who raised these issues. I only said that I could understand the merits of the objections being raised and could agree with them to a point (meaning I can understand the validity of such a point of view but not that I shared the same opinion in terms of rejecting the hook). I did approve the hook earlier, and I stand by that decision as the article is new enough, long enough, and seems to pass our various policies for notability, verifiability, etc. To my mind, the alt hook is reasonably interesting given the niche topic area, and I would be ok with this hook being promoted.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
late to this: I don't like in ALT1 the repetition "list ... that listed", and we don't need "Roman" when our article is Catholic Church. I'd prefer not to stress "Catholic" at all, in other words I prefer the original. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook was already deemed problematic so it's probably not usable in any case. Would shortening the mention to simply "Archdiocese of Cologne" and changing "listed" to a different word like "included" or "specified" solve your concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Narutolovehinata5, it seems like Sojourner's sourcing claims were somewhat addressed without need for action – if 4meter4 is right, the hook is free to enjoy its limited purview on the Main Page as-is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I was referring more to 4meter4's concerns about attribution. The one about how it could be more reasonable to include the source of the list in the hook (i.e. the archdiocese) in case readers think it's "just a random individual person's favorite songs list". Sorry for not making it clear in my earlier comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all right, but that concern isn't prohibitive. Happy for you and the nom to continue discussing, but it doesn't seem to be a deadlocked negotiation and the hook is free to go through as-is if no consensus is reached. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Island of Lost Souls (1932 film)

Queue 5: Island of Lost Souls (1932 film) (nom). The hook says "nearly 60,000", the article says "around 60,000". Which is correct? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst @Andrzejbanas @Thriley ping. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Must be around 60,000. BorgQueen (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I think too. Thriley (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly was @Bruxton's wording, I believe. BorgQueen (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From age 81 of the source: And so the Panther Woman contest raged, attracting a reported 60,000 applicants. The book doesn't give a source for this figure, and page 86 says, not very reassuringly: If it's true that there were 60,000 contestants... (my emphasis). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth @RoySmith I suggest we switch to ALT0 then. BorgQueen (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a shorter version:
-- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith wait, we've just had a complaint about the Masurian Canal hook being about a rumor at ERRORS. This will probably get the same reactions too. BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith How about: ... that in 1935 Paramount wanted to reissue the film Island of Lost Souls (poster pictured) but was denied by the Hays Code, due to the film's excessive horror? BorgQueen (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Hotel

Queue 5: Mansfield Hotel (nom) The hook says "two neighbors from Vermont", which sounds like they lived next to each other when they were in Vermont, which is not the case. This could be worded better. @Epicgenius @Lightburst @Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, good point. I'm not sure how to say this concisely, though, because they were both Vermonters but were only neighbors in NYC. How about "two men from Vermont"? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any great suggestions at the moment, but I'll think on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting back to this. Yeah, I like it:
... that New York City's Mansfield Hotel was developed by two friends from Vermont, one of whom later served as governor?
-- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Edward VI hook

Since 6 May has some empty spots, could we move that hook to Prep area 4? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty @Bruxton I've moved it to Prep 3. Please note Prep 3 covers the early half of May 6. BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the same context: could Te Deum (Reulein) perhaps run on 6 May, because - while not connected directly to the royal coronation, a Te Deum is usually sug for such festive occasions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medjed

Queue 7: Medjed (nom) @Bruxton @Gen. Quon @BorgQueen @Ficaia @A. Parrot The first paragraph of the "In the Book of the Dead" section is largely copied from the source. It needs to be re-written. I'm surprised the GA review didn't pick this up. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source this paragraph cites (Taylor 2010, p. 54) uses different wording. I don't see any indication that the text in Medjed was copied from it, unless there's some other part of the book that you're looking at. This paragraph does look to be based on close paraphrasing from our own article about the Book of the Dead, but I think that's an understandable use of the text, given that there are only some many ways to give a concise description of what the BD is. I don't think this requires anything more than a note in the page history for attribution purposes. A. Parrot (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the paragraph a bit anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That text was (largely) there before I started editing the page. It looks like it was added in 2022. Regardless, I've gone ahead and added an attribution note to the talk page.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Just ran it through Earwig and comes out clean now. BorgQueen (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So for the upcoming coronation...

Prep 3 covers the first 12 hours of May 6, and Prep 4 does the rest of the day. I've moved the Westminster Abbey hook to Prep 3 and featured its lead image. Accordingly, de-bolded the Westminster Abbey link in Prep 4. BorgQueen (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand why Prep 3, during which the actual coronation takes place, has only a single coronation hook, while the rest of the hooks are in a set that's on the main page during the post-coronation music and the procession back to Buckingham Palace. Why not just have that large combined hook (including Westminster Abbey) heading Prep 3? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I honestly don't care that much about this "crowning" thing. Feel free to swap them out if you have the necessary motivation, thank you. BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, by the time I got there, Prep 3 had been promoted to Queue 3, so an admin will have to do something about it if hooks are to run at the correct time. I'm not that enamored by the "crowning" thing either, but given that some folks were very eager to have a big special occasion thing, it seems odd that after all the fuss we won't be posting most hooks at the right time. (For the record, I would have recombined the lead hook of Prep 3 into the one in Prep 4 and placed it in Prep 3 (now Queue 3), and also moved the bulk of the hooks there.) Running everything in Prep 4 so the Americans can see it during their daytime is a very odd result. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru Pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested earlier, we could run Q3 for 24 hours and that would overcome any timing issues. Just need to rejig what we’ve got. Schwede66 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not sure if we even had a consensus to run a coronation-themed set in the first place. There was support for a set, or at least a combined hook, but I didn't really see if there was actual consensus among editors for one, rather merely editors and prep builders wanting one without much outside consultation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5: That's pretty much how things work around here generally. The people building the sets do their thing, sometimes they put together a "special edition" set of some sort, and it's up to others to object if they feel like it. FWIW I'm quite happy with any of the above solutions, either (a) leaving as is, with the coronation things split between two sets, (b) combining them into one for the morning slot, or (c) IAR and running a single set for the whole day... I can jig things around if there's a decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was best to run the main coronation set after the event as most people interested in the event will have been watching the live coverage while it was happening or have been actually present. So the balance between the morning and afternoon sets seems to have been reasonable. The main thing that looks odd is having a couple of incongruous hooks in the main set such as a defunct TV station. They look like mistakes in this context. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yo uh

Hey if an article was made 10 days ago can we round down to a week or is it pretty strict? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are sometimes (often, really) lenient. Schwede66 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh based. Thanks! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the article, the circumstances of why it was late, and who the nominator is. Generally we tend to be more lenient for newer nominators, and while we usually IAR accept 8 and 9-day-old articles, 10 days is sometimes considered a stretch but not unheard of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much religion in queue 5?

Queue 5: Hermann Heuvers (nom) and Queue 5: Edward Kimball (teacher) (nom) both deal with christian themes (baptism and conversion, respectively). I'm not opposed to either, but maybe it would be better to have them in different hook sets? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, Queue 5: Sun in fiction (nom) is also christianity-themed, with the crucifixion image. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I had suggested another hook to @TompaDompa but they wanted the Barabbas hook (See their talk page). I'll swap the other hooks out. BorgQueen (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, as somebody interested in astronomy (and an eclipse chaser), I think the Barrabas image is wonderful. Whether it's the right image for a DYK about the movie, I'm not sure, but it's a cool image, and it's awesome that the movie crew went the extra distance for authenticity. People who know about this kind of stuff are known to call out movies for using sky images which couldn't possibly have existed at the time and place purported in the film. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Healy

Queue 7: Matty Healy (nom) earwig lights up with whole paragraphs duplicated from https://www.ghbase.com/matty-healy-children-does-matty-healy-have-kids/. It looks to me like they copied from us, but it wouldn't hurt to have somebody else double-check that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte and Launchballer: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article was dated yesterday and most of Matty Healy was written last month. They copied from us, and they aren't the only ones.--Launchballer 07:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged the talkpage with {{Backwards copy}} to show both of these articles are copies of our article (and so not copyvios on our side). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Title

Queue 7: Operation Title (nom) the hook fact needs an end-of-sentence citation. @BorgQueen @CaroleHenson @Nick-D @Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith Done. BorgQueen (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1984 New York City Subway shooting

So one problem with the 1984 New York City Subway shooting nomination I noticed but, the article appeared as a bold link on OTD on December 22 of last year, which I believe makes it ineligible for nomination. Pinging @Freedom4U, Jengod, and BorgQueen: for comments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, it completely slipped my mind to check for that! I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh gee, I'm so sorry I didn't remember to assess for that. I think I voted on some RfC about that too! My bad. apologies to all jengod (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stress; these things happen. Nobody got hurt. I've pulled this from Prep and closed the nomination. Schwede66 05:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. BorgQueen (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation hooks - some tenses may need tweaking

Some hooks were originally written presuming main page appearance from 00:00 UTC (1am British Summer Time) so some may need tense tweaks. I've just read through all and think these are the possible problem ones. I have made a few rough suggestions that may avoid a flood of reports at Errors through the day.

  • Queue 3 (UTC am) appears Saturday from 1am to 1pm London time (BST)
First hook "... that 39 English and British monarchs have been crowned at Westminster Abbey (pictured) since 1066?"
(Charles III will be 40th.) The service starts 11am BST London time and finishes at 1pm (per gov.uk here). Therefore the hook will be factually wrong during its last hour or so on main page. (There is still much to happen in the 2-hour service after the king's crowning including enthroning, prayers, Camilla's crowning, etc.)
Suggestion 1 - change hook now from "that 39 English and British monarchs have been... " to "that nearly 40 English and British monarchs have been..."
Then the minute Charles's crown is on his head, an admin makes quick change to remove "nearly". Page 25 of this shows when actual coronation literally occurs "The Archbishop brings the crown down onto The King’s head."
Immediately after that there is the Fanfare and bells start then gun salutes - so that's the signal for an admin to remove "nearly".
Suggestion 2 - if hook isn't changed before it hits main page, admin simply swaps 39 to 40 on above signal.
I think it might be simpler to add "before today," to the original hook after "that" (... that before today, 39). That way, we don't have to worry about split-second timing; the hook is accurate during its entire run. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Schwede66 08:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queue 4 (UTC pm) 1pm Saturday to 1am Sunday BST
First hook "... that a British monarch arrives at their..." - no tense change necessary
Second hook "... that the Cross of Wales, which will lead the procession at the coronation..." - "will lead" will be incorrect tense. The procession into the Abbey will be long over by 1pm. (Cross of Wales has "The cross will lead the procession into Westminster Abbey".)
Suggestion 1 - change now from "which will lead" to "the Cross of Wales, leading the procession at the coronation..." and won't need further change.
Suggestion 2 - change to "... that the Cross of Wales, which will lead led the procession at the coronation"
 Done – it now says "leading". Schwede66 09:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth hook "... that today the Bishop of Edinburgh will play a ceremonial role at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla as a representative of the Walker Trustees?" - "will play" will be incorrect tense.
Suggestion - change to "that the Bishop of Edinburgh's ceremonial role at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla was as a representative of the Walker Trustees?"
Why not keep the original wording, but instead of "will play", substitute "plays"? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – it now says "plays". Schwede66 09:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queue 6 (UTC pm) Sunday 1pm to 1am Monday BST
First hook "... that today, to mark the coronation of Charles III and Camilla, Abingdon Town Council will throw thousands of currant buns from the roof of the County Hall (building pictured)?"
According to this, the bun throw is at 4pm therefore "will throw" will be wrong on main page after 3 hrs. (3pm UTC)
Suggestion 1 - Change now from "will throw" to "throws" - won't need further change
Suggestion 2 - Leave "will throw" in until 4pm (3pm UTC) then admin changes to "threw".
 Done – it now says "throws". Schwede66 09:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to throw something at me (buns preferably) if I've got anything wrong or am being too pedantic. JennyOz (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall throw you a bunch of flowers for consistently being on top of Main Page issues. Schwede66 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested extension for special occasion hook

Seeking consensus for a special-occasion hook, where the requested date is well beyond the six-week rule. It's Template:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela), a three-article hook centred around an event which takes place on 25 July. That requested date is about 12 weeks out from the nomination date (30 April). The nominator intended to allow extra time to get the articles, reviews and hooks in order. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived last week, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 22. We have a total of 206 nominations, of which 84 have been approved, a gap of 122 nominations that has decreased by 4 over the past couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset About the Monster Max review, I actually left some suggestions over there: so, can I still take over it, or should I leave it to someone else? Oltrepier (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Shaw

Prep 6: Christopher W. Shaw (nom) This article is tagged as a stub, but perhaps it's not really and all that has to happen is remove the stub tag per WP:DYKSG#D11? I'm a little concerned that @Lightburst participated in the AfD and then promoted it. There's no rule that explicitly says you can't do that, but it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:DYKSG#J1. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stub tag. Sorry I missed it. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update to J1

WITHDRAWN
Not feeling a whole lot of love. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


If nobody objects, I'm going to update WP:DYKSG#J1 to say "... an article you created, nominated, reviewed, or with which you are otherwise WP:INVOLVED". See #Christopher W. Shaw, above for why. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I am opposed to more rules. The WP:CIR bar here is high enough and the rules are numerous. WP:INVOLVED is really for admins to not use their position and tools to force their will, not editors. Bruxton (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INVOLVED also says Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards, and surely promoting a hook falls into that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the addition adds clarity, but I am neutral. --evrik (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to oppose – there are lots of times where people should still be free to promote despite being substantially involved. If you have to prod a nominator into finishing their work, give an advisory on a policy question, contradict another reviewer's judgement, or open and close and issue, you shouldn't be then barred from doing something that keeps the project moving. INVOLVED is too broad a standard; quite often, preppers also have to get their hands dirty in nominations before they can promote them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite frankly, I fail to see what this adds, and am of the opinion that Lightburst did not do anything wrong here. The AfD was closed as SNOW keep. Why should that preclude someone from promoting a hook about the article at DYK, just because they participated in an AfD about that article? This is a solution in search of an actual problem, in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Dumelow- public thanks

A big thank you to Dumelow for enthusiastically contributing here - especially for the coronation hooks. I watched some of the festivities and was able to reference the articles we ran. It is a pleasure to read your many contributions. You also got me started here with Gallos (sculpture). I think I started the article not knowing you had a version in draft, and then you helped me edit the article and nominated it here. Next we got the article to GA. The rest as they say, is history. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Gallos hook -- they (whoever promoted it) didn't use such a great image?? BorgQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: It was a striking image, but I think it worked well in the quirky lot. Bruxton (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Dumelow is one of our best contributors and really hit the spot this time. He clearly rolls his sleeves up and gets the work done with a minimum of fuss and drama. Kudos! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks so much guys, it's a real morale boost to know people read (and perhaps even like!) what I write. Not done much recently but hopefully I'll get back into the swing of things in a couple of weeks (combination of travel and WP:OTD taking up my time) - Dumelow (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on This might make a good quirky hook.(?) Article Nom

I did not promote ALT0 even though I liked it. I just thought it may be too bare and or misleading? Second opinions please. It is in the Prep 7 quirky slot now. Bruxton (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a possible backlog error

Hello! I've just noticed that, at the moment, only three queues are fully loaded: however, I see at least five prep areas which look ready to go, as well. Is it a mistake by the bots?

Oltrepier (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the bots, no, it's just a matter of not enough people to handle the workload effectively. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rest for the wicked! R&R is verboten. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The beatings will continue until morale improves. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith @Bruxton Oh, ok, that's fine. I'm still not so used to the dynamics of the DYK format, so I was afraid a sudden glitch was about to ruin our day... : D Oltrepier (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes aside, we can actually move queues manually, right? Oltrepier (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queues, since we'll soon be down to only two queues loaded. Many thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset I wish I could, believe me. I happen to be the primary builder of several of the sets so... I'll have to wait for a day or two. BorgQueen (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) OK, that has been resolved rather quickly! checkY BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Healy Nom

Regarding this Article and Nomination, first the band he was in appears to be linked in nearly every occurrence, once in the lead and then over and over in the body - see (MOS:REPEATLINK), but also since "The 1975" is the name of the band, I am not sure why "the" is not capitalized throughout the article since it is the title of the band and a proper noun "The 1975". I could have corrected these things, but wanted other opinions as I may be missing something. Pinging involved editors @Launchballer and Schminnte: and promotor @BorgQueen: Bruxton (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing MOS:MUSICTHE, which demands that "the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose". You may have more of a point regarding MOS:REPEATLINK though, and I've taken out some duplicate links.--Launchballer 15:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for teaching me something @Launchballer: Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

So, I nominated Ashley Graham (Resident Evil) at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashley Graham (Resident Evil) using the WP:DYKCNN. But for some reason, the nomination came out completely malformed. How do I fix this? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By replacing ]''] with ]]'', which I have done for you.--Launchballer 19:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate view for noms awaiting approval?

I've found Template talk:Did you know to be really unhelpful in finding nominations to review, as it's difficult to tell at a glance which noms still need reviewers, and it's easy for older unreviewed noms to get lost in the mix of in progress noms. Is there any other way to view a list of nominations that still need a reviewer? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1153787074"