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 RFD (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 21 January 2019 (→‎Lawrence Cowan in {{prep|6}}: William Herring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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 processes can be discussed.

RfC: Commas in DYK

Question: In general, should introductory adverbial phrases in DYK hooks have

  1. Just a comma at the end of the phrase,
  2. Commas at the start and end of the phrase,
  3. No commas

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Example: (taken from DYK archive, 1/31/2017), all relevant commas in bold red

Did you know...

  1. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
  2. ... that, during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
  3. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to users previously involved in this discussion(s), in a nonpartisan (without regard to view): @Bilorv, Jmchutchinson, Kevin McE, Yoninah, SashiRolls, Tagishsimon, Fish and karate, Bazza 7, Amakuru, and Floquenbeam: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment - Just to clarify, the second example you list, if a consensus reached on it, would mean that the templates for Prep, Queue and nomination should be changed. The change would be a comma after the word "that". If you don't change the templates, requiring consistency on that would be too hard to enforce, on every nomination and promotion made. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: I disagree. This would only apply if the hook included an introductory adverbial phrase. The first hook currently on the main page is that the red ochre sprinkled on the body of Jane Britton (pictured) 50 years ago today ultimately turned out to be a red herring in solving her murder?, which has no such phrase. Accordingly, I think that we wouldn't want to change the templates, because then that would confuse people in cases of the comma not being needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First option (generally) - We don't want run-on sentences on Wikipedia, and option three is a bad example of such a case. While option two is in theory acceptable, it reads awkwardly and can ruin the flow of the sentence. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the first option as it isn't grammatically correct. The second option doesn't look great but it seems like the only solution for long sentences like the example given. But the third is also acceptable—it's not a run-on sentence as it doesn't have two independent main clauses. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth option: put the adverbial at the end of the clause (standard word order). If this is really unpleasant (due to an overly long subject for example) I would suggest the first option as a distant second choice. Note that the first option appears to be standard style for major newspapers. You can test this yourself by searching for "She said that until" or "He said that unless" (etc.) at any search engine. Eliminating the optional "that" entirely would also be a good option, though that would require thinking outside the box :-⊠ SashiRolls t · c 08:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not equivalent sentence structures: 'unless' and 'until' in many cases are putative clauses essential to the meaning of the sentence, not parenthetical details in a minor clause, which is what we are talking about here. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, concerning content clauses and reported speech, I encourage you to pore over the Puddlestones, particularly chapter 11. If you prefer to look at concessives, conditionals, reasons / causal, temporal adverbials (like until, when, etc.), manner arguments, means arguments, situatives, etc. etc. using the "She said that when" or the "She said that because" or the "She said that [though / notwithstanding / by / failing that / slowly ]" test, you will see that usage in major press outlets and government pubs follows option 1. Though I've studied the grammar of many languages over the years, I don't believe I've ever met a putative clause. (French, incidentally, does not follow the same rules, because the French love tiroirs, which are, of course, you will have guessed it, a translator's bane). I would have thought that putativity would be something like what you see in the following participial: "She said that—alleged to be too sick to work—Billy had nevertheless been seen on en.wp preaching the good word about SuperFluo-Commas." (FWIW: I believe that unless is usually called a conditional, until a temporal). This question of commas is not a grammar question per se but a stylesheet question. I reiterate my support for option 1 and my suggestion to seek to put adverbials at the end wherever possible. As a writer, I know this is quite often clearer and is almost always possible if you put on your thinking cap and avoid stacking too many clauses / "opening too many drawers".
PS:Of course, as Yoninah points out below, good judgment is much better than any rule. Option 3 is also good when the clause is say 4-5 words or fewer and easy to scan. SashiRolls t · c 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Reads best and is perfectly cromulent. Fish+Karate 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. It properly sets aside the phrase (in the way one might when speaking). Otherwise option 3. I find Option 1 disconcerting as I don't know what the comma's for. Bazza (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an Engvar thing? Although a blog, [1], from the UK, gives examples of how many commas to use. At the end, two is suggested for embedded for adverbial clauses such as (from today) Did you know that in 1933 Green Bay Packers president Lee Joannes personally loaned the organization $6,000 to keep it in operation?.
  • I think you should also present hooks that have just a date in front, like:
  1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
  2. ... that, in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
  3. ... that in 1873 Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
I have been marking up hooks per Option 1, but I am also fine with Option 3 as long as the hook isn't too long, in which case at least one comma is needed to avoid a run-on hook. Option 2 looks totally cluttered with commas. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a very poor example on which to base the discussion, as it has so many determiners and connectives. It is nearly 2 years old, so appears (to me at least) to have been searched out as an extreme example, for which a different solution may be suitable than would usually be the case. Option 1 is simply wrong; option 2 would in ordinary prose be my preference, especially in longer sentences; but in the strange presentation of DYK, in which the opening of the sentence is replaced by an ellipsis, I would !vote for option 3. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevin McE: This was not searched for as an extreme example. However, the rules of grammar don't change based on the content of the clauses, so I think it doesn't matter what the example is. Yoninah's example with Foo is equally valid in terms of the grammatical makeup. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But grammar admits of alternative treatments to a situation, and this is a rather extreme example (as is Yoninah's at the other end of the scale) If not deliberately to show a lengthy example, why dig out one from nearly 2 years ago? Kevin McE (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevin McE: I didn't want to choose one I had already brought up at errors, so I went to the archives. Its january, so I clicked on january 2017. This was from the first day that showed up, right in the middle, and was the first one I saw with this issue. I didn't want to go cherry pick the perfect example, so I just used the first one. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree Kevin, this was a sensible example. I think that given that en.wp hacks off the complementizer clause entirely to give itself a sort of
  • Whereas blablabla,
  • Whereas blablabla,
  • Whereas blablabla,
cachet/credibility, it *does* make sense for short clauses like those Yoninah gives above (and the current one up for review which has no comma) to simply delete it. So I've added that to my comment above.
  • Option 2, as proper English, as recommended by most style guides. About the only conflicting comma advice you'll find on such phrases will be in journalism style guides (like AP Stylebook), because newsprint opts for compression over clarity. WP is now written in news style, as a matter of clear policy. I also agree with the pption 4 idea, to the extent it does not conflict. That is, try option 4, then option 2. Use option 1 only as kind of a last resort, when the phrasing is very short and the commas may seem unnecessary. Option 3 is simply wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, or (better) avoid. The original example is so convoluted that it should not be considered.
  1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel? but why not
  2. ... that Foo wrote his thirtieth novel in 1873? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 3, largely depending on the length of the phrase. Option 1 is grammatically incorrect. Frickeg (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, strong oppose 2 Reads the best and is indeed grammatically correct. As this is a indirect statement a comma is not required at the start of the adverbial phrase. A comma is optional at the end of longer phrases so option 3 would not be good either. Reywas92Talk 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. As Reywas points out, it is not actually grammatically incorrect because the comma is not present as part of a fronted adverbial, but as a way to break up the sentence to aid reading. This 1 is simply a better variant of 3. Also, English doesn't actually have formal rules anyway, and is defined by its usage, so the "trump card" that opponents of option 1 appear to hold is well and truly dead. When asking which version is best for readers, 1 is the only answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, under much the same reasoning as Amakuru. And (@SMcCandlish) I think the comment above about AP is wrong. The first piece of advice in the Stylebook on commas is "As with all punctuation, clarity is the biggest rule. If a comma does not help make clear what is being said, it should not be there. If omitting a comma could lead to confusion or misinterpretation, then use the comma." The single comma in Option 1 is typically there because most people naturally follow such a common-sense idea. Modulus12 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In actual practice the AP rule is generally interpreted as "omit any comma that is not strictly required", which is what is boils down to. Other style guides, and other forms of writing, do not take this approach, and use commas more logically and systematically. This is especially important in a medium where we have no control from one day (or even minute) to another over what the content is going to say. Omitting a comma that doesn't seem absolutely necessary in one construction frequently produces garbage writing via the palimpsestuous process of collaborative editing after others have expanded on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option, 1, or, option, 3. Eschew excess hesitation! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The argument that it is grammatically correct to add a comma after the initial "that" is flawed in the given context, because a DYK hook is not a full sentence, but a fragment of a sentence. The beginning of the sentence occurs in a different location, namely in the section title. This means that there is already an effective break in the sentence - the ellipsis that occurs between the "Did you know ..." and the "... that". By adding a comma, you are causing the reader to pause twice in quick succession, as the sentence reads "Did you know ... that, ...?" This has the effect of interrupting the reader's train of thought in an irritating manner - as he has to stop and think about why a comma is there - rather than enhancing his comprehension as a comma in the same place in an unfragmented sentence would do. Since the intention of grammar is to enhance readability and comprehension, I think this is one situation where it is better to bend the rule rather than impose it in a context in which it has the opposite effect to that intended. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is with the format of DYK itself. Change it to "Did you know that..." and "...blahbitty blah blah?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could do that, but it wouldn't resolve this particular issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

The Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird nomination has been held up for a month and half because several editors have noted the referencing style as confusing. An attempt to fix the referencing was reverted by the nominator, who believes that citation style has nothing to do with the DYK rules. Could we have more input on whether this article is ready for the main page? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't actually have a rule enforcing the use of sfn or "consistent" referencing style in general, we probably shouldn't force people to use it. With that being said, there is no reason for bare URLs, so I would fail the nomination based on WP:DYKSG#D3 since the nominator is unwilling to fix them and prefers closure anyway. Alex Shih (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Alex, I don't know who mentioned bare urls, but it is untrue. There are no bare URLs in the referencing. In fact, the majority of the sources are printed sources. SpinningSpark 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: The Bibliography section is almost entirely in bare URLs, no? I am not sure what's the misunderstanding here. I share your frustration over the use of sfn being not required, but there is really no harm in formatting the Bibliography section properly with {{cite book}}/{{cite web}} I think. Alex Shih (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The misunderstanding is that you do not understand what bare url means. It does not mean that citation templates have not been used. It means that, literally, only the url is visible to the reader like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Foreland which is not the case for any ref in the article I nominated. Citation templates are not mandated. WP:CITEVAR explicitly says To be avoided...adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates. There is good reason that the guideline says this—there is no consensus that templates must be used. There are pros and cons, but DYK is not the place for that discussion. The only discussion should be have I used a compliant style. I claim I have and no rationale has been presented to the contrary. The style I have used is guideline compliant, it is DYK rules compliant, and several articles I have written using that style have become featured articles. Demanding I use your favourite style is the thing that is against policy, not what I have done. SpinningSpark 22:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it - what is the actual problem here? the formatting is totally legit and allowed on Wikipedia, I am pretty sure that there are plenty of GAs that use that citation style. To block the nom for a style choice seems to wrong to me. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, if it's something we're going to be linking on the main page, how difficult would it be to cite it so that's easy for the reader to find their way to the sources? It's not as if it's a massive article with hundreds of sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is not "confusing" in the least - the claim appears to rest on the idea readers are idiots, and if that terrible (for many reasons) assumption were even true, its a good thing they will be exposed to new knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really more confusing than John Leamy (merchant) currently on the main page DYK? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While to my knowledge the reference style used in the article is not prohibited and in fact has been allowed on DYK articles before, I can see why people think it may be confusing. The problem is that the footnotes only mention the authors and you'd have to go to the Bibliography to see which reference takes from which source. It's not unusual, but it can be confusing especially for readers who may not be used to this referencing style. I would suggest as a compromise, that for the footnotes the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest (I've seen such a style used in books and articles before). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. That the footnotes only mention the authors and you'd have to go to the Bibliography to see which reference takes from which source is true of the {sfn} and most other systems. On top of that, the suggestion that the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest is (aside from being undesirable for reasons I won't go into) completely unworkable, as there's no practical way to control the order in which footnotes are output. The system used in the article is completely OK, the only oddity being that multiple refs use exactly the same text instead of being bundled using < ref name="foo">. None of this is a DYK matter. EEng 00:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. All I was saying is that while a common referencing system that's accepted here, I can understand why those unfamiliar with it could be caught off-guard. I was not discussing the merits of using such a system and never intended to. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to work harder on translating your intentions into what you write. Do you recognize that your suggestion that the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest cannot possibly work? EEng 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no problem with this referencing system at the DYK level. If that's the only issue holding up the nomination (I haven't checked for other problems), then it should be passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not wrong but it is cumbersome. 8 Plarrs, 3 O'Connors (same page), 3 BMJs (same page). This system would be more suitable if Plarrs were a book and there were 8 different pages referenced in the same book or 3 different pages in the BMJ source. It's also hard for the reader to relate the notes to the bibliography which isn't completely in alphabetical order. It's overkill in this piece. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, a genuine question here for everyone because this is the only concern I had (I could care less about citation formats). The example given at WP:BURL indicates the current format used at the article (* Bramer, Dawn, [http://www.meopham.org/content/meopham-residents-renown "Meopham residents of renown"], Meopham Parish Council, accessed and [https://web.archive.org/web/20181202152103/http://www.meopham.org/content/meopham-residents-renown archived] 2 December 2018.) is still an example of bare URL (and this is how I always understood the term, of course I may have been misled?) would still not address issues concerning WP:LINKROT, something that I have never cared too much about but remembers some folks feeling quite strongly about it. If there is consensus that none of this should be a concern at DYK level, then let's have this written down somewhere so we won't be wasting our times again. Alex Shih (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From the first line of that page bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page, which to me does not match the example given. The example given has the exact same info as it would have it it used the "cite web" format, so to me that does not like up. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, as long as all of the information are manually typed out completely, it's essentially the same. In this case I am more than glad to feign ignorance and withdraw my earlier comments. How can we make this more clear/accepting for DYK promoters? Alex Shih (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: You allege that the referencing is open to linkrot, yet the very example you put forward of a cite not protected from linkrot has a link to an archived copy of the page embedded in it. How is that not protecting from linkrot? It is absolutely the standard way of doing it. In what way do you think that using sfn templates would help with linkrot? They don't have any fields for archiving at all. SpinningSpark 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominate the very creative EEng to make it clear with as few words as possible. May I suggest a flashing animated trigger finger labeled "BARE URL" and pointing to an example. And below that, a flashing animated trigger finger pointing the opposite direction with the message "NOT A BARE URL" point at the correct style. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As if my dignity would allow such a thing.
    Seriously, the problem is that reviewers forget that DYK is (for better or worse) by design a lightweight process that demands only policy compliance + inline citations + that's about it. There's nothing to make more clear (as Alex Shih's requesting) except that reviewers should stick to the DYK criteria when deciding go/no go. Of course, they're free to point out ways the article can be improved. EEng 03:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITEVAR states that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles ... it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". The issue was taken to Arbcom who ruled that "Wikipedia does not mandate ... citation style." The style in this case seems reasonably close to that used in featured articles such as the recent History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950. This issue should therefore not delay or disrupt the nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said this several times—DYK is not the place to discuss the merits of rival citation styles—and I am resisting arguing the case for this style here. However, your comment is so full of errors of fact that I just have to correct some of them. The bibliography is in strict alphabetical order. It is in alphabetical order of author surname first, then in alphabetical order of journal or site name where the ref has no named author (treating a null author as the highest alphabetical value). Page numbers are given in the shortened cites for all references that are paginated. It is brainless to complain that page numbers are missing from a reference that is not paginated. It is true that dates have been omitted from the shortened references, but this does not make it more difficult to look it up in the bibliography, since the bibliography is in alphabetical order, not date order. Dates are necessary when there is a need to disambiguate more than one paper by the same author, but we don't have any of those so the dates would just be useless clutter in the shortened refs. Bundling was never raised as an issue by the original reviewer, nor was it part of the change to the reference style which I originally reverted (and in my opinion, bundling is not particularly helpful in any case in shortened references). SpinningSpark 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help need

I managed to bugger up the nomination template. Assistance needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, but the article is now at AfD: that needs to be closed before the nom can proceed. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AFD obviously needs to be resolved. I am relatively confident on that score. I also expect that there will be an article name change. Thank you for the prompt help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titillating hook in T:DYK/Q1

In this #METOO age I'm surprised to see a poem on the female form described as titular. We don't want this hook to be a bust! I'll be watchlisting this page to keep abreast of developments. EEng 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't be such a boob. GMGtalk 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible shame if it falls flat. EEng 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You two are a real pair. Keep racking them up. valereee (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how long we'll be able to milk this. EEng 13:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: IMO not much longer, but either way please keep me abreast of any developments --DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess... would that be because you don't want this hook to be a bust? EEng 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: lol I didn't see that you had already used that :( --DannyS712 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike. EEng 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently other editors don't find this thread uplifting. EEng 23:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interest is sagging, it seems. EEng 23:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sucks. But thanks for the mammaries. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I check how many QPQs I've done?

I can see how many DYKs I've nom'd, but how can I find out how many reviews I've done? Sorry if this has been covered before, I searched the archives and didn't immediately see one that seemed to cover this. valereee (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your objective is here. You can search in your contributions record for a string such as "Template:Did you know nominations", but that could get time consuming. What I do when I want to nominate one of my articles for DYK is to do a QPQ immediately beforehand as part of the nomination routine, rather than bother about whether I have done an "unused" review at some time in the past. There are plenty of unreviewed nominations waiting for reviewers. I hope that helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly just curiosity, really. I too just do one for every nom, not sure whether I did one for my first nom, though I might have done it immediately afterwards just out of curiosity about the process, but it's unlikely that I didn't just go ahead and do one for my second nom because that would have made me feel very guilty. I was just wondering if there were any way to see whether I'd balanced out or maybe gotten ahead, in case I'm ever considering doing a nom but thinking I just don't have the time to do the QPQ. Which isn't likely, but that's the way my brain works: am I in the safe zone, or not? :) valereee (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a list of my unused QPQs in a file in my computer. Then I just pick one when I make a nomination. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a list in my sandbox. Remove it when I use it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preps 3 & 5

@Cwmhiraeth and Gatoclass:

Could you or someone else at least partially undo this edit here? There's nothing interesting in a submarine sinking ships; the point was to not specify it was a submarine. Also, it was supposed to be in the quirky slot. Would it be possible to move the current quirky hook to another prep instead?

Same for prep 5, the Sportsman hook was supposed to be last. And could someone also undo the edit Cwmhiraeth made here as well? Its not even true, Sportsman sank several passenger ships.

Btw, I find it slightly annoying to be required to closely watch all of my hooks to make sure no one is changing their meaning in prep. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the first link change as it really is not necessary and there is no obvious discussion that I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted both these hooks. The approved hook was:
I changed this to " ... that Safari sank 25 ships?" and put it in the quirky spot. According to the MOS, ship's names should be in italics and I didn't consider that the term "a safari" was suitable, it wasn't a safari, it was a submarine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: the problem is that Gatoclass' edit changed it to HMS Safari; HMS denotes that the subject is a ship. As for "it wasn't a safari, it was a submarine" - The whole point of the original wording was to make it quirky. I was fine with your wording, but adding HMS really made the hook pointless. And I again request that you self-revert here; that was my bad, I made the typo in the article and I suppose you copied "merchant" from it; however, Sportsman also sank several passenger ships and fishing vessels. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the current wording, ... that Safari sank 25 ships? is not hooky at all IMO. What are we supposed to think, that we're talking about King Kong? You don't always have to be quirky with a submarine, and we're not going to run submarine hooks every time in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) With regard to the other hook, the approved hook stated:
and I changed it to " ... that a Sportsman sank twelve merchant ships during World War II?
Once again, a ship's name should be capitalised and in italics, and the word "Axis" was unsuitable because it was not mentioned in the article whereas the word "merchant" was. I see that you have since changed the word "merchant" in the article to "Axis" since I promoted the hook, and then complained here. Hmm... If you write accurate hooks that agree with the article and conform to the MOS, I will not feel obliged to alter them when I promote them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will move the Safari to another quirky slot and revise the Sportsman hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time for a new hook for this one. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the MOS is not policy. So the rationale for the change sounds off to me, especially when DYK rules call for hookiness. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Sportsman hook is good and hooky but the Safari one less so, but we could use ALT1 or ALT2 instead:
ALT2 looks viable to me, let's go with that one. Oh, and the reason I added the "HMS" is because, as Yoninah pointed out, the hook is meaningless without it. And quite frankly, this strategy of using proper names to try and deceive the reader is hackneyed and in many cases isn't going to fool anybody and basically just insults the readers' intelligence. We allow it on April Fools Day, but even then only the best examples should be permitted. Gatoclass (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gatoclass, ALT2 is shorter and best. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline. But there's one paragraph in the article without any citations, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you. I moved ALT2 into Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, though nearly half of them remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 6. Right now we have a total of 315 nominations, of which 175 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from October and the six from November.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old 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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

@MagicatthemovieS:, @De88:, @Cwmhiraeth:

The source: "A great example is Dylan’s “John Birch Paranoid Blues,” in which he dons the persona of a petrified American searching for communists from the comfort of his living room."

Let me say, I am tickled to death this song will be on the main page. One of Dylan's most biting pieces of political criticism. We need to tweak the hook somehow.

There is no "narrator". Dylan wrote the song, and Dylan performed it. The exact lyrics can be found at Dylan's official site:

"Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues | The Official Bob Dylan Site". www.bobdylan.com.

Nowhere in those lyrics does he pretend to be someone else. I guess the obvioius is to say Dylan was not taking on a persona, or being a narrator, when he performed his own Blowin' in the Wind. Or for that matter, almost anything Dylan wrote and performed in those years. Political commentators Stephen Colbert or John Oliver are not referred to as "donning a persona" so maybe we should reword the hook a bit. — Maile (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another thought here, is that it seems a shame to use Dylan's song on the front page with some trivial comment, rather than comment on why Dylan wrote the song in the first place. Or even that it's the "talking blues" format. So much about Dylan could be in that hook. A bit of a shame that there is no focus on the song's content or Dylan's genre. — Maile (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source:"When Bob Dylan Took a Stand Against Censorship". Time.
Offering an ALT hook above, after making a slight edit to the article. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan is clearly not talking about himself or his own views in this song, he's playing the role of a paranoid anti-communist, so I don't understand how you could think there is no "narrator" in the song, that's a term that's typically used when a writer writes from somebody else's point of view. As for the hooks, I think the original has the virtue of topicality, although it could probably be expressed better (Beauchamp is not talking about all critics but about what he thinks is excessive criticism) but the proposed alt looks fine to me, so in terms of content I don't have a strong preference either way. Gatoclass (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was about Beauchamp it might make sense to highlight his confused parallel between a satirical endorsement of the bizarre suspicion that Eisenhower was a Russian agent and the serious possibility that Trump is one. But the article's not about Beauchamp. I'd say the censorship is a way better angle. EEng 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the song was written in 1962 and has plenty of detail about the Ed Sullivan Show controversy, it doesn't make sense why Wikipedia is engaged in more Trump-bashing on the main page. Let's go with ALT1 or some form thereof. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting the Beauchamp hook backwards, but nonetheless I agree that ALT1 (or some variation) is better. Someone do something because the Beauchamp hook is still in the prep set. EEng 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Substituting ALT1 in prep. Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article and checking the sources, I modified the hook further [2] to reflect the fact that Dylan didn't just refuse to perform the song in censored form, but rather refused to perform on the show at all after the attempt at censorship. EEng 00:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dylan certainly had the courage of his youthful convictions. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRIME please don't talk about someone's convictions without a reliable source. EEng 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. That sounds like an infraction worthy of 20 lashes with a wet noodle. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issue

There seem to be a few variations on a nomination that was promoted to the main page. The promoted hook was: Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues.

Other templates which have not been closed are:

@MagicatthemovieS: next time you have a problem with typos, please don't keep opening new nominations. You can ask for help here on the talk page; it's a very easy fix. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth closed on Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues, but actually used an entirely different hook, the one from Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Society Blues, which has not been closed. Both templates were nominated and approved by the same editors. And then there's the third redlink template mentioned by Yoninah. Gatoclass BlueMoonset do either of you know how to merge those? — Maile (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding pings to this thread, hoping another admin can comment on if there is a need to rectify the multiple templates, since the bot links its notices to the nomination template listed on the Queue. For starters, the wrong nomination is listed in Prep. But how does the mix-up affect the rest of the process/archives? Please help, if anyone knows how to straighten this out. @Black Kite:, @Black Kite:, @Vanamonde93:, @Fish and karate:, @Casliber:, @Dweller:, @MSGJ:. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I had problems at the promotion stage. Can you not leave the one I archived in the archives and just delete the rest, or archive them as unsuccessful? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered, I can see how you got mixed up. I got mixed up just trying to figure out how this happened. But if nobody else replies to this, then it stays as is. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken Cwmhiraeth's suggestion and simply closed the Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Society Blues template. The hook has since been altered in prep, so neither nomination page has the right hook. I guess we don't have to worry about the one that's a redlink. Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Cowan in Prep 6

Cwmhiraeth, you changed "Mexican claim jumpers" to "local claim jumpers". I think this makes it less hooky and just bland/factual. As I said in the discussion with Yoninah, this is interesting because an American prevailed against Mexicans about something that happened in Mexico in the Mexican Supreme Court. MB 16:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the original hook is that it repeats the word "Mexico" or "Mexican" three times, which just looks clumsy. Also, why do you think it's surprising that the Mexican Supreme Court would rule in favour of a foreigner? Supreme courts generally have much more important things to think about than the nationality of involved parties. Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd go with the thumb and the cat. EEng 19:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little too trivial for my taste - also, there is no additional detail in the article, and as a general rule I don't think hooks should highlight facts for which there is no more information in the article than in the hook, it just leaves readers feeling shortchanged. Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we've never done a Hook Readers' Focus Group we'll never really know, but I always feel like once the reader gets to the article he'll be pleased to learn all the other interesting stuff there. For that matter there's nothing more about the mine in the article than there is in the hook. EEng 20:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can assure you that this reader at least hates going to the bother of clicking on a link only to find there is no further information about the item that attracted his interest, and I'm sure I'm far from the only person with this response. Other than that, there is in fact some more information about the mine angle that is not in the hook, albeit only a little, but even a little is better than none. Apart from which, the cat/gun angle is basically just highlighting a fairly minor accident in a not uncommon category, ie people harming themselves on machinery. It also tells you nothing about what the person is notable for, and tends to suggest that there is nothing more interesting that can be said about him. Gatoclass (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well all I can say is that when Mexico sends us their hooks they're not sending their best though some, I assume, are good hooks. EEng 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: As Gatoclass said, three Mexicos in one hook seemed excessive. If you want to emphasise your point, you could have

Hi-User:Allen3 (Allen Peckham) died in December 2016. Allen3 researched and wrote many articles about Arizona Territory and the territorial legislature. Allen3 started the Lawrence Cowan article. Allen3 should be given credit for Do You Know for the Lawrence Cowan article in appreciation for the articles Allen3 had researched and wrote. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought we were doing that while we finish up Allen3's articles. Right, MB? Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. He left this one at just 88 characters, a photo and a few sources, but of course there is no problem with a DYK credit since he did get it started. MB 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did work om the William Herring (politician) article which Allen3 started. It was a draft and I moved to be an article. Please free to edit and make any changes to the article-thank you again-RFD (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5: TV character

  • ... that actor Patrick O'Connor watched old episodes of Home and Away and talked to past cast members to prepare for his first-ever television role as Dean Thompson?
@Raintheone: @MX: @Cwmhiraeth:
This hook seems terribly mundane. Don't all actors prepare for their roles? Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not Steven Seagal. EEng 04:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about: ... that Home and Away character Dean Thompson was described in 2018 as the serial's "new favourite bad boy"? Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, nice, Gatoclass. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'll substitute it in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2: Fountain

  • ... that Rondebosch Fountain (pictured), a cast iron water trough for horses and one of the first electric street lights in South Africa, is being rebuilt in aluminium after the original was destroyed in a traffic accident in 2015?
@Zaian: @Johnbod: @Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is 227 characters without the "pictured". Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are we ok now? Sorry, missed all this. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6: Caen

The first time I read it, I thought it was the Battle of Caen in 1944, making it a major unreported war crime. Should we mention the year 1346? Art LaPella (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)  Done Year added. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=879488423"