User talk:Viriditas

January music

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart music for today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: do you ever listen to popular music? I've been listening to Daniela Andrade off and on for the last several weeks. There's something about her singing that touches me. It's not complex, it's very simple, but she's got this authentic approach that I like, as if she's singing her very last song each and every time. Hard to explain. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I listened now, to Tamale, yes the simplicity is touching, and going to the basics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a highly produced song, she has several others where her raw vocals shine through and you get a glimpse of her wider range as a singer. But yes, "Tamale" is fun, and I especially like the video, as it speaks to certain period in my life when I used to buy tamales from street vendors who were always older women. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older women - did you listen/watch Isabella in my story? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely fantastic image of Podleś in the infobox. And it even dates back to 2010! You got lucky with that one. The use of "older women" in my comment was a playful contrast with Andrade's video, which shows younger women making the tamales. In the US, there is generally a culture of grandmothers, or as they are known here, the abuela, who sell these tamales on the city streets. There's also the play on the term "like my grandmother used to make" when it comes to food. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nice match to the Spanish island where I am - and what about the opera scene? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing sound quality from 2014! Quite remarkable. I'm playing it here in my room and it sounds like I'm right there! I think the trick is the live mix, it's perfect. It sounds like I'm sitting in the orchestra. I love her coloratura contralto, and I hope this isn't a bad thing, but it's so low you can't tell it is a woman singing! Did she ever play male parts, as I understand that kind of thing was common at one point? Right now I'm getting really into ballet. I see that the opera-ballet has fallen out of fashion, with only four rarely performed. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny question: the story mentions 2 women and 2 men, and in the first version (2024), there was one more woman and one more man. Had she been up for DYK none of that would have been "interesting" but what she did at age four ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is definitely a problem with hook style, but we've discussed this so many times, there's nothing more to say. I recently wrote two hooks that I thought were perfect, only to have the reviewer tell me they were too long and to rewrite a hook that others now think is not interesting because it is just sitting there, abandoned to the elements. Anyway, enjoy Spain and get off the internet! Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did that without being asked - but in the meantime, your hook made it to prep, pictured. Today we have Bach, Mozart and Verdi on the Main page, but I enjoyed Spain, - actually trying to tackle Roque Niquiomo was a beyond what I can do easily, and I missed the top. Still enjoyed hike and views. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kowtows. Madame, I am at your service. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can pick, Verdi or Nun ruhen alle Wälder ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You picked both: how generous, thank you!! Verdi: Image size is very easy to change, I was tempted to shrink it on the talk page but then thought that the discussion would outgrow it, which your post alone already did (at least on my display). We should not forget how different display is for different users. Some mobile users see first the first para of the prose, then the infobox below it, then the rest of the article. You will not get a happy photo of Verdi in mid-career because photography was at its beginning ;) - Little progress in the matter: N. didn't revert while Verdi was on the main page. Previous reverts came much faster. The belief of those who don't want an infobox is that it should go by the author(s)'s preference. My story today is about Jerome Kohl whose talk page is inspiring, in case you didn't visit yet. He reverted many infoboxes for composers because of the 2010 RfC of project composers, but later he wrote things like this. - Verdi is a GA by Smerus, who wrote FAs Wagner and Chopin, among many others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think I might have found an error in the Nun ruhen alle Wälder article. You say the eighth stanza became used as an evening prayer for children, but that stanza is unclear and may be numbered differently in other versions. Please check to make sure. The eighth stanza in the article you wrote in the subsection "Text" may be different than the prayer that is used. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that Marie Engle! - See music today, for people remembered, and the wedding anniversary of relatives who went on their honeymoon to Tenerife which I can see from La Palma on a clear day (not today). See places - I uploaded until 21 Jan. - Nun ruhen alle Wälder is also in music, and it was that recently that I noticed that it is part of the hymnal, because it took centuries for it to be accepted, and 13 more years to actually being sung (where I watch) ;) - I guess the majority of the songs in the book don't get sung at all or very rarely. - What I want to know about "a song" is who wrote it? when? how does it sound? what is it about? - and the one thing I don't care about at all is which important person didn't like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that the emphasis on the King of Prussia isn't as unusual or interesting as it should be, but AGAIN, DYK does have that bias, such that it encourages the sensational, the surprising, and most importantly, the negative, which we know you don't like. The solution (or antidote) to this reoccurring theme (and the best way to avoid it since you don't like it) is to instead use a contrast between two or more different things in place of what can be interpreted as negative. This is interesting, because it has the same impact as negativity bias in terms of salience. You can put this to the test in your own life. For example, people who wear bright colored clothing or unusual hairstyles will be noticed more than others. That's a simple example. So what makes your hook stand out? That's the question you want to ask. As a singer, what you find interesting will not be the same as non-singers, but you can find a place where non-singers and singers can agree. That's what you want to focus on in your hook. Negative hooks attract attention, but so does humor, wonder, and many other things. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On my way going out: I'll think about a reply, rather than rushing. What I came to say is that I'm fascinated by Richie Beirach, who needs a few more refs (so had no time to expand the article about the lovely peaceful enduring song). Dont miss my story today, a 2013 DYK ;) - wrong day, but close: it was written for tomorrow's occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I love comments like this! I am putting together a Beirach playlist right now so I can have more to say to you later after I spend several hours listening to his music. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's great, especially since I don't have those hours, - I don't listen to music while hiking. Today was especially great, almond flowers and being above the clouds. - Look for Wind of Change in music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pics or it didn't happen! Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I try to get them up chronologically, patience please. First comes enjoying the real thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca-related personal anecdote

Some years back, I signed up for the Bonhams auction of Casablanca memorabilia. There were only two items even remotely within my financial reach: gambling chips and Sakall's waiter's jacket. Who wants generic chips? (Turns out a lot of people apparently; the pre-auction estimate was a couple of hundred dollars, but I think they went for a couple of thousand.) Anyway, it seems there were two of us vying for the jacket (it was online and in-person bidding, maybe phone bidding as well, so I'm not absolutely certain). My last bid was $3200 US, as I recall. That was the pre-auction high-end estimate, and didn't include the buyer's premium, shipping, etc. I bailed at that point, and the next bid of $3300 ($100 increments) took it. I've regretted my decision ever since. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I would have gone for the waiter's jacket! I used to do thrift store hauls back in the 1980s. The things you used to be able to find were amazing, and so cheap. One of my fave finds of all time was a Playboy-style smoking jacket that looked straight out of Austin Powers. It was really beautiful. I gifted it to a friend who admired it some time later, which is generally how I handle things I like. I tend to pass things on rather than to possess anything of value. Over time, I've given away almost everything I've ever owned. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, behave! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Other America (speech)

On 19 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Other America (speech), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech "The Other America" is thought to have been influenced by a post-Keynesian economist and a democratic socialist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Other America (speech). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Other America (speech)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools

Hello, following up on your offer at the Humanities Reference Desk to take a look at some of the claims in Draft:Desegregation of Atlanta schools, especially the first two "context" sentences in the article, which seem false to me: Georgia state law, passed in 1870, required racial segregation in schools with equal funding for black and white schools. Atlanta City Council failed to provide school buildings compliant with racial separation laws, so the American Missionary Association received state support for educating black students. If you do end up having a chance to take a look, thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0: can you summarize why this was moved into draft space in the first place? Just want to make sure I understand the page history before I start getting into the spot checking. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting with the original version.[1] Based on that version (let's start there), why was it moved to draft? It looks pretty good aside from some general formatting and grammar issues that are routine. There's a good chance I'm missing what you are seeing, so please be patient in your reply so we can both get to the same place. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas, I moved it to draft for a few reasons: (a) undergrad student draft from a WikiEd course that had released a few other low-quality drafts, (b) heavy reliance on an undergrad thesis, (c) some copy that read like potential sloppy LLM use to me, and (d) I quickly checked two sentences and noticed that the cited source didn't verify the claim in the sentence (which also made me suspect sloppy LLM use). I kept it in draft because, as I mentioned above about the start of the History#Segregation section, the first two sentences appeared to me to be (1) false (or at least misleading) and (2) unsupported by the cited source. There was a brief discussion about the draft at User_talk:Wikivoyager22.

Ultimately, I had sufficient suspicion about the verifiability and accuracy of the draft and couldn't immediately verify the content, so I figured that was a perfect opportunity for incubation in draft space. Does that provide useful context? It also looks like User:Rich Farmbrough is looking at the draft now as well, as I see some recent edits and some work on the talk page.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that this is primarily a skill issue on my part; if you are familiar with the history of desegregation and the content seems accurate, you're more than welcome to BOLDly move it back to mainspace. I just didn't want to keep it in mainspace when I couldn't verify if the content was accurate (and had a few "circumstantial" reasons to think it wasn't). If I had the time, the first thing I would do is read Courage to Dissent so I have more context about the subject matter. Thanks again for taking a look at this! Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available chapter by chapter on TWL if you are interested, but for some reason the full book download appears to be disabled, which is odd, because it usually lets me download the full pdf from that site. It could be my browser as this kind of thing happened before a few months ago. Anyway, I haven’t yet spot checked the sources, but nothing about the text looked like LLM to me, quite the opposite in fact. The poor writing style looks human to me, which was the tell that a LLM was not used. When a LLM is used to write an article, the tell is that it relies on a limited set of phrases and vocab that most people don’t use in a repetitive manner. And it is within that set of repetition that LLM makes itself evident. Knowing nothing about the class or the student, this looks like someone who is planning to go to law school or is already in law school, as they write like an attorney. The headings were wrong from a MOS approach, which is easily fixed. Like I said, I have only glanced at the original draft, and nothing stood out to me as unusual. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to download the full PDF from an alternate source, happy to send it to you! Again, if you have time to take a look and/or move it to mainspace, that would be great. Suriname0 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have a copy. Just concerned that there's something wrong with TWL, as I've had many problems with it. Seems to have something to do with Firefox. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex and very interesting area. Specifically the desire of various black factions to slow play desegregation is something that is not often covered, although it is in the sources. One of the issues with the article is that it seems to be too focussed on a bachelor's thesis which is about the 'resegregation' of Atlanta schools - a real phenomenon, but tangential to the main subject according to the name of the draft. I am unlikely to spend much more time on the draft. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for looking anyway! Suriname0 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the desire of various black factions to slow play desegregation is something that is not often covered Seems pretty much covered in civil rights literature. MLK faced great opposition from the Black community, and much later the NAACP. Part of the struggle the early civil rights movement had was trying to convince their own people to change the status quo. Inertia is the greatest enemy to change. This is nothing new. American white, conservative women helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. You may ask, why would women argue against their own right to freedom and opportunity? Within every movement you have reactionaries, people who benefit from the status quo and operate on the crab mentality to keep their own people oppressed. Happens in every ethnic group, religion, and social class. We saw it happen among poor whites who voted not once, not twice, but three times for Trump, sincerely believing that the money was going to trickle down to them any day now. One of the most popular photos on Reddit is an image of a dirt poor white family that lives in a ramshackle cabin that looks like it is about to fall down with massive "TRUMP" signs all over its exterior walls. These are the same poor whites who are literally dying for Trump by the thousands as he cuts their social programs and entitlements. These are the same poor white veterans who voted for Trump by the tens of thousands, a president who avoided the draft and has spent decades denigrating the military and its service members. This is no different. SSDD. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February music

Continuing from January, after a full day out: Beirach needs more refs, especially for the recordings. It seems like he has a complete list on the official website, but I can't access it. Can you, perhaps? The two facts marked - influence and his compositions jazz standards - also need refs or have to go. - For today's story, I picked a hymn distantly related to today's feast day (last year it was Bach's chorale cantata for the occasion). The hymn was pictured DYK on this day in 2019, and I got a bit nostalgic when reading Template:Did you know nominations/Im Frieden dein, o Herre mein. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the unsourced bits to talk page intact, so others can look at them. I will return to that page later this week to try and help find sources. Yesterday, I listened to his 2017 album Live at Birdland New York, which was recorded when he was 70 years old. I think it's remarkable that he could still play like that at his age. Also, his technique and approach to Jazz is somewhat unique, so it would take me some time to figure out how to describe it accurately and faithfully. One thing I did notice that stood out, is he gave a lot of freedom and opportunity to the musicians who played with him, more so than others, so he comes off as very democratic and open to collaboration. The other thing that stuck with me is that I didn't hear him improvise as much as I thought he would. He is very controlled and intentional, and draws from a bag of chops like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Returned from another great day. I didn't want to nominate Beirach until Buchholz is off the main page, but now have to because it's seven days after his death was known. I'll nominate with only the referenced things, - plenty of detail. I know how to find refs for recordings, but would not easily find "influences" and "standards". "democratic and open to collaboration" sounds wonderful (quite generally so!), but would also need a ref if to be mentioned for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has me curious: did he work out at the gym and lift weights? Playing piano with that kind of hand strength at 70 years of age is unheard of to me. If you find any information about his exercise routine (if any), please add it to the article. I find the topic of maintaining strength and agility in older musicians interesting. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no indication, and think that to keep playing alone trains. I nominated. Commented out the standards, will look for influence. Chick Corea - don't even know if it fits ... - I had no time yet to understand who wrote the article. Enjoying where I am too much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having approved Allan Ludwig with an interesting hook, although a short hook was on the table ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to the double hook below! What do you think about an infobox for the company? - What about the Wotan-hook? - Beirach made it to the main page (after I spent an hour - after a pinnacle day on vacation - finding references for the albums that have an article ... for the formality of having everything sourced, - some are still commented out because I got too tired ...), so the time to reach readers with more information for him is now ;) - I'll make him my story today, now, and don't know yet which music too take for a sample. What would be your choice? For Jubilant Sykes, I offered two. - For Verdi: there was a question left for you, about stewardship, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will respond tomorrow. Trying to fix a source issue elsewhere at the moment, then going to hit the hay. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Gerda. Love the improvements. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gerda, I'm still behind. Will try to catch up on this soon. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, same at my end, took up a philosopher, don't understand a line of some obits ... - Could you please take a quick look at the Wotan hook, perhaps suggest some compromise? "giant of a man but expressing tender emotions" (short for the reviewers proposal) is just too little - belittling that is - for his singular performance, especially as Wozzeck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beirach: There's a rather long quote from a review in the article about the Lookout Farm album, which seems a good summary of his/their collaborative style ("democracy in motion"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Vásáry today, who began his career with a Mozart concerto at age 8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help to interest! - Today some 1510 carving from St. Valentin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... only it didn't work as I hoped ... - Giants today, RD Helmuth Rilling and OTD Friedrich Cerha 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today something new: a 100th birthday of someone alive, György Kurtág! In 2004 I was there when he and his wife played for the Rheingau Musik Festival where he was the featured composer. They played as the 2019 DYK said, on an upright piano, - listen, the last piece was the same. - More pics uploaded, enjoy. And Rosiestep shows the latest cat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we call a well-fed feline. Looks like they never went a day without food. Also, their coat is well taken care of and healthy. This isn't any old restaurant cat, this is someone's baby. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "old" ;) - if you look at the food you see that they feed people and the cat well, - cat still wanted some of my food, gorgeous surprise menu of local cuisine - listened to more Kurtág on radio. Did you see that 2019 DYK (for his wife, actually, - after I failed to bring her to ITN? What would they pick today? That he felt like a cockroach, compared to Ligeti and Stockhausen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being you. Your consistency is admirable. I can set my watch to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In church yesterday this question: "When did you last change your mind?" and I thought that consistency was also something to go for ;) - What I came for was a pointy pointer at today's story about Astrid Schirmer, a DYK hook OTD 2016, and look at the review ;) - I saw her on stage. Sadly, I see only three YT, and as I try to use only one, I took the lilac one, Isolde, with Gail Gilmore whom I saw more often, not only in Hannover but also in Wiesbaden, on the rise then as Adriano in Rienzi and Eboli in Don Carlos. Brünnhilde is interesting, but shows only the Hojotoho aspect, and while the sexy Sancta Susanna is good listening, it has pics not of her but of marble figures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Johannes Mayer hook is on the main page now, with some of your ideas and some of mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Gerda! Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What I like especially is that the stats for both Wotan and Wozzeck were also 4 digits, - there 'is' interest in these topics, it seems, at least when roles come with interesting names. I guess today's Marie Engle - congratulations! - will also have good stats, for the nice image. In prep another one pictured, and question to self: let it go with a hook that has no indication of her importance for Finnish opera, because the image will "sell" the hook? (Again, the reviewer passed two hooks, and the promoter grabbed the first, possibly without even reading the discussion.) We had Margot Fonteyn the other day, and a term I liked in her article is "distinguishing role". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

just a quick question because I arrived at your name in my watchlist (and I have something more interesting to do than asking on WT:DYK, and it's not an error): what is interesting in that SÖMÖ was a bookseller before she went into politics? - which you promoted. For me, not a), not b), not the combination, a common combination of two common unspecified occupations, true for I guess hundreds of people. My idea of interesting seems to be different ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question. For me, the scope of the question pertains to the role of the promoter. How much is the question of what is "interesting to a broad audience" within the purview of a promoter? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By promoting you accepted it as interesting, no? You could have promoted something else. You could have asked the question in the nom. She is one of the articles where I'd agree with Narutolovehinata5 that don't offer anything interesting enough for DYK, also of the "doing her jobs"-kind. Instead, Wanda Perdelwitz was rejected, known to many per popular tv and with some "coolest" awards, and this woman was accepted. What's the standard? She is the fifth in a row in February alone, and there may be more coming. I liked the threesome from Hamburg, and found their hook interesting, but "politician" and "bookseller", really?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. I found it interesting, and I assumed a broad audience would also find it interesting. In the US, we have career politicians who have mostly held law degrees. AOC was notable for having a job as a bartender before pursuing politics. To me, this was somewhat similar. To you, not so much. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, - that didn't even occur to me. One more reason to think about that whole "interesting" stuff, no? But what about "doing her jobs"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I was the catalyst for you and Naruto seeing eye to eye for once. I assume the world is about to end, now. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Funnily, just this morning I voted (by mail), for region, town and village, and read all the more than 200 names and professions on the regional ballot because I looked for a name, and there was a wide range of professions, yes, many in law and education but even an opera singer. I was happy I didn't have to make my choices in a cabin, nor having to wait for others ;) - after edit conflict: it could be a beginning, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

more fun: the opera singer's birth year was given on the giant sheet filling half a table, but I guess that's not a reliable source ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... and on Talk:Maurice Ravel, two editors seem to agree with me who rarely do ;) - I got news in the morning, wrote the article and nominated for DYK. It could have been ITN, for a change between killed people, removed rulers and disasters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see: you are in agreement with Naruto, two people who never agree with you, do, what else? Should I get my affairs in order? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

always ;) - (I didn't say never. Did you look at the discussion? - Did I mention "clutter"? I don't remember ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would explain, but this is funny just how it is. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I needed 2 qpq, and the 2 articles I found interesting were already under review guess by who? - After the miracle of writing an article and nominating same day, review the same day would make it even better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a poke and a hint? I think it is. Nicely done. We will see how I feel when I get back tonight. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see ... - you can now see what you asked for in January: pics of almond blossom above the clouds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can adjust that bokeh on your samsung. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, learning. - Nevermind about the DYK, it's approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oceanic Steamship Company

On 5 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oceanic Steamship Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Oceanic Steamship Company (advertisement pictured) beat a rival company in a trans-Pacific race, bought the rival's ships, and added them to its own fleet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oceanic Steamship Company. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oceanic Steamship Company), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

JuniperChill (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company

On 5 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Oceanic Steamship Company (advertisement pictured) beat a rival company in a trans-Pacific race, bought the rival's ships, and added them to its own fleet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oceanic Steamship Company. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

JuniperChill (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Western Motel

On 17 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Western Motel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a motel room inside an Edward Hopper painting was reconstructed in 3D, allowing guests to sleep there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Western Motel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Western Motel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,827 views (902.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneZeta^C 12:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job with the article. :-) You didn't have to credit me as well since you did all the work, but that was very thoughtful. APK hi :-) (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are very modest, but without those high quality images you provided, the article isn’t even worth visiting. You deserve the credit more than I do. Writing was the easy part, in this case. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats also on what GalliumBot says about views! I find it interesting that your hook did that without an image, even though mine, with the image, was in the same set, but had fewer views. (I'm not complaining: I'm actually quite happy with the views I got.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two things: that hook only came about after six failed hooks were submitted. Make what you will of that. I spent three days trying to get it right, which is a bit obsessive, and frankly weird. Hey, I never claimed to be a normie. As for the views, not sure what to make of it. I'm still stumped when it comes to the success of a hook. It kind of reminds me of my foray into amateur comedy back in the 1990s. All of the things people said was funny about my material seemed like it was completely unfunny to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know until now that you had tried doing comedy. Whatever you do, don't ask AI for jokes! (On a completely unrelated note, but going back to our discussions of films, last night I watched Blue Moon (2025 film), and absolutely loved it. Ethan Hawke's portrayal of Lorenz Hart is spectacular: it's like he never comes up for air.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it, but anything about Hart has got to be good. His songs are still some of the best. I've also been a fan of Ethan Hawke since day one. And speaking of songs and Hawke, the 1947 song "I'm My Own Grandpa" features in Heinlein's story, "'—All You Zombies—'", which was later adapted into a 2014 film called Predestination featuring Hawke in one of his best performances in the science fiction genre outside of Gattaca. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently watching Frost/Nixon. It's really good. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – I saw that a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about Blue Moon. I've added it to my watchlist. It's kind of funny you recommended it to me when you did, because I've been listening to a Hart playlist in my car for the last month or so. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YW. It's on Netflix, if you have that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve got it queued up. Trying to finish The Peripheral right now. It’s not bad. I think the thing that interests me the most is the concept of telepresence through remote robotics. It’s an idea that we are seeing more of right now. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked Kevin Bacon's performance in Frost/Nixon. He's such a damn good actor. Makes you really believe in the role. Sam Rockwell was way over the top, but I think that's his style. It can be a bit distracting. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK from Wing Sun Fong

Hello there! So I wanted to address a concern to you about a DYK nomination from Wing Sun Fong's article. I was, for some reason, unable to comment on the DYK nomination itself so I had to make a seperate topic, here: Talk:Wing Sun Fong#Did you know info fix and suggestion. I made a note there about how the information in the DYK is seen by historians of Titanic as being a made-up story and that the nomination should be changed to something more appropriate and one based on actual research - I also edited the article to fix that bit of misinformation on which the DYK was based on.

I don't get involved in DYK so I don't know how to re-open that nomination so I hope you can help out or maybe help fix it. Would be much appreciated! Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I will escalate the matter. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! Hope you are well. Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you removed it from the article and it was removed from the DYK hook and replaced.[2] Is there anything else that should be done? Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think I understand now. I see now that the issue was indeed noted. As I mentioned before, DYK isn't something I've ever gotten involved in so I wasn't entirely sure if my suggestion was heeded.

Thank you for you help, genuinely appreciate it! Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you are interested, DYK could use your expertise, so please consider participating. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Here! Purplemaker (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

input request

If you have time, can you take a cursory glance here and tell me if you think this is too long of an article? I feel like it might be, but his story is such a miscarriage of justice I wanted to include what seems to me relevant info. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do first thing tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

APK, great job on this fascinating topic. Here's a fun tidbit: your article is only slightly shorter (79862 characters, 13111 words) than the featured bio on Jesus! (84930 characters, 13992 words) Apologies, but I thought you would get a kick out of my humor. But there is a point buried in there. I don't think length will ever be the fundamental problem, but rather focus, density, and subsectioning. However, in a bio like this, I think you want to shoot for around 10k words or less, but don't let that arbitrary limit stop you. I would focus on cutting the lead in half, but most people do that at the end, so don't think it is anything you have to do right now. The main issue I see is the lack of subsections, which would tell you right away what you need to keep and what you need to cut. The first thing that stands out to me is a lot of the discussion about what Junius is feeling and thinking. The context sounds almost hypothetical, but I understand you are trying to humanize your subject as best as possible, and that's admirable, but if we really don't know what they were feeling and thinking and this is just a kind of hypothetical by the author (I'm assuming this is Burch), I would think about cutting that material first. But don't entirely discard it; you may be able to salvage it in its own section about his emotional and psychological state. This is what I'm really gettting at: group the related content together into their own subsections. The lack of density at this time reflects the lack of those sections. Legacy is nice and dense, and you probably want to aim for that style elsewhere (maybe you just got tired at the end?) Branch's lawsuit section seems like a candidate for condensing down, as does moving out of the locked ward, guardianship and outside assistance, further evaluations and stroke, relocation and changes to patient status, and farm colony and increased privileges. Once you've done that and trimmed the lead, it should be good to go. Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback. I'll definitely work on trying to make it more concise. Side note, in the 90s my school was very close to the hospital, and I never heard about this man. Wish I had followed news events at the time. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are passionate about this topic, I would encourage you to take it all the way to the featured level. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tolkien: Man and Myth

Regarding this, I don't think the source's understand Tolkien from a religious perspective is saying the same thing as the new hook's grasping [Tolkien's] "religious perspective". TompaDompa (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is it qualitatively different? How would you paraphrase it instead? I’m not going to add "understand[ing]” to a hook. Looking at the source, it appears there are any number of ways to say it. If you don’t like the way I did it, then do it without a bracketed insertion. That’s not conducive to readability or hookiness. And since I’m going to be offline for a while, you will get a better response and action requesting a change on the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you changed it back. For the sake of clarity, my point is that I don't think that understanding a person from a religious perspective and understanding that person's religious perspective are interchangeable. So in this case, replacing grasping his "religious perspective" with grasping him from a "religious perspective" (optionally omitting the quotation marks) would have also been satisfactory to me. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

Per your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_212#More_eyes_needed_at; a week has passed, nothing is happening. Can you help move this? PS. I'll also point out to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_211#No_potential_to_be_interesting?_-_concering_the_first_Witcher_board_game, and the fact that a sister article with what I consider similar hook to one of the proposed there is mainpaged today with nobody complaining: Talk:The_Witcher_Adventure_Game#Did_you_know_nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Narutolovehinata5: Naruto said they would approve it after the copyedit was completed. Was it? Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a new look at the article. It's a lot better now, but it still needs further edits. For one, there are multiple statements that are inside parentheses; ideally, they needed to be better integrated into the article. I had been planning to approve the nomination earlier, but when I last checked, it seemed that copyediting was still not complete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. At least Piotrus knows what to do. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 Please point me to a relevant guideline that advises against the use of parentheses; I don't see such a note at MOS:BRACKET. I have nonetheless c/e-ed some affected sentences. If you reply here, please ping me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to even ping him, as you and I discussed this previously elsewhere and I complained back then. You probably don't remember as you are somewhat prolific and are busy with other things. The parentheticals I previously complained about tended to act as speed humps (normally, I would write speed bumps, but that usage has apparently been deprecated in favor of humps, don't ask me why) preventing the reader from actively moving forward. I just provided a humorous example of this for you to peruse. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't recall this conversation, but I am certainly open to the idea that I overuse the parentheticals. Can you see if there are still too many? (And I'd also appreciate a link to the relevant policy, because this - i.e. "beauty of the prose" - is somewhat of a subjective territory; with no offense, as much as I may be overusing the parentheticals, it may also be that some people are too sensitive to them...). Incidentally, hyphens serve a similar function - how do you feel about them? I even thought about using them more, but I also recently read that AIs tend to use too many hyphens so errr not sure if this would be good or bad, given our anti-AI sentiments around here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going offline for a bit, but I'm pretty sure the MOS or some other guideline says to minimize the use of parentheticals. I recall reading it the last time we discussed this. Enjoy your week. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 Ping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was waiting for the conversation to end and for Viriditas to give more advice. As far as I can tell, MOS does not outright prohibit discouraging the use of parentheticals the way you did; in fact, the MOS even gives instructions on how to do it (or use dashes). But in practice, I remember it being a discouraged practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 If a practice is not reflected in our rules, it is unclear if it represents a consensus or just a preference of some editors (think WP:ENGVAR, etc.). That said, I think I removed about half of them from the article, as I agree it was rather ()heavy, so thanks for pointing that out - can we move on? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use an LLM to write the new contents section? You've got to fix it up. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which section? Can you link to it? And fix what up? I write stuff myself, although I test various tools, including LLMs, for proofreading/grammar correction (mostly Grammarly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content section. Reads like an LLM wrote it. The "tell" is it uses the next expected word rather than random words written by a person. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, as I said, I use Grammarly, and I do test other tools to improve my prose, since I am not a native speaker, and folks do complain occasionally about other stuff (like parenthesis), so I increasingly throw my text, or the chunks of it I am not very happy with, at various LLMs models, tell it to rewrite it to sound more native, then pick the sentences I think sound best, mix-and-matching them. Of course, I do make sure than the end text is correct and factually represents what I want it to, and contains no hallucinations, etc., since sometimes these models go a bit too far. What is "the next expected word", btw? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It means it predicts the most likely word to be used. As for the content section, just use what you have but rewrite it using several paragraphs in a more natural format like you do in your encyclopedic writing offline. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying my non-native tone is preferable to this? I started using these tools precisely because folks, including an occasional DYK reviewer, complained my prose needs to be copyedited. You want me to reintroduce my "errors"? :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy ___." These are things the LLM does very well. As for your non-native tone, yes, I like that very much just as long as it is copyedited for readability. There's a reason non-native English speakers have a reputation for writing the best novels in English. Wrap your mind around that. As for the people who say you need to change your local voice and conform to some kind of Wikipedia house style, well, I have to watch my words carefully here. Don't listen to them. The reality is that the best articles here are not written in a house style, they are written in a unique, distinctive way, that makes people sit up straight and pay attention and keep reading. These people who tell you otherwise either don't understand that or aren't able to recognize it. To put it another way, I don't want every article to sound the same way, I want them to sound completely different. This is the direct opposite of how many people think. They yearn for a kind of singular homogeneity that eliminates the individual voice wherever it arises. It's a kind of intellectual fascism, and it's extremely common. LLMs are the most insidious, nefarious, and Orwellian outcome of this kind of attitude. At the end of the day, they will not have only eliminated the individual human voice, they will have vanquished human thought entirely. That's the endgame. Read 1984, the playbook is all there. It's the scene where they are talking about how Newspeak will change the future. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your thoughts, particularly in the broader scheme of things; the problem is that it's hard to make everyone happy - I don't think everyone would agree with you; and since I do get requests to 'copyedit my works' for English sufficient enough that I have my own friendly copyeditor (User:Nihil novi) whom I believe I increasingly ping (maybe ~2 a month, at least?), very often due to reviewers requests at DYK. Lastly, I am not sure if heterogeneity of style is preferable. I recently was expanding the article on The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, reading its numerous reviews, and several reviewers praised it on the uniformity of style, due to almost all entries of the earlier, print editions being written by only a handful of writers. As I am a SFE contributor now, and I know it has many more contributors, I wonder what the reviewers will say, and in fact, I try to keep my entries in what I think is the in-house style (and in fact, I even use LLMs to adjust my entries there for this). Likewise, as someone who researchers and publishes about Wikipedia, I recall that the most common criticism of Wikipedia is due to its low readability (compared to other reference works), i.e. that many of our writers cannot write "nice" prose. So again, while I appreciate your kind words about my style, I am not sure whether they represent the views of most editors (and readers), and whether having many different voices makes sense. In the end, there's a reason we have WP:MOS and it tends to enforce some structure, up to and including tone and style (from WP:WTA to others, including WP:AISIGNS). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several reviewers praised it on the uniformity of style. Yes, this is the dominant view. And I find it completely and totally wrong, as well as dangerous. Fascists love uniformity. It's how they eliminate new ideas. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, but its a blurry line between going to far. Consider WP:COMMONNAME, for example. Or the concept of standardizing category names (I cannot find the relevant letter soup for that, but it's logical that if we have for example Category:Polish writers and Fooian writers in general, we want Category:Ukrainian writers, not Category:Writers of Ukraine. It's not fascist to support that view, I hope :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you studied category theory in philosophy? It’s basically dismissed as a useless exercise at this point. Maybe most people aren’t aware of this. Every thing is interconnected and overlapping. Categories don’t even come close to describing this or representing reality. Let’s stop talking about this. Let it become a splinter in your mind and fester. Think about if for several days, weeks, months, and years. If you have a uniformity of language, then you’ve automatically restricted and limited thought. This was Orwell’s main point. If you want to control how people think, simply control their language. And once you redefine words to mean things other than they mean, then you can eliminate the ideas they originally pointed to and replace those ideas with others. War is peace. Freedom is slavery, etc. In the US, the far right has already accomplished this by redefining “government”, a function of democracy, as "evil", and monarchy and dictatorship as “good”. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should work on getting groupthink, newspeak and so on to GA :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As serendipity would have it, I just found an interesting book on this related topic. I may start a new article about it when I finish reading it. I will keep you updated. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will look forward to it. In the meantime, are there any issues with the Witcher game DYK I missed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The_Witcher:_The_Adventure_Card_Game#Contents is hardly new, and it was written my myself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that article. The Tolkien one. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marie Engle

On 24 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marie Engle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marie Engle (pictured) was one of the earliest operatic singers to be recorded on rare Bettini cylinders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Engle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marie Engle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Laun chba ller 00:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Halloween Martin

Hello! Your submission of Halloween Martin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March music

story · music · places

Aribert Reimann's 90th birthday, with a hook mentioning his 80ths, the opera played by Oper Frankfurt after he died, see video, and I was there. - Ruta de los Volcanes is among the latest places. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now Cyprus, made it back home safely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! We have missed your acerbic wit and sparkling personality. Did you have a good time? I apologize for my country attempting to start WWIII, but most of us are being held hostage by a Mad King at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had a good time, - places have a few pics already. Here is my acerbic wit: Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. (As you may have seen on WT:DYK: I had neglected my duties for the topic's nomination over vacation, therefore the nom was closed, and also the topic branded "not interesting". Hostage ...) As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman, - by pure and loved coincidence. - I saw Written on Skin yesterday, and one reviewer said that what was meant to be the woman's humiliation, she made it her triumph. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

more Bach in story and music, imagine: four Easter cantatas in today's concert, and more places in Cyprus! - the story was a pictured DYK in 2017, pointing at the most prominent use of the hymn imaginable, - in the video, the singers stand out by robes, did you see? Of the four cantatas, I sang two, and the secular model of a third. Close to my heart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Halloween Martin

On 8 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Halloween Martin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Halloween Martin (pictured) became one of the first modern DJs at a time when radio widely discriminated against women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Halloween Martin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Halloween Martin), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job with Halloween Martin

Nice job with Halloween Martin, of whom I had never heard until I stumbled upon the mention in today's DYKs. Glad I caught that "Le Roy" Kurtzeborn should be "LeRoy Kurtzeborn". I'm puzzled. You knew the name was misspelled when you wrote the article! I would think that the Chicago Tribune is a sufficiently reliable source to have established the correct spelling. --Alan W (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan W: The Chicago Tribune misspelled it. Virtually half of the sources have major errors. It is correctly spelled "Le Roy".[3] The gravestone is only one of the many corrections that were made. I believe the primary source documents on Ancestry and several other articles confirm that the name is correctly spelled "Le Roy" not LeRoy. Many of the sources also misspell his last name. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about that? Even usually reliable sources can be wrong. I just undid what I thought were fixes. The "Find a Grave" link as you say shows Le Roy Kurtzeborn's gravestone, so that should settle it! I'm glad you responded to this so quickly. And that you added this article in the first place. I always love to learn this kind of thing. --Alan W (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I pulled a lot of my hair out of my head writing this article. Even the most reliable sources I used had major errors. I spent a lot of time cross-checking everything, and it was really frustrating. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. And loss of hair. :-) Another thought. Oh, wait, yet another.... I just checked the source in your footnote citing the DePaulia article where you say that Kurtzeborn's name is misspelled. But it is not! It is the Chicago Tribune that misspells his name. More changes are in order. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DePaulia also misspells his last name. Look closer.[4] It's easy to miss! Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, is it ever easy to miss. I had to blow up that page quite a bit to see it. At least we have these digital tools and can use them at home, which was not at all the way it was when I was growing up. Now, I have made more changes. Of course if it's still not right, you can make further changes. I see how you could have pulled out so much hair working on this. --Alan W (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly upset that I couldn't find a single archival recording of her voice to upload. I've been reading supplementary sources about the history of radio, and they all say the same thing: archival material about the history of radio from the 1920s was either destroyed or lost. Meanwhile, she was on the radio until 1946! And nobody has a single recording of her voice?? It blows my mind that nobody is paying librarians to save and preserve anything. This really hit home when I wrote the recent article in January on "The Other America (speech)". I discovered that the vast majority of San Francisco history recorded by the media prior to 1980 was deliberately destroyed. I am still reeling from this. Do people know history is being erased? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed shocking that with all her time on the radio, nothing with Martin's voice has been preserved. Even more shocking is what you say about all the rest of our cultural history that has been deliberately, or by unforgivable neglect, destroyed. I dipped into your article on King's speech. I'll want to read more. You've been making great contributions here! Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the article, too. I was curious how she got her first name. By the way, I vaguely remember that "Find a Grave" is considered an unreliable source, because it's a kind of wiki, although I guess a photograph is a photograph. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: for help on the "Find a Grave" question. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The site in general is considered unreliable, yes. The photographs can be used but only in very narrow circumstances - only for what the photo actually shows, only for claims not requiring analysis, and otherwise in accordance with WP:PSTS. (And generally, it's not necessarily safe to assume that the stone is correct where sources are contradictory). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you are referring to the above discussion about Martin's husband's name, that is the spelling of "Le Roy E. Kurtzeborn", and if the grave reflects the correct version of his name. To recap: I argued that the Chicago Tribune got it wrong in 1979.[5] Previous to that time, multiple articles had published his name as "Le Roy".[6][7][8][9] I didn't add the "Compare with his name on his gravestone" bit to the article; that was added by Alan W. If you think it should be modified or removed, please do so. Also, we can see that he spells his name "Le Roy" not as "Leroy" or "LeRoy" by looking at his own handwriting in two separate places on his 1942 draft card.[10] For me, that seals the deal. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it, and I think the "Compare... gravestone" part in the two footnotes should be removed. I have three reasons: (1) the fact that the gravestone is a sub-optimal source, (2) the fact that you have other sources for this anyway, so don't really need the gravestone, and (3) the fact that the instructions to the reader, to "compare" it, are confusing, because there isn't an obvious link to an image of the gravestone. Bottom line: delete that part, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done-arooni. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, since you, Viriditas, removed the "Find a Grave" component, it's good that you also removed what I added about comparing with the gravestone spelling. Outstanding work, finding his draft card! --Alan W (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other comment for now, Viriditas. Somehow, until just before, I missed that on the talk page with "Issues and Errata". Just an oversight, I'm sure, as you have been around here for a very long time. But shouldn't you add your signature to that section? I know there is a way for others to do that, but better if you do it yourself, especially since you built up that section over a long time. I see, looking at the history, you did add it at first. But somehow it got lost.

Again, very impressive research here, Viriditas. And thanks too to Nikkimaria for clarifying that about "Find a Grave". It does my heart good to see that some people still really care about things like this. --Alan W (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One other thought. (I know, sometimes I get carried away.) With good comments by Tryptofish too, this is a great example of what can be accomplished when Wikipedians work together in good faith. True teamwork. I have been around here a pretty long time myself, and it's been discouraging to have seen and experienced much in recent years that has been, to put it mildly, negative, with more than one top-notch editor driven away. There is hope for Wikipedia yet! --Alan W (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I added a sig. Thanks for your feedback. Stick around. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You, and the others who contributed here, offer me encouragement to stick around. These pages are on my watchlist, and I most certainly intend to stick around. --Alan W (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"People's Republic of Santa Monica" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect People's Republic of Santa Monica has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14 § People's Republic of Santa Monica until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Room in Brooklyn, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnegie Institute was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunate Crossing of Wiki-Paths

Well, Viriditas, I have just more carefully read Room in Brooklyn and I'm glad I did, not only because I found a few tweaks to make but because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Another great contribution. I have always loved Hopper's work, and you are now helping me appreciate it better. Sorry for that edit where the edit comment ends with "I". My finger slipped and my change was prematurely published. I meant to add that I think adding some extra hyphens is preferable to "Hopper's long-running, figure in a sunlit room theme". This former punctuation makes it look like it's a theme that is both "long-running" and "figure in a sunlit room". It's the whole "figure in a sunlit room theme" that is long running.

Again, I feel fortunate that my Wiki path and yours have crossed, after both of us having been editing here for over twenty years. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for copyediting. Sometimes it feels like I'm writing with a blindfold on. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that barber's pole in Hopper's painting of Early Sunday Morning caught my eye, so I started reading up on barber's poles, the pawnbroker's symbol, and the caduceus (or Rod of Asclepius). It turns out these images were used because most people were illiterate. I never actually knew that. Also, it's interesting how much information has been lost about these symbols, with various academics arguing about them. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... since you, Viriditas, don't seem to like those hyphens.

@Alan W: No, this is the result of multiple edit conflicts from your copyediting and my editing occurring at the same time. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Yes, edit conflict. Maybe you just didn't get to see my first edit of "long-running, figure in a sunlit room theme", changing it to "long-running figure-in-a-sunlit-room theme". But I think it also works as I changed it in my last edit. The one thing I feel strongly about is your originally separating a noun from its modifier with a comma. That's a grammatical no-no. Like writing "a blue, box". Sorry, I get passionate about these things, as a former English teacher and later a book editor.--Alan W (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're copyediting at the same time as me, so it's going to result in multiple edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. One never knows when another editor is going to be active. If one is really annoyed by someone else editing something you are painstakingly building up, one can always use the "under construction" template while major work is going on. Anyway, no problem, you've explained what was happening.

I meant to add earlier that, yes, barber poles and other images, I kind of knew that but it is good to be reminded of things like this. Interesting stuff, indeed. Alan W (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active at this time every day. I don't use under construction templates because I intentionally choose to create articles nobody else cares about and generally work on them alone. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody else"? You can see that at least one other Wikipedian cares. Anyway, these things can be worked out, as we just have. -- Alan W (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just explaining my rationale. I intentionally choose topics where I can work alone which is why I don't use the templates. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Certainly no hard feelings.--Alan W (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried working closely with other editors from around 2004 to 2012, or so. It did not work out well. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I feel, and have felt, your pain. One downside of Wikipedia editing. I have seen some bitter conflicts drive good people away. In our case, at least so far, we have been able to work things out. --Alan W (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that. I was told that the reason I was running into issues was because of the topics I chose to edit. In other words, they were seen as "controversial", which apparently attracts editors like a moth to a flame to argue and get into disputes. This was not my intention. Unlike others, I wanted to improve the topic coverage, but I discovered I could not do this, and there were people who apparently existed only to block others from improving certain topics. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have steered clear of these "controversial" topics. It shouldn't have to be that way. I think I do understand your intention. But others do not understand the kind of thing you were trying to do. That sort of thing is what I mean when I say that "I have seen some bitter conflicts drive good people away." The only controversial topic I got involved with, some years back, is the Shakespeare Authorship Question. If there weren't others with tougher hides than I have jumping in and dealing with the controversial—or "controversial"—parts, I would have thrown up my hands and given up. I mostly confined myself to adding editorial polish. Otherwise, especially since then, I have, like you, preferred to work on the more out-of-the-way stuff, topics that only a few are interested in. --Alan W (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The state of things

There is a lot to say about a Wikipedia where a hook about a Navajo mathematician was instead about an alcoholic iced tea. DYK is a good, but murky insight into the contemporary cultural condition and things aren't well. I'm thinking a potential hook: …that smart phones that make us dumb can be replaced by dumb phones that make us smart? Thriley (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem like a recent phenomenon, but it's a tale as old as time. Two steps forward, three steps back. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, but it does seem that the rising idiocracy requires humanity to fall into a permanent oubliette where no more steps will be taken. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like tears in rain. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carmen Alfaro Asins, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baria was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Uzgalis

On 1 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Uzgalis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Uzgalis made the Leaning Tower of Pisa straight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Uzgalis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Uzgalis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,398 views (699.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well

I heard about the eruption of Mount Haka Tua, and I hope you and everyone else in Hawaii are OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the well wishes. My thoughts are with the lost seamen. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hard one to swallow. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Said the horse after swallowing a human pill. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to swallow the seamen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yelled against the wind scouring the sagebrush and chaparral. The mustang eyed the old salt, ready to bolt. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you Wells Fargo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The old timer turned around so fast it was like his head was on a swivel. There, standing in front of him was old Jedediah Smith. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you fell into a well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whispered the desperado under his breath. Fargo couldn't believe his eyes, but he still remembered the password rejoinder after all these years: "Lucy Can't Drink Milk". Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are too predictable! Hahaha... Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to say that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two Guns, Arizona, a link pointing to the disambiguation page 35th parallel was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April music

story · music · places

Thank you for hooks for Carmen Alfaro Asins! - I'll have a woman in the next set, - my story, of course. I chose the video because it shows her in action (although from a "below" perspective). I also thought of the St John Passion (because of the timing), of "Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit" (for the sentiment), and "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen", because that's quoted on the death notice. I usually find recordings too slow, and this one is even slower - but convinced me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding something here that connects back to our previous discussion about hooks and the negativity bias. I think this issue also dovetails with your writing style, and why you often face unnecessary pushback. I would like to write a larger issue about this problem and move it to mainspace, but for some unusual reason, the linguistics community has been avoiding the topic in some respects. This might be because it is ultimately interdisciplinary, and crosses over into multiple domains, from psychology to cognitive science, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you listen to her singing? - She will be on DYK tomorrow, sigh, switched back to one set per day and Iwas too busy to notice. Tomorrow's story will be about the piece rejected no end last Easter which I made FA in defiance. DYK is sometimes good for something, in the end. Of today's set, I found two interesting which is a lot ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will listen now. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I prefer the latter piece, Mahler's "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen". I like hearing her sing slowly. That recording is also the best of the three you linked, likely because of the more modern recording methods. I'm surprised she never did any film or television work. Hers is the kind of voice you would expect to hear in a soundtrack making the scene more dramatic. I also like her tone and range. There's a lot of color to it. It's very sweet and lovely. For some weird reason, I was instantly reminded of Anita Kelsey singing "Sway" in Dark City. Obviously, there's a world of difference there, but you can hear the similarities in their voices. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listening and good comments! (I said she convinced me, right?) That's what I go for, not view counts. - Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This general problem of metrics and what C. Thi Nguyen calls "value capture" is discussed in his new book, The Score. It sounds like something that would interest you as it would allow you to develop your argument based on real evidence. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA is Bridge, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge, adding to Chain bridge and Müngsten Bridge, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page, Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Bill Ramsey whose regular Swingtime I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of At the Time of the Louisville Flood is under review

Your good article nomination of the article At the Time of the Louisville Flood is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jerry Bird 2019 International Skydiving Hall of Fame interview.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi User:Viriditas. I just wanted to say a big thank-you for your collaborative efforts in getting the Jerry Bird article over the DYK line, and for your detailed help and advice on accessing a new resource (for me) on the Wikipedia Library. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul W: It was a pleasure working with you. This would have been a lot easier if we all had access to the full 2025 biography, but we didn't, so we had to make do. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Atropa bella-donna

Hi. Earlier this year you removed some material I'd added about a widespread claim related to the origin of the name. I've left a comment on the talk page with a summary of my thoughts, and hope we can come to an agreement. Robin S (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archives