Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Did you know...?"
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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

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

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

I believe the rationale for their exclusion is that FAs get their turn in the sun via TFA. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that expressly forbids featured articles from being run on DYK, but practically speaking, it would likely be too late to nominate an article for DYK after it was promoted to FA quality. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@feminist, I believe what C&C is asking is whether something promoted direct to FA—i.e., skipping the intermediate GA stage—can still qualify under "newly promoted good article". I'd be inclined to say "no", but I don't believe there's ever been a formal policy written on the matter; it's not something likely to come up very often as few of the people writing at FA level have any interest in DYK. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger B. Chaffee. I have it penciled inTFA is penciled in for February 15, 2020. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the Main Page history and early history, it appears that Chaffee has never appeared in bold anywhere on the Main Page before. It has appeared twice at OTD on 2017 January 27 and 2014 January 27 but was not in bold.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs The GA inclusion dates to Good Article RfC-July 2013. The push for this to happen, was because FA and DYK had their own main page section, but GA had been ignored in that regard. So, just getting something to pass FA, a formidable achievement in and of itself, is not a qualification for DYK. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To qualify this a little more, the intent of this is for a special occasion. WP:S2019 is a planned event (discussed a little on DYK last year) to fill the front page with space related articles for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (July 21 2019). At one point I was going to try to run Apollo 11, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin all at TFA, but it seemed like giving them their own day at TFA was a better idea. My alternate plan is to have Armstrong run at TFA, Aldrin at TFP, Collins at DYK, and Apollo 11 at OTD. Unfortunately, I thought of this after Collins was promoted to GA (and A in MILHIST). He will be running through FAC shortly and should be promoted in time, so we are hoping for an exception for him so he will not be left off the main page when Aldrin and Armstrong are on it. THe other issue is shear number of DYKs; I have been working really hard to get eight Space Race firsts promoted to DYK before the anniversary, but we are trying to have a couple of backup contingency DYKs in case we do not finish in time. Chaffee is one of those. So the second thing I would ask for a concession on is for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if I do not finish the other articles in time. If the other articles are finished in time, we just never run Chaffee at DYK and that is fine with me. To summarize, the two things I am hoping for:
  • Concession for Collins to run at DYK on July 21, 2019
  • Provisional concession for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if we do not have the other articles ready
Sorry if that is a bit rambly, I was about to head out of the house. Let me know what you all think. Kees08 (Talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's the question, the answer is a clear "no", WP:IAR notwithstanding. feminist (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: Why? It's a clear IAR. It's an important anniversary. I'm all for it. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, brainfart. feminist (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the collaborative esprit de corps is best fostered by addressing other editors as "brainfart". EEng 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
EEng: My interpretation of Feminist's comment (accompanied by a relevant strike-through) is "Sorry, [I experienced a] brainfart." —David Levy 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, it's me -- remember? Think. THINK. Review my user page if necessary. EEng 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your bon mot seems to have been perceived as bon not. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tough crowd. EEng 02:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It had me cracking up.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, brainfart.[FBDB] EEng 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed the above section heading a little for you. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08 why don't you all write this up as an RFC subsection here. Is this a basic request to IAR and make this the lead hook for July 21, 2019? Do you want other editors to aim for a full 8-hook Moon Landing set specifically on that date? Clarify what you want, then people can Support or Oppose, and otherwise offer comments. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think a full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years, would be great, and fully justified. EEng 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you be able to formulate the RfC? Rationale for Collins could also include that I got him to GA recently (ish), but thought he would be run at TFA so did not bother with DYK. EEng, the plan was for one day of hooks that had spaceflight firsts (first earthlings around the Moon, first payload to impact the Moon, etc (try to make it not all about America and diversify it, there is even a French article!)). If we could miraculously get even more DYKs ready in time, we could maybe do a couple a day during the eight-day mission. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin are all now FA, and can be run during the anniversary. I've renominated Michael Collins for FAC. What we need now is some intrepid reviewers to go up there and do their thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have never created an RfC unless you count the one or two move discussions have started. I would hate to inadvertently sabotage it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to IAR. SITH (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a list of existing articles and their status:

  • Apollo 1 - GA June 6, 2016 - the first crewed mission of the Apollo program for the moon landing. All died in the January 27, 1967 launch rehearsal
Roger B. Chaffee - FA on March 9, 2019, currently a DYK nomination
Gus Grissom - GA on June 1 2017
Ed White (astronaut) - C-class article
  • Apollo 11 - FA January 13, 2019, numerous main page appearances in OTD
Neil Armstrong - FA - nominated for TFA by Hawkeye7
Buzz Aldrin - FA
Michael Collins (astronaut) -currently FAC Michael Collins (astronaut) needs reviewers


  • Support - We have an opportunity for a once-in-our-lifetime commemoration of the event. Today's Feature Article, whatever they select, will be only one article. POTD (Picture of the Day) has scheduled Buzz Aldrin's bootprint. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maile66, TFA isn't necessary a single article; it's just that it's rarely appropriate for there to be a double or triple TFA as it means that there need to be two or more existing FAs on the the same topic, neither of which has already run. (Plus, when there are multiple articles on the same topic they're generally written by the same author, and most people aren't overjoyed at the prospect of monitoring multiple articles for the bombardment of stupid to which TFAs are generally subjected; it also has the potential to cause interminable arguments over the order in which the articles are mentioned.) See Nazi blockhouses in France, the Sedin twins, triangular constellations, the Northern and Southern Crowns, the 2008 US elections or pilots shot down on 7 September 1940 for other examples of multi-article TFAs. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. feminist (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely, this sounds like a great idea.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all hooks related to the spaceflight on July 21, 2019. In terms of the 8-day mission, I could see up to 2 hooks in each set, but not more. Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A great idea - 2 hooks a set for the entire 8-day mission. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to support a) relaxing the nomination time limit, allowing an article (or multiple) that has passed GA but wasn't nominated at the time to be nominated for DYK, and b) the construction of a special occasion set. It's a little unclear whether the list of proposed articles above includes things that have previously been featured in bold on the main page; I would not support running those at DYK, because that's a dangerous precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds like a good plan, and will calm my nervousness about the fact that the POTD is set to be similar to the TFA. If DYK joins the party too then there's safety in numbers. Of course, the Americans will be celebrating this event on July 20, due to their inconsiderate decision to position themselves in the western hemisphere, in a negative timezone... But WP operates on UTC and the articles all quote figures thus so it seems a resasonable choice to do it on that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, actually, on the time zone issue. I've added the UTC figures above, from what is listed in the Apollo 11 article. Moon Landing was July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, followed 19 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Yoninah has mentioned above a 2-hook set each day for 8 days of the mission, which might even be a better idea taking into consideration that Wikipedia is global. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but I have some concerns that this may lead to some kind of double standard: i.e. why do this only for Apollo 11 but not for other similar milestones? This would be a support if this proposal could leave open to the possibility of similar projects being done in the future instead of being a one-off. I also share Vanamonde's sentiment that the DYK stuff should probably be limited to GAs and not articles that don't meet the 5x expanded requirement. Another possibility of course could be a DYK drive for making more new space-related articles for that date, but I guess that's a topic for another time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Conditional support Sure let's relax the rules upon occasion. It should only be done so in the way that Vanamonde proposes and only for events that are of substantial global historical importance. We should not do it for some countries centennial/bicentennial for instance. If this rule had been in effect some of the WWI anniversaries might have thus qualified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support relaxed rules, but keep in mind hat there will probably only few pictured hooks, so if you want something pictured, consider an earlier request. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the current proposed July 21 DYK list is: Michael Collins (lead article), Sputnik 1, Luna 2, Félicette, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Alexei Leonov (Maspalomas Station will replace one of them, TBD). I plan to have them all at the GA level at a minimum. If we decide to do 2/day for the other days of the mission, we can select from existing spaceflight articles that are GA and above, if not enough new GAs are generated. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support being able to run occasional events like this, for exceptional historic events of indisputable global significance. I expect this topic will be well received by readers and draw positive attention. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial support: This is big enough that I'm willing to bend the rules for July 21, though I agree with Vanamonde that articles that have previously been featured on the main page in a bold link should prevent them from running again at DYK. I do, however, oppose the idea that we should mine long-standing GAs if we decide to include hooks during the rest of the mission, as proposed by Kees08 just above: if we have the hooks available through regular processes, then we can include one or (at most) two on those days, but only those articles that are new, newly expanded, or new GAs between now and then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, would you be opposed to Collins appearing in DYK on July 21 if he has not appeared in bold before (pretty sure he has not)? Kees08 (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Collins talk page has no listing of previous DYK, ITN, or OTD appearances, so I have no reason to oppose there; if someone were to find one, I'd still allow it because it wasn't recorded at the time. The exception being allowed here is that the article was not nominated back in October when it became a GA, so it will be a very late GA nomination. (Get it nominated and approved before it loses GA status and its DYK qualification, which happens if the current FAC succeeds...) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be near unanimous support to invoke IAR (including myself) in this very special case. I don't see the need to rely on a technicality when the GA-basis would also require IAR to ignore the late nomination. I can nominate it today; I just did not want to preempt the conclusion of this RfC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the "very special case", the next time we would possibly apply such an exception will be in 2025 (the 80th anniversary of end of WWII).--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, @Hawkeye7:, @Coffeeandcrumbs: I want to make sure I understand your meaning above, BlueMoonset. Are you saying that if we nominate Michael Collins now, based on its Oct 2018 GA review, you feel we could IAR for the special occasion? But if we don't nominate it now, and it passes FAC, then the GA qualification is nullified and it would not be eligible for IAR? But if we do nominate it now and get the review passed before FA, the FA rating won't affect it? If all you are talking about is to hurry up and nominate it here, and get it approved, then we should run up a nomination template for it. Hawkeye7 or Coffeeamdcrumbs, if you will open the nomination template, I will review it. Or I would be willing to nominate it myself. A DYK hook is never a set-in-granite situation, and we could make changes later on the hook. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds good. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this celebrates exciting milestones in the history of humankind. I like the discussion above about this being a "very special case." = paul2520 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a good ideaa, and I would not object in principle to further items of this type. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just as an update, here is a mock up of how far we have gotten on this project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birthdays in May, last 23[edit]

Birthdays in May come up, first 7 May for Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Milnes, approved, - any chance for a place in prep? There are more to come, including 9 May Template:Did you know nominations/Wilhelmine Lübke, under review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Promoted Eric Milnes. feminist (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
May I ask for another pair of eyes on the review for 9 May? She was the second first lady of the BRD, and an image might be suitable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Solved in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Next: Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke, her birthday is 11 May, but I guess we better pass it, for an image chance. Sorry for being late, - real life happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As one who spends a lot of time building prep sets, ensuring that the mix of hooks go together in terms of subject, country, and other variables; and also that each prep set doesn't conflict with the prep sets before or after (such as running the same subject in set after set); and also following an order for lead images (alternating between person, nature, building, and other types of images), I think these special-occasion requests for people's birthdays are getting out of hand. The May 11 prep set is already preceded by a person image and succeeded by a person image. It also has another one of your hooks in it, Gerda, which means more work swapping that hook out and rearranging later prep sets. Can we go back to nominating and promoting hooks to sets without creating such a fuss about the subject's birthday as a "special occasion"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think birthdays are an adequate special occasion request, however the lack of advance notice of these requests is difficult to accomodate. The guidlines say three weeks' notice. I think anything below two weeks is not enough notice without consensus. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Great in theory. In practise, I received the invitation to do something about women with a birthday in May, looked a bit later, found this one, wrote 4 May, was then overwhelmed by RL until today. It happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, @Gerda Arendt: you are #5 of the top DYK contributors at Wikipedians by number of DYKs. One retired a year or two ago. Two others are not active at DYK. Of the ones who are still active, only @Cwmhiraeth: has contributed more here. And yours are almost always on classical music, which are always good for the main page. But I have also noticed the increase in the birthday requests. I understand your explanation, but the sheer number of them do have the effect of, " ... excuse me, birthday here, can I go to the head of the line?" So, the promoters have to give your requests priority, while other DYKs have to go later. So, I agree with @Yoninah: on this. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I seem to have (another) language problem. Quote from above: "her birthday is 11 May, but I guess we better pass it". What in "I guess we better pass it" was unclear? - Advance notice: the next birthdays planned (and I always note them on my user page well before I write the articles, just not for this one because it was prompted - late - by WIR): 22 May and 27 May. There's the fifties anniversary of an opera premiere on 15 May, but I haven't decided yet if will expand the article. Did you know that I am turning more and more to ITN (In the news)? Many more readers, no hook discussions. Today: Georg Katzer. If you miss an infobox, it's on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I understood "I guess we better pass it" to mean that the nomination had yet to be reviewed, and then you wanted it to run on May 11. The more common expression is "I guess we better skip it". Yoninah (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, learning. Will hopefully get the 15 May opera in shape today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Das Märchen von der schönen Lilie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Both approved, thanks. Language: Yoninah, I thought it's Passover not Skipover ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Right! Another option for you would be "I guess we better pass on it". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For May 22, Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Kirchner is now ready for review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's reviewed now. - Last for May Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Werba, and sorry, late, 101st "birthday" 23 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James Bruce Lockhart[edit]

The nominator is insisting on not using Lockhart's full name in the proposed hook, even though with the full name the hook only has a length of 128 characters, which isn't a long hook by any means. While there doesn't appear to be a rule against not using the full names of people in hooks (and I think I do recall seeing a handful of cases like this, usually when there is more than one article subject, although this seems to be rather rare), I'm not sure if this is an appropriate case to do so. Any opinions on this matter? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a tendency to go along with nominators' wishes, and this one explained the reasons well. Does the full name add to making the hook interesting? - If it was "my" nomination, I'd go for the full name for the simple reason that a long bold thing catches attention better than a short one. But back to the beginning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I struggle to see a serious quibble here. The rule on hooks says nothing about long or short form of names, but it says this: "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content." Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was against the rules here and made that clear in the original comment, I was merely asking for third party opinion on whether or not it is appropriate, considering that practice is relatively uncommon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I also agree that we should respect the wishes of the nominator, there is no rule saying that people here have to have their full names used, even if it is similar to someone well known (though personally, I don't know of any other James Lockharts of note and the only other person I'm aware of with Lockhart as a surname is Gilderoy). Furthermore I see no good reason to insist on using the full name if the nominator would prefer it not be used. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
My language, oh dear. How can it be not appropriate if it isn't against the rules? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda, I agree. In my humble opinion, the word "inappropriate" is the bane of the age we live in. By the way, it is quite wrong to say I am "insisting" on anything. On the contrary, I said on the nomination page "If someone wishes to expand this one, be my guest..." I am just not going to do it myself, as I like it as it is. As explained in the rules, hooks are subject to being amended as they go through the system. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Would I personally use the full name? Yes. Is it worth holding up the nomination over? No. – Teratix 14:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The consensus is that this is not worth holding up the nomination over, Narutolovehinata5, so would you please withdraw your holding-up symbol on the nomination page? Moonraker (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for having done that. I suggest you go over the other nominations you held up with hook concerns. If a hook is not perfect - which may result in some hundred (or thousand) fewer clicks - who really cares? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Review needed for special occasion request[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Omer Yankelevich is nominated for an appearance on May 23, the Jewish holiday of Lag BaOmer. A timely review is appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Likewise Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Botha requires a review in time for the 18th to coincide with Eurovision please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

also done, some open questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A load of old cobblers[edit]

Can I get a second opinion on this? I like the hook presented ("... that this article is a load of old cobblers?" but I seem to recall (as stated in the nomination) that "meta" hooks like this don't tend to get passed through prep and queue. Is this going to be okay to pass? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I suppose it technically fails criterion 3 as it isn't mentioned in the article itself or cited inline, but I'd be inclined to IAR. Unlike the nomination you cited (The customer is not a moron), it presents a verifiable fact. If an ALT is nonetheless preferred, I suggest:
A larger concern is the last section of the article, which just presents a list of contemporary newspaper mentions. Why is this included? Is it really helpful to cite every instance where the phrase is used? – Teratix 03:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's demonstrating the preceding text, namely that the term is now common and inoffensive. It could be argued that the mentions are synthesis but it seems useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If that's its purpose, then yes, that's absolutely synthesis; no source has explicitly reached this conclusion from an analysis of those mentions. Is the preceding text itself not sufficient for the purpose? – Teratix 04:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest, I've just had a hook altered while on the main page and a stern telling off for being too April-foolsy, even though it was a simple and referenced fact, because it might mislead people. Similarly the fuss that originated over how to interpret Template:Did you know nominations/Citizens! During shelling this side of the street is the most dangerous leads me to think that there is no way a hook like this will pass muster for some. For the record though, I like it and would support it. Spokoyni (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

How much review vs. mere approval?[edit]

I have said before how much I like the DYK feature, but it is toe stubs like this that make me wonder about the 'review' process. I see mention of checking for reliable sources, for example, but concerningly the plain text often contains basic problems. Not asking for FA/GA scrutiny, but can these not cause ice cream headaches?

And yes I've experimented with checking through the queues, but concerns like mine don't seem to be the main thrust 'round here. Or am I mistaken in that? Shenme (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling errors are really not very important IMO as they are always quickly rectified once the article goes live, although reviewers should either fix them or bring them to the nominator's attention when they are found. Grammatical errors that render text unintelligible are more serious and should be fixed before promotion, so reviewers should be on the lookout for those, but inevitably they sometimes get missed. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC).
I agree with Shenme and I spend a lot of time copyediting articles before promoting them to the queues. We have many newbies and foreign-language editors submitting articles here which are not in good shape, English grammar-wise. In addition to all the DYK criteria, our rules must stress that articles should meet basic Wikipedia guidelines for grammar and presentation. Yoninah (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When reviewing, I often have a section for suggested improvements to the article. I think improving article quality, which will be for the reader for a long time, is more important than hook quality, which is for the day only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, minor grammatical errors usually don't disqualify articles from DYK, although it is considered good practice to either raise them up in the nomination or have them fixed before being featured on the main page. In cases where grammar or clarity are major issues, either rewriting is done or the article is brought to WP:GOCE. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Megumi Nakajima[edit]

Kindly requesting a quick review of this as I'm requesting a special occasion hook for her 30th birthday on June 5 (preferably with the image if possible, although it's okay if it runs without the picture). Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do and started, but not right now, being busy with recent deaths and sooner birthdays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 22. Right now we have a total of 313 nominations, of which 134 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail.

Over four months old:

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) 04:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin Needed - Queue 1 - holding area request[edit]

Would it be possible if an admin could transfer Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Botha into Queue 1 for Saturday please? I ask as the hook is designed to coincide with Eurovision. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Espresso Addict: or any other admin. I can't take care of this, because I ticked off on the nomination page. Can any admin please help with this request? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, on it now. I'll add it just as an 9th hook without removing one for now, and we can look at the main page balance on Friday before it goes live. (More often than not, the left side is too short relative to the right side these days, so this may turn out fine). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've put it at the end for now, as I'm not sure the measles outbreak in the US is a suitably light-hearted topic for the quirky hook slot anyway. If anyone prefers a different order, feel free to juggle them around. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The hook is good for the quirky slot, but it should be cut after "team" to make it snappier. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK update is late[edit]

Did anyone else notice that DYKUpdateBot did not update the main page today? It's over an hour late now. Flibirigit (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Espresso Addict: @Maile66: ping several admins. Flibirigit (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: @David Levy: @GoldenRing: @Stephen: @Casliber: ping several other admins. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done. My first time doing this, so please doublecheck. I'll assume someone knowledgeable will do all the non-admin stuff. I did check to make sure the image was already protected on Commons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The main page in updated, thanks. I guess we can figure out the corresponding credits later. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Admin needed to update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next to 6. feminist (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done Anything else admin-related while I'm here, @Feminist:? I'm going offline in a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just did Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/5 should be replaced with {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}. feminist (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Anything else will require an admin with a later bedtime. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm Doing... the credits. feminist (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done As far as I can see, everything normally performed by DYKUpdateBot has been performed. feminist (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Wait, {{DYKfile|16 May|2019|type=image}} needs to be placed on File:Dejvice - Hotel Crowne Plaza Prague.jpg. feminist (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: sorry I was sleeping. Next time can I suggest you post at WP:AN? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I think we have usually posted here to keep everyone else at DYK informed, because many DYK volunteers do not read WP:AN. I suppose posting at both could work. Flibirigit (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote directly to Queue 1 - Special occasion request for May 18[edit]

On April 21, Template:Did you know nominations/1919 Australian federal election was submitted with a request to run on May 18. It has not yet been reviewed. I am willing to review this asap. Is there a consensus to allow this hook to run in Queue 1 on that date? Flibirigit (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We can swap out one of those hooks. Note that 2019 FA Cup Final is timed for 18 May too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And Willem Botha too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The Australian elected hook is now approved. Could any admins please verify and follow-up? Ping to several admins, @Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Maile66: @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @HickoryOughtShirt?4:, Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I left a note on the nomination template. There is an issue with Citations 49, 50 and 51. Probably just mislabeled, but they need to be corrected. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI for anyone who is interested. If you install the HarvErrors script on your personal Commons.js, errors like this show in the References in can't-miss-Red error messages. Sure makes life easier when checking the references. — Maile (talk)
@Amakuru: @Floquenbeam: @MSGJ: @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @HickoryOughtShirt?4: we need this promoted within a few hours. @Flibirigit: has made the necessary citation fixing I mentioned above, and I have re-ticked the nomination for approval. Also note that Queue1 already has 9 hooks, and appears to be a bit long for tomorrow's main page. Whoever handles this, please adjust. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You could postpone Hannelore Elsner. I had a DYK yesterday and today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And  Done. Many thanks to Gerda Arendt for volunteering to make way for this one! Cheers, and happy weekend to all  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
How about giving her a pictured slot then ;) - Alfred Kirchner, birthday 22 May as mentioned above, still needs a review, - can you leave a slot open for him that day, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: thanks to both you and @Gerda Arendt:. I just noticed something really interesting about the main page balance. I use two different browsers, each of which look slightly different on a zoom. But with either one, the DYK main page balance looks too short, or too long, or just right ... all depending on the browser and whatever zoom, or none. Hmmmm. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: yep, that's the way it is. Because each section has its words wrapping (and therefore a new line) at different widths, the sections don't have a fixed height relative to each other. What I usually do is to open the page in the browser and then resize the window gradually from wide to narrow, watching the bottom of the sections as I do so. They'll jump around quite a lot, but if the left is sometimes too long and right sometimes too long, and it averages out even then I think that's about correct. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
──────────────────────Another reason why we should find a way to have the content widths adjust dynamically, although that isn't feasible right now with our current software. Or just get rid of the columns. feminist (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
So why do we even have columns? Everybody seems to get all upset when the balance between the columns is off, but then gets even more upset when you point out that they are basically doing it to themselves by having columns in the first place and the entire problem would simply go away if they went to a layout like an ordinary page. (Not to mention the fact that images in each section could then be made a more useful size, too.) You'd think that "Wikipedia's Main Page must have columns" had been handed down from on high by some deity. --Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hook not moving to Approved[edit]

On the Nominations page, I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke, but it has not yet disappeared from WP:DYKN and moved to WP:DYKNA. How does one manually move it? StudiesWorld (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Simply put the template in the relevant date section in WP:DYKNA (in this case, Articles created/expanded on May 4), and remove it from the same section at WP:DYK. I've just done it myself to get this over with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 3[edit]

This was raised in the nomination page, but the word "create" could potentially lead to reader confusion. I see that Gerda Arendt gave an explanation on the context of the word "create", but personally I don't think that the explanation was adequate since readers may not understand what was meant by "create" (for context, the hook was referring to the fact that Hesse was the first to play the relevant role during the opera's world premiere). Perhaps a different word or phrasing could be used here? Courtesy ping to reviewer Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not realizing that it could cause confusion. What about "first played"? StudiesWorld (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Substituting "first played" in that sentence makes me think that it was the first role that she ever played. But the bigger problem with this hook is the "so what?" issue. The entire hook basically says "opera singer sang parts in operas". --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I had tried to talk her out of the proposal and go in a different direction and she declined, and consensus appears to be that "Actor X played Role Y" hooks can be allowed depending on the circumstances (as seen in Yoninah's review). With that said, I really don't think that the current hook is hooky. Personally I think something better can be proposed here (I had suggested in the review that she could have focused on her visit too Japan instead); however we tend to respect nominator's wishes whenever possible and at this moment she is reluctant to accept anything other than this hook, so I'm not sure if we really need to propose a new hook in this instance and instead just let the current one stand. @Khajidha: Your thoughts on this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that too many of these hooks have been let slide. Gerda openly admits that people who don't like opera won't find her hooks interesting. I would think that she would want to write hooks that would show people who don't like (or at least don't know about) opera what she finds interesting about the articles she is writing. In several cases I've seen her explain why the fact that this actor performed that role was interesting, but have not been able to understand why she didn't just nominate a hook explaining that in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Khajidha's sentiments. There are two ways a hook can be hooky: (1) because the subject itself is funny/intriguing/surprising, etc., or (2) because the hook is written in a hooky way. When a subject is not so well known, a well-written hook can make people want to click on the subject. Gerda, the point is not to get "500 more clicks", as you say below. The point is to make the DYK column an interesting and lively place for readers of the main page to hang out. For too long we have let hooks that are not interesting to a broad audience slip through just because someone wrote a new article. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"created a role" is the standard technical term in opera for performing a role in the world premiere, which would be needlessly long and unprofessional. Please see the nomination, where the same question came up, and search for the phrase in past DYK, - more than 40, I'd say, and before I even joined Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
ps: opera singers don't (only) play, they sing or perform a role. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to make here. The performing and the singing are both part of playing the role. If you are cast as character C, then everything you do on stage (whether movement, speech, song, or anything else) is part of playing the role of character C. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that Wikipedia is intended for broad audiences, and with that in mind DYK tries to avoid jargon whenever possible. That context of "create" might make sense to opera fans, but considering that presumably the majority of Wikipedia's readers are not familiar with opera, sticking to the current wording may not be a good path to follow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know that the question has come up before, it is just that no one has actually forced the issue. This is a major fault with the DYK process. There is a requirement that a hook be interesting to a broad audience but it is not always enforced. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not the question that has come up before, but that some 40 DYK hooks in the past used the term "created the role" without questions, beginning in 2010. - As for "playing", it's not just me but project opera using "sings" and "performs", but not "plays" for opera singers, and this should show in related DYK hook, - just sounds more professional. Repeating: "created a role" is not overly technical. - History: I didn't know the term, and thought that it's the composer who creates a role, but I was instructed and learned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
1) Just because a problem hasn't been noted before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out now. 2) Whatever the opera project does has no bearing on the fact that the plain English meaning of saying that someone "created a role" would be that they were the composer. --Khajidha (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Actors playing roles hooks[edit]

Speaking of these "Actor X played Role Y" hooks, I'm not really sure why opera roles hooks tend to be given a pass, but similar hooks about say Western or Asian subjects tend to be rejected instead. For example, in Template:Did you know nominations/Ayane Sakura, the original hook that was promoted was "... that Japanese voice actress Ayane Sakura has played roles in the anime series Love Live! and Love Lab?"; however objections were raised because the hook was basically an "actor played a role" hook and was considered too typical, and so a replacement hook was promoted instead. While no examples currently come to mind, I can recall that similar instances have happened before with articles about Western actors (in that simply saying "Actor X played Role Y" was not good enough, but "Actor X, who played Role Y, is Z" or "Actor X, who played Role Y, did Z" is acceptable). This is just an observation that has been bugging me for quite a while now; maybe an explanation for the differing standards could be given here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd have no problems with hooks about anime people playing a role. Much more interesting to me than who made them want to be one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Trying once more to explain what I do when connecting an opera singer to a role: there a many kinds of blue, there are many kinds of sopranos. When describing a blue, it's often by naming a flower of that colour, and by naming a role, I specify what kind of soprano, from light to heavy, - much nicer and with a story, the opera plot, worth exploring. Some don't know the flowers, some don't know the operas, but there are the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New hook for Ruth[edit]

In any case, due to the concerns raised over the currently-promoted hook, we might need to propose a new hook here. It's in a far-away prep so I don't think it needs to be pulled for now, but it might need to be should this issue not be resolved in a prompt manner. The below suggestions were struck by the nominator in the noms page, but I will be reposting them below to see if there will be consensus to use any of them instead. Note that ALT1 is basically a simplified version of the original hook and is still an "opera singer performed X and Y roles" hook, so I'm skeptical that it could work, but I am still listing it down in the interest of discussion. New proposals are also welcome. Ideally, due to concerns about broad interest, it might a good idea that the one who approves a new hook would be someone previously uninvolved in the relevant discussions. Pinging LouisAlain to see if he has any suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 6[edit]

Honestly this feels like a very bland hook. It basically says "fish is eaten by an otter". I understand that the nominator proposed the hook because he found the name of the fish funny, but I'm sure that another hook better than this could be proposed that also involves the fish's name. Surely something better can be proposed here? Courtesy ping @Mattvvg, Casliber, Dumelow, and Yoninah: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

How about something like
*ALT1 ... that the red Irish lord is not a yellow Irish lord?
Verging on the bizarre... ——SerialNumber54129 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: As the resident DYK expert on flora and fauna, maybe you can give some thoughts on this matter? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
How about (for the quirky slot):
I think it's supposed to be combining two facts: that the red Irish lord can change its color depending on its surroundings, and that it and the yellow Irish lord are two separate species (meaning that even if for example a red Irish lord changes its color to something yellowish [and I don't know if it can do that], it would still not be an yellow Irish lord). Sorry for the overexplanation but I thought the hook was cute and perhaps somewhat easy to understand. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: @The C of E: Here's the source "Yes, the pink organza dress by Molly Goddard worn with black Balenciaga boots in episode three that subsequently broke the internet, but also what was to come." 1 I don't remember the internet being broken. The source does not provide any other information to tell us how the internet was broken. One would think such a phenomenon would have made international news. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the ping worked, but I found myself here anyway. I added that alt as short and witty (and it clearly means in the metaphorical sense of everyone immediately discussing the dress), but I also personally preferred the other proposed hook on this occasion so don’t mind either way Kingsif (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done - Well, that was an easy fix. I inserted the original hook into Prep 6, so this is resolved. Thanks for your quick response. — Maile (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2[edit]

@Bilorv:@Gerda Arendt: I've pulled this from the Queue, and re-opened the nomination. Per WP:DYK "Cited hook – Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." This hook comes directly from the plot, which is not sourced with an inline citation. Plot summaries are not sourced, so you need to have a different hook, please. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments are requested on the nomination template. Nominator Bilorv believes they did what they were supposed to do, and this never should have been pulled. I leave this in the hands of one or more uninvolved persons who can add their expertise. Whatever you all decide, is what you decide. Thank you for your help, either direction. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Holloway[edit]

Re Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Holloway, in Prep 1 with ALT3 which is the only one approved, but one I objected to. Sigh. Do I have to go into detail?

  • ... that Jennifer Holloway once played both a young girl falling in love and the same woman in old age in the same opera, and was critically applauded for doing so convincingly?
  1. "once"? - no, she does that in every performance.
  2. "played"? - no, opera singers perform (or sing) a role, and so far the word "opera" has not been mentioned, so "played" would imply an actress.
  3. "falling in love"? - no, her lover says bye when the first scene opens.
  4. "the same opera"? - without a name, but it's Der ferne Klang, played at the same house more than hundred years after its premiere there which made the composer famous, and the first time after that preniere.
  5. missing: if we want to focus on the role, why say young and old (rather common) but not demimonde (he meets her there and leaves her a second time) in between, which seems less common to me.
  6. missing: the singer is both a mezzo and a soprano, interesting.
    @Gerda Arendt: aside from the hook, a fine point on this issue. The only places in the article where her vocal range are mentioned, is in the lead and the infobox, not in the body of the article. No sourcing on that, and not sure if there needs to be. However, I mention this to say that not everybody knows mezzo-soprano and soprano are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of people would assume that saying "mezzo-soprano" automatically assumes that saying they also a soprano is a redundancy. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you read the nom, I didn't suggest to plainly and technically say "mezzo and soprano", but translated what a critic said "with a brilliant high register and still a warm timbre". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    In the article, the voice changed is supported by roles. You can't sing Salome as a mezzo-soprano (half a soprano). She still sings both ranges, so we can't say with a date - as in aother women's articles - when a singer switched from one to the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  7. too much: all this longish critical applause. Please do better, reopen, there are many opportunities. Or replace by an ALT that is not officially approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You have to understand that we are writing for general audiences, not opera fans, and too many technical details can overwhelm those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. There's nothing wrong with namedropping the name of an opera and in fact it's perfectly acceptable: we namedrop media titles all the time. The issue here is that doing so would have made the hook unnecessarily long. If Gerda or any other editor here could propose a version of ALT3 that mentions the opera's name while keeping length to a minimum, then that could work, but it would need consensus. Gerda, I understand that English is not your first language, but from what I can understand in the article and the hook, ALT3 seems acceptable English to me: it's a nice summary of what happens in the opera without explaining every single detail; doing the latter would simply be unnecessary. "Once" doesn't literally only once before, it can mean "in the past", the "played" word can mean both playing and singing (I understand that in opera, they're technically two different things, but to the layman "played should suffice", similar to how in a musicals where actors who play roles both perform and sing). "Demimonde" is a concept is probably too obscure to the typical reader, unlike the contrast between young-and-old which is clear immediately. Another editor could probably give a better explanation than I can, the point I'm trying to say is that the wording issues with ALT3 aren't really issues at all, and making it more detailed or going with one of the earlier more detailed hooks is probably not a good idea to go with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I spent much time on explaining what I don't like in ALT3, but if that is too complex. here's short: it says nothing specific about this opera singer, nor about this opera. Character played was young, gets old, is applauded. This was an unusual performance of an unusual, rarely performed work, and I applauded. - "created" is not a difficult technical term, we could translate the opera title to "The Distant Sound" which seems interesting by itself (I didn't because it gets longer), - "once" can be a past, but this happened in 2019 and is ongoing. - Why do we spend any time discussing what makes which difference? 500 more clicks, or what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is now in the next prep to go to queue, and I am plain unhappy with this unprofessional, overly general and simply wrong hook. She doesn't play "falling in love". When the curtain rises, she is already in love, but he leaves her for his quest for the distant sound. She is sold by her father to another man, and is ready for suicide. - Reopen, or discuss here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have returned the hook to the nominations page so a new hook can be proposed and consensus reached. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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 #2 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, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Pink dress[edit]

@Kingsif: @The C of E:
We try to avoid putting names of people who are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the main page. In this case, it's not clear if Molly Goddard is a designer or actress. One option is to write up a short stub so we can link her name in this hook. Alternately, we can delete her name and write "... that a pink dress..." Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hook has been moved to Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt fine by me, but made Molly Goddard anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif, hey, that's great! Let's keep the original hook, but I'm changing "similar dresses" to "pink dresses" per the sources, as not all the dresses are frilly or even monochrome pink. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review[edit]

This nomination is currently at a stalemate; a neutral editor, preferably an administrator, is requested to give a third-party opinion on how to move this forward. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said on the main thread, most of your hooks are interesting and relate to well-written and well-sourced content. Having one dropped on the floor is not going to result you from being sanctioned or anything silly like that. It might just be easier to drop this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
But there wasn't any policy based reason for rejection of the hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This nomination process has been my worst experience during my eleven years in WP. I have never thought that hidden accusations, biases, extremist views and the purest form of hysteria could prevent us from sharing knowledge. I decided never to propose a new DYK. Let's read only about nice rodents, unknown actors, "romantic" restaurants and uninteresting people who died hundreds of years ago. They cannot cause conflicts. Borsoka (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented in the earlier WT:DYK discussion, in which I offered alternative hooks that I thought (and still think) are absolutely neutral and suitable for the main page. I have not participated on the nomination page, however, though I note reference has been made to my suggestions. Questions posed here often raise the need for an alternative wording for a hook, and I have commented on these from time to time. In doing so, I look at the hook but am not addressing the question of the article's suitability as a whole, and the same applies in this case. I am disappointed to read that Borsoka is feeling discouraged and has found this DYK nomination unpleasant as I believe we encourage participation from all editors and across a breadth of topics. However, not every topic is suitable for DYK. Some articles have nothing worth highlighting. Some are controversial / offensive. And those issues may be unrelated to the hook itself. So, my view:
    • a neutral / main-page suitable DYK hook is available
    • the controversy here is such that a consensus to promote is needed and not a foregone conclusion
    • respecting the concerns that others have, even if you disagree, is the only path to a consensus to promote
    • there appears to be no consensus to promote at present, which means that:
      • The C of E, it is up to you to address the concerns / offer some response to the issues raised by Black Kite, Kingsif, and cygnis insignis (and any others) to persuade contributors to this discussion that they should support your views – or alternatively, withdraw the nomination / appeal and let the DYK side of this end;
      • I would like to express, and I hope others will comment, that the treatment of Borsoka has been unfortunate. Borsoka is not the most experienced DYK participant, but offered a reasoned review based on the DYK criteria, raising valid issues around the original proposed hook, and stated after being challenged that "I surely will not approve the hook until the discussion is closed" – a declaration consistent with consensus – and yet has been unilaterally overruled by others. Cygnis insignis commented (to The C of E) that "Doubling down to perpetuate discussion demands that your 'innocent' nomination stay in the lime-light, with pov and coi emblazoned during your topic of interest, not pointy, gamey, crass?" on 28 April, yet the article has had only three edits since that date, and is untagged for issues such as those mentioned. Surely we can disagree about a nomination and even raise concerns about the motives of the nominator and still show some respect to a colleague who has undertaken a review?; and,
      • most importantly (in my view), if there is a serious problem with the article, that needs addressing and not just its related DYK nomination being closed?
  • I ask, can we take a balanced and respectful look at the article and (if appropriate) the DYK nomination? Thank you, EdChem (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well said, EdChem. I agree that the hooks he proposed are neutral, and suitable for the main page. I also make no comment on the article itself. Flibirigit (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my above remark. I was not offended at all. The way other editors communicated with each other and how hysterical extremists could push their views was surprising for me. Sorry, I do not comment on this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@EdChem: The issue is that during that discussion here, much of the comments were attacking me and my motivations as well as stating that it shouldn't run at the time due to the recent death of a journalist. I am seeing very few comments regarding the article itself and those that were made, I have made the amendments to. Indeed much of the comments seem to imply I just plastered Londonderry everywhere I could in the article despite the fact that if they read it, they will see that such references are minimalised in favour of generic "the city" or "the council" and were in context where used. This is my concern here is that we have had much more controversial topics than this run on DYK, yet it looks like people seem so focussed just to censor this one only because it is a court case about the controversial name of a Northern Irish city. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm quoted in a sentence that appends ", yet the article …". My comment refers to the nomination, not the article. and (like my mock query) implies motives to those who disagree with an overtly partisan and provocative nomination. Or me, so it goes. I stand by my comment on the nomination, making it about the article and perpetuating the discussion is a crass use of some assumed privilege. Ask not what wikipedia can do for you … cygnis insignis 07:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Which one? The one where you say you are "triggered", call me "a pov editor", call the article a "footnote on steroids" (without any specific detail on what in the article you object to) and then tell me to "Feck away from DYK"? I fail to see how any of these WP:NPA have anything to do with comparing the article with the DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)