Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP: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.

Template:Did you know nominations/Women in law in the United Kingdom[edit]

Any chance we can escalate this one (already approved), given it is the 100 year anniversary of the event in the hook today? GiantSnowman 08:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking whether we could add this to today's set that's already on the main page, or did you just want it to get into a prep yet this year? --valereee (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The sooner the better really... GiantSnowman 15:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to put a dampener on festivities, but this article is so Anglocentric it borders on racism, and I strongly suggest pulling it unless and until it's brought up to scratch unless you want WP:ERRORS deluged in (legitimate) complaints. The UK is a union of four nations, not just England, and all the early running when it came to gender equality took place in Scotland and Ireland, but this article ignores anything that took place outside England; as it stands Madge Easton Anderson, Frances Kyle and Averil Deverell aren't even mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That, and it is rather poorly formatted, terrible proseline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've put the approval on hold based on the above comments; the issues raised need to be addressed. Perhaps the discussion should relocate to the nomination page? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent and Jo-Jo Eumerus: why not use your clearly vastly superior knowledge of the subject to improve it rather than just sit here and moan? GiantSnowman 11:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than demanding that other editors help them out, I suggest that the original author widens their sources to include material from some of the recent scholarship in this area, in addition to the usual mosaic of cuttings snipped from websites and newspapers. For example, [1]

In a similar vein, there might be useful material at (the rather US-centric) Timeline of women lawyers and my comments on the talk page there some 4½ years ago. And there is related content at List of first women lawyers and judges in Europe#United_Kingdom.

For example, you might want to mention the first woman law professor in the UK, Claire Palley (Belfast, 1970, some decades after Frances Moran became a law professor in Dublin). Or the first woman advocate in Scotland, Margaret Kidd. Or the first woman solicitor in Wales, Agnes Twiston Hughes. Or some of the other judicial milestones, such as Sybil Campbell as a stipe, or Victoria Sharp as President of the QBD. Or Lady Cosgrove in Scotland, and Denise McBride and Siobhan Keegan in Northern Ireland. Hope that helps. Ferma (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Iridescent and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree the prose is terrible. I do suggest that you take a whack at improving the article and including those things that are missing. @GiantSnowman: this wasn't ready for prime time. --evrik (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Given I'm "terrible" at writing articles I'd just love for other editors to help me out rather than sit there criticising? Where are you @Iridescent, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Ferma, and Evrik: hmmm? GiantSnowman 11:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Before you wrote that last comment, you may want to check the edit history. I have already done a fair amount to clean up and make the article more presentable. The whole second section needs to be rewritten. Giant snowman, since you put this forth as a DYK, I think it falls on you. --evrik (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not particularly familiar with the topic and not particularly interested, but one thing to do would be to merge the one sentence paragraphs into one coherent block and make it so that it doesn't read like a timeline. I probably shouldn't have used the word "terrible", though; sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If part of the issue here is a mismatch between title and content, is renaming the article a possible step forward? Is there enough reasonable content to support Women in law in England? I know very little about the legal systems of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but my impression is that they have very different historical foundations, which might be very challenging to address in a single article for all of the UK. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I don't know enough about the subject to judge either, though the current article seems a collection of names and dates with little narrative. What I do know is that nominator GiantSnowman hasn't made a single edit to the article in an attempt to address the issues raised above. I have just made a note on the nomination page about this lack of action, and I think further discussion should move there now that three weeks have passed since this section was opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: neither have the people who raised the apparent issues. If y'all don't want this to be a DYK then fine by me. GiantSnowman 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Snowman: If you were to rewrite the center section so it is less of a recitation of facts and flowed better - and maybe added a sentence explaining the inclusion of Scotland and Wales into this - it would move along. --evrik (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

{{DYK talk}} template showing at the bottom of the talk page[edit]

At the talk pages of the recently promoted DYK pages, the {{DYK talk}} template appears at the bottom of the page. Earlier, it was in the same place as the WikiProject templates. If GA and FA/FL templates appear alongside the WikiProject templates, why is the {{DYK talk}} template being placed at the bottom of the talk page? Getting at article to the Main Page under DYK section is also an achievement, though lesser than GA and FL/FL status. I'm sure the community too feels the same. The problem I have mentioned here might be a technical issue but needs to be fixed immediately.

Some examples include :

Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Skr15081997, that's not the bottom of the page, it's the bottom of the list of templates that go at the top of the page. See Talk:Cincinnati chili --valereee (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of this, was there a consensus to add {{Did you know nominations}} to the talk page? It's already linked in {{DYK talk}} which I think is sufficient. I find including the whole discussion to be extra clutter. MB 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think, this is happening to the talk pages with the {{Did you know nominations/Article title}}. Previously, when an article appeared on the main page under DYK section, the text in the template {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} didn't appear on the talk page even though the template was still there. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how the template is showing the text in this 5-month old DYK, but not in this two year old one. MB 02:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed MB Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that it the opposite of the fix I was after. Before, the template would expand on the talk page while the nomination was active. After the hook had been promoted, {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} did nothing on the talk page (or at least that is what I think I remember. Now, it is expanding even after the hook has been run and {{DYK talk}} is placed on the talk page (which neatly summarizes everything and includes a link to the nomination discussion). I preferred it that way; I have been going back and removing the template after the hook has run just to clean up the talk page. I was asking if this change (as I think it is a change) was intentional? MB 03:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, lately I have been using SD0001's great time-saver script (DYK-helper.js). Maybe that does something differently? MB 03:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ohhhh, I thought you wanted to know why one was showing and the other wasn't which was missing the code. I see, I have no idea whether a change had occurred, I didn't have DYK's back then so wouldn't know. But they look terrible when transcluded on talk, if what you are saying did that before that is better. Also, just as you said, {{DYK talk}} neatly summarizes everything and includes a link to the nomination discussion - I also like that it matches the WikiProject templates perfectly and takes far less space. Maybe the DYKUpdateBOT could remove {{Did you know nominations/Article title}} when adding {{DYK talk}}, that might be a good solution? Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Admins needed: the queues are all empty[edit]

The last of the queues were promoted about 45 minutes ago; we'll need at least two preps promoted to queues in the next 24 hours, and hopefully more. Pinging Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that some of you can help out.

We also need preps filled: four are, but the remaining two just have lead hooks, and hopefully as preps are promoted to queues those can be filled as well. Many thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

coming Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved Prep 5, will check tomorrow morning --valereee (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with all 28 non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 6. We have a total of 312 nominations, of which 215 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two remaining from November.

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) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing Pornographic Content[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
OP has been blocked Sock puppet Admitted being blocked or banned previously. The burden of proof that their block has either expired or been lifted is on them. - Closing as trolling by OP. If folks want to do an RFC please start a separate thread. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2020‎ (UTC)

Remove the explicit content of the prostitute from DYK. It's one thing if people go looking for that in articles, but it's on the main page, and little kids doing homework are going to see that and be traumatized. Also, would you want your great-great-great grandmother on vulgar display like that?

I know the drill. You will ban me on a technicality of protocol, but since it was impossible to reach any of the e-mail address listed to complain, you left me no alternative but to hope beyond hope here that maybe a few of you might not want Wikipedia turned into a digital brothel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusader316 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Crusader316, you will not be banned from Wikipedia merely for expressing an opinion. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, including the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir or madam, for allowing me to speak. I've been suspended/banned on Wikipedia over such matters before- accusing me of vandalism as if I were just randomly messing up pages because I could, so I give you credit for fair-mindedness and consistency.

I would wish, however, to address the ethical and even the legal ramifications of such content on such an easily viewed page, or potentially, anywhere in Wikipedia. You see, Wikipedia is essentially a public forum, not a private publisher. The latter could hide any content behind a broad interpretation of the First Amendment in the US (or similar documents in other countries), but would be legally liable for defamation for harmful rumors, speculation and such in articles, which, given current political polarization, would destroy Wikipedia, so the corporate people in San Francisco completely disavow any responsibility for the content in Wikipedia, and I know this not only because of stated disclaimers but because every e-mail I tried to send to the listed e-mail addresses bounced back to me with an error message. I sent them from ordinary Gmail.

What this means is that Wikipedia is not like a privately published book for which the publisher could be sued, but rather more like a physical billboard or (physical) message board on public property. Now, I have been in some rather liberal, bohemian cities, but I have never seen full or even partial nudity on public billboards and such. I've heard that perhaps that is allowed in Amsterdam, but since I would rather lose a limb than go there, I'll never know for sure, and at any rate, the address given as the closest thing to Wikipedia "headquarters" is San Francisco, which, permissive as it may be, would still probably not allow a billboard with that particular photo on it.

I would also point out that there is an international, cross-cultural consensus in societies religious and secular (including Communist), East and West, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish alike that such content is not to be shown to minors. If it makes any difference to you, it's not just conservatives like me who would want to remove that photo, as I'm certain that many feminists, including in San Francisco, would object to the use of such photos of women, in desperate circumstances, taken by a male photographer and treated as "art". I do not think there is a single nation on earth, except perhaps for failed states with no law enforcement, that generally allows such content in public, and unless the San Francisco corporate people agree to take responsibility as publishers (and brave all the lawsuits), then Wikipedia has to self-censor to such an extent as fits with cultural norms that are, nearly everywhere, written in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusader316 (talkcontribs) 17:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but I don't see anywhere that you've provided any evidence that the image is offensive, but that still amounts to one personal opinion, and allot of assertions you haven't actually backed up. I can equally state that I am not offended by it, and now we are at one person to one person, and no one can claim to be right. Can you actually back up any of your wild assertions about the universal offensiveness of the image, or are you just going to make unsubstantiated claims and think that everyone will just accept things you say because you say them? --Jayron32 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, since you keep bringing up California law, by statute AND court decisions in California (see In re Dallas W. (2000) for example) non-sexual nudity is not a violation of the code. Unless the intent is to cause sexual gratification, the mere act of exposing any body part is not, according to California law, of its own accord, illegal. --Jayron32 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the picture following a report at WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, as I said there, I think this was a mistake. Like the – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are we using a photo of an unknown naked woman rather than a photo of William Goldman, who is the subject of the DYK? This seems sexist and gratuitous. And before you accuse me of trying to censor Wikipedia, I would be perfectly happy if we used the naked photo of William Goldman. Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I think you made the latest image change. I agree that William Goldman's image would be more suitable. Also, the hook says "collection of photographs of prostitutes (pictured) ", but the image you swapped to, is not identified as a prostitute, not in the article, and not on Commons. Not all of the images in the article are specifically identified as prostitutes. There are some images of naked men, also, which do not seem to have been chosen. We don't censor, but this seems more like Clickbait. Why not an image of Goldman? — Maile (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, discussion was happening at WP:ERRORS, can we take this over there? --valereee (talk) --valereee (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not underage and it isn't showing any sexual acts. While it may not be to my personal tastes, I think NOTCENSORED applies sensibly here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ERRORS
The particular image chosen was recommended because it shows the woman looking through an album of the photographs concerned. I would judge that a naked woman in a non-sexual pose would not be considered "vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers", which is the guideline in WP:Offensive material. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I support Ahecht and the removal of the image. WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles, i.e., Wikipedia isn't censored, so the article nudity has nudity in it. There is a clear reason and expectation that a reader will experience certain content. There is a big difference between that and the Main Page, especially if there are other photos that can be used to get the point across. I believe MOS:SHOCK is of some relevance to this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Ahecht as well. I know Wikipedia is not censored, but I think we should try to avoid this kind of stuff. Maybe it will not be considered vulgar by most readers, but I feel the other image would have been way better. L293D ( • ) 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that non-sexualized nudity is considered offensive or vulgar by a preponderance of readers. Certainly, a non-zero number of our readers will be offended, but a non-zero number of our readers are offended by something on the main page nearly every day. Nudity is not, of its own accord, a widely offensive thing. --Jayron32 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about whether nudity is offensive, but what is the best photo to explain the article that is being featured in the WP:DYK section, which might I add is William Goldman (photographer). An example of one of the photos of the prostitutes (I.e. File:William I. Goldman photograph 11.jpg) provides just as much encyclopedic value without being shocking to a number of our readers. Per MOS:SHOCK, we should try to use the image with the least shock value for the lead of an article, which can be easily expanded to the Main Page. I must also point out that many users may inadvertently run afoul of their workplace rules on nudity on work computers, just by going to the Main Page. Again, this is about expectation for our readers, not whether nudity is offensive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg is of better encyclopedia vale, since it was the key photo that allowed the entire collection to be dated and identified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your suggested replacement is not as good an illustration of Goldman's work because (1) it does not show the collection of his pictures assembled into an album, and (2) it shows a fully clothed woman. One of the unusual aspects of Goldman's work that makes it socially interesting is that many of the models are naked. Incidentally the image as it appears on the main page is pretty small and grainy, besides being monochrome; the nudity is really not so "in your face". If you choose to click on it, well, ... Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Jmchutchinson, File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg is definitely a naked woman, so not sure what you are referencing. It is also one of his photos, so not sure how that is a bad representation of his work. Lastly, in the original photo you can barely see the small photos in the album, so not sure how that is super helpful. If that is what is encyclopedic about it, I doubt many readers will be able to discern that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed (commented out) the picture as it is clearly controversial. I don't have a problem with William Goldman (photographer) as an encyclopedia topic, or the images appearing there, but Wikipedia:Offensive material says "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Anyone wanting to find out about Goldman's work and subjects can still click on the article and look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how the image can "be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers"? --Jayron32 17:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I request that you reconsider. There is nothing wrong with nudity, especially non-vulgar photos like that. This sets a bad censorship precedent. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie. I would recommend File:Woman_reading_the_Reading_Eagle.jpg being added as a compromise. It is very relevant to the article and provides the necessary support to the hook (i.e. it is an example of one of the photos that the hook references) while also having the benefit of not unnecessarily showing nudity on the Main Page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Have not seen the image in question - but there are many readerships for WP (and readers may have different preferences for different contexts).
Some topics may be seen as acceptable off the MP but cause issues when featured on the MP (smallpox a while back being one example0. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also, I can't stress enough that no one here is saying that the photo in question is inherently offensive. However, it definitely does have shock value, especially when used on the Main Page. It comes down to whether it is necessary for our readers to understand and be "hooked" by the article. I don't think this is the case, since there are a number of free photos that provide similar encyclopedic value while avoiding a lot of shock value. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: since there are numerous freely-licensed images in the article, please put something in so the column won't go picture-less. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:, ditto what Yoniah said. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333 is not online right now. Pinging Vanamonde, Casliber, Valereee, Gatoclass, et al. for immediate action. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As stated in the opening comment, File:William I. Goldman photograph 11.jpg would perhaps be a less controversial image. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I chose the original for a reason that it shows the albums. It's not about the nudity and not in the least shocking. Put it back please. Who doesn't know that women have breasts and hair? This is censorship for no valid reason. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, File:Woman_reading_the_Reading_Eagle.jpg is an even better and less controversial option. And, Philafrenzy, I am not sure how showing a photo of an album of photos that are too small to be seen is better than posting an actual photo from the collection. A photo from the collection, one that has less WP:SHOCK value, should be adequately encyclopedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It IS a photo from the collection. But use the Eagle one if you like. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. I think people are arguing that the image is inherently offensive, but they are trying to talk around it as many ways as possible to avoid saying those exact words. All the arguments made against this image only make sense if you start with the assumption that the image is offensive.
This sort of wink-wink nudge-nudge consensus has the same effect, and should be treated the same, as if people had just come out and said "This image is offensive."
Either admins can remove images they find offensive, or they can't. This game where everyone has to come up with a variation on "It's not offensive to me but..." is very silly in its predictability. ApLundell (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
But it isn't offensive. Some things are likely to be offensive to most readers. Some things are likely to be offensive to only some readers. Just about anything is offensive to at least one reader. What was it about this picture that makes it over the line that removal was required here, where other pictures are not. Is it because a small number of motivated people expressed their own, personal, singular offense? How is that counterbalanced by the thousands and thousands and millions of people who were not bothered. People who aren't bothered don't complain. Why does only the tiny, but loud, voice get to decide for the rest of the world? --Jayron32 19:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Put the picture back. It perfectly demonstrated the hook! It not only showed an example of a subject but also showed the collection of photos being discussed. You have made the hook so much weaker for the sake of few who find it offensive. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added the File:Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg while we're discussing, but I need to figure how what magic David Levy works to make it the right size and also add it to protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talkcontribs) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I completely oppose this compromise. This photo is significantly less relevant to demostrating this hook. Anyway, replace the line with this to fix the image size:{{main page image|image=Woman reading the Reading Eagle.jpg|caption=Woman reading the ''[[Reading Eagle]]'', photographed by William Goldman|width=190}} --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, I'm up for any solution we can come up with, and open to the idea this isn't the right choice. While we discuss, I thought a photo would be good, and this one seemed to be middle ground. I'll fix the image size, thanks! --valereee (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I disagree. The fact that this photo was going to appear on the Main Page was well known. Dozens of editors were aware and not bothered. By giving into "the compromise" you allowed the minority opinion win out and allowed Ritchie333 a super vote. No one will now have the guts to put it back. This last minute pull is really discourage to us that regularly work on the Main Page every single day. The only difference is her nipples and vaginal area were showing. This was typical "Think of the children mentality". We often have gratuitous paintings of women being raped on the Main Page. This was nothing close to that. I am extremely disappointed in the judgement of the admin who removed it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I forgot caption= . --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
William I. Goldman photograph 05.jpg
Coffeeandcrumbs, nah, I'll have the guts to put it back, as long as I agree there's consensus. I'm missing something at The fact that this photo was going to appear on the Main Page was well known.?
  • Valereee if you look at the posts on this page and at WT:DYK, the original image was opposed by Ritchie333 and two other editors. The rest (majority) of admins and editors preferred the original image. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We ignored the vote of the reviewer who approved the hook and image. The editor who promoted it. The admin who loaded the hooks to the queue. The dozens of editors that regularly peruse the preps and queues. AFAIK, this photo went unchallenged through several processes to get here. Pulling it here it just not how consensus works. The fact of the matter is that it was pulled out of process. There was no consensus to remove it. Jmchutchinson, Muboshgu, Jayron32, and myself were fine with the photo. There was no consensus to remove in the first place and the photo should be reinstated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    I count Ahecht, Gonzo, Ritchie, L293D, Amakuru for removing original photo
    Jmhutchinson, Jayron, Muboshgu, C&C, Phila, Yoninah, MX for keeping original
    neutral/not clear/please just put something in Jackiespeel Yoninah APLundell
    Support using File:William I. Goldman photograph 05.jpg Gonzo, Phila, Amakuru
    Unless someone considers me involved, I'm comfortable declaring a very rough consensus for photo 05. Please speak up if you think involved and I'll wait for someone else to step in. Also if I've mischaracterized, also speak up --valereee (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was the promoter, so I approved the use of the original image. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Also Casliber who loaded the queue. I would rather have the current image that #5 which is of bad quality and barely shows the collection. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    I also interpret ApLundell opinion to be don't pull. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Careful, I detect a nipple in 5. Someone might be shocked. Perhaps the only human being who doesn't have nipples. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I spotted this earlier and was slightly uneasy about it, but decided to let sleeping dogs lie. For the record I prefer the replacement image to the original one. My opinion is that the main page should be confined to images which one could safely open anywhere, and I think that nude, tasteful though it may be, would raise a lot of eyebrows if I opened it in the office or in a public library. Incidentally we still have an upcoming RFC to get through regarding the current choice of Picture of the Day for Template:POTD/2020-03-28 (do not open that one at work!). I was instructed to wait until February for an RFC to determine its suitability...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about that POTD. I am glad you have got the matter in hand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I wondered whether I should do something or just have a quiet life, but I just don't think it's a particularly good advertisement for our main page out to the wide world. To try and give another example, if I wrote Juden Raus (board game) (which does have sources), got it through DYK and onto the main page with an image of the box, don't you think people would complain it was needlessly provocative and offensive? I think they would. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
They might but this one wasn't needlessly provocative or offensive. It was a carefully chosen image with minor nudity that was contextually justified. If you think I was trying to shock anyone you have it very wrong Ritchie. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I'm not concerned with nipples or vaginas, although I'm not sure they're necessarily a plus. Er, well, of course in many cases they're a major plus, but in terms of illustrating that William Goldman took photos of prostitutes, I'm pretty sure most readers know the average prostitute in 1892 had both. The argument that the photo shows the albums is a good one, and that the first photograph shows the album better than photo 05 is a good one. I'm feeling like we have no consensus for change here after all, in which case I think the decision has to be do revert to the original. --valereee (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Someone will always find some content as offensive. By the same argument, I find many of the religious themes we feature as offensive. Glorifying religious dogma, I believe, is offensive. Many people consider featuring photographs of Nazis as offensive. I also find the many depictions of old gods raping women as offensive. But that does not give me the right to complain about them or remove them from view. We have to stop saying that Wikipedia is not censored and in the same breath advocate to censor Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree, the test shouldn't be whether an image offends anyone. It should be whether it is contextually and encyclopedically justified, which this one was. If it is, it doesn't matter whether it offends anyone. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Totting names up, add me in support the use of the original image. Both sides have made solid points, but I think these are best decided on a case by case basis and here the "needlessly provocative or offensive" criteria falls short. Additionally there needs to be an attitude adjustment that a complaint at WP:ERRORS justifies an immediate response without waiting for a discussion or consensus to emerge. Not everything posted there is an error, sometimes the poster has made an error, or is expressing an opinion (and this was not an error at all and ought not to have been posted there) and an admin deciding to change an element of the mainpage as a result should be aware that they are overriding the consensus that has brought that to the mainpage in that way. By all means open a discussion to evaluate or establish a new consensus, but do not pre-empt that process by changing it arbitrarily, unless it is an obvious error in terms of spelling, grammar, etc. Spokoyni (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The results are in - over 27,000 views. (that's 54,000 nipples) Philafrenzy (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that her right hand nipple is visible? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to the readers Martin and the fact they all have them and therefore can't have been surprised to discover that other people had them. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah shucks. Now I feel like a right tit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am shocked by your use of language Martin. I have never heard that word before and don't know what it means but suspect that it is rude. I demand it be redacted from this page to shield me from harm. Ritchie? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry that you have been traumatized by this exposure. I'd recommend a little background reading. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't click that Martin, I am surrounded by shut-ins who are unaware of the ways of the world, or even of the components of the human body. I don't want to spoil their innocence. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It's ok. No one's expecting you to be a clit hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats. - I missed thid, but count me, too. as not finding anything pornographic in the original image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on the page views, @Philafrenzy:, we can all agree that the article is good and that it's deserving of people's attention so well done. And yes I agree with all the stuff about it being encyclopedic and not pornographic. No doubt about it. I just think our main page has to fit in with the scruples and illogical standards applied by the world-at-large though. The bottom line is that if a particular image would not be accepted for publication in a national newspaper, or viewing at work, or pinned to a public noticeboard in a library, then it should not be on our main page. And there will be parents who see this and will feel uncomfortable with their children viewing it. Again, illogically, but that's the way it is. If we end up in a situation where people start feeling that they or their families shouldn't look at Wikipedia because nude images might appear, then we've lost out. We lose potential new younger editors, we lose readers, and for me that's not a price worth paying. Others may differ of course, and no hard feelings!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
None here either, but isn't that the censor's argument, "I am not shocked but other (unnamed) people may be" so we should self-censor ourselves in anticipation that people may be offended. Where does it stop? Are we going to censor something critical of the Chinese government because it might get someone in trouble if they are caught reading it there. What about Turkey? Subject to a test of encyclopaedic value and relevancy we should publish and be damned. It's not our job to worry about other people's reactions (legal considerations notwithstanding). The trouble here is that it was censored due to the opinion of two or three loud voices while the 27,000 who clicked, and probably 1 million who saw it and didn't click, were unheard, and everyone else earlier in the process was overridden. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So the Catholic crusader, who suggests he may be a block evader, is concerned that kids might see nudity here, while his beloved church continues to cover up real-life abuse of kids. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this something we need an RfC on, or has the question of whether some images shouldn't be included on the main page been decided before? As Coffeeandcrumbs pointed out, this image had been seen by multiple people before it hit the main page -- at minimum, the nom, reviewer, prep setter, and the admin who moved it to queue, and certainly multiple others while it was on the nominations and approved noms pages. Philafrenzy I'm not sure I agree that it's censorship to say that any image that's appropriate for an article could be inappropriate for the main page. I find the argument that the main page is like a billboard or front door to be pretty compelling. People can read the blurb that refers to photographic nudity, look at a photo that doesn't include photographic nudity, and decide to click to the article or not to see further examples. Do we want people who might be offended or embarrassed by an image to just avoid the main page? --valereee (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, do we want a vocal minority to dictate what can and cannot be censored? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Censorship comes in many forms and in many disguises. It rears its ugly head in varying degrees. It can come in the form of "I am all for NOTCENSORED, but this is going to far." "Sure, you can have it on the article but not on the Main Page." This argument may seem reasonable but it is no less of a censorship. Relegating some material only to the hidden corners of Wikipedia is the same thing as censoring Wikipedia. The only question we should ask is what is the best and most representative image we can choose for the blurb. If it is a nude image, so be it; that is the image we should choose. We should not kowtow to the minority that find it offensive. They will not go away forever. They will return because we remain the best source of NPOV information. We should stick to our principles and the rest will fix itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) We most certainly do not need any of that, NOTCENSORED has to be above all. We cannot allow us to get into a situation where we allow a small group of editors to control what is expressed freely. I myself have got the apartheid flag of South Africa (twice), images containing the Confederate flag (several times), a Fag on a Crag, a hymn calling Mohammed a "fiend" and a proclamation that Jesus Christ is Risen Today on Easter plus I've lost count how many times they've included a swear word, Fucking Hell. Would any of these have run had we had such a censored system? Often the more controversial they are, they more they get improved. It is often by breaking the taboo and using it that people will come to improve them. Though some may find them distateful, it is through a free enclopedia that must allow creativity and debate to flourish and sometimes showing a controversial image is the best way to do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Religious zealots, such as the OP in this case, cannot be allowed to dictate Wikipedia content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please rise above it. There is no need for personal attacks. Be Best! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
We occasionally get Muslims griping about depictions of Muhammad in his article. We don't cowtow to them, and we certainly don't need to cowtow to Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
But we also don't need to attack them for their beliefs or call them "zealots". Just thank them for their opinion and move on. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Or invoke the old Captain Kirk response: "Your complaint has been noted and logged." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Prep 4: London Traffic[edit]

  • ... that the Royal Commission on London Traffic proposed constructing 9 miles (14 km) of avenues through central London with railways underneath at the cost of £30 million in 1905, equivalent to approximately £3.16 billion today?
@DavidCane:@The C of E:@Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is over 200 characters long. Could we cut it after "1905", or should a new hook be proposed? Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems a good idea to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That's okay with me. I didn't include the current value in the suggested hook for that reason.--DavidCane (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

c:COM:FOP Hong Kong[edit]

Like U.K. law, FOP in Hong Kong is a bit complicated. I am no expert but the mosaic of the pig in this image, I think, qualifies as a "graphic work" and is therefore not eligible for FOP in Hong Kong. The newspapers are de minis and therefore not an issue but the pig is certainly not and therefore the image is a c:COM:Derivative. Without FOP protection, this file is a COPYVIO. If it was made of tiles (i.e. "work of artistic craftsmanship"), there would be no problem. But since it is made of paper and affixed to the wall like graffiti, it is a "graphic work". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm removing it from prep and nominating it for deletion. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, btw, any 3-D work should be fine. So most Lady Liberty Hong Kong should be O.K. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: but the hook is about the frog and the pig. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiesbadener Bachwochen[edit]

When I wrote the hook for Wiesbadener Bachwochen, Christmas was ahead, but now - past 6 January - even the last part of the Christmas Oratorio would have been performed in Bach's time. How about mentioning instead Bach's Mass in B minor and/or Handel's Messiah, both given in 2019? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, you picked Messiah, - I had to change church and year. The church was a one-sentence stub, and isn't much more after translating, see Bergkirche, Wiesbaden. If that's not enough, please take the B minor. On vacation, can't dig in more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The church article looks good, though not well referenced. So we'll go back to Bach. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf (second opinion)[edit]

Hi all,

Is there some one who can give a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf ALTs? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility of DYKs that have appeared as POTD[edit]

Hi all, a quick query about the DYK rules - I started a new article at Sunrise, Inverness Copse today, which I had been incubating in my user-space for a while, because I noticed this morning that it is today's POTD. I've then updated the POTD template so the new article is bold rather than the artist. My question is whether it is still eligible for DYK, even though it's been the bold link on the main page already? From the WP:DYKRULES (1d), it says that "If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK", which doesn't specifically mention POTD. (It also doesn't mention TFA, which I imagine is unlikely to occur, although could in theory happen if the DYK nomination was in the backlog for a long time and the article passed FAC and was scheduled for TFA before the DYK was run...) So is the above article allowed, or would that be bending the spirit of 1d? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguably the rule should mention POTD, but since it doesn't, your article is still eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been expanding some articles that I see are soon to be POTD, or where featured pictures are currently ineligible for POTD because the associated articles are stubs or don't exist, and I have been nominating them for DYK. One such was Rhinogobius flumineus which was POTD two days ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
An interesting point Cwmhiraeth, and we wouldn't want to discourage that as it's highly useful and many of our POTD articles are in a dreadful state. Of course, appearing at DYK first and then POTD, TFA, ITN or OTD later would not be frowned upon at all...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Credits for last update[edit]

Returning from a vacation day, I'm surprised that I see a new update but no credits. Had no time for watchlist yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

None of the credits seem to have been distributed as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot added all of the article notices except the last one, for Talk:KHBC-TV, then stopped. It did not add any user credits, did not clear Queue 1, did not set the pointer to the next queue, and did not add a DYK notice for the image. Shubinator, please see what happened. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Also pinging Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile to complete the bot's unfinished work, especially clearing Queue 1 and setting Template:Did you know/Queue/Next. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I have done the two admin-specific tasks you mention. I will leave it to others to do the user credits and DYK notice if that's OK, unless it's not done by much later tonight. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I added the notice to Talk:KHBC-TV, and I guess I'll also take care of the rest. It'll be a little slow-going, as I like to include the hook rather than taking the lazy route and omitting it. (To make it a little easier on myself, I added a "hook" option to Template:DYKmake/DYKmake-insert.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I finished the credits. An admin will still have to add {{DYKfile|16 January|2020|type=image}} to File:Guillaume Marie-Anne Brune.jpg (or anyone else can do it later, when it's no longer protected). Also, check to see if the bot successfully performs the next update in two and a half hours. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot successfully completed the update. I mistakenly thought that the bot adds {{DYKfile}} to the image file of the new set, but it's actually the image from the previous set. So the one the bot missed was actually File:Cyprinodon diabolis, males.jpg. I've added the notice to that file. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Query about book cover image used in article[edit]

A short history of Soviet society 1977.jpg

At the DYK I'm reviewing for V. S. Lelchuk, nominated by Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory, I raised a query about the status of the book cover image on the right. Per C:COM:BOOK, the Commons rules on copyright, a book cover is only legitimate if it is of "very simple design" or the images used on it are all in the public domain. I'm concerned that the logo in the upper-right corner, and the photo of a sculpture, which presumably dates to around 1977, would not qualify under this. I'm not sure if this is a concern for passing the DYK though. Please could the community advise? THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but the statue is Mukhina's Worker and Kolkhoz Woman, from 1937. Mukhina died in 1953. Russia has no freedom of panorama, so images of the statue are not considered public domain. I'm not sure De minimis could be said to apply given it makes up a not insignificant element of the cover. Add in the logo and altogether I'm somewhat dubious the overall design can be said to be uncopyrightable. Similar book covers, like File:Robert-Conquest-The-Harvest-of-Sorrow-cover.jpg, File:Cover of Death Traps by Belton Y Cooper.jpg and File:Der Untergang (Joachim Fest book).jpg are considered under copyright. Spokoyni (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. As it is on its plinth, that makes it most likely a 1937 photograph and so possibly eligible for PD Old or one of the Anonymous licences. But may be taken in France, not Russia, where there also is no FOP. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely Moscow, the plinth went with it and the Ostankino Tower is visible in the background, which places the photograph as no earlier than 1967. Just for information, there may still be some reasoning that makes the book cover pd for wikipedia. Spokoyni (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Either de minimis or "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, any forms of money, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" under Template:PD-RU-exempt. Is it a state symbol? It was produced for the Soviet government's pavilion to represent them and owned by them so it might be. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately even if the statue were considered a state symbol, photographs of 3D works garner a separate copyright, and a post-1967 photo is almost certainly still within its copyright term. Further I agree with Amakuru and Spokoyni that the de minimis argument is at the least questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have nominated the photograph for deletion on Commons. Of course, as a book cover, a low resolution version may be retained here under fair use. An argument from de minimis carries very little weight in arranged works, as DM rests on the extent to which the inclusion is accidental and incidental. This is the same reason why DM doesn't apply to screen shots, as all content included in the screen shot is presumed to be intentional and essential. GMGtalk 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hold request[edit]

DYK nomination Possession (Joywave album)

The article Possession (Joywave album) was converted from a redirect by @Aria1561: on January 9, 2020. It was nominated for DYK on January 16. The nominator would like the hook to appear on March 13, which is the the album's release date, therefore surpassing the six week maximum. Since the 'Special occasion hold requests' sub-section on DYK's reviewing guide suggests to open a thread here to gain consensus, I'm opening this requests, to know if the proposed date is deemed sufficiently special by other users. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK should not be in the business of promotion. The lead says it is an upcoming album, so we can run it on the usual schedule. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Without taking a position either way, I will note that Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 23, 2019 on Taylor Swift was scheduled specifically to appear on the date one of her albums was released. This was noted on the main page at the time but otherwise wasn't discussed much. I'd rather there wasn't one rule for one section of the MP and a different one for another - another way to look at is that the album's release creates more attention for the wikipedia article - which seems to have been the rationale for the scheduling of the Taylor Swift FA. Spokoyni (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to a special release date, if you can get a consensus here. If so, you need to change the lead sentence to something like: "Possession, with a release date of March 13, 2020, is the third studio album by American indie rock band Joywave." Or something similar. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No objection to a special occasion date provided that the hook that will go up on that day is not promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wellacre Academy hook changed while on Main Page[edit]

Gatoclass, I can see that you changed the hook for Wellacre Academy while it was on the Main Page to ... "as of 2016, Wellacre Academy had 1720 solar panels, more than any other school in the United Kingdom?" Why did you change Great Britain to United Kingdom as the sources do not say UK? Also, as the article mentions Great Britain it no longer matches the hook. Shouldn't there be a comma after 1? - is there any chance the original hook can be restored in the archive or restored but with "as of 2016," added to the beginning? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And if anyone doesn't understand the reason for the dispute, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are very different things. One is an island. One is a sovereign state. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the sources say "Britain", not "Great Britain",[2][3] and according to Wikipedia: Britain usually refers to the United Kingdom. Additionally, as I recall there has long been consensus that on the main page the formal term "United Kingdom" should be used rather than informal terms like "Britain". Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Britain is also short for Great Britain and the solar panel data may only be referring to the island of Great Britain but clarity is an issue here. However, if there has been consensus that "United Kingdom" should be used rather than "Britain", then I guess that could be ok but I don't know and do you have a link to that consensus? Also, please can you tell me your thoughts about the restoring the original hook part — the hook has already ran with both so I don't think it would be much of an issue here, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
No I don't have a link to a discussion, my comment is based on regular protests at WP:ERRORS when the terms "Britain" or "Great Britain" have been used in place of "United Kingdom". With regard to altering the hook in the archive - firstly, I'm not sure what change you are advocating, and secondly, there has been some resistance in the past to altering hooks in the archive on the basis that they should be a record of what was actually displayed on the main page. Personally I would probably be in favour of correcting hooks in the archive but am reluctant to do so when we don't have a set policy on it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I see, the problem is what if the solar panels is not referring to the UK? Anyway, for altering the hook in the archive, the original hook was displayed on the main page until you changed it, so for that reason, I don't think it would be much of a problem to restore that in the archive, can we change it back? Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
No we don't alter archives without a very good reason, and the above isn't near enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Only in death, why is that not a good reason? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), because the hook was flawed in its promoted state and had to be changed to add the "as of 2016" qualifier. We always archive the hook as it was when the set on the main page was replaced with a new set, and changing it to a wording it never had on the main page (we're certainly not going to go back to the problematic promoted wording) is an inaccurate representation and inappropriate for an archive. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I'm not fussed about the hook thing by the way, but what I'm trying to say is, the original hook was updated midnight 16 January, Gatoclass changed this 8 hours later — 8 hours of the original hook on main page, so why can't this be restored in archive? The main issue here is the changing of Great Britain to United Kingdom and whether Britain in the source is referring to Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Also, wouldn't it have been better to add the "as of 2016" qualifier to the original hook instead of rewording the sentence? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The DYK standard is to archive the final version of the hook. That's how the process works. Hooks change all the time on the main page; yours was changed because of a post to WP:ERRORS. You haven't given a compelling case to make an exception in this one case, and if you're truly not fussed by it, please let it drop now. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I know but dammit I did not see that WP:ERRORS discussion — but the discussion was about University of Sussex having more solar panels but that is a university with the ending comments being "the objection isn't to the hook, but to British English". A user suggested it be changed to "that in 2016, Wellacre Academy hashad ..." (what I was saying above) which seems the rest of the original hook wording was ok and no issues were raised. Gatoclass commented on that discussion the next day after changing the hook with "I changed it to:" — wish I seen this so I could comment but too late, yeah it's dropped. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Angelina (French singer)[edit]

Could someone please help me with the image? Can it be cropped without creating a separate file? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018 (cropped-3).jpg is smaller and File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018 (cropped-2).jpg if that helps. MB 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That helps a lot cause now I see that the image I used is already cropped too drastically and I should try just taking the original, File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018.jpg, and experimenting with it a bit. (The reviewer recommended that I make a wider image.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: MicroG[edit]

Honestly, this reads like a brochure entry. Is there any way to write a hook here? Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Not sure what you're looking for? Something more exciting like, from the source: "Despite the hundreds, if not thousands, of developers who work on Google Play Services, one of the most well known replacements for Google’s closed software is maintained largely by only one developer, Marvin Wißfeld, based in Germany."? -- Yae4 (talk)
@Yae4: that is certainly very promotional, and your Wikipedia article doesn't make that distinction that being maintained by one developer is so noteworthy. Looking closely at the article, I see an unnecessary glut of citations in the lead, and generally a less-than-start-class feeling about the whole article. Perhaps some of the information in the lead could be moved to a later section, Current Status? The idea of hook-writing is just that, to "hook" the reader into clicking on the article, as opposed to telling the whole story in the hook and leaving the reader with no need to click on the article. Perhaps after some reorganization, a short but punchy hook fact will jump out. Yoninah (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I still don't know what you mean by a "brochure," but I took it like "boring." The article was written neutrally, more neutrally than some sources. It was also a collaboration. I'll see about moving some of the lead as suggested, Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yae4: I mean it reads like a statement of fact, the kind of description you would read in a brochure touting the product. It does not read like a "hook". Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The article has been updated, and how about this as a more hooky hook?
-- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg@Yae4: thank you for your work. To be honest, I find the article very technical and do not understand the content at all. Could other editors weigh in on the alt hook please? Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 as it stands sounds promotional or otherwise not like a hook but more like a straight statement of facts. Maybe a change in wording is in order, or perhaps something else can be focused on? I think it might be more interesting that these were written by one person rather than the "replace Google Play Services" part. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reviewing the article, and I will attempt to address the concerns. — Newslinger talk 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As things are moving quickly in the prep promotions, I'm returning this to WP:DYKN for further work. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Kristi Overton Johnson[edit]

I notice that you have a most hooky hook in the quirky slot in Prep 3 with a link to this article. Would you like to run a double hook there? Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Works for me! Either or ~riley (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: Thanks! The prep set was just promoted, but I've asked an admin to adjust the last hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Q1 Jan19b[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Meta Romuli

Alessandro57 Raymie Yoninah

First para of Structure section has no citations and the sources are all offline. --valereee (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, how did I not catch that... I assumed good faith on the offline sources, but yeah, that Structure area needs a citation. Raymie (tc) 18:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Raymie, I almost didn't catch it either, short para at beginning of section, easy to miss. We could probably just smush together the two paras as this one's just 2 sentences, but thought I'd at least ask first since we have a few hours. :) --valereee (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Raymie Yoninah, source added, and it is online, so both the problems are solved, I hope!, Anyway, my fault, sorry! Alex2006 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping bug still hasn't been fixed[edit]

Seems that the recent change to the relevant template hasn't solved the issue: I just another ping after Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Rwabwogo was promoted by Cwmhiraeth. Should we bring this up to WP:VPT? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion[edit]

With 169 approved nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 282 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are four nominations that were approved at least a month ago, between December 13 and December 20. These have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given in the list is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever feasible so the nominations don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hold request: Teraupo'o[edit]

In the Template:Did you know nominations/Teraupo'o, the nom is requesting for the hook to run on 15–16 February, as the hook relates to this date. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that it is already in Special occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2: Charles Jones[edit]

Originally nommed with a picture, but approved promoted without. In case the hook with a photo is struck for whatever reason, we shouldn't use the supplied photo with the Jones hook—it demonstrates a part of his engineering project not completed during his tenure. This error was corrected in the article but obviously not updated in the hook. I suspect this won't come to anything but flagging in case it does! MIDI (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Cwmhiraeth: (FYI, no action needed!). MIDI (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The photograph did not seem to add anything much to the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)