Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 160

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

Starting work on prep 4

I'm going to start in on Prep 4; if another admin would start on Prep 5 so we can promote both today and make room for work in preps? --valereee (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lloyd Pollock

  • ... that Canadian sportsman Lloyd Pollock was called "one of the greatest things that ever happened to Windsor athletics"?

Flibirigit Gerda Arendt

This was an unattributed quote at the Windsor/Essex County Sport hall of fame website, full quote is "Some Windsorsites considered Pollock to be one of the greatest things that ever happened to Windsor Athletics." Is that even something we can use to support that statement, especially on the main page? I'm terrible with sports, but it feels like there ought to be something else we can use to develop a better hook. --valereee (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't ask me because as you can see in the nom I was not happy with it. I try, though, to accomodate a nominator's wishes, being a nominator often not happy with the disregard for my wishes ;) - The Rambling Man said the same, btw.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
okay, considering changing this to

ALT1 * ... that Canadian sportsman Lloyd Pollock brought Junior A-level hockey to Windsor, Ontario?

It's supported by the same source, but it's a less over-the-top statement so I'm not as concerned. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I have posted my concerns at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors since it is very close to posting. I will not likely be online again before the DYK update. Flibirigit (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: and @Amakuru: FYI, see comment above. Flibirigit (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/British Rail Class 458

  • ... that in 2004 the British Rail Class 458 trains were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they had become the most reliable fleet in Britain?

Pkbwcgs Chetsford Yoninah

Just checking, as I don't think I've seen this before -- when I ran earwig, it came up with a concern. When I tried to check at flickr, there was no text on the page I clicked to. My assumption is that somewhere, something is pulling text from the article so no copyvio, but thought I'd better check. Here's what I got: earwig --valereee (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I was able to find the text on the Flickr page. It seems unlikely that it was a copyvio given the nature of the Flickr account, but I currently looking at times to get a better idea of the order. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, follow-up after more searching: None of the photos were taken prior to that version of the text appearing in the article, therefore I think it is safe to assume that the text did not appear in the gallery prior to appearing in the article. Additionally, evidence of the text being developed organically in the article, further suggests against copying. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
StudiesWorld, thank you! --valereee (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Royal christening gown

I have reviewed the DYK nomination for the article on royal christening gowns. It was submitted by Mesmeilleurs and double-nominated by Mesmeilleurs and DragonflySixtyseven. I think it is policy-compliant, ready to promote, except for the hook. I am requesting input on the hooks, and specifically I am looking for:

  • ways to make them more concise / hookier;
  • what the rules are on the italicising when more than the word "pictured" is used; and,
  • shortening the caption.

I was surprised to read above that a reviewer is now supposed to check every image in an article, and not only the one suggested to accompany the hook. Looking at File:Gustaf_Adolf_Christening.jpg, I found that the image is a modification of this one available on the National Portrait Gallery, London website, which seems to me to make a PD status clear... even if the NPG is claiming the copyright! If it was published in 1906 as a celebration of four generations of Swedish royalty then it should be PD in most places no matter who took the photograph. However, I am uncertain of the attribution of the uploader as the "immediate source" links to a document that attributes the image to Wikipedia, which is a circular reference that has some problem with it.

Any comments / assistance on the hook or image issue are much appreciated. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The 'immediate source' was UnofficialRoyalty.com, which was conscientious enough to preserve the original filename, which led to File:Portrett_av_Kong_Oscar_II,_Gustav_V,_Gustav_VI_og_Gustav_Adolf,_1906_(6966511569).jpg, which points to Flickr and thence the National Library of Norway. Make of that what you will. DS (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've updated the links to point to the older / higher res version and tagged the low res one for csd. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

... that Waylon Jennings, Johnny Dollar and Bill Myrick all worked at KOYL radio in Odessa, Texas?

  • @Raymie, SL93, and Yoninah: I modified this hook to include the words "country musicians", to give readers context on who the people mention in the hook are. The hook to me is okay but it doesn't really seem spectacular, especially to people who aren't familiar with these singers. Looking at the article again, the call sign's history seems quite quirky, but unfortunately the fact isn't sourced. If a reference could be provided for it, would the proposal below work as a hook?
  • ALT2 ... that the call-sign of the defunct radio station KOYL in Odessa, Texas is a reference to the region's oil industry?
If the nominator or reviewer thinks the original hook is better or is more appropriate, then it's fine, as this is just a suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that is more interesting. I am trying to verify the fact right now, but I'm thinking of removing that sentence from the article if it can't be verified. SL93 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes finding verification for the locally obvious is difficult stuff, but I did find one news article that hopefully will help. Raymie (t • c) 04:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be better to move "country music" to the station and be more specific about what they did:
While I think ALT2 is interesting to me, personally, it doesn't have "hookability". Odessa isn't large enough for a global audience to know about, or care enough to click on. ALT3 gets all the basics in, so I think it's pretty good. — Maile (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Since one source mentions that Jennings and Dollar were guest disc jockeys, and the other source just calls Myrick "staff", I'm replacing the hook as follows:
ALT3a: ... that Waylon Jennings and Johnny Dollar were guest disc jockeys for country music station KOYL in Odessa, Texas? Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Starting work on prep 6, figuring someone else will work on 5 and we'll get 2 promoted to queue today per Yoninah's request. :D

Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbian erasure

StudiesWorld Nizolan Flyer22 Reborn Cwmhiraeth

This is where the fact I wasn't paying close attention in 9th grade becomes apparent... yes or no to the comma? --valereee (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a grammar question. The comma adds readability to a long hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, either works grammatically, though my preference would be to include the comma. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 11:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, from a strict perspective of grammar, I believe the comma is supposed to be removed, but I agree with Yoninah that it improves readability, so it should be included. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all! --valereee (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saumitra Khan

Royroydeb Dharmadhyaksha BlueMoonset Cwmhiraeth

No one has questioned at either article or nom, but I don't have good enough knowledge of Indian sources, so just want to double check re: BLP at article. The sources talking about the charges against him etc. are all reliable? --valereee (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed an unsourced assertion and provided a source I believe to be reliable to another. I believe this is good to go and that Prep 6 is now good to go. --valereee (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Valereee

I want to personally thank you @Valereee: for what you've taken on with putting so much effort into checking a hook set before it goes live. In a perfect world, this would have always been so. In the less perfect world of our all-volunteer DYK bunch, not all of us have the time. Some some people/admins only notice something is questionable if it's in their own field of interest, or their own language. It takes special tenacity to do what you are doing. And we don't expect you to be perfect about it. But I feel a little better having you hanging around this neighborhood. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hear hear. Well done, Valereee.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the kind words! And I actually think given that this is one of the few places on WP where we have daily deadlines – gotta feed that beast, 8 times a day, ready or not – and where we’re scrutinized so hard because of being on the main page, I think we do great. Add the fact that there’s amazingly little drama given both the deadlines and the scrutiny? We’re frickin’ awesome! --valereee (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I second this. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
July
... with thanks from QAI
Thank you for improving the quality here, valereee, Amakuru, Maile, and everybody else who does! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2

Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards

Reidgreg YoninahCwmhiraeth

I've changed

  • ... that Canadians consider comedians, along with singers and musicians, to be the country's cultural representatives?

to

  • ... that working-class Canadians consider comedians, along with singers and musicians, to be the country's cultural representatives?

...both at article and hook, based on the source, which specifies working-class. Wanted to call it out in case there were any objections. --valereee (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: thanks! That's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Thanks also for pinging me in, I didn't realize this had advanced to the prep (being a split nomination). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, thanks! --valereee (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Need someone to check on this DYK (New Article)

Just need to make sure that it's ready to go since I addressed some concerns regarding the hooks and whatnot here. Ominae (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The nomination will need a tick before it can go ahead, so it's best to ping the reviewer, in this case Narutolovehinata5, to complete the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on small issue

I promoted WBOW (1230 AM) to prep 5, but I need clarification on something to know if it's even an error that I should fix. If a title is in all capital letters on a source, should that format be copied or should the title not be in all capital letters? I remember someone telling me a long time ago that copying all capital letters for a title couldn't be used when I nominated an article for DYK, but I never checked into it. I'm referring to the 10th reference. SL93 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ALLCAPS says titles should not be in all caps (including within citations). I usually fix this whenever I find such a citation. I've never seen anything more specific to DYK. But is just a good thing to fix regardless. MB 05:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

prep 1 not checked

I've moved preps 1 and 2 to queue per request, even though as far as I know prep 1 had not been checked, as promoters had no room to work. If anyone has time to do some checks on prep 1, that would be great. I did check Chitpas Kridikorn, as I had been thinking I might have to switch it with a hook from an earlier prep, so it's just the other seven. --valereee (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion requests for July 29 + 3 Aug

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party for a special occasion request on July 29. I have asked questions, but I do not have time to do a complete review. Hopefully other reviewers can assist and we can get this done with teamwork. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Approved. - I have a nom open for 3 August, Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Münzberg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The question regarding the logo at Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party needs to be addressed as per WP:DYKIMG. Do any other image experts want to comment? Flibirigit (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I said that the image is not needed, so why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The image is still used in the article. As per WP:DYKIMG all images must be properly licensed, even if it is not the DYK image on the main page. I am concerned it does not follow WP:LOGOS, and I am asking for other opinions. Flibirigit (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Left my comment on the template. WP:DYKIMG only applies to images on the main page. If it's not gong to be on the main page, there is nothing in the rules for DYK to be concerned about. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean, Maile? We check image licensing in the article before promotion to the preps and the main page. If it's not properly licensed, it should be, or it should be deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that based solely on DYK instructionals - the main rules WP:DYK, the Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG, and the Reviewing Guide WP:DYKR, it only refers to the image that will appear on the main page with the hook. If it's not going on the main page, I see nothing that says we are supposed to check all images. Image checks for the entire article are specifically mentioned in the GAC and FAC review process, but I don't see anything in ours that refers to any image that is not part of the hook. Outside of GAC and FAC, Commons:Category:Copyright violations has its own process for dealing with the issue for images uploaded on their site. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Pages with improperly licensed images have been called out in the past. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Understood. But without it being part of any of the rules, it is not a requirement. We should be wary of imposing standards that are not within the written rules. Any nominator or reviewer is within their rights to ask for a link to a rule to something being imposed on a nomination. And they are correct to challenge a dictate without a clearly written rule. Where do we draw the line? If a reviewer gets hung up on stylistic issues - theirs vs. anybody else's - do we also give in to that? We can't justify quashing a nomination for something that is not clearly in the rules. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The third bullet point of WP:DYKIMG: "Pictures and videos used in all DYK articles should be suitably licensed: PD, GFDL, CC, etc., including fair use where appropriately applied." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - my error. I've struck my comments here and on the template. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The 3 August nom is approved, but needs to be moved to special occasions, or placed in the right prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Yoninah: just swapped out half of prep 6 by claiming that we must rotate all bios/non-bios as rule. I worked on Prep 6 for nearly two and a half hours (if you count researching relevant policies). Nowhere within WP:DYKSG#J4 have I found evidence to this claim. Why should we group up all non-bios as the same type?! It'd basically mean that with 8 hooks, all DYKs would have to be 50% biographies. Can someone involved please review the situation on User talk:MJL#Prep 6? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it should just be updated to say 50% should be biographies, instead of up to 50%. I understand how others do it, but new promoters shouldn't have to read between the lines. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
In an 8-hook set, we try to maintain a 50-50 ratio of biographies to non-biographies. But in a 9-hook set, the ratio would be 5 to 4. Maybe that's why the rule says "up to 50%"? In general, unless there's a compelling reason why we can't do 50-50 (as, for example, there aren't enough approved hooks), 50% of the set should be bios. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
For a totally different reason, I think we as a project should consider updating the wording in the rules somewhat. I refer to the places where it assumes 50% of the available hooks are USA topics. I think we've gotten geographically diverse in what is created, and we need to adjust the wording.
@MJL: I can't answer your questions about the rules, and can't give you an exact answer because I don't know when the last time was I built an entire set. It does take considerable time, and I appreciate your effort. But the fact of the matter is, "stuff happens" in preps, and hooks get shifted about all the time before a set makes it to Queue. @Yoninah: is not the only one who shuffles hooks around. For all kinds of reasons, prep builders sometimes only promote one or two hooks at a time, move things around where they think it would fit bitter, or move a hook because a special occasion hook needs the slot. Even if Yoninah had not moved the hooks, it is almost a given that one or more hooks from what you built would have been swapped to somewhere else before the set made it to Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: [Thank you for the ping] I mean, 50% of the prep was swapped or removed for reasons I didn't personally agree with. Yoninah did an excellent job explaining to me the way things work here is pretty much nothing like writing articles. When I made the prep, I expected similar deference that an article creator might expect. I only copyedited each of the hooks when I felt there was a compelling reason to do so since it's not my hook. I expected one or two swaps and likely a bit of tinkering, but I didn't expect 1 swap and 3 removals. There are so many hooks waiting to be promoted. With the exception of special occasions, I really can't agree with the process of swapping in such a manner. However, it's par for the course here. Which is... fine. I'll probably avoid prepping hooks in the future, though. The way things work here currently is just not compatible with how I edit Wikipedia (for better and for worse). Please feel free to consider the matter on my end personally resolved. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5

The 14th reference for Robert Michaelis is sourced to an unreliable WordPress blog. @Moonraker: @Cwmhiraeth: SL93 (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment, SL93, I have found a better source and moved that one into "External links". Moonraker (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Poem

@Ahmedo Semsurî: @Cwmhiraeth: @MJL:
The article gives all the important points about the poem in the lead. The rest is analysis. Shouldn't the article say something about the poem itself—its structure, metering, etc.—to get to start-class? It also has no ratings on the talk page. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've added a short summary, info on stanzas and filled out the importance scales on the talk page. Not sure where the article stands on the quality scale though. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks much better! I've added ratings to the talk page. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at the hook and believe that it would be better to use the word a instead of the Ukrainian symbol of national revival. If its still possible to make this small change, I think it should be done to not mislead readers. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list was archived about an hour ago with only eight nominations remaining, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 7. Right now we have a total of 366 nominations, of which 179 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three ones from May that have just been added to the list.

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) 02:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've reviewed one at least for you. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Suggested re-wording of Rules of thumb for preparing updates

DYK rules and guidelines are unnecessarily lengthy and complicated, and create a burden for promoters. They are also outdated in the nominations we currently deal with. I am suggesting one change that might help clear the clutter.

Supplementary guidelines-Rules of thumb for preparing updates say this

J2: Make sure you choose a varied selection – don't choose half a dozen biography hooks, for example, or a bunch of hooks about one particular country or topic. Variety is the spice of life. (However, see the following clause for an important qualification).

J3: Because of the preponderance of submissions on US topics and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have up to 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics. That is, in an eight-hook update you should have up to four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive; for example, if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. As a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US-related topics, biographical topics, or any other topic, except when it seems unavoidable. More than one hook on any country other than the US or UK looks unbalanced and in most cases should also be avoided.

J4: Mix your hooks up. Try to avoid having two hooks of the same general type next to one another in the update (for example, two US hooks or two bio hooks together). Putting several US hooks next to one another in an update makes the update look US-centric; this appearance is reduced if you interleave the US hooks with hooks about different countries. In the same spirit, try to avoid putting two bio hooks together, or two hooks on any other subject.

Suggested new wording

Other than pre-determined full-set special date/commemorative runs, hook sets should try to balance subject matter and geographical interest. Within the sets, alternate the hooks so that no two specific genres/types are next to each other.

Comments

And, yes, I propose to take those three paragraphs of excess instructions, and reduce them down to two simple sentences. Please feel free to comment, or offer alternative solutions. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Would support something like this. Always had the feeling that DYK could get too Anglo-centric at times and such a proposal could help ensure that topics from other parts of the globe can be properly featured as well and that US hooks won't get special treatment anymore. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Removing the existing wording and replacing it with something so generic will just result in inexperienced set promoters going back to making all the same mistakes they used to make: namely, adding slews of bio hooks, adjacent to one another; adding too many US hooks, or not enough; and so on. The existing guidelines with regard to these issues have served us very well for many years and I see no reason to alter them. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, and expertise, and will not try to change your mind. I would like to note that I am going on the assumption that (1) Prep promoters have working brains; and, (2) If their brains stop working, this talk page is a testimony to watchers who are more than willing to step up to the plate and point out errors. — Maile (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We've been very fortunate over the last few years in that we have had two highly experienced users who have done almost all the set building. Prior to that, however, any number of people were doing it, and we saw the same issues over and over again, which is why the guideline was written as it was. I for one do not want to go back to the bad old days when I had to spend half my time rebalancing sets put together by inexperienced users, which is what is going to happen if Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth retire and your reduced guideline gets adopted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Back in the day when I was learning the ropes, it was very helpful to have explicit guidance in balancing sets written down and available—a distillation of what had been found to work over the years. I had a working brain, and found it very useful indeed to have these ideas of what was considered best practices for building sets, and then to learn from mentors where the edges and what further considerations were. People approach things differently: some with caution, and some throwing themselves into it without doing a whole lot of analysis. Having clear instructions is a plus, not the minus it seems to be. That 50% max has been very useful over the years. (One question: in what way are J2 through J4 outdated in the nominations we currently deal with? Hooks still fit into all those areas, so far as I can tell.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
J3-J4 assume that the US hooks are the majority of nominations and need to be mixed up. I think the country of origin is more variable than that. Some nominators are more productive than others and submit according to their field of knowledge. For instance, the hooks on German opera and composers. Or the period we went through a few years ago when we had a very prolific nominator of India hooks. I see a lot of European hooks at times, and we get nominations from around the globe. Nobody has run up percentages to estimate one way or the other, but I'm not convinced US hooks are necessarily the majority. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Maile that the preponderance of US hooks has been greatly reduced in recent years, a trend which seems to be continuing. I'm relatively new to working at DYK, and I get the arguments that the rules served us well back when half of the backlog was US hooks, but it really isn't any more. It's not that the rules are bad, it's just that it would be good to simplify/shorten them where we can in order to make them less daunting for new promoters. I actually think the new wording is pretty good. Maile's wording to me seems to simplify without really losing anything. We don't need to specify 'alternate bio/non-bio' if we're saying 'alternate genre/type.' The only thing it doesn't get at -- and which I don't think is stated anyway -- is 'aim for variety in image hooks, including alternating bio/non-bio in image hooks in consecutive sets,' which might be a good thing to add. I'd like MJL's comment on this, as a newer prep-setter who tried very hard to figure out the rules and didn't realize we tried to alternate bio/non-bio. MJL, would Maile's restatement have given you that info? --valereee (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The majority of DYK nominations are U.S. based. I've been perturbed lately by the fact that most hooks being put in the quirky slot are U.S. based. I think we still need that "no more than 50% U.S.-based" guideline. As for the rest, I'd like to comment later. Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there are still a lot of US hooks - I still find it a bit of a struggle to not end up with two US hooks adjacent in a set, as I did again today. In any case, the guideline says "up to half", not "half". "Up to half" basically means any number up to 50% but not more. So even if the overall number of US hooks has dropped a little, the guideline covers that. The important thing is that the guideline reminds set builders to include a few US hooks, because if they build a set that has zero US hooks, that almost always results in one of the next sets being US-heavy because there aren't enough non-US hooks left to build a balanced set. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: [Thank you for the ping] In short, not at all. With Special:Permalink/908201789, I would have still felt I complied with that rule. I had it go landmark, event, landmark, and media (in my mind). However, it was communicated to me that that setup would be disallowed as all are treated as non-bios. If part of the rule is that hooks should always alternate between bios and non-bios (which would immediately imply that for even numbered sets would be half), I don't get why we the second sentence just doesn't state that?
I also would like to suggest an additional rule be added if we're already amending things:

New users are encouraged to only promote one or two hooks if they are first getting started with prepping. Preps undergo a significant number of modifications during the prep stage, and hooks frequently get swapped with one another as users collaborate on which hook set balances out the best. It might be upsetting to find or two hooks you thought really paired well with one another get seperated, or a hook you promoted gets completely reframed. This happens a lot even with the most experienced users, so just remember that the most important part of this process is that we do a good job featuring new content. Your contributions are still an invaluable part of that process!

Regards, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MJL, that would be a great addition to the rules page. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Side Comment to all contributors - Agree/disagree with my suggestions, my intent is to simplify and shrink what a new promoter has to read. It's unfortunate enough that our basic rules are found in multiple places. And while @MJL: has suggested a really good welcoming statement for new promoters, perhaps it could be placed somewhere apart from the rules. @Gatoclass: @BlueMoonset: @Valereee: @Yoninah: @Narutolovehinata5: perhaps one or more of you could come up with a way to condense the rules without compromising what you deem important. We have this big GLUT of information for nominators, reviewers and promoters to read. It's no wonder some trip up while trying to participate in the process. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: [Thank you for the ping] I don't know if the fact we have too many rules is the issue here tbh (having too many rules is a common theme throughout the project). I think it's the lack of simple step-by-step guide to the process that is the real concern. Pretty much, the only documentation to dealing with the prep/queue area is found at the rules section in question. Regardless, if the goal is to simplify the rules to make them easier to understand; please, check out Special:Permalink/908509760#Process for prepping updates and its companion.I like writing policy... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think this is largely a solution looking for a problem; the "rules of thumb for preparing updates" have been extant for a decade with virtually no complaints, and suddenly because one user took exception to having his hook set tampered with, we have to change everything? Yes, the ruleset in general is ramshackle and needs a rewrite (I've been planning to get onto it for years but just haven't found the time), and yes, the "rules for preparing updates" might perhaps be expressed a little more succinctly, although it would have to be carefully considered, because pretty much everything that's in it is essential information IMO - but it's hardly the most pressing issue we face at DYK. Having said that, MJL's suggestion of extracting a "basic" rule to highlight might have a degree of merit, though I don't care at all for the tiny green font he chose to use as an example (and some of his rule interpretations are just plain wrong). But quite frankly, I have about a thousand things I'd prefer to be doing on Wikipedia right now than having another sterile discussion about the ideal wording of a guideline. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that it's a solution looking for a problem. If one person found the rules daunting but persevered and despite their best efforts, still weren't able to create a prep others here would accept, how many others found it daunting and just threw up their hands in frustration and went somewhere else? If we have someone who is saying they like to write policy and another experienced editor also interested in making improvements and would be willing to work with that person, then I think we should encourage them! There are always going to be issues more pressing than pretty much any issue you can bring up; that doesn't mean none of us should work on anything except the most pressing issue. Sometimes fixing a seemingly less-pressing issue ends up helping alleviate a more-pressing issue. --valereee (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Mrinalini Devi in queue 2

I was trying to take care of the clarification needed tag on Mrinalini Devi about how old she was when she died. I know Google Translate isn't the most reliable, but the Google translated text of the reference says "Mrinalini Devi died at the age of only 20 after suffering a long illness." Another issue that I found while searching was that the birth date seems to be wrong. The article says that she was born on 1 March 1874, but this book states that she was born in 1872. @Royroydeb: @Cwmhiraeth: SL93 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

SL93, do we have a reasonably good source for both dates? If so, I'd say we change her dob to being reported as either 1874 or 1872, providing both sources in the statement. --valereee (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I think that I took care of the issue. What do you think? SL93 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
SL93, I went ahead and inserted the 1872+source into the section, too, just so it wouldn't be in the infobox but not in the article, but yeah, I think that solved it! --valereee (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's entirely another aspect as to what the heck is hooky in the hook. A wife selling off her personal properties for the sake of her family/husband was not at all an uncommon story, back in those times. If someone had read the offline biographies of Tagore, there are ample hooky stuff but ...... *Sigh* ∯WBGconverse 09:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I had proposed other hooks in the nomination but the nominator said they preferred this hook (i.e. the properties one), and the reviewer signed that off. Should the other proposals be revisited and/or the hook be pulled while the issues are being sorted out? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

August 11 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Loicq for an August 11 birthday anniversary special occasion request. I hope this is sufficient notice. Thank you for the consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Cited hook question

Hello. For rule 3a "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article", should the reference in the nomination also be one that is used in the article? To me it should, but the rules don't specifically say this. I've come across this issue during one of my recent reviews of a nomination. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the reference given in the nomination is just a helpful link for the reviewer to find the fact in the source. Personally, I pay no attention to it; it's more important that the hook fact be referenced properly in the article. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: The Great Escape

I would like to gain community consensus on whether the "Great Escape" should be linked or not. When I came across this hook to promote it, it wasn't linked, and it actually intrigued me; I thought it might refer to an escape from a Nazi concentration camp. The reviewer noted that he was familiar with the name from the British prisoner of war story, which indeed it refers to. I put it in the quirky slot because I felt it could be interpreted in different ways, and that that made it very hooky. But first Narutolovehinata5 and then Ravenpuff have come along and linked it. Actually, there is no page on this subject; the link redirects to a section in the article Stalag Luft III. Does anyone other than me think it should not be linked? Pinging nominator Gaia Octavia Agrippa. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned on my user talk page, I believe it should be linked, if only to prevent confusion. The term "great escape" has many uses, and while term seems to be known as an event in WW2, it's also a common term at least in English football to refer to teams that managed to avoid relegation (the term has in recent years been applied to teams such as Leicester and Crystal Palace, among others). When you just read the hook by itself, unless you click on Clarke's article and discover that he was in the RAF, you might not necessarily know that "The Great Escape" referred to that 1944 event; it's possible that, for example, a football fan could interpret the hook as meaning that a guy named Charles Clarke was involved in a football team avoiding relegation. I would not be opposed to delinking it if, for example, some description of Clarke was added to the hook (i.e. mentioning that he was an RAF officer or wording to that effect), but it's probably still better to be safe than sorry and link it anyway.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no issue with it being linked to a section rather than an article name (although I have to wonder why the Great Escape doesn't have its own link). Other than that, it seems to me it should be linked in the hook, not to do so would seem a little contrived and clickbaity to me. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: and what about keeping it in quotes? It seems there are too many quotes in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, the article uses the term both with and without quotes, but it appears that most sources do not use quotes, so I would say they are not needed in the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: thanks, I agree. I removed the quotes from the article and put the whole phrase, The Great Escape, into the piped link. Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:, aren't hooks supposed to be clickbaity? I'd (the nominator) agree that the Great escape doesn't need to be in quotes: I had it originally as The Great Escape in reference to the film of the same name. Maybe I'm getting old, but that phrase refers to the film and the historic event. As for football, Narutolovehinata5, I can only assume that the phrase is used because of the WW2 event which is well known in the UK. Looking at the DAB page The Great Escape, there are only four historic events called this on Wikipedia. If the short version of the hook is considered too ambiguous, even for a hooky hook, then there are two other longer hooks on the nomination page which have more details. Given the guidance 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., any confusion around what The Great Escape should encourage people to read the bolded article rather than a linked Great Escape. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines clickbait as something designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink, especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest. If you don't link Great Escape, it suggests some great escape other than the widely known one, so that readers can only be disappointed when they go to the bolded link to discover it's the one they already knew about. Anything that leads to reader disappointment is by definition "of dubious value or interest" so fits the definition of clickbait. Also, for those who are not familiar with the Great Escape, forcing them to click on two links when one will suffice is discourteous. We want readers to enjoy their interaction with DYK, not be irritated by it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: you could solve matters by writing a new article about The Great Escape and adding it as a bolded link to your hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

The second reference for Laura Yeager seems like an unreliable blog because it is published through WordPress. It is only used to reference one fact so I can switch it out for another one, but I didn't want to step on anyone's toes if it's a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: @Peacemaker67: — Maile (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I replaced it with a better source. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Should Kent Angus really use Facebook and LinkedIn as references in any case? SL93 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: @Flibirigit: — Maile (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
LinkedIn is fine for personal biographical details; I've used it to confirm places of education and job dates when no other sourcing is available. I wouldn't say the same for Facebook. Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel the sources and statements adhere to WP:SELFPUB, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Flibirigit (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The hook suggests Xu wrote the book but he didn't, he only "oversaw its compilation" according to the article, while the source states it was "organized" by Xu (google translate) and written by others. I think the hook needs to be rephrased. Pinging the nominator Zanhe. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I just gave it a tweak myself. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I pulled this hook because the quoted source says something different, I quote: ...working-class individuals [...] idea of Canada's cultural best is more likely to include the Canadian comedians who have frequented American television shows such as Saturday Night Live (Dan Akroyd, Mike Myers) or rock groups such as Rush [...] or more recently internationally famous performers such as Shania Twain or Celine Dion. I'm not sure how to work the given opinion into a hook at all so I pulled it. Perhaps a different hook should be found. Pinging the nominator Reidgreg. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • This one s particularly bizarre. The hook says that its comedians are considered cultural representatives of the nation by the Canadian working class, but the article establishes that that's only the case if they've appeared on US telly? Which seems almost the opposite by definition. ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the hook is a bit of a mess IMO. I'm not sure a decent hook can even be gotten out of that quote, which seems to be a rather random speculative notion by the writer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
So this would have passed if I hadn't included the |quote= parameter?
I don't understand the problem. Canadians consider their cultural best to be recognized outside the country. Is there anything unusual about that? Or do you feel that the hook is saying that every Canadian comedian is a cultural representative? I'm guessing here. Could you please be explicit about what you perceive the problem to be? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, the quote references a few high-profile Canadian comics and musicians who made it in the US as the common man's idea of "Canada's cultural best". So firstly, a handful of select comics/musos do not equate to Canadian comics, singers and musicians in general, as the hook indicates. Secondly, "Canada's cultural best" is not the same thing as "Canada's cultural representatives". It appears that you've tried to avoid close paraphrasing in the hook which is fine, but I think that in doing so you've just strayed a little too far from the original source in this instance. Gatoclass (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The source noted a handful as examples but there are considerably more than a handful, I think. How about we keep it simple: ... that Canadians popularly consider their cultural best to include comedians? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: Hi, I remember this hook was supposed to be part of an all-Canadian prep set for Canada Day. It may have worked in that context, but it really doesn't work as a stand-alone hook. Do you think we can come up with a better hook for this article? Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. How about one of:
ALT1: ... that Canadian comedians use individual expression to reinforce collective values?
ALT2: ... that to be social acceptable, some Canadian comedians link comedic discontent to group survival?
ALT3: ... that in Canada, comedians face taboos regarding immodesty, impoliteness, and social criticism?
It's difficult to make generalizations about highly individualistic performers in a pluralistic society, but I think these work. A citation might have to be moved up in the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I liked Reidgreg's proposal about "Canadians considering their cultural best to include comedians" hook to be pretty good and I don't think it needs to be tied up to Canada Day. Of the three new hooks, the last one is probably the best, but I don't think it's exactly unusual for comedians to face taboos isn't it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
But again, the source doesn't say that. It talks only about a tiny handful of Canadian comedians who have made it in the US as those popularly considered amongst Canada's "cultural best", not Canadian comedians generally. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems there are issues with that hook that aren't going to be resolved. But I'm not sure where "handful" came from. I normally consider a "handful" to mean what one can count on five digits (unless the items being quantified can literally be held in a hand). There are a lot more than that. I cross-referenced with Saturday Night Live cast members and found 10 Canadians (out of 151 total), plus there are hosts like Jim Carey, Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis, and that's one show. Add the other late-night and variety shows, Daily Show, Last Comic Standing, and all the sitcoms, Canadian comedians on US telly add up. It's a significant proportion if one is considering full-time professional Canadian comedians who are earning a living above the poverty line – i.e.: those who are notable and recognizable. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT3. Here's another idea:
Maybe lose the sparsely populated part, which doesn't apply to the climate. Otherwise I think that's good. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. We need a review of ALT4 so this can be restored to a prep set. The template was never restored to WP:DYKNA so it's floating around in virtual space. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "vast climate" either, so the hook still needs work. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Right. I would have called it a "geographical expanse". "Climate" indicates temperatures. I'm going ahead and returning this to WP:DYKN so we can nail down the hook before re-promotion. Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

I will check the contents of Queue 6. --valereee (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Smuggler's Gulch

RightCowLeftCoast Epicgenius MJL

Is this still true? I'm reading the article and it sounds like the "sewage" problem was before the gulch was filled in and that now it's "trash, sediment, and debris" that is dredged out of the remaining channel? --valereee (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

valereee, yes, so maybe it can be changed to ... that "trash, sediment, and debris" from Tijuana flows into the United States through Smuggler's Gulch. epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Works for me! Thanks! --valereee (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: A flows; A, B, and C flow. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks! Trying to do too many things at once! --valereee (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. Yes, it is a continuous issue in regarding to the Tijuana River, which Smuggler's Gulch is part of its drainage basin, especially in the wet season (which believe it or not San Diego does have (albeit not as long as elsewhere)). During the dry months, such as now, what sewage does flow is diverted; however in the wet months the attempts to collect that flow is inundated, and the sewage that is carried by the seasonal stream follows the normal stream course, which then joins the Tijuana River, and then through the estuary and out into the Pacific Ocean.
Clear as mud?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/WBOW (1230 AM)

  • ... that WBUZ and four other operating radio stations lost their FCC licenses as a result of the owner being convicted of felonies?

Raymie Cwmhiraeth SL93

It's not clear in the article that the FCC started the investigation because of the felony conviction. The two sentences are right beside one another, but they aren't clearly connected.

And I'm having a hard time counting lol...the article says The next year, the Federal Communications Commission opened a hearing to revoke the licenses of all of the stations owned by Contemporary Media and its sister companies, Contemporary Broadcasting and Lake Broadcasting, which also owned FM stations in Columbia, Missouri and Eldon, Missouri, as well as two additional unbuilt stations in the same state.[11] and there are five articles listed in the "former callsigns" section of the infobox. Which five stations is this hook referring to, and can we put "all five stations owned by Rice were closed down" somewhere in the article?

I tried to check both of these in the source provided in that section, but it's a whole magazine, and I figure Raymie probably can figure this out in seconds. --valereee (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The five stations are WBOW (1230 AM) (then WBUZ), WBOW (640 AM), WZZQ (FM), KFMZ (Columbia, Missouri), and KBMX (Eldon, Missouri). There were also two construction permits that were never built, as detailed in the source article. No article exists for KBMX (Eldon, Missouri) though I really should write it. Raymie (t • c) 18:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I just created KBMX (Missouri), but yes, those are the five stations, three in Terre Haute and two in Missouri. Raymie (t • c) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Raymie, can you edit to say something like 'all five' and also connect the felony with the FCC investigation? DYK requires each sentence supporting the hook have its own source, and that all points in the hook are clearly supported by the article sentences --valereee (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I just expanded the sentence as seen here. Raymie (t • c) 19:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that'll do it! --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Eunice Parsons

Firstly, it's a presumption that the subject will still be alive on 4th August. Secondly, the source given for the hook appears to be dated 2004, and the source specifically states that several members of the group were still alive then, so how do we know she is the last living member of the group? Pinging the nominator Grand'mere Eugene and the reviewer Felixkrater. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I see that the reviewer verified his own hook. You are not permitted to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have substituted the above hook with a trimmed version of the original hook from the nomination page, as I very much doubt the issues with the former will be resolved in a timely manner, if at all. Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC):

@Gatoclass:; @Grand'mere Eugene:. I'm not sure why you are confused. The exhibition was in 2004, the source clearly states it was "originally published December 2017". It says near the top of the article "Eunice Parsons is the only remaining living artist included in Terri Hopkins’ 2004 group exhibition, Northwest Matriarchs of Modernism". Where do you think it says anything about the others still being alive?

Secondly, there is a presumption with any BLP that they will be still alive at time a hook goes onto the main page - anyone can die suddenly. She is a well-known artist and there would be obituaries if she had died. As she is so old I did a search this morning just to check and there was no mention of her death. I did find a video of her, still very well and lively, at a party celebrating her 102nd birthday. I was also intending to another search tomorrow, just in case.

I realised afterwards that I shouldn't have approved my own hook, but I just wanted to get it out the way, but you are are right to pick me up on that. The "103-year-old" hook is much more interesting and fitting given that it would go live on her birthday. If you don't like the fact that I approved it, perhaps some other kind person@Gerda Arendt: might look at it and approve it if no problems are noted. Just to be clear, this is the link to the source which is cited in the article Oregon Visual Arts Ecology Project, Felixkrater (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Felixkrater, the archived link wouldn't open for me, so I went to the original link which had expired and did a site search which came up with this link, which I assumed to be the original webpage relocated. That page makes no mention of Parsons being the only remaining living member of the group so far as I can see, but possibly it's a different link? If that can be sorted out, we might be able to substitute the originally selected alt, if it was slightly adjusted to say something like "that American collage artist Eunice Parsons, who turns 103 today, is ...". Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Always so happy when called "kind": the link works for me, published 2017 (should say so in the ref), and supports the claim. I'd use the opening by Gatoclass:
... that Eunice Parsons, a collage artist who turns 103 today, is the last of the "Northwest Matriarchs of Modernism"? Turning 10 wiki years today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda Arendt, you are kind! Is that an approval then Gatoclass? Felixkrater (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have substituted the originally proposed hook with the stated tweak above, as I've pretty much confirmed independently that all the other exhibitors have passed on. Apologies for the somewhat premature original substitution, before starting this thread I had forgotten there was another set in the pipeline and thought there was only a few hours to go, I quickly realized my error but decided to leave the discussion up as the issues nonetheless needed resolution. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all, Felixkrater, Gatoclass and Gerda Arendt for your thoroughness and care in reviewing and editing the hook. I very much appreciate it! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 currently has four Asian hooks. They're pretty diverse -- a Chinese scientist who died a few years ago, an Indian company, a living Japanese pool player, a 13th century Mongol invasion. Comments? --valereee (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Edit to clarify: I don't personally have an issue with it, or I'd have swapped one or more. :) Just wanted to get input from others. --valereee (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

My rule of thumb in building prep sets is no more than 4 U.S. based hooks. If there is more than one British hooks, or Australian hooks, or Asian hooks, I consider it a win for the rest of the world. In this case, are Indian and Japanese really considered Asian? And we can't really swap in another U.S. hook, because there are already three there. Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, I think that I prepped this initially, so I'll comment on it: I considered the potential problem of a lack of balance. but I thought that it was a good set of hooks in other respects. I also tried to go for older hooks when possible, so that might be indicative of some Asian hooks being looked over, possibly due to balance concerns. As discussed in the section above, it would be nice to have some better statistics on this, but I'm not sure what they appropriate proportion of Asian hooks is, based on the nominated hooks. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: I think you did a great job with the set balance. When you came to it, it just had the German woman in the lead. I added the Japanese hook to sneak in another bio. I think it looks fine. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine too. Supplementary rule J3 says "As a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US-related topics, biographical topics, or any other topic, except when it seems unavoidable. More than one hook on any country other than the US or UK looks unbalanced and in most cases should also be avoided." I think "Asia" is too big to count as a single topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but I think we should get rid of the "More than one hook on any country other than the US or UK looks unbalanced and in most cases should also be avoided" rule entirely since it would imply that the US/UK has special treatment compared to any other country. I understand that part of the reason why this guideline is worded that way is because a significant number of our hooks are related to these two countries and thus it would be one way to remove them from the backlog faster, but still. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I would have to oppose that; the US and UK get "special treatment" because this is the English Wikipedia, and the number of articles created on US/UK topics is naturally much greater than for other countries. More than one article about any other country does look very odd IMO, given that there are hundreds of other countries in the world. Besides, the existing guideline doesn't absolutely rule out running more than one hook per set for other countries, it just basically says it's best avoided. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with that sentiment as personally I feel that such an opinion would only further perpetuate systemic bias, which is something that is acknowledged as a problem and is also considered something to be avoided whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

David Cooper (abolitionist)

moved to Template:Did you know nominations/David Cooper (abolitionist). Please do not comment further here.
  • ... that in 1783, David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery in a leading Quaker publication addressed to the US government, with George Washington privately signing his name to a copy?

Gwillhickers Nikkimaria Cwmhiraeth StudiesWorld

I'm trying to parse this. As it is, it sounds like maybe it's the leading quaker publication that was addressed to the government, while actually the essay is. But there are just so many parts. I was thinking maybe this helps:

  • ... that in 1793, David Cooper published an essay in a leading Quaker publication condemning slavery and addressed to the US government, with George Washington privately signing his name to a copy?

Does that seem better? Or does it now just sound like it's a leading publication that condemns slavery? Any other suggestions? --valereee (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right, there are too many clauses here. Just trim it to:
  • @StudiesWorld, Yoninah, and Valereee: One of the most significant points has been removed. Addressed to the US Government. As such, the publication caused a lot of controversy. The essay wasn't just some passing Quaker publication read only by Quakers. It was also published in newspapers, specifically addressed to "the rulers of America", and received a lot of notoriety when it hit the fan of the US government. Copies of this specific essay were handed out by Anthony Benezet, Cooper's colleague, to Congress, Washington. Jefferson and the New Jersey Legislature in Cooper's home state. The original hook was only 184 characters to begin with. There's really no pressing need to water it down to almost a boring statement. Also, no one knows when and in what capacity Washington signed the copy, and none of the sources say "privately", and the article doesn't, so we should keep the original research out of the hook. It's a rather simple statement, and the most comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery in a leading Quaker publication addressed to the US government, with George Washington signing his name to a copy? – (178 characters)

Gwhillhickers, ALT2's got the same issue as the original -- it reads as if it's the quaker publication that is directed at the government, but it was the essay that was directed at the government. --valereee (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: privately -- the article says Washington later signed a copy and kept it in his private library. I think that saying Washington signed a copy sounds like it might have been a contemporaneous and public act. --valereee (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Valereee see this ginormous discussion/RFC re the tract on Talk:George Washington/Archive 33. We do not know when or why GW signed the tract. All we know, from sources available, is that Cooper wrote it, handed it out liberally to many members of the government, and at some point a copy made its way to Washington's library, at some point it was bound with other such tracts and that one, being the first in the bound book, was signed. Per the sources, we should say "privately" or leave out the signed bit altogether. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, per the sources. The sources (Hayes, pp.291-292; Morgan, p.235 and Furstenberg, p.264) do not say "privately", as if no one ever knew about it at all, only that Washington kept the copy in his private library. Again, we should not read our own speculations into matters, as this is OR. We should also not assume a given reader will interpret it this way, or that. The important points are, it was a tract condemning slavery, addressed to the US gov, and that Washington thought enough about it where he signed it. If any of the readers want to inquire further they will go to the article, and even go as far as to read the sources themselves. All we can do is say Washington signed it. i.e.Washington approved Cooper's message. That's the major point of the hook. The hook, nor the article or the sources, doesn't say Washington signed the tract at a public ceremony, and it also doesn't say he signed it in solitude. Valereee's ALT3 is fine, and retains the important points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Since someone took it upon themselves to add "privately" to the hook, and even removed "addressed to the US gov", before placing the nomination in the Queue, and before this discussion was resolved, then I suppose what's done is done. I must say, what's the point of discussing matters if a given editor is just going to do what they please anyway? I'm not an Administrator so I can not make the correction to the hook now that it's in the Queue. Would an Administrator be good enough to at least remove the OR from the hook? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    Gwillhickers, it's not done; we can still edit. We moved it to queue to allow the prep setters room to work. If you have concerns, we can still discuss. --valereee (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved it out of queue 4 and into prep 5 to give us time to discuss. Gwillhickers can you think of an ALT that will satisfy the original concerns about too many clauses causing confusion over which was directed at the US government, the essay or the leading publication, and will also address concerns about causing confusion as to whether Washington signed the tract privately/later or publicly/contemporaneously? --valereee (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for moving the hook out of the Queue and renewing my faith in the DYK process. I had assumed this was a done deal and that my view had meant nothing to nobody. Okay, I am not sure how we can remove too much of the hook and keep it's overall significance. The fact that it was addressed to the US government, while Washington, a slave owner, was president, has great significance and implication. Again, this wasn't some passing editorial or some such - it turned a lot of heads. My latest version (ALT3) was down to 178 characters, down from 186 that was approved by two other editors originally. I'm concerned that if we remove anything else it will lose much significance and come off not nearly as intriguing. How about this, with the removal of "leading Quaker publication", and condensed even further? Hope this works. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT4 : ... that in 1793 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington signing his name to a copy? – (147 characters)
Gwillhickers, the bit about Washington still makes it sound like he might have signed the tract publicly/contemporaneously, which apparently we can't confirm? The construction cut down to its basic parts is "in 1793 Cooper published essay, with Washington signing a copy." Which to me sounds like they're concurrent events. I apologize for seeming to be nitpicky. I want to find something that works for you, I just want to ensure the hook doesn't end up getting pulled because of error reports, and without clarifying that, I'm afraid there will be concerns raised. Sorry to keep pinging you, doing it purely for purposes of time, if you don't need me to do that to ensure you know the convo has continued, tell me to stop! --valereee (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers my bad --valereee (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reluctantly I have to agree, it could easily be interpreted that way. We don't know if the signing was completely private, with a few contemporaries, or in public. All we do know is that he signed it later and that eventually everyone knew about it. How about this? – Any further clarification can be found in the article, and the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT5 : ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington later signing his name to a copy? — (emphasis added for purposes of this discussion only.)
That more or less works for me, pinging Victoriaearle Factotem Cmguy777 and Snow Rise as editors who contributed to the RfC and are familiar with the discussion to see if they are okay with ALT5. --valereee (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It should come as no surprise to the nom that I am not OK with mentioning Washington's signing of his own personal copy at all. Victoria's synopsis of the GW RfC is spot on, and the consensus there was that it was undue weight to mention this in the GW article. To do so, I believe, carries the implication, however small, that his signature was an endorsement. Clearly, this is something the nom believes, but no source supports this.
  • Furstenburg, whose Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks is the most comprehensive source on this subject, informs us on p. 252 that Cooper's tract was the first in one of 36 volumes of pamphlets on a variety of subjects Washington had bound, and that in each volume he signed the cover of the first pamphlet. That suggests to me there was nothing intrinsically important to Washington about this specific pamphlet; he signed it, like he did 35 others, simply because it was placed first in the volume.
  • On the same page Furstenberg writes of the six pamphlets on slavery, including Cooper's, "How did Washington interpret these texts? There is almost no internal evidence to help answer this question."
  • Then, on p. 274, Furstenberg, referring to the pamphlets on slavery, including Cooper's, writes, "... it is impossible to say whether the readings in this volume might have influenced Washington’s decisions."
I would suggest a more neutral hook that pays due regard to weight would read:
Whatever the wording that makes it to the front page, it should at least get the year Cooper's tract was published right: 1783, not 1793. Factotem (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanx for catching that. Changed 1793 to 1783. In any case, merely saying Washington possessed a copy and excluding the points that it was addressed to the US government and that later he signed it is simply too vague, almost pointless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What makes Washington's signature on his own personal copy, the significance of which we have absolutely no idea because no source tells us, significant enough to be highlighted on the front page, especially in language which might, I believe, be misinterpreted as an endorsement? Factotem (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Why else would he sign it, and go so far as to have it elaborately bound? For no reason, or because he disagreed? It's common knowledge that when you endorse something you approve of it. The sources go even further, and explain how Cooper's ideas of emancipation paralleled those of Washington, in that emancipation should be accomplished through gradual steps and through legislative efforts. Many noted sources cover this. We should let the readers decide as to the significance of the signature. If there are factual errors, or the hook is too long, or wordy, or if the sources are questionable, we can address those issues, per the purpose of this forum. We can't suppress this based on the notion that some readers may interpret it this way or that. Blocking the hook for those reasons alone would amount to censorship. Cooper gained notoriety because of his tract to the US gov and that copies were given to Congress, Washington, Jefferson and others, and because a copy was later signed by Washington. This main feature about Cooper and his work is hook-worthy. Many sources thought it was significant enough to cover. We need more than an assumption about what some of the readers will think here. ALT5 is virtually pointless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

We have to look at the context of the times. The end of the Revolutionary War. The tract was anonymous. Did Washington even know who wrote the tract ? Did Washington send the tract to the government ? I will agree with Factotem on the signifigance. Maybe Washington may have had some sort of personal repentance on slavery or catharsis by signing his name to the tract. There appears to be no other signifigance. We should not put too much weight on Washington's signature to an anonymous tract. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As this discussion is holding up the promotion of Prep 5 to the queue, which will free up more prep sets, I've moved this hook to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, acknowledging the ping. I'm fine with Factotem's hook, but haven't actually read the article and would like to take a glance at it, and, if needed, revisit the sources. I can't get to it today but will try to tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ALT6 sounds fine, but with all the controversy about the hook facts, I was beginning to wonder if it was possible to propose other hooks that had nothing to do with the tract or Washington, if only as a backup in case the current options don't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Once again, ALT5 is almost meaningless. Washington also "possessed" a lot of newspapers, letters, documents, etc, with all kinds of ideas contained. That by itself means nothing. At least three editors approved the hook with mention of GW's signature, starting with the original, with no opinions about how some readers might interpret it. Since then it has been condensed and has retained its main theme. We don't say why Washington signed it, or that he signed it for no reason at all - that would be asserting a POV and OR. We shouldn't also assume how some of the readers will interpret the idea. All we can do is keep the hook factual, well cited and as short as possible. I agree, that rehashing all the opinions that were covered in the RfC, which was conducted to see if this had enough weight to mention in Washington's biography, is repetitive and holding up matters. The hook in question involves Cooper's biography. This nomination was submitted June 4, almost two months ago. I've done my best to address all concerns fairly, but now it seems the 'opinions' will be never ending. I'm hoping we can just stick to the simple facts, well cited, let readers make up their own minds, and more importantly, that they be given the chance to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
What about ALT6 then? It sounds like a decent compromise, showing that Washington possessed a copy of the essay while avoiding the mention of the signing (which appears to be the main point of contention here). And personally, considering how well-known Washington is, I'd think that something being in his possession would be of interest in itself regardless of context. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
A few points:
  1. 1., if we go with the Washington signed the tract hook, we have to be careful because as Furstenberg notes, page 263-4, "No evidence has come to light when or how Washington acquired this tract, but it seems likely the author sent it to him .... He signed it on the cover page", (Atlantic Slavery, Atlantic Freedom: George Washington, Slavery, and Transatlantic Abolitionist Networks);
  2. 2., I hadn't actually read the article until last night and in trying to find verify the hook looked at the sources and see there's CP in the article. Then I noted Nikkimaria flagged it. So I'm not sure why it's been promoted. FN 23 say, "Cooper published the tract with the intention that it be read broadly in the various colonies at a time when the Quakers were not in the best favor due to their non-violent and passive involvement in the American Revolution. As a result, Cooper decided to publish his tract anonymously, concealing its Quaker origins.[23]", source say, "Cooper’s second tract, A Serious Address to the Rulers of America (1783), was intended to be read broadly in the colonies at time when Quakers were out of favor due to their non-participation in the American Revolution ... As a result, Cooper published this tract anonymously, obscuring its Quaker origins".
  3. 3., would be fine with Narutolovehinata5 suggestion to leave out the Washington signature altogether, but first think someone should look more carefully at the article. I'd volunteer but cannot do so today. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 12:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, we don't say when or why Washington signed the tract, or that he approved it because he signed it - nor can we say he disapproved. Yes, his signature does suggest he approved -- he wouldn't have signed his name to the tract if he disagreed with it, so no one is advancing some bizarre or unlikely idea here. We let readers decide. i.e.We do know Washington's ideas about emancipation involved a gradual process, via legislation, and that they were not only the same as Cooper's ideas, but like Lafayette's, who also wanted to bring slaves into the free world via gradual steps, via legislative measure, rather than just setting them free all at once, with no means of support or place to live, and nothing but a pat on the back and good wishes. Yes, Cooper had his doubts about whether his tract would actually prompt Washington into taking immediate action, but that doesn't change the fact that Washington signed the tract, placed it at the top of other such tracts and had them elaborately bound for his personal library. Cooper also published the tract anonymously, which doesn't change the fact that Washington signed it. The important consideration was the publication's contents. Anyways, ALT5 is the most comprehensive, yet simple and neutral. We let the readers take it from there. In fact, the hook will invite further inquiry just as we've seen it done here in this forum, which is the purpose of hooks in general. Merely saying Washington "possessed a copy" with no mention that he signed it, and with no mention that it was specifically addressed to the US gov is meaningless and will hardly invoke further inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering multiple editors have raised concerns about the signing part and its implications, it does seem quite likely that the hook may have to go up without it. Why the apparent persistence in including the signing when, as long as the mention of Washington is there, arguably the hook works even without it? Like, if the point was to mention the connection to Washington, then ALT6 seems to be a decent compromise in maintaining that fact while avoiding the contentious point. Is there really a difference in hookiness if we mention that Washington signed the hook as opposed to merely possessing it? If, for the sake of discussion, if it was instead Thomas Jefferson or some other American politician that signed/possessed it, would you still want the hook fact to focus on the signing as opposed to the possession? I admit that I am unfamiliar with the context or background of the RfC so forgive me if I'm showing ignorance of that discussion, I'm just wondering why there's an apparent insistence to mention that Washington had signed a copy, despite there being on-Wiki discussions regarding that fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems we've been through this. Simply saying Washington "possessed a copy" is vague and almost meaningless. Otoh, saying he signed a tract, about anti-slavery issues, that was addressed to the US gov, is not only far more interesting, it's much more comprehensive. Multiple reviewers have approved the hook, which has been condensed, but still has retained its meaning. Since the latest multiple pinging, all we've seen are assumptions about how some of the readers may interpret the hook, and questions about when and why Washington signed the tract. The article and the sources will put things in perspective for those who have any questions. i.e.One doesn't put his 'John Hancock' on a document because he disapproves. There's no hook out there that can explain everything. The purpose of any hook is to invite inquiry, and given all the attention this hook has received so far, I believe it will do just that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
One doesn't put his 'John Hancock' on a document because he disapproves. So from my interpretation of that comment, are you trying to imply that Washington signed the document because he approved of it? Is that the reason why you want that particular hook fact to go up? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, from a cursory reading of the article, it sounded to me like Washington was signing his copy because it was part of his personal library, the way people stamp their books nowadays. Yoninah (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
That suggestion is way over the character limit and is too long anyway. ALT6 gives the intended meaning of that in a more concise way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, struck as it's over the character limit. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Once again, ALT6 obscures the intended meaning, ignoring that it was addressed to the US gov and that later Washington signed a copy. Once again, simply saying someone "possessed a copy" is practically meaningless. Washington also "possessed" many letters from Jefferson. Does this mean he agreed with Jefferson's ideas, or that he was a close friend? More comprehensiveness is needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: you are not allowed to edit your own hook in prep. Since this hook has been pushed back a few preps and the new prep is soon to be promoted, I'm returning this whole nomination to WP:DYKNA so it can be worked out before promotion. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: - My apologies for that. I had corrected the date and substituted "addressed to the US Government" for "leading Quaker publication", as that is one of the main points in the hook. All occurrences of 1793 have been changed to 1783. ALT1 - ALT5, has been approved by at least four editors. As the same opinions have been addressed more than once I'm hoping we can finally go forward with the below hook which has been further qualified, reflecting WanderingWanda's input. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT8 : ... that in 1783 David Cooper published an essay condemning slavery addressed to the US government, with George Washington later signing his personal copy? — (emphasis added for purposes of this discussion)

--- This discussion has been moved to Template:Did you know nominations/David Cooper (abolitionist). Please do not comment further here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 - We Come in Peace

I moved this nomination out of the pending queue a few days ago partly because I wasn't happy about the hook. Now that it's pending again, I think it's time to address the issue. IMO the hook is both lacking in interest - lots of artwork is gender fluid - and also misleading as the artwork was not about gender fluidity per se, that was a more or less incidental detail. I would therefore like to propose an alt hook:

  • ... that the 2018 art installation We Come in Peace was described as "eerie, other, unnerving, ambiguous, even alarming"?

Pinging the nominator StudiesWorld. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Anybody with an opinion on this? I need an opinion on the proposed alt as I am about to log off shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a great alt. Verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Substituted :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5

G'day all, I have no idea how to do this, so I'm posting it here. In Prep 5, can we change the Lionel Matthews hook to read "that Lionel Matthews was posthumously awarded the George Cross for the courage he displayed while a prisoner of war"? No idea why I didn't do that when nominating it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sure. Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

MALE

In Queue 4: ... that an Aksungur (gyrfalcon) male can carry aloft 750 kg (1,650 lb)?

Expanding the acronym MALE (which, since this is not for April Fools' Day, must be all upper case), the hook says ... that an Aksungur (gyrfalcon) medium-altitude long-endurance can carry aloft 750 kg (1,650 lb)? This is nonsense. If this hook is to be used, "male" should either be removed or replaced with "MALE UAV". Also, it appears to be misleadingly saying that this is about a real gyrfalcon rather than just translating from Turkish. That was probably the quirky intention, but it would be better to put 'gyrfalcon' in single quotes (MOS:SINGLE). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO this should be saved for April Fools Day. Pinging page nominator CeeGee. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that an Aksungur ('gyrfalcon') MALE can carry aloft 750 kg (1,650 lb)?
  • Only admins can edit Queues, and they shouldn't edit their own hooks. Again, just the acronym MALE produces nonsense when you look at its expansion. It should be either "MALE UAV" or removed entirely. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mandarax: @CeeGee: I changed it in Queue to MALE UAV, to at least keep it from being pulled. I personally agree with CeeGee, and think adding the "UAV" is too nitpicky. But if adding those 3 letters keeps it from being yanked, then so be it. — Maile (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My preference would've been to remove the unnecessary "male" (which is why I mentioned that option first). In any case, I see that there's now an entirely different hook in place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK:Timothy Meaher

I've reviewed Timothy Meaher at Template:Did you know nominations/Timothy Meaher, and though the article technically squeaks over the minimum prose count, I'm a bit concerned about how patchy the article is on the actual subject. The only details that don't relate to his involvement in the Clotilda (slave ship) affair are his early life and death details, both of which are very short single line entries, and are sourced to find a grave (which we don't let pass as an WP:RS). There is a wealth of detail on the find a grave site, which must have come from somewhere, and the Clotilda goings on are the subject of a book treatment, and there do seem to be a lot of other sources out there which could flesh out the article. Personally I feel that as the article stands, it probably doesn't pass Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the article D7 "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected" - but I realise that is quite a subjective question, and would be happy with second opinion on that. Spokoyni (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point in Prep Area 4

I just noticed that a hook in Prep Area 4 needs a minor edit. It reads:
... that American composer Eunice Lea Kettering, who had almost 20,000 copies of her work published, starting composing music at age 6?
To be grammatical, it should be something like:
... that American composer Eunice Lea Kettering, who had almost 20,000 copies of her work published, started composing music at age 6?
Just thought I'd note it here, though I expect an admin would have picked it up anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Concur, I've boldly fixed it. Spokoyni (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Yuki Nakashima (voice actress)

Just created Yuki Nakashima (voice actress), and since I'm requesting a special occasion hook for August 25, it would be nice if this be given a prompt review so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed before then. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to MJL for reviewing this. However, the nomination hasn't been moved to the special occasions section yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done Moved to section. Spokoyni (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4: Nanjing Golden Dragon Bus

It has been raised at WP:TRM that the source [1], for the fact about Nanjing going into partnership with SDSU, looks like an announcement from the company itself, so might be a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and not totally reliable. Furthermore, I can't find any other evidence for the "laboratory" that was allegedly set up by the two organisations. The only links mentioned on the SDSU websites are grants provided by Nanjing Golden Dragon for various research projects. What do people think? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does not apply here since it's not an analytical or interpretative claim. A company press release is probably the best source for this kind of announcement, anyhow, as it's not a crazy, promotional or fringe claim and they'd be the people best placed to know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well fair enough, but in that case where is this laboratory? Not even clear if it's in China or in San Diego. I don't necessarily doubt the source, but it's surprising to me that there's apparently no other evidence of this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Um ... perhaps nominator @Ominae: or reviewer @Narutolovehinata5: might have some insight. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe you could instead mention that in that year, they announced that partnership, but if that can't work out, a new hook might be needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5

Okay, so tomorrow I have time to work on either Prep 5 or Prep 6. It would be great if another admin would claim the other of these so we can move two sets to queue, as requested by Yoninah. --valereee (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 20. Right now we have a total of 348 nominations, of which 165 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those remaining from May and June.

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) 04:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there some way this post could be automated? – Teratix ₵ 04:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but then you miss someone eyeballing all of the older nominations, pinging reviewers and nominators of stuck nominations, and sometimes affixing the "review again" icon themselves before adding said nom to the list. If I'm content to do all that, why automate, potentially overlooking several nominations that need a push or a ping? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a manually generated list is best for the reasons noted above. Flibirigit (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Circus animal

  • ... that the name of the title character of the animated film Losharik, a circus animal made out of juggling balls, became the nickname of a Russian submarine constructed from inter-connected spheres?
@Spokoyni:@Cwmhiraeth:@TheAwesomeHwyh:
This hook is too long and complex. Here is one idea for shortening it:
ALT1: ... that a Russian submarine constructed from inter-connected spheres took its nickname from an animated circus animal made out of juggling balls? Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheAwesomeHwyh: we need to wait for the page nominator to respond. Sometimes other editors also have opinions to improve hooks. We do a lot of good work through consensus. Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It rather buries the real article a little much for me, but I'm not opposed to the new formulation. I think it would work well as a quirky last hook in this format. It can't stay in prep 2 as it is anyway, as another hook of mine is in it. Perhaps move to the quirky slot of a different prep? Spokoyni (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Spokoyni: I think it needs more work. Alternately, there are two other hooks on the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I also think it might run into trouble with pedants when it goes up - can submarines take a nickname themselves? Perhaps
ALT2: ... that the nickname of a Russian submarine constructed from inter-connected spheres comes from an animated circus animal made out of juggling balls? Spokoyni (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I like that. But it can't appear as the quirky in this set, since the last slot is reserved for a bio. I'll move it to the next set. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hah! An edit conflict got me- you took the words right out of my mouth! TheAwesomeHwyh 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The bot does not update main page

I think today the bot does not update main page. It's over 10 minute delay14.232.160.139 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion of a new DYK allowance: for articles that have a significant update after a burst of news coverage

This is coming directly from what we often see at ITN, in that there are often stories about someone being the first X to do something (eg Franky Zapata crossing the Channel on a hoverboard), or some other record has been broken (eg Avengers Endgame recent overtaking of the box office). Given the nature of ITN, these events do not always fit there, but they seem like what would be good for DYK outside of the fact that in most cases the existing DYK allowances do not allow for that. An "interesting factoid" may help to expand an existing article but not by the required 5x.

I don't know how to quantify what would be appropriate, but I would like to at least brainstorm the idea of allowing DYKs on articles where the topic is in the news for completing some record of note. At minimum, I would argued that the article has to be updated and the DYK has to be at least nominated within 5 days of the "event" as noted by reliable sources. All other DYK limitations (size, decent quality, not posted before, etc.) would still hold as needed. I don't know if there's specific quantifiable numbers here but I guess the first step is to see if that's even viable. --Masem (t) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. This seems like "Main Page creep" to me. There have been past attempts to do away with DYK altogether to make room for whatever one group or another thought more important. We incorporated new GA to accommodate what was a genuine concern that GA had no avenue to the main page. Seems more so ("Main Page creep") given the general clog at DYK that can take weeks or months to get a hook on the Main page. Whatever you have in mind, would not be news after it sat around long enough. This just seems like one more way to get a foothold in the DYK space to eventually eliminating it. If some "event" is noticeable enough for the media news outlets, then it should go in the ITN slot. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We already have ITN for that purpose, and the "significant update after a burst of news coverage" seems too broad and vague. Like what would qualify as a "burst of coverage"? And besides, there's nothing that's preventing people from expanding such subjects the usual way (either through 5x or GA) once they get more coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose If something is in the news then it will tend to get plenty of views for that reason. For example, Franky Zapata was denied an appearance at ITN but the article still got about 50K views, which is more than most DYKs. If someone still wants to get the page more exposure then they can get it through GA. Focussing on record-breaking would be problematic because claims of being the first to do something are often wrong – they are a common problem with hooks. And some sports generate huge amounts of statistics and so it's easy for them to claim that some record has been broken. For example, for the recent F1 race, it's said that "this was the fastest Hungarian Grand Prix ever. Hamilton took one hour, 35 minutes and 3.796 seconds to reach the chequered flag, beating Schumacher’s 15-year-old record by 22 seconds." Is this significant? We don't want DYK to became a place where sports fans bicker; that's ITN's job. DYK's job is provide exposure for new articles which won't otherwise get much attention. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Science hook

@ComplexRational:@DragonflySixtyseven:@TheAwesomeHwyh:
I feel like I'm reading a science textbook. Could this hook be shortened? Maybe pipe the bolded link to "a radionuclide", or whatever it is? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I have no problem with a piped link. Although I was initially skeptical about not mentioning beryllium-8 directly, it seems now that it may actually read better with such a change:
Any other thoughts or alternatives? ComplexRational (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Much better, thanks! I change it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

"... that George Dashnau started the first mail order delivery service that supplies human skulls?" should say supplied instead of supplies since it's not in business anymore. I would change it, but it's my nomination. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

The new image

Hello! Apologies if I'm doing this wrong but, I added Sylvia Stoesser to Prep 6 and later created a restored version of the image there which removes the scratches on the image. How would one go about requesting that image be used instead? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping: @Umimmak: @Cwmhiraeth:. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure why Cwmhiraeth and I were pinged for this hook. It seems like Hunter Kahn and TheAwesomeHwyh might be more relevant. I’m not sure who needs to sign off on such a change but presumably you can just edit the image link in the queue and nom subpage? Umimmak (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [edit: I meant to tag Mary Mark Ockerbloom, not you again Umimmak (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)]
Oof. I meant to tag the people who participated in the DYK nom for this article but I accidentaly did it for the Queens at Heart article. Sorry! Also, yeah I didn't think anyone had to do it but I wanted to make sure beforehand. Sorry, again! TheAwesomeHwyh 01:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that pool player Han Yu did not celebrate after winning her first world championship?

@Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, and SL93: This is actually a really good hook. However, the reference for the fact does not come after the "did not celebrate" sentence in the article, but in the sentence that comes after; this would need to be addressed. In addition, just a suggestion that won't affect the hook, but just a question: the article (and indeed the source) don't seem to mention exactly why she didn't celebrate her win. All that it mentions is that she broke down into tears shortly after, with her mother going up to her. Can information elaborating on this be found, or is that all there is? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • That's all I know. As far as I can tell, she's an ultra reserved player, so she didn't celebrate, as it didn't come naturally. I don't really have citations for this though. I'll fix in text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3 - William Tarrant

@Nizolan: @Drmies: @Yoninah:

I just promoted Prep 3 to Queue 3 and noticed an unclear hook re DYK William Tarrant. I'm just headed out the door, so somebody needs to look at the hook:

Current hook

  • ... that after William Tarrant was sacked from the civil service of British Hong Kong, he became a journalist and ran a 12-year-long vendetta that led to his imprisonment?

The only way I could figure that out to clarify that and keep it under 200 characters was:

ALT1

Can other eyes please look at this? If nobody else thinks the hook needs to be improved, then I'll leave it as is. — Maile (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Maile, the original hook says it all, but in much hookier language (i.e. not so much detail that you don't need to click on the article anymore). Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me. — Maile (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, only just saw this since I've been out for the last two days, but the new hook would have been inaccurate in any case since William Caine was not Governor, he was Chief Magistrate (head of the police). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Promote preps to have more rooms to build preps

Thank you, 14.232.160.139 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2: Beryllium-8

I'm not seeing this exact fact in the article. The first paragraph of the "Role in stellar nucleosynthesis" section talks about a rapid rate being necessitated, but the triple-alpha process is not mentioned until the second paragraph of that section. It's also incorrect to say that it "decays" in that time - that's the half-life, so it's not that the whole quantity necessarily decays in that time. Finally, per WP:TRM, a "quadrillion" isn't necessarily well-defined, as it can have different meanings in UK/US. Overall I think ALT2 from the nom page would be a far better choice for this, as it says a similar thing, is properly mentioned and cited in the article and is more scientifically sound:

Pinging ComplexRational, DragonflySixtyseven, Mandarax who were involved in the nomination. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering the ambiguity that indeed arises from the term quadrillion, and the lack of a concise way to accurately describe the lifetime, a change to ALT2 is fine with me. I'm also fine with small changes in the phrasing (e.g. ...limiting the production...) if it sounds less technical. ComplexRational (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've boldly changed this as nobody else has commented yet, and ComplexRational is OK with it. ALT2 was never rejected in the nom anyway. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
My only involvement was some minor template tweaks; I never even looked at the article. However, since I was pinged, I'll offer my opinion (sorry it wasn't earlier, but I wasn't around). I think "short" is a tiny bit of an understatement. What do you think about replacing "short" with "0.00000000000000008-second"? Normally, I'd say that adding a number makes a hook worse, but I think this extreme number would actually make it more interesting. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Mandarax: I like that idea, though all those zeros look slightly awkward (but I won't object if there is agreement for that presentation). Perhaps a phrasing such as ...that because the half-life of beryllium-8 is less than 10−16 seconds, there is a bottleneck in stellar nucleosynthesis that limits the abundance of heavier chemical elements? I'm not sure if scientific notation works well here, but IMO it seems less awkward than sixteen zeros.
As this is currently scheduled to go live in under three hours, would it be better to postpone until we agree on the "best" hook if it is not decided shortly? ComplexRational (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy with CR's revised wording so I've changed it to that for now. Unfortunately I'm unavailable from now for a few hours so you'll have to ping someone admin else if you want to change it further or pull. Thanks for the discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested all the zeros because I thought that might be more accessible to and more easily understood by the general reader than scientific notation, and certainly more dramatic and eye-catching. But I'm satisfied that it's still an improvement. Thanks, Amakuru, for changing it just in time. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Template:Did you know nominations/Sylvia Stoesser

  • ... that Sylvia Stoesser (pictured) was called a "nasal chemist" because she could identify the composition of a mixture from its smell?

Mary Mark Ockerbloom TheAwesomeHwyh Hunter Kahn

I'm used to seeing a different licensing on DYK images, just checking this one's kosher for DYK? --valereee (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything on Wikimedia Commons should be good to go for DYK. In fact, this one is licensed by the exact same license as Wikipedia itself! TheAwesomeHwyh 16:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --valereee (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the original source for the photo before it was modified/enhanced labels it with "no known copyright". Pinging Nikkimaria, to see whether it is still considered free to use on Wikipedia's main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that looks dubious to me. It shouldn't be on Commons. "No known copyright" is not equivalent to "not copyrighted". Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - there's not enough information here to decide that this is free. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, it looks like we need a new image hook for this set, do you have a preference? --valereee (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: you could take the image out of Prep 3 and we'll replace it there. There also seems to be some disagreement about the quirky hook in this queue. You could replace it with the quirky in Prep 3 as well. Yoninah (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Done, but someone should check my work, especially the image moves --valereee (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Queens at Heart

  • ... that Queens at Heart, featuring four trans women from the mid-1960s, was the first film to be added to the Outfest/UCLA Legacy Project for LGBT Film Preservation?

Umimmak Cwmhiraeth TheAwesomeHwyh

This hook is fine, but we get so many "first" hooks that I'm wondering if something focussing on the fact the film has been called both an exploitation film and a documentary might generate wider interest? --valereee (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) ETA: actually, it looks like the sourcing for that would be better, too. The "first" is sourced to a statement by Olson in an interview, while the exploitation is sourced to a academic text and documentary to an academic journal. --valereee (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, how about "... that Queens at Heart, which features four trans women from the mid-1960s, has been called both a documentary and an exploitation film?" TheAwesomeHwyh 16:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I like that -- will wait for Umimmak to chime in! --valereee (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'd be happy with that hook if you think it's more interesting. Umimmak (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, both! --valereee (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jamie Johnson (TV show)

  • ... that the actors from the television drama Jamie Johnson competed as footballers at the Gothia Cup international youth football tournament, reaching the quarter-finals?

Lee Vilenski Yoninah Cwmhiraeth

Is linking to footballers needed here? It feels redundant to me since we mention the int'l youth football tourney. Can we just say 'competed in the' or does 'as footballers at the' provide needed info? I've also left a question at the talk about a copyedit I'm trying to do. --valereee (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The notable part of this is that they were actors who played in a football competition "for real" for the show. The link can go, but I think if you don't say "as footballers" it's a little confusing, in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but it will say they "competed in the tournament", which implies they played as sportsmen. Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: King of Janow

  • ... that in 1982, the "King of Janow", son of the Queen of Poland, came to live in California?
@Horsegeek:@Cwmhiraeth:@Narutolovehinata5:@SL93:
The explanation given in the review for putting "King of Janow" in quotes was that that's the way it's written in the article. Well, "Queen of Poland" also has quotes around it in the article. And if we put quotes around everything, it totally gives away the joke for this hook that's in the quirky slot for a reason. Can we please delete the quotes? Yoninah (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I know it's the quirky slot, but we'd also like hooks to still be accurate (remember that the horse's name is still Bandos and King of Janow is still technically a nickname). It would be possible to remove the quotes of course, but that would kind of ruin the accuracy of the hook, and considering this isn't an April Fool's Day hook, I'm not comfortable trading away accuracy for quirkyness. One solution could be to write the hook as "Bandos, the King of Janow and the son of the Queen of Poland" or even to omit the King of Janow part and just mention the Queen of Poland, but that might give away the joke. I'd like to hear comments from other editors though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This really should be an April Fools hook. Too bad the nominator has been off-wiki for the past month. Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion either way if there should be quotes or not. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ravenpuff has kindly added a link for Queen of Poland. Now it looks ridiculous to have quote marks around both of them; it doesn't look like a serious hook. I have BOLDLY removed the quote marks. Yoninah (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I concur that quirkiness shouldn't come at the expense of factual accuracy. In this case, for what it's worth, I think the hook is still sufficiently quirky that using quotation marks would not prevent readers from clicking on the link by giving away the joke, as it's not immediately obvious that we're referring to racehorses. Additionally, I'm not sure how adding quote marks (as should be proper) somehow makes the hook not look "serious". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When you put a name in quotes, you're already saying that it's not a real name. If you put both names in quotes, it's like you're doing a kind of "wink, wink" with the hook. That doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5: Vezzi porcelain

TRM has pointed out on his page that "It was the first porcelain factory in Italy" is a more remarkable fact from the article than the current "third European factory to make "true" hard-paste porcelain" Would anyone object to rewording to something like:

  • ... that the Venice factory which made Vezzi porcelain (examples pictured) was the first porcelain factory in Italy, founded in 1720?

Or alternative wording which anyone may propose? Obviously we don't have to change it, as it's not an error, but I think maybe emphasising the first-in-Italy fact might make it more hooky? Pinging @Johnbod: and @Dharmadhyaksha: and @Yoninah: who were involved in the nomination. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to keep "hard-paste" as Medici porcelain, 2 centuries earlier & with <100 pieces surviving, was the first Italian porcelain, but soft-paste or "artifical porcelain". Personally I find third in Europe (after Meissen & Vienna) more remarkable, but I can see others might not.

- certainly true, but I'm not sure if the current refs exactly support that, except by deduction from being 3rd in Europe (I could probably find something). Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Reworded - though whether one should really call Medici porcelain a "factory" is dubious. The Chaffers ref had the wrg page - shd be 422 not 472=. I've added another ref. The facts are not in doubt. As an added complication Chaffers describes Vezzi as soft-paste, where all modern sources call it hard-paste. Possibly I should drop Chaffers here, though he does give useful details from documents. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: "Gambling paradise"

  • ... that the gambling paradise Macau was recently discovered to be home to an endemic species of freshwater crab of the genus Nanhaipotamon (pictured)?
@Bubbleleg96:@MJL:@TheAwesomeHwyh:
While the inline cite confirming the hook fact does mention that Macau is the "gambling capital of the world", this fact is not mentioned in the article. Calling it a "gambling paradise" on the main page is hardly encyclopedic. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Hmmm.. maybe major gambling hub would work? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It could. But the source is stressing that Macau is heavily populated, not that it's a gambling mecca. Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why not "the heavily populated town of Macau" or "Macau, a heavily populated town"? TheAwesomeHwyh 20:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheAwesomeHwyh and Yoninah: How about the densely populated gambling hub Macau...? I don't watchlist this page, so please ping me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: That sounds good to me. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I think "gambling mecca" works better. But it needs to be added to the article first. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping]  Done The gambling hub of Macau is one of the most densely populated places in the world, and a new species has been described there as recently as 2018. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Raja ibn Haywa

Cwmhiraeth Al Ameer son Zanhe

I'm wondering about the 'native of Palestine' bit -- the article says He was born in Beisan (Beit She'an) in the Jordan district before moving south to Palestine. According to a report traced to Raja and recorded by the medieval Egyptian historian al-Suyuti (d. 1505), Raja ultimately considered himself a Jerusalemite. Is 'native of Palestine' going to be seen as an issue? --valereee (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I thought it was odd. The piped link is correctly linking to the "Palestine region", but there is no such country as "Palestine", which is what the hook implies. I think the hook should be rewritten as follows:
ALT1: * ... that Raja ibn Haywa, an adviser to the Umayyad caliphs, supervised the financing for the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem? Yoninah (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Works for me; will give creator Al Ameer a chance to comment as they last edited ten hours ago and it doesn't look like they usually start editing until around 17:00 UTC --valereee (talk)
@Valereee: I had the same concern when reviewing the article, but was satisfied by the link to Palestine region of which Beit She'an is a part. I like Yoninah's ALT1 as a less confusing alternative. -Zanhe (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
As acknowledged by Zanhe and Yoninah, the Palestine meant here is the region. I disagree that the hook implies that Raja was a native of the modern State of Palestine. I made it a part of the hook because I found it interesting (and I think readers might find it interesting) that a local played an intimate role in the famous monument’s construction. I prefer that something to that effect remains in the hook. Many of the sources indicate that his residence and connections to Palestine were relevant to his selection and role in the project. I thought “native of Palestine” worked best because he was in fact a native of Palestine (the region) and few people are familiar with Beisan, but maybe this would be more accurate: ALT2: * ... that Raja ibn Haywa, a Palestine local, supervised the financing for the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem? While native implies birth or upbringing in an area, “local” (or a synonymous word) just means inhabitant, which should not be controversial as he was an inhabitant of the Palestine district which could be linked to instead of Palestine (region). —Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that the "a native of X" construction implies that X has to be a country. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer: I think you should be much more explicit. Your piped link to "Filastin" is linking to a dab page. How about:
Yeah, is it unexpected that a local would play a big part in the construction of something? Seems like it would be more interesting if someone from far away had done so. Al Ameer son, was it unusual at the time/place for a local to do this? Actually...the article says The latter entrusted Raja and his own Jerusalemite mawlā, Yazid ibn Sallam, with overseeing the financing of the Dome of the Rock's construction in Jerusalem. It is possible this was the reason for Raja's relocation to Palestine from the Jordan district, so it doesn't seem like he even was a local when he took on the job? --valereee (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: That was a typo. It was meant to be Jund Filastin. I'd be happy with ALT3, but if I'm the only one here who thinks it's interesting or relevant than I don't object to an altered hook. @Valereee: We don't know for sure if his family was in Jund Filastin or Jund al-Urdunn by that time, the sources can only speculate. In either case, Beisan and Jerusalem would both fit into the region of Palestine. I can't say it would be unusual, but we don't typically hear about the non-Arab locals like Raja or even people outside the ruling family who were involved in these monumental works during the early Islamic period, especially the Umayyad period. In the case of the Dome of the Rock, Raja and Yazid are the only two locals credited for their roles, other than Abd al-Malik and possibly one of his sons, Sa'id, who may have served as on-the-ground representative for the caliph in Jerusalem. There is a lot to be said about Raja's role in the Dome's construction and in the development of Muslim traditions about Jerusalem, but none of this would fit into the hook. Anyway, I'd rather not drag this further if I'm in the minority. I'd prefer ALT3, but I'm also fine with ALT1. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Al Ameer, going with ALT3 unless someone else has further objections. --valereee (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: please go with ALT1. ALT3 just says that someone in Palestine helped finance the Dome of the Rock. ALT1 gives him more importance. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Continental Currency dollar coin

ZLEA SL93 Narutolovehinata5

Per a question at WP:TRM, the source says the coin was the "first pattern" struck. I'd assumed "first pattern" was industry jargon for first coin, is that correct? --valereee (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

See my comment on WP:TRM. - ZLEA T\C 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Open Here

Hunter Kahn Gerda Arendt Cwmhiraeth

Any objections to using Brexit rather than Brexit referendum vote, per discussion at WP:TRM? --valereee (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

no objection --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm about ready to stop editing for the day, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change, but anyone else should feel free to revise per input from creator --valereee (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nanhaipotamon

  • ... that it was recently discovered the gambling paradise Macau is home to an endemic species of freshwater crab of the genus Nanhaipotamon (pictured)?

I am not happy about the Nanhaipotamon hook, now in Prep 1. The article is about the genus Nanhaipotamon, which includes about 18 species. The hook is about Nanhaipotamon macau and the very nice image is of Nanhaipotamon hongkongense, which is not the species found in Macau. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this hook has been pulled from prep once before, with significant discussion both here and at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nanhaipotamon. Is the problem just that there's no free use image of this exact species available? I'm wondering if maybe it's just going to have to not be in the image slot? I feel kind of bad for the creator/nominator, as this is their first DYK experience and it's been pretty frustrating. --valereee (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we could say "Picture of related species". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Commons had a category on the Macau species. I've swapped out the image on the prep. Does this resolve the issue? — Maile (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC) The freshwater crabs of Macau
But the new image is not in the article. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Good catch! It's there now. @Bubbleleg96: Also, I did a slight adjustment to the gallery style, as it's original style took up half the page on my browser. — Maile (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

WP:MOS make it seem like it should read "at age six" rather than "at age 6" for the Eunice Lea Kettering hook. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

An age is always a number. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and its corresponding talk page archives. Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, one of the examples on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two: all written out or all digits, but not a mixture. At DYK, we typically allow numbers to be given with digits regardless of MOS in order to shorten the hook length a bit, but ages are not always numbers in my experience. Can you please give a more direct pointer to the MOS text that precludes words for ages? If I'm wrong, I'm happy to learn otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree, nowhere does it say "An age is always a number" - please be more specific if it is written elsewhere. The wording on a current hook on the mainpage is actually "... that Norwegian violinist Mari Samuelsen became a student of Arve Tellefsen by the age of four?", having been changed from "age 4", also quoting "MOS". Spokoyni (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone change it before it hits the main page? SL93 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Rodent infestation

Not a big deal, but I think it would be preferable to not have two mouse hooks in Queue 5. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I switched it with a later queue, but it's probably going to need to be moved again as that queue also has a rodent already :D --valereee (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, valereee. I like your edit summary.
As for the Queue two shrew, I think the fact that the species was first described from mummified specimens found in Egyptian tombs is much more interesting than the fact that this rodent-like creature may be considered a pest. Any thoughts on my shrewd suggestion, Cwmhiraeth? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Sure, how about:
Cwmhiraeth I like that a lot! Hm...I'm having a hard time finding the exact mention in the source that it was "first described from mummified specimens...it's a longish piece, though, and I'm skimming, maybe I'm not searching on the right term? I know it has to be right, your sourcing's always great. --valereee (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: #4, Mammal Species of the World, is the one to look at. It mentions that the neotype was a mummified specimen from a tomb while the Woodman source mentions multiple mummified shrews from multiple tombs. Perhaps we should use ALT1b instead
  • @Valereee: actually, Queue 3 has only 3 bios and 5 non-bios. Perhaps swap John Talbot WhiteJohn Anderson with the Sandra Day O'Connor quirky, and then shuffle the Queue 3 hooks so they alternate bio/non-bio. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody. I think it's a great improvement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"The first", "the only", "the youngest", "the oldest"

Hook writers are resorting to superlatives so frequently that it's impossible to build a prep set with varied language. Right now the majority of prep sets have two to three "firsts" each. I'd like to call on reviewers to ask for more interesting hooks about the subject than that they were just the "first"—especially women hooks. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be possible in some cases where, either there are no other remaining "interesting" hook fact options, or if them being a "first" was their main claim to fame. We could still try it of course, I'm just saying that in practice it may not always be possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Right now, I believe that it's manageable enough to skip those hooks and promote them in later sets. It's just that promoters aren't doing that. SL93 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point, SL93. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment at discussion at Talk:Main Page §balance

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page about the balance of the left and right sides of the Main Page. See: Talk:Main Page#Main Page balance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

Hi there, this is about my hook which is currently in Prep 3:

... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make the automated white blood cell differential, a common blood test, possible?

I find the hook a little long and clumsy and I'm wondering if it would be better to change it to

... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make a common blood test possible?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@SpicyMilkBoy: I'm not sure why you think your hook is in Prep, but the nomination template is still open, waiting to be promoted. I have copied this discussion to the template, where it is OK to continue the discussion of your hook suggestion. 14:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/White blood cell differential

Maile, it's in Prep 3, but the template wasn't closed after promotion. Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@SpicyMilkBoy: the new piped link is a little Easter egg-y, no? Yoninah (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah Is that a good or a bad thing? :) I'm open to other suggestions on how to improve the hook, or keeping the original hook, if others think it's okay. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@SpicyMilkBoy: I don't see in the article that the test is "common". It says it "may be ordered" as part of a complete blood count. How about:
ALT2: ... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make one of the tests in a complete blood count possible? Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. I think that's good - but maybe a little vague. What about just
ALT2a: ... that technology developed for use in inkjet printers helped make the automated white blood cell differential possible?
At first I wanted to explain what it actually was, but maybe it'll be more interesting if the reader has to click on it to find out... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@SpicyMilkBoy: no, that's too vague. Even I wouldn't click on it. Either "blood test" or "test" should be added after the bolded link. Yoninah (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I think we're back to the original hook. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm alright with the original hook then, or your ALT2. Apologies for my indecisiveness. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT2 better, I think. Inkjet printer is currently a redirect to inkjet printing, just FYI. --valereee (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with ALT2. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The original hook is in Queue 3 now, so I've provided a source for the test being common. [2] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

For Template:Did you know nominations/History of West Palm Beach, Florida, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a better hook than the first mayor being arrested when he was later acquitted. The fact that his charges were dropped makes it not interesting. I also find the hook to be misleading because it makes it seem like he was found to be guilty. Maybe ALT1 would be better. @12george1: @Epicgenius: @Yoninah: SL93 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of what happened there, but this impacted the nation's history:

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list was archived about an hour ago with only nine nominations remaining, so here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 29. Right now we have a total of 319 nominations, of which 133 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from April and May, and the six from early June.

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) 02:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Since I suggested the wording of this hook (and the fact that it's now in Queue), I can't do this request myself. But it appears that the hook has been revised in such a way that it's now 204 characters long. Could there be a way to shorten the hook and bring it under the 200 character limit? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Character Count tool says 203 characters. I think we can leave the 3 extra characters without doing any harm to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
Maile couldn't you do without "constituency"?
ALT1: ... that despite being described as a "weak candidate", Arvind Sawant defeated his nearest competitor by more than 120,000 votes to represent Mumbai South in the 2014 Indian general election? Yoninah (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I haven't been ignoring you, but I've been off my computer most of the day. 2 or 3 extra characters - Meh! Ain't no big thing and probably should be IAR on such trivia. They had to come up with an agreed upon hook length a decade or so ago when they set up this project. I'm sure we've had others, but nobody said anything. Whatever extra room those 2 or 3 characters took up, was by far offset by the hooks that were less than 200 characters. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 typos and overlinking

Please edit as follows:
Please edit as follows:
  • ... that the first job of new Austrian Finance Minister Eduard Müller was as a tax inspector?
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to cause trouble: WRT Müller, it seems to me that the fact that the tax man started out as a tax man scores maybe a 2/10 on the interestingness scale. EEng 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4:Image caption

Pinging page nominator @Calliopejen1:
The image caption is linking back to the article. We usually don't do this because the hook links to the article, but the Spanish term is not mentioned in the hook. Can someone else suggest a better caption? Would "Communal meal during Carnaval in Ecuador" work? (BTW there's no page for Carnaval; we just have Carnival#Ecuador.) Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It might be easier to slightly change the hook first:
ALT1
Then the image caption from the article: "Pampa mesa during Carnaval in Parcoloma, Ecuador" — Maile (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: Prep 6: Queue 2: The toilet hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Toilet training

Saying that most children can be successfully toilet trained sounds too obvious to meet the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement. Any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It might not be obvious if we were from another planet. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That's crap. :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @GreenMeansGo: @Amakuru: for lack of a more immediate idea, I swapped Toilet Training to Prep 6, and moved The Air Force Blue from Prep 6 to Queue 1. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Might this sentence have hook potential? An examination of data from hospital emergency rooms in the US from 2002 to 2010 indicated that the most common form of toilet training related injury was caused by falling toilet seats. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well...It's not necessarily obvious if you're currently trying to potty train a toddler. (/me looks around) The possibility that you should consult your doctor for issues that do not require medical intervention are real and tempting. GMGtalk 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You'd need the nominator GreenMeansGo to verify the sourcing, but there are a couple of beauts in the first paragraph that could be fashioned into the quirky slot hook:
ALT1 ... that toilet training in Ancient Rome included the earliest known children's toilet?
ALT2 ... that toilet training in European Middle Ages including bedwetting remedies of consumption of ground hedgehog or of powdered goat claw and having dried rooster combs sprinkled on the bed?
@EEng: if there's anybody at DYK who could come up with an interesting hook or two from the subject matter, it would surely be you. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gives new meaning to the term "Good to go". I'll take a look. EEng 23:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, much as I was hoping to fashion a hook disgusting and scatological but at which you still can't help but laugh, I think the best might be

ALT3 ... that at least one source in 1940s linked authoritarian toilet training to European fascism and the Holocaust?

However, that's a bit mealy-mouthed ("at least one source", "linked") because I don't know exactly what the source says, and it's an extraordinary-sounding claim, so I'd like to ask the esteemed GreenMeansGo (NOT THAT KIND OF 'GO'!) to quote the source for us. EEng 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @EEng: Full quote (p. 172): Punitive toilet training, the authors contended, led to authoritarian personalities with sadistic fantasies who oppressed minorities; preoccupation with cleanliness was part and parcel of a mind-set that sent people "into the oven." And indicatively, although, as the Lankwitzers analysed how abjected minorities were treated, they were clearly referring to Jews (and, above all, the way Nazis demonized Jews by associating them with sexual lasciviousness), they were also speaking about themselves.
This was quoted in one of the other sources I used, but I couldn't tell you which one without significant digging and re-reading. But that's how I found it IIRC. (I just wanted a nice wholesome child-development thing, and you guys went straight for the gas chambers.)GMGtalk 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, OK. You can reject any of the hooks we offered above and request that the hook stick to the basics. But you need to meet the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement to the satisfaction of the promoters. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm just being sarcastic because it's EEng, and we've shot the shit a time or two. There's...there's probably something to be had here with the 40s era Freudian circle jerk pseudo-philosophy. Lemme sleep on it and I'll see what I can come up with. GMGtalk 01:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. We just don't want your nomination pulled, so I'll leave this in your hands. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

shot the shit – All, right, that's enough of that. You're starting to piss me off. Now then... after reading the full context of GMG's source on Gbooks [3] I'm striking A3 in favor of:

ALT4 ... that radical some German child-rearing theorists of the 1970s tied Nazism and the Holocaust to authoritarian, sadistic personalities produced by punitive toilet training techniques?

If you guys want that one I'll be happy to modify the article to cover that hook. EEng 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Dang!! ... that's quite a grabber there ... — Maile (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I did a shit-load of research. EEng 03:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless you're yanking our chain, you did really well to flush that one out.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That one's a real strain. --valereee (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Whatever we decide, I moved the hook out of the quirky slot and reserved a slot for it in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Unwatching (too many distractions) but feel free to ping me if I can help further. EEng 23:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I was thinking about combining the bit about Nazi authoritarianism along with the bit about Japanese imperialism. Given, that may cause issues with conciseness. This hook is fine as far as I'm concerned. The only bit that I'm not seeing is exactly where it describes the Lankwitzers as radical child rearing theorists. The book doesn't seem to give a very in-depth introduction about who exactly they're addressing, and seems to kind of assume we know who they are. GMGtalk 12:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I allowed myself that inference from the title of their pamphlet (Revolution in Education, or Education for Revolution?) plus the fact that one parent suggested that they allow their kindergartners to masturbate and play sex games in class, but I suppose we can change radical to some, though it sounds wishy-washy. It would be hard to shoehorn in the Japan angle. EEng 13:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What about ALT5 ...that in the mid-20th century, errant toilet training was blamed as a cause of both European Fascism as well as Japanese imperialism? Sources for Japan is this pages 201-203 specifically, discussing Geoffrey Gorer's unique perspective, where he blames toilet training on all the "aggression and sadism" of the Japanese military and the "most important single influence in the formation of the adult Japanese character". All of this was patent nonsense of course (but was still probably on average preferable to competing contemporary theories of racial character). GMGtalk 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
In my unbiased opinion I think A4 is better. Errant doesn't fit; punative gives the reader a better idea what we're talking about; was blamed (passive voice) leaves the reader wondering who did the blaming (or mistakenly concluding these were common ideas); the different things said about the Japan connection are too varied. EEng 18:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC) The title of this thread ("The toilet hook") has given me nightmares.
Meh. That's fine. GMGtalk 18:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Image of Greta Thunberg

@Bilorv: just enquiring why we're using the image File:FFF Berlin 2019-07-19 113 (cropped).jpg for Greta Thunberg, which has her eyes partially closed and the top of her head obscured by a microphone, rather than the better-quality File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (46705842745) (cropped).jpg, which appears in the infobox of Thunberg's own article? I don't think the former image has any particular connection to the 1975 album, so would suggest swapping it for the other one in both the article and the DYK hook, unless there are strong reasons otherwise? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No particular reason. Just thought it was a nice picture. If you feel strongly about it, you can change it. I'd also link Greta Thunberg in the caption while you're there, if that's okay.
Unrelatedly, Vanamonde93 I'm interested in why you substantially changed the hook without discussion or consensus, in these edits: 1, 2. There's a long discussion above ("Prep 3: Song") and at the review page, neither of which you seem to have consulted. You also failed to notify anyone about this. Your changes reduce the quality of the hook's prose quite considerably so I propose we change it to the following, which addresses the concerns you seem to have, but is actually an improvement to the hook:
... that unlike The 1975's previous eponymous songs, which use the same set of lyrics, their fourth eponymous song is a spoken word protest about climate change by Greta Thunberg (pictured)?
— Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I agree with you on the wording - I've updated it per your suggestion, but with the addition of the word "all" before "use the same set of lyrics" because it didn't quite scan for me like that, it looked like we were saying it was the same as something already mentioned. I don't feel strongly about the image, just thought the one in her article was a bit better myself, but if you prefer the current one then that's OK with me. We can see if anyone else has an opinion too maybe. I don't think the caption needs to be linked - usually we only do that if the hook itself does not link the topic in question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I've no preference for or against the word "all", and I didn't realise that that was the rule for caption links, but that makes sense. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Well my reasons were in the edit summary; the hook that was in prep was worded in an odd manner. I do think your suggestion here is much better. I missed the discussion here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You didn't notify anyone of this and your opinion doesn't give you the right to unilaterally throw away the consensus established by six other users. I'm really concerned that you think that was acceptable behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv: and you are getting needlessly aggressive. Admins modify hook wording on a daily basis. If it's a major change, we bring it here for discussion; if it's not, we don't. If you want to change that practice, go ahead an open an RFC. If you think I introduced a mistake, then say that instead. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was a major change, and yes, you did introduce a mistake in your edits. Saying the song "uses" a speech by Thunberg implies that it's a previously published speech (which it isn't; it's an amalgam of past speeches with new material added) or a sample of her voice rather than a recording specifically for the track. Had an unrelated comment on this hook not led me to look at its place in the queue again, your changes would have introduced an error to the main page. Hence discussion before overruling six editors' thorough discussion was necessary. — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
If that is your objection, then the hook that I modified, the one that had consensus, was also wrong; because it also made reference to a single speech, which this wasn't. The hook also implied that the "song" was the speech, whereas in fact it was the speech plus background music. So the original was wrong on two counts, and my modification fixed one error but not the other. Also, there are a considerable number of editors watching the preps and queues, and several editors already invested in the hook; all of them would likely have noticed any changes and pinged me if necessary. I'd focus on the new hook hook proposals if I were you, since you obviously feel strongly about the matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. It said "is" rather than "uses" which doesn't have the same connotation. And the issue I have is too many useless busybodies tampering with things they haven't properly considered, not too few. — Bilorv (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The new wording sounds good, though I wonder if there could be a way to avoid mentioning "eponymous song" twice in short succession. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is a way, without introducing other problems. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
How about: ... that The 1975's fourth eponymous song, unlike their previous three, all of which use the same set of lyrics, is a spoken-word protest about climate change by Greta Thunberg (pictured)?
In any case, I agree with Amakuru about the photo. The suggested replacement, in addition to avoiding the closed eyes and microphone intrusion, is also a much sharper photo. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
That suggestion doesn't flow as smoothly as the previous wording due to all the clauses between commas. It might be better to just stick either to the version I proposed before or the revision that Bilorv posted above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's significantly clunkier to use a subclause within a subclause. You have to backtrack twice when you get to the words "is a spoken-word" (for the record, not a hyphenated phrase). — Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

can't we just keep the current wording but say 1975 instead of the fourth eponymous song? That is, after all, a contraction of the name of the song. And avoids repetition.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the song is absolutely not named "1975". It's named "The 1975". No such "contraction" is commonplace or correct. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It really looks bad to repeat "eponymous song". Can we replace "their fourth eponymous song" with "their fourth one"? In the context of the hook, it would be clear what "one" means, avoiding repetition, without ambiguity. Note: the compound modifier "spoken-word" is what's already used in the Queue. Whatever the wording, can we please switch the photo? The current one is a poorly-composed, blurry snapshot of someone who looks like she needs to take a nap. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
What happened to "their 2019 song"? Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please replace "spoken-word" with "spoken word", and change the photo since others feel so strongly? Not clear with the current wording what the title of "their 2019 song" would be so no we cannot replace that. And no, we absolutely cannot use "their fourth one" as the bold link; that sounds hopelessly unprofessional. — Bilorv (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh, looks like "spoken-word" is correct grammar, so ignore me. — Bilorv (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe one "eponymous" can be replaced with something like "self-titled". If this suggestion is also rejected by the nominator, I hope that an admin will use their better judgement, and tweak the hook in any way they see fit to remove the (to borrow a phrase) hopelessly unprofessional "eponymous song" repetition. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there's been enough meddlesome admins overturning the results of these discussions without consensus, thanks. I see no issue with using "self-titled" in place of one of the "eponymous" usages. — Bilorv (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! That was to be my final attempt, so I'm glad the compromise was accepted. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but "self-titled" doesn't cut it for me. That sounds like it means the song has its own title, not that it is named after the band. My best suggestions for the bold link would be simply "The 1975", or maybe their 2019 song "The 1975", or some similar variation. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
"self-titled" is a commonly used term, synonymous to "eponymous", and widely used in the context of songs named after the performing artists. Take a look at wikt:self-titled or any dictionary of your choice. — Bilorv (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with using the term "self-titled" as that word and eponymous are synonyms. In these contexts I don't think the word's meaning would be vague considering there would still be the mention of "eponymous", so readers will get that they mean the same thing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: Boardwalk

@Epicgenius:@Muboshgu:Cwmhiraeth
I'm not sure how much interest this has to readers who don't know who he is and have never heard of the boardwalk. I'm wondering if this would work better:
Sure, seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks all. Substituting the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Template:Did you know nominations/Randolph County High School

  • ... that the principal of Alabama's Randolph County High School refused to allow interracial couples to the school's prom, and months later part of the school was burnt down in an arson attack?

Bmichelleh Thats Just Great SL93

I see this has been discussed at the nom, but I'm still concerned that putting these two together in the sentence implies some connection between them, which is not in the article. And if these are two unrelated points, it's not really interesting, so we still need a new hook. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee I recall we had the same issue with a different school-burning-down article, and that hook was pulled too. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
How about:
ALT1 ... that after Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned down in 1910, the town's church and courthouse were used as temporary classrooms?
ALT1a ... that after Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned down in 1910, the town's church and courthouse were used as temporary classrooms while the school was rebuilt?
I also found it interesting that the school burned down twice in its history. Perhaps a hook based on that could also work? I also have to note that the nominator hasn't edited in over a month, so in any case the discussion may have to move forward without them. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT1. The article is currently in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I like that, but the second time, only one of four buildings burned so I think we probably can't say 'burned down' as that seems like it would imply the entire thing both times.
ALT2 ... that Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama burned to the ground in 1910 and in 1994 was partially destroyed in a suspicious fire?
ALT2a ... that Randolph County High School in Wedowee, Alabama has burned twice in 119 years?
--valereee (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's most interesting that the racial incident took place in 1994.

Approved nominations awaiting promotion for a very long time

It's hard for promoters to find the nominations that were approved a long time ago, so here's a list of all eleven nominations that have been waiting for four weeks and more. The date given is where you'll find it on the Approved page; the date following in parenthesis is when the approval tick was given, with approval dates from June 11 to July 19. Thanks to the prep builders for all their hard work; I hope they'll give these nominations extra attention.

Over two months old:

Over four weeks old:

Please remember to cross off entries when you promote them, so other prep builders don't go looking for them. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Rugrats Kwanzaa

For some unknown reason, I received a DYK credit on my talk page for A Rugrats Kwanzaa, an article I have never edited. I did however review it for DYK here. It was brought to good article status by Aoba47 and he did not receive a credit on his talk page. The hook was promoted to Prep 6 on 14th August, but I am unclear what happened next. Could someone sort out Aoba47's credit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange. I re-posted the page after removing it from prep with the correct credit line, but the credit line seems to have been erased when the promoter, a new DYK editor, promoted it. This promoter then inserted your name in the credit line in Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I had noticed the credit while in Queue and was surprised to see it. But, Cwmhiraeth, you're such a prolific writer, I figured you were branching out from your usual subject matter, and, unfortunately, didn't investigate. Although anybody can issue a credit, the ideal situation would be for Maile66 to move the credit from User talk:Cwmhiraeth#DYK for A Rugrats Kwanzaa to User talk:Aoba47. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Piece of cake to correct - just cut and paste from one user page to the next. When @TheAwesomeHwyh: promoted this to prep, they manually inserted Cwmhiraeth in the DYK make. And I missed that error when I moved the Prep to Queue. One more thing we need to be checking when we move up to Queue. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Song

@Bilorv:@MrLinkinPark333:@Cwmhiraeth:
This hook is very wordy. Why not just say what it is?
ALT1: ... that the fourth eponymous song by The 1975 is actually a spoken word speech by Greta Thunberg (pictured) about climate change? Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The hook contains two important facts—this is the first of their eponymous songs to differ from a fixed set of lyrics; the song features Thunberg speaking about climate change—and this alt contains neither does not contain the former. The word "actually" is meaningless in it. The hook that was decided was approved after a lengthy and thorough review and I don't understand why you want to relitigate this. I'm sick of people trying to tamper with my DYK hooks at the last minute. Getting consensus on a hook is what the review is for. If you haven't found a factual error then don't try to pull the hook. — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure about this but first of their eponymous songs to differ from a fixed set of lyrics kinda sounds niche and might not appeal to those who aren't fans of the band or are otherwise familiar with their work. As for ALT1, the hook wording does seem to mention Thunberg and the climate change part, so I don't really see what's wrong with going with that. I would have to agree that the original hook, while it had potential, seemed too long to have that "hooky" punch. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep, of course it did; corrected. Originally wrote something different as the second fact. As for the rest, your personal preference is not relevant to a hook that has already been approved. You have not pointed out an error in it. — Bilorv (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not about personal preferences, it's about editors raising concerns about hooks or articles. And these can occur at any time, even if a nomination has already been approved and promoted; after all, the review process is not perfect and we try to ensure that the hooks we show on the front page are as good as they can be. As for the original hook, if you wanted to emphasize that the song did not use the same lyrics as the previous eponymous songs, perhaps that could have worked as a standalone hook without mentioning Thunberg's spoken word speech. And while not an "error" per-se, length and conciseness is a legitimate concern that DYK usually takes notice of. For disclosure, I have to clarify that ALT0 sounded fine to me, but I can see where the concerns about wordiness are coming from and I kind of agree to some extent. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What I don't like is that I participated in a week-long 2000 word review of every inch of the article; it was separately approved by an uninvolved admin; and now I have to be online 24/7 to stop anyone from coming along and saying that they don't like a thoroughly-vetted hook and therefore we have to restart the whole process, at the last minute. I've answered your concern already at the review which no-one in this conversation has deigned to read: I believe both parts are important: they deviated from the lyrics because of the importance of the message. Omitting the first half would leave out the contextual significance in the band's action and omitting the second half leaves out what they actually did (telling you only what they didn't do).
Yet again, length and conciseness is a factor in the review, but here we are with an approved review and a hook that meets the mandatory requirements for length. If ALT0 sounds fine to you, sounded fine to me, sounded fine to the reviewer and sounded fine to the admin who approved the nomination, then I don't believe it sounding unacceptable to Yoninah alone is justification for deviating from what we have already approved. I can also see where the concerns are coming from but they are an issue of personal preference. I would take issue with a hook that doesn't contain an interesting fact, like ALT1. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was wordy. And hooks that go into the image slot should be good hooks, not roundabout wordings of what, as Narutolovehinata5 aptly expresses it, is a "niche" topic familiar only to followers of the band. If you're so insistent on leaving the original wording, let's take it out of the image slot. Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Point me to the rule that image slots need to be "good hooks" and other slots need not be, please. The hook is not niche at all. What it's trying to convey is this: The 1975 always begin their albums with a song called "The 1975"; up until now, it always had the same lyrics; they changed the lyrics in the most recent one as a protest about climate change; the song instead is a spoken word speech by Thunberg; here's a picture of Thunberg.
If you can convey all of this information in a new hook in a more eloquent way (when compared to the current hook, which both fits within guidelines and contains the essential parts of each of those five things) then I'm open to discussion. I'm going to pre-empt your "that's too much for one hook" by saying that no, it already fits in the hook I've suggested, which falls within guidelines; the details together form a complete picture of the production of the song, but excluding any one of them removes meaningful context for the others.
If you can't suggest a hook in this format and will not accept the current one, then I own neither the article nor the hook so you can do what you want with them, but if you pull, move or change the hook's content or positioning or scheduling then you will have succeeded in ensuring that I never return to DYK again. If you can suggest a hook in this format then I'm very willing to discuss it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. WP:OWN rules again! Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Oiginally when I started reviewing this article, I was split between two directions of interest (the different lyrics in comparison to their previous songs, and the song featuring a message about climate change). However, @Bilorv: explained to me why both halves were needed in the hook. If the main hook needs to be reworded in order to keep both halves, then that works with me. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Would this wording be acceptable?
ALT2... that unlike The 1975's previous eponymous songs, which use the same set of lyrics, their 2019 song featuresis a spoken word speech on climate change by Greta Thunberg (pictured)?
It's far shorter than the original hook and mostly gives the same intent, though I'm still not sure if it addresses my earlier concerns about the "same lyrics" part sounding niche. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
For me, both the ideas of eponymous song titles and that multiple songs by the same group have the same lyrics sound unusual/interesting, and that the group would use new lyrics on a new eponymous song when being consistent with the lyrics previously is also interesting. Add in Greta/climate change, and it's still intriguing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds good to me, but can we change "features" to "is"? Thank you Narutolovehinata5 for a sensible suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done Changed "features" to "is", and substituting the hook in prep. Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 and Bilorv. Yoninah (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Admin stuff the rest of the week

@Yoninah: @Amakuru: @Valereee: Just an FYI. I'm going to be online much less the rest of the week, so I don't think I'll be doing the promotions from Prep to Queue until whenever. And I probably won't be around to make changes in Queue content. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging Cas Liber and Gatoclass, in the hopes that they might be able to help while Maile is unavailable—at the moment we're down to one queue filled, and promoters are working on the last unfilled prep, so checking and moving a couple of preps to queues will both make sure we have queues for the bot to promote to the main page and lets more prep sets be filled. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm around Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
+1. Also around. I'll keep an eye on things.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
+1. Here, just been distracted by other things the last few days! Thanks for letting us know, Maile! --valereee (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

@Gerda Arendt, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: To be honest, I don't really see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. It basically seems to be a "conductor conducted" hook, which isn't exactly something that people unfamiliar with the subject could appreciate. Could an alternative hook be proposed here, one that could appeal even to non-fans of classical music? One option could be to focus more on the Germany-Canada connection, though I'm not sure how to word that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you normally expect one of the most brilliant brass ensembles, Canadian Brass (playing Penny Lane which they declared classical music because written before most of the boys were born), to work with a German boy's choir on Volkslieder, of all music? I don't know of any other such collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know but that information honestly sounds very niche. It may be remarkable or unusual in the realm of classical music, but unless a reader is into that interest, the likely reaction would be something like "who cares?". I think there might be some potential in the relationship you're discussing, there's probably just a better wording that could be used here, one that highlights it better or in a more eye-catching way (i.e. one that even non-classical music fans could appreciate). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Classical music? Not here. Volkslieder = folk songs are the songs of the man and woman and boy and girl in the street, and it's remarkable that two high-profile of great diversity unite to highlight those, in a highly unusual concert program presented at various high profile festivals. [5] [6] [7] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly see how the man in the street would find that remarkable. EEng 05:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: "one of the most brilliant brass ensembles" is definitely a POV. If Penny Lane is a classic, it's because the Beatles made it so, not because of who performed it half a century later. I'm sure your perspective on Jörg Breiding makes him remarkable, but the way I'm reading the article, he's the conductor of a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location. In our global environment, there is nothing out of the ordinary about musicians and performers collaborating with each other across the world. The "interesting to a broad audience" requirement doesn't seem to have been met here. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I told you a joke, nothing about Penny Lane, sorry. That boys' choir IS notable internationally for tours and recordings, and it's not the internationality of the collaboration, but the German folk songs with Canadian brass band aspect. I confess that I find at least half of DYK not interesting to me, but don't mind thinking that they will be interesting for others. Trying to be interesting for everybody will result in unspecific or sensational hooks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
ps: I didn't suggest to include "brilliant" in the hook, just to give you a short summary of "Canadian Brass has a library of more than 600 compositions and arrangements specially and uniquely fashioned for them" from our article. Private tipp: if you can see them go! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
DYK that Bach cantatas (Teldec), the first recording of all sacred Bach cantatas in historically informed performance, an international collaboration, features the Knabenchor Hannover as one of four boys' choirs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In any case, we're probably gonna need a new wording for the hook here. I don't think the new suggestion is suitable as it's even more niche than the original (i.e. you can't appreciate it unless you are familiar with the terms and names mentioned). I don't agree with Maile's statement though that musicians from around the world collaborating is "nothing out of the ordinary": a good hook based on such a topic could still be proposed as long as the wording is right and the details used can catch the attention of people unfamiliar with the subjects. For this nomination, Gerda seems to want to emphasize the German-Canadian connection, so it might be a good idea to start with that for a new hook. Perhaps RebeccaGreen, who helped propose new hooks for an earlier nomination, could help out? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by new suggestions. I only explained the current hook proposal, and don't believe that a new wording is needed. I know of nothing similar to this project, which is always something I go for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Bach cantatas (Teldec)" hook you wrote above my last comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
What? Just because I was too lazy to spell out "Did you know?" - In response to your "a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location", I wanted to point out that it is one of four choirs involved in one of the most prestigous projects of classical music, well known globally. Mr. Breiding, chosen by the conductor of 40 years to be his successor, is interesting for that fact alone, but I thought that folk muic and brass would make it more colourful. Again, this thread is already longer than the article, and it's past midnight where I live. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The a boys' choir that is not especially notable outside it's geographical location comment was Maile66's, not mine. And I'm not sure if you understood what I was trying to say, which is that the hook you proposed (the one about Teldec) is probably even more niche. With the Canadian Brass hook at least, readers could find it interesting that a Canadian collaborated with a German. With the Teldec proposal on the other hand, readers will likely not find it interesting unless they know what a cantata is, what "historically informed" means, and the choir. Which to be honest might be too much to ask for from our readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about about my mistake as to who thought the Knabenchor Hannover was only of regional importance. The Tecdec recordings were in the 1970s, when Breiding was still a boy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As for the article itself, although the original hook says that Breiding conducted folk arrangements with the Canadian Brass, the article only mentions the Knabennchor Hannover singing arrangements with the Canadian Brass. The source used does appear to confirm that Breiding conducted the arrangements, but the paragraph discussing the fact for the original hook does not mention Breiding by name or his conducting. If we're going to go with the original hook or a variation of that, this discrepancy has to be addressed first.
  • Meanwhile, reading through the article again, there seem to be other potential hook facts that could be used, such as the countries he's performed at, or one of his cantata collections receiving an award. Would any of these suggestions be acceptable to you?
ALT1: ... that German conductor Jörg Breiding has collaborated and performed with ensembles in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Canada?
ALT2 ... that a recording of cantatas conducted by Jörg Breiding won Germany's most prestigious award for classical music in the choral recording category?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, again: that an ensemble performs in many countries is so commonplace, that ALT1 is out, and ALT2 i about cantatas, a topic we had here gundreds of times, - while folk songs and brass is new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This may not be relevant if the sourcing or wording for the conductor, choir & Canadian brass performing together is not clear, but here is a suggestion from me of a possible reworking of ALT0:
ALT3 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in seventy years, conducted the choir singing folk songs accompanied by the Canadian Brass quintet?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5 and Gerda Arendt, I have edited that section of the article, so it now reads "In 2019, Breiding conducted Knabennchor Hannover singing arrangements of folk songs accompanied by the Canadian Brass quintet, in a series of concerts in the Kuppelsaal and at summer festivals such as the Rheingau Musik Festival,[5] in a program for a new CD." As the article is about Breiding, it seemed important to focus that information on his conducting, regardless of which hook is chosen here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the ALT (which I numbered 3) and the wording. I'm sorry that I missed the conductor's name in that sentence in the article to avoid repetition, who else? (I mean, if you go to festivals with your latest showcase thing, wouldn't you do it yourself?) - "accompanied" is not fair, they really carried a lot more.
ALT4 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in almost seventy years, conducted the choir singing folk songs in arrangements for them and the Canadian Brass quintet?
ALT5 ... that Jörg Breiding (pictured), only the second leader of the Knabenchor Hannover in almost seventy years, conducted the choir and the Canadian Brass quintet in folk song arrangements?
The arrangements were written especially for these concerts, four sets by theme (shanties, animals ...), and within a set connections from song to song played by the band. To say all that in the conductor's article would be undue weight, - just as background for how to describe it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess I was using "accompanied by" in a more general sense of "together with", not a perhaps technical sense of "accompanist". Of your suggestions, I prefer ALT5. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done Me too. I'm substituting ALT5 in prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Template:Did you know nominations/Callum Wilkie

Teratix Kosack 97198

I'm wondering if we can punch this up a little; it seems to me the fact he was overlooked in four previous drafts is one of the more interesting facts. Maybe

--valereee (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks for suggesting this. On one hand, mature-age recruits (22+ years old, as opposed to the teenagers who are usually drafted) playing in state leagues like Wilkie are being drafted more and more often by AFL clubs, so it's not so terribly unusual in the context of the sport. On the other, it's probably quite interesting to a general audience who may not be familiar with this trend. If ALT1/2 is preferred I recommend changing "drafted" to "selected" to avoid repetition, and perhaps specify they were "national" drafts. – Teratix ₵ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Teratix, can you add 'national' to the article in the appropriate place? I'd do it but I don't want to screw up if the source that's already there doesn't support that, and my knowledge of AU rules football is limited to knowing how to spell it. :) Yoninah, yes, I think that's better! --valereee (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. – Teratix ₵ 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5

I misread the article partially when promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Rowe. The article states that she was an "operational support guard" (whatever that is) rather than a prison guard. This says that she quit before her professional debut and not that she did both at the same time. The source actually doesn't mention guard anywhere. Nominator - @Kosack: Reviewer - @Nehme1499:. Admins to pull hook if needed - @Amakuru: @Casliber: @Valereee: SL93 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick point, the source you state is for her professional club debut in December 2015, however she made her international debut before this in September 2015 and I provided the sources for this time frame in the DYK nomination. The source you question is there to signify when she quit her role, which is after the international match. The operational support guard role is explained in the article, but her role is definable as a prison guard I would say given that she was guarding gates and contractors within prisons. Kosack (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I suggest either changing the hook to say operational support guard or clarify that is the same as a prison guard. It's great that the sources mention it, but the article should also. Operational support guard is also only in Early life, but nowhere in the International career section. Right now, with just reading the article and not checking the sources, it makes it seem like she was a guard before her international career. SL93 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't state say that she was guarding gates and contractors. It says, "The role included performing vehicle checks and escorting contractors onto prison wings to perform maintenance work." SL93 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well escorting contractors onto active prison wings would be considered guarding. What I mean is the role is explained in the article. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The role is also mentioned in club career, but I've added a mention in the international section now as well. Perhaps the hook could be changed to "working as a guard in the prison service"? Kosack (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say so because the article doesn't even state what she guarded. SL93 (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The article states, "The role included performing vehicle checks and escorting contractors onto prison wings to perform maintenance work"? Kosack (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say so since it doesn't say what she guarded and doesn't use the term prison guard. I don't think you're lying about the terms meaning the same thing and I'm guessing it might be because I have never heard the term used around where I have been. I don't think escorting means guarding. She could have also been, but that would be original research. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear what I mean by original research, there is more than one definition of escort. SL93 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just suggest changing the hook to your new suggestion. If it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the hook. SL93 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The WalesOnline source includes her own quote of "We'd be on the wings with all the prisoners, while providing a secure area to work" so I wouldn't consider that OR. I think you're taking the term too literally, prison guards do more than simply "guarding" so to speak. I'm fine with changing the hook either way though. Kosack (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I might be due to having Asperger's Syndrome. I know they do more than guarding, but I was just going from reading the article because I think the typical reader doesn't read the sources. SL93 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get what you're saying. As I said, I'm happy for the hook to be amended to "working as a guard in the prison service" or similar if it helps eliminate any potential confusion. Kosack (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

admin stuff me too

Am suddenly called out of town, probably out tomorrow morning and back late Monday. --valereee (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass was mentioned above as someone who might be able to help out. But he hasn't edited in over six days, since an unpleasant encounter. I hope he'll be back. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I should be able to do a few sets over the next few days. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Likewise. I did notice the above-mentioned altercation between TRM and Gatoclass as it was happening, looks like a classic WP argument in which both sides should have de-escalated long before they actually did. I really hope we see Gatoclass back, and this hasn't put them off editing.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Frogs

Promoted to Prep 2 and moved this entire thread to the nomination template, for the archive record. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/The Haunted Island

Spitzeln

Template:Did you know nominations/Spitzeln was promoted to preparation area 1, but the hook was then removed by JHunterJ with no reason given and without reopening the nomination. @Cwmhiraeth: @Bermicourt: @JHunterJ: SL93 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@SL93:, I didn't do it.[8]. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for that. I messed up. Though it is good that a new approved hook is used for main page balance rather than an old one. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6

Thanks for promoting the Yuki Nakashima nomination. In the nomination, I requested a special occasion date for August 25, which was granted; however, I noticed that it was promoted to Queue 6, which means over here in Asia it will only be August 25 for less than half of its 12 hour run, as opposed to Queue 5, which would entirely be on August 25 Asia time. Would it be okay for the hook to swap with one of the hooks in Queue 5? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6: Digital media use and mental health

TRM has raised the issue that the hook implies that the report into media use by disadvantaged kids was described as "overuse", whereas the source for that research makes no such claim. The hook was approved with a note that it didn't look like WP:SYNTH, but I think I'd disagree with that. The second part of the hook directly references the first, and states a cause and effect that no individual source has mentioned. I'm tempted to pull this one before it goes live at 12:00 UTC today, to allow more time for discussion on this and possibly a better hook. Unless anyone has a strong reason why the above issue is incorrect. Pinging Reidgreg, Maile66, Yoninah, Farang Rak Tham, E.3 who were involved in this one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • PS - the text of TRM's finding on this is: the report doesn't describe the level used by disadvantaged kids as "overuse" so nor should we. Plus it's a bit of a non-hook because "may affect their mental health" works both ways, indeed, the report highlights the fact that "a growing body of research conducted over the past decade suggests that time online can actually benefit young people." Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Digital media use and mental health
 –  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone confirm whether the movie still at Template:Did you know nominations/London to Brighton in Four Minutes is properly licenced under {{PD-textlogo}}? Daß Wölf 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploader here: I uploaded to image to Commons on the basis that it is below the level of originality in both the US and UK. Commons:Threshold of originality. If it is OK in the US but not UK it could be uploaded here. Thincat (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a catch-22. If the still lacks originality and is just deemed to be generic text, then why are we showing it? Seems like it might be better just to not make this one a picture hook , the image doesn't add that much to understanding the topic anyway...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_160&oldid=1085471695"