Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)


"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS


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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.


12-hour cycle

When are we switching to the 12-hour cycle? Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Soon, I hope. The prep sets are well-filled in readiness! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I reserved a slot in Prep 6 for the Special Occasion hook for January 11 (Pacific Time Zone). Could someone please promote it there? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I don't think I can do that because the hook and article state that the day is a "holiday" when all the sources appear to refer to it only as a "civic observance". Certainly, it seems that it's not a day off for students but rather a day when particular things are taught. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'd like to add your comment to the nomination template. Meanwhile, I made a mistake and the date request is for January 16, so I'll revert my edits to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, for catching this. You are correct, it is a civic observance. Our article on civic observances is titled (probably incorrectly) civic holiday and, in writing the article, I forgot to apply the piping in the link so that "civic observance" would link to the incorrectly-named "civic holiday"; instead all that was entered was "civic holiday". I'll change it in the article and the DYK. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6

Queue 6

"... that the Lilac Fire in Southern California grew from a small brush fire to 4,100 acres (17 km2) in one day?"

So what? Is this awe-inspiring? Interesting? Fast? Slow?

Why does anyone care? What is, "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw me in to read the article" that is actually in the article. Does the article discuss Russ unusual, highlighted in the main page, tears of spread? Mention it? It seems slow for a Santa Ana driven wildfire. What hampered it?

4100 acres? In one day? Is that a lot? Superlative? Fast? Unusual?

So what.

--2600:1700:FB00:9C00:C592:B90E:9EA2:4411 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked a question on the article's talk page about this, I was unconvinced that a fire that was 0% contained would remain at exactly the same surface area for another day. It isn't the best hook either, but I was concerned with how that kind of sudden growth then complete seizure of expansion could occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That's probably due to the topography and location compared to the fires further north. I lived there for a couple of years. Still, the hook raises only questions, and claims a superlative with no sources or elaboration. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:C592:B90E:9EA2:4411 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably? But I would like an actual evidence-based answer as to how a fire can be 0% contained and yet not grow for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that matters to the point I'm raising that the hook's hookiness is not explained, or elaborated, is this fast, is this a big deal, is this slow, who cares. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:2978:7D0F:9883:51A4 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well it does matter, is the article factually accurate? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no indication in any of the sources or at Cal Fire links that the info is not accurate. The hook is not hooky. --19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB00:9C00:45F9:9E58:7EA9:E0C6 (talk)
Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Let's see,

"Is the information accurate?" "There's no information in the sources that it is not."
"Why didn't the fire spread, that seems odd to me?" "There's no information in the sources or at Cal Fire about why it didn't spread or that not spreading is odd."
"Please answer my question." "Let me get going on some original research and primary sources (interviews) to 1. prove this is unusual, and 2. get you an answer pronto."

Sincerely yours, the IP at --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:87 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That is an answer. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:5528:DE9F:F753:50F9 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Air temperature and wind I suspect could greatly alter a fire's expansion over different days. Also, teh 4100 figure is first reached in the evening and then remains at that the next morning. The wildfire article says that fires burn slower at night too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There you go, it expanded at night, contracted during the day, consumed all the fuel, surrounded by freeways, an answer. Let's cite WT:DYK and get this answer into the article.
Next question, please! --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:5530:E828:9AE8:E747 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Late Request for MLK Day

Martin Luther King Day is coming up in the United States on January 15. Since the DyK for East Holmes Academy relates to racial discrimination, it would be nice if it could run on that day.

I realize that my request is a little late, but this is my first time through the DYK process. Billhpike (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is in the "Special holding area" for January 15th and should appear on that day. I was going to move it there but someone had already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lining up queues and preps

The numbering of the queues and preps is somehow out of whack. The queues are presently numbered from Queue 5 to Queue 4, while the preps are numbered from Prep 1 to Prep 6. The Local Update Times follow the queue numbering, leaving out the last 2 prep sets on the page. It's hard to keep track of when preps are going to go live. Could an administrator help here please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now? Alex Shih (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I don't think so. The Queues are ordered from 1 to 6 but the Preps are ordered from 3 to 2. The bottom 2 prep sets, #1 and #2, are waiting to be filled, but the Local Update Times doesn't include them. Perhaps we could do as in the past, and expand the Local Update Times section to include more queues or prep sets? Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The table is correct, and is as it always has been. Currently, we have Queues 1 and 2 filled; Preps 3 through 6 will go into Queues 3 through 6, so those times can be used to predict when those will be promoted to the main page. To calculate anything beyond that, when we're at two sets per day, add three days to the existing dates: for example, since Queue 1 is scheduled to be promoted at 00:00 12 January UTC, when the currently empty Prep 1 is filled and becomes Queue 1, it will be scheduled for promotion at 00:00 15 January UTC, and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Local Update Times typically shows the six queues only, in order of expected promotion; it automatically expands to add all six preps when the six queues are all filled with hooks, but contracts back down to the six queues as soon as one queue is promoted to the main page and emptied out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Zeus" hook

Currently in prep 3: ... that the United States Navy considered using Zeus to arm a battleship?

@The Bushranger:

I would like to pull this one for use as an April Fool's hook if there are no objections. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the hook could be even April-Fools-ier, like ... that Zeus was against aircrafts? or ... that the United States Navy considered using Zeus to help them in battle? Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem with pulling the hook and save for April 1st. Alex Shih (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Come to that, the quirky in prep 6 also looks like a potential candidate for April Fools:

I'd like to start accumulating a few potential AF hooks because it's not that far away, we currently only have three, and IMO the earlier we start the better the pool to choose from. Any unused hooks can always go back into the main pool of course. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So long as The Bushranger is fine with waiting until April 1 for the hook(s) to appear, I think it would work well, although we probably don't want to overdo the number of naval hooks in this style (James Longstreet being another). If The Bushranger doesn't want to wait, then we should run them as currently scheduled. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The more quirky (and good) hooks like this we can save for April 1 the better, otherwise we end up with the usual juvenile nonsense that we've endured previously... Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've pulled and replaced the hook as the prep will be promoted to queue soon; haven't inserted them to the April Fool's page yet though. Alex Shih (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I just took care of reopening the Zeus template and adding it to the April Fool's Day page. The pelican hook is not yet done. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pelican hook just removed from prep, and is being placed on the April 1 page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cristina Pasaroiu

Currently in the quirky slot in Q3:

  • ... that soprano Cristina Pasaroiu played Manon in boots, even in bed with her lover, because she broke her foot in rehearsal for Massenet's opera in Wiesbaden?

I'm thinking this would be better just as:

- because that creates curiosity as to why she wore boots in bed, while the additional info eliminates the curiosity factor.

Pinging Gerda Arendt for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. Thanks, Gatoclass. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping to get a comment from Gerda, but since we are running out of time and consensus seems to be in favour, I have made the change. Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Fine. I'm on vacation. The extra information is how tough a woman she is, to play after an accident, but if you think we don't need to know that ... - I saw her, and urge you to do the same if you can! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Overabundance of Ghana politician hooks

A heads up to prep builders: We have a lot of Ghana politician hooks. Please try to space them out so they won't run every day (or twice a day, on our new 12-hour schedule). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - "nearly 36"

... that the 5th-century Tigawa temple (pictured) is the only survivor of nearly 36 Hindu temples at the site that were quarried for building stone during a 19th-century construction project?

So, is it 35 then? Ms Sarah Welch, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the article opens with " about 36", then goes on to say "over 36 temples" and then "more than 36 temples"... not sure how on earth "nearly 36" was arrived at, agreed upon and promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The source has "no less than 36" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: When there is uncertainty, "over 36" is close enough to "about 36" and no less than 36. Most of the site was destroyed by the quarrying, the actual count is uncertain. We can't add more certainty or consistency than what is in the sources. What wording would you suggest? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the "nearly" in the hook..should be "about" or "over" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How about "around 36"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I will be fine with "around", "over" or "about". Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that "nearly" nearly made it to the main page is not great by any means. I've also made one or two other fixes in that set. For my money, it should be "about" or "around" but not "over" as that is odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It's now in Queue 6 and that much more difficult to change. Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, and Alex Shih, in the hopes that one of you can change "nearly" to "around" or "about". If one of you could also promote Prep 6 to Queue 1, I'll see what I can do to get the preps and queues synched up again after the recent out-of-order promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
changed now. Will look at syncing now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok all aligned now. Preps 3 and 4 part-filled so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - "Gulf War I" etc

... that Lt. Gen. D. R. Soni, chief of the Southern Command of the Indian Army, was a military observer in Iraq and Kuwait after Gulf War I?"

Firstly, there's a wholly unreferenced section in here (how did that make it to a queue?) and secondly, can we please avoid making artificial titles like "Gulf War I"? It was the "Gulf War", and more precisely, Soni was an observer during the United Nations Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission. Cwmhiraeth, Gbawden, Wolfman1606, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Adamgerber80. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man The medals section is based on his portrait here ([1]) and was added by me. Gulf War 1 was used from the reference and it happens to be an alternate name for Gulf War and even mentioned on the page. I did not nominate the page for DYK so am unclear on how some aspects of it got through. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this hook to Prep 4 (and replaced it with one from there), so that this discussion can continue. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the awards section is unverifiable. The nomenclature used for "Gulf War I" is crass and unencyclopedic. I'll leave it to others to decide on how to fix this particular nugget. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Adamgerber80: Removed the section of awards and medals. Adam, you can't use an image as a source to identify the medals. You can use UNIKOM in the hook, I've made necessary changes in the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - caption

(a) it's too long, and (b) it's a fragment so it shouldn't have a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed, removed period. Feel free to mess with it further, I'm logging off soon. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - "5-storey house"

Should be five-storey... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2

There's an unexplained apostrophe in the name of Joseph Jongen in the fourth hook.

"Canadian" need not be linked in the fifth hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Alex Shih (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Could an admin please say "his Mass", instead of just "Mass" which could be anybody's? - Sorry, I'm on vacation, saw it only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

More haste, less speed

It may be a coincidence, but we're already seeing basic errors creeping in from hooks being promoted, etc, because of the change to two sets per day. Seriously, if people can't verify each hook properly, (and there have been some _fundamental_ issues in the last two or three days), we shouldn't increase the throughput. Sod the backlog, quality trumps junk, even in light of WiR and WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also note that four queues are being loaded at a time. We need only 2 queues for a 24-hour cycle. Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It makes sense to have three queues loaded because we don't always have admins stopping in every day to do promotions. Sticking with two queues doesn't always make sense, especially those times recently when we had filled all six preps and had only one or two queues loaded. However, we seem to have fallen behind: we had eight sets loaded between preps and queues when we went to two a day, and we're down to five full sets. We should aim to have preps available for scrutiny for at least 24 hours before going to queue, and even longer is useful, and I think four days worth of sets is a minimum level we should shoot for, though we need to check the hooks thoroughly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that each prep should have at least 24 hours of scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that too. For example, Gatoclass just moved a set to a queue three minutes after completing it. I tend to review "complete" sets (especially as they change so frequently once built), so this kind of behaviour is extremely disruptive to assessing the quality of hooks and articles about to head to the main page. Indeed, I've questioned one of the hooks in that set on this very page, but it was clearly unobserved before the set was promoted to a place where now pretty much none of us can do anything about it. And why? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Three minutes? Excuse me, but I just spent an hour verifying that set, including tossing two hooks for outstanding issues. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you start accusing people of being "disruptive". Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You completed the set and three minutes later made it impossible for most of us to edit it. That's a fact, and that was disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
So now I'm a miscreant for doing what administrators are expected to do, namely, move completed preps to the queue? Sorry, not buying today. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. We generally don't build sets and then send them straight to queues. There's no point in creating the middle stage if you're going to do that. What's the mad rush? By the way, it's evident that the "admin" verification of these sets is currently not enough to ensure quality, so please, listen to others like Alex, who are requesting a 24 hour wait between completing a prep and moving it to a queue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The preps are not a "middle stage", they exist so that anybody can build a set. The queues are there to ensure that sets are not tampered with before going to the main page, and there is more than one to ensure that sets are promoted on time. There has never been a rule that sets must sit for a given time in prep before they are promoted to the queue, that would be an absurdity given the difficulty we already have finding administrators to promote to the queue in a timely manner. Sets are promoted to the queue when an administrator is available to do the job, it's as simple as that. The last thing we need on this project are yet more arcane rules discouraging participation by administrators or anybody else. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
See above. Admin quality control is inadequate, and having to post requests here and post requests at ERRORS is not the best of way of doing things. You need to relax a little, there's basically zero evidence of "tampering", and people have created queues with minutes to go, or minutes gone, so there's really no need to be 36 hours ahead of the game. If we could rely on decent prep set verification, it wouldn't be a problem, but look above, queues are being promoted with multiple issues. You need to deal with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
If I thought leaving sets unpromoted in prep for 24 hours would solve DYK's "multiple issues", maybe I would agree with it. However, it relies on the fantasy that there is an army of eagle-eyed quality controllers out there who just need a little more time to identify the issues. The reality is that a tiny number of mostly the same people do almost all the work around here, and almost nobody is doing any verification of sets after the prep builder anyway. So again, the last thing we need to be doing is adding more rules that will only have the effect of discouraging participation by the tiny handful of people who keep things running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I check every single hook when it's in prep, along with making some usual adjustments to the articles which are completely overlooked by admins etc. Leave the preps as preps, there's a clear problem with admin quality control here at the moment, the last thing we want is to have to keep posting error reports either here or at ERRORS. Just keep Queues with at least one in advance, and then leave it at that. Just from the reports of problems in a single queue above, we really don't want to have to keep mopping up. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We're not going to leave the queue with only one full set just for your convenience. If you want to make changes in the queue and can't be bothered asking other people to do it for you, get permission to edit templates, then you won't have to ask. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bonkers. This is for the convenience of Wikipedia and the readers. You weren't buying today, but it seems that didn't last long. Just leave the preps in situ for a bit to allow some proper quality control to take place before it becomes limited to the realm of the beloved and special few. They're not doing a good enough job, as evidenced by the comments on this page, since the rate increase. Do us all a favour and slow down. More haste, less speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree in principle with Gatoclass that we should not be adding anymore rules; DYK at the current state is already discouraging, in my opinion, for editors to submit, for reviewers to review, and for admins to promote. Comments about best practices are helpful, but there is no need to impose opinions on others. Alex Shih (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What....? I agree that each prep should have at least 24 hours of scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again TRM, why not just get template permission? Then you can edit the sets anytime, anywhere, without having to ask anybody. That certainly seems to me like a more logical solution than insisting we promote only one queue at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't work that way Gatoclass, I thought you already knew..... certainly not for the templates that are protected through cascade protection. That's why I have to sadly rely on the current status quo and feel obliged to review everything, hopefully before it becomes protected in a queue in a matter of minutes. It would be a lot simpler if things weren't just rushed through, as evidenced by the sudden decrease in quality in queues that we're now seeing. I could ignore it all and just post dozens of ERRORS per month I suppose, that way we'd get to close DYK sooner rather than later, but I was hoping we could be more practical than that. Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me clarify. I agreed/and still agree with 24 hours waiting time for preps, but as best practice. There is no need to impose this as a rule. Alex Shih (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, who mentioned rule? Gatoclass certainly railed against a rule, and you have now clarified you never intended to mean a rule, but did anyone actually suggest adding another rule to DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately TRM, we have a backlog, which means that throughput must be increased. But that should attract additional helpers - it's always done so in the past, indeed I for one have returned from sabbatical to assist, so I think things will even out. But I've run out of time to discuss this further today as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We had a backlog about six weeks ago and we should have gradually incremented the number of hooks. But we didn't, and then we doubled the throughput and surprise, surprise, quality went to rat-shit. Reap what you sew etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, per your assertion Again TRM, why not just get template permission? Then you can edit the sets anytime, anywhere, without having to ask anybody, that's plainly false. Would you kindly retract it and offer a different solution? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Retracted, apologies for the error. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - statues of saints

that the late-Gothic church St. Moritz in Halle (Saale) features stone sculptures, including a statue of the patron saint?

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that literally tens of thousands of churches have stone sculptures and statues of their own patron saint. I'm not seeing this as at all interesting to our audience. Gerda Arendt, Usernameunique, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but decided on balance that it could probably squeak through. I would not object to a better hook though if anybody has a suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It turns out the alt hook is better, so I substituted it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The image that went with the hook showed the statue, but I promoted the hook without the image because I didn't think it was good enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook was boring I'm afraid, not interesting to a broad audience, and probably not interesting to anyone who has any awareness of a church and its surroundings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What of those who don't? I'm sure plenty of athiests, muslims, Jews etc might not have any awareness and could find it interesting? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I doubt it. And I think your comment is utterly patronising, Jews, atheists and muslims all generally have an understanding of the arcane workings of the tragic history of Christian churches, the profligate waste of money on big shows, thanks goodness the hook has been changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
For once I agree entirely with TRM here. For a Roman Catholic church, it would be more noteworthy if the church didn't have a statue of its patron saint, and virtually every English-speaking reader, regardless of their background, will be aware of that. Indeed, the RCC fondness for statues is so well-known that "Do Catholics worship statues" is one of the FAQs on catholic.com. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Boom. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that if there is any sort of building (not just a church) named after a particular person (not just a saint), the presence of a statue or painting of such person would be pretty much expected by anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 - John Heisman

"... that John Heisman, the namesake of the Heisman Trophy awarded annually to the best college football player, was instrumental in legalizing the forward pass?"

  • It might just be me, but it seems wrong to say that the person is the namesake of the trophy, it sounds like he was named after the trophy. Even our article says "A namesake is a person named after another, or more broadly, a thing (such as a company, place, ship, building, or concept) named after a person".
Your second version is hookier Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Or even swap the order of the links:
Shorter and less convoluted, IMO. EdChem (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Could an administrator change it in Queue 3 please? I like Black Kite's second hook, because it emphasizes the subject. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I gave the hook a tweak that is sort-of a combination of some of the above hooks. I think "best college football player" must be included or it isn't clear what sport is being referenced, otherwise I've followed the last suggested alt by EdChem. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - a 12-year-old "gave up playing"

... that before turning professional, footballer Callum Hendry gave up playing for a year following the death of his mother?

I'm not sure that the decisions or otherwise of a 12-year-old footballer, especially one who is stil alive and this being a present personal and very strong pain, and especially given there could be other things noted, should be a hook here. Playing on the tragedy is not becoming of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't think it was hooky at all, but the page creator convinced me. Pinging @Kosack:. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact that a player could have given up playing for such a long period of time and still made it to the professional game seemed unusual to me, especially in the modern age where players are coached so intensely from an early age. Playing on tragedy was certainly not my intention. Kosack (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps tweaking the hook to remove the mention of Hendry's mother?
EdChem (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook always centred on the football part so either one of those is fine with me. Kosack (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg It's already been promoted to Queue 4, so an administrator will have to change it. Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/My Favorite Thing Is Monsters

I'd appreciate feedback on this review. The article's plot summary section has been tagged since it's empty. Can we just delete the section and promote the hook? The article otherwise is well developed. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#D7's example would indicate not, though a short synopsis should suffice for now. It is a very interesting article, and would be a shame if a bit more couldn't be added in the next little while. I've posted to the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a synopsis is a necessary element. The New Yorker source alone probably has enough information for creating a brief synopsis. Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

Currently in prep 5:

Why the coyness about the album? It makes it look clickbaity. Why not simply be specific:

Pinging Ritchie333. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Having looked a bit closer at this one, I'm not even sure the hook is accurate as the source doesn't specifically state that this location was used as the recording studio for the album, tracks for the album appear to have been recorded at different places according to the 21 article and the given source only says that a couple of Angel Studio technicians worked on the album, which isn't the same thing. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook as I couldn't verify it to my satisfaction. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Adele: The Biography says "No less than eleven separate studios would be involved. They were AIR Studios, Angel Studios, Eastcote Studios ..." So how about the following. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 (next) - Erroneous claim

Per WP:MPE, the last hook in Queue 3 is erroneous. Cragside had domestic electric lighting three years earlier that James Hood Wright's residence. Suggest this hook is pulled and replaced. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
What happens to the nom? Can a new hook be found for it? Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think Black Kite is working on something. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, so the hook was sourced by two citations, one which said ""The first private residence to be lighted by Edison lamps was that of J. Hood Wright, New York." - which may be correct, as Cragside was illuminated by arc lamps, although incandescent ones were installed in Cragside in 1880, whether they were Edison-type I don't know. So that might be correct, or not. The second citation says that Wright's was ""The first electric light from a power plant in a residence..." which is correct, as Cragside was powered by an external hydroelectric source. However, clearly Wright's residence was not the first powered by electric light. It certainly could be altered to say that it was the first powered by a power source on the premises (and I've changed the article to reflect this), whether that's hooky enough, I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Black Kite. I am planning to log off shortly, so somebody else will have to look at this. Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: a different nomination's hook has been placed in Queue 3 to fill the open spot, and the nomination for this hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Recording Studios, has been reopened; further discussion is happening there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you meant to put that in the section above? This section is about Template:Did you know nominations/James Hood Wright. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=820689900"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA