Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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

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.


I thought that Template:Did you know nominations/Nun laßt uns Gott dem Herren was a good contribution to Thanksgiving, 23 Nov. If we have too many of them, leave it where it is in prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, we don't have anything in the special occasions area for Thanksgiving. I'm moving it over there. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Another anniversary-related expedited hook review request ...

I haven't had one of these for a couple of months, so you know they were bound to return ...

This time it's my nomination for Dardeen family homicides. November 17, this Friday, is the 30th anniversary of the killings and I would like it if the hook can be in the set for that date. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and promoted. Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


Why isn't this template closing? (I promoted it to Prep 3). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it was a coding error on a ping, prior to the close. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem With Apu

Review completed. This might be a more successful DYK appearance if were done sooner rather than later. Apparently the film is about to be released. 7&6=thirteen () 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But should Wikipedia be involved in advertising about-to-be-released films? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) A legitimate policy and editorial question. Release date November 19, 2017. I don't think this is advertising. It is simply an article that is linked to a current event, and that makes the article more relevant to our readers. But I don't have stock in this, and you can bury or ignore it. It will appear as a DYK sooner or later, and you might then say it is promotion of the DVD. Timing here is mainly adventitious factor. Kind of like gun control, which cannot ever be discussed because it is too close to the latest tragic event. IRDGAS. 7&6=thirteen () 16:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Should recently promoted featured lists be eligible for nomination?

Just like recently promoted GAs? As long as they meet the other criteria (e.g. prose, hook, copyvio etc etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no, as long as WP:TFL exists; if there's a backlog building of FLs waiting their turn, it would make more sense to increase the frequency of TFL. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I see, this was DYK's generous agreement to allow GAs to be somehow featured on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding a backlog, well yes, there are probably about 2500 decent FLs waiting, and with more than two being promoted each week, the backlog cannot get smaller. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And it does prejudice against FL, even at best seven per week could be featured while in theory (currently) 56 GAs could be featured each week. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
What was actually agreed in the RFC was "a limit of 1 or 2 GAs per set". I am sure you're as shocked as I am to see DYK disregarding a decision when it doesn't suit them. (While it's no secret that I'd like to see TFA, TFL and DYK all shown the door, if we're going to keep the main page in its current form I'd have no issue with TFL having the same "run every day, and be willing to re-run things which were TFL a long time ago if the pot looks to be running dry" setup that currently operates at TFA.) ‑ Iridescent 10:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I still think there's scope to include "newly promoted" FLs here as long as they meet the criteria, but I'll see if there's any appetite at FL for increasing the rate on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd have no issues with TFL running more frequently, at least until the backlog comes down. Not so keen on "has reached FL status" being added to the DYK criteria. A new list can still be featured, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Too many "firsts"

We have a lot more women biographies being nominated, thanks to WP:Women in Red. But most of these hooks emphasize how the woman did something "first". It is tedious to run "first" after "first", and also detracts from the rest of the woman's accomplishments. Thanks to all nominators for writing more interesting hooks. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a point of notability. But we go back to this discussion we've had before on this talk page. Notability is not necessarily a one-time event. After these women became "the first" whatever it was, they then went on to full careers and did notable things. i.e., wouldn't it be a shame if a DYK on Patsy Mink had the hook, " ... was the first Asian American woman elected to Congress." missing an opportunity for a hook, " ... co-authored Title X which prohibited sex discrimination in school activities" Maybe this should be discussed at Women in Red, because I think they're attracting new editors all the time. BTW, I also see this on DYK in regards to men's articles, so it's not necessarily gender-specific. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I must say I have been very pleased to see so many women included in the DYKs over the past few months. We have frequently had over 40 a month, i.e. more than one per day. I think one of the problems with the "firsts" is that it is not always easy to justify the inclusion of women's biographies on Wikipedia. In some quarters, there has been encouragement to justify the inclusion of a woman's biography on the basis of her being the first to do this or that. There are even lists of women's first in various areas. But perhaps you, Yoninah, as someone who often reviews DYK submissions, could suggest how their presentation could be made more attractive in specific cases, coming up with new ALTs.--Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Northfield Allotments

This hook is an example of "creep". A learned professor stated that "records show those allotments date back to 1832, making them almost certainly the oldest in the capital still in use" and the article goes along with this. The Evening Standard baldly claimed that they are the oldest allotments in London. Does the Evening Standard know better than the professor? Did the journalist research the subject? I doubt it. @Andrew Davidson: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The professor is an authority on the subject. Elsewhere, we see it reported that the oldest allotments in all of England were founded in 1809. The date in this case is 1832 and so that seems a reasonable claim for just the London area. There's a rival claimant in Walthamstow but their date is later – 1834. There's some old allotments in Loughton going back to 1813. That's not in London, but being on the outskirts, you get into the tricky matter of defining London's geography exactly. I am content with the professor's judgement on this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the professors words included "still in use" I think we should add them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • How about -
  • More is not necessarily better – see WP:LIGHTBULB. This talk page is primarily for general DYK issues and so specific nominations should only be escalated here if the standard nomination discussion process isn't working. For example, The Mad Pooper nomination has been stalled for 10 days but, if no-one picks that up, it will eventually get highlighted as an old nomination and then get more attention. Both myself and the nominator seem quite relaxed about letting the process take its course and so there's no need to escalate yet. Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody said more was better. Let's just stick to the question at hand, it's not really significant where the discussion is held, just that the hook was passed probably incorrectly so needs work. Whether that happens here or somewhere else is immaterial to getting the best results for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I brought it here to illustrate how easily a statement with some reservations is turned into a statement of fact, and to illustrate how a local newspaper is not a reliable source for first/oldest/youngest type claims. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Guardian states as a plain fact that "Northfields is the longest-surviving allotment space in London, having been established in 1832." The Guardian started in Manchester but now has an international readership and its Cities section is global, covering cities in other continents such as New York and Santiago. I reckon that the original hook is fine. Its use of the present tense indicates that the allotments are still in use and so extra words are not needed to belabour the point. Andrew D. (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK then. The Guardian is a much more satisfactory source, but you did not use it in the article to support the hook fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dull hook. Some allotment somewhere has to be the oldest. Not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM. I thought that before the discussion even started. And for non-Brits, what's an allotment, anyway? Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It wasn't until I read the allotment article that I understood what the Northfield Allotments were: an area of land set aside for residents of the area to garden. This is barely mentioned in Northfield Allotments, and completely ignored by the approved hook. This won't be interesting to anyone who isn't from a country that understands what is meant by "allotment" in this context, and it's still not very interesting to me now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite, so my alternative suggestion full of obscure words like "acre", "rood" and "perch", and moving this to the quirky space, might actually be of interest. Allotments are actually not at all interesting to 99.999% of British readers either. Classic "article at DYK for the sake of it". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That statistic is out by several orders of magnitude. Over 1% of UK households have an allotment and there's a large waiting list across the country – see here for some stats. "Gardening is one of the most popular pastimes in the developed world" and so the suggestion that we should spurn this type of topic seems absurd. North Americans may have some trouble understanding as they use different words for the concept, such as "community garden", but that's just the usual WP:ENGVAR issue. They are not going to find archaic words like "rood" and "perch" any easier. Andrew D. (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This North American has trouble understanding the concept of needing permission to grow vegetables on land that is already yours (by ownership or lease). Do you really need permission for a backyard garden where you live? --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Khajidha: No - where did you get the idea that permission is needed? The point about allotments is that they are for people who either have no backyard, or the one that they do have is too small for what they want to do with it. Essentially, it is your backyard, except that it's not adjacent to your home but can be some distance (perhaps a mile or two) away. Most towns and villages have one or more allotment sites: a field that is divided into smaller plots, usually rectangular and of consistent size. Renting an allotment is like renting a house or garage - you put your name on the waiting list, and when one comes available and you're at the top of the list, you get a chance to rent that allotment for a regular fee. Like backyards, what you do with the land once you have rented it is largely up to you - most people grow vegetables; fruit and flowers are also popular; but some put up a chicken run or pig pen. You can grass it over and sit there on fine days; one person I know has an allotment so that they have an excuse to get away from their spouse for a few hours whenever necessary. Unlike backyards though, rules do exist concerning what you can do with an allotment, and they vary according to the local authority; those for the town where I live are here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The idea was to actually make the hook interesting rather than just "X is the oldest thing" which there is one of for absolutely everything. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aren't there also allotments (I'm thinking Bristol, rather than London) that date back to the 17th century. They were tied to some of the almshouses. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No very conclusive arguments here so I am thinking of promoting the approved hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue error

I'm sorry, I failed to notice an inaccuracy in the caption of Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3 (now the next in the queue). The photo may not show prisms. They may be prism-less lenses. It would be easy to tell if one looked at them from underneath... My original caption was "Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk", and I avoided specifying prism/lens and reflection/refraction in the hook. Other possible accurate captions:

  • Purple sidewalk "jewels" (term rarely used by sources, but generic)
  • Purple sidewalk skylight
  • Walking over a sidewalk skylight
  • Walking over a hollow sidewalk
  • Skylight for a hollow sidewalk

And I think the "which" in the hook is nonrestrictive, so it needs a comma just before it. Apologies for not noticing this sooner. HLHJ (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HLHJ, the hook currently says "jewels" but the word doesn't appear in the article itself. Gatoclass (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You're right, Gatoclass, I found a source and mentioned it. The scare quotes may not be necessary, either, but they're just glass. HLHJ (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
HLHJ, does the image now show prisms, or is that an issue that still needs to be addressed? Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the image may or may not show prisms. I have no way to tell; the photographer (not me) did not have access to the underside. The image definitely shows a pavement light, with purple-solarized glass set into a sidewalk to let sunlight into the space below, so it definitely illustrates the article. I have no good substitute for it, so I'd suggest modifying the text, even just prims->jewels. And I've just noticed that the term "hollow sidewalk" isn't mentioned and cited in the article, either, I will fix that now. HLHJ (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry about this, but I think I'm going to have to pull the hook for now as it has too many outstanding issues. I am also concerned about the image licence. I think the issues can be ironed out but it's better done before the hook goes to the main page, otherwise it might end up getting pulled then. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the image license is definitely OK. The photographer had previously posted it on her blog, which is full of her own photos, but she then also uploaded it to Commons. I contacted her through her blog and she even knows that it's up for DYK.
The only outstanding issues are the missing comma in the hook (trivial) and the use of the word "prisms" in the image caption (possibly inaccurate).
I've sourced the terms "jewels" and "hollow sidewalk" in the article. Please let me know if there's anything else you want me to do. I have no objection to you pulling it if that's the easiest way to fix the problem. HLHJ (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
HLHJ, I think you should get an OTRS ticket if you have gotten permission from the author, otherwise it's unverified. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the author uploaded it to Commons personally, as her own work. OTRS has a backlog of 70 days. The image here was cropped by me from her original, for impact at a small size. HLHJ (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I have fixed both hook and caption at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavement light. I do not think that there are any remaining problems. HLHJ (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, you're going to be really annoyed with me now, but I've just had a close look at the uncropped image, and based on the ridges you can see in the bottom right, and the tripling of the point light sources below, I'm satisfied that these are sidewalk prisms, of the "multi" style, which means that the photographer is probably just stepping perpendicular to the run of the road. This is also highly probable given that the photo was taken in Vancouver (where you'd expect this sort of prism). So the original caption would be fine. I'm sorry for creating all this fuss over a comma. HLHJ (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 unfinished

Somebody will have to finish Queue 3 (next in line) as I don't have time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My fault (see section above). If I can help, please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Gerda Arendt and Cwmhiraeth because there's only three hours to go now. At a minimum we could swap Queue 3 and Queue 4, thus giving ourselves an extra 24hrs. HLHJ (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved the lead hook from Prep 3 up to Queue 3. Seemed to be the least disruptive move. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to Maile for sorting this out. HLHJ (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (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 6-10 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 #3 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, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4 image of Isaac T. Stoddard

The lead hook image of Isaac T. Stoddard needs to be cleaned up. The image looks like it was taken through a mesh screen. And if you look at it closely in Commons, the bottom half has some kind of writing in white...from about where his necktie is, all the way down. Is this a reflection through a window, maybe? Can anyone clean this up before it goes to the main page tomorrow? — Maile (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at that image in the book it comes from, most of the images appearing in the book have some version of the mesh screen, and a number of them have the backward writing; those may have been due to the image sources they had available. Because this is perhaps the last article we'll see at DYK from Allen3, I'd hate for the image not to be featured, even if it isn't ideal; I'm not sure what kind of clean-up could be done at this late date. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Other promoters needed

Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on these hooks, could someone else promote them please:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: Chō Kōran is  Done. As for Disappearance of Harold Holt, I'm not sure if it will still be allowed under the supplementary rules, but I would suggest that if it's allowed, that it be moved to the special holding area and go up on December 17 (the date of Holt's disappearance). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: which supplementary rule are you referring to? The December 17 date sounds like a great idea. Yoninah (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The one about special requests generally only being allowed if the date requested is within five weeks of the nomination date, though said criterion apparently only applies if there's a backlog of hooks, and I've seen it ignored before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Oh. I thought you were referring to something that was wrong with the hook. Well, at this point, I think we can invoke WP:IAR and move it to December 17.
BTW why is everyone now quoting a 5-week rule? I thought it was 6 weeks. Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly sure; for some reason, I couldn't even find the rule in the supplementary rules page when I checked earlier. Considering it's been frequently ignored for some time now (there's a hook going up on December 25, which is a week after the six-week thing), I wonder if it would be time to abolish that rule or make it more lenient, but that's a topic for another time. In any case, @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: I have moved the Holt hook to the special holding area. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it's six weeks from date of approval not date of nomination, and special occasions such as Christmas Day and April Fool's Day are exceptions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, could someone with new-page patrol rights review Asuka Ōkura? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The special occasion instructions have been at the beginning of the special occasion section for many years now, and it's always said six weeks from nomination. I have no idea why five weeks keeps getting mentioned; it isn't accurate. Six weeks has been allowed to expand sometimes either through IAR for a particularly compelling case (but then maybe to eight weeks or so), or if a nomination has waited so long for review that it seems reasonable to allow up to six weeks from approval. The only formal exception to six weeks is for April Fool's Day; Christmas Day is not a listed exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

  • ... that Maeve Liston played junior Gaelic football before becoming a rugby union player?
@The C of E: @Dumelow:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is hooky about this hook. The article barely scrapes by the 1500-character limit; perhaps more could be added to come up with a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, they are rather different sports. If someone changed from golf to tennis would you find that more interesting? There is going to be a great surge in women's biography hooks over the next few weeks because of the Women in Red Contest, and many of them will have less-than-exciting hooks. So be prepared! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't wait. I added a link to Gaelic football; maybe that helps. Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not interesting, nor is it a big leap from Gaelic football to rugby union, despite what is claimed above. Both are team ball sports, both involve kicking and passing etc. The hook fails the basic "interesting" criterion. We need to be strong in the face of an onslaught of mediocre Women in Red candidates. If they're not interesting, we should have the guts to say so and look for something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • More to the point, is she even notable? Sources are very flimsy, mainly stats from the teams. Is the team she plays for professional or is that league professional (thus passing WP:NRU#2)? I suspect it isn't. How many times has she played for this team - I've no idea because the stats in the article are blank. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And there's the problem - there's no proof that she's actually played in the Premier 15s because there's no appearance data in the article. The tournament only started in September and I can't find a Bristol Ladies starting team-sheet with her name on it. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • She hasn't (yet) played in the Premier 15s[1]
  • WP:RU/N is a local guide, nor part of WP:NSPORTS, so not commonly accepted
  • Even within WP:RU/N, it says about "high performance unions" (point 1 of the RUN): "Women do not have this criterion."

So we have statistics and sources which aren't independent, then one two-line article from a local radio, and an article from a student newspaper. That's about it? If there's nothing else, then she indeed isn't notable. Fram (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet it starts off with "he or she" so it makes it clear from the start that it applies to all. If you believe its a contradiction, then take it to WP:RU and we can get clarified consensus there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not a contradiction. "These rules apply to men or women: 1, 2, 3 (note: 1 only applies to men)" is awkward, but not contradictory, and when you have a note (on a specific rule) indicating that the general rule doesn't apply there, then that note takes precedence. Fram (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If she hasn't played a game then she doesn't clear the bar of notability, because the rest of the article certainly doesn't show that she passes WP:GNG. This criterion is exactly the same for WP:NFOOTY and other local projects. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Could someone that isn't me pull this, please? Otherwise - since the article hasn't been improved - we're going to end up with an article at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Pulled. Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - "SS Andaste"

Well, besides the poor formatting of the hook itself, it turns out that the SS Andante wasn't actually a "whaleback", the article clearly states "The Andaste, and her sister ship the Choctaw, had an unusual design. They were straight-back steel freighters, similar to whalebacks, but they had straight sides and a conventional bow." Fix required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Your argument assumes facts not in evidence. The hook itself says: "a hybrid Whaleback" which is accurate and supported by the sources. 20:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen () 20:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is the source and what it says: Stonehouse, Frederick (2006). Haunted Lake Michigan. Lake Superior Port Cities, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-942235-72-2. The steamers Andaste and Choctaw were both built by the Cleveland Shipbuilding Company on the banks of the Cuyahoga River in 1892. Their unique design often has been described as a "semi-whaleback," straight-back steel freighters similar to a whaleback but with straight sides and a conventional bow. Both were 266 feet long with 900 horsepower engines and a capacity of 3,000 tons of ore. They plied the Lake Superior iron trade, running between northern ore docks and southern steel mills without incident until the parent company went bankrupt in 1898 and soon after were acquired by the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company. 7&6=thirteen () 20:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so they weren't "similar to whalebacks", they were whalebacks. Perhaps the article needs re-phrasing. At least I fixed up the poor hook formatting, so that's something. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
TRM, please fix it to your liking. Personally, I am fine with the way it was proposed. Not surprising, I suppose, since i was my creation. But you are obviously viewing it from a different perspective, and I am not affronted by that. And I don't want to niff-naw about fly specks. To mix my metaphors. 7&6=thirteen () 21:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
And I too corrected a spelling error that had crept in. And that was because you expressed concerns. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 21:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
With one hand I giveth, with the other I take away... sorry about that typo. Yes, it's okay, I suppose it's open to a little bit of interpretation. I guess my senses had been heightened by the incorrect naming format, so I gave the article more of a look than I'd normally do, it seems apparent that some of the promoters aren't actually checking the hooks against the articles, especially when it comes to respecting the title formatting. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not questioning your sensibilities. You are keeping us all honest.
I also changed the statement about the hybridism to a note, so that it isn't buried at the end of the citations. 7&6=thirteen () 21:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 police drama

"... that HolbyBlue was the first British police drama to be created since the September 11 attacks?"

Template:Did you know nominations/HolbyBlue @ElectrodeandtheAnode, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

HolbyBlue was first released in 2007. Wire in the Blood is from November 2002, Blue Murder (UK TV series) is from May 2003, as is Murder Investigation Team (TV series). The Last Detective is from February 2003. There probably were more series in 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well. Am I misunderstanding something or is this hook rather incorrect? Fram (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you checked that. The source for the hook was a quote by someone non-notable. I did check for other sources, but couldn't find them. Please pull the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, pulled. Fram (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please add a replacement, non-bio hook between the first two (bio) hooks in Queue 6, to bring the queue back up to eight hooks? Perhaps the YMCA Press hook in the second slot in Prep 3? (I haven't checked it, so there may be a better choice.) This will need to be done in the next hour, before Queue 6 is promoted to the main page. Pinging Maile, Cas Liber, and Alex Shih, in the hopes that one of them will see this before then. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done but it was easier for me to check the sourcing on 42nd Street Shuttle, so that's the one I moved. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

It has been several weeks since one of these lists was posted, and there are currently 24 older nominations that need reviewing—all those that are no longer within the seven days during which a new nomination can be made. Right now we have a total of 224 nominations, of which 112 (half of them) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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