Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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


"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
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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

WP:DYKSTATS

For many years, 5,000 hits has been the gold standard for acceptance to our Stats page. But for many years, hooks ran in sets that lasted 6, 8, or 12 hours on the main page. Now, with hooks appearing for 24 hours at a time, a hook just has to attract some 200 viewers an hour in order to qualify. This is a far cry from the 1,000 (or more) hits per hour that hooks in years past had to collect, and it detracts from those other hooks' accomplishments. I think we should change the lower limit to 10,000 hits for hooks in 24-hour sets to qualify. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter too much, because we normally compare only within a month. - We could instead think about making the permanent lists not by hits, but by hits/hour, and set a high limit, to make it more meaningful for comparison over a longer period. - The question further up if Donald Trump baby balloon was pictured or not for these everlasting lists, has not been answered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As a nominator who had 10 articles get over 5,000 hits in July, from 11 featured, I would agree that 5,000 is too low a threshold. Increasing it to 10,000 seems the easiest and simplest "solution". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? Having said that, I am kind of sympathetic to the idea of raising the bar somewhat. However, if we are going to start fiddling with the criteria, perhaps the first thing we should be looking at is changing the basic criterion to hits per hour rather than total hits, given that we still switch from 24 to 12 and sometimes still even 8 hours per set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, 250 hits per hour seems like a good baseline. But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As someone whose hooks don't tend to hit 5,000 (with only one exception so far), I don't really care for any particular number either way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
250 hits per hour is very low. That's where we're holding now with a 24-hour set. I would say at least 500 hits per hour, and better, 1,000 hits per hour, which will equal the totals earned by previous hooks. But @Gatoclass: we're averaging the hooks per hour anyway. Why not stick with the overall total number of hits? Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
1000 hits per hour? That would be 24,000 hits per day - almost five times the current threshold, I think that's far too much. I was thinking perhaps 375 hits per hour, which would equal 9000 per 24 hours. I think we wouldn't be archiving enough hooks at 10,000 per day, but there are usually a fair few that don't quite make it to 10k, so 9k might be an acceptable cut-off. I'd probably prefer 8k per 24 hours, but that ends up being an odd number of hits per hour. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and with regard to your question about total number vs. hits per hour - the problem is that if you just go by total number of hits, then hooks up for 24 hours have double the time to reach the minimum threshold by comparison with hooks displayed for only 12 hours, which obviously puts the latter at a great disadvantage. Also, total hits gives a misleading impression of the most popular hooks, because the list is skewed in favour of the hooks that were displayed for longer time periods. Gatoclass (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, perhaps aiming for 10k hits per 24 hours would be an appropriate cut-off, it appears, at least from recent trends, that that would result in about 20 hooks per month going into the hall of fame, which might arguably be enough. I might want to look into that some more though, and I don't have time right now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
"On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? " Isn't that an argument in favor of doing this? A "best of" list is supposed to be smaller than the complete list, or there would be no reason for having the "best of" list in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but it's a question of where the best cut-off point might be. You don't want to have a "best of the month" table that only features a handful of hooks. I'm currently thinking that about 20 hooks per month might be an appropriate cut-off, and that would probably be achieved with a cut-off at 10,000 per 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Why not? Seems to me that a handful is best. Possibly even just top three, certainly no more than ten.--Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(As Gerda says) a per-hour measure is fairer. It means popular hooks that don't run for long will be recognised alongside hooks that run for longer. 5k over 24 hours would be 208 per hour. 10k would be 416 per hour. I don't have strong view about the right level, but somewhere about 400 per hour seems fair. We should revisit the all-time list requirements (currently 25k for a lead, 15k for a non-lead) at the same time if we make the switch. › Mortee talk 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the most pressing issue DYK has, better get the completely irrelevant stats in order first and leave the plethora of other more pressing issues unresolved. Is this really the highest priority issue to fix/improve? Just confirms even more that DYK is not for readers but regular contributors... 91.96.115.199 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, as I noted above But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. It's transparent what the mission statement here is nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don't understand people like you, 91.96.115.199. If you have an issue with the DYK project, mention it in a thread about that issue, not in a thread about a different issue. Surely you don't expect the majority of Wikipedia contributors to spend hours researching and posting articles on a public-domain source that can be copied by students, authors, and who knows who else, out of the goodness of their hearts? The paltry online "prizes" and statistics charts are hardly sufficient thanks for their efforts. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. I've created literally hundreds of good and featured items and expect nothing back at all in any shape or form. So yes, I did it out of the goodness of my heart. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i have been very busy and had no time to reply. My point is that DYK has many issues like quality control, major issues with QPQ, structural issues, etc. The stats are only relevant to the internal workings of DYK, and an utterly non-vital part of it at that(if one can even say a stat page is part of the workings, which is more than debatable). My issue is prioritization, like fixing the reasons embarassing stuff hits the main page on a regular basis first and not something as inconsequential as this. After that is sorted, go ahead and worry about unimportant project internas. And what a strange thing to say indeed Yoninah, there are tens of thousands of people improving the encyclopedia without chasing DYK stats, the vast majority don't take part in DYK, no? I am also not entirely sure how an entry on a stat page with 34 views a day on average which no one outside of this project ever looks at, or even knows of, is so vital for 'rewarding' people. And i actually do expect volunteers to do things out of the goodness of their hearts and without anything in return, that is the point of volunteering ones time and money after all. 85.16.161.201 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That is kind of the entire idea behind Wikipedia, you know? It's a VOLUNTEER project. I think we should ban and purge all such recognition tags, barnstars, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the threshold. The vast majority of articles still don't make 5,000 so it not as if there is a big influx of entries on the stats page. Seems completely unnecessary to change it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I also do not think the threshold should change. There is no actual problem here. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the monthly stats threshold. Those are for comparing within the month; I don't think many people are comparing June 2018 to June 2014 (or whenever the hours on the main page was different). From January to June 2018 there are under 260 items on the list (out of something like 1460 total DYKs over that period), so page size doesn't seem to be an issue. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hook 4 of queue 2

I fail to see how this is interesting:

... that American video game producer Ben Judd is fluent in Japanese, speaking the Kansai dialect?

Someone's able to speak a different language. Whoop-de-doo. Why don't we discuss his involvement in the video game industry or a game he's helped develop? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a foreigner knowing the Japanese language is a bit commonplace, but a foreigner being fluent in the Kansai dialect, a dialect that even among Japanese is considered weird (hence its frequent use in comedy and the like) does sound a bit unusual. Usually foreigners fluent in Japanese would be familiar with the standard (i.e. Tokyo) dialect, not Kansai's. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It gets Kansai dialect onto the main page, so I think it's useful. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Always good to promote an article which has been maintenance-tagged for ten years. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but it's not against the DYK rules so far as I am aware. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it was against DYK rules, just that your satisfaction at seeing a super shit article highlighted on the main page with a maintenance tag dating back ten years (that's rare!) is quite interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "super shit" article, it looks like a labour of love to me, and well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations. But admittedly I didn't take a close look at it before making the above comment. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The very first sentence states that one dialect is a group of dialects. And it just gets worse from there. And how the hell can something be "well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations"? Those are contradictory statements. --Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't "get worse from there", it's actually a quite informative article. And the reference section contains a list of seven books, several of them dedicated to the subject, so in that sense it's well referenced. Clearly it isn't well cited, which is why it has the tag. Gatoclass (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So the choppy sentences and poor grammar of much of the rest of the article are better in your estimation? A list of books is just a list of books, if they are not cited there is no way to know if they were referenced or not. --Khajidha (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess that's why it has the tag. Gatoclass (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a tweak to put the emphasis on the dialect. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early yesterday; here is an updated list with 38 of the non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 3. Right now we have a total of 205 nominations, of which 76 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I was wondering if something like this could be used on Template talk:Did you know. I'm not a frequent reviewer so I thought I should ask first. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, since the individual hooks are already on Template talk:Did you know, I don't see the benefit of duplicating this there given the extreme length of that page and the need to keep the lists in synch, especially when the list here will attract more eyes. If others think it would be useful, I'm willing to be convinced. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ernst Königsgarten

I would like to propose this article for DYK - but as I am from the German Wikipedia I do not know how to do it. Could somebody please help me or do it for me? My idea for a hook is "Did you know, that Ernst Königsgarten performed fencing for King Edward VII?" (Is the language correct?) Many thanks in advance, --Nicola (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I will be happy to nominate it for you, and I would suggest the hook should be worded:
With regard to the article, it appears to have been translated from the German Wikipedia and it needs to provide attribution on the talk page as to where the text came from, even if you were the person mainly responsible for the German language article. I have added the attribution template for you so that you will know how to do it for your next article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth At first: Thank you for your assistance! But: Königstgarten was Austrian :) In the German Wikipedia it is only a "translation" if the author is a different one - well then, it is not important to me. Now I wonder what will happen... Have a nice day, --Nicola (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK file featured on main page now moved to commons

I recently had a DYK hook featured on the main page that used a PD image from Wikipedia. That image has since been uploaded to Commons. When I get time and figure out the syntax for how to reference Commons images (with the same name as Wikipedia images), I'll change all the File Usage links from the WP image to link to the Commons image. I'm thinking that eventually that will mean the orphaned WP image will be deleted.

The DYK template is one of those File Usage articles but it says do not update it. Is this an exception to the rule to modify the template (it's my nomination if that matters) to reference the Commons file to maintain the traceability that this WP image was used? Or do I just leave it and have the WP image remain because it will have only the File Usage associated with that template? Thanks! Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The syntax for invoking a Commons image is the same as for invoking one uploaded to Wikipedia, so I don't think there will be an issue. If the template does somehow end up image-less then I don't see any reason not to fix it. It won't affect readers either way, and it would make the history clearer if the image were visible. › Mortee talk 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mortee. If the syntax is the same, then I shouldn't need to make any update to any of the wikitext, but how will the article know to pull from Commons now instead of Wikipedia if nothing is updated? Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea how it works on the backend, but since the invocation is the same I trust that it will work by magic. I'd guess that the software looks first for Wikipedia uploads and if none is present looks to Commons instead. If it doesn't work out that way then I'll happily help you debug. › Mortee talk 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a "Now Commons" template to the Wikipedia file. I think that means an admin will verify the file is in Commons properly then delete the WP version. I could see WP then "knowing" that since there's no WP version, it should find the Commons file. So I guess we just wait a bit to see if that happens... Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted from en. The instances of the image in the article and DYK nomination page etc still work, as expected. Thanks for the contribution to Commons! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it all works as promised and it was a success. Thanks for all your help! Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

removed Atlantis hook from MainPage. Need replacement?

Dear all, I just removed the hook on Atlantis from MainPage. The identical hook was on MainPage two days ago already. (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#15_August_2018) Perhaps a replacement hook is needed there? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone put in a suitable replacement hook, please? I have to go offline now. Sorry. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is incredible. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This was a deliberate replacement of a problematic hook in Queue 5 two and a half hours before (and an hour before the queue was promoted to the main page) by admin Amakuru, as witness the diff and the edit summary, which ends replacing with old Ireland hook from recent queue 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps so many problematic hooks shouldn't be making it to the queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My understanding is that it is standard practice when removing a hook at short notice to include already-promoted hooks from recent DYKs rather than attempting to switch around with other queues. After all, the DYK is not suddenly invalid just because it previously appeared, and I saw another admin doing exactly this a few weeks ago. If there is a better way to achieve this, without having to delve into the murky depths of the DYK process, then please enlighten me.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The better way to achieve it is for the project to stop summarily promoting erroneous or boring hooks. But until the nonsense QPQ and continual avoidance of some of the basic rules of DYK are changed for the good, this will not happen. So we'll need to continually triage sets as they approach completion for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
To answer Amakuru's question, the standard practice is to move in another hook from a prep or a later queue to replace the one removed; only when there is extremely little time is the hook replaced with a previously run hook. Note that not only is the hook replaced but the credit for it in the Credits section is as well; if you leave the existing credit there, the nominator is credited as their hook having been run and the article is as well, which shouldn't happen. (If you use a hook from a prep or another queue, then you need to move in the hook credit as well; if you are rerunning a hook, then it shouldn't be credited a second time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2018 (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 #1 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) 23:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

I passed over this hook for promotion because, although the image is fine, the hook is hardly lead-hook worthy. Now I see that this is a GA, and the first footnote offers up a few juicy facts, notably that he was a water-carrier, and that he never raced again after his win. Could we come up with a better hook please? Yoninah (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure Yoninah, but isn't winning the inaugural men's marathon pretty hooky by itself? If not, how about something like:
ALT1: ... that Greek Spyridon Louis, a former water carrier, became a national hero as a result of winning the inaugural modern Olympic men's marathon?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
How about ALT2. I have removed the word "former" because, like the other athletes, he was an amateur and needed to work to support himself. (First ever marathon event, first ever Olympic Games, and held in Greece!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As you like it. I don't think "first ever modern" is a great phrase but what do I know about English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article, in particular the "After the Olympics" section, is very interesting. That he never competed again, that he was received by Hitler in 1936, both of these facts are far more interesting than him being a water carrier, and more hooky than "became a national hero", after all most people who win a gold at the Olympics are considered in that light. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. How about:
ALT3: ... that after winning the first modern-day men's marathon at the 1896 Summer Olympics, Spyridon Louis (pictured) never competed again?
BTW the lead section does not summarize key points of the article and I have tagged it. I'm surprised this wasn't addressed in the GA review. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Should the hook be pulled/postponed first while the lead section issues are being addressed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just pulled the hook, not only due to the lead section, which would have been enough, but due to potential copying issues that appear to have been with the article since its creation in June 2004. The nomination has been reopened, and you may want to add ALT3 there, assuming the other issues can be dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Debussy

DYK that Debussy's birthday is 22 August, and that we are in the year of the centenary of his death? I proposed The Little Nigar a while ago, as a supporting DYK to the TFA that day, - it is still not reviewed. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It's (almost) approved now, thanks to Yoninah. The only objection was that it was an orphan, which I fixed. Can we proceed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done Approved and in special occasions holding area for August 22. Could someone move this into Prep 4? If they think the image can be run on the main page, please substitute for the lead image. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Credit tweaks

Sir Cusack Patrick Roney was moved to Cusack Patrick Roney. The hook in Queue 2 has been changed to reflect this, but the credits still need adjustment. They should be:

* {{DYKmake|Cusack Patrick Roney|Philafrenzy|subpage=Sir Cusack Patrick Roney}}
* {{DYKmake|Cusack Patrick Roney|Whispyhistory|subpage=Sir Cusack Patrick Roney}}

MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just goes to show that this system is wonky and needs better automation. Or perhaps we don't need these automated credits at all. Just an overhead to pat one another on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the bot used to have a problem with redirects (which is why I posted the above), but that's apparently been fixed, as everything seems to have been done correctly. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative text

I was surprised to learn that it is standard practice to not use the |alt= parameter in {{main page image}}. As a result, the caption text is repeated for the alt text, which is redundant (screen readers will read the same information twice). Although the community has not entirely agreed on the use of alt text, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images suggests that alt text should convey the same information as the image (i.e.: describe the image for those who cannot see it) while the caption should convey why the image is important in the context of the article (or accompanying hook/blurb). I hope that editors will consider meaningful alt text for the main page and elsewhere. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Are possible WP:CRYSTAL hooks allowed?

We've had long and winding discussions at both Template:Did you know nominations/Tribune East Tower and at Template:Did you know nominations/Ybor Stadium. The question has been raised: do proposed buildings (and perhaps, proposed things in general) count as WP:CRYSTAL? And are hooks on proposed events, structures, etc. allowed? The Tribune East Tower nomination has been stuck since February while this issue has been unaddressed, so now we need a discussion on how to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The articles and hooks are clear on the status of the projects, so there's no CRYSTAL violation. If the projects fall through, you could easily word it as "would have been the X" and it would still be valid. (Full disclosure: I nominated Ybor Stadium.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Per WP:CRYSTAL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. What are the reasons for thinking it is a general problem for DYK, or for these specific cases?—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

In Prep 5, the İsmet Kür hook was changed to

  • ... that the father, sister, and daughter of writer İsmet Kür are also writers?

But her father and sister are not living. Is this use of "are" OK, or should the hook be changed back? Gulumeemee (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have changed it back to the approved hook
  • ... that the writer İsmet Kür's father and sister were writers, and her daughter is also a writer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems better, but that's three repetitions of the word "writer". Can this be addressed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
We could say:
... that the father, sister, and daughter of writer İsmet Kür were also writers?
Even though the daughter is presumably still writing, this is a common form of speech. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

second nomination for a page?

Hi, last December I nominated a page (DYK nom: Brian Kershisnik) which turned out to be ineligible for DYK. It recently passed a GA review and is now eligible again. Should I edit the original nomination or create a new one? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Make a new one and add a comment, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks, will do. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Vaughan Williams

Debussy will be featured on 22 August (see above), Ralph Vaughan Williams on 26 August. I found that we can relate a DYK to him today, Psalm 47, written with Yoninah, so she can't review this time. Any chance to IAR? Sorry about another request like that. Bernstein will be celebrated on his centenary 25 August, and that DYK went normally ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ps: reviewed already! thank you! off to rehearsal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

We have a last-minute entry to the Special Occasions holding area for this set, but the queue was just promoted. Could an administrator bring it back to the prep area so we can move the approved hook into it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

@Antony-22, Pingumeister, Maliepa, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't know, but this sounds like a pretty boring hook if you ask me. "Scientists react positively to a scientist being appointed" seems routine or obvious. I know it's Trump, but still. Perhaps a hook about his weather computer simulation work or otherwise another hook might be better here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What could be more unexpected than Trump appointing someone qualified for a role, and this being welcomed by the relevant scientists? Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It just feels bland to be honest. If this were, say Obama or a Democrat president, such a hook wouldn't even be considered. Like I mentioned, yes he is a Trump appointee, but still. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=855814891"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know
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