Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:*] length and date are fine, but there isn't an inline citation for the hook in the article and I'm not sure that the website in the external links section is reliable, so I'd advise you to look somewhere else. I might be wrong about the website as it's in Polish. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:*] length and date are fine, but there isn't an inline citation for the hook in the article and I'm not sure that the website in the external links section is reliable, so I'd advise you to look somewhere else. I might be wrong about the website as it's in Polish. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::*English language Google Print inline hook added, sorry I've missed it before - I was writing several new articles at that time and it got confusing what I wanted to nominate :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::*English language Google Print inline hook added, sorry I've missed it before - I was writing several new articles at that time and it got confusing what I wanted to nominate :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
... that Jing Tsu remembers being called "female tiger" because her schoolteachers' punishments had little effect on her?
... that booing heard after the United Kingdom's entry at the Eurovision Song Contest 1984 was reportedly either a response to past football hooliganism, claims of lip syncing, or alleged plagiarism of the Supremes?
Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination.
Length - The Article should contain at least 1,500 characters in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles having more than 1,500 characters of prose still may be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
Verification - The DYK hook fact in the article needs an inline cite at the end of the sentence and the article in general should use inline, cited sources.
Date - The new article should be no more than five days old and the expanded article should be expanded at least fivefold with new text within the last five days.
Length
DYK qualifying characters: To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (instructions on the talk page), a free website like this, or an external softwareprogram that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. For Mac users, Apple has a Word counter widget available for Mac OS X 10.4 or later. Note: The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.
Lists: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose text. The listed items themselves are not counted as part the the 1,500 DYK qualifying characters
Verification
Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit, not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all.
Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
Other issues
Pictures: Pictures accompanying the DYK hook should be:
freely licensed suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely licensed pictures;
suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100x100px-wide resolution;
already in the article; and
relevant to the article.
Sounds: Sounds accompanying the DYK hook should have similar qualities to pictures, and should be formatted using {{DYK Listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}
Sample DYK suggestion strings
Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.
Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook:|article2=|article3=|article4= | (etc)
To include more than one author:|author2=|author3= | (etc)
To include alternate hooks:|ALT1=|ALT2= | (etc)
To add a comment:|comment=
To add the article you reviewed:|reviewed=
Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however. Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you. Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template. Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.
Note that you should only use one of the above templates for the original hook. If you want to suggest a second, alternative hook for the same article submission, just type it in manually. The above templates output useful code for each submission and if you employ them for alternative hooks, you will mess up the page formatting.
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|January 1}} Thanks, ~~~~
Symbols
If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
Symbol
Code
DYK Ready?
Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}
Yes
No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}
Yes
Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}}
Query
DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}}
Maybe
DYK eligibility requires some additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}}
No
Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible
Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem}} on the user's talk page, in case they do not notice if there is an issue.
Next update
DYK queue status
There are currently 4 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.
Where is my hook?
If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings at the bottom of this page.
If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.
(Will respond in more detail on my talk, where this issue was originally raised.) 5x expansions have to be done within 5 days, the same for new articles. Comparing the page sizes from 5 days ago, there hasn't been a fivefold expansion, sorry. Best regards, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook is not accurate in at least four respects. First, Guckeyson was not chosen as an actual All-American but instead was an "Honorable Mention." That is, he wasn't consensus All-American, first-team All-American or even second-team All-American. Calling him an "All-American" is iffy to start with. Second, the Maryland media guide here shows five Maryland players were Honorable Mention All-American before Guckeyson, so he wasn't even the first ever Honorable Mention. Third, there's no verification that he ever received an "offer" to play in the NFL, just that he was drafted in the 6th round -- that's a pretty low draft level in 1937, and just being drafted in the 7th round is not the same as receiving an offer. Fourth, even if he did receive an NFL offer in 1937, he did not turn it down to serve in WWII. He was drafted in 1937 -- more than four years before the U.S. even entered WWII. Sorry if this seems harsh. There ought to be a good hook in there, but we have to be accurate. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No, not harsh at all. You're absolutely correct regarding the All-American part and I'm glad you caught that (and boy do I feel dumb!). I've edited to make the correction. However, Source 1 states explicitly "he received several offers to play professional football," in addition to being drafted. In the 1937 Draft, he was still in the 51 percentile; I wouldn't call that particularly "low" (and it was 6th, not 7th round). Here's a new hook:Strikehold (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Article needs to be linked in the hook... But anyway, from what I can see, it's not a 5x expansion (12,000 characters to 42,000 characters, about 3.5x expansion). —Politizer /contribs02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Two Class AA minor league baseball players attended the same college. Is that the best hook there is?? Also, at 1300 characters, the article isn't long enough to qualify for DYK at this time. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Cbl62 is right; it's about 1277 characters right now, and the minimum is 1500. Is there any way you can expand it several hundred characters (which is really just a couple sentences) within the next couple days? —Politizer /contribs02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook should only contain a question (otherwise length and date verified). ALT: ... that a March fracture has nothing to do with the month of March, but is a fracture of metatarsals mostly occurring in the soldiers who need to do a lot of marching?
Length of hook and article verified. Sources that are either not accessible to me or in Norwegian accepted in good faith.- Mgm|12:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I like to second that sentiment. I wish more road articles looked like this one. If an editor needs to make an editorial decision on what to include, please don't skip this one.- Mgm|12:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook fact should be in-line cited in the article. Also, the hook needs to have something akin to (pictured) in it to use the image on the Main Page. -- Suntag☼13:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
... that when computer scientists and others treat questions such as "Would you like chicken or roast beef for dinner?" as yes-no questions they are exploiting a real linguistic ambiguity in such questions?
For DYK purposes, we rarely accept instances where a single reference "covers" an entire paragraph; we require that there be an inline citation next to each fact. For example, in the paragraph you and I are looking at in this article, the content of that footnote is ambiguous: it's at the very end of the paragraph, so a reader doesn't know if it's "covering" the whole paragraph or just the comment "Such questions are labelled declarative questions, and are also available as an option in those languages that have other ways of asking yes-no questions" (or, for that matter, the comment about intonation in Jakaltek). These referencing issues are exacerbated more, even, in cases like this, where the references are offline books so the reader can't easily check for himself to see what's in there. Therefore, a hook talking about the cross-linguistic variation or listing examples of other languages would not be accepted right now, with the reference the way it is; there would have to be separate inline citations for each example given in that paragraph (even if all the inline citations are all to the same source). —Politizer /contribs21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Then it's your own self-imposed loss. You make daft hoops to jump through, that actually make articles look terrible, and you'll end up with no-one jumping through those hoops. Such overlinking is patently unnecessary for actual readers, who don't need umpteen links to the same citation in a single paragraph. If DYK (or, more properly, the individual people at DYK such as you) require such silliness, then that is simply bureaucracy, rather than anything aimed at making a good article. You'll find plenty of discussion about this dotted around Misplaced Pages on people's talk pages and elsewhere, where it has been repeated time and again that one doesn't need a link to a citation on every sentence, and that it is a quite reasonable and normal idea that links to citations at the end of a paragraph cover that entire paragraph. I suggest that you start with Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes/Archive 4#Every sentence should have a reference?, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ailanthus altissima, the several times this is listed at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources/Archive Index, and this. Your bureaucracy here isn't to the betterment of the actual Misplaced Pages articles themselves. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As you wish. All I'm saying is, when you have a paragraph like that and then a single book reference at the end, if I as the reader don't have access to the book then I have no idea whether it's 5 (or however many) sentences all covered by one reference, or 4 bits of unreferenced OR followed by one other sentence that happens to have a reference. —Politizer /contribs22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
DYK requires that the DYK hook be inline cited in the article for the article to appear on the Main Page. The inline discussions mentioned above likely do not address the circumstances where the article will be linked from the Main Page, which receives 3,000,000+ hits a day. -- Suntag☼04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally when I use a single source for an entire paragraph I just note that this is the case in citation itself, I did something like that on 1st Gas Regiment. I am inclined to agree that if the fact is easily verifiable and the submitting editor goes that extra length to make sure a reader knows that the entire graf is cited to that one source then it really shouldn't be a problem for DYK purposes.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but in this case the fact isn't easily verifiable; the paragraph is a list of several examples, which in theory could come from anywhere, and the reference at the end of the paragraph is an offline source so most readers have no way to check. —Politizer /contribs05:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A simple solution is a note in the citation that it is for all examples. Offline really hasn't a thing to do with it, as most readers in the western world would have easy access to a local or university library, while its not as easily verifiable (being offline), it's still not difficult. If a citation is truly redundant there isn't much of a point in demanding multiple cites, especially if it could easily be solved with a note in the actual citation itself, as I did on the gas regiment article. Just my thoughts. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Not that I even think this is that big of a deal or anything, if it were me I would just add the citation, because who cares? It's Misplaced Pages, but if we can make it easier for nominators, we should.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, the hook doesn't come from the Cruttenden supported paragraph. It comes from Greg W. Scragg (1996). Problem Solving with Computers. Since the source was presented in the article as off line, Jonathan could have made the hook a little easier to verify through the wording in the article text. -- Suntag☼07:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just suggesting that we could do another hook if the creator improved the referencing in one paragraph; that's what started this. —Politizer /contribs12:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Jonathan took your above 21:43, 21 December 2008 post to mean that DYK wouldn't accept the original hook unless Jonathan added an inline reference on the end of each sentence in the Cruttenden supported paragraph. It looks like this thread resulted from a missundersdanding. (It would really be ironic if the missundersdanding were from a linguistic ambiguity.). -- Suntag☼13:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I located the "chicken or roast beef for dinner" quote in this source. The hook should be revised to say something like "when computer scientists and others intentionally treat". The phrase "linguistic ambiguity" should appear some place in the article. The idea that "all" computer scientist are "exploiting" the ambiguity when they treat the question as a yes-no question is based on author Greg W. Scragg's opinion about computer scientist. However, it is presented as a fact in the hook. -- Suntag☼07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Note sour plums, licorice root, and sweet osmanthus are in the Rocky Li reference; sugar and rose petals in the Li-chʻên Tun. Different sources seem to refer to the plums as "sour plums," "smoked plums," or "sour prunes," but AFAIK it's all pretty much the same thing. —Politizer /contribs07:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Re BorgQueen, suanmeitang is not a brand name, but just what the drink is called (like saying "orange juice" in English)...I don't know if that makes a difference or not. Re PFHLai: I don't have a problem if you fast-track it...I never knew it was drunk at hot pot places (in my experience, I would always get it at one of those nasty yanjiu shops when it's super-hot out, and drink it while I'm walking around or riding the bus)...if you can think of an ALT that works that in I'll take a look. —Politizer /contribs15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen asked me to comment. Although the suanmeitang article capitalizes the word, it can't be a proper name if it has been made for 1000 years. A Google Books search shows the word uncapitalized, and italicized when it isn't used as a dictionary entry. Art LaPella (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it's a HK/Canada phenomenom. I have no refs for the popularity of suanmeitang at hot pots (hence no hook for fast-tracking), but I look forward to having some suanmeitang tonight. Oh, well... Happy Winter Solstice, everyone. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
... that the stems of Asclepias cordifolia, or Heart-leaf milkweed, were made into rope and string by the Native American Miwok and used for skirts and capes? (5X expansion, Self-Nom)
It occurs to me just now that the Siege of Bastogne took place over Christmas 1944, so if someone wants quasi-seasonal filler for the 24th or 25th this might well work, with an appropriate comment in the hook. Shimgray | talk | 16:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Symbol possible vote.svg I've got some major notability concerns with this. Other than the Ratemyprofessors.com thing, I can't see much evidence of influence this person has had on his field, and the third paragraph especially seems somewhat fan-ish. I'm going to be tagging the article anyway for issues with WP:CREATIVE, and I would strongly advise against featuring it on DYK unless that problem is addressed; I might even AfD is, but first I'll see what the reaction is here and at the article talk page. —Politizer /contribs21:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel he is notable since (1) he was the highest-rated professor for 2008 on Ratemyprofessors.com (which is no small feat), (2) he taught more than 10 percent of the BYU student body in 2008 (which shows his impact), and (3) he is prolific in the LDS Church literature. Not all of this can (or even should) be conveyed in the hook, but I don't see any problem with notability. --Eustress (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Randy L. Bott#Notability; it will probably be better to have a discussion of general notability issues there, and then address DYK-specific issues here once that is resolved. Fortunately, we still have a good week or so to get all this worked out. —Politizer /contribs21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook is worded a little awkwardly (and so is the sentence in the article lead-in, actually); maybe it should be more along the lines of "the first work of music intended for instruments (rather than voices) to be printed in England"? —Politizer /contribs23:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was trying to think of a good way to word that while the article; never did figure it out. Yours sounds better, but I'd lose the "intended" and perhaps the parentheses -> "the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England" BuddingJournalist23:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the parentheses, but I think there should at least be commas if the parentheses are taken out. Or wait, something just came to me as I was typing this:
I don't think one could accurately characterize it as "England's first ever work of music for instruments". The source for this specifically mentions that it's the "first appearance in print" (emphasis mine) of music for instruments. What about "that in 1599, English bookseller William Barley helped publish Anthony Holborne's Pavans, Galliards, Almains (pictured), the first printed appearance in England of music for instruments rather than voices?"? I'm also fine with "the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England"; I disagree on the commas. BuddingJournalist01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Although, upon rereading, I'm liking the originally hook a bit more now too. For some reason, I'm not seeing/hearing the awkwardness anymore... BuddingJournalist01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to another reviewer to decide. But at the very least, "first work printed in England of music" ought to be replaced with "the first work of music printed in England." —Politizer /contribs01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
That solves one problem (that pesky "of"), but introduces another: it separates "music" from "for instruments" leading to "printed in England for instruments". Hmm. There are so many permutations, but none of them seem to be quite right to me. BuddingJournalist01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the new rewording in the article ("the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England,") is fine. —Politizer /contribs01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that in 1599, English bookseller William Barley helped publish Anthony Holborne's Pavans, Galliards, Almains (pictured), the first instrumental (rather than vocal) music to be printed in England? One might use "scores" rather than "music" perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
But there are still serious issues, not the least of which being the lack of references in the articlein general (there are only two references to anything other than the case itself) and the specifically the lack of a source for this fact. —Politizer /contribs23:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
But that source isn't presented in a context saying the laws repealed were the last sodomy laws in Australia. That information might be in the source (might because I haven't taken the time to read the entire thing), but it has to be presented in the article as well. —Politizer /contribs01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
... that, despite presenting the Irish music television show 2TV, Dave Fanning claims never to have done any work on the show and didn't even know the location of its office? (new article, self-nom) --➨Candlewicke18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is very good and meets all our standards (the only minor thing it needs is work on the lead-in, which I mentioned at the talk page). But this hook seems a little dry. Are there any crazy little facts or anything that you could suggest as an alternate hook? —Politizer /contribs23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not the most exciting subject ever. How about:
ALT1: ... that the sovereignty of Canada has become an increasingly relevant issue in recent years as Arctic ice in Northern Canada has melted?
I verified this a moment ago, but I just realized we will have to check it a little more closely...since it was originally made mostly by combining other articles, I think we'll have to see how much of it really is "new" content. I'll try to take a look sometime soon, but if any other reviewers are reading this it would also help to have a second opinion, as always. —Politizer /contribs06:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
My head-count was apparently wrong. The article is expanded now. However, any help from German and Russian speakers would be appreciated, the main source in German at and in Russian , . --Soman (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I added an image after Mifter's review, so you might want to re-check before promoting. It might be too unclear for the main page anyway. —Politizer /contribs17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to be using the graph, we can create a special version just for the main page, right? Seems an effective approach would be to take the graph, add a nice big red arrow under the relevant peak, and put "ELAN" next to it... it'll show up clearly here, and the article itself can still use the normal one. Shimgray | talk | 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, if you think (pictured, first peak) is unclear. Does anyone have Photoshop? If I added the arrow myself I would be doing it in MS Paint, and it would be butt-ugly. (and now that the semester is over I don't think I can get to my work computer that has Photoshop.) —Politizer /contribs21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, it may or may not be necessary, because at the request at Graphic Lab (linked above in Suntag's post) I asked for them to enlarge the labels on each peak...if those labels are enlarged long enough to show up well on the main page, maybe we could just replace (pictured, first peak) in the hook with (pictured, N1)? —Politizer /contribs21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ideally it should be an SVG file, but until it gets converted, I'll give it a polish in Photoshop nonetheless. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I imagine whoever does it at Graphic Lab will probably be vectorizing it, so maybe it's better to wait until that version is available? Suntag, do you know what the turnover is usually like over there? —Politizer /contribs21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above vectorized image isn't looking so hot at 100x100px. Either we can use a bigger image (?) or have one prepared to appear clear at 100x100px. -- Suntag☼03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I just tried cropping it to show only the one peak...so it's back to JPEG (i did it in Paint, like a hobo) but might show up better. Only problem is now there's no x-axis...and did I mention it's a JPEG again (so the labels are clearer now, but it looks choppy around the edges)? —Politizer /contribs03:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate subject for the main page? I don't think so myself, but I am willing to accept that views may be different on this. Still, this should be discussed. --Nlu (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that before nominating the article. I am personally opposed to suicide or assisted suicide except in the most extreme situations and recognize this is a topic on which people have strongly differing viewpoints. However, Ratel has put together a well-written and well-researched article on an inportant topic of public debate that is not done in a expolitative way. So I thought it worthy of a DYK nomination. On reflection, the hook may be interpreted by some as having a promotional tone, which I did not intend. If someone wants to propose an alternative hook for this, feel free. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
DYKs hooks shouldn't be put in a negative way, but this hook is simply telling where they are marketed from. If the hook was something like... oh... I don't know... "... that suicide bags are used to assist people in committing suicide?" (I don;t even know if that is true since I didn't thoroughly read through the article)... then that would be negative. This hook seems fine. I'm open to anyone who disagrees... – RyanCross (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
To say that this article is an endorsement of suicide is to say that articles about war represent an endorsement of military conflict. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Where did I (or anyone else) say that this is an endorsement of suicide? But while articles on sexual behavior do not represent an endorsement to engage in such behaviors, sexually-related articles are, while not prohibited, still generally avoided on the main page. I do believe this article presents a problem; whether that problem is big enough to prevent it from being a DYK article is the question. --Nlu (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I never said you said it was endorsement of suicide... I was just saying. Anyway, I agree it is a kind of "problem". I'll let someone else comment. – RyanCross (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to consider that suicide is illegal in most countries. Of course many people think it should not be, but that's another question. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The "illegal" part doesn't bother me so much. Murder and marijuana use are also illegal in most places, but we regularly feature hooks on cannabis and murder. So long as it's not perceived as advocacy of the position, I'm ok with it. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook seems creepy to me, mostly because it comes across as an advertising blurb (compare "Did you know that Sony plasma TVs are marketed by Sears and Circuit City?"), but additionally because the product it advertises is one that might appeal to unstable people. A different hook is needed. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, though, I noted my reservations to the subject at the outset, but if the initial hook is found to be creepy, I'm not sure what hook about this subject would not be found creepy. A hook describing the design or mechanics of how it works would likely be found even creepier. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(alt.hook)... that an exit bag, consisting of a large, clear plastic bag with a drawstring, is a commercially available device for committing suicide? -- (Hopefully this is less creepy and doesn't sound like an advertisement.... For use on Dec.28th? That's equivalent to "April Fools' Day" in the Spanish-speaking world....) PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Combined duplicate nomination from the 20th to an existing nom from the 19th, moved based on history of work on this article in mainspace to the 18th. - Dravecky (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Itzamnaaj K'awiil, king of the Classic PeriodMaya city of Dos Pilas in Guatemala was so embarrassed about being born in exile that the calendar dates recording his birth were altered?
ALT2 ... that B'alaj Chan K’awiil, the Classic PeriodMaya king of Dos Pilas in Guatemala, dramatically switched sides to become the vassal of his long standing enemy after 20 years of loyal service?
ALT3... that a principal work of mathematician Wilhelm Cauer was twice destroyed during World War Two and was only published after his death by his family who reconstructed it from the table of contents?
ALT1... that the career of the mathematician Wilhelm Cauer, known for filter design, was stifled because he had a notable Jewish ancestor, Daniel Itzig?
Shouldn't be of any real problem, but just pointing out that the hook length is 203 characters. Usually not enough to cause any major stir--up. Mastrchf (/c) 14:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Added an additional reference to the article quoting from the doumentary that used footage of Ringer and showcased his photos that sums up his significance. Hope that provides more verification as requested. Dgabbard (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Geographic location of the Wolpa and a date context in the hook would aid the hook. A hook conveying more about a wooden synagogue might produce a better hook. -- Suntag☼01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the hook is slightly misleading, suggesting the article is about the synagogue in Wolpa, while in fact it is more general (and thus, I think, even more interesting). In other words, I agree with Suntag above :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The source says "The Act also designates three new Wild and Scenic Rivers --- Wildhorse Creek, Little Wildhorse Creek and Kiger Creek --- and adds two new segments --- Ankle Creek and Mud Creek --- to the existing Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River. Also, the first ever Redband Trout Reserve has been created to improve stream health and fish habitat." The geographic scope is not clear. These did not clear up the issue. Also, the source wording does not seem to indicate that "Blitzen Wild and Scenic River" is part of the first ever Redband Trout Reserve. -- Suntag☼14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. I tracked down and linked to sources with the language of the legal acts that established the Little Blitzen as wild and scenic and that created the trout reserve. Unfortunately, the establishing act for the reserve does not list the tributaries by name and requires interpretation. In part the act says, "The Secretary shall designate the Donner und Blitzen Redband Trout Reserve consisting of the Donner und Blitzen River in the Wilderness Area above its confluence with Fish Creek and the Federal riparian lands immediately adjacent to the river." The Little Blitzen is above Fish Creek and at the very least passes through the main stem's riparian zone at the confluence. The act also says that the "Redband Trout Reserve does not include any private lands adjacent to the Donner und Blitzen River or its tributaries". I take this specific protection for private lands along the tributaries to mean that Congress was thinking of the entire Blitzen watershed above Fish Creek when it created the reserve. I have not yet found a map that clearly shows the wilderness, the cooperative management area, the trout reserve, and the private lands in a clear way. If I find one, I will add a link to it. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which quickly answered my question about the geographic definition of the trout reserve and directed me to a supporting document, a giant pdf file. In the latest revision to Little Blitzen River I have quoted from page RMP-39 of that pdf document and sourced the quote, which clearly includes the Little Blitzen in the reserve. Finetooth (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
How come the brothers have slightly different lastnames? Is there an elder brother named Gjøstean, and then younger brothers named Gjøsteon and Gjøsteun? --74.13.125.161 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Length - Ole Georg Gjøsteen (1,688 DYK Characters), Johan Gjøstein (2,018 DYK Characters) - dates (17 December 2008), and hook wording verified. The hook is 202 DYK characters without "Ole Georg Gjøsteen", but I'll knock off the 3 letters for "and" needed to make a multiple hook. A few other letters needed for a multiple hook could be discounted as well. The references are in another language and not formatted to where I can tell if they are books, news articles, blogs, or websites. If someone else thinks the actual sources used are fine, then everything else checks out. -- Suntag☼15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Blogs? Nearly all the sources, such as the ones supporting the hook fact, bear the cite encyclopedia tag. By the way the NSD link doesn't work inside a cite web template. Punkmorten (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The expansion uses material from Chilika Development Authority, a site that seems to have a self interest in the Chilka Lake. -- Suntag☼16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
ALT 1:... that Chilka Lake(pictured), a highly productive ecosystem with rich fishery resources, sustains more than 0.15 million fisherfolk living in 132 villages in and around the periphery of the lake?--Nvvchar (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Chilka Development Authority (CDA) is the only Organization (set up under the Government of Orissa) which is entrusted with the responsibility of taking all ameliorative actions and to maintain the lake or the lagoon. Ramsar Convention and the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India also deals only with the CDA as far as the lagoon is concerned. Govt. organizations do not have any self interest nor profit motive and are funded by the Goverment and international organizations for all its actiivities.There is no other agency responsible for the lake. Hence, only reliable references from CDA have been mostly cited, apart from ohers.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Your right. Chilka Development Authority is not the lake itself, so I withdraw any object in that regard. -- Suntag☼18:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the more interesting fact about this is that he only used words that were spelled the way they sounded. —97198 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 97198 that Rose's unusual spelling rule is the more interesting point for a hook. Also many references are bare url's. Cbl62 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
ALT 1:... that the English dramatist Edward Rose(pictured) published The Rose Reader, "a new way of teaching to read," that only used words that were spelled as they sounded? The Luizer (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The cited source for this is the book itself - I'm not sure what other reviewers think, but I think a secondary source supporting this would be better. —97198 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My own thoughts on this were that there are very few secondary sources for this particular bit, and that the actual book would give more information anyway. It has an introduction in which he explains the ideas, and if a reader wants to know more he can just read the rest of the book. Thank you for all your input! The Luizer (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The current link at footnote 2 makes no mention of Connally that I can see. Footnote 3 appears to confirm he played a part in Close Encounters, but that's an imdb reference, which has been questioned as a valid source for DYK. Also, there is no in-line citation for his having been a county judge. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
length and date are fine, but there isn't an inline citation for the hook in the article and I'm not sure that the website in the external links section is reliable, so I'd advise you to look somewhere else. I might be wrong about the website as it's in Polish. JollyΩJanner00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Alt hook, "... that Muddasar Awan was not home when Canadian anti-terrorism authorities stormed his house, so had his lawyer drive him to the police station and turn him in after authorities didn't return his calls? Sherurcij22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Length and date both verified. But there is no in-line citation for "first industrial scale gold mine." Also, in looking briefly at the cited sources, I don't find that term. Reference 7 calls it the "first commercial open pit gold mine in Niger." And Reference 10 calls it the "first commercial gold project" in Niger. Maybe an in-line citation can be added, and the hook modified to track the language from one of these sources. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This link says that, as of Dec 12, 2008, "A political scientist who advocates this approach calls this emerging field genopolitics." I didn't find the term in either of the two 2007 references cited in the article. Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL doesn't seem to reveal much. It seems likely that someone may assert Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms, which may be an issue if the article is linked on the Main Page at that time. I found a January 24, 2005 mention of the term and added it to the article, but that might not be enough. -- Suntag☼17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Date and length OK. However, the article is currently missing an in-line citation in the actual sentence in the article that supports the hook. Remember that by the DYK rules, an in-line citation supporting the hook fact must occur in the actual sentence in the article which refers to the hook fact. Please add an in-line sitation to the sentence "At this time, it looks much bigger than the Tigris River" in the article, and then everything will be OK. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The reference that is being cited for this hook says he followed the first 9 lessons of a language course. The article says he spoke no Russian at all and the hook says he didn't speak fluent Russian. That's three different meanings. - Mgm|09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
First nine lessons of a language course = not fluent russian; I'll standardise the article to say "fluent russian" and that should sort it. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
That looks fine to me; can you take one last look in the article and make 100% sure that there's nothing else inadvertently copied from any of the sources? —Politizer /contribs06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Article histories, lengths, and refs are all good, and at first glance it looks like POV and everything is clean. Can someone do a check and make sure none of these has been on ITN? —Politizer /contribs03:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the article sums it up. A celebrity would be someone who is well-known, maybe sings in a band or appears on TV, etc. A solicitor is some sort of authoritative legal professional as far as I'm aware. I presume Misplaced Pages even explains both of these in more detail. In this case the two combine to create an unusual personality known purely it seems for appearing on television shows and flashing his cash. --➨Candlewicke17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not really sure I understand...it seems to be something of a neologism. A search on WP for the term "celebrity solicitor" only yields 3 results with that exact phrase, and all three of them are in reference to this same guy. —Politizer /contribs06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well if it's a common enough term to be used in three articles... but who said it was a term? Why not take it as two individual words, condensed for the purposes of DYK with its character limitations and the like? Not to mention that I didn't realise a Misplaced Pages search was considered credible/reliable... :O --➨Candlewicke09:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Article length and history good...but it's not the most interesting hook. Is there anything else you can dig up from the articles? They seem to have a lot of information. (Also, on a side note, I tagged Robert Bent Knox as needing sections.) —Politizer /contribs03:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I just happened to check in before going to bed. I have not made a double nomination before, but it seems to me that such a thing only works if you can connect them; and the connection here is surely that they were father and son. If being an Irish archbishop who fathers a British general is a bore, then that's a point of view... we could perhaps say instead that they were both descended from the first Viscount Northland, but to me that is a bore. If the nominations are separated, then perhaps possible hooks are
Well, I think it's possible to do a still-interesting double hook and focus on an interesting fact about just one of them. For example, here is a template for how it might go (I can't for real suggest a hook yet, since I haven't read the articles closely):
It's a cited quote? Then it needs to be in quotation marks here, and properly attributed in the article. I couldn't find the words "possibly most influential" anywhere in the article, though. —Politizer /contribs00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It's properly attributed, but I overstated above. It's a summarization of a cited quote. The line in the article is, Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It would be much easier to do as you request if "possibly" were part of the quote and inside the quotes, but "possibly" is a summary; the original quote in the cited source is, Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. may be the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision. I think the line as stated above is appropriate for DYK without quotes as a summarization of the original quote but will propose an alternate line in case accuracy trumps form:
Length, references, and history all good for both hooks...I don't like the way the article is linked in the hook, though; it's a little cryptic, and the article is about an almost 100-year period, not just one year or one season. I think it should be piped and bolded at "Maryland Terrapins football," rather than at "first official season" or "for one year." —Politizer /contribs02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hook1: "... that, during the team's first official season, a Maryland Terrapins football player ran the wrong way for 30 yards, which was described as having shown "an unaccreditable ignorance of football?"
Hook2: "... that legendary football coach Bear Bryant served as the Maryland Terrapins head coach for one year, and resigned after the university president reinstated a player Bryant had suspended?"
Refs need cleaned up, too many bare URLs. Also, the dates in the article are often very vague: there are things like saying that Tharpe died "in the 1990s" or that a school was renamed "in the early 21st century." —Politizer /contribs02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Article has tone problems, some of which I might clean up if I'm bored, but that's no guarantee that it's clean. And, could you please fix the references (adding the relevant date/title/author/publisher information, and making sure there are no bare URLs)? I don't think anyone will review it until the references are cleaned up. —Politizer /contribs02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Currently only 1387 characters -- a few short of the required 1500. Also, I'm unsure whether the photographer's Creative Commons license is enough on the image, since it is in large part a photograph of a company's trademark/log. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: the image: trademarks are OK, unless there is a copyright issue. Most older trademarks are not copyrighted. Trademarks and copyrights are two separate types of intellectual property right. I doubt there is an issue here. - Jmabel | Talk05:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it enough that "most older trademarks are not copyrighted"? Don't we need to be extra careful in terms of what images we put on the Main Page? I don't know the answer to the first question, so I'm just raising the question. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the West Australian government's official heritage designation, the sign may date to the 20s and its authorship is not entirely clear. But if we go by what's in the article and apply Australian copyright law as described at that article, it's probably not in the public domain yet as the period is 70 years after the death of the author when that date is known. So if Ted Pulham is the probable author, even if he died right after finishing the painting 70 years has not yet elapsed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not the greatest but it is a play on the name and it manages to combine the borderline risqué with an ambience of opinion on the band... --➨Candlewicke01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm...I think I just don't get the pun. Is there something obvious I'm missing? (or does it make more sense in another variety of English than mine?) —Politizer /contribs01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well basically, what I make of it anyway, and I guess I'm going to have to swear for the sake of swearing, but the phrase I imagine being used in this case is "fuckin brilliant". However it has been shortened to an even more colloquial form than its origin and in doing so takes in the first three letters of the band's name. Even moreso, the apostrophe may be used suggestively in more than one way to suggest the "fuc" of the phrase or "the" of the first part of the band's name. Not the most inventive pun but nonetheless quite effective for its purpose and eliminates the need for any unprintable expletives which may cause difficulty for any popular broadsheet daily, whilst simultaneously triggering the attentive mind to the titillation of experiencing such an explicit double entendre. --➨Candlewicke04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Perhaps (with apostrophe) directly afterwards? Any other recommendations or do I take that as approval? --➨Candlewicke22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It shows up nicely if you put it in italics, like this: "'kin brilliant." (Personally I think it's nicer with a lowercase k, but if the exact quote is capital K then we probably shouldn't mess with it.) —Politizer /contribs22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the hook reflects how the Wahhabi Saudi Government would characterize the situation. The article indicates the sites are being revised as part of redevelopment projects. -- Suntag☼14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The historical sites which lie in areas of redevelopment are definately not being preseved in anyway by the Saudis. The "dispute" on the talk page are merely the rantings of a disgruntled Sunni! Chesdovi (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Chesdovi on "definitely not being preserved in any way". (No remark on "rantings" but that's beside the point.) This has been an ongoing story for several years now, and I believe the basic facts are well established. - 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"Not being preserved" is a long way from "systematically destroyed". There are also some contentious statements in this article, such as that the destruction is mainly due to religious fanatics - the LA Times article says a lot of it is through development. Also I think the al-Islam org website is of dubious reliability. The article also has a somewhat shrill tone. So I think this article needs some smartening up before it can be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it is through development, but few other than the Wahhabis could consider such historic sites, largely intact for over a millennium, to be suitable places for development. Again, Shias consider many of these sites holy, and even many Sunnis would consider them to be of enormous historic importance, but Wahhabi theology sees that as smacking of idolatry. Not my article (I just added links), and this will be my last comment on the matter, but I don't see this as particularly contentious. The controversy isn't over whether these sites are historic or are being destroyed, it is over whether there is a value to saving historic sites. - Jmabel | Talk01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with this hook, then, is that I don't see a direct reference for why he was arrested (just a lot of speculation in a later section). —Politizer /contribs21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is why I didn't phrase it this way. The idea that Trentadue was interrogated at all about the Oklahoma City bombing is essentially conspiracy theory. In brief, Trentadue was a convicted bank robber who died in custody under suspicious circumstances. The only alternative I think would be to emphasize the conspiracy theory nature of the article. Suggestion below. Ford MF (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else called it a "conspiracy theory"? I also got that impression the first time I read the article, but looking at it now, all I can say for sure is some people thought there was foul play..."conspiracy theory" might be a little strong. I dunno. —Politizer /contribs03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed the inline insignia image. Also, while having the flags of the state capitol flown at half-mast for him is certainly notable, I'm not sure if it's the most interesting thing for a DYK hook; are there any other good facts from the article that you could suggest? —Politizer /contribs20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Verified. But the sentence for that fact was copied exactly from the source in this edit; can you go back through and take a second look to make sure everything else is worded differently than the sources it came from? —Politizer /contribs15:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Expansion wise it seems okay, but I actually only count 1327 characters of prose, which would not make the cut. , unfortunately. Wizardman23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I recounted (with prosesize.js) and still got an expansion of only 553 characters to 1477, less than 3x. And as for the "we should count bytes instead of characters" crowd, it's less than 1.5x expansion there—58k to 84k. In any case, it's nowhere near the required minimum. —Politizer /contribs23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Length and refs good. But "One of the earliest advocates" is implied by all the sources, but not really explicit...could we replace it with something more like "played a major role in the creation of" or "was an early advocate of" or something like that? —Politizer /contribs17:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If the article is unpatented and thus in the public domain, I don't think the court refers to the article as an invention. You might be able to find a news article or something that uses such terminology. For the most part, the article is unsources. Reliable sources that are independent of Sears v. Stiffel probably would be the way to go. You might want to use info from Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL. This string narrows the book choice down a bit. -- Suntag☼20:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
A cursory search tells me you're technically correct on the choice of words, although Sears v. Stiffel also explicitly applies to patented inventions that fall out of patent, so the DYK summary is also technically correct. Tempshill (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that's fine, though it's interesting that this is a Constitutional right and not merely something from legislation or case law. Tempshill (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The footnote link seems to have been botched, and as a result when I go direct to findlaw via the xlink I get that screen asking for its registration. Try using justia (it's totally free) as your source for the decision text (and cite the actual page number on which the Court says this, not just the decision as a whole). Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Citing the case itself in the footnotes might not be the way to go. I don't think DYK would promote a Misplaced Pages article on a book or film where the article only consisted of a plot section created by reading the book itself or watching the film. That would seem to promote what a Misplaced Pages editor thinks about a topic rather than conveying what third-party, published sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy are saying about the topic. -- Suntag☼13:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is why when I do SCOTUS case articles I actually quote the opinions at some length in the article to prove the point (see, for instance, here, for an example from one that reached GA level). If a good link was provided, I would add quotes from the case to back up the assertions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, article says he's German. Sources say he's Austrian. It's easy to make a mistake since Austrians speak German, but that issue should be addressed as well. - Mgm|11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerning his nationality, I found no German language sources indicating that he is Austrian, and since he works for a German theatre it seems logical to call him a "German" actor. (The accident happened in Austria.) Concerning ONEEVENT issues, he has given a single interview about the accident , in which he complained about the media attention. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
One event does not necessarily disqualify an article, and this man has done more than one notable thing. I'll look around for some German sources, because I can't find any more English ones. Regarding the name question: Ref no. 3 says that he lives in Hamburg, which would therefore make him German. ~theeditorofthewiki~ 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel Case's concerns; maybe it would be more appropriate to have cited Notability rather than BLP, but either way, this is an article that I wouldn't be surprised to see someone trying to AfD if the throat-slitting weren't there. Regardless of whether or not he's notable, this episode does appear to be part of an ongoing police investigation, which might render it inappropriate for DYK. —Politizer /contribs21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing decent hits from Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL, so notability might not be the issue. The throat-slitting was widely reported and was accidential/unintentional on Schiller's part. I think the DYK objection may be that the text on the throat sliting is not part of a more detailed, overall view of his life. Most of the text characters are devoted to the throat sliting. A solution here would be to balance out the throat sliting incident in the article with more info on the rest of his life. -- Suntag☼13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand the objection to putting the throat-slitting on the main page. This is his main claim to fame, in the Western media's eyes. I have added a bit on his early life, but most German sources I find are mentions of him appearing in a play or something along those lines. Anyway, another alt hook (below). ~theeditorofthewiki~ 15:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the throat-slitting being on the Main Page. I think the above concerns is that the article presently reads as The accidential throat slitting of Daniel Hoevels rather than a biography. Such a main topic has obvious issues. Adding more non throat slitting bio info to the article may help. -- Suntag☼04:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Two little questions... first of all, what happened after the guy's candidature was declared invalid—what was its effect on the party? Secondly, there are lots of redlinks... are any of these things that might have an article and just need to be dab'ed, or are they definitely redlinks? (I noticed that DSAP doesn't even seem to have an article on German wikipedia.) I'm not too familiar with this part of history, but I would imagine it would be desirable to delink all the names other than Heinrich Scheibler, since he seems to be the only one that's really significant (in comparison to the others). —Politizer /contribs15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The expansion looks good, but it still uses only one source...do you have any other sources you could dig up quickly? Also, did you make a decision about what to do with the redlinks? —Politizer /contribs15:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I have no other sources. This is a subject which was virtually no online source. There is a book in Polish on German movements in Silesia in the interbellum, but its not online. As per the redlinks, i think except Scheibler the other links on individuals could be removed. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Blachetta-Madajczyk uses the book Ludzie Walki as one of its main sources on the section on DSAP-Linke, appears to be material on Scheibler in that one. However, its in Polish and I can only get string-view on google books. --Soman (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Been waiting for a long time, and no one has verified this, so I will. Foreign-language refs accepted in good faith. I don't like that there's only one source, but the source seems to be reliable at least, and there don't seem to be other sources that could be used. —Politizer /contribs06:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
DYKs for December holidays other than December 25, 2008 holidays
Note: As we did at Halloween, we are "breaking the rules" (including the unwritten ones) in that these articles were prepared in under 5 days but are being delayed. Post your DYK suggestions here on topics related to holidays of this season that are not listed at December 25 Holidays.
Comment Since Champagne is a big part of New Years Eve celebrations, I've been working on several Champagne/sparkling wine related articles for DYK. My goal is to try and get one related hook on each set that runs throughout Dec. 31st (I'll have more suggestions coming over the next week or so). I would understand if there are constraints with other hooks needing to be featured. Normally wine articles don't fit into our DYK "theme days" like Halloween/Christmas, etc so I thought I would have fun with this one. :) Agne/06:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems an appropriate request and seems do able. Once it is determined which queue will post at 18:00 to 24:00 (UTC), then your three other hooks can be posted to the queues that follow that one. -- Suntag☼13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
References for hook include the Oxford ref in the lead and the Johnson Vintage ref under the "Early history" section. Feel free to propose an alt if you see something more eye catching in the article. -- Agne/03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the sentences containing "pink" had an in line citation, so the hook can't be verified at present. Also, which sentence in the article supports the idea that "for most of its history, Champagne was pinkish"? -- Suntag☼13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The "most of its history" part is a summarization of the entire article which talks about the evolution of wine in Champagne and the relatively recent phenomenon of white sparkling wine. Essentially every reference used in the article give verification to that summary. The main part of the hook comes from the very first line of the lead which is sourced to the Oxford ref (currently footnote #1) as noted and the second to last sentence of the third paragraph in "Early history" to the Johnson Vintage ref (currently footnote #2). When I write articles I ensure that everything is sourced. When the entire paragraph is sourced to the same reference, it is redundant to add the same footnote to every other line. Hence the reason I point you in the direction of where the refs are. Besides, all my sources are offline anyways and so it is going to get an AGF tick. There is even less reason to add redundant duplicate footnotes for that. Agne/17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to say anything about "that for most of its history, Champagne (pictured) was pinkish and non-sparkling". I asked for the inline ref in case I'm wrong and it is standard typically applied on this DYK page. WP:OR states "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources". While it may be true that the change from 5th century pinkish Champagne in the 17th century (or when ever) may mean that "for most of its history, Champagne (pictured) was pinkish," without such information being source to a reliable source, I don't think it appropriate to include such information on the Main Page as a Wikipedian editor summarization of the entire article. -- Suntag☼17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a rather bizarre injection of OR synthesis. If published sources are saying that a region has been making still pinkish wine for roughly 1300 years compared to the 200 years that sparkling white has been popular, it is fair to say that those sources view Champagne as a being a still pink wine for "most of its history". OR synthesis would be if I try to create an entirely "new thought" from among the sources, not if I regurgitate what was it is already published in the sources, just phrasing it differently. There is no "new thought" being put forth here. But for appeasement, I added the redundant "for most of its history" phrase to the lead paragraph for you. Agne/18:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I think it's clear from the text that for most of its history, champagne was non-sparkling. I admit I didn't pay much attention to the "pinkish" bit. I'll probably have to read it again to satisfy myself that is the case. But I do think Agne could have made the article a little easier to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an editor or reader can put together the information in the article to reach the DYK hook conclusion. It still seems to be OR and with so much well sourced information in the article, I don't think we need to use OR on the Main Page. -- Suntag☼ 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Struck per edit conflict. -- Suntag☼18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a sourced statement which says the region's wine was pinkish until Dom Perignon devised a technique to make white wine from red grapes in the 17th century. Since the article also states that wine has been made in Champagne since Roman times, I can't see much reason to challenge the hook statement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah... I didn't know. We have different customs on this corner of the world ;) Article is good to go then. Chamal13:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
DYKs relevant to December 25, 2008 holidays
Note: As we did at Halloween, we are "breaking the rules" (including the unwritten ones) in that these articles were prepared in under 5 days but are being delayed. Post your DYK suggestions here on topics listed at December 25 Holidays, such as Christmas, Quaid-e-Azam's Day, The feast day of Anastasia of Sirmium, and Yule.
I would be fine with that. It would only mean delaying the normal appearance at DYK 2-3 days. Should I move it down there now, or will it get moved when this queue runs to the end? --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this qualifies to DYK, as it seems not to be true. The statement of Bóg się rodzi being the National Christmas anthem of Poland seems to be just OR of christmasarchives.com. The second statement, that of considering the carol to be the national anthem of Poland, is not true as well. As far as I read here, it was an opinion of a single person, namely a poet Jan Lechoń. Misplaced Pages should not follow poor sources--and if it does, we get painful results, just like here. There's no such thing like "the National Christmas hymn of Poland". /odder01:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of striking out the above comment as misinformed. The references supporting the contested info are quite reliable, i.e.: A. G. Piotrowska from Jagiellonian University, Institute of Musicology; Jerzy Snopek, author of a book called Oswiecenie. Szkic do portretu epoki (Warsaw, 1999); and Maria Hubert von Staufer, author of six Christmas anthologies including Christmas Around the World. Facts are correct. --Poeticbenttalk04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
That comment wasn't misinforming anyone. Those sources don't cite any other books, and as it is, we can consider those statements to be personal opinions of the authors, not facts. The information is clearly disputable and controversial, and until we get something more than just a single sentence, I think it should be marked somehow (or, better, reworded) not to misinform the readers. /odder09:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The song title should have quotes around it, so I suggest:
I don't think striking out that comment was a good idea, Poeticbent. Even if it was a misinformed comment, you don't have the right to change it in any way AFAIK. That is his POV and he is entitled to it. If you disagree with the idea, your job is to provide facts and prove otherwise. Chamal13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record - I wanted the hook to be sourced, this is why I described it as a national Christmas hymn of Poland, and we have a reliable source for it, no matter what other users think about it. The opinion of Jan Lechon, dismissed by user odder, is valid and relevant, as Lechon is one of the most renowned Polish poets. Still, if there are doubts, I suggest an alternative hook, which is not as good as the original one:
I haven't really illustrated the article, but there are plenty of pictures out there that are usable, I may take a few too. There is also ample opportunity here for alternative hooks, if anyone has one, I just used what jumped right out. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Article does not appear to be new, I don't see a move in the history or anything...is there something here that I don't know about (ie, a prior agreement to save this for Christmas or something...although I'm not how directly relevant is it)? —Politizer /contribs21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Article is about a highly influential show that takes place around Christmas each year and features toys which viewers may wish to buy. The audience dress up in Christmas costumes, the set is Christmas themed and there is a general Christmas feel about it, so I'm sure it's relevant. When I created and expanded the article I intended it for such a Christamas DYK; however this section only seems to have recently sprung up and I've placed it here as soon as I noticed it... --➨Candlewicke21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok then...could you add a bit of that stuff (about the Christmas-themed set, and the audience's dressing up) to the lead-in? I think that would help make it clearer. As for the article history, while it's not new enough for a normal DYK, since you've created it specifically for the Christmas DYK I don't see a problem with using it, as long as no one else objects. —Politizer /contribs21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Expansion verified, offline ref accepted in good faith. The hook isn't super-interesting but I think it's the most interesting thing in the article yet. Article is 1600 characters...a bit sparse, but there's probably not much more that can be said so there's no point forcing anyone to squeeze more in. I think everything is acceptable as is. —Politizer /contribs21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have written a little more since you said this, but am probably coming to the end of what can be sensibly added. I have come across several non-WP:RS sources saying that Christmas Common was the first place in the country where the red kite was reintroduced after its extinction. This would make a better hook, but frustratingly I can't find a reliable source for it. — BillC03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Both verified, with offline ref accepted in good faith (there are some online refs as well, but I didn't look at them; I imagine the offline ones are better). John Prideaux Lightfoot is barely 1500 characters, but it's got lots of refs and good stuff, so I'm fine with it. —Politizer /contribs21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In line with hook, intro says that they were popular until about the mid-1960s, but the History section says that they were popular into the 1970s. This could just be a wording problem, but if so the wording needs to be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah a wording issue, I wrote that sentence before I had completed my research and forgot about it, thanks for the note on my talk page letting me know. --IvoShandor (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, this is no more than a statement of intent, as I have not yet reached the intended 5X expansion, so please don't review yet. (I will edit this statement once I have.) However, I would welcome comments on whether the topic of this article is considered suitable for the 'Christmas Special' DYK, or will it only be for topics that are really about Christmas? — BillC07:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, now this hook is interesting and caught my attention - had to listen to clips online after reading about it. ;-) The article is sufficiently long, fact referencing verified, and overall looks okay. JamieS9321:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic picture, too! You might want to crop off the Hans Waldmann pieces on the left so that people can read "St. Nikolaus" on the other rectangular pieces on the right when the image is displayed at 100x100px on DYK. Just for Christmas. :) --74.13.126.105 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why the article isn't titled with a single quote-mark in front of it? It appears to be the special's official title, and there don't seem to be any technical restrictions relating to quotes, so I'm moving it over here. JamieS9319:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Lynde and Raye are not famous enough to make the hook work and how casting was done is uninteresting. Is there a more interesting hook for this solid article, please? --74.13.126.105 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Lynde and Martha Raye are very famous in the U.S. -- both had very long and successful careers, with Lynde as a major TV star for two decades, winning two Emmy Awards, while Raye starred in numerous classic films and received an Honorary Oscar for her career achievements. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, for a hook like yours to work, you need some bigger stars. Maybe people like Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.... Right now, the hook is simply about two friends helping each other get jobs, which happens all the time, everywhere, in many occupations. --74.13.126.105 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The original hook has been confirmed and verified; I would ask that we retain the original offering and not the negative alt hooks. The IP editor's personal lack of familiarity with two major U.S. entertainers of the 20th century is not relevant -- and, in any event,DYK serves the purpose of bringing forth information and is not designed to recycle data on the too-obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Then please use this hook when it's not bedtime in America. People who lack of familiarity with Lynde and Raye are everywhere outside the U.S. For the sake of those who don't watch U.S. TV, please consider briefly describing who they are in the hook. --74.13.126.105 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I strongly prefer the original hook as it is both more interesting and far more positive. I know that it got me to read the article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, to just throw a name into a hook and expect name recognition, the name had better be universally recognizable (e.g. Jesus, Julius Caesar, Mozart, Einstein, Picasso, Hitler,... current world leaders) or maybe the name of someone primary school kids would learn about them (e.g. Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, Pocahontus, some famous saints and biblical figures, some past world leaders...). For Paul Lynde and Martha Raye, we should mention in the hook that they are U.S. TV actors, not the casting agent, director, producer.....
From what I can determine, Paul Lynde and Martha Raye were not "friends" -- she gave him a break early in his career, and he repaid the favour with this casting. Besides, many people know who Lynde and Raye are. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Now shortened to 198 characters, with no mention of their (disputable) friendship. I know there are many people know who Lynde and Raye are, but not as many as those who know who Shakespeare is, so to speak. --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE
This queue is currently empty. When hooks are added, they must be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not make any updates unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks.
REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE
This queue is currently empty. When hooks are added, they must be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not make any updates unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks.
REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE
This queue is currently empty. When hooks are added, they must be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not make any updates unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks.
The hooks below have been approved by a human (~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time.
Memorial statue of Ethel Preston
... that the grave of Ethel Preston in Leeds, England, has a life-sized statue of her (pictured) stood in front of black marble doors, left ajar?
... that meetings between Biblical and post-Biblical characters, such as when Moses sees Rabbi Aviva teach and be martyred, are rare in Talmudic stories?
... that Marie-Thérèse Eyquem served in the government of Vichy France, and was later appointed a national secretary of the French Socialist Party?
... that Sonya Friedman developed the idea of supertitles, which translate words being sung on stage in opera?
... that multiple scenes in Papa feature cotton-tree flowers, even though it was not scripted and the falling cotton simply kept drifting into the shot?
... that the Biblical Magi dispense mysterious vision-inducing foods in the Revelation of the Magi, which a scholar proposed to be an account of ritual hallucinogen intake?
Paora
All set to go: date, length, hook and reference verified. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(Will respond in more detail on my talk, where this issue was originally raised.) 5x expansions have to be done within 5 days, the same for new articles. Comparing the page sizes from 5 days ago, there hasn't been a fivefold expansion, sorry. Best regards, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Two Class AA minor league baseball players attended the same college. Is that the best hook there is?? Also, at 1300 characters, the article isn't long enough to qualify for DYK at this time. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The hook should only contain a question (otherwise length and date verified). ALT: ... that a March fracture has nothing to do with the month of March, but is a fracture of metatarsals mostly occurring in the soldiers who need to do a lot of marching?
Length of hook and article verified. Sources that are either not accessible to me or in Norwegian accepted in good faith.- Mgm| 12:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, JamieS93 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Memorial statue of Ethel Preston
Orbits of some fictional planets of the Solar System
Jam tarts