| Revision as of 08:24, 26 December 2024 editBogger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers25,128 edits →De Worsten van Babel: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:34, 27 December 2024 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,653 edits →New Year: 6 Jan | ||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... --> | This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... --> | ||
| == Christmas DYK sets == | |||
| ] | |||
| With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day? | |||
| If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used: | |||
| *]: Food, needs a review | |||
| *]: TV, <s>currently in Prep 6</s> at SOHA | |||
| *]: Ship, <s>Approved</s> SOHA | |||
| In addition, these articles are at ] and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks: | |||
| *]: Tree | |||
| *]: Tree | |||
| Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. ] (]) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging {{yo|DoctorWhoFan91|Piotrus|DimensionalFusion|Thriley|Grimes2}} who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding ] for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Launchballer}} Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. ] (]) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Launchballer}} I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). {{ping|Z1720}} Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. ] (]) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in ]. I've done that.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm planning to do a nativity painting. ] (]) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the ] page. Thanks guys! ] (]) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the ] page (direct link: ]), and only once they're approved. ] (]) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if ] could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - ] (]) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Dumelow}} Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the set] (]) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I can work up an article on ] species.--]] ] 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *]. I just made a Christmas hook for this. ] (]) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *] the "Krampus" hook is live and nominated .--]] ] 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *], a stunning Bruegel painting with pic, is now ready for review. ] (]) 19:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **Now reviewed, needs promoting & moving. ] (]) 03:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *If anyone is looking for a Christmas article, I started ]. He played Alfred the janitor in '']'' known for his "Make a buck. Make a buck" critique of Christmas commercialism. ] (]) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a reason why ] was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? ] (] · ]) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pulled.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Wouldn't mind if ] runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ]@] 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've just approved ] which might be nice to run in the holiday season - ] (]) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I nominated ] and ] for Christmas Eve/Christmas Day. ] (]) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Just came by to note that I have made a backup hook for Mark Hearld during my review if it's not done by Christmas Eve or Day. {{u|Thriley}}, the rules recommend not doing special occasion hooks within a week of the planned date. Two to three weeks should be enough. ]@] 00:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Two sets?=== | |||
| I just noticed this proposal was for ''two'' special sets. I think that's excessive. One would be plenty. ] ] 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Not at all, the more the merrier. Assuming we have more than enough for one set that is. And they don't all have to be run on Christmas Day, they can be split over Christmas Eve/Christmas Day or even Boxing Day or New Year's Day and so on, depending on their relevance. ] (]) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Christmas Cantata for 26 December == | |||
| Bach first performed ] on '''26 December 1724'''. I hope for a DYK on that day. I had to make it GA, which happened but later than I wanted, I nominated for DYK even before that happened, the review began right away, and today it was approved. - The set (]) is full. Any chance? Because any other day would look strange to an observant audience ;) -- ] (]) 22:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There probably shouldn't be a sugar hook next to a vitamin hook, so I've made a hole in prep. I'll assess the cantata in the morning.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see {{yo|AirshipJungleman29}} beat me to it.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 11:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: (ec) Thank you, and it is already in prep 2, thanks to ], who took ALT1b: ... that on 26 December 1724, ] led the first performance of ''']''', based on a hymn that ] ''(pictured)'' had derived 200 years earlier from "]"?, and then dropped the end. | |||
| :: I am glad! Having said that, I wonder if some "derived" makes any sense if not saying from what. Teach me English. In this case it is a hymn that was already 1000 years old when Luther derived, 1200 years when Bach wrote, and is now 1500 years. Interesting, I think. Ideas? I thought that just linking to it was the most neutral way. - As for Bach's name: I believe that many readers would know who is meant by Bach even without a link. A link can serve those who don't, but the full name just takes space. (The ], dedicated to the works by ], never writes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, just W. A. Mozart.) In 2010 and 2011, we had an almost weekly DYK about Bach's cantatas (because he composed them weekly for 2+ years), and most hooks just said Bach without a link (see ])). - Please reserve space on 1 January, ] is already nominated for GA, - a review would help ;) --] (]) 11:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Derived can be used in this context. I agree with your suggestion about just using Bach's last name. I also now realise that Luther's derivation was done in 1524, which is exactly 500 years ago and should probably be highlighted. ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| Line 125: | Line 64: | ||
| '''More than one month old''' | '''More than one month old''' | ||
| *November 1: ] | *November 1: ] | ||
| *November 4: ] (two articles) | *<s>November 4: ] (two articles)</s> | ||
| *November 4: ] | *<s>November 4: ]</s> | ||
| *November 5: ] | *<s>November 5: ]</s> | ||
| *November 7: ] | *November 7: ] | ||
| *<s>November 9: ] (second opinion requested)</s> | *<s>November 9: ] (second opinion requested)</s> | ||
| Line 140: | Line 79: | ||
| *December 3: ] | *December 3: ] | ||
| *December 5: ] | *December 5: ] | ||
| *December 11: ] (second opinion requested) | *<s>December 11: ] (second opinion requested)</s> | ||
| *December 12: ] | *<s>December 12: ]</s> | ||
| *December 13: ] | *<s>December 13: ]</s> | ||
| *December 13: ] | *<s>December 13: ]</s> | ||
| *December 13: ] | *December 13: ] | ||
| *<s>December 15: ]</s> | *<s>December 15: ]</s> | ||
| *<s>December 15: ]</s> | *<s>December 15: ]</s> | ||
| *December 15: ] | *December 15: ] | ||
| *December 15: ] | *<s>December 15: ]</s> | ||
| Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! ] (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! ] (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Line 225: | Line 164: | ||
| While the article talks about how O'Kane was ordered to halt construction, I cannot find where it states that the building never received approval, including that it did not receive retroactive approval. ] (]) 17:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | While the article talks about how O'Kane was ordered to halt construction, I cannot find where it states that the building never received approval, including that it did not receive retroactive approval. ] (]) 17:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I've added some more info about the approvals to the article. – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 241: | Line 182: | ||
| :::::::{{+1}} | :::::::{{+1}} | ||
| :::::::I used titular because I had just woken up and my brain works very poorly in the morning :V – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | :::::::I used titular because I had just woken up and my brain works very poorly in the morning :V – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::It's already in Queue, so a sysop will need to swap with the new wording. ] (] · ]) 09:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{done}} – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 11:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are we sure this is notable? I don't see any of the sources in the article making a particularly compelling case for a GNG pass... ] (] • she/her) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've started ]. ] (]) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It now needs pulling, if it hasn't already been done. ] (] · ]) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've pulled this per below.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 16:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 12-hour sets? == | == 12-hour sets? == | ||
| Line 249: | Line 196: | ||
| :::If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. ] (]) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | :::If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. ] (]) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If this does happen, then my ] hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ::::If this does happen, then my ] hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::There's another GA backlog drive in January. Which means if we don't dig into our own backlog over the next few weeks, we'll be totally swamped by February. So, we need to get those queues filled. ] ] 00:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| Line 255: | Line 203: | ||
| {{ping| Crisco 1492|No Swan So Fine|Darth Stabro}} I'm concerned about the ] aspects of this. It also looks like the credit template got lost. ] ] 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | {{ping| Crisco 1492|No Swan So Fine|Darth Stabro}} I'm concerned about the ] aspects of this. It also looks like the credit template got lost. ] ] 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *I've fixed the credit template. I think the move wreaked havoc on it. — ] (]) 03:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | *I've fixed the credit template. I think the move wreaked havoc on it. — ] (]) 03:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:I don't have issues with the hook itself, but do see a potential BLP issue with linking this from the main page. The article talks about "White Parties" (parties mainly at his home that were widely covered by the news as like big time cultural events) and "Freak-offs" (parties mainly at hotels that are being investigated for a range of criminal activity). It doesn't quite make a clear distinction between the two, but that accurately reflects the sources. talks about his neighbors complaining at the White Parties hosted in his home because women staggered into the streets, partially clothed, and looking disoriented/dazed. It says, "various lawsuits detail alleged sexual assaults at parties held at Mr Combs's properties". And so the article has these lists of all these famous living people that attended his "White Parties" like ], ], and ] with a kind of implication that they could have been involved in or known about the crimes currently under investigation. And where the article does directly address whether individuals had involvement or knowledge (] & ]) they are explicitly denying it and don't seem to have any charges right now. Also, the Marlon Wayans interview is prefaced with "White Chicks might have been inspired by real-life events" but seems to hedge much more saying that White Chicks "ha adquirido un nuevo significado ". I'll post a neutral link to ] to get outside input and accept whatever the consensus is. ] (]) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 260: | Line 209: | ||
| :fixed. - ] (]) 08:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | :fixed. - ] (]) 08:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I nominated this for ITN and now I think it's been lost. I requested it be moved so there aren't two tornado-based blurbs, but the move wasn't done perfectly and it wasn't put into another queue. It was replaced in its original queue with Planting a Rainbow but that one's original queue wasn't updated, and when it went to Errors, was replaced by another blurb from somewhere else. ] - promoted 12 days ago but not on any queue anymore. And whatever anyone does, please keep it away from Prep 5 and the 1991 Andover tornado so we don't have to go through this all over again. I'm not too concerned with getting this up in a timely manner, moreso with having it on DYK at all. Cheers. ] (]) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Replaced with ] above.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| {{ping| Crisco 1492|Chetsford |Dumelow}} There's yet another incident of this kind happening right now . The ''Historical context'' section really should get updated before this goes live. ] ] 22:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Page move? == | |||
| See ], we just moved the underlying page for a DYK, is there anything that needs to be done on the DYK nom now? ] (]) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have changed the link in the hook to the new article name, I think that was everything. ] (]) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have updated the DYK header, DYK nompage links, and DYKmake templates to reflect the article move. ] (]) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == January 5 == | |||
| Hi. I nominated ] for this date, and the nomination was approved on December 9. According to the established timeline, it should have been placed in ] by now, but it is still in the approved queue. In the past, I've missed similar nominations even when they were submitted within the established 6-week period. I understand that there are many hooks waiting to be posted before this one, but my main concern is that I've planned other articles for February and March that I won't need to nominate within the next three to six weeks due to the DYK rules, which could potentially apply to the same situation and I'd need to know if I'd have to nominated them even before the 6-week period. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Inconsistency in archival? == | |||
| Hey all. On my talk page, I received ] about the Voltairine de Cleyre DYK posting, showing the hook about last rites. But it appears that a different hook (about Senator Hawley) is showing up on the ] and ]. Also the archive seems to disagree on what day the DYK was featured on, saying it was posted on 25 December, while all the other mentions say it was on the 24 December. Can someone explain the hook and dating inconsistency? Was it changed at some point? I'm a bit confused. --] (]) 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : While I can't say a thing about the hook question: the inconsistency about the appearance has been there for as long as I remember, because the day in the archive is (with some logic) the day when ''archived'', which is now - due to 24-hour cycles - always the day after appearance. (When I got to know DYK, there were four sets per day, and at least for three of them the day archived was the same day as appearance.) I'm afraid that we can't change that without a dramatic inconsistency to existing archives. --] (]) 09:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I can now answer the other also: as expected, she is in the archive for 25 December. --] (]) 10:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah ok, thanks so much for the explanation on the archival date! That makes sense. --] (]) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == New Year == | |||
| As announced in an archived thread, I expanded a cantata article to GA to hopefully be presented on 1 January. ] is ready for review and consideration. We talk again about a 300 years anniversary. -- ] (]) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] is already filled up and ready to go, so I don't think it likely that the nom will get approval and be swapped in on such short notice, unfortunately. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: The miracle happened for yesterday, and ] when I announced the other on 20 December, so it's not really short notice. I felt I was already pushing the GA reviewer, and I didn't want to make the same mistake as in the other case, nominate for DYK before GA was through. - You and anybody willing: you could simply review this, and then discuss if we should present a New Years cantata perhaps some day in February. --] (]) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please reserve a space for 6 January. No, not another chorale cantata, just a 290 years anniversary of a famous piece, and I don't know yet if I'll manage expanding. --] (]) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:34, 27 December 2024
 | Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
|
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 22 hours ago( ) |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Prep 2
FoodPharmer
- I reviewed this, and thus another pair of eyes is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not happy with the use of unattributed quotes, particularly for a stuff that very clearly isn't a health drink. I propose trimming everything after "pictured" to "once shamed Bournvita into reducing its sugar" or somesuch.--Launchballer 12:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have rephrased. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bournvita was marketed in India as a "children's health drink" at the time of the video, and was the very reason the video was made. I do have sources that can be added to back up the claim:
- https://www.deccanherald.com/business/companies/bournvita-is-no-longer-a-health-drink-all-you-need-to-know-about-centres-decision-2977615
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/food/bournvita-other-brands-to-lose-health-drink-status/articleshow/109276438.cms?from=mdr
- https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/government-directs-e-commerce-firms-to-remove-bournvita-and-other-drinks-from-health-drinks-category/article68062208.ece
- https://www.livemint.com/news/india/what-led-cadbury-bournvita-lose-its-health-drink-tag-all-you-need-to-know-mondelez-added-sugar-ncpcr-revant-himatsingka-11713015106902.html
- —CX Zoom 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've updated Bournvita's article with appropriate references. —CX Zoom 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not happy with the use of unattributed quotes, particularly for a stuff that very clearly isn't a health drink. I propose trimming everything after "pictured" to "once shamed Bournvita into reducing its sugar" or somesuch.--Launchballer 12:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
IMAX Melbourne
- I was part of the review - new eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Second opinion needed
Hi, could we get a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness (Talmud)? There's been some changes since my review, and I would like to move this forward with a yay or nay. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Took a look and left a few comments. Rjjiii left a few good comments as well. Andre🚐 01:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 24 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 15. We have a total of 310 nominations, of which 223 have been approved, a gap of 87 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack
November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Clifton House School (two articles)November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Pro-Fatimid conspiracy against SaladinNovember 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Gohobi- November 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Organization of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness (Talmud) (second opinion requested)- November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Hold Your Hand (film)
- November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Al Faihani
- November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
- November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Renildo José dos Santos
- November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sugya
Other nominations
- November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Family Stress Model
- November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Hefker
- December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India
- December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Josie Brown Childs
December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Smit (second opinion requested)December 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahra Al MaktoumDecember 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Sapi MkwawaDecember 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Rey-Bellet- December 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Tarif-i Husain Shahi
December 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Les PurceDecember 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Waterloo Column- December 15: Template:Did you know nominations/The Man in the Yellow Tie
December 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Hermann (humanist)
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Queue 2
Planting a Rainbow
I reviewed this originally, so somebody else needs to look at it. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at it. Didn't see any issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Alien: Romulus
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Lankyant, and Ippantekina: The use of quotes in the hook ("resurrected") implies this is a direct quote from someplace, but that doesn't appear in the article. I note that MOS:SCAREQUOTES was featured in today's WP:ERRORS, and that applies equally well here. RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. Fix ping. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Resurrect and cognates of it are used in headlines in sources. The means are well cited in #Cast. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it shows up in WP:ERRORS when it runs, I will ping you to defend our honor :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Resurrect and cognates of it are used in headlines in sources. The means are well cited in #Cast. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. Fix ping. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Prep 4
Kwan Man-ching
- One of mine; need a second pair of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I promoted to queue and checked this article: no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Other
- I'm seeing three sport-related biographies. Anyone mind if we shuffle 'em a bit? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I flipped John Mascarenhas to prep 7 and Shalom Nagar to Prep 4. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Prep 5
Ceechynaa +1
- I reviewed, so another pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll look at Bernard Gray when I've eaten. Looking at this now, I wonder if it's worth tightening the hook slightly, e.g. "that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy"?--Launchballer 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've updated it in queue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll look at Bernard Gray when I've eaten. Looking at this now, I wonder if it's worth tightening the hook slightly, e.g. "that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy"?--Launchballer 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Vitamin E
- Hook fact is not immediately followed by a source. Also, citing a first to a primary source seems iffy... should be a secondary source. Pinging David notMD, User:PixDeVl, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The hook fact, in the Lead and in the History section, is now followed by the Evans 1936 reference. The ref is also used after the next sentence in the History section, which attributes the suggestion to the name of a Greek scholar in a footnote on page 321. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Care to explain this edit @Darth Stabro:?--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it must have been an accidental misclick of the rollback button. ~Darth Stabro 21:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Care to explain this edit @Darth Stabro:?--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The hook fact, in the Lead and in the History section, is now followed by the Evans 1936 reference. The ref is also used after the next sentence in the History section, which attributes the suggestion to the name of a Greek scholar in a footnote on page 321. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)
- Just going to note here that this was previously re-reviewed by Launchballer, and I am accepting that re-review as a second set of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Bernard Gray (Sunday Pictorial journalist)
- I reviewed, so another pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Chernobyl Reactors 5 and 6
- I've tagged this with {{lead too short}}. Pinging Bollardant, Hawkeye7, and Hilst. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is an cleanup template and not a dispute template, so it does not affect DYK. (WP:DYKCOMPLETE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, as per the summary at the top of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Guidelines, "maintenance templates" is a valid issue. It also falls afoul of the first sentence of DYK:COMPLETE: "There is a expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The lead of any page is absolutely forbidden to have anything in it that is not covered in the body. So that sentence has its definition of "maintenance templates" in WP:DYKCOMPLETE. If there is disagreement, then I can remove it from the lead without further ado. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: is it forbidden for the lead to have anything in it that is not covered in the body? MOS:LEADCITE says the lead usually repeats information that is in the body. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not an issue for an article, because anything that is unreferenced can be removed. In this case we are not referring to an article, but a Template:Nutshell for an admin page, and
this template presents a concise summary
. If it is not a summary of what is in the body, then it is wrong, and must be removed from the nutshell forthwith. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not an issue for an article, because anything that is unreferenced can be removed. In this case we are not referring to an article, but a Template:Nutshell for an admin page, and
- @Hawkeye7: is it forbidden for the lead to have anything in it that is not covered in the body? MOS:LEADCITE says the lead usually repeats information that is in the body. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The lead of any page is absolutely forbidden to have anything in it that is not covered in the body. So that sentence has its definition of "maintenance templates" in WP:DYKCOMPLETE. If there is disagreement, then I can remove it from the lead without further ado. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Hawkeye7, as per the summary at the top of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Guidelines, "maintenance templates" is a valid issue. It also falls afoul of the first sentence of DYK:COMPLETE: "There is a expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is an cleanup template and not a dispute template, so it does not affect DYK. (WP:DYKCOMPLETE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Queue 6
Phoebe Plummer, Christopher Hehir, Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest
- ... that Phoebe Plummer was "unfortunate" to draw Christopher Hehir as judge when she stood trial over the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest?
@Launchballer, Folkezoft, Crisco 1492, and AirshipJungleman29: The quote from the source is "Unfortunately for them, they got Judge Christopher Hehir." Some editors at ERRORS might have issue with the word change, so perhaps one of the below would be better:
- ALT1: ... that Phoebe Plummer "unfortunately" drew Christopher Hehir as judge when she stood trial over the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest?
- ALT2: ... that, in describing Phoebe Plummer's trial for her actions in the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest, one reporter said she "unfortunately" drew Christopher Hehir as judge?
Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed the spelling of "unfortunatly" to "unfortunately" in both ALT hooks, and fixed the apostrophe-s template in ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "unfortunately" --> "unfortunate" was covered by MOS:SIC, although now I don't see anything about adverbs in it. (I could have sworn the approved hook had the bold links in a different order?) In any event, all of the hooks are wrong; Plummer uses "they/them" pronouns.--Launchballer 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Michael O'Kane
- ... that Michael O'Kane never received approval to begin constructing a building for the College of the Holy Cross?
@Ergo Sum, Chaiten1, and Hilst:
While the article talks about how O'Kane was ordered to halt construction, I cannot find where it states that the building never received approval, including that it did not receive retroactive approval. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've added some more info about the approvals to the article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
SpongeKnob SquareNuts
- ... that SpongeBob has an existential crisis in a porn parody?
@Di (they-them) @Tails Wx @Hilst Doesn't this hook as currently written not meet WP:DYKFICTION? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I guess not. Maybe we could go with "... that SpongeKnob SquareNuts, a porn parody of SpongeBob SquarePants, has been described as 'like a train crash that you just can't look away from'?" or "... that the costume for the titular SpongeKnob SquareNuts character consisted of a box and a condom?". – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these alternatives are fine with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The idea I had was actually something like "... that SpongeBob has a porn parody?", but I guess we can have another reviewer decide. Not sure if the other proposals fail WP:DYKGRAT or not (maybe they don't and I'm just being too conscious or conservative), but I guess that's also up to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- That also works. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to the "box and a condom" hook because I thought that was the most interesting. Others are welcome to suggest changes or advocate for another hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the use of the word "titular" feels odd in this sentence and it's not clear if the sentence is referring to the character or the film. Might I suggest tweaking the wording?
- "... that a SpongeBob costume used in the film SpongeKnob SquareNuts consisted of a box and a condom?"
- Di (they-them) (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- +1
- I used titular because I had just woken up and my brain works very poorly in the morning :V – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's already in Queue, so a sysop will need to swap with the new wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Done – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's already in Queue, so a sysop will need to swap with the new wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to the "box and a condom" hook because I thought that was the most interesting. Others are welcome to suggest changes or advocate for another hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- That also works. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The idea I had was actually something like "... that SpongeBob has a porn parody?", but I guess we can have another reviewer decide. Not sure if the other proposals fail WP:DYKGRAT or not (maybe they don't and I'm just being too conscious or conservative), but I guess that's also up to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these alternatives are fine with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are we sure this is notable? I don't see any of the sources in the article making a particularly compelling case for a GNG pass... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've started an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It now needs pulling, if it hasn't already been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've pulled this per below.--Launchballer 16:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It now needs pulling, if it hasn't already been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've started an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
12-hour sets?
WP:DYKNA currently has over 130 approved noms. Should we start doing 12-hour sets? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Approaching 12-hour backlog mode? and Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:DYKUBM and the consensus was that we start when there are seven filled queues.--Launchballer 13:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, good to know. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this does happen, then my #Ceechynaa +1 hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--Launchballer 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's another GA backlog drive in January. Which means if we don't dig into our own backlog over the next few weeks, we'll be totally swamped by February. So, we need to get those queues filled. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this does happen, then my #Ceechynaa +1 hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--Launchballer 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, good to know. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Queue 7
Diddy parties
@Crisco 1492, No Swan So Fine, and Darth Stabro: I'm concerned about the WP:BLP aspects of this. It also looks like the credit template got lost. RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've fixed the credit template. I think the move wreaked havoc on it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have issues with the hook itself, but do see a potential BLP issue with linking this from the main page. The article talks about "White Parties" (parties mainly at his home that were widely covered by the news as like big time cultural events) and "Freak-offs" (parties mainly at hotels that are being investigated for a range of criminal activity). It doesn't quite make a clear distinction between the two, but that accurately reflects the sources. The BBC talks about his neighbors complaining at the White Parties hosted in his home because women staggered into the streets, partially clothed, and looking disoriented/dazed. It says, "various lawsuits detail alleged sexual assaults at parties held at Mr Combs's properties". And so the article has these lists of all these famous living people that attended his "White Parties" like Al Sharpton, Martha Stewart, and Elton Brand with a kind of implication that they could have been involved in or known about the crimes currently under investigation. And where the article does directly address whether individuals had involvement or knowledge (Leonardo DiCaprio & Marlon Wayans) they are explicitly denying it and don't seem to have any charges right now. Also, the Marlon Wayans interview is prefaced with "White Chicks might have been inspired by real-life events" but the cited source seems to hedge much more saying that White Chicks "ha adquirido un nuevo significado ". I'll post a neutral link to WP:BLPN to get outside input and accept whatever the consensus is. Rjj (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
De Worsten van Babel
@Hilst, Bogger, and Figureskatingfan: the article doesn't mention "espresso". RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- fixed. - Bogger (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse
I nominated this for ITN and now I think it's been lost. I requested it be moved so there aren't two tornado-based blurbs, but the move wasn't done perfectly and it wasn't put into another queue. It was replaced in its original queue with Planting a Rainbow but that one's original queue wasn't updated, and when it went to Errors, was replaced by another blurb from somewhere else. Template:Did you know nominations/Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse - promoted 12 days ago but not on any queue anymore. And whatever anyone does, please keep it away from Prep 5 and the 1991 Andover tornado so we don't have to go through this all over again. I'm not too concerned with getting this up in a timely manner, moreso with having it on DYK at all. Cheers. Departure– (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Replaced with #SpongeKnob SquareNuts above.--Launchballer 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Prep 1
Transatlantic cables incident
@Crisco 1492, Chetsford, and Dumelow: There's yet another incident of this kind happening right now Finland Seizes Ship After Undersea Cable Is Cut. The Historical context section really should get updated before this goes live. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Page move?
See Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Helong civil unrest, we just moved the underlying page for a DYK, is there anything that needs to be done on the DYK nom now? seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the link in the hook to the new article name, I think that was everything. TSventon (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the DYK header, DYK nompage links, and DYKmake templates to reflect the article move. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
January 5
Hi. I nominated Rescatemos a David y Miguel for this date, and the nomination was approved on December 9. According to the established timeline, it should have been placed in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 by now, but it is still in the approved queue. In the past, I've missed similar nominations even when they were submitted within the established 6-week period. I understand that there are many hooks waiting to be posted before this one, but my main concern is that I've planned other articles for February and March that I won't need to nominate within the next three to six weeks due to the DYK rules, which could potentially apply to the same situation and I'd need to know if I'd have to nominated them even before the 6-week period. (CC) Tbhotch 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistency in archival?
Hey all. On my talk page, I received a notice about the Voltairine de Cleyre DYK posting, showing the hook about last rites. But it appears that a different hook (about Senator Hawley) is showing up on the archive and monthly pagview leaders. Also the archive seems to disagree on what day the DYK was featured on, saying it was posted on 25 December, while all the other mentions say it was on the 24 December. Can someone explain the hook and dating inconsistency? Was it changed at some point? I'm a bit confused. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I can't say a thing about the hook question: the inconsistency about the appearance has been there for as long as I remember, because the day in the archive is (with some logic) the day when archived, which is now - due to 24-hour cycles - always the day after appearance. (When I got to know DYK, there were four sets per day, and at least for three of them the day archived was the same day as appearance.) I'm afraid that we can't change that without a dramatic inconsistency to existing archives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can now answer the other also: as expected, she is in the archive for 25 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thanks so much for the explanation on the archival date! That makes sense. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
New Year
As announced in an archived thread, I expanded a cantata article to GA to hopefully be presented on 1 January. Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41 is ready for review and consideration. We talk again about a 300 years anniversary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Prep 2 is already filled up and ready to go, so I don't think it likely that the nom will get approval and be swapped in on such short notice, unfortunately. ~Darth Stabro 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- The miracle happened for yesterday, and I announced this to come when I announced the other on 20 December, so it's not really short notice. I felt I was already pushing the GA reviewer, and I didn't want to make the same mistake as in the other case, nominate for DYK before GA was through. - You and anybody willing: you could simply review this, and then discuss if we should present a New Years cantata perhaps some day in February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please reserve a space for 6 January. No, not another chorale cantata, just a 290 years anniversary of a famous piece, and I don't know yet if I'll manage expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)