Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosiestep (talk | contribs) at 03:46, 10 July 2008 (→Articles created/expanded on July 8: Passive Resistance comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
For discussion of the "Did you know" section, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Welsh presbytery meeting, 1940
Welsh presbytery meeting, 1940

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page. Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old; for details see these rules.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

Instructions

List new suggestions here, under the date the article was created or expanded (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. If a suitable image is available, place it immediately before the suggestion. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged.

Remember:

  • Proposed articles should:
    • not be marked as stubs;
    • contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
    • cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header); and
    • be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable).
  • 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 on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
  • Articles with good references and citations are preferred.
  • 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 software program 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. (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.)
  • Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
    • interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
    • short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
    • neutral,
    • definite facts that are mentioned in the article, and
    • always cited in the article with an inline citation.
  • Suggested pictures should be:
    • suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely-licensed pictures;
    • attractive and interesting, even at a very small (100px-wide) resolution;
    • already in the article; and
    • relevant to the article.
    • formatted as [[Image:image name |right|100x100px| Description]] and placed directly above the suggested fact.
  • Proposed lists should have two characteristics to be considered for DYK: (i) be a compilation of entries that are unlikely to have ever been compiled anywhere else (e.g. List of architectural vaults), and (ii) have 1,500+ character non-stub text that brings out interesting, relational, and referenced facts from the compiled list that may not otherwise be obvious but for the compilation.
  • Please sign the nomination, giving due credit to other editors if relevant. For example:
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- new article by [[User]] and ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]]; Nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold and self-nom by ~~~~
    • *... that (text)? -- Article expanded fivefold by [[User]] and ~~~~
  • 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|June 19}} Thanks, ~~~~
  • For more details see the previously Unwritten Rules.
  • 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 Ready for DYK? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYK?}} Query An issue needs to be clarified before the article's eligibility can be determined
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe Article is currently ineligible but may only need some minor work to fix.
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

2025-06-19T12:00:00Z

Backlogged?

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 Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on July 10

Articles created/expanded on July 9

  • Note: If this attempt hadn't failed, it would have been the first English colony in North America. He returned to North America a few years later to search for the missing Roanoke Colonists and got himself killed by the local natives. Feel free to suggest alternative hooks but be sure to keep 'em short and sweet. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Length verified. I couldn't find in the source where Gilbert was "blamed" for the failure. Gooking and his men returned to England because Gilbert stinted the original provisions, but the return to England was viewed as a wise decision. Gilbert may have been responsible for the failure, but I'm not sure whether anyone blamed him. GregManninLB (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for paying attention. Indeed, I may have drew too much inference from the text (But after it was learned that Gilbert had already stinted on the original provisions, all hands decided to return to England with him. Gookin’s opinion of Gilbert based on this suggests that Gosnold had made a wise decision) and totally support rewording of the hook and the article's header as my fellow editors see fit.-House of Scandal (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Would you please improve the formatting of your references, replacing bare URLs? It would be worth noting in the main reference, by the way, that it includes 18 color photos of houses in the district. doncram (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, while I agree with doncram that better references would certainly improve the article, in this case I am more concerned with the poor writing. There are multiple grammatical problems. I found reading through the article very jarring, and stopped several times trying to figure things out. Among the general awkwardness, I note a missing period, incomplete and run-on sentences and an "an" that should be an "a". I have in the past admired this editor's work, so I'm not sure what's up with this. Lvklock (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did write in very late at night/early in morning. If there is any problems with sentence structure, it's because I am avoiding copyvio, and too often the best way to phrase something would be the original sources terms, which would be copyvio.--Bedford Pray 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix the typos, btw.--Bedford Pray 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Severe neutrality problems.--Bedford Pray 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. The document the article is about is not neutral, but the article itself attempts to be very neutral. But then again, the Iraq Study Group Report is not a neutral document either. -Dankirkd (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like campaign propaganda. Plus, that image can not be on the front page, as its not free use, but fair use.--Bedford Pray 05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the image is removed. Again, it appears you're attacking the document. -Dankirkd (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Bedford on this one. Although the article does a fine job explaining what the plan is and who supports it, it does not address any opposition to it and is definitely not balanced in that it focuses exclusively on one view (the favorable one) of the plan. I'm sorry, but the article in it's current state does not meet the requirement that "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Thingg⊕⊗ 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length verified. As for the hook, the use of "Responsible" should be removed since it is POV. Perhaps "Burner Plan" should be used in the hook. The hook implies that the Burner Plan is legislation pending before Congress but in fact is nothing more than campaign promises latched onto by candidates looking to distinguish themselves temporarily from their political opponent. Candidates supporting legislation should be changed to the number of members of congress who are on the record of supporting the Burner Plan without qualification. In regards to the article, the above comments address its POV issues. However, as for proportionately representing significant views within Wikipedia, there probably is much more info on the pro side than the con side since commitment to the "plan" does not really require much accountable commitment. For what its worth, I think the article itself attempts to be neutral (not quite there yet) but the topic itself is so POV that it may be difficult for an admin to list it on the main page. You have five days before the DYK suggestion is moved into expired noms. If you work on the concerns raised, please post back here. GregManninLB (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concerns on POV. I have tried to create a neutral article on an obviously unneutral document that has received predominantly positive coverage, making it hard to present both sides in equal proportions. The section that most references national press coverage could be expanded to pick out some of the pros and cons those articles present. The problem with the name of the plan is unfortunate since that's the name of the plan, not my own POV. I am not passing judgement by referring to the plan by name, but I think we collectively do pass judgement if we try to come up with another way to reference it. Saying something like "the so-called 'Responsible Plan...' ..." might be more appropriate, just as we allow the use of No Child Left Behind Act. -Dankirkd (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on July 8

  • ... that brightly colored leheria turbans were male business attire in Rajasthan, India during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? DurovaCharge! 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Length verified. Please add an inline cite to the end of the article sentence supporting the hook. Also, please add a quote from the source to the end of that inline cite. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incorrectly marked as unsourced. That assertion, along with the rest of the paragraph, is already correctly cited. The exact source text is In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Marwaris, merchants of Rajasthan and the dominant business community of India, wore elaborately tied, brightly coloured turbans as their distinguishing mark. These turbans were made by the leheria technique... DurovaCharge! 07:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Length and reference verified. I'm not so concerned about the <200 character DYK hook being copyvio as I am of the DYK hook generally being easily verifiable by anyone reading the main page. A bulk of DYK's problems come from statements presented on the Main Page that are not supported by the cited source. On the other hand, your post made me realize that not all DYK required quotes should appear in the article itself. The article editor may have stylistic or other reasons for not desiring to include such a quote in the footnote. As for the inline cite, DYK selection criteria item #3 reads "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable." It probably should be rewritten to read something like "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it where the hook fact is an extraordinary claim." Such a change can be made by posting a request at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. GregManninLB (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you very much for your understanding. Just to be clear, should I supply an additional inline citation for the relevant sentence? It seems kind of redundant but I understand the circumstances that caused this. DurovaCharge! 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once you get a green checkmark, the hook usually is good to go. Personally, I don't think its necessary to post a DYK inline cite in this case since the fact you cite is not an extraordinary claim. There are some flexibility to the DYK rules, which don't seem to be written that way. Your green lighted hook probably will be picked up by a DYK admin in the next few days. GregManninLB (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Article currently lacks inline citations. There is still time to add some. If an added inline citation that verifies the hook is in the Hungarian language, please include an English language translated quote (aka Explanatory Footnote) so that DYK volunteers can verify the hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on July 7

the first Hindlip Hall
the first Hindlip Hall
George Pope Morris
George Pope Morris
Huh? I'm not familiar with this policy and I'm not sure how to proceed. Response on talk page preferred. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy. Hook supported by inline citation to reliable source, qualifies. Lampman (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a policy issue. Looks more like GregManninLB was asking for help in getting details from the refs which he couldn't access. --PFHLai (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the tablet known as Gabriel’s Revelation, written before the birth of Christ, reportedly tells of a man killed by the Romans and resurrected after three days? - created with User:Sandwich Eater and others - Lampman (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has serious POV issues since the main sources are mainstream media, who have a track record of getting these things wrong. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic originated two days on July 6, 2008 in the New York Times and would fit better in the "In the news" section of the main page. GregManninLB (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Wikipedia's coverage of the topic is not (well, at least need not be) POV. However, the topic itself is controversial. If the stone is true, then the unique story of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection was not in fact unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time. In other words, billions of people over the past 2,000 years were wrong. Also, the name of the stone is controversial. The Angel Gabriel's revelations to the Prophet Mohammed six centuries after the birth of Christ are the foundation of Wahhabism's puritanical version of Islam. For 23 years, beginning in 610 A.D., Muhammad memorized Gabriel's revelations and dictated them in 114 chapters of the Koran. Calling this stone Gabriel's Revelations is an attempt to trade off historic beliefs to make this stone more acceptable. With the passage of time, the controversial issues should work themselves out to make it easier to present a non-POV Wikipedia article on the topic. GregManninLB (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All this original research and crystal balling is certainly interesting, but could someone please - with reference to the selection criteria - tell me how any of this is relevant to a DYK nomination? If someone doesn't like an article they're certainly entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't allow them to hold back a DYK nomination with reference to criteria they make up themselves. As for ITN: that's for current events, not for anything that might recently have been covered by the media. The tablet was found ten years ago; there's nothing current about it at all. Lampman (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I only looked at Herald Tribune source but it does not mention Romans 2. The article talks about a conference on the 6th of August. Which year? This is not "in the news" and we don't speculate on upcoming conferences. 3. Lazarus was the first person raised from the dead according to one source. 4. With improvements then why not? Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bastø Fosen
Bastø Fosen
  • The bot translator translates the term "som er landets mest trafikkerte fergestrekning" into "as am country mainly the traffic fergestrekning". This should of course be translated "that is the countries most trafficked ferry route". It should be sufficient that User:Lampman (who I believe is a Norwegian speaker) can bough for the reference. There is no requirement that the DYK fact must be cited from an English source. Arsenikk (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can also confirm the reference. That's one horrible translator bot, by the way, if I didn't speak Norwegian I wouldn't have been able to understand a anything at all from the Moss Avis article. Manxruler (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid you're just gonna have to take our word over the translator bot, which makes the headline out to be "Genocide ø about city trafikkproblemer". How about that as an alternative hook: Did you know "... that genocide ø about city trafikkproblemer"? Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that the keepers of the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light slept in life jackets for fear of the lighthouse being struck by passing ships? self-nom, new article Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues The article contains three references. Some of the information seems to be Wikipedian conclusions based on looking at a map. Lighthousedepot.com is a commercial website. I am unsure whether lighthousedepot.com and lighthousefriends.com qualify as Wikipedia reliable sources. Perhaps consider using sources from Books and News. GregManninLB (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems impossible to me that one could use a map as a reference for a text article without some sort of interpretation. Lighthousefriends.com has been used as a reference for virtually every extant US light article, and I do not understand why it is being characterized as a commercial site. Lighthouse Depot is of course commercial, as is every publisher's website; however, the link is to a journal article. I did consult some books through Google books, but in general the information in them is more limited and has to be vetted against these other sites for accuracy anyway. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MS Agdenes of Kystekspressen
MS Agdenes of Kystekspressen
FYI The object in the suggested picture is not Kystekspressen, but MS Agdenes, a boat of the company. For now, I can't think of a simple way to fit this info into the hook without making it too long. --PFHLai (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. Perhaps (company boat pictured) might work. GregManninLB (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not quite how it goes, but I see how you've become confused. Dogger is a Dutch word, meaning a fishing boat operating a trawl, rather than any specific design of boat. Dutch boats operating trawls operated in an area of the North Sea, so the area became known as the Dogger Bank. Later this specific design of boat becomes highly prevalent fishing the Dogger Bank, and so they became known as Doggers. There is only one area in discussion, but the time frames are different. Dogger (Dutch word for generic boat) leads to Dogger Bank leads to Dogger (boat) (but a specific and different sort of boat) Benea (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "premier" does have a subjective element, though the the Amateur Athletic Foundation Library is truly phenomenal -- not another like it anywhere. If that hook is too subjective, how about the following, which is more objective in its claim?
or
  • I've posted and reverted back to the article. However, I agree that a variety of sources as references would help the article. I also think the third large quote could be rewritten as original prose. There is nothing in that quote that is so electrifying that calls for quoting the passage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul is currently on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. We can wait till it gets buried in ITN. --gppande «talk» 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Definitely should make its way onto DYK at some point. GregManninLB (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Definitely should NOT make its way back onto the main page after aappearing on ITN. No double-dipping! Let someone else take the precious space on the main page. --74.13.125.67 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From an editorial point of view and considering the entire MainPage, re-featuring the same article twice within a mere few days is not a good idea. But I (usually) don't pick hooks for use on DYK and I know some DYK hook selecters don't take other sections on MainPage into consideration. If this is really going back onto MainPage after an appearance on ITN (I hope not), please at least have a hook that doesn't resemble the ITN hook. Right now, the suggested DYK hook looks like a longer version of what we have on ITN since yesterday and possibly for a few more days to come. Can we cut off the second half, removing "in which 41 people..." and instead mention when the fall of the Taliban took place? It's better to focus on other interesting things in this article not already on MainPage for days. --PFHLai (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down dude! Nobody is taking up the prime space on main page permanently. The article is too extensive, regularly updated and well written than the other DYK's we see. I am not comparing anything just highlighting the article's merit which qualifies it to DYK. And as I said, same article on DYK & ITN is not what even I am suggesting. Wait till it moves out of ITN and then it can be put up in DYK. If you have any other objection than this single one please speak now or forever hold your silence. :-) --gppande «talk» 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Calm down dude!" may have been meant to be a jocular comment (I think it was) but might easily be mistaken for borderline incivility. Please be careful, always, to maintain respectful tones in dialogue with fellow editors. Everyone is happier when we don't forget this. Thanks! - House of Scandal (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chichester's Inn
Chichester's Inn

Articles created/expanded on July 6

This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Currently a 4.60x expansion. 578 more characters needed for 5x. Hook fact missing inline citation. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or ... that Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly scored centuries in his first two test innings, and was only the third person to do so? self nom Abeer.ag (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to relate the hook to the suggested pic? Where to put "(pictured)"?--74.13.125.67 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voltaire
  • I think the above list proves my point about the article being too listy: several similar lists have been deleted in the past. I reduced the list to include only a limited number of examples. With the current improvements I believe the article is ready for DYK. Lampman (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I intend to get to the Chinese supermarket and take a nice illustrative picture of the subject matter tomorrow. It will, of course, be free use and can go on mainpage if the article is selected and a picture is needed. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please merge this with Lüshi Chunqiu, which is an older and longer article. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - sorry, didn't realise that the article already exists. I speedy deleted it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've turned the redlink into a redirect. Please be encouraged to update and expand the old article. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potting soil in a flowerpot
Potting soil in a flowerpot
Length and reference verified. We don't have a picture of something so common? As with gift cards, I'll see what Flickr can do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't hard. Got something. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pls be reminded that DYK articles need to be longer than 1500 characters. This one has less than 900. Pls type in a bit more. --PFHLai (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see that requirement. I didn't add that much text (mostly high scientific citations that throw off the character count), but frankly, I tried to pull everything I could on him. I hope it works now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ricky81682, for expanding this wikipage to 1700+ characters for quickly. A regular DYK screener will look into other aspects of this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Wikipedia's black hole article and the New York Times article from Dec 29, 1971 indicate that Louise Webster, Paul Murdin, and Tom Bolton were the first astronomers to prove the existence of a black hole. Webster and Murdin's work was from August 1971 to October 1971.[5] If you have something that shows Bolton's black hole finished work predated August 1971, then the hook would be justified. -- GregManninLB (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt hook looks better and is supported by the references. However, we can't have red links on the Main Page, but you can turn them into stubs or not dynamically link them. GregManninLB (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Please indicate that the source is in Italian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on July 5

Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
816 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
816 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
I love it too! I've renamed the article after its common name, as stated in the intro, which it didn't have at the time of its Register listing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the passage on which the hook was based from the article.This position is by no means exceptional, nor milestones in the political career of Bilal. Bilal, as Minister of Information, is the official spokesperson of the Syrian government, and this statement is just in line with all other Syrian government statements on Golan since the 1967 war. It is not Bilal who 'threatens' anyone, it is the government position. Its a bit like saying that Ari Fleischer threatened to invade Iraq. --Soman (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Two things: first, the article says the deaths are usually attributed to malaria but lists one writer who believes it was the Black Death. Is the malaria view sufficiently dominant that we can give it as fact? If so maybe the article could make that a bit clearer. Secondly, the Philip Smith reference gives a 404. Nice article and hook though - was thinking of nominating it myself until I saw it was already here. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without question the malaria "view" is correct, especially considering this is 100 years too early for the plague. You can take out the cause of death in the hook if it worries you. I don't understand your second comment. Savidan 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Black Death in 1287 would have been an interesting hook indeed! The malaria story checks out, according to Bagliani and Peterson, I believe it was quite common in Rome at the time (certainly more common than the Black Death...) The problem with your links was that they were dead. I've replaced them, but the Google Books links I found weren't readable. Anyway, the main issue here is length - without the table I get it to be 1,372 characters, and the 1,500 limit is a mandatory minimum. Lampman Talk to me! 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to 404 error, but Lampman's corrected that now. As he says the length is the primary remaining issue - still some time to expand it a little more, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the cause of death is a subject of debate, how about just "... that six of the sixteen cardinals died during the papal election, 1287-1288?" That's interesting enough to me...maybe even more as it would make me want to read the article and find out why. In any case, let's be sure to link "cardinals".- House of Scandal (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be absolutely clear that this is not under any circumstances a matter of debate! I was really just being flippant about this, but there was no Black Death in Europe in 1287/8! This was suggested by some historian writing in 1898, who obviously had no idea what he was talking about, and I assume it's included in the article simply as a curiosity. Modern historians are quite clear that it was in fact malaria. The issue of length remains though, and Savidan must show an effort to expand the article before it can be approved. Lampman (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having actually looked at the dates involved I'm happy that the malaria statement is correct - I just hadn't done that reality check when I first commented on the hook. I've added a note to the article pointing out that the Black Death claim contradicts the actual dates of the plague. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues "Papal election, 1287-1288" length still is 1,372 DYK characters. Another 128 prose characters needed. (probably another sentence or two should do it). GregManninLB (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Can we see the actual page of the book that says this at Google instead of just a title page? Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third line at the top of page 582. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. GregManninLB (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Przemyśl, Old Synagogue
Przemyśl, Old Synagogue
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguelemejia (talk • contribs) --Miguelemejia (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Length verified. Can we include some quotes from the source either in the footnote or the main text, and whatever else we do make clear that this is someone's assessment, not Wikipedia's? Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far too short at less than 500 characters. No inline citation. --Millbrooky (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, still less than 1500, aprox 1050. Inline citations added. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not up to 1,500. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that George Zames pioneered the small-gain theorem, circle criterion in input–output form and the H-infinity methods, and is considered one of the founders of robust control? --self-nom --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Length and part of the hook verified. The hook portion about "considered one of the founders of robust control" should appear in the Wikipedia article. Also, the source states Zames paper "introduced for the first time what was to be called H (infinity)-control theory." "The introduction by Zames of H (infinity)-control theory opened a new field of study and has put robust control onto center stage for the past decade and a half." I didn't locate anything about Zames' being considered a founder. Please provide a quote from a source that would support is "considered one of the founders of robust control". Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I actually could not find an article which explicitly stated Zames as the founder, and I think the relationship is really implicit through H-infinity. How about if I change the hook to:
... that George Zames pioneered the H-infinity methods which revolutionized the field of robust control for the past decade and half? Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified for second hook, which I would prefer to use. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Mathias, Jr.
Charles Mathias, Jr.
Not a new article, nor significantly expanded. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new section to the article about landmarks with pictures. Why isn't that classed as "significant"? bsrboy (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, you didn't expand the article fivefold. It looks like you did some cleaning up and added a few pics. That's not a fivefold expansion which is why it was declined. -- RyRy (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered this before, what is fivefold? bsrboy (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding an article 5 times it's original length. Hope that helps. :D -- RyRy (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. You might want to note that at the top of the article in case someone doesn't understand. bsrboy (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, it took me a while to figure that out for myself. :-P --cremepuff222 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity... what did you guys think it meant? Kafziel Complaint Department 07:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length (>5x), date, hook verified. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has content issues. Please review carefully. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "review" as in "correcting grammar issues"? --cremepuff222 (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) In any case, I have revised it. --cremepuff222 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information from the article comes from themystica.com and other internet sites, which I was unable to determine whether met Wikipedia reliable source standard. GregManninLB (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the article doesn't clearly distinguish folkloric witches from modern self-identified practicioners. It also implies that sea magic is real, a claim I would consider highly POV. -House of Scandal (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per GregManninLB's concerns about lack of reliable sources, HouseOfScandal's issues with content, and the fact that it's only 1320 characters in length. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- its a CV and/or POV and/or list - articles have at least 1500 chars of text Victuallers (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


""Imbibed"? He drank the ideas? Where can I get some of that? Sounds like fun. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the ideas taste good. --74.13.125.67 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the hook - Brahmachari (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues, OK, now, can you put a quote from the source book in the footnote supporting the assertion? Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ficus coronata
Ficus coronata

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2008 July 9 (UTC)

  • I like this hook very much. The references are good. What is the preferred way to check length for DYK purposes? I'm no newbie and should really know this already but I've just never looked into it. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you back HoS. Dunno about min. length. Can be elaborated on a bit. It is a rainforest plant/species. (has really cool leaves :) I am trying to bonsai a couple...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't specific, so here are 4 places with rules about length:

Expiring noms

Articles created/expanded on July 4

Articles created/expanded on July 3

  • ... that the Dr. Nelson Wilson House is unusual for having Eastlake stickwork done in brick instead of wood?(self-nom)--Bedford Pray 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length OK - the article has 1,738 DYK characters. However, DYK needs inline citations for each article sentence mentioned in the hook to verify the hook. -- GregManninLB (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it so hard to look at end of paragraph? Anyways, I moved a sentence so the hook is next to reference.--Bedford Pray 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Bedford, I want to acknowledge that I do notice you are very deliberately not including properly formatted footnotes on articles about NRHP sites, perhaps defiantly(!?) because i commented on the bare URLs in some of your submissions. And, further, perhaps as some kind of further retaliation or something, you are now also not including the NRHP infobox which you always used to include, and which I think many would agree adds to the article. This is the 2nd of 3 done this way since I commented. The first of these three was Pryor Brock Farmstead, which i didn't comment about in the DYK nomination process, but which, once posted as a DYK, immediately attracted a cleanup tag,
attached by another editor. I think it is a valid concern, that decently formatted references should be included in DYK articles that are profiled on the wikipedia frontpage. At least from very experienced DYK editors, I don't think that is setting a good example. doncram (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are too new for the infobox generator, so they wouldn't have infoboxes anyways. You might also noite I did not list them on the new articles for NRHP, nor tagged them for WP:NRHP; seemed detrimental to them.--Bedford Pray 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for clarifying that you mean to be insulting to me and/or to the NRHP wikiproject. For brand new NRHPs, by the way, I create an infobox by editing a previous one, filling out the fields that are possible from given information. For this one, you could fairly easily do that, given that the reference is a copy of the NRHP reference form. doncram (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down, doncram. No one else is taking that abusive tone here. --Wetman (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well, i dont believe i have been abusive in any respect. I am just publicly acknowledging Bedford's own public acknowledgment of his intention to insult, and to shortshrift his own DYK articles. doncram (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are over 1500, and have references, they are not "shortshrift" at all. *rolls eyes* --Bedford Pray 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is noted in the guidelines for this page, that DYKs should "cite their sources (these sources should be properly labelled; that is," etc. with the obvious direction that they should follow some citation standard other than bare URLs. Your wp:POINTY behaviour is deliberately obnoxious, that is well received. If one looks at the available references, it is obvious to an NRHP editor that following the NRHP standard for references of NRHP documents would enrich the article. For one it would avoid the arguable appearance of plagiarism (when defined as giving inadequate credit to authors of material, here the problem being that the authors of the NRHP texts are not named, hence arguably not being given adequate credit) and the failure to call appropriate attention to included photographs, which is a standard part of NRHP documents, per draft WP:NRHPMOS. It is in those senses that i recognize, as you have acknowledged, your giving shortshrift to these articles. Also, you do not give any explanation for your change in practices, such as dropping the useful NRHP infobox, to indicate anything other than your change is some kind of punishment to me for having commented on your footnoting style. doncram (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop biting each other, guys. --74.13.125.67 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pointy would be if I went back to other articles and made them bare. I am nowhere near those new places to take a pictures of them, and the infoboxes are not available. Also, as has been proven, the reference style in question has long been acceptable for DYK purposes.--Bedford Pray 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up references in your articles before, and I was asking you, as an experienced DYK medal collector, to do better. It appears to me that in this reply you may now be trying to mislead others, on two points: 1. As you know, I did not say you needed to go get a photo yourself. The Dr. Wilson Nelson House NRHP application itself includes 9 nice color photos of the house, and mentioning those within the reference, as is the standard in NRHP references, would improve the article. 2. You say "infoboxes are not available" perhaps meaning pre-formed ones from the Elkman infobox generator are not. In fact, as i suggested already, it would be easy to adapt any previous NRHP infobox to include the available info now: NRHP name of the property, location, NRHP listing date, source of date, refnum, etc. doncram (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer a member of the NRHP wikiproject, and as long as WP Indiana has no problems, then that is all that matters.--Bedford Pray 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Don, if this is going to keep happening, may I respectfully suggest that you not review any of Bedford's hooks anymore? Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like 3rd of 8, actually.--Bedford Pray 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret you as meaning to verify that you do deliberately do a poor job with referencing, in articles that you are creating of NRHP sites. I did notice another article of yours, a DYK today on another topic, that was more correctly footnoted. So you are deliberately slighting the NRHPs that you do, then, as some kind of retaliation for my commenting on your referencing. doncram (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer bound to WP NRHP, and it is perfectly acceptable for WP IN. I definitely do not appreciate you deliberately trying to torpedo my hooks, the only reason you seem to be on this Template Talk page anymore..--Bedford Pray 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and reference verified. Will you two cut it out? Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh McCulloch
Hugh McCulloch
FYI It's footnote #3 in the paragraph about McCulloch. --PFHLai (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your hook better than mine, Bedford, but can we not have the word "fund" in there 3 times? :-) --PFHLai (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... (alt hook) that the Indiana state government's share of the proceeds after the Bank of Indiana closed went to fund the first state supported school system in the United States?
I altered two funds, although all three were different versions of the word.--Bedford Pray 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues Article doesn't say that, but source does. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) withdrawn Victuallers (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too short and no inline citations. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - It's still too short (863 DYK characters) and no in-line citations. GregManninLB (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=224725724"