Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Christmas DYK sets

A. krampus living in Brazil

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:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Pflaumentoffel: Food, needs a review
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Christmas Invasion: TV, currently in Prep 6 at SOHA
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk: Ship, Approved SOHA

In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:

• Pioneer Courthouse Square Christmas tree: Tree
• Norwegian Christmas Tree in Washington, D.C.: Tree

Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 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 @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@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). @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. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm planning to do a nativity painting. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Dickinson pumpkin. I just made a Christmas hook for this. Thriley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Austrosphecodes krampus the "Krampus" hook is live and nominated .--Kevmin § 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi in the Snow, a stunning Bruegel painting with pic, is now ready for review. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Now reviewed, needs promoting & moving. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• If anyone is looking for a Christmas article, I started Draft:Alvin Greenman. He played Alfred the janitor in Miracle on 34th Street known for his "Make a buck. Make a buck" critique of Christmas commercialism. Thriley (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Revelation of the Magi was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Pulled.--Launchballer 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind if Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/National Gingerbread House Competition which might be nice to run in the holiday season - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Hearld and Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas carp for Christmas Eve/Christmas Day. Thriley (talk) 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. Thriley, the rules recommend not doing special occasion hooks within a week of the planned date. Two to three weeks should be enough. ミラP@Miraclepine 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. RoySmith (talk) 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. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Rivaldo

I would like to request second opinions regarding the suitability of ALT1 and its hook facts, which for context reads:

• ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo "used to think that all gay people were hairdressers"?

Although the more interesting hook among the two options proposed, I am worried that it might be considered offensive without the context provided in the article. Given that I am not LGBT, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to determine if the hook as currently written is suitable or not. I would like to ask for second opinions and suggestions on the hook, particularly from our LGBT regulars, if the hook as currently written is acceptable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If we want a slightly more positive focus, then perhaps:

• ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo found that there were "gay lawyers [and] gay businessmen" after moving to San Francisco?

However, I don't find the current hook to be offensive, as it's pretty clear that Rivaldo viewed that presumption as inaccurate. Maybe I'm only saying that because I'm not gay, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As a gay man, and after looking at the Jim Rivaldo article, I do find it rather offensive that the hook chosen actively plays off a negative stereotype of the LGBT community, rather then going with ANY of the other options, such as having worked with both Harvey Milk and Kamala Harris.--Kevmin § 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the appropriateness of the hairdresser angle, the issue is probably that the Milk/Harris angle is a lot more niche especially outside of America. Many non-Americans obviously know who Harris is, but probably not Milk. In addition, that angle primarily targets politics buffs, which not even all Americans are. I'm not saying the hairdresser angle is the best angle and indeed I'm very much open to suggestions, it's just that the Milk/Harris angle is probably not the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6/Queue 6

Any chance of getting Template:Did you know nominations/Packers–Seahawks rivalry into queue 6? I had put a special date request in, but it never got added to the holding area. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 and Di (they-them): Possibly showing my ignorance, but I'd worry that fact could date; they could conceivably play each other again. Got anything else?--Launchballer 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot that that rule was repealed last month. Promoted.--Launchballer 00:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, for my own benefit, what rule are you referencing? The Packers and Seahawks play each other often (which is why there is a rivalry page!), I just wanted the rivalry page to be on DYK during the game, as it will likely lead to more hits. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

They're talking about the "unlikely to change" rule, which said that a hook fact must be "unlikely to change". It was criticized for being too impractical and vague, so it was recently changed to instead say that it is an "established" or "definite" fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I am now grasping the concern. So fundamentally the fact will change when the game starts, because the teams will have played each other 25 times. Is there any opposition to adding a qualifier, like "prior to today" or "before 2024"? So it could ready "...that even though the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks have only played each other 24 times before 2024, 4 of those games have come in the playoffs?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The rule itself has since been repealed/changed so there's nothing to worry about anymore in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

2007 Greensburg tornado

• Hook says "up to" ten, article says "at least" ten, and source says 22(!). What's right? Pinging EF5, Departure–, and AirshipJungleman29 (may need adoption; EF is on wikibreak. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  The text on the page has 8 entries for satellite tornadoes - of which, two mention other satellites within the same entries. The confusion is likely because the list includes all tornadoes from that day of the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Departure– (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, and the table shows exactly ten. The numbers aren't numbering. Would it be safe to just drop the "at least" and "up to"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why not. I only see ten mentioned in the source, unless there's a different source listed on the article. Departure– (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I’m here. Ten is the accepted number, although if I could add 22 to a table that would be amazing. E_F⁵ 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Currently in Q1:

• ... that the 2007 Greensburg tornado had ten smaller tornadoes rotating around it?

Well sure, what tornado doesn't rotate? Wouldn't the more appropriate word be "orbiting", per the satellite tornado article?

Pinging nominator User:EF5 - Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. E_F⁵ 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

René Vallon (nom)

• ... that René Vallon (pictured) achieved the first flight and was the first flight-related death in China?

@Crisco 1492, ProfGray, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this hook is grammatically ambiguous on whether the first flight was the first flight anywhere or the first flight in China. (And this is more of a nitpick, but is it idiomatic to say that someone was a death?) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, would you please offer a suggested edit for the hook? It's been discussed a lot. (Btw, if a reader wonders if that's the first flight anywhere, will they wonder why they've never heard of Vallon and, hmm, they'll go to the wikipedia page on the Wright brothers.) ProfGray (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding commas after "flight" and "death" would make it unambiguous. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've moved this hook to prep 5 to prevent four consecutive black and white images. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Technically it would have been two, as the Horn of Plenty item is a colour image of a mostly B&W composition. But that's nitpicking; no worries from me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

Raul Meza Jr. (nom)

• ... that serial killer Raul Meza Jr. began using drugs at age eight?

@Swinub, It is a wonderful world, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this might violate WP:DYKBLP. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

How Jlwoodwa? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's... really not much BLP issues where an individual's notability is limited to the negative things they've done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but DYKBLP applies even to people primarily known for negative reasons. DYKBLP states that hooks should not unduly focus on a negative aspect about a living person. Would focusing on how this person, regardless of who they are, did drugs at the age of eight, count as due? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

With no response from the nominator and reviewer I've gone ahead and pulled it. For what it's worth, even if Meza wasn't a living person the hook would probably still be a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Timoshenko the cat

Currently in P2:

• ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II?

Who cares what the cat's name was? Surely the hook should just read:

• ... that a cat joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II? Gatoclass (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a fascinating question, actually. The reason why the cat shares its name with Semyon Timoshenko is historically interesting. The Russians and the British were allied in their fight against the Nazis and the cat was named in honor of the real Timoshenko after he began mounting major counter-defenses during the German invasion of the Soviet Union. I think the cat was named Timoshenko by the crew of the sub after the counter-offensive in Rostov, I'm not sure. I suspect it was a morale booster, and with a cat named Timoshenko walking around the sub, it was a reminder that the war was not yet lost, there was hope. So there's a lot of history here, and for that reason, the name is interesting. Others may disagree. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but then that should be explained in the hook, otherwise it's a complete puzzle why the name is included. Suggest changing it to:

* ... that a cat named after a Soviet general joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II? Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

My own thinking: less is more, and such "puzzlement" as you put it might lead to more people visiting the article. Also, not too keen on linking before the main article, but if you unlinked it, it would probably still work. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delinked, thanks. I cannot agree however that adding the name of the cat adds anything of value to the hook, because the name alone will be completely meaningless to 99.99% of readers. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No objection to your new version, but I think what you and I consider "meaningless" might be different. It sounds like you oppose names in hooks, and I can understand that as I tend to oppose dates. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, I oppose names in hooks for non-notable persons, or to put it another way, names that cannot be linked to an article. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? They are just conveying a piece of useless trivia. There's another reason I oppose them as well, but stating that might lead to another debate which I'd prefer not to have right now - cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyhow, I have substituted the above version - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fen Juhua

Also in P2:

• ... that Fen Juhua, the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema", fought for love?

- appears to be a clear breach of WP:DYKFICTION. Pinging nominator User:Crisco 1492, reviewer User:Prince of Erebor and promoter User:AirshipJungleman29. Gatoclass (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested alt:

• ALT1: ... that Fen Juhua has been described as the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" for her role in a 1925 film? Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • DYKFICTION reads "If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact." She was first of the lady knights in Chinese cinema, per Teo; that is the crux of the hook. If you'd prefer ALT2 ... that Fen Juhua became the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" after fighting for love in a 1925 film?, that keeps both elements while still keeping the link grounded as "a film". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me - substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• I wrote these, so a second set of eyes will be needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • AGF verified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Diane Leather

• I promoted to prep; second pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

. Verified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hamm Building

• Lede needs to be beefed up. I've tagged the article. Pinging Darth Stabro, Generalissima, and Gatoclass. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks, Darth Stabro. Tag removed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazi crimes against children

Resolved

Currently in P3:

• ... that Nazi crimes against children, such as kidnapping, euthanasia, and mass murder, resulted in more than two million victims?

There are some issues with this hook. Firstly, "victims" do not only include those killed, and the way the hook is phrased conflates the different categories of victims.

Secondly, the article states that more than 2 million Polish children lost their lives in World War II - but were they all killed in crimes, or is this the total number of children who lost their lives from all causes? Also, since this number refers only to Polish children, shouldn't the hook have "in Poland alone" appended (assuming they were all crime victims)?

So I'm strongly inclined to pull this hook until the issues are sorted. Pinging the nominator User:Piotrus for comment; any other comments welcome, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass Maybe it is late here, and I am tired, but I don't under stand your first concerns. Victims means all children who lost their lives because of Nazi policies and actions. Just like Holocaust victims includes not only people murdered directly, but those who starved, froze, etc.

Regarding the second point, yes, we can append the hook with "in Poland alone", that would be a correct clarification if deemed useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, given that it's often quicker to propose an alt hook rather than debate the merits of another, I think I will just do that:

• ... that in addition to millions murdered, Nazi crimes against children included compulsory sterilization, forced labor, forced institutionalization, medical experiments and Germanisation? Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass Thanks. I am fine with this, arguably even better than what I came up with, thanks. Pinging reviewer @Darth Stabro and mod @AirshipJungleman29 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2 (image question)

Does anybody mind terribly if I swap the image for The Horn of Plenty from the current one to File:Lee Alexander McQueen & Ann Ray - Rendez-Vous 61.jpg? The newer one was just uploaded yesterday (Elli is my queen) and, being made to look like bubble wrap, is a clearer demonstration of the trash concept imo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Much nicer image, too. First thing I thought of was bubble wrap. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm also good with that.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  swapped, feel free to revise the caption or alt text, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing the swap, cheers y'all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Christmas: A Biography

Hello, I need someone to choose a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography and move it into the Christmas queue. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, are you saying that the nomination is passed? If so, please add the tick and I can promote a hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I’m saying we need a second reviewer to choose a hook, as I don’t find any of the hooks interesting. I have asked the nominator to add different ones from the secondary sources (of their own choosing) that I find both interesting and educational, but the nominator disagrees. To their benefit, the nominator has offered many different hooks to choose from, but is singularly focused on a hook style I do not like. I’m hoping other eyes can decide in favor of the nominator or otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Due to time constraints on building a Christmas set, I will just go ahead and pass the hook in spite of my disagreement with the interestingness criterion. That way you can choose from the set. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay I passed it. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am currently taking a look at the nom to try and determine the best course of action. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have promoted one of the hooks that seemed interesting to me, but many others also seem fine. Not really sure what all the fuss was about in the 40kb nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that saved me some work :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Well, the discussion was huge because there was some persistent disagreement on how DYKINT works, some long reply paragraphs, and a quick look at the book itself. Good thing everything was sorted out in the nick of time. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Backlog mode

@DYK admins: At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:DYKUBM, the suggestion was that we go through backlog mode "with the goal of reducing the number of noms at WP:DYKN to 80 or so". We're now at 79. If there are no objections, I propose ending backlog mode at 00:00 UTC.--Launchballer 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Good work, everyone. I agree with moving back to regular mode.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Did you know/Backlog mode? and Template talk:Did you know, believe that's everything.--Launchballer 00:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

DYKHOOK: Facts that will likely change while posted

A few weeks back, WP:DYKHOOK changed as follows:

−

The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change

+

The hook should include an established fact

Currently on the Main Page, there is a hook that resulted in a thread at WP:ERRORS about a fact that changed: the total number of games between two teams was in the hook, but it became dated because they were playing each other shortly after its posting.[1]

While there's consensus that a hook doesn't need to remain true in perpetuity, I wasn't expecting that it would likely become dated while it was posted. This was flagged earlier at #Prep 6/Queue 6 (above), but it was decided that no hook changes were needed given the recent guideline change.

Question: Should "unlikely to change while posted", or similar, be added to WP:DYKHOOK? @Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, and Narutolovehinata5: Courtesy ping as participants from the above thread. —Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, or at the very least some clarity that the hook will need to be updated accordingly while it is running. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 made the change, so pinging for their input here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that wording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

At the last WT:DYK discussion in November, I had mentioned hooks that bcome dated before posting, but didn't think of it changing while posted. I'd be OK with that wording, or an alternative that addresses this recent case. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

With no objections and AJ29 not responding to the above discussion, I've gone ahead and changed the wording back to my original change. "Established fact" seemed vague anyway and was probably not the best term to use regardless of the outcome of the above circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting that in the past, we've had some timely DYKs that contain hook facts relevant to the day they're posted, and they've usually been handed and worded so that they aren't false at some point in the day (... that, until today... or ...that, today is the Xth time... or similar) – and aside from the wording in the guideline this seems logical and something that should have happened in this case anyway. Was there any reason why not, besides relying on the changed wording? Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry at Template talk:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes

Copied from nomination talk page; feels like it should have broader review than just one talk page on one nomination that may not be watched. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Original comment

Royiswariii, why did you close this as "rejected by reviewer"? The reviewer, Launchballer, gave it the approval tick. Sdkb ^talk 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've readded it to T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sdkb, can you be specific what on DYK nom i rejected? Royiswariii Talk! 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royiswariii, see the heading of this section. Sdkb ^talk 02:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The direct link to the nom page is here. —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 22 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 8. We have a total of 284 nominations, of which 208 have been approved, a gap of 76 nominations that has decreased by 39 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

Almost two months old

• October 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Phoebe Plummer

More than one month old

• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/A Nail Clipper Romance
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Gifted (2022 novella)
• 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 Saladin
• November 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Gohobi
• November 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Bunt sind schon die Wälder
• 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)

Other nominations

• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Al Faihani
• November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/De Worsten van Babel
• 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 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Doug Hamlin
• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sugya
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill
• November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Family Stress Model
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Hefker
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Chronicle
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Recategorization
• 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 8: Template:Did you know nominations/The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alexander McQueen collection)

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) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Qian Xingcun

• This is one of mine, and thus a second pair of eyes is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing.--Launchballer 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 01:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Palaeotherium

• Given the recent hullabaloo about potentially ambiguous phrasing, is "amphibian" in the generic sense something we want on the main page? The article says "amphibious lifestyle", which is less likely to be confused with amphibian. Pinging PrimalMustelid, Femke, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well referring to the 1782 source, honestly with the French term "amphibie" translating either to "amphibian" or "amphibious," either could be correct ("etoit amphibie"). Cuvier in 1804 interpreted Lamanon's description as him thinking that it was an amphibian ("...e'etoit un amphibie"). PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I just wonder if the ambiguity could be better reflected in the article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazi crimes against children

• Just going to note that I included the ALT from the section above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazareth Hall Preparatory Seminary

• Last I checked, the academic year in North America is generally September to June; as such, "closed after the 1969–1970 academic year" means it closed in 1970. Does the source specify 1971? Pinging Darth Stabro, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good catch, worth double checking. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it looks like 1970 would be the correct date, based on contemporary sources. It looks like the 1971 date slipped in from the To Work for the Whole People book source, which says 1971 on page 259. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I removed the year from the hookCrisco 1492 mobile (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Nina Tikhonova

@AirshipJungleman29, Spiderpig662, and 4meter4: There's extensive copying from The Independent, a clear violation of WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed before this can go live. RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This also has a {{Lead too short}} maintenance tag, which also needs to be addressed. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Spiderpig662 I see you took care of the worst of it. If you take a piece of text and just change words here and there but keep the same underlying structure and order, that's the definition of close paraphrasing. That's what you had (and to a lesser extent, still do). What you should be doing is reading the original source and then formulating your own way of expressing the same information. RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I didn't even realise about close paraphrasing, thanks for letting me know. I'm planning on rewriting more of it tomorrow. Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This still has the maintenance tag, so I've swapped it down to Prep 3 to be worked on. RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

David Headley Green

@AirshipJungleman29, Chaiten1, and PCN02WPS: If I'm reading this right, the last set of papers were published on his 18th birthday, not before. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - he published his 200th paper in 2004, and was still publishing new papers aged 18 / 72, in 2008 Chaiten1 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it says that in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Edoardo Tiretta

@WoodElf: The lede's too short to summarize article's key points. Please expand, thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede is updated. User:WoodElf 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

@AirshipJungleman29 I'm unsatisfied with the new wording of the hook for William C. Roberts (pastor) in prep 3 as I believe it is now incorrect. In my mind, the construction was said to be "incurable" is important since I don't believe it to be true that her illness was magically only curable if she went back to New Jersey specifically. To say his wife's illness was only curable if she returned to New Jersey is presenting the physician's opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which I think should be avoided (especially in this case, since the absurdity of the advice was the appeal of the hook in the first place). The new wording also throws out "New Jersey" with no explanation, which doesn't make any sense, and in isolation doesn't really add much to the hook. I'm definitely not saying the hook can't be shortened, but I believe its new wording to be less than ideal. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I meant to have "was believed to be only curable" in there PCN02WPS, which would resolve the wikivoice problem, but I don't see how the original explains "New Jersey" any more than the current version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 From how I read the source, it seemed like the "cure" was to have her return to her home state, not New Jersey specifically. Maybe the hook could be ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was said to be "incurable" unless she returned to her home state? or, with the new wording, ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was believed to only be curable if she returned to her home state? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, legends, folk tales, and the like?

For context, Template:Did you know nominations/Pisidice of Methymna is stuck as the original hook was about an event in Greek mythology. Concerns were raised that the hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Wouldn't that be overkill? Plus, wouldn't saying that DYKFICTION applies to mythology, legends, and the like would mean that much of the Bible, as well as other religious texts, would also fall under DYKFICTION? I sort of see where the idea was coming from, but I really don't think that mythology was something that editors had in mind when that guideline was codified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this because you closed Template:Did you know nominations/Pabhāvatī after it was rejected for DYKFICTION with the same argument. CMD (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I marked that nomination for closure not due to DYKFICTION concerns, but due to DYKTIMEOUT (it was already two months old with outstanding issues). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The outstanding issues were DYKFICTION ones. CMD (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even notice or realize that the concerns were regarding DYK fiction, only that it remained unapproved after two months, hence why I timed it out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why should we exempt religious texts and make a difference between L. Ron Hubbard's fiction that was widely available and the fiction that was only sold to Scientologists? Involving the real world isn't too difficult for religious texts; they don't need an exemption. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with attempting to apply DYKFICTION to folklore, mythology, and so on. In fact, there should be an explicit disclaimer added to DYKFICTION that it does not cover those, since this has come up before. The intent of DYKFICTION was to discourage "did you know that (in-universe fact like "the fictional alter-ego of Jimmy Wales defeats 100 criminals in just 10 seconds") in Some Novel? Because that's a trivial issue someone just made up. But if we're talking folklore, it really is relevant to say what the folklore is. That's something true in real-life culture. Like if Paul Bunyan became a GA, mentioning that he carved the Grand Canyon with his axe would be a totally valid hook. Same with religious / theological topics - if there's a suitably hooky fact about what some guru / saint / etc. is said to have done, that's precisely the point. Knowing what precisely Hermes was the god of isn't "fictional", it's basic human knowledge of a field. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How could DYKFICTION be reworded to incorporate this? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to feature a legend of Paul Bunyan, just make sure to incorporate the real world in your hook. Say where it comes from, who recorded it, where there are statues commemorating it. This is generally easier with legendary characters than for general plot points in fiction. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the main page is aimed at readers, and the best hooks are short that ideally highlight just one fact. If that fact is something about the legend, that should be acceptable; we shouldn't feel a need to create an awkward dual-hook that says the interesting thing we want readers to care about, and then some later bit that might be less interesting. SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a hook "... that Paul Bunyan was said to have carved the Grand Canyon with his axe" as any better than "... that in Star Wars, backwards Yoda speaks?" —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If a mythological topic has a Wikipedia article, it needs to be the subject of multiple non-narrative sources. Those will provide non-fictional analyses of the subject which can be used as a hook. The later sections of Pisidice of Methymna provide numerous examples.

People have been inventing stories using the limits of their creativity for millennia. It makes no sense to allow a hook like "that in the Aeneid, Aeneas went to the undwerworld", and to disallow "that Darth Vader used to be called Anakin Skywalker" when everyone involved in creating both stories knew they were entirely fictional. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Going to the underworld and Vader turning to the dark side are far more than fiction. They are part of a large body of mythology based on archetypes related to patterns in literature, concepts in philosophy, and more controversially, psychology itself. The element of fiction is just the appearance of the larger iceberg, 90% of which lies beneath the surface. If we reduce all of this to "just fiction", we aren't even addressing the most interesting and salient features of the idea. That's why DYKFICTION is so limiting. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A hook that hints at these archetypes already involves the real world to a degree sufficient to pass the guideline. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so, as I will write a hook that does just that (next year!) and then ask you to review it. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Diane Leather

Just leaving a note here that I've pulled the Diane Leather hook from the main page (got there via Q2) over copyvio concerns as reported at Errors. Schwede66 08:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that the copyvio existing for a year back in 2014 and 2015, was mentioned on the talk page, but nobody had ever done a revision deletion. I've done so now and restored the article. Schwede66 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tbhotch I certainly appreciate the diligence of finding this old issue, but I'm curious how you noticed it. Do you have a tool which searches all old revisions for copyvios? RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Diane Leather#Copyright problem removed (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Nail Clipper Romance

This nomination will be two months old on Christmas Eve, but it hasn't moved forward despite a request for a second opinion. Requesting any interested editor, preferably those fluent in Chinese and/or have an interest in movies, to take a look and help it move forward. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If it helps to move it forward, you can collapse the discussion as "extended content". I was going to do that before another user stepped in and requested the second opinion. My purpose was never to hold it up, but rather to present an opinion. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

René Vallon

• One of mine, so it will require a second pair of eyes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing both.--Launchballer 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a first hook, but I think it's unlikely a prior flight/fatality would have gone unnoticed. This should be fine, but I'm going to ping @RoySmith: just in case.--Launchballer 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm inclined to think we can go with this one, partly because the WSJ is a good source (although I strongly suspect in this case they did no investigative reporting beyond reading the 100 year old North China News article) and partly because anything involving aviation in 1911 was big news. It's hard to imagine some previous flight having been taken in secret. I do however note that the WSJ talks about "China's first powered flight". It's likely there were previous unpowered flights (i.e. gliders or hot-air balloons). And for sure, the Chinese were flying rockets 100's of years ago, and a rocket is certainly a powered flight. So maybe we want "... first airplane flight". And similar rewording in the second part of the hook; I would imagine the first flight-related death in China was in the 13th century either as the victim of a rocket attack or an accident on its launch pad. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've changed to "aircraft flight" and "aircraft-related". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492 I intentionally used the word "airplane". The word aircraft is a more general term which also includes gliders and hot-air balloons (and some other things which did not exist in 1911). RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I was referring to MOS:COMMONALITY, but you are correct that aeroplane would be more specific. Addressed and promoted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Actually, the distinction between "aircraft" and "airplane" is indeed international. See for example, the ICAO glossary: "Aircraft. [ICAO, Annex 6] Any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface". RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    • I wasn't saying there was no distinction in either variety; my thought when using aircraft was that it is a common term that avoids air vs. aero. That being said, the distinction is important here, and I have no qualms with using aeroplane. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Mingxing films

• One of mine, so it will require a second pair of eyes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted the article so that the number 174 has an end-of-sentence citation, as I don't particularly fancy going through 50 references. This set should be fine. Incidentally, I was wondering if my Ceechynaa article could run in the next prep 5 (i.e. the next prep area to open when this is queued), as it runs on 29 December, which is her birthday.--Launchballer 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

My article (?) Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse should ideally not be on the same DYK template as 2022 Andover tornado. They're both tornado blurbs less than a year separated (both with CCTV footage, coincidentally) and should be spaced out to achieve a bit more variety. Since Andover already has image rights, I'd like mine to be swapped with one a day ahead or behind where it is. Departure– (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Also, I'm unsure as to why Queues and Prep areas are dictated properly - Preparation Area X vs Queue/X. Not that it matters here. Departure– (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Swapped into Prep 2; I've promoted Planting a Rainbow in its place. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you. Departure– (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 (2024-12-20)

@Crisco 1492: I'm confused about Special:Diff/1264135387. Both of these were indeed in Prep 7 (which I just promoted to Queue 7). RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• You're right; switched back. I got confused as I was expecting to promote it, and then it was empty when I went back. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)

• I reviewed this, and thus new eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin, Crisco 1492, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I saw close paraphrasing in the article.--Launchballer 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to hopefully reduce paraphrasing. If this was not adequate, could you point me to the concerning text? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "a Puff-Puff, only for it to turn out to be a" should be reworded.--Launchballer 21:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How's that? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be fine, though as I'm falling asleep I'll double check in the morning.--Launchballer 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is fine.--Launchballer 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh Hee-ok

• Tried looking up the hook fact and I got a 404 error. Pinging Seefooddiet, BeanieFan11, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Does this link work for you? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's not used to help support the fact in the article, which goes against our guidelines for hooks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      • So, is reusing that ref for the sentence about being the last surviving activist all that's needed? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
        • That would suffice for me; it would have to be in addition to the current ref, as it doesn't support her becoming the last surviving activist after the death of Min. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

          I replaced the ref about Min with a different news article that supports that fact.

          오 지사는 지난 2021년 독립운동가 민영주 지사가 작고한 뒤 유일한 생존 여성 애국지사이기도 했다.

          Oh was the last living female independence activist after the death of Min Yeong-ju in 2021.

          Is there anything else needed from me? seefooddiet (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

          • No, it's good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Voltairine de Cleyre

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Grnrchst, and AirshipJungleman29: The article says expressed her disapproval, which got turned into refused to accept in the hook. I know next to nothing about Catholic rites, do these two phrases mean the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Source says "she expressed her displeasure with a grimace". When I reviewed this set, I felt that the two were functionally identical within the context of an avowed and non-verbal anarchist who actively campaigned against religious doctrine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas carp

Can someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas carp? It would be so nice if it could run on Christmas Eve. Thriley (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good. I made some copyedits and added missing info. The only question I had was whether the lead should say Christmas carp is one of several different fish dishes served at the traditional twelve-dish Christmas Eve supper in Central Europe. I did add a link to it in the last section. I don't think I should do the formal review since I added content, but I think it checks out in all respects. I checked Earwig, spot checked sources, and fixed the grammar. I think it's ready to go, but others might want to change the hooks. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Time is running out and this still needs a review. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Cantata for 26 December

Bach first performed Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121 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 (Prep 2) is full. Any chance? Because any other day would look strange to an observant audience ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 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.--Launchballer 00:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I see @AirshipJungleman29: beat me to it.--Launchballer 11:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you, and it is already in prep 2, thanks to AirshipJungleman29, who took ALT1b: ... that on 26 December 1724, Bach led the first performance of Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121, based on a hymn that Luther (pictured) had derived 200 years earlier from "A solis ortus cardine"?, 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 Salzburg Festival, dedicated to the works by Mozart, 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 Christmas 2011)). - Please reserve space on 1 January, Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41 is already nominated for GA, - a review would help ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)