Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 2,764: Line 2,764:
| nominator =
| nominator =
| comment =
| comment =
| image = Boxhill louisville front.jpg
| image =
| credits =
| credits =
*{{DYKmake|Boxhill (Louisville)|Miss Communication}}
*{{DYKmake|Boxhill (Louisville)|Miss Communication}}
Line 2,770: Line 2,770:
:*The reference for this is an old newspaper article... I have access to it but it's an archive that requires a password. It has an "email this story" function that will probably work if anyone really wants to verify this. --[[User:Miss Communication|Miss Communication]] ([[User talk:Miss Communication|talk]]) 03:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:*The reference for this is an old newspaper article... I have access to it but it's an archive that requires a password. It has an "email this story" function that will probably work if anyone really wants to verify this. --[[User:Miss Communication|Miss Communication]] ([[User talk:Miss Communication|talk]]) 03:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::It appears possible to me that the photos are not public domain, so this could be copyvio on the photos. The photos are downloaded from a Federal, National Park Service website, but as noted at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain]], the NPS is very clear that not all photos that it posts are PD. If the photographer Mary Jean Kinsman is not a Federal employee then the photos are most likely not PD. Also, it's possible that the text of the article includes text copied from the NRHP nomination form, which also is probably not PD. I'll participate at Talk page for article, but I think this should not be okayed for DYK until this is resolved. [[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 04:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::It appears possible to me that the photos are not public domain, so this could be copyvio on the photos. The photos are downloaded from a Federal, National Park Service website, but as noted at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain]], the NPS is very clear that not all photos that it posts are PD. If the photographer Mary Jean Kinsman is not a Federal employee then the photos are most likely not PD. Also, it's possible that the text of the article includes text copied from the NRHP nomination form, which also is probably not PD. I'll participate at Talk page for article, but I think this should not be okayed for DYK until this is resolved. [[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 04:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll remove the photo until this is cleared up, but I'm rather sure the NRHP site identifies these photos as public domain. --[[User:Miss Communication|Miss Communication]] ([[User talk:Miss Communication|talk]]) 14:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


====[[Rural Cemetery Act]]====
====[[Rural Cemetery Act]]====

Revision as of 14:20, 22 February 2009

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 queuesT: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}}

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page.

Purge

Instructions

Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination.

DYK criteria

Official criteria: DYK rules and additional guidelines

Sample DYK suggestion strings

Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.

  1. Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
  2. Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
    To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook: |article2= |article3= |article4= | (etc)
    To include more than one author: |author2= |author3= | (etc)
    To include alternate hooks: |ALT1= |ALT2= | (etc)
    To add a comment: |comment=
    To add the article you reviewed: |reviewed=

Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however.
Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you.
Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template.
Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.

An example of how to use the template is given below. Full details are at {{DYKsug}}:

{{subst:DYKsug
 | article       = Example
 | hook          = ... that this [[article]] is an '''[[example]]''' ''(pictured)''?
 | creator       = User
 | expander      = 
 | nominator     =
 | image         = Example.png
 | sound         =
 | sound caption = 
 | comment       =
}}
  • Note that you should only use one of the above templates for the original hook. If you want to suggest a second, alternative hook for the same article submission, just type it in manually. The above templates output useful code for each submission and if you employ them for alternative hooks, you will mess up the page formatting.
  • When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
  • Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
  • If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|December 1}} Thanks, ~~~~

Symbols

If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:

Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible

Please consider using {{subst:DYKproblem}} on the user's talk page, in case they do not notice if there is an issue.

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.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the hook you submitted to this page, in most cases it means your article has been approved and is in the queue for display on the main page. You can check whether your hook has been moved to the queue by reviewing the queue listings.

If your hook is not in the queue or already on the main page, it has probably been deleted. Deletion occurs if the hook is more than about eight days old and has unresolved issues for which any discussion has gone stale. If you think your hook has been unfairly deleted, you can query its deletion on the discussion page, but as a general rule deleted hooks will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Candidate entries

Articles created/expanded on February 22

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 11:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise that the U-boat article is too short on its own to qualify for DYK, but is included for the sake of completeness. If approved, is there any possibility of the hook going on the main page on the anniversary of the sinking, 27 February? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did some fixes on the ship and U-boat names for you. U-boat article seems sufficiently long to me. Manxruler (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 21

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 10:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 20

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the hook is pretty bland, considering that one can arguably find the same reasoning in virtually all propaganda outlet of the Soviet Union and other communist states. For me, what stood out was what Bezbozhnik alleged about the Jewish community. Also, I think the hook could include a bit more detail on what the magazine was. Therefore, allow me to suggest:
ALT: "... that the Soviet atheist magazine Bezbozhnik (cover pictured) accused some rabbis of having organized anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire?" Dahn (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not much else to go on beyond the history in the film archive in a few different languages, but i think it may be OK now. Can you take a peek? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Barry Melrose is the Los Angeles Kings' all-time leader for the most playoff-game wins (13), and the highest playoff winning percentage (.542), which is the only one out of all Kings head coaches that is over .500? Needs grammar check.

ALT2 ... that Rogatien Vachon, who was the head coach of the Los Angeles Kings for three non-consecutive stints, is the Kings' all-time leader for the least regular-season games coached?

5x expansion, self-nom by -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The article states "Of those circuit riders assigned to the Canadas in 1812, only Burch and Robert Hibbard managed to get across the border, and Hibbard drowned in the Saint Lawrence River soonafter." - The hook says "riders assigned" and the article focuses on the riders assigned who made it to Canada (a smaller subset). There is some confusion here. The source only mentions the two, Burch and Hibbard, so I'm not sure how amazing it is that Burch survived and Hibbard died. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nom at 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: More Crawley-related knowledge-enhancement. I'm trying to expand and de-stub West Green by 5x to make this a double-nom... bear with me for a couple more days! Better hook suggestions are welcome, but there are thin pickings here.



Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Should have been his obit. Will fix it and post when I have--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The source does not say that Charles Dickens himself did the discouraging. The source is written in the passive voice, specifically eliding the agent. The source also fails to attribute the quotation and there are no notes in the back of the book that I could find on Google Books that do attribute the quotation to Charles Dickens. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is also here [1]. Charles Dickens took sole responsibility for the education and future career of his sons. The decision to send two to Australia and two into the Forces was his and his alone. This is clear from all his biographies. The only person who could therefore have instructed the tutor to act in this way was Charles Dickens, who took all such rights away from Catherine, his wife. See also page 388 of the same book "With a good deal of forethought Charles Dickens was mapping out lives for his seven sons." The page goes on to mention Dickens's plans for Charles Jnr and then straight into the section on Walter. Jack1956 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like WP:SYNTH. Also, the "findagrave" site is not what one would call a WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt ... that novelist Charles Dickens received news of the death in India of his son Walter Landor Dickens on his own birthday on February 7, 1864? Jack1956 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link should be on British India or British Raj. Dahn (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion FruitMonkey (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article title not in hook. Problem there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it.*thinks*Smallman12q (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYFixed.Smallman12q (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Articles created/expanded on February 19

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is a suitable hook. Most people who are even slightly famous have been praised at some point. To make this count we'd need to know who did the praising. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a verified fact written from a nonbiased perspective, so it meets neutrality standards. In writing articles we're supposed to be neutral and not just glaze over info that makes the subject look bad, and I assume that's the same case with the hooks. That being said, if you had a suggestion for a better hook, I'd be open to it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALTHOOK:... that in February 2008, David Mendell received an NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Literary Work for Obama: From Promise to Power? Awadewit (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I switched them out. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "(ruins pictured)"? --Hegvald (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the pictured referred to the phrase "ruined Elizabethan mansion of Rocksavage". Repeating the word ruins would make it seem awkward in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet whether I'm done with the research on the later parts of the dispute, so the lead is still a work in progress. I'm awaiting a ILL journal article... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I so totally understand. It is just that it would be nice to have something more of lead when it appears on the main page, since most people only read the lead. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

These commas are not well liked. Best to rewrite the hook to avoid them.

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the two sources to support this hook, one is an apparent copyright violation, and the other is a mirror of our own George Wallace article, where it's equally unsourced; I think a second look at sourcing would be helpful. --Rodhullandemu 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "popularized" mean? This incident happened more than 30 years before the film, and was widely publicized at the time. Ntsimp (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right! "dramatized", or at a pinch "re-popularized", but then is "popular" right? Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I meant to say something like 'brought into popular culture'. Anyway, see the alt below. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1:... that the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door (pictured) was reenacted in the film Forrest Gump? Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • ALT1: "... that the '''[[M7 grenade launcher]]''' attachment ''(pictured)'' could fit onto the end of [[rifle]]s and launch [[fragmentation grenade]]s up to 350 metres?"
Have edited mine as a kind of compromise. I'm ok with yours though.--Pattont/c 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Is family website a reliable source for hook,"Obituary R. Buckston". www.archerfamily.org.uk. Retrieved 2009-02-19.? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website quotes The Times obituary - highly reliable and verifiable - though this point has been removed. Motmit (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then reference The Times' obituary—unreliable sources are not accepted unless they are convenience links. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've verified The Times obit against their online archives (subscription only). I've left the link there at the moment, though in fact it's probably a copyvio, so we probably ought not to link to it. I've done some rewriting, the info on his war service, and post war cricket looked very close to a direct copy from the obit, I believe it no longer consistutes a potential copyvio. Despite the general reliability of The Times, given the records of his military career in the London Gazette, it would appear he left the army earlier than the obit indicated. David Underdown (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

should be trainer/driver. He never rode the horses in races.LPWRHR (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct; the hook has been adjusted accordingly. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better hook would be: ... that in May 1182, a mob massacred almost the entire 60,000-strong Latin community of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire? Constantine 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 11:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 18

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Additional Rule B1 requires the article to be linked from the hook. Also, I'm not sure that just (Lohmeyer) is enough to make the hook's opinion NPOV. So ALT1: ... that according to Ernst Lohmeyer, "the Christian faith is only Christian as long as it retains in its heart the Jewish faith"?
Boot's Folly at Strines Reservoir
Boot's Folly at Strines Reservoir

Created by Mick Knapton (talk). Nominated by Hassocks5489 (talk) at 13:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a missing word in the alt hook. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "first time" seem redundant to me. Interesting subject! I'm going to go see if it's named after ghosts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion Thruxton (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 9:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 9:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 17

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 11:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

5x expanded by MacGyverMagic (talk).

  • Comment: I expanded this in an attempt to save it from AFD. As of January 19, it still there, so it needs to be evaluated after the AFD closes.
  • Nomination has been closed as a keep. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Hook could be better. What's that info in the article about 1936? It seems to either refer to the Colentina River, but it's so ambiguous that it's hard to tell. Also, the entire article is referenced to one website, please add some more citations. That website is also Romanian so it's difficult to verify; is it an official website? In any case, the page that the reference links to doesn't even have any text so I'm guessing that's not the right page. Gary King (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info about 1936 is the year the lakes begun to be built. The ref is from the official website of the agency that administrates the lakes and to enter the lakes area you have to look for a tab named "În administrare" in the left blue side and then press the "Lacuri" tab located in the middle of the screen. Sorry for the complication but that's how some Romanian websites are. Mario1987 09:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, well perhaps using that information about the lakes beginning to be built in 1936, as these area numbers are not really interesting at all, as people generally can't imagine how big or how small the sizes are. Also, please add a few more references to the article, as it is entirely cited to one source. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take ALT1. The referencing is better, but I'd appreciate some English sources; it's sufficient for now though. Gary King (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only way this article has reached the 1,500 char limit is by putting the list itself in text form. As it stands, this article is not suitable for the main page as it's almost nothing but a list of lake dimensions. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tapsel gate at the Church of the Transfiguration
The Tapsel gate at the Church of the Transfiguration

Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nom at 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "Tapsel" is a proper noun in this name, hence the capitalisation.


Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That's fine; I also added some citation needed templates that need to be resolved in both articles.

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you clarify which part of the sentence needs citing, please? I think it's referenced by several links to Hansard and the cited quotation from PMQs on the page. If it's a reference to the "fund" bit, then I think it's referenced by all the following quotations, plus the news link. I'll duplicate the ref if it's a problem, but I'm not quite sure which bit needs referencing. Thanks. Bob talk 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 10:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This article was expanded very nicely recently. However, it existed as a fairly substantial (albeit substandard) article for a long time in the past. It's much improved over this version from a year ago, but considering how long it existed in a form something like that version, I don't think Wikipedia can credibly claim this current version as a "newly expanded article." (I'm interested in hearing opposing views, though...) --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with Art, but I didn't mean to point to the October version. The article has been through many changes in its history. I chose to link to a version from exactly one year ago (17 Feb 2008), which was similar in length to the current version, but (unlike the current version) was unsourced. The October edit that Art highlighted did greatly reduce the article length, but interestingly the content prior to that edit was fairly different from the February 2008 version. --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you guys are the experts, but it seems to me in looking at the article that existed when Scapler started working on it, that the previous version (as of the last edit on Feb. 2) was very stubby. The work done seems to me to clearly meet the criteria for a 5x expansion and a job well done. Is there some indication of foul play that indicates the article was greatly reduced without good reason, to make it easy to expand it five times? Is there evidence that content from somewhere in the history was simply cut and pasted to bulk it up? And if it was, did it have to be sourced so it wasn't acceptable until now? Assuming the reduction was done for good reason by good faith editors, the article is now five times as long as the version that was included on the encyclopedia when Scapler's work started. It now contains content that appears to me at a glance to be solid and well sourced. I don't really see what the issue is. Is there a standard that if an article was ever long it can't ever qualify? I know Scapler isn't one to complain, but I think the improvements should qualify. If on the other hand Scapler is up to something shady I wand to know about it so I can give him a hard time about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the hook is too long. Everything in it counts in the length since the length is used to determined if it will fit in the DYK box on the main page. Also, please cite each sentence in the article that is mentioned in this hook. Gary King (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Older nominations

  • Nominations must be posted no more than 5 days after the creation or the beginning of the expansion of each DYK candidate article.

Articles created/expanded on February 16

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I made some minor formatting changes to the hook for proper punctuation and for words being discussed as words (alta also because it's a foreign language word). — Bellhalla (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't think this qualifies. You did a good job on the article, but it existed at about half its current length a month ago [2], before believing vandalized [3]. So, while the current revision is a fivefold expansion versus what existed from January 26 to February 16, it's not a fivefold expansion versus what the article was a month ago. That said, good job on the article and it's a shame that no one reverted the vandalism properly so you had to recreate it all. Cool3 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I just looked at the version from a month ago, and it had serious issues. Despite its size, it was in bad shape. Thanks for looking it over...I should have looked farther into the article's past. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The reference for this is an old newspaper article... I have access to it but it's an archive that requires a password. It has an "email this story" function that will probably work if anyone really wants to verify this. --Miss Communication (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears possible to me that the photos are not public domain, so this could be copyvio on the photos. The photos are downloaded from a Federal, National Park Service website, but as noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#some but not all National Park Service photos are public domain, the NPS is very clear that not all photos that it posts are PD. If the photographer Mary Jean Kinsman is not a Federal employee then the photos are most likely not PD. Also, it's possible that the text of the article includes text copied from the NRHP nomination form, which also is probably not PD. I'll participate at Talk page for article, but I think this should not be okayed for DYK until this is resolved. doncram (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the photo until this is cleared up, but I'm rather sure the NRHP site identifies these photos as public domain. --Miss Communication (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking at the sentence that states "Between 1854 to 1856, more than 15,000 bodies were exhumed from churchyards in Manhattan and Williamsburg and moved to new cemeteries in Queens," read further. The next sentence in the article says "Over the decades, Cypress Hills Cemetery alone is estimated to have reburied the remains of 35,000 people disinterred from their original burial sites in Manhattan." Is that not sufficient? --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Thanks to your comment, I noticed that the sentence about Cypress Hills was in two different places in the article. That's fixed now! --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not completely sure what the issue is. However, I subsequently revised this passage to say (consistent with a cited source) "Between 1854 to 1856, more than 15,000 bodies were exhumed from churchyards in Manhattan and Williamsburg and moved to Cypress Hills Cemetery. Over the decades, Cypress Hills Cemetery alone is estimated to have reburied the remains of 35,000 people disinterred from their original burial sites in Manhattan." Two sources are cited. Earlier in the article Cypress Hills is identified as being on the boundary between the boroughs (i.e., in both), again with a source citation. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Length, date verified. ODNB doesn't actually say that Desmond was too radical, but that Smith was too radical. Not familiar with Desmond, though. If this was indeed the case, perhaps another source should be used. Otherwise, the hook should probably be modified. BuddingJournalist 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is meant. The only way Smith could be known as a radical is through her writings, thus, when they became too radical, Cadell refused to publish them. No other citation is needed. (Note: If you change the hook to say that Smith, rather than her writings, was too radical, it will actually be wrong.) Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie. . BuddingJournalist 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That hook doesn't do much for me. (Where else would the first discovery of "Dorset" culture be found, other than a place called "Dorset"?) Can you say something about the culture instead? (Such as "a Paleo-Eskimo culture that...") --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far more interesting. :-) Everything checks out. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"on Nunavut" sounds wrong because the territory of Nunavut isn't an island, and Dorset Island is part of Nunavut. So I suggest "... on Canada's Dorset Island in Nunavut?" Art LaPella (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree thats what makes the article interesting... but I was trying to make an interesting hook, however if a longer hook is preferred then DYK ...

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not just one year. In Prettyman's three years as captain, Michigan never lost a game, winning seven, losing none, and outscoring opponents 192 to 10. So I think the hook is OK. If you have a better hook for the article, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have modified the hook to incorporate your suggestion. However, I have left in the bit about 8 seasons, as that would be unheard of today. Eligibility standards were loose in the early days, and he continued to play even after graduating. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Source, length, and history verified. I prefer the first hook. Personally, I've seen grammar errors in other subtitles and I like that the first hook links to the topic of the film. Awadewit (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 04:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The source says that the Polish version was the only complete translation but it does not discuss any back-translation. It strongly implies this is what would have to happen, however. Could someone else take a look at this, too? Awadewit (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1 ... that archaeologists have discovered small stone weapons, 15,000–20,000 years old, in Sagardighi in the Indian state of West Bengal? - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 2 ... that Sagardighi in West Bengal contains the ruins of the palace of Hussain Shah, the greatest of Sultans of Gauda, and the 15th century Kherur mosque was built during his reign? - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 15

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting this stub to get nominated! More explicit now and with refs too. Size is also above 1500 chars Victuallers (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I had thought that I might create an article for Hadley while this was fermenting at DYK, but I will be unlikely to do so. Either proposed alternative would be an improvement, though I offer (ALT 2) "that in 1944, before the first of what turned out to be four marriages, Leila Hadley's mother reassured her by saying "Don't worry, Dear, sex will only last a year"?"

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The original should be: ... that as a child, Pauline Joran the opera singer had absolute pitch and could identify the notes of chords sounded while blindfolded? - that is what absolute pitch is, but it is not really rare, so maybe the alt is better. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All ok, with offline ref. Great stuff! Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

First hook verified, I think the second one is a little too speculative. But why have you taken the word "fast" out of the original hook? Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your feedback. I have shortened the hook to 187 characters including the questionmark, not including the leading set of dots. As for the article length, I note that you say that lists do not count toward minimum article length. The article had a set of four bulleted entries, but it wasn't really a list, rather, it was a way of organizing prose. I have, however, now converted the bullet entries to pure prose, which actually works better than I thought it would, and hopefully will meet your DYK criteria. If you still have further comments or issues that need to be addressed before considering to use the article as DYK material, I'll be happy to try and comply. Thanks!-Lilac Soul (talk contribs count) 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, the length requirements are satisfied. Others will soon make a more subjective judgment. There are a lot of hooks, and the software considers bulleted entries to be a list, but it's always possible to argue for an exception. Art LaPella (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • These refs are inappropriate as I explained a few days ago in regards to a similar article. These sources are quite old and do not meet the RS qualifications - they are not peer-reviewed nor are they fact-checked. We need to reference these articles to modern scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Port of Liverpool is what I am trying to say. Changed hook accordingly. See Conclusion of the American Civil War#Surrender of CSS Shenandoah (November 6) last line: With little stretch of the imagination, the boarding of the raider by admiring British officers may be considered the end of our Civil War. Referenced here. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with the definitive tone of the hook. While the Shenandoah was indeed "the last organized element of the Confederate military to surrender" (Struggle for a Vast Future, p.130), it's hardly fair to assert that "historians" consider its surrender to have been the conclusion of the war. From Civil War High Commands, p. xviii: "Many authors suggest a conclusion for the war with the surrender at Appomattox (9 April 1865), the firing of the last shots at Palmito Ranch (12 May 1865), the surrender of the CSS Shenandoah at Liverpool (6 November 1865)..." So there is actually significant disagreement among historians over when the war ended, and I can find plenty of sources saying it ended in April, May or June. Moreover, I'm deeply skeptical of the source saying the surrender marked the war's end: it's one of those "fun facts" or "50 things you never knew" type books - not exactly serious scholarship. It's the time of book that tells you Peyton Randolph was "really" the first President of the United States, not George Washington. Amusing, but a bit of a stretch nonetheless. - Biruitorul Talk 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your response, Biruitorul. The reference above is by Burke Davis. He is a well known Civil War historian that has authored many related books. Going by your own reference of Civil War High Commands, p. xviii: "Many authors suggest a conclusion for the war with the surrender ... of the CSS Shenandoah at Liverpool (6 November 1865)..." - I believe we are both saying the same thing. Additionally there is a book called Last Flag Down referenced in the article by John Baldwin that also is saying the same thing - that the surrender of the CSS Shenandoah on November 6, 1865, was the conclusion of the American Civil War. The complete theme of the book is the idea that November 6, 1865, was the conclusion of the American Civil War. On page 320 of that book it says: "For Shenandoah and her crew, the authority of the Confederate States Navy had ended. Their Civil War was now actually over." This was upon the surrender of the CSS Shenandoah by Captain James Waddell to one Captain James A. Paynter, a British officer representing the Earl Russell. This book is authored by John Baldwin and Ron Powers, other well known Civil War historians. The Wikipedia article on Ron Powers shows he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, novelist, and non-fiction writer.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further on the response. In Blue & Gray at Sea historian Brian Thomsen says on page 279 "James Waddell commanded the commerce raider C.S.S. Shenandoah (formerely the British vessel The Sea King) targeting Union ships primarily along the Pacific coast during the war until August of 1865 (four months after Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse) when a British captain managed to finally convince him that the war was over - at which point he sailed directly to England, surrendering his ship, commission, and the "booty" on November 6, 1865. His papers were included in The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of Rebellion", published 1894. In these United States government Official Records it says in this same book page page 287: "November 5 - Arrived in the Mersey, off Liverpool, and on Monday, the 6th surrendered the Shenandoah to the British nation, by letter to Lord John Russell, premier of Great Britain. The log is approved. (signed) James I Waddell." I would think then if it was in the United States government official records, it shows the conclusion of the American Civil War. Brian Thomsen is another well known Civil War historian. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I appreciate your getting back to me. I certainly don't question the credentials of Burke or the other authors who speak of the Shenandoah surrender as being the war's end. I do however take some issue with the source from which that fact is drawn, not because of the author, but because it is (or so Google Books tells us) a "wonderfully entertaining look at some intriguing oddities, unusual incidents, and colorful personalities connected with the Civil War" - ie, a trivia book written more for popular audiences than as serious scholarship (though, granted, by a reputable scholar). Do you see what I'm getting at, and why it might be preferable to find (at least, I don't think this should be too hard) a more solid source or two saying essentially the same thing? And also why, because there are historians who write that the war ended in the spring, it may be better to use the more qualified "some historians"? - Biruitorul Talk 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the hook using the words "some historians." --Doug Coldwell talk 12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that seems fair. - Biruitorul Talk 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I like ALT 2. Bolded the article. Manxruler (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is great material, however I think it could be simplified/improved. Suggest:

Template:DYKsuggestion at 09:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a great hook to me. Interesting. I want to know more... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tweaked the hook to mention Melbourne.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
works for me and we need to get some hooks approved to clear the backlog Victuallers (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • What I think the source means that they were introduced accidentally along with imported commercial goods. That source is translated from Japanese not-quite-perfectly. I did not know how liberal I should be in translating what I think the source meant but wouldn't object to another editor clarifying this point based on best guess. Let's use ALT hook per your suggestion. --Boston (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • One of the references is for the car itself, one is a forum, and the other doesn't have the info from the hook. Can you add more/better references? This site seems to have a lot of information, especially on finding the car. Maybe you can make the hook more interesting by adding that the car was intended to be used as a hot tub in a sex shop. Shubinator (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This hook seems to be based on the unsourced plot summary section. Plot summaries are usually unsourced but the hook may add some interpretation - "in order to lead happy lives". It would be best to have a source for this. Awadewit (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 14

Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Samuel Bell needs an intro, and more cites would be nice. I'll get to that asap. Tbh, I wanted to get this up nomination up in time for DYK, so I have a couple of things like cites to resolve. Should do that within a few hours. Allventon (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 04:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is here, page 270. (In 2003 total throughput of the plant was close to 3 million tonnes of shale, what gives Fushun factory the first place in the world by capacity.) In mid-time, there is no new oil shale plants or upgrades existing ones outside of Fushun. Beagel (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: I have increased this article from 6,772 bytes to 33,200 bytes, a 4.9x increase. Please consider this as a possibility. If the 5x increase is strictly enforced, please let me know so I can find a way to add a bit of additional information to the article.
Oh! Well thanks for double-checking on that for me. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 07:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 09:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't see any changes. Also, the material inside the table doesn't count. You can use the prosesize tool to see how much prose you've got; just put this >> javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); getDocumentSize(); << into your url and hit enter when you're viewing a page. Shubinator (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No inline citations in article, there's a blank "See also" section, it's tagged as orphaned, and the image gallery being at the top is a bit odd. All of this should be easy to fix though. Shubinator (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The article says that Liu Zong ordered his brother caned to death and implies he did not do it himself; the brother's death is implied but not explicitly stated. Also, bare URLs are discouraged (D3). Shubinator (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, maybe "ordering his brother to be caned to death"? (Although I don't think "caning his brother to death" is inaccurate either.) As for bare reference, I can't fix it right now. (I am out of the country and don't have access to a Chinese entry method that I know how to use right now.) --Nlu (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The Archean article says it was 3800 to 2500 million years ago, so how can it be 150 million years old? The article has a similar sentence with 3 references, but the first reference goes to Wikipedia's Main Page, and second and third references don't mention 150 million years. I could also improve the English, but let's agree on the science first. Art LaPella (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the observation. The regional geology states that the rocks are of the Archean age but the display board at the entrance to the cave says 150 million years. I could not get the references to fix the age of the caves correctly and so I relied more on the display board put up by a Govt. agency. I did not realise the age was no where near the archean age. It ecaped my attaention. You are right. The archean age is 3800 to 2500 million years ago. One way out of this confusion would probably be to delete the reference to the Archean age from the Hook and main para and stick to the age which is displayed in the info board at the entrance or just mention archean age and remove the mention of 150 million years.I would prefer the latter alteration. Your suggestion would be welcome and you are free to make edits. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I think what really happened is that the rock is Archean but the cave, with stalactites and stalagmites, didn't exist until billions of years later. We can't use the 150 million year figure without a reference, and the sign at the cave isn't pictured or even mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what Wikipedia considers a Wikipedia:Reliable source, but the 150 million figure has no source in the article at all, as the sign isn't even mentioned. I don't want to propose an alternate yet because I am hoping you can correct the first reference, "Borra Caves Info Board", which points to Wikipedia's Main Page and doesn't say anything about Borra Caves. Perhaps that reference contains the 150 million figure. Art LaPella (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)--Nvvchar (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borra Caves Info Board is pictured at the bottom left side and the Wikicommons reference (reference 1 for the photo) has been quoted from the text given in the photo. Since the age is not referenced to any other source, I would rather change the first sentence in the opening paragraph and suggest the following alternate hook.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... that paleolithic implements have been found in the Borra Caves located in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh as well as a variety of speleothems (pictured)?

That's my alt hook. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the two Hooks suggested above are fine. I have made some minor edits in the article and references noting the observations made by reviewers.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 13

Template:DYKsuggestion at 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced "the manor at Austrått, with its oldest original construction from 1150 to 1210, harbored a pretender to the Swedish throne, and was plundered three times during the Reformation skirmishes in Norway as the Protestant Lady Inger of Austrått struggled with the last Catholic Archbishop of Nidaros, Olav Engelbrektsson?" with "…the manor at Austrått harbored a pretender to the Swedish throne during the Reformation in Norway as the Protestant Lady Inger of Austrått battled the last Norwegian Catholic Archbishop?" Less content, but probably short enough. Does anything else need change?
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others will soon review your article more subjectively. Art LaPella (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your favorable reevaluation of length. I'll continue to await the more subjective review. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article length, dates, and hook length verified as OK. However, I can't figure out which reference is supposed to support the hook fact. Can an inline citation be placed in the article, next to the hook fact? --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATOR'S RESPONSE: Yes, this is a bit of a lengthy article at 30,991 characters, and it is hard to find the specific fact. The paragraph is the 5th paragraph of the section titled: Rømer/Bjelke families
I normally follow the convention that when there is an end-of-paragraph reference, it supports the full paragraph, unless something embedded in the paragraph is particularly controversial. In this case, as requested, an inline citation is now placed in the article, next to the hook fact – the citation is Gjerset’s “History of the Norwegian People”.
When I went back to modify the article, I found that some of the links had been identified as dead – for a front-page linked DYK this is not acceptable – so they have been repaired as well.
Appreciate your looking at this DYK – I’ve had them before, but this is my first self-nomination, so it is a learning experience.
Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 03:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You know you've arrived in DYK when other people use your pictures in their DYK submissions besides you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is coincidence that there are three of your images in a row, all taken at your characteristic three-quarter profile. A picture is worth a thousand words, which is five times what you can fit into a DYK hook, so I'm happy to be able to use your work. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two pictures (the log cabin isn't mine). Well, a three-quarter profile is the best way to show the characteristics of a house, and it's visually interesting and usually easy to take (I just wish the weather had been better in Newport that day about a year ago. But then I wouldn't have had that moody image for Ocean Drive Historic District, either). I think a lot of photography textbooks recommend that, anyway. (I'll let someone else verify this since I took the picture ... I just knew Alan would do this one once I read the obit, and I wondered "I bet he uses my picture of the house".). Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Article eligibility checks out OK, and hook fact source is verified. However, both hooks are overly long. I suggest the following wording (including the "pictured" part):
FYI: When I reviewed this, I noticed that the article included some "guidebook" or "how to" information (things that Wikipedia is not, so I removed some details that seemed to me to be nonencyclopedic. --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 11:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that there's a potential issue with this photo, which has a child in the middle. The ComicCon child badge he is wearing does not seem to have his name on it, which would have resulted in a speedy, though he is identified by first name in the linked Flickr page. The issue is that he is surrounded by women projecting sexualized personas of the titillating variety and the child is not necessary to illustrating the blurb (or the article) at all. A cropped photo of either of the pair of women on the side would not raise this concern, and would also be more useful at DYK photo sizes. - BanyanTree 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Verified, but the hook is not very informative. If you worked in, say, a mention of the British East India Company, it would at least locate the hook in a particular time and place. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The Ottawa River Canals are the canals along the Ottawa River, including the Grenville Canal as clearly stated in the source. If a rewrite is still desired, let me know. -- P199 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source isn't very clear on that point, unfortunately. Have you got another source you can use? Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Template:DYKsuggestion at 10:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the title of the article and the hook need more scrutiny. Taken together they seem to advocate a particular POV. The article is more about genealogy and attempts to trace back to Adam and Eve. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of notable claims (let alone evidence of actual ties) to Adam and Eve. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the title of the article as "Descent from Adam and Eve" because there were these articles titled "Descent from antiquity" and "Descent from Genghis Khan", so I thought that that way there would be more consistency in terms of article naming. As for the hook, it says "that some living people claim to have traced", and not "that some living people have traced", thus I believe that, literary, it is neutral (but perhaps in terms of perception it isn't neutral, thus your point, I believe). Also, as you say, as a whole the hook and the article title may seem to advocate a POV, hence a problem. If you have any alternative article title and/or hook in mind, it's ok with me and, considering the free nature of Wikipedia, you might as well rename the article and propose a new hook. I have no problem with an article name and hook change to make it all more neutral. TomasBat 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on February 12

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The edit summary when this nomination was contributed says that it's 5x only if we don't count the unsourced content that was removed from the earlier version. However, "unsourced content" isn't mentioned as an exception to Additional Rule A4, unless of course there's another exception nobody told me about. A direct application of prosesizebytes.js gives an expansion of 5743 on February 2 (until Feb. 12) to 16761 now.Art LaPella (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:DYKsuggestion at 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is written based on a couple of pages in the book published by the Government of India. In such a case, even if I am to add inline citations for each and every claim in the article, it will probably be from the same source-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations for the hook-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: these two new articles are beautifully illustrated and should be featured, but there are surely only two DYKs here? Xn4 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Keep Captain Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke, as most Britons will confuse him with the somewhat stuffy floorwalker, Captain Stephen Peacock from the British sitcom Are You Being Served?.
1847 was litho publication date not trail completion date, and yes only two DYKs. Marcus (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded on February 11

Template:DYKsuggestion at 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What sport and country is this? Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded out WHL to provide the sport name in the hook. Not sure how I can shoehorn Canada in without it looking awkward. Suggestions? Resolute 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a quarter of the WHL is in the U.S. --74.14.18.114 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did the car crash have to do with the winning streak years afterwards? --74.14.18.114 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
team bus, actually, and it relates as being one of those feel good "recovery from disaster" stories. Resolute 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKsuggestion at 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this not premature and misleading? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know, but I don't think you can fit this in the timeframe by any stretch of the rules. What did the article look like when it was first deleted or userspaced? Grsz11 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a 14.5x expansion from when it was userfied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, it seems to meet all the criteria date wise and notability wise based on having been userfied. It's a timely topic and I think it's an interesting article subject. Kudos to its creators. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well are you going to give it the green check mark?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do publications like the NY Times do these comparisons for every new US President? This is therefore an uninteresting hook. BTW, "(Obama pictured)" needs to be changed. Mr & Mrs Obama as well as many other people are pictured. --74.13.125.218 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Why is this back? It's Day 24! He might not make it to Day 100! --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It passed WP:DRV 8–2 after some content addition. Regardless of the fact that we can not be sure of day 100 before putting this on the main page about 10 weeks early, we must make a decision now. I switched to an image of the 2nd oath (with far fewer people).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think #4 is certainly common knowledge and reads rather blandly and almost vaguely. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:DYKsuggestion at 10:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Length and reference verified (reference barely passes WP:RS since it's expressing an opinion rather than fact) but 1) this is not a compelling hook and 2) it mis-states the source. The source did not describe the bracelet as a "bondage accessory". It described it as "look[ing] a bit like a bondage accessory". There's a difference. You have some characters to play with in the hook (currently 121) but I'm wondering if there isn't something more interesting that could be said about the subject? Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording, but I disagree, I think it is a compelling hook. It is off the wall and unexpected for something that you would expect from a company such as the WPT.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Or Tiffany's for that matter.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone looked at the bracelet? I went to look at it after reading this. I think the writer at the poker site does a good job of describing it. This is not akin to "my favorite book". This is a question of whether the bracelet actually aesthetically resembles traditional bondage paraphenalia, which indeed it does. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wanted to find a free image of it... I know that WPT released an image as part of their press release, every website has the same image and some identify the image as coming from the WPT Press Release, but I am not an image guru and couldn't find anything that *I* felt comfortable uploading.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) PS see the hook worked well enough to get somebody to do more research! If that ain't an effective hook, then I don't know what is ;-)---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just received copies of the images directly from the WPT along with permission to include them on WP.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it need to go through OTRS then? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in the hook just appears to have come from some blogger. I think you will have to come up with a new hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... that openly gay Village Voice columnist Arthur Bell denounced William Friedkin's 1980 film Cruising as likely to incite anti-gay violence, even though his own writings helped inspire Friedkin? new article moved to article space today, self-nom. Otto4711 (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a first-person interview, which is then turned into third-person encyclopedic prose. This makes me nervous. Note that we are taking an interview with Friekin as the source for this. Awadewit (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you concerned about the sourcing for Bell's opposing the film, Bell's writings being part of Friedkin's inspiration, or both? There is no reason to believe that Friedkin is being untruthful regarding his inspiration. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friedkin says in the interview: "I spun a completely original film out of [the novel Cruising] based on Arthur Bell's articles in the Village Voice. Later, when the film came out, Arthur Bell went crazy, denounced and attacked the film, provoking numerous attacks from other gay journalists, who suddenly came out of the closet to attack Cruising." - Friedkin is clearly very close to the situation and this interview is a primary source. We should have secondary source for Bell's actions, not Friedkin's description of him going "crazy", etc. Awadewit (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion holding area

Article created/expanded for February 28 (Rare Disease Day)

Created/expanded by Rjanag (talk). Self nom at 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: full disclosure My brother has Klippel-Trénaunay-Weber syndrome, so of course I have some interest in giving these articles their 15 minutes on the main page. But whatever, a new article is a new article is a new article.
Bit concerned about notability here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If enough people think it's a problem then I can write an alt hook that uses only National Organization of Rare Diseases, since there's no argument there. Personally, I figured the number of references in Rare Disease Day (I guess around 6 so far if you don't count the ones that are from NORD's and RDR's own websites), the google test, and the number of states and countries where events are being organized, would be enough to establish notability. I understand that if this doesn't affect you it may not seem like a big deal, but hey, every day we put up sports hooks that I couldn't care less about—so the fact that something isn't relevant to you or to me doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable. Just my two cents. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's pretty not nice. We don't judge articles in that way. You don't know anything about me, my health, or my family. We have well-established standards for notability, and how it "affects" us is not on the chart. I'm a bit concerned about "being observed in the United States", since it is something proclaimed by certain state governors (in between having a day for the local championship Little League team) and I'm reasonably certain 99.9 out of 100 people won't have heard of it. I would suggest language like this:
Note: Rare Disease Day is at AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be saying anything about you or your health, I was just pointing out that "I haven't heard about X" or "I don't care about X" shouldn't automatically mean the thing isn't notable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I see you've nominated the article for AfD, so there's no point reviewing the nom here until the AfD is ended. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, btw, the ALT2 hook is fine with me. (And I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, of course, that Rare Disease Day can get bolded, and not turn into a redlink.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I call them as I see them, and there's plenty of time until the 28th. I accept your explanation, but please understand that it came across as a statement I was not sensitive to the people who are afflicted with these diseases because (you think) I'm not affected by it. I would suggest more cautious language.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem - none of the pages even mentions that the 28th would be Rare Disease Day. This should have been obvious. The hook cannot be verified until this information is added. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, take a look at the first sentence: "held on the last day of February." That would be the 28th. Also, in the past when I commented on your Milton hook after having been involved in an argument with you, you kept saying it was inappropriate of me to look at your hook. So, since you have been in an altercation with me within the past 24 hours, it follows from your own logic that you shouldn't be commenting here. Same goes for the AfD where you just commented. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as how it was originally stated to be held on the 29th, the "rare" day, the claims would amount to OR. Just add in what even one of your press releases says in the title: "February 28th is Rare Disease Day". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In 2008, the last day was the 29th. In 2008, the last day is the 28th. Leap year. And, again, it is inappropriate for you to be commenting here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can claim my actions are inappropriate all you want, but you have responded in multiple areas and attacked me after those events multiple times. So, your hypocricy is enough to show that there is a problem. The "last day" comment is the definition of OR. The citation states clearly that its the 28th, if you are unwilling to do the same, then there is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The 8th paragraph of the citation says, and I quote, "The plan is to have a global Rare Disease Day on the last day of February each year." No OR there. Quit bitching about this non-issue. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is "the plan is" equal to "The day is February 28, 2009"? One is certain, the other is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A source says the stuff will happen on the last day of February. People know what the last day of February is. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If that is so, why did the sources like the one quoted above have to be explicit about it? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • To assert that translating "the last day of February" 2009 to "28 February 2009" is original research instead of exactly the sort of plagiarism-avoiding paraphrasing that so dominated the discussion just a few days ago is disingenuous at best. - Dravecky (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Stating when the day is is not copyrightable, and saying that its the "last day" is inappropriate. Now, it is obvious that the sources use February 28 in the title, so the complaints here are the only disingenuous part. This is a very simple fix. Stuborness is only unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You're right, I should reword it. How about this: "Rare Disease Day is a holiday that's observed on February 29th on all years that are evenly divisible by 4, and celebrated on February 28th in the other years. As of February 15, we're currently in a year not divisible by 4, so that means Rare Disease Day is going to be on February 28th this year." That should be much clearer for you. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Or, you could stop trying to be stubborn about this and see that the "last day" could be either always the 28th or always the 29th and not a mixture of both. There are probably other events that happen on the "last day" which means the 28th and only the 28th. This year it happens on the 28th. The sources you use state that it will be observed on the 28th even though the 28th is not a -rare day-. The whole point of the 29th was over it being a -rare day-. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Since "2009" is specified in the date given in the original hook, this describes a specific observance of the holiday, not a general rule for determining when it is held. The last day of February 2009 is the 28th, no matter what mysteries future calendars may hold. - Dravecky (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. ALT2 is OK, then? Or did that article on the European group ever get written, you could go for a triple hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the creator of that article to move it into his userspace until I have time to work on it, since that will alleviate COI concerns. I don't foresee having a chance to do it before the end of the month, though, so I would say just go ahead with this without waiting for the other article. Anyway, I think the hook you suggested (ALT2) is fine, but I can let one of the reviewers decide I guess. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created/expanded for Saint Patrick's Day 2009 (March 17)

Articles created/expanded for April Fool's Day 2009 (April 1)

Please suggest hooks at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, not here. Royalbroil 14:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also