Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maile66 (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 17 February 2019 (→WP:DYKNA is really overlong (Return to 2 sets a day?): Nice catch. Taken care of. Thanks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Errors reports relating to the next queue to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 6 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 15:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 3 hours ago( verify reset purge )

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

RfC: Commas in DYK

Question: In general, should introductory adverbial phrases in DYK hooks have

1. Just a comma at the end of the phrase,
2. Commas at the start and end of the phrase,
3. No commas

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Example: (taken from DYK archive, 1/31/2017), all relevant commas in bold red

Did you know...

1. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
2. ... that, during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
3. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pings to users previously involved in this discussion(s), in a nonpartisan (without regard to view): @Bilorv, Jmchutchinson, Kevin McE, Yoninah, SashiRolls, Tagishsimon, Fish and karate, Bazza 7, Amakuru, and Floquenbeam: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 Note: Archived before the RfC ended, unarchived --DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 Note: 30 days have elapsed, discussion has pretty much died down, close requested here. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify, the second example you list, if a consensus reached on it, would mean that the templates for Prep, Queue and nomination should be changed. The change would be a comma after the word "that". If you don't change the templates, requiring consistency on that would be too hard to enforce, on every nomination and promotion made. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: I disagree. This would only apply if the hook included an introductory adverbial phrase. The first hook currently on the main page is that the red ochre sprinkled on the body of Jane Britton (pictured) 50 years ago today ultimately turned out to be a red herring in solving her murder?, which has no such phrase. Accordingly, I think that we wouldn't want to change the templates, because then that would confuse people in cases of the comma not being needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• First option (generally) - We don't want run-on sentences on Misplaced Pages, and option three is a bad example of such a case. While option two is in theory acceptable, it reads awkwardly and can ruin the flow of the sentence. Narutolovehinata5 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not the first option as it isn't grammatically correct. The second option doesn't look great but it seems like the only solution for long sentences like the example given. But the third is also acceptable—it's not a run-on sentence as it doesn't have two independent main clauses. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Fourth option: put the adverbial at the end of the clause (standard word order). If this is really unpleasant (due to an overly long subject for example) I would suggest the first option as a distant second choice. Note that the first option appears to be standard style for major newspapers. You can test this yourself by searching for "She said that until" or "He said that unless" (etc.) at any search engine. Eliminating the optional "that" entirely would also be a good option, though that would require thinking outside the box :-⊠ SashiRolls 08:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not equivalent sentence structures: 'unless' and 'until' in many cases are putative clauses essential to the meaning of the sentence, not parenthetical details in a minor clause, which is what we are talking about here. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Kevin, concerning content clauses and reported speech, I encourage you to pore over the Puddlestones, particularly chapter 11. If you prefer to look at concessives, conditionals, reasons / causal, temporal adverbials (like until, when, etc.), manner arguments, means arguments, situatives, etc. etc. using the "She said that when" or the "She said that because" or the "She said that " test, you will see that usage in major press outlets and government pubs follows option 1. Though I've studied the grammar of many languages over the years, I don't believe I've ever met a putative clause. (French, incidentally, does not follow the same rules, because the French love tiroirs, which are, of course, you will have guessed it, a translator's bane). I would have thought that putativity would be something like what you see in the following participial: "She said that—alleged to be too sick to work—Billy had nevertheless been seen on en.wp preaching the good word about SuperFluo-Commas." (FWIW: I believe that unless is usually called a conditional, until a temporal). This question of commas is not a grammar question per se but a stylesheet question. I reiterate my support for option 1 and my suggestion to seek to put adverbials at the end wherever possible. As a writer, I know this is quite often clearer and is almost always possible if you put on your thinking cap and avoid stacking too many clauses / "opening too many drawers".

PS:Of course, as Yoninah points out below, good judgment is much better than any rule. Option 3 is also good when the clause is say 4-5 words or fewer and easy to scan. SashiRolls 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1. Reads best and is perfectly cromulent. Fish+Karate 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. It properly sets aside the phrase (in the way one might when speaking). Otherwise option 3. I find Option 1 disconcerting as I don't know what the comma's for. Bazza (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Is this an Engvar thing? Although a blog, , from the UK, gives examples of how many commas to use. At the end, two is suggested for embedded for adverbial clauses such as (from today) Did you know that in 1933 Green Bay Packers president Lee Joannes personally loaned the organization $6,000 to keep it in operation?.

• I think you should also present hooks that have just a date in front, like:

1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
2. ... that, in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
3. ... that in 1873 Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?

I have been marking up hooks per Option 1, but I am also fine with Option 3 as long as the hook isn't too long, in which case at least one comma is needed to avoid a run-on hook. Option 2 looks totally cluttered with commas. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is a very poor example on which to base the discussion, as it has so many determiners and connectives. It is nearly 2 years old, so appears (to me at least) to have been searched out as an extreme example, for which a different solution may be suitable than would usually be the case. Option 1 is simply wrong; option 2 would in ordinary prose be my preference, especially in longer sentences; but in the strange presentation of DYK, in which the opening of the sentence is replaced by an ellipsis, I would !vote for option 3. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Kevin McE: This was not searched for as an extreme example. However, the rules of grammar don't change based on the content of the clauses, so I think it doesn't matter what the example is. Yoninah's example with Foo is equally valid in terms of the grammatical makeup. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

But grammar admits of alternative treatments to a situation, and this is a rather extreme example (as is Yoninah's at the other end of the scale) If not deliberately to show a lengthy example, why dig out one from nearly 2 years ago? Kevin McE (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I didn't want to choose one I had already brought up at errors, so I went to the archives. Its january, so I clicked on january 2017. This was from the first day that showed up, right in the middle, and was the first one I saw with this issue. I didn't want to go cherry pick the perfect example, so I just used the first one. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree Kevin, this was a sensible example. I think that given that en.wp hacks off the complementizer clause entirely to give itself a sort of

• Whereas blablabla,
• Whereas blablabla,
• Whereas blablabla,

cachet/credibility, it *does* make sense for short clauses like those Yoninah gives above (and the current one up for review which has no comma) to simply delete it. So I've added that to my comment above.

• Option 2, as proper English, as recommended by most style guides. About the only conflicting comma advice you'll find on such phrases will be in journalism style guides (like AP Stylebook), because newsprint opts for compression over clarity. WP is now written in news style, as a matter of clear policy. I also agree with the pption 4 idea, to the extent it does not conflict. That is, try option 4, then option 2. Use option 1 only as kind of a last resort, when the phrasing is very short and the commas may seem unnecessary. Option 3 is simply wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, or (better) avoid. The original example is so convoluted that it should not be considered.

1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel? but why not
2. ... that Foo wrote his thirtieth novel in 1873? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, largely depending on the length of the phrase. Option 1 is grammatically incorrect. Frickeg (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, strong oppose 2 Reads the best and is indeed grammatically correct. As this is a indirect statement a comma is not required at the start of the adverbial phrase. A comma is optional at the end of longer phrases so option 3 would not be good either. Reywas92 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. As Reywas points out, it is not actually grammatically incorrect because the comma is not present as part of a fronted adverbial, but as a way to break up the sentence to aid reading. This 1 is simply a better variant of 3. Also, English doesn't actually have formal rules anyway, and is defined by its usage, so the "trump card" that opponents of option 1 appear to hold is well and truly dead. When asking which version is best for readers, 1 is the only answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, under much the same reasoning as Amakuru. And (@SMcCandlish) I think the comment above about AP is wrong. The first piece of advice in the Stylebook on commas is "As with all punctuation, clarity is the biggest rule. If a comma does not help make clear what is being said, it should not be there. If omitting a comma could lead to confusion or misinterpretation, then use the comma." The single comma in Option 1 is typically there because most people naturally follow such a common-sense idea. Modulus12 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  In actual practice the AP rule is generally interpreted as "omit any comma that is not strictly required", which is what is boils down to. Other style guides, and other forms of writing, do not take this approach, and use commas more logically and systematically. This is especially important in a medium where we have no control from one day (or even minute) to another over what the content is going to say. Omitting a comma that doesn't seem absolutely necessary in one construction frequently produces garbage writing via the palimpsestuous process of collaborative editing after others have expanded on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Option, 1, or, option, 3. Eschew excess hesitation! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. The argument that it is grammatically correct to add a comma after the initial "that" is flawed in the given context, because a DYK hook is not a full sentence, but a fragment of a sentence. The beginning of the sentence occurs in a different location, namely in the section title. This means that there is already an effective break in the sentence - the ellipsis that occurs between the "Did you know ..." and the "... that". By adding a comma, you are causing the reader to pause twice in quick succession, as the sentence reads "Did you know ... that, ...?" This has the effect of interrupting the reader's train of thought in an irritating manner - as he has to stop and think about why a comma is there - rather than enhancing his comprehension as a comma in the same place in an unfragmented sentence would do. Since the intention of grammar is to enhance readability and comprehension, I think this is one situation where it is better to bend the rule rather than impose it in a context in which it has the opposite effect to that intended. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So the problem is with the format of DYK itself. Change it to "Did you know that..." and "...blahbitty blah blah?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You could do that, but it wouldn't resolve this particular issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I might also add that I think options 3 and 4 are unviable as 3 is inevitably going to result in difficult-to-comprehend run-on sentences and 4 would clearly impose awkward sentence structures just for the sake of adhering rigidly to a preferred grammatical convention. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 is my preference and is what I normally use when promoting or tweaking hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 as it is the only one to actually follow proper usage. --Khajidha (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• We should decide that this is not to be changed at the last moment due to someone complaining in WP:Main page/errors. There have been far too many requests for very minor issues at WP:Main page/errors that can end up making the hook worse. All three options match acceptable English use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not an appropriate matter for a DYK-only mandated style Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Reads and looks the cleanest.—Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• None. Why does this need a specific pseudo-policy? Let the DYK creators and reviewers come to a consensus on what is best, rather than adding more bloat. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3 To me, Option 1 is simply ungrammatical. Moreover, I don't think it is common usage in published prose. Consequently I find it confusing to read because I am left wondering what clausal structure that lone comma is indicating. I am amazed that so many commentators consider it acceptable or even prefer it; I would guess it depends on whether grammar has been formally taught in school. English is quite flexible about whether to add commas, which is good, but nevertheless it is helpful to follow some basic rules. Otherwise commas lose their meaning. Whether Option 2 or 3 is to be preferred should be left as a judgement call depending on the complexity of the sentence. Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - the first option looks clunky if indeed it is not ungrammatical. Option 3 has potential to cause ambiguity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A. L. Burt

This hook was approved by DannyS712, promoted by Yoninah, and slated to run on 3 February 2019. Gatoclass pulled it on 2 February, stating merely that "pulled A. L. Burt - hook needs work." In the intervening time, the nomination page has not been reopened, no work has been done on the hook, and the only reason I even noticed this action was by looking into it after wondering why the A. L. Burt hook did not run. Gatoclass, what is the work that you say this hook needs? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I really hate it when hooks are being pulled without a reason being stated, and without subsequent follow up. With that being said, I agree the hook was rather underwhelming but I am not sure what can be done about it. I suspect this is related to the real world connection stuff again; I understand the hook was being intentionally misleading to be "hooky", personally I would go for boring but easier to understand hooks along the lines of ... that A. L. Burt mostly published characters involving teenage protagonists, with the most successful ones being fictionised "boy heroes" of World War I? ... but that's just me. Alex Shih (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was the perfect "hook" ... and it was in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• One of these days we really need a discussion on that "real-world" requirement, personally I feel that it's doing more harm than good over the long run. Narutolovehinata5 11:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner Usernameunique. In response to the above comments, I did not pull this because of the "real world" rule, but because I thought the hook was awkwardly expressed and inaccurate. I was hoping to get it back in prep with a minor tweak, but with further time to reflect on it, I don't think the original hook is salvageable. I don't think it's going to work as a quirky and I can't see the point of the girl and three plane crashes clause which it seems to me adds little of interest. So I suggest the following as a substitute:

• ... that in the world of A. L. Burt, boy heroes could be found "practically winning" World War I by themselves?

- or something similar. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think that's a very good alternative. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the input. I agree that the original hooks proposals might have been somewhat inarticulate (e.g., "caused a girl to get into"), but I appreciated the quirkiness of them and the hidden punchline, which is lost in the new proposal; in fact, because both the A. L. Burt and the Beverly Gray links look like the names of people, even when hovering over them to see where they lead, they are particularly suited to this hook. What about:

... that because of A. L. Burt, a girl was in three plane crashes? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Another option, to tie the hook more directly to book publishing, what about:

... that because of A. L. Burt, a girl was in plane crashes in 1934, 1938, and 1942?

Yoninah, I think this could still go in the quirky slot. If it works, I'll add the information and source to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Because of" makes no sense in this context. Would you say "because of Homer, lots of people got killed in a war"? This is just trying to shoehorn an unsuitable hook into the quirky slot by distorting the facts. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The comparison is inapposite, because because readers can be expected to know who and what Homer and the Odyssey are. The point of the hooks here is to take an entity and character that readers are not familiar with, and to frame them—through a causal connection that is technically correct—in a way that obscures the fictional backdrop. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I probably didn't make my point very well in the last post, and was in the process of refactoring when you replied. My point is this: while I'm in favour of occasionally employing puns, double meanings or other examples of wordplay to hoodwink the reader, when we do that, readers should be delighted by the ruse they have fallen for, not irritated by the fact that the trick has been achieved through inaccurate use of language or distortion of facts. That sort of thing can only ultimately alienate the readership, which is surely the last thing we should be doing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it's unclear how language in the proposed hooks is "inaccurate" or "distort facts" to a greater degree than hooks that, you say, leave readers "delighted by the ruse they have fallen for." It's also unclear who would be offended. If anything, many readers by now expect the last hook to be mischievous—hence the term "quirky." If it helps, here's a hook that tones down the causation language:

... that Beverly Gray was able to survive three plane crashes with help from A. L. Burt? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Usernameunique, that is more acceptable with the link to the fictional character, I would just suggest substituting "thanks to" rather than "with help from" and I think that would work. Please note however that the article has a reference tag on it that will need to be addressed before the article can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass. I've added a reference to the section in question and removed the tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Crisper drawer

Hi - I have a Level 2 DYK Emergency to report. This - Template:Did you know nominations/Crisper drawer - was approved but I don't see it in the Preps or Queues or the approved nominations, and I don't think it's run. I think it must have fallen through the cracks. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The hook was pulled from Queue 1 by Fram per this thread at ERRORS. Since it was not relisted at WP:DYKN asking for a new hook or adjustment to the article wording, I am relisting it now. Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly five hours ago; only eight nominations from it remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 30. Right now we have a total of 344 nominations, of which 204 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the top three, which are over three months old and have been carried over for the last several of these lists.

Over three months old:

• October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosalinda González Valencia (reviewer needed for ALT1a)
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Economic history of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Pawsonia saxicola
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Class of 2018

Over two months old:

• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Eugène de Mirecourt
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/1975 Holton-Arms School Senior Prom
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Princess Saves Herself In This One
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Bierut Decree (looking for a Polish speaking/reading editor)

Over one month old:

• December 13: Template:Did you know nominations/S. Dharmambal
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir
• December 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Børge Ring
• December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Mohammad Habali
• January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Eaves
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Lindau (reviewer needed for ALT1)
• January 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Vikram Sood
• January 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Zuzana Marková (soprano)

Other old nominations:

• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Liang Weiyan
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Hailey Kinsel
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Ramsey
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Coat of arms and flag of Transylvania
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Nazir Ahmad Wani
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Swan Song (song)
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Dewsnip
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Splendid (P228)
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Cardiac allograft vasculopathy
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/George Washington (Canova) (two articles)
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Dungeon Siege III
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Government Employee Fair Treatment Act
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Miguel Pizarro
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Carlos de la Cruz Reyna
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Hintersche
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 World Para Swimming Championships
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Eli Grba
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Kleiter
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Kuwait (two articles)
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Bell Let's Talk
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Syrtis
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/X: A Fabulous Child's Story
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Theodora Kroeber (two articles)
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Levobunolol
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Mazeno Peak

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4 hooks

When the DYKbotdo tag was added to Queue four, it somehow changed all the hooks that were worked on in prep 4, as seen here. Is there an administrator who can look into this? Courtesy ping to {(ping|Amakuru}}. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix ping, @Amakuru:. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I have fixed the error now.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKN is messed up at the moment

Right now, all nominations below the section "Articles created/expanded on January 22" are not displaying correctly (specifically, it appears someone forgot a </small> tag somewhere). I've tried troubleshooting but I can't find the page or nomination that cause the error. Could someone fix this? Narutolovehinata5 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:  Done - see --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Advertising

In Prep 3 we have:

• ... that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care brand Kariderm is the first shea butter product to be organically certified?

but I dohttps://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&action=edit&section=10n't really think we should be promoting this product on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative wording:

• • that Amina Gerba (pictured) produced the first shea butter skin care product to be organically certified? Flibirigit (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping @Yoninah:. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I like Flibirigit's solution. I'll change it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Produced is a better word here, since the company was founded, but the shea butter is produced. I also want to remain true to the cited source. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit yes, but she is the founder of the company. It looked odd to me that she produced the product, when it was her company that produced the product. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We could say... Amina Gerba (pictured) founded the company that made the first shea butter skin care product to be organically certified? This way we avoid having produced and product in the same sentence. Flibirigit (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Second thoughts: Pinging Flibirigit, also article nominator Toreightyone: founded the company that made is really clunky. It would be best to say she produced it or created it. We need to fine-tune the wording in the article and possibly add another source for this. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"...that Amina Gerba (pictured) founded the company that made the first organically certified shea butter?" ~ R.T.G 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't credit me if you use it just, thanks ~ R.T.G 00:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We typically avoid consecutive wikilinks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well that's where the clunkiness you mentioned was coming from. You could delink one, but the extra words aren't in the founded part :} ~ R.T.G 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe there too, "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) company produced the first shea butter with organic certification?"

Perhaps this can work too? "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care company created the first shea butter to be organically certified?" Toreightyone (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Toreightyone: But shea butter is a natural product. They created a skin-care product containing shea butter, and the product was organically certified. Perhaps it would work to specify the product, like:

• ...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care company created the first shea butter cream to be organically certified? Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I promoted this to the image slot is because the image is so striking. But if we are getting nowhere with this hook, I could return it to the noms page for other suggestions. The part about her immigrating from Cameroon and creating a STEM program for girls is very interesting, as are the international forums she creates. She could also be moved to the special occasion holding area for Women's History Month in March. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I was struck by her being the only girl in a family of 19 children. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Perticularly since that is not supported by the source used for it.... Fram (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

... "la femme d’affaires Amina Gerba, 18e de 19 enfants, seule fille de sa famille"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This roughly translates to "...businesswoman Amina Gerba, 18th of 19 kids - only girl in her family..." Oh, I see what Fram means, the source only mentions that she is the only girl in her family to go to school, not that she is the only girl in her family period.
Also, I am all for Yoninah's suggested hook of "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care company created the first shea butter cream to be organically certified?" Toreightyone ––(talk) 12:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But the article (and source?) doesn't mention cream. Really, everything has to be accurately sourced in the article, not to mention the hook. I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo

I just realised the DYK hook for Newbury Park tube station has a typo...before the station is mentioned there is an extra “the”. Can this be corrected? Thanks Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 01:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about something on the main page are typically discussed at WP:ERRORS. Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I’ve forgotten. Reposting there Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 03:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: The "the" is a standard addition to all British subjects per British English. We do the same for Germany and Australia hooks. Look at how you wrote "realised" instead of "realized" in your query. You are using British English. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

-ize is not a safe distinction: , Bazza (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: in this hook I don’t think it is necessary to add a “the”. Never heard of this rule of adding a “the” in this context. At the station is correct but not at the . It also sounds truly awkward. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm British and I'd never think of putting a "the" in that particular sentence. You wouldn't say, for example, "I'm travelling to the London Euston station today". Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm American, and I would! Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I add an image after the fact?

When you first make a nom, it uses a template that makes it easy to add an image. I forgot to, and now I can't get back to that template. So what do I do now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maury Markowitz. Put the following coding below the DYK nompage links but above the actual hooks:

<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">

{{main page image|image=|caption=g|width=133x150}}

</div>

I think it's supposed to go above the invisible comment "Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion" as well, as that's what the image parameter in the original DYK template automatically does. If you could link the nomination where you're wanting to add an image and say what image you're wanting, I can do it for you. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Black History Month

Just a heads-up that there's still two weeks left in February, Black History Month, and we have no more special occasion hooks for it. This month honors African-American contributions in the United States and Canada. Would anyone like to nominate something? Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No dude - "Black History Month, also known as African-American History Month in the U.S., is an annual observance in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Where would find a list of recent good article promotions? It might include some ideas. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've got more sources to use on Shubulade Smith to get it over the 1,500 character limit, it's just her biography and work is not exactly full of thigh-slapping and rib-tickling japes, so I can't think of a good hook to use. Ritchie333 15:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've got it above 1500 characters, but I can't think of a hook beyond "Did you know ... that Shubulade Smith thinks British mental health care is institutionally racist?" which isn't particularly nice and is controversial. Can anyone else? Ritchie333 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

... that Shubulade Smith spoke up against perceived racism at Maudsley Hospital? Flibirigit (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ritchie's nomination approved and in the special occasion holding area for February Black History Month. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, in Canada, but anywhere seems rather fine, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Alanscottwalker; I added it above. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, my nomination for Hildebrando de Melo recently passed, but I'm not sure how closely it applies to Black History Month. De Melo is a black artist from Angola, but doesn't have ties to African-American history. I recently worked with students to create a bunch of new pages for children's books that have won the Coretta Scott King Award. Many were too short to qualify for DYK, and are too old now, but Let the Children March would have been a good candidate... I guess hindsight is 20/20. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Let the Children March is only nine days old, and very applicable to Black History Month, I think we should bend the rules. Any objections? Flibirigit (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No! @Rachel Helps (BYU): please nominate it and I'll review it. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, @Yoninah: I've nominated the page and it's under February 5th, though I'm not sure if the hooks are interesting enough. We may expand other drafts for other Coretta Scott King award-winning book pages, and I'll see if we can nominate them for DYK this month if applicable. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, see nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Let the Children March. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The hook is approved and waiting in the special occasions holding area under Black History Month. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a hook from Queue 6, someone please do whatever else is needed

I removed the Konya Tropical Butterfly Garden hook, as there was significant disagreement at WP:ERRORS, and it was increasingly unlikely it would get resolved before midnight UTC. Could someone who understands DYK processes please help by (a) replacing the hook with another approved one, and (b) reopen the hook discussion (there's no issue with the article eventually showing up on the main page, just with the wording of the hook)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @CeeGee:, whose article it is. Also, here's a link to the ERRORS discussion, to help clarify what the issue is: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved Tucson Girls Chorus into Queue 6 from Prep 4. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Re-opened and re-listed the nomination. Thanks for letting us know, Floquenbeam. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKNA is really overlong (Return to 2 sets a day?)

Nothing is displaying from February 7 down, including the whole special occasion hook section. This is rather hard on prep builders. Can something be done about it? Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

May need to go back to a 12 hour cycle? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support temporary 12-hour cycle. It looks like we have 334 nominations, with 201 of those approved. It would take 25 queues just to process what is already approved. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't support at this time: right now there are four preps and one queue filled. One thing that would fix the problem would be to have eight to ten sets ready: that would take another 24 to 40 nominations off of the Approved page. Further, until we have a large number of sets built up, we can't handle the increased frequency that twice a day would bring. As for the special occasion section, a trick is to pull the entire section into the editor, and then use Preview to look at everything that's there, and pick nomination pages to promote from that. Just a reminder that the failure to display happens to pages when the number of templates that need to be translated exceeds a certain number. We originally split the Nominations page into Nominations and Approved when the former had about 350 nominations and couldn't handle the load; now Approved is choking at a little over 200. But more and more people are using DYK checklist, which require translations, and also ping and use "done" and "ok" and other templates, so we're running up against the limit sooner. It's the change in behavior that's working against us, along with the build-up on the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Question. If the problem is caused not by the total byte-count of the transcluded nominations, but by the template count, as BlueMoonset suggests, it seems to me a viable solution is to compel the DYK review templates to be substituted, and/or to have a bot substitute the other symbol-related templates that are on that page. Would someone more technically-minded tell us whether this would work? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thought would splitting the "approved" page, say by month, help? It might also smooth flow, encouraging the clear-out of old months. Currently October & November still have one verified hook each. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose every time we got to 2 per day we get more errors and missed deadlines and a decline in quality because people rush. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think Joseph2302's comments are borne out by the facts. We will need to move to two sets a day before long because more nominations are being made (average 10 or 11 per day) than hooks being promoted (8 per day), and therefore numbers of approved hooks are building up. I suggest a few prep sets are moved to queues in preparation so that we can build up a reserve of prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Everytime we go to sets per day, we never have a large number of preps and queues ready to go, and every 3-4 days DYK update ends up being late. Just check the history of this talk page, it'll show I'm right. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• So at what level of backlog do you crack? It's building up steadily, as it does every year. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• It is, of course, not true that Everytime we go to sets per day, we never have a large number of preps and queues ready to go. I remember more than one instance when we made sure to have that large number, and if we go ahead with this one, I hope we do have said large number before we start. But Johnbod has an excellent point: either we go to twice a day at some point, as we've done in the past, or the number of nominations continues to build. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - if errors go up, we can drop again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I can pretty much guarantee that errors will go up by around 100%. Whether that's a price worth paying for clearing down the queue is left as an exercise for the reader.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support if the set-builders want it. Actually, just support: there are currently 568 (no-see below) nominations, the great majority of which will eventually make it. So we have some 68 days-worth already, and the pile continues to grow. Some will take 6 months or more to reach the MP at this rate. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I think you're misreading the Count of DYK Hooks table: it's 334 hooks total as I type this, of which 201 are approved, although that "approved" number doesn't include the ones on the Approved page that aren't being transcluded or the ones in the special occasion area or on the April Fools' page. At the moment, I see 7 not transcluded, 22 in special occasions, and 9 for April Fools', which makes a grand total of 372 unpromoted hooks in the DYK system, 239 of which are approved. That's nothing like 568. Unless you meant Good Article Nominations, which is now up to 574... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, I just misread it, adding the two column totals! Sorry. Even so, we still have c 46 days worth, and rising. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• True enough, and the number's a bit higher because both the total and approved numbers don't include the noms that aren't transcluded, not just the approved ones (I forgot about the total also not including the ones that don't transclude). So it would have been 341 total last night, excluding special occasions and April Fools' (now 345), which also doesn't count those already in preps and queues awaiting their turn on the main page (three queues and three preps). If we can bank another three sets, I'm on board. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Instead of running two sets per day when the backlog of approved nominations gets too large, why not a permanent dynamic solution to match the run rate with the number of new nominations. On the first of every month, we could see how many nominations were made in the past month (say 300 or 10/day avg), and from that set the run time for the month to 19 hours which would remove about 300 from the approved queue. This would keep the queues from getting too big, eliminate the discussions over "is it time to go to 2 sets per day?", and eliminate the burst of extra work during periods of two sets/day by spreading out the effort. MB 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. Is it feasible to have say a 19-hour turnover rate and could the bot cope? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The person to ask is Shubinator, the creator of the bot, who would know how it would cope. At the moment, it would attempt to move in 15 minute increments to get back to midnight UTC, so it would be working against the 19 hours (or whatever) in a small way; there's also the question as to whether it's a good idea for DYK not to move at midnight when the rest of the main page changes over. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming an admin correctly sets time between updates to 19 hours (or whatever), DYKUpdateBot will be fine. I can disable the auto-drift to midnight UTC that BlueMoonset mentioned, that's the only piece that would be affected. Shubinator (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It'd be far better to set the update interval to 18 hours rather than 19, so that most updates will still occur at midnight or noon, instead of any random hour of the day. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion was to make the run-time change each month depending on the submission rate. The interval could be 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 hours. It would be completely decoupled from the midnight main-page update (which only occurs at midnight in one time zone - so that already occurs at 24 different times around the world).

As far as whether it is important that the DYKs switch with the rest of the main page, I can't think of a good reason. If a reader somewhere goes to the main pages at a certain time every day to see the new version of everything, they may already be missing half the DYKs when we run two sets per day. The entire encyclopedia lacks "editions" like a print publication - the current version changes every second. MB 17:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that having arbitrary starting hours makes scheduling of special occasions hooks much more difficult. Using 18-hour intervals makes dates easier to calculate. I suggest we use 18 hours as the default interval, with adjustments of 6 hours in either direction when needed, depending on the number of approved hooks. -Zanhe (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support a faster cycle in principle, but I will probably be unable to assist as I am very busy right now and expect to remain so for the next few weeks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• All 6 prep sets are now loaded, along with 2 sets in the queues. Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yoninah All queues are now filled. Preps 5, 6, 1 and 2 are ready for hooks. And it's not even a dip in the bucket to resolving the visibility issue on the Approved list. There's nothing preventing error corrections while in queue. Errors happen, they get fixed. We have a more urgent issue to resolve, the backlog at Approved. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Great, thanks! Can we start promoting queues twice a day to get through the backlog? Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've reset the Update bot for 12-hour cycles. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please check for hooks with requested dates. I know at least one meant for 22 Feb which would now come too soon if not moved. Needs an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several special occasions requests between now and Febraury 22. I suggest waiting a few days to go to 12 hours, unless we want to rearrange a lot of prep sets. Flibirigit (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 EFL Cup Final hook is also scheduled for 24 February, so will need to be moved appropriately. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Moved 2019 EFL Cup Final back to the special occasions area. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Attention administrators: Please return these hooks from the queues to the special occasion holding area:

• (Currently in Queue 1) North Carolina State House, George Washington (Canova) double hook – for February 22
• (Currently in Queue 1) Marika Kouno – for February 22
• (Currently in Queue 5) Gérard Bolduc, Paul Dumont, Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament triple hook - for February 20
• Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah Suggesting a more simple method that does not involve re-opening the individual nom templates and moving them back to Approved listing

• Move the Quebec hockey hook from Queue 5 to Queue 2, which is for Feb 20

• Swapped Chang Ya-chung (Queue2) with Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament (Queue 5), both hook #2 slot — Maile (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The corresponding set of three credits were only partially moved. Flibirigit (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch. Taken care of. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Move the other two to either Prep 5 or Prep 6 that are most likely to be Feb 22

Yes? — Maile (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Maile66 of course, that works too! You can swap in anything from the preps to fill the holes. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support 2/day, or any type of flexible schedule really. Ideally scheduled to appear before/after peak traffic so one isn't scheduled to be the 'nightshift' where they don't get seen, and the other bunch in 'prime time'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer needed

This hook for Black History Month needs a speedy review so it can go into the queue in February:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Leikeli47

Additionally, two approved hooks are waiting in the special occasion area for promotion during February.

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've approved the hook/article and added it to Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Special occasion holding area, so it is currently awaiting promotion to one of the prep areas. I believe I did this correctly, but it's possible that I missed something, as I've never approved special occasion hooks before; if I have I apologize.--SkyGazer 512 17:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

• ... that the Gutta Percha Company, whose main product was submarine telegraph cable, started out making bungs?

@Spinningspark: @Dumelow: @Cwmhiraeth:

The lead doesn't say where this company is located. I fixed the link to Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company in the lead but not in the body. There are no talk page ratings. Please fix this up before it goes live. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hook is now in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• ... that some water birds use their webbed feet (example illustrated) as an aid in elaborate courtship displays?

Yoninah Do you think you might want to move this to be the lead hook in one of the other preps? Queue5 lead hook is a goose. Queue2 lead hook is penguins. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: yes, I noticed that. I swapped Prep 3 and Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages