Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:14, 24 December 2011

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 21:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 21 hours ago(

)

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Marking nominations as "ready for re-review"

Seeing how many DYK nominations undergo an extensive inquisition process before being approved, it occurs to me that the lives of DYK reviewers could be made easier if we had a method for marking a nomination as "ready for re-review." For example, it would take a person a lot of time to read through Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre to determine that the article has been revised to address the concerns that Nikkimaria raised there. I propose that we add a symbol to the standard DYK arsenal to visibly identify a nomination as "ready for re-evaluation" (or "Please re-review").

Some possible candidates that would not involve cluttering Wikipedia with another new image file are:

Of those suggestions, my preference is for the first of the two recycling symbols. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a sensible suggestion. A problem with the first three is that their colour is very similar to the "verified" tick – although your preference (the one without the circular border) probably looks sufficiently different. I wonder if

could be re-coloured and used for this purpose? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd go with the bent arrow but a different colour. (yellow maybe?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please not yellow; it doesn't show up well (as in the Emblem question yellow symbol above). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our range of DYK symbols doesn't include a red one yet. Perhaps we could have a red "bent arrow"? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like this one

Froggerlaura (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea and I like the red bent arrow personally, but red/green color blindness? How about orange? or purple? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a person with red/greed colour blindness, it looks more brown to me, but then we don't have a brown symbol either :). It's the symbol itself that's important and I don't think that I would have any problem with it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Froggerlaura's image to the nomination templates, so now we can see how this arrangement works. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alright then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think red is an appropriate colour for a recycling symbol. What is wrong with the first recycling icon above, suggested by Orlady? It's an appropriate colour and symbol, and its design could hardly be confused with the tick icon. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to use the recycle symbol

. To further discussion, I am hereby transcluding the DYKsymbols template (below) for comparison with the symbols shown above. The symbols are a bit larger in the template than they are on the noms page; the recycle symbol in this comment is the same size as the ones in the template below. The distinction is pretty clear to me, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}

Now that the red arrow symbol is used several places on the noms page, I share Gatoclass' opinion that red is the wrong color for this -- for most of us, red connotes "something wrong here". I would prefer that green recycling symbol. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Simple English version of that symbol. Art LaPella (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about switching the colors for the DYKno and DYK?again symbols. Yellow would seem more appropriate for the second check needed, and red more appropriate for the failing notation.--Kev min § 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 & 2

I built a couple of preps this morning—hadn't done this in ages and last time was long before all the fundamental changes. I see that both preps have been changed around substantially. This might be normal, but if it's to do with what I've done, then I'd appreciate some feedback. One can only learn from feedback :) Schwede66 03:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is a collaborative enterprise so I would describe this kind of editing as "normal". People are entitled to tweak and improve hooks and hooksets, right up to and even after they hit the mainpage. So no concerns here, unless the changes bother you, in which case you can revert giving your reasons, or discuss them with the other editor. I'm not sure what the "subpage" business in the credit template is about though. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who added the "subpage" parameters, I'll explain. In the Credits section of individual Prep and Queue pages, accompanying each article is a "View nom subpage" link. That link is displayed automatically when the nomination subpage has the same name as the article. When the names differ (e.g., for multi-noms or nomination subpages with typos in their names or if the article was moved subsequent to the nomination), a "subpage" parameter is required to display that link. This parameter is normally added automatically when necessary by the new nomination template. In this case, however, the nomination page originally had the same name as one of the nominated articles, so the "subpage" parameter was not automatically added. Then the nomination page was moved, with the new title naming both articles. (Such a move is not necessary and, in fact, it is recommended that such moves not be done.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass - I wasn't bothered about it, but just wanted to know whether I could have done things differently / better. That's all. @Mandarax - thanks for the explanation. Schwede66 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q2 has 3 Germany related hooks

Isn't that a bit too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I swapped out one of the three. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Read It Later

I'm not sure if two of the sources - Engadget and Techcrunch - are considered reliable for DYK. I have seen articles from TechCrunch help save stuff from deletion in AfD. I would like the article reviewed soon because the hook ends with "this year". SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, both of those sources are reliable. The articles are written by staff and they have an editorial review board. Silverseren^C 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 fix

The first hook in Queue 3 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Westminster Psalter template cock-up

Something went wrong here, which I hope is easily fixed by those who understand these things. My attempting to redo will probably make things worse. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed. You had left out the closing curly brackets when you made the nom, so I went back to square one. You will have to reinsert your QPQ review though. Here's the diff. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6 Error

Q6's final hook needs (pictured) removed from it. It won't let me do it.PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hook in Q6

I have been hacking away at Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) making it as complete as possibel before it hits the main page. I have now finished on it but wonder whether

ALT: ... that composer Gavin Bryars considered whether to write the title role in his Vernian opera Doctor Ox's Experiment for Tom Waits.

would be a better hook.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for people who know Waits. I had to look him up. The other day I proposed a hook in German with Andreas Scholl. They didn't know him. I suggest you leave it. I recommend the sophisticated article highly, including some juicy critical quotes (ah well, can we call "relentless drip-drip-drip of Chinese water-torture" juicy?). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is juicy indeed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist ein Ros entsprungen

I had nominated a composer, mentioning his 2 most famous works, as a 2* BLP, accepted for Christmas Eve. I changed it now to a nomination for one of the 2 works, which needs a review, sorry for that. The article is not polished yet, but ready enough. - One of the reasons why I changed is that an observer found out that the composer was not completely unreferenced. Formally speaking this is true - but it was his own website which was used as an inline citation. Is that to be called a reference? - I learned to use the subject's website as an external link. Only asking for curiosity, I have no intention to return to bold him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is now taken care of, just missing a final approval for the variation in pubtuation in ALT2 which is considered an improvement but was suggested by the reviewer. - But the question if the subject's website qualifies as an independent reliable source is open. - In this particular case I have no reason not to trust it, but I mean in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6

Stroehling

It might have been apt for an art critic to anthropomorphise an animal in his description of a painting: it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia to attribute emotions such as adoration to a spaniel. Suggest Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ox

It seems clumsy phrasing to repeat the name as that of both the book and the opera. Suggest "... that Gavin Bryars's Doctor Ox's Experiment is the third opera to be based on the science fiction novella by Jules Verne?" Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT: ... that Norman Lebrecht found in Gavin Bryars's opera Doctor Ox's Experiment "lyrical ideas flowering from a Straussian seed-bed"? see also above for another ALT from the author, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happy with either of those but how about

ALT: ... that Norman Lebrecht found in Gavin Bryars's opera Doctor Ox's Experiment "lyrical ideas flowering from a Straussian seed-bed" but Rupert Christiansen compared it to Chinese water torture? --Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an admin around to improve within the next 10 minutes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Men's Magazine

"A teenage Charlotte Bronte" is a rather informal construction, and probably ought to be teenaged anyway: it was written by Charlotte Bronte as a teenager. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this one. For the others in this group, I lack the knowledge and/or interest and/or patience to figure out what should be done. If you feel strongly enough, you might want to take them to WP:ERRORS. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Haidong

He is not "one of the highest-ranking generals in China", and hasn't been for at least 41½ years, having been dead for that long. He had a name, and I do not believe that we would have omitted an Anglophone name in such circumstances: or we would have at least included a nickname such as is mentioned: "... that Tiger Xu was injured in battle nine times? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q1

Olympus scandal

"scandal involving the Olympus Corporation", surely? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my American ear, the definite article "the" is optional in this context. I think this may be a difference between speakers of UK English and speakers of American English. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Koppelstetter

"was the mezzo-soprano to record Lieder" sounds like an odd construction. She sang it, she was chosen to sing it, she was the soloist on it, she was selected to record it... And BR is surely a Bavarian radio station, or a Bavarian broadcaster: most radios are made in China. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this one. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still is "Bavarian radio", though. I wanted to avoid too much German (Bayerischer Rundfunk, linked), but tried to have the same initials, so adding "station" would do. We have Radio Bremen, I was not aware that radio means only the device in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Bavarian radio" is correct. "Station" typically means only one transmission location. Bayerischer Rundfunk broadcasts from more than one station. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC) But on second thought, it's better rendered as a proper noun "Bavarian Radio", as used on http://bavarianradio.com/ . --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But with the it is totally unsemantic. I see no merit in trying to preserve the initialism: either put the name of the broadcaster in full and link it, or explain what it is in whichever English words are most appropriate, regardless of the initials. Orlady's comments re station opens my eyes to another ENGVAR variation: here it means, in the context of radio, a channel: The BBC is a broadcaster that has 5 national stations, but it has many, many studio locations. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the hook to make Bavarian radio a proper noun, I took out the "the". As for the BBC analogy, I see Bavarian Radio as analogous to "BBC Radio" or "National Public Radio" in the United States -- it's the name of a broadcaster, not the name of a station. (In contrast with the UK situation, radio in the U.S. is dominated by independent local radio "stations", described in articles like WDVX and WSM (AM). The broadcasters that can be heard all over the country go by names like "National Public Radio" and "CBS Radio", and generically are referred to as "networks".) --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The safest thing to do would be Bayerischer Rundfunk, no more, just I wanted to please those who want it in English, it's the state broadcaster of Bavaria, with 5 radio channels and several television channels, "Bayern 2" has a series Concerto bavarese which they record in life concerts and studio, and present after midnight, the perfect time for that set, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Silas' church

We have been through this several times before, but if specifying a place, we usually do so up to the level of sovereign state, unless we are referring to a globally significant city (which Lancashire is not) Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, I have the impression that we often omit the name of the country when discussing locations in the major English-speaking countries. "Blackburn, Lancashire" seems sufficiently specific to me without the addition of "England" or "UK". Similarly, another hook in that queue refers to "Ontario" (not "Ontario, Canada") and a recent hook said that All Saints' Church, Hertford, was described as "completely alien" in Hertfordshire (not Hertfordshire, England). Although "Blackburn" would not be recognized as referring to just one place in the world, the names of the old English counties are reasonably well-known and provide enough specificity to help the reader of the hook identify the subject matter. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKSG "C2: Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about" Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, names like "Lancashire" and "Hertfordshire" and "Ontario" are adequate to indicate what place is being talked about. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Orlady re our normal practice. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translated articles

How are articles newly translated from other Wikipedias treated with regard to the "New" criterion? I'm planning to nominate the Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Now, that article that is probably OK, since it includes a whole section and citations not in the original, but as a matter of principle the issue of translated articles ought to be made a little clearer somewhere (unless it already is and I just didn't spot it). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed, and several of us have had DYKs that fall into that category (expansions based on translations, too). My understanding is that the usual project rules apply: the referencing needs to be sufficient and one is responsible for knowing that the refs actually say what is claimed (no just copying refs from the other-language article). If your article has no unreferenced paragraphs, it is probably fine. (In practice I usually make quite substantial changes to articles I translate, based on the sources I find - or can't find - and what seems to me more important or worthy of explanation (often I summarize several other articles, as for example at Johann Poppe.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In this case, the original article had no references at all. Another editor, who has visited the site of the statuary, has been assisting my work by providing explanatory background text and some much-needed references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for bringing that article over and referencing it! To my understanding no references are required in the lead which should summarize referenced facts from the article. One reference per paragraph is a rule of thumb. They can be repeated, but it should be more than one source altogether - you achieved that already. Keep going through the article and nominate within the next days, even if you didn't get to the end, there is always room for improvement in the review process! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've been through DYK (on both sides) many times; I just was uncertain about the current opinion on translated articles as nominations. But thanks for your informative reply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and how many times have I been through finding refs for unreferenced German articles, and promised myself never to do that again, comes Ruhrfestspiele - I did it again ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Elmore @ P2

... that Ricky Elmore, a former Green Bay Packers Linebacker got his start playing eight-man football?

To say that he "played eight-man football" is a misrepresentation of the source material, which only stated "Attended Grace Brethren High School in Simi Valley, Calif., a school that began at the eight-man football level in 2002 and ascended three divisions during Elmore’s time there". Elmore's arrival could coincide with a change to a higher level above eight-man football. We do not really know what Elmore played based on the available reference. Please do not ignore objections on the nomination template. --69.157.46.38 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why "linebacker" is capitalized. It's not a proper noun, and the wikipedia page for linebacker gives it as lowercase in its lede. For that matter, there should be a comma after "linebacker". BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further data: the school's website says that the transition from eight- to eleven-man football was made "in the year 2002" for Varsity Boys Football. Since Elmore's freshman year would have been 2002–2003, it seems highly unlikely that the hook claim is true—he would have played eleven-man football from the beginning. The previous poster and the objections in the template seem quite germane on further examination; I strongly recommend that the hook be rewritten. (Also, by DYK guidelines, the article's "2006" section should have a reference, and I was rather surprised to see that two sections do not end with periods.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the hook out of the prep area. It's back on the nominations page (see Template:Did you know nominations/Ricky Elmore). Regardless of whether he actually played 8-man football in high school, it's highly unlikely that high school is where he "got his start" as the hook stated. Most American football players start the game at about age 5. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehaving template

Help! After moving the hook to the prep area, I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Carex bigelowii in the usual fashion, but the contents of the template disappeared. I haven't found the problem. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history looks strange. I would not be surprised if a comment was not closed right and now the content is considered "comment", but don't know where to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. ~~I think you forgot to do |passed=yes.~~Actually that's not it, I'm not sure what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes edits just go wonky on Wikipedia or its sister projects, but a further edit (of any kind) corrects the problem. It's a rare happenstance, but I've been around long enough to see it happen at least half a dozen times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes like to work on puzzles, so I thought I'd take a look at this. I discovered exactly what must have happened. When you were preparing to do |passed=yes, you deleted the comment from:

|passed=

but you probably had a mouse slip and also accidentally deleted the next line:

|2=

Doing so produces exactly the same result as you encountered. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's entirely credible. On at least one occasion I accidentally removed the "2=" parameter (or caught myself before removing it), but fixed things before saving the changes. It's credible that I failed to notice one such "mouse slip." --Orlady (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P4 Henry Treffry Dunn

I would like to suggest a way to more gracefully word the hook to avoid both the say/said use and also the problem of having an American art museum being used with British plural rules? "The Met say" makes no sense in American English: "The Met" is a singular museum, and therefore "The Met says" is what an American reader would expect to see.

Current version: ... that the version of Lady Lilith which the The Met say is by Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?

Proposed revision: ... that the version of Lady Lilith in the The Met and ascribed to Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?

I think it would be helpful if the Dunn article made the point more clearly that the Met considers the work to be by Rosetti, not Dunn. In addition, I strongly recommend that the wording of the following sentence be improved by the judicious replacement of at least one "some": "Some have said that some of Rossetti's paintings were in fact almost entirely created by Dunn." BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production line again.....

Ok folks, moved the last prep to teh queue and began loading Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I have to do some other stuff for a bit but meant to begin checking some of the older ones for paraphrasing as a few are ready to be checked - opnions on ~~Gholhak Garden~~, ~~Red goats of Kingston~~, Helmut Damerius, Ryan Taylor (American football), Fancy Dress Festival, Aboakyer festival and Margaret Anne Staggers can all be reviewed for resolution of paraphrasing concerns. And strike thru here when examined Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, someone could review ~~1804 Haiti Massacre~~. It's been over 9 days since I (as nominator) addressed the issues with that article.

As for Casliber's list:

Fancy Dress Festival and Aboakyer festival (a pair of related articles) are still both in need of rewriting to address too-close wording. It's still less than 48 hours since I did the initial review of Fancy Dress Festival, and the creator has not been active since my review. I just now reviewed Aboakyer festival after the article creator followed up on Nikkimaria's comments; unfortunately, the issues are not resolved. It appears that the article creator is going to need help with these. The good news is that the sources are amazingly interesting -- both articles have wonderful possibilities.
Red goats of Kingston hasn't been touched since 6 December. (There has been no effort to respond to the review issues.) --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, my free time keeps evaporating - I pause before archiving some of those older ones thinking maybe there is an opportunity to educate/collaborate with new editors. I'll try to look later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/No, now prep2

Probably I don't understand, and wonder what. I see something bold "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen", am curious, see it link not to a proposal but an episode which is going to show a proposal, - I think this is misleading, at least, also looking in an unknown future, - I try to avoid that. Good advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for the above, the earlier prep 2 loader moved what he loaded to prep 1 which is where this hook is now. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unattributed quote in the first person looks unprofessional: the most spectacular that who has ever seen? Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added attribution to the hook, which is now at Queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orlady. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on the Main page: "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?", bolding a proposal, but linking to an episode. I would prefer "... that what Matthew Morrison calls "the most spectacular [marriage] proposal I've ever seen" is scheduled to occur on Glee in January 2012?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly considered changing it (the main page has another 1.5 hours to run), but since the article is about this one episode and the plot of the episode apparently is mostly the marriage proposal, I think the current version is just fine. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue for the remaining short while, but the article's talk has more expression of the view that it's advertisement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gholhak Garden (q1)

This is a British diplomatic compound, so surely British ENGVAR is appropriate, so it has been at the centre of diplomatic controversy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! well spotted...now done...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates choked on title with "/" in it

Tech note: The templates had trouble parsing the nom for Yes/No. The nomination page, Template:Did you know nominations/Yes/No, ended up linked on the prep area page as Template:Did you know nominations/No. I haven't checked to see if the credits were affected. --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a credit which looks good and leads to the nom correctly, but the nom is not even mentioned on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax fixed the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have mentioned that earlier: when I first made the nomination, the links that the template page originally gave me were as Orlady shows above. I imagine that the parser simply looks for the final slash, and takes the title from what appears after that, which would be a problem in this case. What I did at the time was hand-edited the template string offered before inserting it on the DYK template talk page under December 14, but didn't think to check the prep area to see whether the problem showed up again there. Sorry about that! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem with the parser, it was a problem with my own code in the editnotice that gives you the string to transclude on T:TDYK. I fixed it there. I'm not sure why there was a problem in the prep area, as {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset}} should create the correct output. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in prep with {{DYKmake|Yes/No|BlueMoonset|subpage=No}}. "subpage=No" got added automatically because the {{NewDYKnomination}} template checks to see if the {{{article}}} from the nomination (in this case, Yes/No), matches the {{SUBPAGENAME}} of the nomination page, which in this case was just No. That's how the MW parser works, but I think I can change something to get around it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now all of the DYK nomination templates on the noms page are broken. The "Review or comment" links go to the article editing page, not the nom template. Also, the nom templates no longer have a link back to the main noms page. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just noticed this - I just cut and pasted the template subpage into the searchbox for the time being but something is obviously up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Template:DYK nompage links so the noms page templates work again, but I may have broken something else.... --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew this would break the current noms, but I went ahead and did it because I think it's unavoidable. As far as I know, the only options are 1) make the change now, and just manually go through and fix all the noms that are on T:TDYK (that would just involve opening the nom page, editing, and replacing nompage=something with nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/something); or 2) not making the change, and just accepting the fact that the rare nominations with "/" in the title will get messed up.

For now, I reverted {{DYK nompage links}} to the version before I made the change. I probably will not have computer access for most of the rest of the day so don't wait on me to make changes; once you guys make a decision what to do, I think the information I left above should be enough to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I went ahead and reverted that stuff for now. It's going to take more work than I have time to do right now, and the issue is not urgent (I doubt there will be anymore "/" nominations soon, and even if there are the problem is easily fixable after they're nominated). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed four nominations which were made while {{NewDYKnomination}} was altered: Vigilant Firehouse (Washington, D.C.), Buchnera americana, Alexander Finta, and Tourism in Laos. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made User:Rjanag/SUBPAGENAMES, which is like {{SUBPAGENAME}} but will work the way we want it to in situations like the one above. It will only be useful for titles with one slash, though (e.g., Yes/No; it wouldn't help a nomination for an article called Yes/No/Maybe), and making the template big enough to handle lots more slashes is unfeasible. Other ways to make the nomination process work smoothly for article titles like this are also not easy. Given that articles with titles like this are so rare, and it's quite easy to clean up the errors after nominating, I think the best course of action is just not to try to fix this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEEK! I've filled Queue 5, and have set up Prep 1, but that still leaves 5 empty queue slots, 3 vacant prep areas, 2 hours to go, and a partridge in a pear tree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas hooks

I've noticed we currently have only 11 Christmas hooks. A few more would be nice, but I'd like to remind updaters that Christmas hooks are spread across the entire 24 hours of Christmas UTC, which with an eight-hour cycle means roughly 4 Christmas hooks per update. Whoever puts the updates for this day together, please also try to remember that for the non-Christmas hooks, we at least want uplifting, positive or topical hooks where possible, we don't want hooks about tragedies, wars etc.

Just out of interest, I notice that the number of hooks in an update has recently been increased from six to seven. I really don't know why since there are only about 150 hooks in total at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has just moved a twelfth, which is the one I had finished reviewing less than a hour before, meaning we have a dozen now. That appears to be it on the nominations page, unless the December 10 "GRB 101225A(Christmas burst)" article should be approved despite the newness issue. (One way or another, that article should acquire a marking of some kind; it's been over ten days since the last comment there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I see that the Christmas burst article has just now been moved into the special Christmas section, but should it have been? I thought only articles that were approved (even though subsequent issues may be uncovered) could be moved into the special holding areas like Christmas. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any such rule and it's not how I approach it. I think it's helpful to have all the Christmas hooks in one place so updaters can clearly see how many hooks they have - leaving them all over the page is not an option IMO. It does mean though, that there are one or two hooks in the Christmas/y sections that need priority review.

Update: I have now moved some additional hooks into the Christmas sections after combing through the suggestions page, so there are now 13 Christmas hooks and three "Christmasy" hooks to make a total of 16. Some of these hooks still need review however. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, saying about the same:) There was a time when special occasion hooks were nominated in the section, then a time when they were nominated normally and moved, which I think is better and now easily done (the move, I mean, now that we have the templates). But more for Christmas - they need exception-making anyway as late (I made one yesterday), I suggest let's keep an eye on nominations popping up there, that's easier to see than anywhere in the noms. In assembling the sets, keep in mind that Christmas starts in countries like Germany on Christmas Eve (2 hooks 24 December) and continues on 26 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but special occasion days are done in UTC time. It doesn't matter if Christmas starts earlier some place and ends later someplace else. Christmas Day hooks are confined to Christmas Day UTC time, the same way other special occasion days are treated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. All I meant to say was that in case there are too many hooks for Dec 25 some might still work the next day. BWV 63 is not one of them, because for 26 December Bach produced a different one (but I was too lazy this year to cover it),

In years past spill over into other dates has traditionally been done primarily as a means of handling all the qualified hooks. That is not a concern this year as three updates of six hooks (the rate we have been normally operating at in recent weeks) is sufficient to allow the entire supply of Christmas hooks to run on a single day with a handful of non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps. That being said, I have no objections to the Christmas hooks currently scheduled for Christmas eve and would have no problems with a good Christmasy image being placed in the first update on Boxing day. --Allen3 ^talk 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, the queues and prep areas (and current front page) now have seven hooks, not six. Which will just mean a few more non-holiday hooks filling in the gaps at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QUERY: If we're grouping the Christmas noms together to make them more visible, then why have some of them not been reviewed at all? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try review the unreviewed one this eve. The Interior (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As December 25th is always, by some margin, the day of the year with the lowest viewing figures, is there a case for reducing the number of updates just for the day, and using extra noms on the 24th or 26th? Letting the updaters open their presents etc? Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO we are better off staying at the current 3 sets/day. There are a good number of interesting X-mas related images and reducing to 2 updates not only means an admin needs to adjust the update frequency (not difficult but potentially inconvenient as the change can not be scheduled in advance) but one less image that can appear on Christmas day. --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Hubert Rostworowski, now on the Main page

The lead hook on Karol Hubert Rostworowski mentions filicide, I don't find that in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story refered to has a son killed by his parents, and so it is about filicide, although it seems to be a case of the deliberate use of unusual terms when clearer one would suffice (a common "feature" hereabouts).

What concerns me more is that the hook claims to be "in the words of Nobel laureate Czesław Miłosz", and then paraphrases him. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be blind but don't see "a son killed by his parents" either, only "the murder for money", which is not the same. I think the hook should match the article, or the other way round. "In the words" is nonsense because he spoke Polish, how about "according to"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I found it in the plot - but not in the summary, which still has an unexplained link to the biblical figure. I think the article should see an English writer copy-edit before it appears, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hook and the article require some native English speaker, "in the words" should be "according to" at best, and the most provoking link of the hook doesn't appear in the article, the lead says "who is remembered for his visions of totalitarianism and a misguided effort to control fate" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How (or where) to re-add a hook?

Earlier today a hook of mine was removed from the prep area it had been added to (diff). However, as it was passed and removed from T:TDYK, I'm not really sure how to re-add it. I've addressed the concern noted in the edit summary (not that I was actually alerted to it in any way, however), as can be seen here. Should I re-nominate the article again on T:TDYK, or is there a way of simply re-inserting it into the prep queue? I'm just concerned about it ending up getting lost in the shuffle and ignored as it's currently not listed anywhere it could be found without actively looking for it, and is then unlikely to be noticed by anyone preparing the queue. GRAPPLE X 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can complete the steps at T:TDYK#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. It looks like whoever removed the hook from prep didn't follow those instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll get on that now. GRAPPLE X 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably make sense for such instructions to be visible from the queue. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 > Q2 or Q1

Why are hooks in Q3 so much longer than those in Q2 or Q1? If the DYK hooks go on the main page as queued, the layout on the main page will be off after each update. --69.157.46.77 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The length of an update when it reaches can be deceptive as the reader's browser setting help determine the exact location of each line break. That being said, Q2 had three short hooks while Q3 was composed entirely of longer hooks. I have swapped hooks between Q2 and Q3 to help reduce the differences in length. --Allen3 ^talk 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but now Q2 has two hooks about US baseball pitchers. That seems weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden text

Editing one of the preps a moment ago, I noticed some hidden text that appears to be deprecated. For convenience: " STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:

This is NOT a general trivia section.
This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative."

I suggest removing most if not all of that text, leaving perhaps the third and second-last points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... heck, that text must be older than JB's singing career. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krampus for Christmas? now in Q5

I am surprised to see - now in prep2 - Krampus as a lead picture on Christmas Day. Several reasons: 1) develish creature isn't what I would expect, 2) "his day", as the article states, is 5 December, St. Nicholas (also mentioned) has nothing to do with Christmas, the whole hook should go a different day, imo. 3) I would prefer to see a pic of the church in Halle instead (hook 2nd in prep3), an article which two editors improved greatly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"St. Nicholas has nothing to do with Christmas": I certainly would not have expected that from someone whose specialism seems to revolve around central European culture. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas is celebrated 6 December in Central Europe, ask the Dutch, that's their day of giving presents. "Santa" - forgive me - has nothing to do with that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR OBJECTION TO KRAMPUS. It's now in a queue! HUH! I totally agree with Gerda here. And let's see, Allen3 destroyed a prep set I made with a beautiful horse pic in the lead because it would have appeared on Christmas rather than letting it slide one day but it's okay to have a devil creature appear on Christmas? IS THIS FOR REAL?!?!? Is the person that promoted that on drugs? And people wonder why wiki is so messed up and has a lousy laughinng stock rep out in the real world. If we're going to put Christmas hooks up on Christmas, lets do it, not make things up willy nilly.PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "According to legend, Krampus accompanies Saint Nicholas during the Christmas season, warning and punishing bad children, in contrast to St. Nicholas, who gives gifts to good children." -- Not exactly "making things up willy-nilly". Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly object I do not think this nor the image are appropriate at all. PumpkinSky talk 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article which may be another example of an overly simplified lead (see "visions of totalitarism" above), you read there with some precision, still in the lead: "during the first week of December, particularly on the evening of 5 December". That should not be summarized to "during the Christmas season", and should not appear at all on 25 December, if you ask me. Also: WP should not support the myth that Santa has anything to do with St Nicholas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (although I seem to remember that St Nicholas was a bit of an inspiration [although not the entire foundation for Santa Claus, of course]). I think the outrage over Krampus is cultural as well; if we were to write about how the Japanese eat KFC as their "traditional Christmas meal", how would other editors take it? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say (don't understand outrage) "don't write on Krampus". I said don't write on Krampus on 25 December as if their was a connection to Christmas. Place him 26 December or wherever, once "he" missed 5 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing Pumpkin, actually. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also see another issue with the picture: let alone that it is plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch supporting something that is supposedly age-old, but what does it actually stand for? Was it on display somewhere? was it a mask worn during a festival? It looks to me like it's an annoying case of someone's very modern idea about what Krampus should look like, that now shapes wikipedia's entire perspective on how Krampus was imagined by the traditional community that spawned him. Dahn (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support that as well, please let's drop the picture any date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aboslutely, the photo is god awful and totally inappropriate for Christmas. I don't object to the article at DYK, but it should be on another day with a different photo.PumpkinSky talk 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to prep for now, I agree it's not appropriate for Christmas Day. But I must say I'm pretty disappointed in some of the other choices too. Bombings? Assassinations? Earthquakes? It seems that whoever put these updates together totally ignored my reminder to avoid such hooks for the Christmas updates. I might see if I can swap a few more around before they go to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reacting! Could you perhaps swap the pic of the opera singer to a different day and have a picture accent on Bach's Christmas cantata, as nominated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for the Bach Christmas cantata picture, which is of the church article featured in the hook. It's a nicer picture, and the article is more clearly related to Christmas, making it more appropriate to head the list. The opera singer could be swapped to a different day or run on this one without the picture, as seems best. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the suggestion :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the earthquake, if I'm not mistaken it happened on the 25th. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of pulling that one but decided to leave it for now since it apparently occurred in a remote area. I guess the date makes it topical, but I'm still not convinced it should be there. However, I've left it there for now as I didn't find any other hooks on T:TDYK that stood out as suitable replacements. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my suggestion to keep it until the 25th but nobody died in it, in fact hardly anyone noticed it, so not a disaster, but it can be kept to whenever as far as I'm concerned. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now promoted some new hooks to get rid of some of the more objectionable ones. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go Gatoclass! PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well folks, you've disappointed a few people in the Interior household this Christmas. Members of the extended family had helped with research and followed the nomination process with glee. I planned on expanding Krampus after User:Miyagawa placed this list of Christmas-related stubs on DYK at the end of November. A lot of effort was put into expanding this specifically for the Christmas queues. I am truly baffled by the arguments that this is not an appropriate hook, or that it is not Christmas related. We should pull Gemiler Island as well if St. Nicholas is insufficiently connected with the season. The Krampus is part of less-sanitized holiday tradition, I'm sure our readers would be interested. Very disappointed in the decision making here. (This discussion happened during the night in my timezone.) Sigh. The Interior (Talk) 15:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that two DYK regulars (Victuallars and Orlady) approved this for Christmas. The Interior (Talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be topical if it's run on Boxing Day, and it will be much less likely to freak out kids or parents, or devout Christians. If there is more support for running it on Christmas Day, I guess we could reconsider, but I for one would be opposed to running it as a lead hook. It might be okay as the last, or "quirky" hook in an update, but if there's a consensus to run it as such, it will have to be done without my participation as I'm just about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it would have been most topical during the first week of December, as the article correctly states. And what about the quality of the picture which has been described as "plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch" (above, not by me) and which seems to suit Halloween best? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you feel best, folks. I'm not going to spend my Christmas Eve arguing on Wikipedia. Happy holidays everyone. The Interior (Talk) 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interior-at least you/Krampus had a discussion, I've been the victim of the opposite multiple times. PumpkinSky talk 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas 63 133

Sorry to make things complicated, but: Bach composed a cantata for Christmas Day, BWV 63, that - if you ask me - should appear prominently with a picture of the church on THAT day. He composed a different cantata, BWV 133, for 27 December, which should - if you ask me - appear THAT day, they celebrated Christmas for three days in Bach's time. At present we have both on 25 Dec, no pic. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Also see above, I realize only now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's in a prep now. Would be good to get it in queue 5 or Q6. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an obvious shortage of Christmas Day hooks this year, and I very much doubt anyone will make the December 27th association. The hook's association with Christmas however, is clear. I should add that the update currently in prep #3 will eventually be displayed on Christmas Day when it is moved to the queue. So I think the hooks are fine where they are. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so. We had complaints about too many hooks about same topic in too close succession before, and two Bach cantatas one day looks to me like that. The article for BWV 133 says Third Day of Christmas twice and 27 December twice. But I am quite happy with the change for the other one, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another year, I would say fine, let's keep it for the 27th. But IMO that hook is really needed for Christmas Day, since we have such a shortage of Christmas hooks, or even Christmas-related hooks, this year. And if it's run on Christmas Day, that's a good excuse for making it the lead hook :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 :::::Sigh, it would have been most topical during the first week of December, as the article correctly states. And what about the quality of the picture which has been described as "plastic-era/death-metal-inspired kitsch" (above, not by me) and which seems to suit Halloween best? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::Do what you feel best, folks.  I'm not going to spend my Christmas Eve arguing on Wikipedia.  Happy holidays everyone. [[User:The Interior|<font color="brown">The</font><font color="green"> Interior</font>]] [[User Talk:The Interior|(Talk)]] 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::Interior-at least you/Krampus had a discussion, I've been the victim of the opposite multiple times. [[User:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">Pumpkin</font><font color="darkblue">Sky</font>]] [[User talk:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">talk</font>]] 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 == Bach cantatas 63 133 ==