Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Prep 4

Kwan Man-ching

• One of mine; need a second pair of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I promoted to queue and checked this article: no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Other

• I'm seeing three sport-related biographies. Anyone mind if we shuffle 'em a bit? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I flipped John Mascarenhas to prep 7 and Shalom Nagar to Prep 4. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Ceechynaa +1

• I reviewed, so another pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll look at Bernard Gray when I've eaten. Looking at this now, I wonder if it's worth tightening the hook slightly, e.g. "that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy"?--Launchballer 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've updated it in queue.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Vitamin E

• Hook fact is not immediately followed by a source. Also, citing a first to a primary source seems iffy... should be a secondary source. Pinging David notMD, User:PixDeVl, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The hook fact, in the Lead and in the History section, is now followed by the Evans 1936 reference. The ref is also used after the next sentence in the History section, which attributes the suggestion to the name of a Greek scholar in a footnote on page 321. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Care to explain this edit @Darth Stabro:?--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it must have been an accidental misclick of the rollback button. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)

• Just going to note here that this was previously re-reviewed by Launchballer, and I am accepting that re-review as a second set of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Gray (Sunday Pictorial journalist)

• I reviewed, so another pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Chernobyl Reactors 5 and 6

• I've tagged this with {{lead too short}}. Pinging Bollardant, Hawkeye7, and Hilst. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is an cleanup template and not a dispute template, so it does not affect DYK. (WP:DYKCOMPLETE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Hawkeye7, as per the summary at the top of Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, "maintenance templates" is a valid issue. It also falls afoul of the first sentence of DYK:COMPLETE: "There is a expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  The lead of any page is absolutely forbidden to have anything in it that is not covered in the body. So that sentence has its definition of "maintenance templates" in WP:DYKCOMPLETE. If there is disagreement, then I can remove it from the lead without further ado. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: is it forbidden for the lead to have anything in it that is not covered in the body? MOS:LEADCITE says the lead usually repeats information that is in the body. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not an issue for an article, because anything that is unreferenced can be removed. In this case we are not referring to an article, but a Template:Nutshell for an admin page, and this template presents a concise summary. If it is not a summary of what is in the body, then it is wrong, and must be removed from the nutshell forthwith. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Phoebe Plummer, Christopher Hehir, Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest

• ... that Phoebe Plummer was "unfortunate" to draw Christopher Hehir as judge when she stood trial over the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest?

@Launchballer, Folkezoft, Crisco 1492, and AirshipJungleman29: The quote from the source is "Unfortunately for them, they got Judge Christopher Hehir." Some editors at ERRORS might have issue with the word change, so perhaps one of the below would be better:

• ALT1: ... that Phoebe Plummer "unfortunately" drew Christopher Hehir as judge when she stood trial over the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest?

• ALT2: ... that, in describing Phoebe Plummer's trial for her actions in the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest, one reporter said she "unfortunately" drew Christopher Hehir as judge?

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the spelling of "unfortunatly" to "unfortunately" in both ALT hooks, and fixed the apostrophe-s template in ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "unfortunately" --> "unfortunate" was covered by MOS:SIC, although now I don't see anything about adverbs in it. (I could have sworn the approved hook had the bold links in a different order?) In any event, all of the hooks are wrong; Plummer uses "they/them" pronouns.--Launchballer 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Michael O'Kane

• ... that Michael O'Kane never received approval to begin constructing a building for the College of the Holy Cross?

@Ergo Sum, Chaiten1, and Hilst:

While the article talks about how O'Kane was ordered to halt construction, I cannot find where it states that the building never received approval, including that it did not receive retroactive approval. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added some more info about the approvals to the article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

• ... that SpongeBob has an existential crisis in a porn parody?

@Di (they-them) @Tails Wx @Hilst Doesn't this hook as currently written not meet WP:DYKFICTION? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess not. Maybe we could go with "... that SpongeKnob SquareNuts, a porn parody of SpongeBob SquarePants, has been described as 'like a train crash that you just can't look away from'?" or "... that the costume for the titular SpongeKnob SquareNuts character consisted of a box and a condom?". – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of these alternatives are fine with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The idea I had was actually something like "... that SpongeBob has a porn parody?", but I guess we can have another reviewer decide. Not sure if the other proposals fail WP:DYKGRAT or not (maybe they don't and I'm just being too conscious or conservative), but I guess that's also up to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That also works. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to the "box and a condom" hook because I thought that was the most interesting. Others are welcome to suggest changes or advocate for another hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "titular" feels odd in this sentence and it's not clear if the sentence is referring to the character or the film. Might I suggest tweaking the wording?

"... that a SpongeBob costume used in the film SpongeKnob SquareNuts consisted of a box and a condom?"

Di (they-them) (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

+1

I used titular because I had just woken up and my brain works very poorly in the morning :V – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's already in Queue, so a sysop will need to swap with the new wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure this is notable? I don't see any of the sources in the article making a particularly compelling case for a GNG pass... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've started an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It now needs pulling, if it hasn't already been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled this per below.--Launchballer 16:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

12-hour sets?

WP:DYKNA currently has over 130 approved noms. Should we start doing 12-hour sets? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Approaching 12-hour backlog mode? and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:DYKUBM and the consensus was that we start when there are seven filled queues.--Launchballer 13:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, good to know. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If this does happen, then my #Ceechynaa +1 hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--Launchballer 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

There's another GA backlog drive in January. Which means if we don't dig into our own backlog over the next few weeks, we'll be totally swamped by February. So, we need to get those queues filled. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron any idea when PSHAW's queueing function could be opened up to us template editors as well as admins? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: yes! right now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Diddy parties

@Crisco 1492, No Swan So Fine, and Darth Stabro: I'm concerned about the WP:BLP aspects of this. It also looks like the credit template got lost. RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've fixed the credit template. I think the move wreaked havoc on it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have issues with the hook itself, but do see a potential BLP issue with linking this from the main page. The article talks about "White Parties" (parties mainly at his home that were widely covered by the news as like big time cultural events) and "Freak-offs" (parties mainly at hotels that are being investigated for a range of criminal activity). It doesn't quite make a clear distinction between the two, but that accurately reflects the sources. The BBC talks about his neighbors complaining at the White Parties hosted in his home because women staggered into the streets, partially clothed, and looking disoriented/dazed. It says, "various lawsuits detail alleged sexual assaults at parties held at Mr Combs's properties". And so the article has these lists of all these famous living people that attended his "White Parties" like Al Sharpton, Martha Stewart, and Elton Brand with a kind of implication that they could have been involved in or known about the crimes currently under investigation. And where the article does directly address whether individuals had involvement or knowledge (Leonardo DiCaprio & Marlon Wayans) they are explicitly denying it and don't seem to have any charges right now. Also, the Marlon Wayans interview is prefaced with "White Chicks might have been inspired by real-life events" but the cited source seems to hedge much more saying that White Chicks "ha adquirido un nuevo significado [has taken on a new meaning]". I'll post a neutral link to WP:BLPN to get outside input and accept whatever the consensus is. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

De Worsten van Babel

@Hilst, Bogger, and Figureskatingfan: the article doesn't mention "espresso". RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

fixed. - Bogger (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

I nominated this for ITN and now I think it's been lost. I requested it be moved so there aren't two tornado-based blurbs, but the move wasn't done perfectly and it wasn't put into another queue. It was replaced in its original queue with Planting a Rainbow but that one's original queue wasn't updated, and when it went to Errors, was replaced by another blurb from somewhere else. Template:Did you know nominations/Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse - promoted 12 days ago but not on any queue anymore. And whatever anyone does, please keep it away from Prep 5 and the 1991 Andover tornado so we don't have to go through this all over again. I'm not too concerned with getting this up in a timely manner, moreso with having it on DYK at all. Cheers. Departure– (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Replaced with #SpongeKnob SquareNuts above.--Launchballer 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Transatlantic cables incident

@Crisco 1492, Chetsford, and Dumelow: There's yet another incident of this kind happening right now Finland Seizes Ship After Undersea Cable Is Cut. The Historical context section really should get updated before this goes live. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Page move?

See Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Helong civil unrest, we just moved the underlying page for a DYK, is there anything that needs to be done on the DYK nom now? seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the link in the hook to the new article name, I think that was everything. TSventon (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the DYK header, DYK nompage links, and DYKmake templates to reflect the article move. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 5

Hi. I nominated Rescatemos a David y Miguel for this date, and the nomination was approved on December 9. According to the established timeline, it should have been placed in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 by now, but it is still in the approved queue. In the past, I've missed similar nominations even when they were submitted within the established 6-week period. I understand that there are many hooks waiting to be posted before this one, but my main concern is that I've planned other articles for February and March that I won't need to nominate within the next three to six weeks due to the DYK rules, which could potentially apply to the same situation and I'd need to know if I'd have to nominated them even before the 6-week period. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The above comment is confusing, especially regarding the February/March aspect. Can you please clarify that matter?

As for the January 5 request, the current prep for that is Prep 5, which is already filled up, which means a hook will have to be bumped to later. Right now we already have almost all preps filled, and we're soon switching to two-sets a day temporarily, although I'm not sure if January 5 will be affected by that or not. In any case, depending on how things go, your request could still be fulfilled, but it also may be too impractical to follow. In such case, would you be okay if the request is not fulfilled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency in archival?

Hey all. On my talk page, I received a notice about the Voltairine de Cleyre DYK posting, showing the hook about last rites. But it appears that a different hook (about Senator Hawley) is showing up on the archive and monthly pagview leaders. Also the archive seems to disagree on what day the DYK was featured on, saying it was posted on 25 December, while all the other mentions say it was on the 24 December. Can someone explain the hook and dating inconsistency? Was it changed at some point? I'm a bit confused. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

While I can't say a thing about the hook question: the inconsistency about the appearance has been there for as long as I remember, because the day in the archive is (with some logic) the day when archived, which is now - due to 24-hour cycles - always the day after appearance. (When I got to know DYK, there were four sets per day, and at least for three of them the day archived was the same day as appearance.) I'm afraid that we can't change that without a dramatic inconsistency to existing archives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can now answer the other also: as expected, she is in the archive for 25 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks so much for the explanation on the archival date! That makes sense. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

New Year

As announced in an archived thread, I expanded a cantata article to GA to hopefully be presented on 1 January. Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41 is ready for review and consideration. We talk again about a 300 years anniversary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2 is already filled up and ready to go, so I don't think it likely that the nom will get approval and be swapped in on such short notice, unfortunately. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The miracle happened for yesterday, and I announced this to come when I announced the other on 20 December, so it's not really short notice. I felt I was already pushing the GA reviewer, and I didn't want to make the same mistake as in the other case, nominate for DYK before GA was through. - You and anybody willing: you could simply review this, and then discuss if we should present a New Years cantata perhaps some day in February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please reserve a space for 6 January. No, not another chorale cantata, just a 290 years anniversary of a famous piece, and I don't know yet if I'll manage expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

These short notice requests can be impractical and a hassle to prep builders, especially now that we're approaching two-sets a day and special occasion requests can become even more of a hassle (see #12-hour sets? above) . There is a reason why it's usually recommended not to request a special occasion request if it's less than a week out. The suggestion would be, if you want to have a special occasion hook, to nominate the articles far in advance, to give time for reviewers to check and double-check. After all, it's not uncommon for noms to be brought up here for re-checking, and very tight time requirements could affect article/hook/set quality. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

John Green (basketball) (nom)

Personally, I don't understand much of the hook and thus don't appreciate why it's interesting; would like others' opinions to whether I'm alone in that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree on this one. The hook says he was only the top scorer in one of those 12 Final Four teams, which is still impressive but probably not broadly interesting enough for DYK's purposes. The hook is in Queue 1 which is currently scheduled for January 1, so this will need either a bumping off or a pull. There might still be potential in the "leading scorer" angle, but probably not with the current wording. Maybe some of the following suggestions would work?

• ... that John Green was the UCLA Bruins' leading scorer during the 1961–62 season, in which they reached the Final Four for the first time?
• ... that John Green, who was once drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers, later worked in banking and real estate?

Also pinging nominator Bagumba, reviewer RecycledPixels and promoter Crisco 1492 regarding this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm good with either ALT.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  My personal preference would actually be the second, given that I think it's less reliant on specialist information (the first would require familiarity with the Final Four, which may mean a more US-centric focus), but I guess it could be left to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  My thought about ALT1 is that a) it highlights his skill in his field, and "Final Four" as a general concept doesn't take specialist knowledge, and b) most retired sportsball people end up in a non-athletic field, so becoming a banker isn't all that unique. That being said, ALT 2 does have fewer links to distract readers. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  ALT2, even if "readable", offers nothing interesting to either non-fans or fans of basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  For ALT1, mentioning the specific year doesn't add interest. I'd suggest ALT3: ... that John Green was the UCLA Bruins' leading scorer when they reached their first Final Four? —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Most non-sports fans should be somewhat familiar with the concept of a leading scorer, and "Final Four" is linked. The more interesting part for a basketball fan would be the linkage to John Wooden. Would it be more accessible to explicitly mention that the coach is a Hall of Famer? —Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. When we write hooks, we aim for the broadest possible audience, not the narrowest one. If the hook is mainly intended to appeal to basketball fans, at the expense of everyone else, that's not a good hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Dragon Ball (nom)

@Di (they-them), Pofka, and Crisco 1492: unless I'm missing something, the wording "Latino icon" only appears in the headline of this LA Times article, which is not a reliable source per WP:HEADLINES. Little bit of workshopping needed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Personally, an appellation in a headline is still calling someone something; WP:HEADLINES is more for objective fact than subjective identification, by the looks of things. If we want to pick nits, The Washington Post quotes the title of the essay in its body. We could also use "saint", which is in the body of both the LA Times article and the Washington Post.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Chrystal (musician) (nom)

Launchballer, the article has been tagged as an orphan, which you may wish to address before the main page appearance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Added a link from Co-op Academy North Manchester.--Launchballer 15:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Straight-tusked elephant (nom)

Hemiauchenia, per WP:DYKHFC, the hook fact in the article needs an end-of-sentence citation. Wonderful article, though; FA quality to my biologically-inexpert eye. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Done. [1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Mountain Landscape

@Hilst, Viriditas, and Sahaib: The article doesn't contain the words "immersive" or "luminosity". Hooks don't always have to contain direct quotes from the article, but given that this is an aesthetic opinion, and these words have specific meanings in the art world, I think we need to stick to exactly what Hertzlieb said. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:AESTHETIC is relevant here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I paraphrased the quote using those terms, but if you disagree go ahead and pull it, as I don’t think using an exact quote changes anything at all. I would rather offer a new hook as I dislike using a quote, and generally do so as a last resort. Also, the image is a poor one which is why I did not originally add one to the hook. So I would rather pull it at this point and replace it with a simpler one with no image. I think that space should be reserved for good images and this is not one of them. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Austrogynacantha heterogena male hindwing

I do agree that it's not a great image (which, I suppose is exactly the point of the hook) and I also agree that we should be running our best images. I'm thinking Antiquiala has a great image (but not the one included in the nom) so I suggest we use that and go with:

... that the Washington state dragonfly Antiquiala was described from a single wing (pictured)?

for the lead hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29: ALT2 "... that a Mountain Landscape is difficult to capture with photography, according to its former curator?"

Playful wording is intentional. I would prefer to shorten it to just "that a Mountain Landscape is difficult to capture with photography"? Viriditas (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty good hook. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and made the swap/mods. RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

2019 Timaru hailstorm

@Hilst, Panamitsu, and EF5: The article talks about how much insurance was paid. That's not quite the same as how much damage was done. There could be damage which wasn't covered by insurance. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the hook accordingly. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 16:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Shō Sen'i

@Hilst, Generalissima, and AlphaBetaGamma: The article says "Modern historians have attributed his short reign instead to a coup d'état". That got turned into the unequivocal "was overthrown in favor of" in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I completely forgot about that. Just throwing in "may have been" would resolve that I think Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sing-Song Girl Red Peony

@Hilst, Crisco 1492, and GreenLipstickLesbian: Oh, come on folks. "China's first sound film"? Really? The article even says "has been considered ..." and then goes on to give a counter-example, i.e. a different film which also has claim to being the first. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Have added "a contender for"; no issue with nixing that clause either, as Mei Lanfang's overdubbing is plenty interesting on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)