Misplaced Pages

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues 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 7 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 15:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 3 hours ago( verify reset purge )

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs • Removed hooks: 2023–24

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 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 its processes can be discussed.

Back to 24 hours?

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 January

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

8 January

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11 January

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.

My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We are now back to a significant backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 We need more @DYK admins: to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you for WP:RfA. Or, if you prefer, I could just give you WP:TPE. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I see now that template namespace also refers to DYK nominations. I should have figured. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've granted WP:TPE to SL93. It'll be good to have more hands working the queues! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I hit something of a wall last week after attempting two in a day, but I plan on resuming in the next couple of days.--Launchballer 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I listed Noel Hilliam under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't usually bother with the {{dykadmins}}, but it can't hurt. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Like. Welcome aboard! —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

18 January

If someone can queue Prep 2, we can go to 12-hour backlog mode tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queued, currently finishing checks. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The instructions say For a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure when the bot does its runs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The last queue I promoted was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after). RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

10 hook sets?

We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Good Riddance (album) (nom)

@Locust member, Phibeatrice, and SL93: the hook says that the breakup was the only inspiration for the album, but both the lead and body say that it was also inspired by friendships and family. Surely the hook will need rewriting to match the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The hook doesn’t use the word “only” or “inspired”. The hook is “… that Gracie Abrams wrote Good Riddance about her breakup from her former collaborator and boyfriend, Blake Slatkin” and that is what the song is about. SL93 (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not include the word "only" in the hook; I used Slatkin for the hook since it is much more interesting to know an album was written about her ex boyfriend and former collaborator (a notable person) than just friendships and family. Locust member (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

As others have stated, the hooks don’t use the word “only”—and if we’re talking about the insinuation of “only” given that the hooks omit mention of other inspirations, I don’t feel compelled by that either. I believe the hooks are fine as they are in this regard. Phibeatrice (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ethel Lote (nom)

@Spiderpig662: I wonder if it's worth including the factoid that she only stopped because she couldn't get her foot over the back of her neck. I can't do that and I'm around 20% as old as she was! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: That might be a good idea. Would a consensus be needed before that was added to the hook? Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Prius Missile (nom)

@AlphaBetaGamma, Viriditas, Lajmmoore, and SL93: I can't read Japanese, so are we really sure this meets WP:NEOLOGISM? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would hope so after the long discussion. SL93 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking the title up in Japanese brings up a lot of hits.

Following sources use the subject in its title:

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 asks a good and needed question. ABG, I think your sourcing is pretty poor, but the search results you provide show that the term has currency in Japan, particularly in the car industry and related niche sites, so much so, so that it appears that many of your cited sources are in part, a response from the car industry to the trend. So with that said, I think it's clear the term has currency in Japan. There's also the related and associated legal case(s) and general phenomenon of elderly drivers and unintended acceleration (usually involving a Prius) that appears in many related articles, scholarly journals, and news articles. The problem AirshipJungleman29 poses then becomes a bit narrower in terms of Misplaced Pages. In other words, while the phenomenon and term can be said to exist and are in use, do the sources meet the criteria for inclusion (in other words NEOLOGISM)? The article by Yoshitaka Kimura that you cite, which appears to be an article in an auto industry news site known as "Mediavague" (which I think might be funded by the auto industry to promote their products), argues that the term has been in use since at least early 2019, which establishes that it was a problem for Toyota, and was very real and threatened their business. I think this meets the RS criteria, and it reads as a kind of industry hybrid between Consumer Reports and Car and Driver. Your second link also mentions the Prius Missile but is more of a used car site run by Nextage. I'm not convinced this is a great RS, but we have a lot of others to choose from based on your search results. From there, I see a link to an article by MOTA, which is a car industry trade group, again, likely trying to dispel the internet slang which could harm Toyota's brand. Moving on, I see an interesting blog post about the phenomenon with some detail over "Creative Trends", but I don't think this meets RS. On the other hand, I see an article about the Prius Missile by jidounten lab, which appears to be a respected, reliable auto and tech journalism site. I also see a BuzzFeed Japan article about the term in your results. I think the problem here is that the sources in the current Misplaced Pages article, while accurate, might need to have better sources added, which I can clearly see in your google search results. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

My horrible attention span may have caused me to misunderstand some parts. I got lost on the last part, were you referring to links in the article or the previous message I sent here? I know it's an annoying question... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s really simple. Use the best sources you can find. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Last Song for You

Pinging Prince of Erebor The fifth reference on Last Song for You seems unreliable. Google Translate reveals that it is a WordPress blog. I'm planning on promoting prep 2 when it is ready, and I'm just doing some early checking. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey SL93, I believe you are referring to Film Pilgrimage, which should be considered a reliable source because Gary Wong Kwun-ho (王冠豪) is an established film historian and writer with a long career researching on film location scouting and his books are widely cited in this field. (He is also a notable figure that warrants an article, and I have had him on my to-write list for a long time.) So I believe he qualifies as a subject matter expert according to WP:RSPWORDPRESS. (Film articles on zhwiki have also cited Film Pilgrimage for the same rationale.) Also, the article is an exclusive interview with the director and lead actress, discussing the filming locations (which falls within Wong's expertise and does not contain exceptional claims). So I see no issue with citing Wong's piece in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s great. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Arthur Swanstrom

Pinging 4meter4 The Unruh, Delbert (2018). Forgotten Designers Costume Designers of American Broadway Revues and Musicals From 1900–1930 reference was published by Page Publishing. It is a self-publishing company. The source can work if Delbert Unruh received significant coverage over his work. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 You have not actually looked at the article and what sources are physically cited in the article for the hook. Unruh isn't cited in the article for the source. Hischak is for the quote which is from Scarecrow Press. But Hischak oddly excluded Swanstrom from the lyrics credits. That's why I provided two different sources verifying Swanstrom as a co-lyricist of this work when I proposed the hook. One was Unruh, but the same content is also found in Bloom which is the source actually cited for the hook content in the article. Bloom is published by Schirmer Books. There isn't a verifiability issue here.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

4meter4 I never said that the Unruh source was used for the hook. I brought it up just in case because no unreliable sources should be used in articles. If the self-published source doesn't help anything, I fail to see why you want it there. Checking preps is not just about checking hooks. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

SL93 Here is Delbert Unruh's obituary here. He was a full professor of theatre at the University of Kansas where he taught for forty years. He was a Fullbright scholar and was honored by the United States Institute of Theatre Technology and by the Kennedy Center for his work as a theatre scholar and educator. He's clearly a subject matter expert. Given the source is only used to support a single non-controversial sentence in the article I don't think this should be issue. The Internet Broadway Database has the same content, but I think Unruh is a better source to cite given who he is over a database without an attributed author. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

4meter4 That is all that I needed, and you did not need to assume bad faith on my part. You should also know better. Well, it certainly isn't an issue now. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your objection because I had mention Unruh as a supporting source of the hook in my nomination. I didn't realize initially that you were objecting to its inclusion in the article overall. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked or slighted in my comments. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fine. I guess I will be clearer next time. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been resolved. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Noel Hilliam

I promoted this to prep. Can someone check over it? SL93 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Are NZ Short Walks and The End is Naenae reliable? Pinging Petersmeter and Schwede66. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I've had a look, SL93, and are happy to share my thoughts:

• NZ Short Walks – that's obviously a blog and I couldn't figure out who the blogger is. Seems a well-informed person but without knowing more about who is doing the blogging, the default position has to be that this isn't a reliable source.
• The End is Naenae – this is a blog by Dr Anna McMartin, Wikidata Q131787008 (I've made a Wikidata entry for her). She's a reasonably senior civil servant, and the area she's blogging about falls squarely within her professional expertise. I suggest that WP:ACCORDINGTO is appropriate guidance and this content, if presented as McMartin's opinion, is acceptable to be used. And I've just spotted that the same story has been published by North and South; that's a rather well regarded magazine and gives the whole affair a lot of credence. The full story is behind a paywall and if anyone has access to it, that would obviously be preferable to use as a source.

That's at least my 2c. Schwede66 05:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed NZ Short Walks from the article. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (23 January)

Raul Meza Jr.

@SL93, It is a wonderful world, and Narutolovehinata5: there is substantial WP:CLOP which needs to be resolved before this can run. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrongly assumed that there was something that I was missing when I checked for CLOP because two substantial editors participated in the DYK. I swear to not do that again, and to follow my gut instinct. I will see about fixing it. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I believe that I have taken care of it. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am admittedly a less experienced editor, but are most of these changes needed? Does stating that someone was "sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole" actually violate CLOP? Swinub★ 01:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say yes if there is a way to reword it. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What caught my eye was Records show that he had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings by the time he was 15 years old. Meza began using drugs at age eight and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges; the following year, he was accused of arsonCounty and state marriage records show Meza had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings before he was 15 years old ... Meza began using drugs at the age of 8 and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges ... The following year, the report stated, Meza was accused of arson That's classic close paraphrasing, which is defined as "superficial modification of material from another source". Once I saw that, I kept looking and found other examples. Yeah, most of the changes were needed. RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. I will be more careful about this from now on. Thanks. Swinub★ 01:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't intend to single you out. WP:CLOP is one of our most commonly misunderstood policies. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert Yelverton Tyrrell

@SL93, UndercoverClassicist, and Thriley: The hook is, at best, deceptive. He may have spent six weeks at Flynn's School, but he spent four years at Trinity College. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith Maybe this as a rewording - "...that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, a professor of classics, spent six weeks at a private school?" or maybe "... that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, a professor of classics, was mostly home-schooled as a child?" SL93 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: this is probably a British-ism, where "school" and "university" are separate: "at school" excludes "at university". We could add "was accepted to university and became a professor of classics" to clarify that distinction? Alternatively, there are two ALTs:

• ALT1: ... that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell successfully recommended that A. E. Housman be made a professor, and unsuccessfully recommended that Oscar Wilde be released from jail? Source: Beard, Mary (2002). "Ciceronian Correspondences: Making a Book out of Letters". In Wiseman, Timothy Peter (ed.). Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press. p. 107. ISBN 0-19-726323-2. (Housman); Stanford, William Bedell (Winter 1978). "Robert Yelverton Tyrrell" (PDF). Hermathena. 125: 17. JSTOR 23040586. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-20.} (Wilde)
• ALT2: ... that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell started a "minor civil war" over an edition of the Greek historian Herodotus? Source: Stanford, William Bedell (Winter 1978). "Robert Yelverton Tyrrell" (PDF). Hermathena. 125: 5–6. JSTOR 23040586. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-20.}

I might add an abbreviated version of ALT1: "... that the classics professor Robert Yelverton Tyrrell tried to get Oscar Wilde released from jail?" Source: Beard, Mary (2002). "Ciceronian Correspondences: Making a Book out of Letters". In Wiseman, Timothy Peter (ed.). Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press. p. 107. ISBN 0-19-726323-2. (Housman); Stanford, William Bedell (Winter 1978). "Robert Yelverton Tyrrell" (PDF). Hermathena. 125: 17. JSTOR 23040586. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-20.} (Wilde) UndercoverClassicist 08:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of that British usage, thanks for that. I'm not opposed to any of those, but maybe the simplest fix would be to say "... six weeks at secondary school". RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That would work too! UndercoverClassicist 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Joy to the World (Doctor Who) (nom)

@TheDoctorWho and Sammi Brie: the way this article mentions the incident (captioned the poster with "Joy to the Worlds", mirroring the title "Joy to the World") is not entirely clear, especially the word "mirroring". Would it not be better to simply state that the title was misspelled? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Responded with a reword. Hope you don't mind the tweak, TheDoctorWho. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, was just about to take care of it myself but you beat me to it, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

KZJO (nom)

Needs end of sentence citation. @Sammi Brie, @Bagumba, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, forgive me if I'm being dense, but don't we need this to be one sentence earlier? —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma Combined the two sentences instead for DYK purposes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That works! Apologies for the pedantry. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

2/day

I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Doug Hamlin (nom)

@Queen of Hearts: The hook fact lacks an end-of sentence citation. —Kusma (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, do you mean in the article? TarnishedPath 10:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, yes. Thank you for adding it. —Kusma (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma no worries. I didn't worry about it when I was promoting the hook because it was at the end of the paragraph anyway. Can't hurt to have it at the end of each sentence though. TarnishedPath 10:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, it is actually a requirement per WP:DYKHFC. —Kusma (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev Posad (nom)

@Le Loy/Ле Лой, @Geni: The lead should be expanded a bit to make the article properly presentable. —Kusma (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, done, please take a look. I got so sick of this place it took me a while to return to the article. Le Loy (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Loy: much better, thanks! —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Du Toit's torrent frog

Olmagon AmateurHi$torian AirshipJungleman29 - How does anyone know that only two people are known to have seen the frog alive? The article even says this about the first discoverer - "He collected three individuals, which would later be studied and recognized as a new species by British biologist Arthur Loveridge in 1935." That would be two people already if those specimens were alive, and that is without mentioning the next discoverer of live specimens named Ronalda Keith. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Olmagon: I guess the collected species are presumed to be dead, but is there a source which says that? If there is none, maybe ALT1 can be used instead. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

SL93, collected specimens are dead. The source clearly says that they were preserved in formalin after their collection in the field. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Collected specimens are not always dead. As for the source, I only have access to an abstract that didn't answer my question. SL93 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See Zoological specimen. If they are not dead and preserved, they are not yet considered specimens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not true. Searching "living specimen" and "living specimen meaning" shows otherwise. Cambridge dictionary along with this and this are just three of many examples. Although it doesn't matter now. SL93 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The source right after mentioning Arthur Loveridge makes it clear that they were preserved. The View Article link originally didn't show up on my screen. I just had to refresh. I'm sorry. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sitaleshwar Temple

AmateurHi$torian MartinPoulter AirshipJungleman29 - A direct citation is needed after the hook fact. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: Added -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Tokyo Expressway

Mccunicano A citation is needed after "Southbound exit." SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know discussion pages