Template:Did you know nominations/Ka Island


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ka Island

 * ... that the Chinese general Mao Wenlong favored free trade and heavy taxes at his garrison on Ka Island, North Korea?
 * ALT1:... that Mao Wenlong's protection of smugglers and raiders on Pi Island (now within North Korea) led to his controlling most trade on the Yellow Sea?
 * ALT2:... that Ajige beheaded Shen Shikui for his refusal to surrender Pi Island?
 * ALT3:... that Pi Island is not one of the Pi Islands?
 * ALT4:... that the Manchu were only able to remove the Ming from Ka Island, North Korea, by carrying out an amphibious landing at night?
 * ALT5:... that Mao Wenlong took advantage of the chaos of the Manchu invasions of China to turn his base on Ka Island, North Korea, into a free port and personal kingdom?
 * ALT6:... that the Chinese general Mao Wenlong tried to extort copper and iron from Joseon Korea to mint his own currency on Pi Island?
 * Reviewed: Sovereignty Restoration Day
 * Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to review the hook(s) that are interesting to you.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 04:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC).


 * ALT3 is absolutely brilliant. Add it to the article's text somewhere with published citation, so there's no question the hook will meet the DYK requirement. —Patrug (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your kind words and input. Again, don't introduce extraneous links into DYK hooks: you're siphoning away the clicks that are the only reason to do these in the first place. Again, without a review, it's up to the reviewer to choose the hook s/he feels is most interesting.

There is obviously no one who has written that sentence in a before. "Pi Island" (pronounced "pee") is an early modern Chinese name for a Korean island; the Pi Islands (pronounced "pie") are a cutesy modern English name for some Antarctic islets; they don't go together in any way. Really, though, given Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the place to address that hook is in a disambiguation hatnote, which the article already has. I feel it's a situation since it's y to introduce a reference into a hatnote and even ier to add off-topic text to the body of a Korean article about unrelated Antarctic islands. We have the rule about citation to ensure that lies don't make it onto the front page, and here the statement is unquestionably true. If the future reviewer likes that hook and disagrees strongly, though, sure, I can find a source that lists the two Pi Islands (neither of which is near Korea) and add it to the article for DYK purposes. — Llywelyn II   00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The clicks are not supposed to be "the only reason to do these" – but even if that's your personal motivation, I highly doubt anyone would fail to click on a bolded Pi Island link because of an unbolded Pi Islands link. Nevertheless, if single linking is your personal "rule", so be it. Most DYK reviewers tend to be sticklers about the inline citation rule, so I didn't want them to dismiss your best hook for that reason. Glad you'll be able to address it if becomes necessary. —Patrug (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do, yeah. I know you mean well, so thanks for the input even though it makes this entry longer and therefore somewhat discourages actual reviewers. It is more helpful if you do find something you're interested in and do an actual review, but any assistance with typos, grammatical errors, or BLP violations is certainly very very helpful as well. You should keep in mind that these hooks are precisely to drive traffic to new entries rather than old ones, though; if this were about "informing" or "interesting" the public, it wouldn't be restricted to recent or recently-improved articles. — Llywelyn II   05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT3, which a previous editor mentioned, is not stated or cited at all in the article; it is just written in the hatnote. My preference is for ALT2, which is verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Image in article is freely licensed. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)