Template:Did you know nominations/Kingdom of the Aures


 * 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 MrClog (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Aures

 * ... that the final ruler of the Kingdom of the Aures was Queen Dihya, who was killed in battle in 703 AD?
 * Reviewed: Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland

Created by Ichthyovenator (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 11:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Better hook required. The final monarchs of many kingdoms have died in battle. RRD (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * but not so many elderly female monarchs I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Newly created article, over 1500 characters, cited and interesting hook, QPQ done, use of fair image, article follows guidelines. RRD (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This isn't remotely hooky. A reader need not to brainstorm to find about what's exactly hooky in the DYK, which's the case here. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems perfectly hooky to me, but here is another:
 * ALT1 ... that despite previously being at war with the Kingdom of the Aures, the Byzantine Empire eagerly supported them during the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hook is cited in the "War against the Arabs" section, but it is offline and accepted in good faith. The hook is very interesting. The article is long enough and new enough, but I think the lead should be expanded a bit (not a DYK requirement). QPQ is done. Now, I have a question about the "List of Kings and Queens of the Aurès". One of the statements, "Unknown rulers: No rulers recorded between the 539 and 668" is unsourced. Do any of the sources cited in this article claim these rulers are unknown, or is this simply an unsourced gap? Since this statement is an absolute statement of fact, it would require a source specifically stating that the rulers in this period are unknown. Please ping me when this is clarified. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Making it an absolute statement might be an error then, I (who wrote the article) could simply not find any source on a monarch during this period, though the two first kings and the final queen are mentioned in a few sources. I'm going to get to expanding the lead of the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. There could very well be a source out there with the monarchs, so I think it's better if we remove that from that section and from the infobox. We would only be able to keep if it the sources you cited agree these rulers are unknown. I'll come back again with this is done. Cheers, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, I just feared that it might give the wrong idea that Iabdas would be directly succeeded by Dihya. Hopefully a source on the monarchs between them will turn up at some point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg If anything, you could add a footnote saying something like this: "None of the cited sources in this article mention the rulers from 539 and 668." I've seen similar footnotes in other articles and I think that's fine. Either way, the article is good to go now. Nice job! MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)