Jump to content

Talk:32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Kingsif (talk16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A candle-lit US Consulate, Hong Kong on the night of 4 June 2021
A candle-lit US Consulate, Hong Kong on the night of 4 June 2021
  • ... that a pro-establishment legislator said the HK government ought to be "forthcoming and tell the public that the [32nd anniversary] vigil was not ... just banned because of the pandemic as claimed"? Source: Disband or risk prosecution, vigil organisers warned, RTHK
    • ALT1:... that a pro-establishment legislator said the HK government ought to admit that the 32nd anniversary memorial of the Tiananmen protests "was not ... just banned because of the pandemic as claimed"? Source: Disband or risk prosecution, vigil organisers warned, RTHK
    • ALT2:... that the US consulate in Hong Kong lit hundreds of candles (pictured) to commemorate the 32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests? Source: "China Blasts US And EU Consulates In Hong Kong For Tiananmen Candles". International Business Times. AFP. 4 June 2021.
    • Reviewed: see User:Ohconfucius/DYK#QPQ

Created by Ohconfucius (talk). Self-nominated at 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Date and length fine. However I have a few issues with the hooks. First of all we should say Hong Kong, not HK (which sadly would put ALT1 over the character limit), secondly "pro-establishment" seems a little WP:LOADED to me, Would "pro-Beijing" be better? The Embassy one is good but less hooky than the originals so I'll let @Ohconfucius: decide how he wishes to proceed. Also, can you please clarify for me what you are using as a QPQ? No close paraphrasing and could you ping me when its done and I can have another look at it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pro-Beijing" would be acceptable, because it's a commonly-used term. In that case, would it be possible to simply say "the government" using a pipe? so we would have:
ALT3b:... that a pro-Beijing legislator said the government ought to admit that the 32nd anniversary memorial of the Tiananmen protests "was not ... just banned because of the pandemic as claimed"?
For the QPQ, I was thinking of applying Emrullah İşler if it remains valid. -- Ohc revolution of our times 23:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohconfucius: That's from 7 years ago. I could AGF on it at a stretch but have you got a more recent one? I know there was a discussion recently about time limiting QPQs so I would feel much better if you could provide one that's more recent please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get reviewing something, possibly tonight. -- Ohc revolution of our times 10:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: courtesy pinging nom, as Schwede66 has very generously donated a QPQ. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, for ALT3. Thanks User:Schwede66. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]