Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore?

[edit]

Uninvolved closure requested 13 April.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Background

[edit]

For some time, there has been disagreement if WP:DYKFICTION applies to mythology and religious stories or not. For example, would ahistorical stories from the Bible, legends about mythological figures like Zeus and Amaterasu, or folklore about deities and the like, be considered "fiction" for DYK purposes or not? On the one hand, some argue that, because these did not happen, they count as fictitious events and thus require real-world links. On the other hand, the other argument is that excluding such works is not was intended by the guideline or its spirit, as it primarily intended to focus on works like literature, movies, TV shows, and video games. There's also the argument that such stories were not considered "fictitious" by those who made them, so the intent is different from an actual work of fiction. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]
  • Yes - Mythology, religious stories, and folklore count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.
  • No - They do not count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.

Please discuss below and indicate your choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before everyone gets to arguing about whether mythology is fiction or not, I wanna emphasize that squabbling about the outer bounds of fuzzy concepts isn't actually productive. DYKFICTION is meant to prevent a certain class of really awful hooks that just rely on someone else's work for clicks and don't convey anything edifying or valuable. I could weigh in on what I think of mythology hooks directly, but what I would suggest other commenters consider is whether DYK as a project should be running mythology hooks, not whether they meet some subjective definition of fiction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes What makes hooks that violate DYKFICTION boring is that fiction, unlike reality, is bounded only by human imagination. This isn't quite true, fiction is also bounded by the society that makes it, and this is true moreso for religious and mythological stories, which have to be in some way plausible to those who believe in them. A hook about fiction violates DYKFICTION if it is only interesting if we pretend it happened in real life. A hook doesn't violate DYKFICTION if it's interesting that someone would have imagined it and written it down in a particular social context. The mythological hook that prompted this (I think) is interesting because we have a pre-conceived notion of the seriousness of the Greek gods, and this is a slightly ridiculous episode. A recent hook on Sterne is similarly interesting, because it plays an episode in a novel off of 18th-century reality. DYK should be running mythology hooks, but narratives in mythology aren't themselves interesting, they're only interesting when they're interesting against the social reality that produced them. So DYKFICTION applies. Tenpop421 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would generally lean towards Yes -- while ancient mythology could be viewed as more "noble" / "higher" than conventional modern fiction and so this standard could cut off a small portion of standalone mythological hooks that don't fall into the "lower" staandards of modern fiction, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and this seems to be a good place to draw it. Like Tenpop421 said, this will steer DYKs to reflect on the social/historical/astrological realities they reflect. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No consensus so far about whether to count mythological hooks as fictional, but wrt leeky's alt question, most people seem to agree that DYK should run mythology hooks. To be clear about my comment, even if mythology is fiction, I think the bar is pretty low for a hook about mythology not be ruled out by WP:DYKFICTION. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here is an example of a hook that I remember receiving objections for violating DYKFICTION but that would be okay with the proposed change:
  • I have found the strict implementation of DYKFICTION regarding folklore/mythology to be too limiting in the past. I can't find it at the moment, but I remember a hook about Burmese mythology that had a hook that seemed to clearly convey a mythical framing that I found interesting, that was rejected by a later reviewer. To answer theleekycauldron's question, I don't see why we wouldn't run mythology hooks? We seem to run every topic except immediate politics, I'm not sure why mythology should stand apart from this. CMD (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should have an issue with mythology hooks. To answer theleekycauldron, we barely ever have mythology hooks nominated in the first place. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I agree with commenters above that mythology hooks should be allowed. I do also generally agree with Tenpop's point that mythological stories, in the context of DYK, tend not to be interesting in and of themselves, but interesting in how they tell us something surprising about the society or culture which produced them, or about their way of thinking or how they viewed the world. To use Greek mythology as an example, most people in the English-speaking world already have at least some notion of Greek mythology, and of the ancient Greeks, so being presented a piece of information which contradicts or challenges your pre-conceived ideas about what the Greeks believed is interesting.
    That said, I don't think mythology should be grouped in with "fiction" in relation to DYKFICTION. For example, the aforementioned hook for Amalthea (mythology) isn't by any measure a real-world fact (in DYKFICTION's words); that it tells you something about how the Greeks viewed the world, and the nature of the stories they believed, doesn't change this in my view. I also think there are meaningful and substantial differences between ancient mythology and modern fiction: ancient cultures believed in their myths (or most of them, at least), and these myths could be closely connected with ritual practice; in addition, myths were rarely the product of a single person's imagination, typically being stories handed down over centuries, subject to rationalisation, interpretation, and variation.
    As an editor in the area of mythology, I also think it's worth noting that if hooks including information from mythological stories were to be disallowed, it would be near-impossible to write hooks on many mythological figures (figures who are lesser-known, and play little to no role in cult or art); I don't really see what's to be profited from doing that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There is no need to exempt mythology, as hooks are easily enough connected to the real world. The story of Xenu actually gets more interesting by the real world information how scientologists tried to keep it secret. The story of the Nephites gets more interesting because there are people who believe in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon and have searched in vain for archeological evidence confirming it. Most stories from ancient Western mythology feature widely in Western art, so we can easily go beyond repeating plot points. Many mythological stories have also been re-interpreted again and again, allowing for an out-of universe treatment. I also really don't want us to pronounce what is "mythology" and what is "fiction": one person's religious text can be another person's speculative fiction. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Mythology, etc should not count. Hooks should be phrased appropriately, i.e. not "DYK... that Zeus did this?" but "DYK... that according to Greek mythology, Zeus did this?", but as long as it is from a suitable time period ago - say from BC/BCE - then I don't see why we shouldn't include them as interesting points. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could imagine saying yes to mythology and fiction that is 1500+ years old, but whether some story from the Iliad is "mythology" or "fiction" isn't a decision I would like to make. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, where do you draw the line then? Would '... According to TarnishedPath's mythology, they sailed across the moon?' cut it? If not, how is that any different to any other work of fiction? TarnishedPathtalk 02:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, mythology should not generally be excluded from DYK. Mythology is not "bounded only by human imagination"; rather it comprises the very specific stories of a group of people. These stories often had great real-world relevance, and (as Michael Aurel point out) were believed and modified over many hundred of years, unlike modern fiction. If we were to restrict DYKs about mythology, then by the same reasoning we would restrict DYKs about many other beliefs, even ones which perfectly suited the spirit of DYK; for example, that XYZ believed that the moon was made of green cheese may be a surprising and interesting fact, despite its being "unbounded" in the sense that people can believe anything. XabqEfdg (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that simple Having a think about what hooks we would get from this, I would not put a firm yes or no on all of mythology and legend. I mean, I'd love to see conflicting hooks run at the same time saying "DYK according to mythology, Zeus did..." and "DYK according to Assassin's Creed, Zeus did...", for the comedic value, but I think we need a separation between mythological figures and myths themselves. The former are, for DYK's intents, historical people. The latter are stories.

    I think, then, that 'biographical hooks' for mythological figures, should be treated as any other biographical hook (but probably with some in-line attribution, like we sometimes do for very old real people when sources conflict) - rather than like fictional character hooks.

    Comparatively, I think any DYK hook for the stories of myths should recognise that such stories are fables (and that just saying "DYK, X happens in the Edda" isn't really interesting - DYK is not for plot summaries) and require real-world facts. Honestly, I don't think this should make writing DYK hooks for myths any harder: in general, we (general) know more about the context of production and re-discovery of really old myth stories than we necessarily do about the content of them, which also changed through retellings. It could be easier to write a good real-world hook for myths. Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No since in practice, mythology is not as "unbounded" as fiction is; it's harder to start a Wikipedia-notable religion or cult than produce a Wikipedia-notable creative work (even accounting for new religious movements). The added element of interest derives from the fact that it is something that people actually believe.  novov talk edits 05:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per previous discussions on this. I have pretty strong opinions on this one, but the purpose of this guideline IMO is to avoid impenetrable trivia that doesn't matter - not having hooks about some plot point in some modern novel or film. But for old folklore, it's all relevant. If something cool & weird & hooky happens in them, that's good, ship it! Famous-if-unlikely deeds are interesting and neat, and absolutely not what DYKFICTION should be aiming at. This is even ignoring the thorny issue of "what if there is some scintilla of truth in them." For religion / mythology / folklore, regardless of the truth of the claims, it's true that people told the stories and many believed them, so that's interesting right there. And it's not like this had no impact on real life - old Hellenistic era Greek states would absolutely say "oh yeah our royalty totally descends from some minor character in Homer" (see Pergamus for a VERY obscure character!). This has nothing to do with what DYKFiction is supposed to be deterring. Learning about genuine traditions is interesting and anthropologists / folklorists / scholars of religion are not the same as literary analysts. (And no, I'm not trying to strawman, but I don't know what else to say - I have no idea where people are drawing the line and still don't understand how this is even confusing. To me, "fiction" in this context is clearly talking about novels / movies / TV shows / etc., and it's obviously not the sense of "anything not true".) As a side comment, this topic came up in this ERRORS discussion of a hook of mine in 2023, so I guess better late than never on holding such a discussion. SnowFire (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, maybe I was being too diplomatic: I wouldn't have promoted that DYK as-is. Although, I also have no experience participating in the DYK process, I just thought this was an interesting discussion. Suriname0 (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes -- these things count as fiction for DYK. "Zeus was raised by a goat" is no more real world related than "Superman came from Krypton". And, yes, this extends to ALL myths and religions. "Jesus rose from the dead" would also be disallowed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I've argued before that works that reach beyond the empirical (i.e., imagination and creativity, including songs) should be positioned within their real-world context if we are to treat all classes of such works as equal.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That being said, I've also argued that DYKFICTION should return to the looser limitations that existed from its inception, under which the mythical goat hook would have been acceptable. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but eh. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks that were previously promoted and then demoted

[edit]

1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware

[edit]

DYK that U.S. congressman Harris McDowell twice lost reelection to the same seat? How does that possibly meet WP:DYKINT? And Leeky was already hinting at this problem during the nomination discussion. There are articles that you just cannot nominate for DYK because there just isn’t an intriguing fact that you could write a hook about. Elections would generally fall into that category. Schwede66 17:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't defend it too much, but my thought was that the careful reader might notice that once you lose reelection once, you're not in the seat and therefore can't run for "reelection" again... unless you somehow got elected again. Managing to get voted out as an incumbent is rare in the U.S. Congress; getting elected back to the seat and then getting voted out as an incumbent again is pretty rare. Most reps retire when they know they aren't winning. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those in the US with an interest in politics may know that it's rare for an incumbent in the U.S. Congress to get voted out. But outside the US, that would be virtually unknown, and the article doesn't explain it either. Hence, my notion that it fails DYKINT. It reminds me of a certain serial nominator of classical music DYKs; she always got hammered that her hooks required too much knowledge of the topic for the average reader to be interested in it. Schwede66 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Bunnypranav and OlifanofmrTennant: should have been pinged to this (Leeky too, though she got here anyway), though for what it's worth, I found the original hook marginally interesting. As this is less than 48 hours from the main page, I swapped it with Big Three (World War II) so we have a little longer to discuss this...--Launchballer 00:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went digging for a few more facts. This says that William Roth hoped to shake the hands 50,000 voters by election day. It also says Roth made criticism Lyndon Johnson part of the campaign but words it in a funny way: "The republican candidate for congress is running against the president of the united states". So that might be something.
This contains talks about how Roth belived he had the support of the female vote and contains the quote, "I believe that the women are going to vote the rascals out" and that there would be a "housewives' revolt" Olliefant (she/her) 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that particular suggestion. LBJ was a Democrat, so it's kind of obvious that a Republican candidate would be running against him. The 50,000 voters aspect is probably more promising, though it might be a good idea to at least try to find a source if he ever pushed through with it and/or if he ever accomplished it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt find anything on if he succeeded, although I do think the Johnson thing might meet DYKINT, something like:
Olliefant (she/her) 20:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still have reservations about this angle given how Roth was a Republican, so it's kind of obvious he was running against the incumbent Democrat. It would have been unusual instead if Roth was a Democrat. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Leeky and Launchballer on the marginal and borderline interestingness of the hook.
@OlifanofmrTennant: The 50K hand shakes is more interesting, but only if there are sources proving that he achieved it (or atleast tried?), not just wanted to do it. Clipping of the above link for those who don't have newspapers.com access. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall note that the hook is back in queue without change. Schwede66 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled this and replaced it with Shlomo Levinger (@Yeshivish613 and Sohom Datta:).--Launchballer 22:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: as the reviewer of the original hooks how do you feel about the other ones proposed? Olliefant (she/her) 04:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Gee

[edit]

I demoted this hook due to close paraphrasing (~47% match on Earwig). The high score is partly due to long lists of military organizations in her CV, but a bit more effort could be put in to rewording and revising the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DMVHistorian @Gerda Arendt @Narutolovehinata5 Cielquiparle (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKCOMPLETE and cases where the relevant information simply doesn't exist in sources.

[edit]

DYKCOMPLETE currently reads this:

Therefore, articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a biography of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

However, it's been a recurring issue at DYK that articles that lack this information often do so not because editors forgot to include them, but simply because the information is not covered at all in any available sources. So for example, an article about a person might lack a section about their early life because there aren't any sources that discuss it.

In such cases, what should be done here? On the one hand, such articles could be seen as failing DYKCOMPLETE. On the other hand, the situation means that meeting DYKCOMPLETE as currently written (both the article and the guideline) is virtually impossible. Should such cases be treated on a case-by-case basis where the nominator explains the situation, or do we need to change, or even drop, the guideline to accommodate such cases? It's a regular enough occurrence that it could mean the difference between a nomination passing or failing, and it's been a concern for years, so we probably need to talk about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5:, do you have some examples of nominations which were rejected for failing DYKCOMPLETE, which you think shouldn't have been? I would expect nominators to dispute rejections which they feel are unreasonable. Without examples it is hard to judge whether there is a significant problem. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While not a rejection, Accomplishment of Fudanshi Bartender received an objection in an earlier discussion due to DYKCOMPLETE concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on DYK and COI

[edit]

A discussion is currently taking place regarding how to treat articles created with a COI on DYK. That RfC was procedually closed, so I've started a new one below as this is the appropriate place to discuss it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

[edit]

Should articles created under a conflict of interest be allowed to run on Did you know? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

The previous RfC, which was started by Thriley, came in the wake of two nominations by Sammi Brie, who recently took up a paid editing position at Arizona State University. She nominated one of the articles which she created under the ASU's auspices, although she made it clear that the nomination was made independently and was not directed by the ASU.

Discussion

[edit]

Pinging participants in that closed RfC to give their thoughts here: @Tryptofish, Launchballer, and Justiyaya:, as well as commenters @Firefangledfeathers and Flibirigit:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a page that is seen by a larger segment of the community than this one would be the best location for this. The implications of allowing paid articles on the front page are serious. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who closed the previous discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini - I felt myself that it was in the wrong venue and multiple editors had already said as much. To an extent, I also agree with Thriley but I think this is probably the best venue for an initial discussion. If necessary, it could be advertised at and/or moved to WT:Main page and WP:Village pump but I do think discussion about what should be allowable in WP:DYK should be held here. As other editors said in the previous discussion, where a paid edit has been clearly disclosed and is in line with both the English language Wikipedia's policies and the Wikipedia Foundation's terms, I see no issue with a DYK nomination from a non-paid editor based on a paid editors contributions. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick questtion- original RfC said "articles created for payment", while this version expands that to "conflict of interest". Before this gets underway, is there a reason this RfC went for a much broader scope? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t appreciate that the wording was changed. This is about paid editing. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to see this as an RfC. The issue was pre-emptively raised by Sammi Brie at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#ASU — disclosed paid editing, which received no objections, so the WP:RFCBEFORE showed no objections. If there is an RfC, there should be another discussion first to get a better understanding of editors' thoughts on the matter. CMD (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini prior to the opening of the original RFC at that page which I closed. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have also mentioned, there was some objection in that discussion. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems that the objection came only from Thriley. The closed RfC found support in the limited time it was open, which is in line with the lack of objections when this was previously discussed here. I think there is merit to further discussion, which could shift perspectives, but as it stands the existing discussions do already indicate some consensus on this matter. CMD (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, further discussion might have merit. I don't think it would have been all that useful in the initial venue, though. As I said above, I don't really see any issue, but paid editing on Wikipedia can be a very touchy subject so if anyone has legitimate concerns they want to voice here that I haven't considered I am happy to be convinced. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view remains the same as it was a day or two ago, when I posted it at the previous discussion, so I'm linking to it, rather than repeating it here. (Since editors here are taking specific note of the issue of paid editing, I'll add that what I said still applies the same way to WP:PAID.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mine as well.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis. What Sammi is doing should be fine, but we have had questionable cases in the past like TonyTheTiger and his sister. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to discuss this, just to avoid anything like the Gibraltarpedia story. Certainly we should not have ASU stories every day (but I trust Sammi to not do something like that). —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to the view that it's permissible, provided the COI is clearly disclosed on the nominations page. One could perhaps require an additional safeguard such as a second reviewer, but so long as it is independently reviewed and meets all the criteria there shouldn't be an issue. If in future it shows signs of becoming an issue, one could always revisit the matter, but a blanket disqualification at this point would seem premature. Gatoclass (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

The Alchemist Code (nom)

[edit]

@Miminity, SnowFire, and SL93: The hook fact isn't actually discussed in the article text, just listed under Collaborations. In any case, reading the source, I don't understand what "collaboration" means in this context, or how the source supports it. This was discussed in the nom but passed anyway with an "oh well" comment. I'm also not convinced that Pocket Gamer is a WP:RS. And there's a fair amount of copying from Anime News Network. I suggest pulling this. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Oh Yeah, I forgot to make the collaboration into prose.I'll do it in just a bit. Pocket Gamer is RS see WP:GAMESOURCES#Platform-specific. Also I think the copyvio report is a False positive as The Rising of the Shield Hero and That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime happens to be caught due to being on the sidebar. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider these issues blockers. As noted in the nom, I agree that "collaboration" in this context won't be clear to all readers, but we have far more obscure items as hooks that we foist on readers anyway (which I think is often not great, but it's not been a blocker). I checked the ANN links in the nom and this isn't copyvio. And this claim isn't really something that is so controversial we need a gold-star source for it - it'd be a weird thing to lie about. So the Pocket Gamer source is fine by me. SnowFire (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a previously rejected article

[edit]

In February 2021, after expanding the article on El Apostol, the first animated feature film, and submitting it for copyedit, I nominated it for DYK on the basis of expansion. However, I misunderstood the newness criterion, leading to the nomination being rejected. Today, the article just passed a GA review, meaning it meets the newness criterion currently. However, because the nomination page already exists, I don't know if I can nominate it now. Any advice? Lazman321 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; feel free to renominate. The previous nomination would only have counted if it ran successfully in the last five years. I suggest that you arm yourself with excellent sourcing for a first claim like that though.--Launchballer 16:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, can you show me the policy which states that a previous nomination only counts if it was successful within the last 5 years. Not that I doubt you, but I'm currently going through the GA process for an article which was on DYK in 2011 and I would love to be able to nominate it for DYK when the review is finalised. TarnishedPathtalk 06:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recent change: previously, any article that previously ran on DYK was no longer eligible no matter how long ago that previous run was. I can't remember the exact discussion that relaxed the rule, but the current wording is at WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, thanks for that. Hopefully it doesn't show up on WP:ITN soon as there is current litigation. TarnishedPathtalk 07:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can create a nomination manually at Template:Did you know nominations/El Apóstol 2. Where the instructions for manual nomination have gone to over the last few years, I do not know... CMD (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is if you go to Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination and enter "El Apóstol 2" in the "Article" box on the next screen, it might actually do the right thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lazman321: Are you still planning on nominating the article? The GA review passed on the 24th, meaning you have until May 1 (or including the built-in extension, May 3) to nominate it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. Was just resting over the weekend and plan on nominating it today. Lazman321 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here it is. Lazman321 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 April 2025

[edit]

Please add <!--HooksEnd--> to Queue 7, as shown in the following diff. The bot cannot update the main page set if it's not present.

Line 16: Line 16:
* ... that the Scottish painter '''[[Carole Gibbons]]''' had her first US exhibition in her eighties? * ... that the Scottish painter '''[[Carole Gibbons]]''' had her first US exhibition in her eighties?
* ... that because the [[Green Bay Packers]] were named after '''[[Indian Packing Company|a canned meat company]]''', [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]] called on the the team to change their name? * ... that because the [[Green Bay Packers]] were named after '''[[Indian Packing Company|a canned meat company]]''', [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]] called on the the team to change their name?
<!--HooksEnd-->
{{flatlist|class=dyk-footer noprint|style=margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: right;}} {{flatlist|class=dyk-footer noprint|style=margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: right;}}
* '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Archive]]''' * '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Archive]]'''

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an epic fail from me on two counts ('the the team' should probably be 'the team') and I am mortified. I can only apologise. @DYK admins: ?--Launchballer 22:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running Donato Ogliari on Monday April 28 or before the end of the papal conclave

[edit]

Donato Ogliari is scheduled to address the assembled cardinals of the Catholic Church before the upcoming conclave. The DYK I wrote for his article has been approved -- Just writing here to see if it's possible for it to be run either on the day he is speaking -- Monday April 28 -- or at least before the end of the conclave. TYIA! Maximilian775 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: I promoted it, but you should probably spell out at the QPQ what criteria you've assessed.--Launchballer 13:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure as to what you mean here. The QPQ used a deprecated source as its hook citation, which is immediately disqualifying. I didn't see it nessecary to assess any other criteria because of that. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKRR says only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ so I get where @Launchballer is coming from. The intent of that rule was to prevent pencil-whipping approvals. We used to get reviews that just said, "Looks good to me, tick" with no indication that the various requirements had actually been checked (and as often as not, when you dug a bit it turned out they weren't). The review is basically "[except for this one thing it] seems fine". Which means if the one thing could be fixed, everything else would be good to go. So we really should be able to count on the review having checked those things. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Statistics House

[edit]

@SL93, Panamitsu, and 7kk: I think the article should probably explain what "earthquake-prone" is.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Burnham, Maendeleo horseshoe bat

[edit]

@FilmCostumes, Darth Stabro, Rusalkii, and Kevmin: Probably not a DYK issue, but these deserve {{lead too short}} and should probably be expanded.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmCostumes @Darth Stabro @SL93 There is one resolved {{citation needed}} tag in Vin Burnham. Technically this needs to be resolved today if the hook is running on DYK ~16 hours from now. (I split your lede into two sentences so that it's not a one-sentence lede). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for flagging this - I've found the flag and added citations. FilmCostumes (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have extended the lead paragraphs, using information from the rest of the article. thanks for flagging. FilmCostumes (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The Bard (The Twilight Zone), Jon Haukeland, EastEnders 40th Anniversary Week

[edit]

@LunaEclipse, Jon698, HouseBlaster, Flibirigit, Moondragon21, FishLoveHam, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Courtesy pings to say I moved these into this set.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have two of my hockey hooks on the same day. Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:DYKVAR explicitly allows up to two on the same topic, but I did just check Official White House portraits of Hillary and Bill Clinton in Prep 4 and it can be swapped. I did just notice that I forgot to put "1=" in front of my signature in the queue, so @DYK admins: - please add this.--Launchballer 00:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

[edit]

Is there a way to know roughly when my nomination will be on the main page, it has been reviewed and accepted. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once its in a prep area, it's on the clock and TM:DYKQ#Local update times will tell you when it's scheduled for. Keep in mind that this is not a promise. Hooks sometimes get shuffled around to fill holes, or get pulled to work on problems. And once in a while we flip back and forth between 24 hour updates and 12 hour updates, which obviously plays havok with the schedule. RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, however the nomination is not yet in a prep or queue os there any way to find out then. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. There's really no way to know. It's entirely up to the folks building preps who are looking for hooks that strike their fancy. RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 7. We have a total of 320 nominations, of which 194 have been approved, a gap of 126 nominations that has increased by 17 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is everyone?

[edit]

Easter holiday? Spring break? Exams? Strike?

Anyway @DYK admins: We are down to 1 filled queue and Prep 4 looks to have been touched by multiple hook promoters (including myself), precluding us from promoting the next couple of sets.

And if anyone out there wants to get some experience as a promoter...there is plenty of blank canvas for you to work with right now. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved with three in prep 3 including a date request, but can probably promote prep 4. If you kick back the one you've just promoted to prep 3, I'll fill it with something you're not involved with. More urgent is that tomorrow's set looks like it was queued by "{{{1}}}", and that definitely requires admin attention.--Launchballer 19:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what this means. I will stand down. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: At TM:DYKQ, Queue 2 displays "The hooks below have been approved by a human ({{{1}}}) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time." It's because I use "u style" in my signature rather than "span style" for length reasons - it just isn't broken. Anyway, I just kicked back Sequoites dakotensis back, so you can queue prep 3 and I can queue prep 4.--Launchballer 19:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the display problem. I think it comes from the equals signs in your signature. I hope this is acceptable to the bot. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that I approved Francisco Mascarenhas (Governor of Macau), so will wait until someone promotes something I can swap it with.--Launchballer 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a limited number of prep builders, and I was the one who has been promoting most of them for a while now. I'm tired of promoting at the moment. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 Understood. Thanks for keeping the promotion engine going. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person who has thanked me for it. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (29 April 00:00)

[edit]

Solfrid Koanda

[edit]

@Darth Stabro, Arconning, and Prince of Erebor: I can't verify the hook fact. The end-of-sentence citation is missing, but assuming the two citations at the end of the next sentence should cover it, I still can't because of a combination of non-English sources and paywalls. I see Prince of Erebor wrote in the nom, "Since this is a GA, I will skip the source spotchecks". You really can't do that. We need to check this stuff ourselves. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the current version of the olympics.com source, which is RS. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that, but I still don't see where it verifies the hook. RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith I've put it now, the hook about the qualification. Arconning (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Roy, what I meant by "spotchecks" refers specifically to spotchecks, not verifying the hooks. I usually do a few additional random spotchecks on sources to ensure they verify the content, similar to a GA nomination, in addition to checking the citations for the hooks. (Something like this: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbeque Nation 2) I do not think it is necessary to repeat such process at all when an article has just passed GA. I have verified the sources supporting the hooks in both this article and the Hume MRT station below and did not find any issues. The problem was that the sentences in the article lacked end-of-sentence citations, which are required by DYK but I completely forgot about that. That is on me and I apologize. I will remind myself to check this too from now on. You can see the hook facts supported by Olympics.com in the Solfrid Koanda article, which is cited before that sentence, and by The Straits Times in the Hume MRT station article, which is in the next sentence. I noticed that other editors have added back the end-of-line citations. Many thanks for raising this issue and all the help! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 04:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, cool, thanks for looking at this. RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hume MRT station

[edit]

@Cielquiparle, ZKang123, and Prince of Erebor: I don't see where the cited source verifies the hook fact. And, again, the nom says "Since it is a GA, I will skip the source spotchecks". You can't just skip that; checking that the hook fact is verified an essential part of the DYK process.

The hook has been replaced with something else by another editor. Does that satisfy the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 The hook I promoted (ALT1) is still there. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite You are looking at the wrong hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith The cited sources do verify the hook fact. The first cited source is The Strait Times which verifies part of it. The second cited source is the "Art in Transit" page on the Singapore Land Transit Authority website. Scroll to the "Gallery" section at the bottom of the page. Click on the drop-down bar for "Downtown Line" and you'll see that one of the sub-headings is for "DT4: Hume". The section begins, Continuity by André Wee...'Continuity' depicts the Former Ford Factory through a stylised cross-sectional view. Located a stone's throw from Hume station, the site bore witness to... Unfortunately there is no way to directly link to that section of the page. Please note for future that pings don't work unless the ping and your signature occur on the same line or paragraph. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, web sites like that are a pain. What I would suggest is using the at parameter of {{Cite web}} to describe how to find the information, i.e. "at=Gallery/Downtown Line/DT4:Hume". My apologies for the broken ping. RoySmith (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FWIW, today I learned that "At" is a parameter available through the visual editor citation tool too. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I am. As you were :) Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder about reviewing GA nominations

[edit]

There is a tendency for people reviewing DYK nominations which came here by way of GA to not do full reviews, instead relying on the GA review to have checked things. Unfortunately, GA review quality is sometimes not as good as it should be and things get missed, so it's important that our DYK reviews of these articles be done to the same standards as all our other reviews. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line to WP:DYKRR.--Launchballer 23:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Might be worth rewording this line at WP:DYKRR then: No one is required to check that the article's citations generally back up its content, with the exception of the hook fact. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How find status of my DYK?

[edit]

Hi. I'm not familiar with the DYK process. I nominated an article at Template:Did you know nominations/Silent Parade ... and a reviewer said it was okay. I cannot find where this nomination is in the DYK process. It's a bit confusing, because I see DYKs in the queues that were nominated about the same time as mine. Is my DYK in a queue? Do I need to do something to move it along? For future reference: Given a specific DYK nomination, what is a simple way to discover where it is in the process? Noleander (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander:, I would open the nomination and click "What links here". The nomination is listed at Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Articles created/expanded on April 16, but the template is not expanded because the approved page is too big. The next step is for the nomination to be promoted to a preparation area and the discussion on the nomination page is closed at that point. It is a good idea to follow your nomination as there could be further queries at any stage. TSventon (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon. OK, thanks for the info. To be clear, there's no further action required on my part at this point in time, correct? Noleander (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Keep your nomination on your watchlist, and you will see when it gets promoted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander:, no action is required. As Gerda says, you can keep your nomination on your watchlist. TSventon (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the "#Verified" column of the "Count of DYK Hooks" table in WP:DYKNA, you can get a rough idea of how the backlog is going. This column shows the hooks that have been approved and are waiting to be sorted into a prep area, i.e. the state your hook is in. Almost all of these are newer than a month ago, and prep builders tend to work through the oldest entries first. So, as a very rough guess, you're probably looking at your hook being published in about a month from now. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (30 April 00:00)

[edit]

Sequoites dakotensis (nom)

[edit]

Two relatively minor issues here - firstly, the article describes the casts as "ferruginous [rusty] mud casts", there's no mention of clay anywhere; I don't think clay is necessarily the same as rusty mud. Secondly, I'm not sure if the not the original tree cones point is directly supported. The article says his "description relied upon" the casts, but it doesn't directly say that he didn't have any cones available at all. I suppose this may be obvious given that the tree went extinct at some point... (when? I'm not sure, the article doesn't say)... but I think should be directly stated. Also, I think it was queried at the nom whether this is an interesting fact. Assuming the tree went extinct a long time ago, identification of such species is presumably almost always made using fossils rather than actual biological remains, which would have long-since decayed. So is that interesting? @Pbritti, Kevmin, Bubblesorg, Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, and Cielquiparle:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between fossils and casts. Not all fossils are casts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Allen White (nom)

[edit]

First of all, I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy here between the hook, which says "media exposure" and the article which says "media impact value". Secondly, what exactly is this figure and is it really a definite fact for the purposes of a DYK hook? From what I can gather from the original source [3] and the blog post [4], media impact value is a "proprietary algorithm" developed by the company Launchmetrics for measuring the effectiveness of media placements and advertising and suchlike. (Note that both of the links I put in the last sentence are redlinks, which may tell us something about how notable this concept really is... certainly without a link, it's impossible for readers to have any clue what media impact value or media exposure really means). So, in summary, should we really be stating in WP:WIKIVOICE that the campaign "earned US$12.7 million" (a rather precise figure) when at best that's a guess, based on an algorithm which may not be notable? @Jolielover, JJonahJackalope, and Cielquiparle:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it being swapped to the other hook jolielover♥talk 17:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

I was hoping to create a new article and get it as a DYK on June 27, 2025, to correspond with the birthdate of the person. What would be the best way to do that because I see there is a long delay for getting something on DYK. Remember (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be done on a certain day you can request it in the DYK. I'd say that it is best to nominate it at least a month before June 27 - the guidance at WP:DYKSO says that it should be between 1 and 6 weeks in advance. If you are worried about a delay in reviewing it, I am happy to commit to reviewing it when the article is ready, so feel free to leave a message on my talk page when it is ready and I will review it immediately (as long as it is not a COI, which I highly doubt it will be). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I’ll do that! I greatly appreciate it! Remember (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

... that a tornado estimated to be one of the strongest on record helped to plant maize crops in Greenfield, Iowa?

If we're not using the volunteer wording, then get rid of "helped" because there by no means were any other efforts to grow maize in Greenfield. Departure– (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure– This is now in queue 6. What do you think of my edit to the hook? SL93 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Departure– (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1287945028"