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.

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]

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]
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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1287509580"