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]

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]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 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]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a No. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 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: The line needs to be drawn somewhere and applying WP:DYKFICTION to ALL fictitious events seems like the appropriate place. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 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]
    Darth Stabro's view is kinda the one I would be taking. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 17 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 per reasonings of SL93 and Darth Drabro. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Kusma's arguments. — yutsi (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Battle of the Bosporus

[edit]

@Cplakidas and Tenpop421 The hook says that the battle happened in a narrow strait, but I only see "narrows" in the lead with no citation. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a nitpick since the Bosporus is a strait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see nitpicks brought up a lot on Errors. I'm just hoping to avoid that step. Wouldn't "narrow" be superfluous anyway?SL93 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Some straits are wider than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Then I don't get your point about how referencing "narrow" is nitpicking... SL93 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't see why using the word "strait" in the hook is problematic even if it's not directly mentioned in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that, nor did I mention it. The hook says, "narrow strait", but the article only mentions narrow in the lead with no reference. "Strait" is not problematic because that is referenced elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all straits are the same; the Strait of Malacca is several tens of kilometres wide even at its narrowest. The Bosporus is much, much narrower, and the battle happened at its narrowest part, roughly where the Bosphorus Bridge is located now, where it is less than a kilometre wide. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I've added a citation for this fact. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the reference; the narrows are not where the original encounter took place, but where the actual battle began, namely inside the Bosporus. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry A. Davis

[edit]

@OpalYosutebito and Chetsford The hook says, "over 120,000 lines of code", but the article says, "ultimately had over 100,000 lines of code". SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the article, then. Sorry for the confusion! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the Terry A. Davis blurb, wouldn't it be useful to add a link to TempleOS, as well? Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we like to keep the focus on the bolded articles per WP:DYKAIM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Rising

[edit]

I promoted this so I need someone to look it over. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 13:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2-per-day run be paused?

[edit]

It's been five days now, I thought it was supposed to end after three... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is day six, and we review every three. We're at seven queues, so we go again for another three.--Launchballer 20:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes if there was no one filling queues. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the pause was automatic, to ensure people weren't overworked... I guess I misunderstood. IMHO it really should stop after three days, the whole point is to avoid fatigue setting in among those filling the queues and errors possibly creeping in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that editors can ignore filling queues if they feel overworked. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to pre-load the work. If people feel like doing the work, they can run the queues up to full capacity every three days and we keep going. As soon as enough people don't feel like doing the extra work, we drop back to one-per-day at the next assessment point. Nobody is obligated to do more work than they feel like doing. At some point, I'll probably write a bot to fully automate the switchover process.
The old method was that the switch was driven entirely by how many approved hooks we had. We would get into situations where we had enough approved hooks that the rule said we should keep going, but nobody wanted to do the work so all the queues were empty. This is what the control system people call open loop That was untenable. If somebody wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm willing to listen. My only requirement is that whatever process you propose has to have some kind of built-in feedback based on the number of filled queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, DYK goes to one set a day with under 120 approved nominations. If so, we are almost there. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not per below. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of a manual switch between 1/day and 2/day is that we can easily make exceptions for special occasion date requests without having to be afraid of bot interference. —Kusma (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Paleobiota of the Latah Formation

[edit]

The nomination page says "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material" is in the reference Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States: New Evidence from Fossil Fungi | Research, but I don't see that in the reference. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kevmin. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its in the Supplementary section 1:Supplementary Information 1 – Stratigraphic Columns for the Clarkia Konservat-Lagerstätte, Alum Bluff, and Bouie River sites of Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States which you can download at the bottom of the page you linked. "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material".--Kevmin § 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 here is the specific quote.--Kevmin § 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Current, Ontario

[edit]

Pinging P199 "Ontario Highway 6 goes through Little Current." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to 1 set a day

[edit]

We are now at 117 approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently on day two of a three-day burst. Before they were instituted, we flicked back and forth at 60 and 120 noms. I think we should keep going.--Launchballer 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pinged some stalled nominations. I think we should wait until the end of the three-day cycle before making a decision to switch: if we are above 120 and the queues are filled, we should keep going. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what WP:DYKROTATE says. Go for 3 days following the initial trigger, then at the end of those 3 days, IIF both 1) six queues are filled, and 2) there are over 120 approved nominations, then it can keep going. CMD (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just because we drop below 120 in the middle of the three days is not a reason to stop; the full three days should be completed. Back in the old days we'd keep going until we dropped below 60, so dropping to 117 (now 118) is nothing, especially when we have another 122 hooks promoted to the thirteen and a half full sets in line for a turn on the main page. I'm frankly hoping we burn through a bit more of that backlog before going back to one a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like we're lacking in supply either. I say we keep going while we can keep at seven queues.--Launchballer 14:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just filled the 7th queue. And while we are indeed under the 120 trigger point (114 at the moment), I agree that we should WP:IAR and stay on 12 hour updates for another 3 days.
We've got April 1 coming up in a week (full disclosure: I've got a hook in there). I see 10 verified hooks there (plus another that's not yet verified). I'm guessing what we want to do is winnow that down to 9 and plan to be back to a 24 hour cycle by then. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're on day three at seven queues and 114 approved. I say we keep going.--Launchballer 15:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely time to go back to 1 set a day

[edit]

@DYK admins: we have just completed another three days at 2 sets a day (March 19 through 21), it's after midnight on March 22, and there are only four queues filled; there were also only 117 approved hooks at midnight. Please reset us to one hook a day before noon UTC. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was day three.--Launchballer 03:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the history of User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates; we went to 2-a-day on 11 March, meaning we're about three hours into day twelve.--Launchballer 03:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, back to once per day. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just changed it to 84600 rather than 86400 and I think we should go for one more at two-per-day anyway.--Launchballer 03:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Not a massive deal or anything, but I was wondering why the Marilyn Fisher Lundy hook was last since it's not particularly funny or amusing. No funny hooks left? @SL93: jolielover♥talk 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @LunaEclipse: as they moved mugging out of the quirky slot here. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I procedurally repromoted #Vibe coding (nom) above after snow keeping it and saw a quirky hook in that, so I put that there instead.--Launchballer 11:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, WP:QUIRKY states that the last slot is not required to have a quirky hook, and there's nothing wrong with including a regular hook if no quirky hooks are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (22 March 00:00)

[edit]

Fabián Cháirez

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 and Mason7512: I suggest changing "feminine" to "effeminate" in the hook; it's the word the source uses, and it's more accurate. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating which of the two to use, and would be okay with using either. Mason7512 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Rondelle Theater

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, and Uriahheep228: Could the hook be rephrased to avoid the awkward "that though executives thought"? RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, would "though executives believed" work? I have very limited internet while on vacation, so I didn't see this comment till just now, my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we've got a few days before this goes live. How about "while executives believed"? RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, that sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so I've created a new list of all 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 10. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that is the same size as it was 6 days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock edits and DYK

[edit]

User:Oddballeditor1997, recently banned as a sock, has one DYK nomination pending (waiting for a GAR to be resolved). Is there any rule against sock noms going forward on DYK? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing the GA but was waiting for a second opinion as I am not sure if it meets the criteria. I am not sure whether to close it now or to await a second opinion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected both.--Launchballer 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G5 allows for edits made by socks to be speedy deleted. There's some caveats that must be met, and I'd have to dig into the edit histories of these to see if they qualify for G5, but keep it in mind for future cases like this. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2025

[edit]

In the DYK nominator wizard: add a line by the QPQ field that explains that QPQs must be provided at the time of nomination, and nominations with no QPQ may be closed without warning. Also, not an edit request, but can someone link me to the discussion that precipitated this change? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made, and to which page. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, this request refers to User:SD0001/DYK-helper. The suggested edit would be made on line 268 (i.e. the tooltip) at User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js. Schwede66 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK-helper is already supposed to have a check warning or blocking (I can't remember which) nominations if a QPQ is not provided. However, that check is very easy to bypass: just adding something like "Pending" after "Template:Did you know nominations/" would cause the check to be bypassed. It would probably be useful to modify the check to also block/warn nominations if the QPQ link that would be generated would be a red link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe User talk:SD0001/DYK-helper is the right place to ask for this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 (22 March, 12:00)

[edit]

Li Huiniang

[edit]

I reviewed this so another set of eyes is needed. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kingoflettuce. I just thought of something. Is "reportedly" actually appropriate for the article and hook? It seems like those can be removed. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the source itself uses similar wording, and we only know of it through one of his aides, not Zhou himself (ditto Mao). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just thought I would bring it up because there have been a few recent cases where "reportedly" needed to be removed. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Szymanski

[edit]

I would not have signed off on this bio. There is close to zero biographical information about him (apart from having two brothers) and as such, the article is incomplete / a work in progress. Others may be more lenient, of course, but to me, it fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Schwede66 16:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: pulled it, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will have to go against the grain in the nom and agree that the article as currently written does not pass DYKCOMPLETE. If a good faith effort to locate biographical information was made, or perhaps even basic facts like a hometown or place of birth (not necessarily a birthdate) were provided, it would not be an issue. I tend to be lenient with DYKCOMPLETE for biographies and I don't always expect long sections about someone's personal life, but at the very least, basic facts should be included. It also doesn't help that the article is relatively short as it is: it would be less of a problem had the article been longer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

[edit]

List of cities in Oregon

[edit]

The hook as currently worded violates WP:EASTEREGG, imo. I clicked on the boldlink expecting to go to the city, but went to a list of cities I had to scroll through to find the one being referenced. Perhaps ALT1: ... that Oregon's cities vary in population from over 650,000 to three? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: SounderBruce, Arconning, SL93 ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro Much better. Arconning (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. SounderBruce 20:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (23 March 00:00)

[edit]

First Anglo–Ashanti War

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Setergh, and Hawkeye7: There's a lot of WP:CLOP from archive.org/stream/cu31924088422948/cu31924088422948_djvu.txt. There's lots of properly attributed quotes, but beyond that there's also lots of unattributed copied text which I think goes beyond what's acceptable. As an administrative matter, it looks like Hawkeye7 did both the GA and DYK reviews, which WP:DYKRR says is not allowed. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally reopen it for a new reviewer. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that rule, which was added in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I apologise for not following such a rule, had no clue it existed. The source I took it from just seemed really hard to change. I understand if this removes the possibility of a DYK mention, not up to me (and there's too much for my little motivation to want to change). Setergh (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the hook per the above discussion. I left 8 hooks because I'm pressed for time, but if somebody else wants to back-fill a 9th, please feel free. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church (Pomeroy, Ohio)

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 and Maximilian775: The hook says "planted more than 1,500 fruit trees", but the article only goes so far as "estimates". RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. Am open either to changing the hook to "estimated to have planted", or going with the other one proposed on the talk page, ALT1: "... that John Albrinck one of the major advocates for the establishment of a minor seminary to serve the Catholics of Cincinnati, Saint Gregory Seminary? Source: Miller, Francis Joseph (2006). A History of the Athenaeum of Ohio: A History of the Seminaries of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. p. 115. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erlitou

[edit]

@SL93, Generalissima, and Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I don't see where the article states the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See your link, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I assumed that I was missing something because Maculosae tegmine lyncis seemed pretty sure that the hook was there, and I have never come across such an issue with Generalissima's hooks. My assuming good faith took a bad turn. Looking back at the nomination, I see that the DYK nomination used a reference that isn't in the article. I'm not sure why Maculosae tegmine lyncis crossed out their original statement which said that the fact isn't in the article, and I have no idea what "See your link" means. SL93 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"See your link" means see your link, "your" meaning my interlocutor, "link" being the link provided above by the same, and "see" meaning look at it. Erlitou contains "The earliest bronze-cast objects at Erlitou, made with the piece-mold technique, are ling bells.[34]" Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so weird. The link goes to Template:Did you know nominations/Erlitou which doesn't help your point. It was my understanding that it should be in both articles. I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion over the "in article" requirement for multi-article hooks here, but it didnt go anywhere, so there seems to be no consensus on how to apply it at the moment. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put on my new pair of glasses, and I now see that the nomination also says "the hook fact is in the Erlitou article" by the reviewer. I'm sure that I realized that at the time of promotion, but I admit that the first comment here confused me along with having put on outdated glasses this morning. Although I should have checked the articles more clearly because I assumed that the fact needed to be in both articles. Either way, I don't think the rudeness was needed. I like Wikipedia because it's a collaborative effort, and I think that can hurt the effort. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sealioning? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you hope to accomplish by arguing? An apology? I'm fine with apologizing for doing something stupid. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to sealioning, I'm not debating you or anyone else in this discussion. From the article - "Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes." I just want this discussion to end which is completely different. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis please understand that when I'm promoting a queue, I need to check 9 hooks in one batch. For each one, I need to verify a bunch of things, one of which is that the hook fact is in the article. For some hooks, that's easy because there's an obvious keyword I can search for to find what I need. This hook was complicated in two different ways. First, there were two articles, so twice the work. Second, the wording in the article is different from in the hook. Instead of "oldest", I needed to be searching for "earliest". Instead of "clapper", I needed to be searching for "ling".
So the next time a reviewer asks for assistance finding what they need so they can correctly process your nomination, please just give them what they asked for. See for example #Inner Cambodia, just below this. I couldn't find what I need there either, so I asked for help. SL93 gave me exactly what I needed and the issue was resolved quickly and without fuss. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Autarky—ling wouldn't have been a wildly improbable search-term, being the name of the article and all that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maculosae tegmine lyncis, you're being unnecessarily hostile and sarcastic. Be WP:CIVIL. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Cambodia

[edit]

@SL93, Paul 012, and Srnec: I can't find the hook fact in the article. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith "After a few years of diplomatic manoeuvring over Cambodia's tributary status, the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1867 was concluded in Paris, in which Siam recognized the protectorate and relinquished its claims to suzerainty over Cambodia, while France recognized Siam's territorial claims over Battambang and Siem Reap, including the monument of Angkor Wat" Siam is the historical name of Thailand. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How long does someone have to expand an article fivefold?

[edit]

Hi! I'm looking at Electoral history of Joe Biden (nom), and I'm noticing that while that article has been fivefold expanded (exactly fivefold, I don't think I've ever seen that), the expansion took more than a couple of weeks. Is that allowed, or do editors have to draft expansions in sandboxes so that the expansion starts within the week of nomination? I'd favor allowing that in, but I feel like I've heard differently in the past so I wanted to check up on that. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of allowing that. If it took years that would be different, but a few weeks should be fine. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t realize it was exactly five fold. But I had done some minor work on it before writing the byte count on March 4 in the description intending to 5x it from then. I then got sick so I couldn’t. The time I was considering for the expansions was March 13-March 18 Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 19:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of February 19, the article was 2083 prose characters according to DYKcheck; at the current moment, the article is 10410 prose characters, five short of the 10415 needed to be an exact 5x increase. (At the end of March 4, it was 1990 prose characters; if you count from there, it would be a clear 5x with only 9950 needed.) Adding a couple of words would make this unambiguously a 5x expansion starting on March 13; since the nomination was made within seven days, getting this to 5x should be easily accomplished. Please note that since the article appears to have exceeded 2083 prose characters in the more distant past (for example, 2123 on July 19, 2024), DYKcheck may not agree that a 5x expansion has been done, but it will be wrong in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more so it should be large enough Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an informal practice we seem to allow additions during the nomination period to reach 5x if it was close. It's not uncommon for an editor to count total bytes or some other metric, and that's a good faith mistake we tend not to penalise. As to the sandbox question, that's the best way to meet DYK requirements even if it feels a bit gamey. Even with new articles, promoters are meant to check the article has not changed significantly since review, which suggests we don't expect new articles to be continuously worked on during the DYK period. CMD (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reffering to bytes I meant the bytes of prose (the first price of data listed under prose in X-tools) Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron It just seems unfair to every single 5x expansion that we have ever rejected in the past for not being completed within 7 days or thereabouts (beyond the ~2-day grace period). I would not allow this as a general rule. But I see per BlueMoonset's comment above that a 7-day window was identified that allows this particular DYK nomination to qualify. It would be helpful if this could be explained within the nomination itself by the nominator or by the reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rules state that a 5x expansion has to be accomplished within seven days (plus the grace period) of a nomination. It doesn't matter if the expansion was initially done in a sandbox before being added to the main article later on. The only thing that matters is that a 5x expansion was accomplished within seven days. If a 5x expansion took place but it took place beyond the seven days requirement then it's not eligible. Usually in such cases we recommend to the nominator to nominate the article for GA instead, then to return to DYK once GA status has been achieved. Having said that, CMD is right: in cases where 5x expansion has not been accomplished but is feasible, in practice we allow the nominator time to meet the requirements, only rejecting if this isn't done within a reasonable timeframe. However, if it's nowhere near a 5x expansion, then the nomination is rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saddened to read that we've gotten so hidebound that we can't AGF that the person meant to have expanded by 5x at the time the nomination was made, and give them a reasonable chance to get the article to 5x once the issue has been identified by a reviewer; that's how it used to be. I'm not talking about people who were under 2x, but those who had expanded significantly and were within shooting distance of 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's still the case in practice. If the article is a ~4x expansion, we usually give the nominator time to bring the article up to standard. The nomination is usually only failed if either the article is so far off a 5x expansion, too much time has passed, or the nominator is unresponsive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYKcheck bug?

[edit]

Something weird is happening! I ran DYKcheck on 1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware (nom), and it says the article hasn't been expanded fivefold in the last seven days. It also says the article is 1505 characters long. But when I use the prosesize gadget, the post-expansion version is 1500 bytes exactly and the pre-expansion version is 278, so that should be a clear pass. Any idea what's going on? Pinging Shubinator. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that DYK Check sometimes doesn't do a good job on the 5x calculation. Lookin at the history, I'd say if you start at Special:Permalink/1267240381 (302 prose) and go to the current version (1505), you're shy by a couple of characters. Either give it an IAR pass or add a word or two and then give it a pass. RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be something got to do with the fact that DYKcheck doesn't count lists or tables. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an artifact of the binary search algorithm. See User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion. Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKcheck found the "Template:ElectionsDE" redlink from the December 2024 versions of the article and counted it as 20 prose characters (plus or minus), even though it isn't prose. The thing is, said template had been renamed twice, but was deleted under its final name on March 15, five days ago: it wouldn't have been counted as text before then since the resulting template wouldn't have been text, so the current DYKcheck counts of 301 or 302 would have been around 280 prior to the template deeltion. This nomination is safely a 5x expansion, though if a minor textual change is made, it could end up back below 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit more to the page so it should be fine. Though I should scale back the amount of nominations to avoid further problems Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

Jeep ducking

[edit]

Hi Tarlby, thanks for the hook promo. However, per WP:QUIRKY, wouldn't the Jeep hook fit better as the bottom listing than the cop hook? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, yeah. It'd be better. Tarlby (t) (c) 16:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switched Tenpop421 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Salwan, Lily Mei

[edit]

* ... that the first Indian American mayor of Fremont, California succeeded the first female and first Asian American mayor?

@Moon motif: Can the bold text for both links be extended to include "the first" and everything until "mayor"? The position isn't the apparent hook here and the DYK isn't about Mayor of Fremont, California, as the hook apparently suggests now. Departure– (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have spotted that, so I fixed it myself.--Launchballer 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you so much! Moon motif (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

I just received a reply to an email I sent to Herzog Wine Cellars, and they agreed to release the imageFile:Herzog Wine Cellars.jpg under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Would it be possible to move it to a new prep and add this image? Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally with this sort of thing the emails are supposed to be verified by the Commons OTRS/VRT. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would I do that Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Direct the owner to WP:DONATEIMAGE. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (24 March 0:00)

[edit]

Grand Husseini Mosque

[edit]

The hook currently says ... that the Grand Husseini Mosque has served as a starting point for political demonstrations in Amman (example pictured) for nearly a century? @Makeandtoss, Hassocks5489, and SL93: Do we actually have a source that refers to it as a "starting point" for protests or political demonstrations? I'm not able to access Protesting Jordan but what little I can see refers to the "centrality of the mosque to all manner of protests" which isn't necessarily the same thing as a "starting point". (I also see that the balcony next door to the mosque is used to address crowds *during* protests...but such an address could take place in the middle or toward the end of a demonstration, not necessarily at the beginning.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Cited in the second next page of that reference in Protesting Jordan: “The area called King Faysal Plaza-really the wide King Faysal Street connecting the Grand Husseini Mosque to the east and the main municipal building to the west
-developed its own spatial routine for protests: gathering at the mosque, listening to speeches, and then marching west to assert claims outside of the government offices.” Makeandtoss (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Per WP:DYKCRIT: Articles must be neutral, reliably sourced with inline citations, and BLP- and copyright-compliant. The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in. So I have added a footnote at the end of that sentence citing Protesting Jordan, even though that footnote also appears at the end of the paragraph.
Some reviewers will squirm because that sentence actually doesn't use the word "starting" or "starting point", but it's probably "ok". If you can think of a way to make the claim in the article body align a little more closely to the language in the lead section and in the hook, that would be great, even though I understand you're trying to avoid repetition. @Makeandtoss Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: changed lede to “gathering” instead of “starting” and the hook can be changed that way too for alignment. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Belatedly: sorry, just logged on) I would support the change to "gathering place" as acceptable. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed to "gathering point" per @Makeandtoss (as "gathering place" sounds too static). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FogCam

[edit]

This looks like one of those situations where the review overindexed on matching the hook to the source provided within the nomination, but failed to verify that the claim was cited properly within the article itself. The hook says: ... that the FogCam is believed to be the world's longest-running public webcam? The lede sentence clearly asserts, "FogCam is the longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" – a much stronger statement than "believed to be" – but where is this repeated and cited within the body of the article? If it is there, could we please make it more explicit and consistent with both the source and the hook, and provide a citation? @Jolielover, B33net, and Sohom Datta: Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section right ? The exact string does not exist, but the information is there? Sohom (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta No, the Reception section says it's "one of the oldest websites still operational". It doesn't say anything about "longest-running public webcam" or "longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" (which might need to be struck from the lede if there is no citation for that fact anywhere in the body of the article). @EF5: Pinging you as the GA reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, although I must've missed that there wasn't a citation for that. — EF5 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Adapter GB

[edit]

@RickyCourtney, Cyberlink420, NegativeMP1, and SL93: The hook says ... that the Mobile Adapter GB was an early, albeit unsuccessful, attempt at handheld online gaming for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance? Where is the source that specifically mentions the Game Boy Advance? Neither the IGN article (which you cite in the article) nor TheGamer article (which you cited in the DYK nomination only) mention the Game Boy Advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://kotaku.com/that-time-nintendo-took-the-game-boy-and-pokemon-onli-1836423946
https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/30/low-numbers-for-mobile-adapter-gb RickyCourtney (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @RickyCourtney. Nearly there. Could you please resolve the {{failed verification}} tag I've just left in the article? It's the IGN 2000 article currently cited there that doesn't say anything about Game Boy Advance, whereas the IGN 2001 article clearly does. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Themed sets on good topics

[edit]

If, in theory, I intended to create a themed set for a topic, but it was entirely infeasible to nominate each to DYK within the 1-week post-GA/creation/expansion window AND the same 6-week special occasion set window, would it instead be possible to nominate a themed set based on a good topic pending completion of the set? Entries already run on DYK not expanded wouldn't be put on the set but others beyond the one week eligibility window but a part of the topic and otherwise eligible for DYK would be nominated at the same time the good topic nomination is approved would be eligible again. I'm asking because the period of waiting means that themed sets currently means that for all except the most important or otherwise relevant events (i.e. Halloween, Christmas, the rare global-importance event), themed sets are not feasible to be created due to the difficulty coordinating editors to improve or create articles within the time period given - seven weeks at most. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that since April 1 has an extension for themed sets they are able to get a full set every single year, so I don't see why some sort of workaround to reasonable eligibility couldn't be made for other topics. Departure– (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Themed sets are already controversial as they are, and outside of the established ones (Halloween, Christmas, IWD, etc.), the ones that end up running tend to get a lot of criticism. Remember the DYK set about royalty for Queen Elizabeth's funeral? That wasn't without controversy and multiple editors complained when it happened. In practice, this does mean that themed sets are very rare and are reserved for very special occasions (for example, the anniversary of Apollo 11 or the anniversary of Canada Day). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When editors complained, was it just editors being, well, editors? When we looked at page traffic from that day, did the DYKs get a decent amount, or was it lower than normal? That'd be something to take into consideration. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since it happened so I don't remember the full details, but in the case of the Queen's funeral set, IIRC there was criticism over the main page being royals-centric or something. Some editors were saying that, as big of a deal as her death and funeral were, they didn't agree that it was enough to devote all of DYK to it. Again, I can't remember the full details, it was just something like that. I think something similar was done for Charles' coronation: now that I think about it, I can't remember if the set was on the Queen's funeral, during the coronation, or those were two separate events. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe doing them more often is a way to prevent criticism. If we can run a royals set, why can't we run other sets? It'd likely get less criticism from DYK-space editors if we did this more often, as accusations of "royal-centrism" would be dispelled by the fact there are numerous themed sets. Saying DYK is XYZ-centric for having one day devoted to a set is understandable, but when it happens multiple times a year (more than April, Halloween, Christmas), then these allegations sort of fall apart. Departure– (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I do think that themed sets are overall nice, and perhaps would be suitable to have more often (maybe just on one day of the week as a straight-up special occasion? I'm just floating ideas around.), and if we want to have more of them, then the process should be cleaned up a bit. Even one themed set per week would be plenty a year while leaving a majority of blurbs untouched. It could help foster collaboration in spaces in need of it. Perhaps themed sets as a weekly thing could be voted on or otherwise added to a backlog, and once voted on there's a period (say, a few months) to get all the GAs passed, articles created or expanded, etc. and then run for a mere 24 hours. The current problem with themed sets isn't the work, it's that for existing articles that would be lovely in said sets the time needed to wait for a GA can be extremely long and barring participation in a few GA circles near impossible for the amount of articles you'd want in a set - GAs are likely the easiest way to get an article on DYK, as expansion takes plenty of time and so does making a new article from scratch. Departure– (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, the date of the themed set would need to be sufficiently "special" to be considered. A few years ago there was a proposal to have a themed set around a rather obscure religious feast. There was some opposition to it, but ultimately it run as a one-time concession to the proposer (I think Valereee has the full story as she was involved). When it ultimately ran, the community and readership reacted poorly to it: in fact, the current rules on themed sets were due to that event. My point is that, considering DYK's past experiences with themed sets, the proposal, and indeed any proposal for a themed set outside of the usual ones, would likely face an uphill battle. I'm all for having themed sets for, for example, Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha, but I imagine a themed set about Presidents' Day or Martin Luther King Day would go down like a lead balloon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to remember...was it a themed set for a Catholic feast day, maybe? I feel like a lot of the submissions were from a single editor who had been exploring it in multiple categories, so it wasn't all music or art or festivals or churches...we were a bit leery of setting a precedent, because pretty much every day is a festival for someone in some religion somewhere.
A themed set needs broad buy in, like you'd want to bring it up here for discussion before you put that work in. What is the theme you're considering, @Departure–? Valereee (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: To answer your question: it was a themed set about a Catholic feast day (I can't remember which saint, but I think it had to do with Spain). It was Evrik's proposal if you can remember. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the ones I was specifically considering was Tornadoes in Chicago, which has enough to-be-created or otherwise expanded articles with interesting hooks for a themed set. Yes, the claims of America-centrism are going to naturally creep in, but there is no reason why under my more common themed sets proposal we couldn't do one for anything international - I'm sure there's plenty of non-American editors who'd love to have better representation of their locales on the front page and more common themed sets might be a great way to do so. Departure– (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anything that specific would work for most editors. Tornadoes might work, but probably not even specific tornadoes around the world. You'd need maybe one article on a specific tornado (somewhere), and one on how tornadoes form in (somewhere else), and maybe one on whatever machine first measured strength of tornadoes, etc. And even then you might have a hard time selling it. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a set specifically for any natural disasters? SL93 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole genre of disaster articles: tornados, hurricanes, airplane crashes, train crashes, wild fires, etc. The problem is they're all so formalistic. In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather lists as its first goal, "Standardize pages for severe weather events and people. I think a whole DYK set of these standardized articles about closely-related subjects would make exciting reading for a small fraction of our readership and boring reading for the rest. RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Durrr Burger (nom)

[edit]

@Johnson524, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and Tarlby: Durrr Burger has been nominated for deletion, so it should probably be pulled. (It doesn't seem likely to be kept, but if it is, it can always be promoted again.) jlwoodwa (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Computer is On Fire (nom)

[edit]

@LEvalyn, Tenpop421, and Tarlby: I'm sorry, but I don't see how this hook meets the guidelines. Technically, this arguably doesn't meet the guidelines regarding having a definite hook fact: where's the fact here? It's just giving random quotes without context. I understand that the reviewer preferred this and liked the wording, but arguably a reader may be more baffled by this than interested. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoter here. Reading the hook, I personally was intrigued by the unusual format of the hook much more than the proposed ALT1 and read the article, so it's not like it baffled me personally. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the quoted chapter titles are also specific claims from the book. They argue quite seriously that the cloud is a factory and AI is human, as facts. Fully understanding those fact claims requires more context, but in my opinion that’s what made the hook hooky. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be worded that way. Then again, both ways are essentially just plot even though the book is non-fiction. "Book claims something" hooks bore me. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've run hooks which have ignored this specific guideline before IIRC. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a non-definite fact; it is also not even a fact. It's quotes from the book and the title of the book. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't at the very least get a fact by tomorrow evening, I plan on pulling the hook if someone else doesn't. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

The End of the World With You (nom)

[edit]

@Lullabying, OlifanofmrTennant, and Tarlby: Arguably, this hook does not meet WP:DYKINT. Manga being worked on during the pandemic is not at all unusual. There are countless examples of manga that were serialized, or even began, during the pandemic, so The End of the World With You being such a case is not unusual. Given how significant the pandemic was worldwide when it happened, simply relating something to Covid is no longer inherently interesting. Please suggest a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoter here. I think I managed to misclick the wrong hook using PSHAW and never noticed. Do you think ALT1 from the nom page good? Tarlby (t) (c) 17:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find ALT1 particularly interesting either I'm afraid. Personality tweaks strike me as a bog-standard aspect of character development.--Launchballer 23:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1281736440"