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.

Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

[edit]
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 February 2025 edit (UTC)

Queue 2

[edit]

Ankarette Twynho (nom)

[edit]
Resolved
 – All hook facts are now present and cited in the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Departure–, and SL93: The article does not contain the phrase "judicial murder". (It also doesn't contain anything I recognize as a synonym of "judicial murder", but the quotation marks in the hook mean the exact phrase should be in the article regardless.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: Thank you; now adjusted. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who series 13 (nom)

[edit]

@DoctorWhoFan91, Crisco 1492, and SL93: As far as I can tell, Doctor Who series 13 § Production doesn't contain this exact statement. It says that the series was impacted by the pandemic, that they thought they would be unable to do the show under COVID conditions, that writing continued remotely throughout the pandemic, that COVID caused the lack of exotic locations, and that it presented some "curveballs", but it never states that the entire duration of the filming was under COVID conditions. I don't mean to come across as nitpicky, but since the word "entirely" seems to be important to this hook's interestingness, I think it should be directly supported by the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would pedantically say that the part you have quoted is an acknowledgement that the show was under COVID conditions and they didn't think they'd manage, but it's not a particularly interesting hook in the first place so can we send it back for something better. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the same thing as Kingsif, but there are two other hooks on the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rephrase the last one to "there was only one story told in ...", but they're not the most interesting, either. Like Doctor Who series 13 itself, I suppose. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there has only been one statement of it not being interesting so far. I think that the last hook is fine and interesting enough with it being a first for the show since 1986. I suppose the series is interesting itself based on the positive reception in the article. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also would say the same thing, but there are two other hooks, and I think the third hook would be interesting enough, even to non-fans. DWF91 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the previous saturation of COVID hooks and how there was an impression that a hook's interestingness relying on COVID was considered "cheap", it might be safer to just swap the hook with one of the other options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the hook to an alt that doesn't mention COVID. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government sanctions (nom)

[edit]
Resolved
 – The statement was modified and is now verified by the article's sources. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haha169, The Account 2, Launchballer, and SL93: The article stated without citation that The Taiwan Affairs Office announced its first sanction under the new law in November 2021, and the Ministry of Commerce announced its first Unreliable Entity List designation in February 2023. The lists in Chinese government sanctions §§ Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office​ and Sanctions announced by the Ministry of Commerce (Unreliable Entities List) do start at 5 November 2021 and 16 February 2023 respectively, but I don't think this falls under the summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article exception to WP:DYKCITE – the fact that no sanctions preceded these dates is an additional claim and requires its own citation. I was able to fix half of this myself, since the first Unreliable Entities List source does specify that the sanctions were added for the first time. But since I couldn't find an analogous statement in the Taiwan Affairs Office sources, I have tagged that part as [citation needed]. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa I changed the sentence to "The Taiwan Affairs Office announced a sanction under the new law in November 2021" and referenced it to the only November 2021 sanction under the Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office section. I changed the sentence because I have been unable to verify it as being the first, even though I'm almost positive that it was. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfails not counting as QPQs

[edit]

It was recently brought up to me in a DYK review (by @Narutolovehinata5:) that reviews which are quickfails don't count for the purposes of a QPQ. This seems reasonable and such a rule is implied by note e (It is disputed whether reviews that do a full review, only to arrive at a quickfail result, count for a QPQ) in the current version of WP:DYKG. However, note e is in a weird place (coming after a sentence on how someone should review a DYK) and the rule is nowhere explicitly stated (it certainly isn't in WP:QPQ). Does anyone know why note e is in this section? And would anyone object to me adding a clause about this rule to WP:QPQ? Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenpop421, the note was added by @Narutolovehinata5: in November 2024 here and amended by @Theleekycauldron: here so they will know the background. TSventon (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline (from what Leeky told me) is that quickfails (i.e. just simply saying that an article is not eligible for whatever reason, without further elaborating) can't count as QPQs. However, there is disagreement if an review that results in a quickfail result, but still checks all criteria (i.e. paraphrasing, newness, length, QPQ, etc.) as opposed to immediately failing in a concise manner can count as a QPQ.
For example, a review that goes "Sorry, but Article is not eligible because it is not new." would not count as QPQ, but there's dispute if a review that goes "The article is long enough and sourced, has a QPQ, the hook is interesting, and it is cited inline. However, the article is not eligible because it is not new enough, as it was not created within the last seven days." can count as a QPQ or not. Leeky said it shouldn't, personally I think it should, I'm not sure what the rest of the community thinks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A complete review that mentions all the DYK criteria and concludes that it fails due to an irremediable fault (not nominated in time, for example, or not expanded and clearly not possible to get a 5x expansion) definitely counts as a QPQ. The quoted review above could be more complete: there's no mention of a copyvio/close paraphrase check or a check for a 5x expansion (given that it wasn't created recently enough to qualify as new). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially, the issue with such reviews shouldn't really be that a quickfail result happened, but rather that the review was incomplete. That's already an issue even for simple passes or for "reviews" that don't check everything. Personally I was never a fan of the idea that reviews that result in an automatic fail should not be counted for QPQ since it would be unfair to the reviewer especially when they were reviewing in good faith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've determined that the nom fails, what's the point of spending any more time on it? There's more useful things one could be doing with their time, like doing another review. Our job is to keep the queues moving, not auditing people's time cards. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is this. Say you're reviewing an article. You see that it was long, you were able to check the hook's interestingness and reliability, and you even checked the QPQ. You also checked for close paraphrasing. It is only after all is said and done when you noticed that the article was not newly created. In such a case, I don't think it's fair to disqualify such a review just because the nomination was an automatic fail with no chance of salvaging. It's the effort that should count, not the technicalities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the result that should count, not the effort. We should reward people for being efficient, not penalize them. RoySmith (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a heavy U-turn from proir accepted practice with regards to quick fails, and I for one am not impressed with the logic that "Well if you tick the boxes even though its a blatant quick fail we will still count it. No matter what happens in with scenario, the nomination has been DELT with. The reversal of policy should not have happened. Since QPQ's were implemented years ago quick fails counted as a QPQ.--Kevmin § 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we're talking about Vittae which was used to qualify for Bechbretha?
My personal take on this is I'm more concerned about successful reviews that turn out to be pencil whiped. If somebody just smashes a checkmark onto a nomination without actually examining it in detail, the problem is not that they haven't done enough work but that they've done the project a disservice by potentially letting something through which might not actually qualify. That's not what happened here. This was a nomination which had a legitimate problem that @Tenpop421 correctly flagged as disqualifying. And now we're going to ding it because doing so didn't consume enough of its time? That's wiki-lawyering and we've got better things to be doing with our time. RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not doing a full review and passing the nom anyways shouldn't count, but correctly identifying a disqualifying problem - even if done quickly - should. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple thumb-rule. Anything that can be failed by running the DYKCheck script should not be counted toward a QPQ. Everything else, should count toward a QPQ.Ktin (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is highly unfair. For one thing, DYKcheck is not perfect, especially for edge cases like 5x expansions. There have been times when DYKcheck said an article was not eligible when in fact it was, usually due to move-related or expansion-related shenanigans. As RoySmith said above, it's more the process we should reward regardless of the outcome. If a nomination is passed, but the passing was just a rubberstamp that didn't actually properly check the article, not only should that not count for QPQs, but that also arguably does more damage than a proper and full review of an article that ultimately quickfailed. A quickfailed article is simply rejected and never runs, so it has less of a fallout. A poorly-reviewed passing article that makes it all the way to the Main Page can lead to consequences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was specifically about fails. As with all thumb-rules, these are just that. I think overall, the question to ask is the effort expended significant. Unless one goes against what DYKCheck states (e.g. 5x expansion calculation as you note -- which would then result in a pass, negating this thumb-rule) I think this will work. Ktin (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I have not been around for a bit, but, what does passing without a review even mean? Are editors doing that?! We have a much bigger problem then. Ktin (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm most in favor of the idea that that quickfails shouldn't count in basically the way Ktin describes (newness and lack-of-QPQ fails shouldn't count because they're too simple). I'll more weakly support the idea that QPQs should count per RoySmith (you process a nomination, you get a credit). The current impasse where quickfails don't count except if you do some meaningless box-ticking to get around it is, frankly, pretty silly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, yeah. I'm more and more convinced that if you do a check-mark quickpass and then it turns out you missed something huge, we should be revoking that QPQ credit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the downside of letting quickfails count without trying to find a specific carve-out where they don't? Someone gets an easy QPQ? A quickfail gets the nomination off the queue regardless. A much easier rule of thumb is that a review counts, rather than trying building some vaguely-defined system which needs reviews of reviews. CMD (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default assumption should be that all (or at least all correct) reviews count. Most quickfails are correct applications of the criteria, meaning they should count. If we want to use "QPQs not counting" as a stick to encourage better reviews, our problem is with nominations that are incorrectly passed, not with nominations that are correctly quick-rejected. The rules should be amended to remove any unnecessary and counterproductive exceptions about quickfails. —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm gonna delete that footnote from WP:DYKG since there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether simple quickfails count as QPQs, which makes the question of whether full reviews which are quickfails count as QPQs kind of besides the point. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (21 February 00:00)

[edit]

Hayes Manufacturing Company

[edit]

@SL93 @CanonNi @CosXZ I don't trust the "first" assertion. I found https://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/2008/log_trucks/section_1/index.asp which doesn't quite say Cummins put diesels in logging trucks in 1919, but it sure comes close. Let's go with something that's more certain. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith What about ... that logging-truck manufacturing company Hayes Manufacturing Company introduced diesel engines to their vehicles in 1933? SL93 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I've been away doing other stuff and just saw this. It seems reasonable (if not terribly exciting) so I've dropped it into the queue. If other folks want to keep looking for better variations, there's still a day before this hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how that hook is interesting to a broad audience. Yes it's early, but the context of the diesel engine being early might be lost among viewers. It might be a better idea to just pull the hook for now and go back to the drawing board. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine, and in my view it's better than many of the hooks that go through. You say that it might be lost among viewers, but that also means that it might not. I did propose another hook, but no one has commented on it. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article, I think something good could be done along the lines of "Hayes made vehicles ranging from logging trucks to teardrop busses". A photo to go along with this would be great; there's a few CC BY-NC-SA photos at https://openverse.org/search?q=hayes+teardrop; perhaps the photographer could be contacted and asked to drop the NC part? Or maybe we could find (via {{photo requested}}) somebody local to the museum who could go take some commons-compatible ones? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I decided that I would be fine with pulling the hook for more brainstorming, especially if we want an image. I do think that a hook from prep should be added in its place though. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving the hook to WP:DYKAPRIL because the first hook I suggested was meant for there. Cos (X + Z) 15:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled Pascale St-Onge from prep 1 to replace it. They're both Canadian hooks. I have no opinion on the DYKAPRIL part, so I'll leave it to somebody else to handle the transclusion. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yonggeumok

[edit]

@SL93: @Seefooddiet: @Jolielover: The article has equivocations like "story of uncertain veracity" and "reportedly asked", which got turned into a statement in wiki-voice in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if reportedly is being correctly used, such as with "The restaurant reportedly calls the dish chu-tang (추탕; 鰍湯), an archaic name for the dish." and "The business was reportedly severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic." SL93 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 is right; it's just my writing style. I use "reportedly" too much. I just removed a bunch of them. There's no significant reason to doubt the claims given, I just write skeptically about everything. The hook is just as reliable as most others. seefooddiet (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The article still talks about a story of uncertain veracity. That doesn't sound like a matter of writing style. RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a single story about one North Korean person, where the given article cited says that they haven't been able to verify the story. There are multiple other stories about different North Korean people with stronger backing. seefooddiet (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While I'm not sure if the interpreter counts as a politician (and they might), there are for sure two North Korean politicians and two South Korean politicians mentioned. SL93 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Street Vehicles

[edit]

... that the horses used to pull the Disneyland Main Street Vehicles' 3 ft (914 mm) narrow-gauge horse-drawn streetcars consist of Belgians, Brabants, Clydesdales, Percherons, and Shires?

That is quite a clumsy hook. It could be improved by omitting ' 3 ft (914 mm) narrow-gauge horse-drawn streetcars. Schwede66 02:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101, Gatoclass, and SL93: Pinging everyone from the nomination. I think that at least one of "3 ft (914 mm)" or "narrow-gauge" should be trimmed, since they're a bit redundant together. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some trimming. RoySmith (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This change is acceptable. Keeping the word "streetcars" is important, as the horses are not involved with the other vehicle types that are part of the attraction. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did some further tweaking to make it read better. In "that the horses used to pull", you need to read it carefully to figure out if "used to pull" means "are utilized to pull" or "no longer pull", so I've clarified that. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One filled queue

[edit]

@DYK admins: After the current queue hits the main page, there will be no filled queues. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have two more filled queues. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three more now. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5 – (example pictured) parenthetical missing

[edit]

I'm not sure what exact text should be used. Rjjiii? Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(pictured) is fine.--Launchballer 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (25 February)

[edit]

Kerjäläisten valtakunta (nom)

[edit]

@JIP, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: The section Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions is entirely cited to Discogs, which according to its RSP entry is generally unreliable and should not be cited. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not realizing that Discogs isn't a reliable source. I am now curious if the 9th reference is reliable as well. SL93 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JIP Will you be fixing this, or should I remove the unreliably sourced content? SL93 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two unreliable references have been removed. Some parts where they appeared are also backed up with other references. JIP | Talk 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JIP What are the references? SL93 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding SL93's question. WP:DYKCITE requires all content that could reasonably be challenged to be supported by an inline citation no later than the end of the paragraph, and Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions now has no citations. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After removing the references to Discogs, I was able to find at least some references about the release of the album's editions. I still have a copy of Norres's book I loaned from the library, it might have some more information. If there is anything in the article that I or anyone else simply can't find any reference for, it might have to be removed. JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids of Mars (nom)

[edit]

@DoctorWhoFan91, Johnson524, and SL93: I can't tell whether this means "the largest staged fire to ever happen in a BBC studio" or "the largest staged fire in this particular BBC studio". jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in that particular studio, but realising the ambiguity of the sentence now, I think the reviewer might have thought the other. DWF91 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any issues, I also like ALT1. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I never even saw the ambiguity and thought it meant all BBC studios 😅 Yeah if an alternative wording is not proposed for ALT0 I believe ALT1 should be used instead. Cheers! Johnson524 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leibel Bergman (nom)

[edit]

@Prezbo, Lazman321, and SL93: The sentence Bergman continued to help lead the BARU as it grew into a national organization and changed its name, first to the Revolutionary Union and then (in 1975) to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP). is uncited. I tried to find a citation for it myself, and it seemed promising that the neighboring citations were from the same book, but the version I was able to access (Heavy Radicals at Google Books) doesn't have any page numbers. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa I bought the Kindle version because the topic interested me. I had to use three pages to cite the information. I would add the relevant quotes from the book, but the nerve blocker from my right shoulder surgery is still affecting the fingers on my right hand. Let me know if you need it after the nerve blocker wears off. SL93 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Prezbo (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hook breaks statistics template

[edit]

The hook for Marusankakushikaku in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders fails to show up, with the entire hook replaced by "6". I'm assuming the special character confused the living heck out of the bot or something. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because there's a = in the hook. Pinging @Theleekycauldron: as maintainer.--Launchballer 08:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
took a whack at a fix, should resolve itself on the next update :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (27 February 00:00)

[edit]

Cybermania '94

[edit]

@SL93: @IceWelder: @PARAKANYAA: This seems like one of those "first" hooks we should probably avoid. I don't see how anybody can prove that this was the first one. RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says first hooks require very good sourcing, not that they are verboten. If we can’t then it should say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this was already a topic in the DYK review. Since sources before, during, after, and long after talk about it being the first, I think the rule for "exceptional sourcing" should be met. IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UserBenchmark

[edit]

@SL93: @Bunnypranav: @Win8x: @Surtsicna: Extensive WP:CLOP vs tomshardware.com. Earwig shows some of the problem, but by eye I can pick up lots more examples that Earwig didn't flag. This really should have been picked up in the initial review. RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed part of it. I'm sure someone else can finish the rest within the next few days. If not, I might do it. I can't do much in real life anyway at the moment. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) the text was added by a new editor, they didn’t know. It looks good now. win8x (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I am having trouble finding more, but I admit that it could be because of how technical it is. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SL93.for fixing this, I too did a check and couldn't find more. If anyone does find more clop, pleased ping me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

1996 North Carolina Secretary of State election

[edit]

I think "veered off course" is too strong a term to use for the effect of the hit-and-run, at least given what's contained in the article, which merely states that "The event had an impact on some voters"; that's not the same as saying the incident completely derailed his bid.

Also, on another point, the "Results" section has no prose at all, just a table, which IMHO mean it's not quite main-page ready. If this was presented at ITN it would probably be rejected on that basis, and WP:DYKCOMPLETE also mandates that the article be "reasonably complete", something which isn't the case if it's missing discussion and analysis on the results. (See 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election for an example of how a results section is normally presented with prose). If nothing else, the results section would be another chance to mention whether the hit-and-run was the ultimate cause of Petty's defeat. Pinging @CaramelizedMargaritaLime, Daniel Case, Pbritti, and Cielquiparle: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have unpromoted it to allow for more time to address the concerns raised above. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I promoted the wrong hook and have struck the ALT0 in the nomination template, and properly formatted ALT1, so there is no confusion. The issue regarding the "Results" section still needs to be addressed though. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

butt of malmsey

[edit]

(sorry this was a late swap-out from tomorrow's queue, Queue 5, as I didn't get to finish checking it until tonight)

I'm a bit confused about whether this is a true story or not. References to Edward IV within the body of the target article are entirely within the "In Shakespeare" and "In literature" sections, which makes it seem like the story of Edward executing George in the butt of malmsey is potentially entirely fictional. (It's well-known that Shakespeare's plays don't necessarily adhere to historical accuracy). If there is a historical basis to the story, then that should be dealt with in a section outside of the literary/Shakespeare analysis, whereas if there isn't a historical basis, the hook would not be permitted per WP:DYKFICTION. @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Darth Stabro, and Rjjiii:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted the section heading away from Shakespeare, apologies if it was confusing? The text itself makes it clear that the execution is an historical event independent of Shakespearian licence; the problematic aspect is the method used to carry it out. The blurb is thus accurate on both counts. Cheers. And thanks to Rjjiii for alerting me to this discussion. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that George was privately executed and that the method is unknown but soon after the butt of malmsey story spread as a rumour. Based on reading all available sources, it's the most common telling and would be considered historical fact as far as the history that was written down says it is so, but Edward kept the execution a private affair so no means of punishment seems to have been recorded. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, I should have read the article more closely. The book cited says that the drowning "appears in most contemporary histories" The article has a lot of explanation cited to a 100-year old paper juxtaposed with a claim (cited to a 200-year old paper) that you can't fit a man in barrel. Regardless of the hook being adjusted, the article itself could be clarified, Rjjiii (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, 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 February 4. We have a total of 335 nominations, of which 185 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has increased by 3 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) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hennepin Ave bridge hooks

[edit]

Howdy @SL93: and @Premeditated Chaos:, thanks for promoting my hooks regarding the two different Hennepin Ave bridges. I'd wonder if it would be best to move one of them out of a prep so that they have a bit more time in between each other to avoid confusion as they're two separate bridges. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, for sure, I didn't see that they were back to back. Someday I'll learn to read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were promo'd within ten minutes of each other, so totally understandable that you missed it. No worries! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Gary Tuggle

[edit]

I feel like this should be attributed, as this is a subjective claim made by the Delaware US Attorney's office, who obviously have an interest in promoting it as such. Also, the source is more specific and says "largest seizure of prepackaged heroin" rather than just heroin in general. Courtesy ping to nom Queen of Hearts, reviewer jolielover, commenter SL93. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that's covered by the word "potentially". Prepackaged can be added, sure. jolielover♥talk 04:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "potentially" covers that, but I added "prepackaged" to the article and hook. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariann Budde

[edit]

Something about this phrasing just seems off to me. Maybe "[...] after she asked Donald Trump to show mercy to marginalized persons"? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tagging User:Pbritti, User:Surtsicna. Feel free to ignore but the phrasing just feels off in the OG hook. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the hook has been changed for the better. SL93 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mammillaria albiflora (nom)

[edit]

@Surtsicna, Mhhossein, and SL93: I don't think "this species has become critically endangered" is an interesting hook on its own. How about including another fact from the article, like the poachers breaking through the fence, or (as vigilantcosmicpenguin suggested to me on Discord) going for something humorous with the just a phase quote? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that Mammillaria albiflora is mainly threatened by illegal plant collecting? I have never head of illegal plant collecting until now. SL93 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa, @SL93 I love the "just a phase" idea. How did I not think of it first! ALT2 then: ... that a botanist initially dismissed this little cactus as "probably just a phase" but came to take it seriously? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (28 February)

[edit]

2025 U.S. Open Cup (nom)

[edit]

@SounderBruce, Pbritti, and SL93: I'm not sure this article is adequately sourced. For tables and other non-paragraph-based information, WP:DYKCITE requires every line with content that could reasonably be challenged to have an inline citation. If every row of a table is supported by the same citation, I can understand ignoring that rule and just putting one citation for the entire table. But I think at the bare minimum, every section should have at least one citation, and 2025 U.S. Open Cup § Early rounds has zero. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa I took care of the sourcing. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanyang Park (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that a lost stone monument for a park in Seoul that closed in 1918 was discovered lying in the grass in 2002?

@Seefooddiet, Sahaib, and SL93: Hanyang Park § History says that the park was closed in 1919, not 1918. Which is correct? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Could we use "1919"? I think the date given in the source that uses 1919 is more detailed and likely more accurate. I'll update the article. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Hook Complaints

[edit]

Currently we have: DYK ... that William Bartram was both the father of William Bartram and the grandfather of William Bartram?

I just wanted to put this here for the regulars as an example of a hook that would get extra scrutiny if it was a sports-related DYK (specifically AmerFoot), and likely would not be approved by many regulars because it is not "hooky" enough. This DYK basically says "did you know that people name their sons after themselves", an extremely common phenomena. Now from my perspective, its hooky because of the word play, which is fine! But what frustrates me is the double-standard that is often applied for topics that are more niche than "politics" or "history". We should really clarify that criteria to either allow these type of "wordplay" type hooks or ban them altogether. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know is full of cringe and sexually inappropriate innudedo

[edit]

DYK turns Wikipedia in to vandapedia. No respectable encyclopedia would have did you know on their front page. Who are the real vandals? 217.52.247.73 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If DYK gets people interested in topics they wouldn't be reading about otherwise, then it's doing its job. Wikipedia is not censored, and even then, DYK is still subject to civility and it isn't a battleground for unsavory images or content to be added to the main page. Departure– (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
217.52.247.73, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't censored, so sexual innudedo will be bound to end up on the Main Page. — EF5 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

... that over 5,000 genres on Spotify use the suffix -core?

The longer string the suffix -core? should be bolded to clarify the fact that, well, it's a suffix, and its specific use is the subject of this article. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: I don't see why we would bold this anymore than we would bold "the actor" in "the actor Dabney Coleman". What's your concern about? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but this differs because people can infer what an actor would be just from their name. Bolding the suffix will make it hyperspecific what we're referring to (no room for interpretation). I don't know how else to explain it and it ultimately isn't a world-ending issue but it's one I think could stand to be corrected. Departure– (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the hyphen marks that we're dealing with a suffix here. I'm not sure if that addresses your worry. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can narrow down my concern a bit more by stating that the -ose suffix only receives four bolded characters, all at the very end. Spotify isn't the bolded article but receives much more linked area. This is definitely more of an aesthetic issue, I recognize. Departure– (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The easy solution to this is that we really dont need to have Spotify bolded in the hook at all. Its a well known music app/service, and is linked in the article itself.--Kevmin § 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem now. Support Kevmin's solution. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (1 March 00:00)

[edit]

Gary Tuggle

[edit]

@SL93, Queen of Hearts, and Jolielover: The hook is fine, at least as far as matching what's in the article, but the statement seizure of US$488,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns is not what the source says: "48,800 bags of heroin with a street value of nearly a half million dollars". RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to - "announced the seizure of about US$500,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns and US$40,000 in cash near Newark, Delaware." SL93 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Revenge

[edit]

@Cielquiparle, Launchballer, Georgeykiwi, and Grnrchst: There's a whole paragraph that's identical to one on thenewimagefm.ca/on-hits. I'm reasonably sure they copied from us, but somebody should give it another look to be sure.

thenewimagefm copied the Wikipedia lead. The lead was edited by multiple editors over a year, not written/copied in any single edit. Some parts were improved recently in response to GA feedback. If it's correct, the copyright date on thenewimagefm is for this year (2025), but parts of the lead were written in early 2024. Rjjiii (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

Separation referendums in Illinois

[edit]

Chipmunkdavis I'm having trouble finding the hook information in the article. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bargain Hunters

[edit]

@DYK admins: I just need someone to look this over because I promoted it. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1277479089"