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.

Back to 24 hours?

[edit]

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 January

[edit]

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are now back to a significant backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93 We need more @DYK admins: to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you for WP:RfA. Or, if you prefer, I could just give you WP:TPE. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that template namespace also refers to DYK nominations. I should have figured. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've granted WP:TPE to SL93. It'll be good to have more hands working the queues! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hit something of a wall last week after attempting two in a day, but I plan on resuming in the next couple of days.--Launchballer 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I listed Noel Hilliam under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually bother with the {{dykadmins}}, but it can't hurt. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like. Welcome aboard! —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18 January

[edit]

If someone can queue Prep 2, we can go to 12-hour backlog mode tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queued, currently finishing checks. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions say For a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure when the bot does its runs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last queue I promoted was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after). RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder that the lead hook of Queue 3 is a special occasion hook that is supposed to run on 26 January. It will have to moved soon: if we don't continue twice a day on 22 January, then it will have to go into Queue 6. If we do continue, then it would need to end up in Prep 2 if we don't again continue on 25 January, or Prep 3 if we continue twice a day on 25 January as well. The key, of course, is to get it out of Queue 3. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I took care of it. However, the new first hook in Queue 3 will need to be reviewed by someone else because I promoted it to prep. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The Silicon Island hook and article look OK to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/day

[edit]

I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are only five queues filled after the midnight promotion was made, so it's time to go back to 1/day, 24-hour set backlog mode. Pinging @DYK admins: so that this can be done in the next few hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, is the current rule that we only do 12-hour sets for three days at a time? I must have missed that change, but I'll trust BlueMoonset to be on top of it.  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t seem like a good idea with 135 approved nominations. It also looks like we will have to go back to two sets a day again soon. SL93 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the three day cut off was put in place to ensure the rate was reduced before admins (and now template editors?) burnt out. Being able to trigger it a second time quickly is I believe part of the intended design, dependent on there being filled preps and queues that show that volunteers have not yet burnt out. CMD (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for the information. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pushed for the 3-day rule exactly to prevent burnout. Previously, our only criteria for mode change was how many noms were stacked up in the approved pile. So we'd start doing 12-hour sets and quickly run the queues empty with nobody willing to put in the work to keep it going. Now at least we find out if we've got the work capacity to handle it without getting to the crisis stage of zero queues filled.
Informally, I think flitting back and forth between modes is a bad idea because it complicates the job of people trying to schedule special occasion hooks. I'd rather see us stay in 12-hour mode for a bunch of consecutive cycles, but not at the cost of running the queues down to zero. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one, though I notice that PSHAW hung when I clicked the button - pinging @Theleekycauldron:. The next one has one of mine in it; will do the other eight if no-one else does in the next three hours.--Launchballer 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: We now have seven filled queues, which means we head back to 2-a-day. An admin needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates - or better yet, unprotect it so I can have at it. The two date requests, for 26 and 28 January, are in queue 2 (at least 26 January morning) and prep 6.--Launchballer 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should unprotect the bot controls like the Time Between Updates. The change to that page should happen after midnight UTC (otherwise the bot will update DYK immediately). I can do it in the morning if nobody has got to it by then. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kusma; unprotecting the bot controls would be unwise. I expect to be around shortly after 0000 UTC; I'll take care of it. RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one could change it from full to template protection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems inadvisable when template protection users seem ready to change the file at the wrong time. Leave it for the admins. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that. If an admin screws up editing that page, they can fix whatever mess the bot will make. Template editors can't. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PSHAW also hung when I tried to do a set yesterday... regarding flitting back and forth, I think that's far better than just ploughing on regardless. I would oppose removing the 3-day cut-off. Remember that burnout might not only lead to unfilled queues, it might lead to a reduction in the thoroughness of the admin checks and we want to give people a breather. It seems like the process for moving special occasion hooks around is not so onerous? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: It's been three days and we're on two queues, so we rotate to 1-a-day.--Launchballer 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Artur Bubnevych hook in Prep 6 is a special occasion hook for January 28 (the day of his consecration as bishop), and will need to be moved to Queue 4; swapping a hook from Queue 4 with it is probably the easiest way of accomplishing this. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Caffey family murders

[edit]

Jolielover Pbritti Hilst Caffey family murders has WP:CLOP issues per Earwig such as "to be tried as an adult" and "All four defendants were initially charged with three counts of capital murder". SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover Will you be taking care of this? SL93 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, some false positives due to quotations & things such as names of shows the case was featured on. I have paraphrased the rest, hope it works, thanks. jolielover♥talk 02:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Bagwell

[edit]

This is my nomination so someone else needs to look over it. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will take shortly.--Launchballer 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (edit conflict) Hi @SL93: I've taken a look at this and looks good to me. The only thing is, I thought the Career section seemed to be missing coverage from between 1987 and 2012, but then I noticed that was contained in the Filmography section. I've taken the liberty of folding those two into one as that seems to offer a better chronology. It's still a bit on the short side and could do with expansion on more of his career, but fine for a DYK IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two football hooks

[edit]

Queue 6 has two football hooks from the same editor because of moves that happened to accommodate a special occasion hook. Only admins can edit Queue 6 at this point. Just seeing if an admin wants to switch one out for a non-sports hook, or decide that it isn't an issue. @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit top section

[edit]

I tried to correct a grammatical error but this page doesn't seem to edit like others: "go to article's talk page" should be "go to the article's talk page". Al Begamut (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it at Template:DYK archive header.--Launchballer 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK's use of the T: pseudo-namespace

[edit]

There is currently a proposal (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus) to fully deprecate the T: pseudo-namespace. A significant chunk of the remaining T: pages (Special:PrefixIndex/T:) are related to DYK, including the main T:DYK redirect and redirects to all the preps and queues. Some of these are directly referred to in our Template:DYKbox, and in places such as the Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions. I've !voted to exclude DYK from the proposed sunsetting, but perhaps we should also think of switching to using TM: shortcuts as standard. CMD (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an odd historical quirk. T:DYK/P and Template:DYK/P are both old redirects to different places. CMD (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to tell how often a redirect is used? pageview analysis doesn't seem to do anything useful for those two; I assume the numbers it's reporting are how often the page is actually rendered for viewing, exclusive of being processed as a redirect. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WikiNav doesn't seem to work for them. I will say both have very few What links here incoming links. Looking at those I found User:Uanfala/sandbox/T pseudonamespace shortcuts, which also notes T:DYKT and Template:DYKT go to different targets, and those are much more in use, albeit the second mostly in a transclusion. CMD (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this includes the views of target through the redirect. Generally the /P redirects have not a lot of views [1] (under 20/month except for a short time three years ago) so slowly deprecating them might not hurt us too much. First step: Update the Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions to no longer recommend these redirects as part of the edit summary. (As most promotions are done using PSHAW which uses the full page title, they do not get used very much). —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only today created the Template: alternative redirects for the preps and queues, so I'm not sure we have agreement to shift yet. There's some odd ones and I created a couple I probably shouldn't have. There are some I didn't replicate, for example, T:DYK/PE seems to be an ancient hangover from when there were just three preps. CMD (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at VPR looks like it's cruising to a snow close in support of phasing out T. The current discussion is just about not creating any new T entries, but the handwriting is on the wall that T will eventually go away completely so we should be moving in that direction. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought in creating the redirects. It also seemed in the DYK spirit, reflecting all our tools being prepped for a move out of template space. CMD (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A more complete list of hangers about that might be worth cleaning up somehow:
CMD (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively I'd expect the desired redirects to be not TM ones but something like TT:TDYK Astonishingly, that gets you to some page written in Cyrilic. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TT: is the Tatar Wikipedia. But [[mos:]] is not the Mossi Wikipedia; you need m:mos: to go there because of enwiki-specific reasons. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem in recommending the new prep shortcuts from Day 1, so I updated the instructions. —Kusma (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I've updated Template:DYKbox RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I tried to nominate T:DYK/N, T:DYK/NN, and T:DYK/PE for deletion, but Twinkle barfed on it with "Notifying redirect target of the discussion: Template talk:Did you know/Preparation area 3 is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, aborted" :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#Ancient names for DYK prep areas RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient texts! Well if they must be kept we should probably direct them to a help page listing history, as they as said in the nomination do not make sense. I also found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 15#T:tdyk. CMD (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am in the habit of using T:DYK to find unreviewed nominations to review and to reach the nomination page for making new nominations. This won't show in incoming links because I don't follow a link; that's what I type in the URL bar of my browser. I guess this would mean I have to remember some other alphabet soup with even more letters to get there instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll be able to learn to type one more letter. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no proposal to outright delete these shortcuts, we just stop promoting them and do not add new ones. I expect we will keep them for at least a couple of extra years. —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After which I predict we'll have this conversation all over again. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dare to predict whether it will be before or after the next conversation about DYK being in the wrong namespace. —Kusma (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I can't promote

[edit]

The nominations that I have participated in and that are not being promoted is getting longer. Here is a list of the oldest ones needing promotion.

Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Chronicle
Template:Did you know nominations/Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South
Template:Did you know nominations/The Scarecrow (children's book) SL93 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always happens when one person takes on most of the promoting load—I should know. Thanks for directly identifying them, I'll take care of them. Ping me if you need the same sort of help in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will be sure to. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to either prep building or queue promotion (but not both) avoids this kind of conflict. It's not a rule, just something that I've found which makes my life simpler. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will stick to queue promotions for the most part now. Hopefully, we get more prep builders once we enter a crisis mode of empty preps. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye-rolling hook in Q5

[edit]

"* ... that the discontinuation of a Warsaw-based Yiddish literary journal in the summer of 1939 was unrelated to the invasion of Poland?"

If you read the article, you learn that the journal folded due to financial shortcomings and published its last issue on June 30 of that year ... about two months before the Germans invaded. At a time when no one was expecting that to occur, at least not imminently. Hell, if you read the hook and know basic history, your first thought would not be "Well, I'd like to read the article and find out why" but "Whoever would have thought it was?" Just because the war in Europe started on September 1 of that year does not mean every event in Poland that year, especially those prior to that date (save, of course, the Gleiwitz incident) must automatically have something to do with it.

Put it this way: it would be like a hook saying that the cancellation of an American TV show that happened to occur in spring 2001 was "unrelated to 9/11".

I could understand, perhaps, if the sources showed that it was a common perception that the journal had been shut down due to the invasion. But they do not appear to. We do appear to have one source offhandedly saying this, but purely on its own. That's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have made it into the article because of SYNTH-y ness like this. Pinging @AirshipJungleman29: (reviewer) and @Generalissima: (creator, who in fairness did say during the nomination that they were open to alternate hook ideas. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there was a much higher volume of Yiddish literature curtailed in Poland after the Nazi invasion than there were American TV shows cancelled after 9/11 also, the invasion happened in the summer, so your comparison doesn't even make sense Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While you are technically correct that the invasion happened in the summer, in the sense that it was prior to the September equinox, Yidishe Bleter published its last issue a full two months before then, when no one was anticipating an imminent German invasion.
And otherwise your attempt to claim my comparison "doesn't make sense" itself does not make sense, because it misses the point: there is no rational way anyone would believe that an event that occurred in a year known for a tragic, world-altering event that no one anticipated would have anything to do with that event if it occurred some time before that event. Better comparison, perhaps: "While many people believe Neil Peart died of COVID, that is not the case" (although frankly given that he died very early in a year mostly marked by the pandemic, that would be a more forgivable misconception. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Sam Kee Building

[edit]

@Yue, Jeromi Mikhael, and Hilst: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does. "With distinctive bay windows that expand the floor space of the second storey, the Sam Kee Building was recognized by Guinness World Records as the narrowest commercial building in the world." SL93 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add the CBC source used in the nomination to the sentence in the body, but it also attributes appropriately: "The structure at 8 West Pender Street is also the world's narrowest commercial building, according to the Guinness Book of World Records." Yue🌙 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources both attribute Guinness but don't use quotes. We shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should when it's not paraphrased from the source. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used quotation marks because they're titles made up by Guinness. Not opposed to removing them either way though. Yue🌙 08:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pantropiko

[edit]

@AstrooKai, SL93, and Royiswariii: As far as I can tell, the promoted hook was explicitly rejected on interestingness grounds, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I only approved the first hook. SL93 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it with Sympathy Is a Knife.--Launchballer 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Sishun

[edit]

@TheLonelyPather and Toadspike: The hook is contradicted elsewhere in the article; it says she published the book "in 1908, when she was sixteen years old" but the article claims she was born in 1893, which would make her 14 or 15.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer I'm guessing this is down to East Asian age reckoning, which adds a year or two. Toadspike [Talk] 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is not an error, and the hook can run as-is. However, we can also add a footnote to the article clarifying the Chinese age counting system once TLP has confirmed that the dates and ages accurately reflect the sources. Toadspike [Talk] 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a footnote would be an excellent idea.--Launchballer 19:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support a footnote. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 Thank you all for catching this. I will double check and get back in 24 hours. In case I cannot find East Asian age reckoning, I can also change the hook to include her year of birth. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 I checked my sources and it turns out that only Liu 2016 mentions that the book was published when Liang was sixteen years old. The 1908 date is confirmed by another source. To avoid overcomplicating things for the reader, I removed the mention of the phrase sixteen years old. Now, may I suggest a new hook based on WP:CALC:
  • ... that Liang Sishun published a Chinese poetry anthology in 1908, when she was about fifteen years old?
Thank you all for your detailed attention. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eoscorpius

[edit]

@An anonymous username, not my real name and Ornithoptera: Where's the hook?--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Eoscorpius was placed in the newly erected family Eoscorpionidae by American paleontologist Samuel Hubbard Scudder in 1884. While other experts of the time, such as Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions, Scudder believed that it was sufficiently distinct to warrant the creation of a new family." SL93 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, for some reason, this hook wasn't picked, even though Ornithoptera explicitly preferred it. Is it possible to change it? — Anonymous 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is fine by me. I wasn't sure if there was a preference because both hooks were approved. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"British geologist Ben Peach expressed regret that the name Eoscorpius was given to a genus so similar to modern scorpions, speculating a much earlier origin for scorpions as a group." for ALT1. "Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions" for ALT0. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got thrown by the word "extreme". I didn't see ALT1 in the nom as it wasn't properly labelled, and I think "criticism" is slightly stronger than the source and article.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, is there another word you would prefer? The source indicates that Peach publicly indicated his displeasure (however mild) with the chosen name, which seems like enough to constitute criticism (even if it's not the most severe). I don't think readers will be shocked and upset to find out that Peach didn't go as far as to leave a scathing review of the scorpion's naming. — Anonymous 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)

[edit]

@UndercoverClassicist and Zeete: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the St. Clair source, cited in both: "Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey.". This is Lysandros Kaftanzoglou, who was a Greek academic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does. "Was everything built on the Acropolis between ancient and modern Hellas to be regarded as a temporary intrusion? Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the Tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey." I had to scroll down to page 494 because the search option didn't work. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that the source attributes Kaphtantzoglou but does not uses quotes, and we shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have written enough on Wikipedia, and written enough essays, to know that quotes are used for direct statements that are not paraphrased. That avoids a copyright issue. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Ah, I see -- I'd agree with removing the quote marks (and will do so in the article); it's quite likely that he actually wrote "owl-shit" or something similarly (un)printable. I don't think that creates any WP:CLOP concern, as there's no real way to rephrase the quote more than trivially without losing WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that, but it is an easy fix if someone complains. SL93 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "bird poo" too lowbrow for the main page, I wonder? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

long-legged lovebird

[edit]

Di (they-them) Cremastra Hilst I don't see why "humanity's cradle" was used rather than "Cradle of Humankind". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just used a descriptive phrase rather than the actual title to create intrigue. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about using a descriptive phrase for it, but I will see what others think. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a fancy form of a name that was pretty poetic in the first place. Some wordplay is allowed. Cremastra (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either one is fine by me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1453

[edit]

Generalissima EchetusXe The article says "in late 1452 or early 1453", but the hook says "in 1453". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased the article portion a bit - the eruption may have occurred in either year, but the cooling occurred in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. SL93 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just to be less ambiguous, it'd be nice if an admin could rephrase it to '... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?' to make it clear the eruption wasn't necessarily in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SL93 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (26 January)

[edit]

It Was on a Friday Morning

[edit]

@SL93, Extraordinary Writ, and Staraction: this hook seems misleading. If Im following the ariticle correctly, the fight to get the hymm removed ran on for years, so to say it was "removed from the hymnal within 24 hours" is dubious. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is misleading. The hook is ".. that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours?" which is a true statement. It does not say it was removed within 24 hours. Per "On July 9, the chief chaplain of the Veterans Administration, James Rogers, issued a memorandum ordering: "Hymn No. 286 shall be removed from all new Books of Worship within 24 hours." SL93 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't really see how "ordered that it be removed within 24 hours" can be read as anything other than "within 24 hours of the order". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posting here to note that I've seen this conversation; I agree with SL93 and Extraordinary Writ that ordered "It Was on a Friday Morning" removed from the hymnal within 24 hours? (emphasis mine) makes the action the order, not the actual removal. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limits of being involved

[edit]

I promoted Queue 4 earlier today. Full disclosure: I was the GA reviewer for Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia. I do not remember whether that technically disqualifies me from queuing; if it does, can someone else double check this one? —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, though very possibly worth trimming "topics not typically associated with science fiction, such as" per WP:DYKTRIM. I think WP:DYKRR's "nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA" at least implies the need for another review; possibly worth spelling out.--Launchballer 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been reviewed by QPQer and prepper and I am taking responsibility by signing my name, so I don't think I should be disqualified from queuing. I think the hook works better with the explanation. —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the two examples make it more interesting of a hook. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

[edit]

Shouldn't the name "Julius Caesar" be wikilinked? The AP (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And someone might consider bold linking only "named" instead of "is named after" The AP (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAstorPastor: "Julius Caesar" has not been wikilinked as that would probably result in a lot of readers clicking on Julius Caesar rather than your article. Ideally they click on your article and then on Julius Caesar if they want more background. I think "is named after" is fine, "named after" would also be possible. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

I am confused by the bishops hook credits in prep 6. Only Diocese of Banias and Adam of Acre are in the DYKmake credits, but not John (bishop of Banyas). The John article's talk page shows the wrong DYK of Template:Did you know nominations/Ernesius which is in prep 2. The Ernesius article talk page also has the nomination that is in prep 2. Pinging Surtsicna SL93 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault, SL93. I first nominated Ernesius alongside John, but then changed it to have Ernesius alone and John alongside Adam and Banias. Obviously I did not execute it as neatly as I thought. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I added John (bishop of Banyas) to the credits in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this hook:

I understand that as saying the Green Bay packers had a total of nine home victories in twenty years. That is hooky, but incorrect: the article says they won nine straight home games against the Seahawks. The hook could equally mean "nine Football Conference victories", but I had no idea that the count would involve the Seahawks. Can this be clarified? Ping Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, check out the nomination. I think my original hook was much clearer and still hooky. This was proposed and I accepted it to get it across the finish line. That said, still prefer the original hook. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook was tagged as not interesting and confusing per Launchballer. I hope that a new hook can be thought of here because I would hate for this nomination to be stalled for longer. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally found the original hook more interesting than the current one, which like Kusma I find a bit confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to reorder this to clarify and simplify? For example we could use this?

Or a variation of that? The original hook would also work better than what we have now. —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with whatever. That said, I prefer the original and did not necessarily agree with the reviewer that it wasn't hooky, but trying to be more 'go with the flow' at DYK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with my version, just because it doesn't repeat "Packers". Happy to adjust if someone has better ideas. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 12. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has increased by 4 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) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1272011525"