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]
  • No since in practice, mythology is not as "unbounded" as fiction is; it's harder to start a Wikipedia-notable religion or cult than produce a Wikipedia-notable creative work (even accounting for new religious movements). The added element of interest derives from the fact that it is something that people actually believe.  novov talk edits 05:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per previous discussions on this. I have pretty strong opinions on this one, but the purpose of this guideline IMO is to avoid impenetrable trivia that doesn't matter - not having hooks about some plot point in some modern novel or film. But for old folklore, it's all relevant. If something cool & weird & hooky happens in them, that's good, ship it! Famous-if-unlikely deeds are interesting and neat, and absolutely not what DYKFICTION should be aiming at. This is even ignoring the thorny issue of "what if there is some scintilla of truth in them." For religion / mythology / folklore, regardless of the truth of the claims, it's true that people told the stories and many believed them, so that's interesting right there. And it's not like this had no impact on real life - old Hellenistic era Greek states would absolutely say "oh yeah our royalty totally descends from some minor character in Homer" (see Pergamus for a VERY obscure character!). This has nothing to do with what DYKFiction is supposed to be deterring. Learning about genuine traditions is interesting and anthropologists / folklorists / scholars of religion are not the same as literary analysts. (And no, I'm not trying to strawman, but I don't know what else to say - I have no idea where people are drawing the line and still don't understand how this is even confusing. To me, "fiction" in this context is clearly talking about novels / movies / TV shows / etc., and it's obviously not the sense of "anything not true".) As a side comment, this topic came up in this ERRORS discussion of a hook of mine in 2023, so I guess better late than never on holding such a discussion. SnowFire (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (27 March 00:00)

[edit]

Jimena Sánchez (queen)

[edit]

@SL93, Mychele Trempetich, Srnec, and Departure–: Shouldn't this be "Spanish chroniclers OF the 13th century..."? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Someone tweaked a hook yet again. I promoted … that by the 13th century, Spanish chroniclers knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037? SL93 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff looks like this was you. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged some words to produce a slightly more comprehensible phrasing. Perhaps it could be slightly better to surround "by the 13th century" with commas:
  • that Spanish chroniclers, by the 13th century, knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037?
— RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff @RoySmith I prefer the one that one that @SL93 promoted as it's actually easier for me to understand. Not everyone is looking for a noun or a "who" first. I actually find if every hook starts with a noun or person, the set gets boring, and for history hooks it often helps to orient the "when". The goal is to sustain the reader's attention and compel them to read through the entire hook...if they don't like the first word (like Spanish chroniclers or Emmanuel Macron, who cares?) they will stop reading. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression is that the latest hook is not stated clearly in the article anywhere. The article is difficult to make sense of because the facts of the matter don't seem clear or well-established. And modern Spain was not established until the 15th century so it's not clear who these chroniclers were. Perhaps "Hispanic" or "Iberian" rather than "Spanish" would be less anachronistic? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith @SL93 @Srnec @Departure– @Mychele Trempetich @Ravenpuff I think we need to demote this hook to allow more time to fix both the hook and the article itself. Aside from the whole "Spain did not exist as such in the 13th century" problem (which would definitely have resulted in embarrassment if it ran on the main page), @Andrew Davidson is correct in pointing out that the article in its current state is actually very unclear about what is going on here. It seems the basic facts about Jimena including her name, her parents, and whether she had an infant who died have been debated by historians who don't all agree, and somehow it's not convincing the way the article is written now that this matter is truly "settled" or can ever be known with certainty. (From working on Wikipedia I have also learned that you can have two pieces of information that appear to be conflicting which both turn out to be true (what if her name was actually Theresa Jimena, for example); not saying that's necessarily what's going on here, but in order for this article to run on the main page of Wikipedia, we need to be more confident about the facts we are presenting and be explicit about any disagreements and uncertainty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled it and will backfill it in the morning.--Launchballer 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with Sal Maida; there's no way it should have got the image slot per WP:DYKDIVERT (but the original hook would have made an excellent April Fool's hook). Courtesy pings to @Tarlby, Thriley, Darth Stabro, and Cielquiparle:.--Launchballer 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be down to WP:IAR and get it in for April Fool's... ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to hear from Cielquiparle first. I'm thinking a bald "... that Sal Maida may not have a Wikipedia page?".--Launchballer 14:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t be opposed to that. That hook would entail running without the image, which is a loss to the front page in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Personally I just don't get it. I sort of get it, in that I remember thinking it was funny once when I found out that a person I wrote about made a joke about "their" Wikipedia article (it was actually their "name twin"). And then I started noticing everywhere how pervasive it is for people to comment on what Wikipedia says about XYZ – critically, humorously, with wonderment. So now when I see hooks like this, I think "So what?" It could also backfire and irk people. Some people think DYK is run by automotons who uncritically approve hooks if they can find a single reliable-looking that source that makes a claim (OK I am still upset about the fiasco that was Battis Khamba, a quirky sounding hook which I promoted that even the DYK nominator admitted was probably wrong *after* it was pulled from the main page on the big day and still hasn't been fixed properly, which I and others should have questioned earlier). (See Talk:Battis Khamba.) But humor is hard and very subjective and somehow it seems we don't have enough strong contenders for April Fool's hooks. If lots of other people think it's funny, go for it. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Battis Khamba nomination probably should be reopened, I think. As for the Sal Maida hook, which I just moved into the April Fool's set and will backfill later, my thinking was that people would wonder 'where does the link go then'. I think the The United States of America and my hooks for Bliss and Batman work but can't approve/promote them. (I started User:Launchballer/Saiyuud Diwong but probably won't be done in time for this year and was probably going quirky with it anyway.)--Launchballer 10:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. No second chances on hooks that run on the main page and then get pulled down mid-way through the run because they fail verification. Otherwise there is no incentive for DYK nominators, reviewers, and promoters to take the review process seriously.
(Except in extenuating circumstances, such as another editor making substantive changes to the hook without additional notification and review, outside of the normal review process.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a shame to lose the image for the Maida hook. It’s stunning. Images lately have had far too many contemporary pop stars, social media personalities etc. Might be nice to break it up with what fame looked like in 1973. Thriley (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About which I predominantly write, so am not exactly complaining about! For now, I swapped this with Apurbalal Majumdar to give this a little longer - courtesy ping to @Soman, BeanieFan11, and AirshipJungleman29:.--Launchballer 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with the word "Spanish" in the hook. modern Spain was not established until the 15th century but we are not talking about modern Spain. it's not clear who these chroniclers were They are named in the article: "The 13th-century historians Lucas de Tuy and Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada..."
We know with certainty the name of Vermudo III's queen. Modern scholarship is also confident—in Wikipedia lingo, there is consensus—that she was the daughter of Sancho the Great. Later medieval sources, i.e., sources written about 100–200 years after her time, however, give her the wrong parentage and the wrong name. This is not terribly surprising given that (a) she was an ephemeral queen widowed in her youth and (b) her name and her father's were both quite common. I can understand that the article is hard to parse and will try to fix it. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Srnec for clarifying. What you're describing sounds very interesting. Yes, just a bit more sign-posting within the article would go a long way. Perhaps you could add it to the lead section, which is only one sentence wrong and thus too short regardless. It would be great if you could fix that too. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

@DYK admins: With this, we now have seven queues again, so we'll need to go to two-per-day.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No way, this is ridiculous. We've just had 12 straight days of 2-per-day and finally get a breather and you're trying to push it back again? At least give if a few days for people have a break. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are only barely above 120 and there are lots of empty preps. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against it, and we have many empty preps. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should not be moving back to two-sets a day so soon after the last switch. Apart from the empty preps, it would be deeply unfair to other nominations and nominators, plus our workload is pretty high right now and doing two-sets-a-day already contributes to burnout. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that at least some nominators might prefer to have their hooks up for an entire day. Two a day should only be used with a huge backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I'm one of those editors. Last time I requested for a delay to a hook to allow it to run on a one-set day it wasn't granted, which honestly was disappointing. I get the concerns about gaming, but it might be less of a problem for editors who are regular nominators anyway as opposed to those who only nominate once in a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Sims

[edit]

I wrote this, so must ask for more eyes. (I did consider kicking it back a couple of days so it could be 'on air' the same day as a boxing match she's in, but it got postponed...)--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annel Silungwe

[edit]

@Tarlby, BeanieFan11, Tenpop421, and Cbl62: This needs an end-of-sentence citation for Namibia.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Benvenuti

[edit]

@ERcheck and B33net: Not DYK issues per se, but the article would deserve {{lead too short}} and the sentence "These works were translated into numerous languages." would deserve {{clump}} and you may wish to resolve these before primetime.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer - I made edits to address {{lead to short}} and {{clump}}. Thanks for the suggestions. Please let me know if you feel the lead needs additional info. — ERcheck (talk) — ERcheck (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NFC Wild Card playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona)

[edit]

@Gonzo fan2007 and BeanieFan11: I think this should be trimmed to ... that the Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals set multiple NFL playoff records in their 2009 NFC Wild Card playoff game? Thoughts?--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable for its high score, so I feel like that needs to be mentioned at least. Otherwise for all the reader knows, the records could be minor or insignificant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, many non-sports fans may not understand all those terms (remember that American football is not as widely followed as other sports worldwide, and even association football hooks often get pushback here). From experience, terms too reliant on sports terms (including those for basketball and even soccer) tend to underperform with readers. One argument could also be that not specifying which records were set could encourage more readers to find out what those records were, hence boosting readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highest score isnt a complicated record to understand in any sport. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and gone with Launchballer's wording. I was originally planning to add "including for highest combined score," but it seemed to make the hook more awkward while also negating the trimming. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Points and touchdowns are probably the two 'records' that would be most widely understood. Changing it to just that "records were set" makes it weaker I think; one could make that sort of hook for tons of games which set minor records like "most touchdowns by two players combined on a Thursday", whereas for this it was significant records that were set. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe:
Specifying all the records would probably just confuse non-sports fans, so if the desire is to highlight that fact, we could focus solely on that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Gilbert

[edit]

@Jon698 and Raintheone: "Cop" is unencyclopedic and should either be attributed or changed to policeman, and I reckon everything after that word qualifies for WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the hook.--Launchballer 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep ducking

[edit]

@Darth Stabro, Legoktm, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and Soulbust: Not a DYK issue, but the sentence "The post went viral, which then popularized the action." would deserve {{clump}} and you may wish to resolve this before primetime.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Williams

[edit]
Willie Williams
Willie Williams

This hook seems remarkably uninteresting. And the article doesn't explain why he joined the USMC instead. The article reads like a CV as it's mostly a catalogue of positions and decorations. It doesn't explain what any of these decorations were awarded for and doesn't say whether this lifelong soldier ever saw action or not. It comes across as the sort of DEI item which the current administration is now purging. Is that the real subtext here or what? It also reminds me of the Major-General's Song...

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. It's always good for everyone to hear feedback directly from DYK readers, because otherwise they think the DYK reviewers who are sticklers for interesting hooks are just being difficult.
In this case, at least the hook fact appears in the article with a citation. We just came off a grueling 2-set-a-day run, which leaves little time to workshop and bulletproof individual hooks; it was somewhat miraculous that no DYKs were completely pulled from the main page in the past week (to my knowledge).
No harm was done and perhaps there is a teenager somewhere who will read this and decide to go to college and become a general in the United States military. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the citation but found that my access was blocked, "This request was blocked by our security service". I then checked out the site which is the Alabama News Center. This turns out to be a churnalism PR operation of Alabama Power − see ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news. Now that is interesting ...! Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just found the Wikipedia article on pink-slime journalism which seems on topic. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Greenfield tornado

[edit]

I nominated this with the intent of getting this as an April 1 hook, but I don't know the specific process. Departure– (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should add it to WP:DYKAPRIL. I'm actually populating Prep 4 for that day.--Launchballer 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a good April Fools' hook. What's so funny about it? It's not quirky, and the mention of volunteers does not make sense in the context of April Fools' Day. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its second interpretation is that a tornado volunteered to plant crops alongside people. It has a double meaning that getting both interpretations of immediately sort of ruins the joke; most people won't see "volunteers" and think of the crops, they'll think of people helping out doing agricultural work and farming, which goes strongly against the idea of a highly destructive tornado, in this case potentially one of the most violent of all time. Departure– (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unconvinced this meets what would be a typical April Fools' hook. I see no issue with it running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DYKAPRIL - April Fools Did You Know items should present some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is possibly unbelievable to the reader. This can be done through words or names that mean two different things, shortened names, unbelievable facts, unrelated facts, etc. This ticks enough of those boxes, clear as day in my eyes. I don't see why this couldn't, or indeed shouldn't, run as an April 1 hook. Departure– (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Compare some of the approved or discussed April Fools Day hooks so far:
And the other examples. They are straight to the point and catchy, sometimes even misleading.
By contrast:
The hook is longer and the point is lost. I get it's also somewhat misleading, but the way it's written is not the kind of hook we usually run on April Fools Day, at least not our usual styles. I can see this running as a regular quirky, but not as an April Fools hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the hook is too long, but as somebody who has a garden, I thought the "volunteer" aspect was kind of funny. Maybe:
... that the 2024 Greenfield tornado helped organize volunteers?
for a shorter version? RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better and would actually work better for DYKAPRIL. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if "organize" is a good substitute for "planting", "sowing", etc or the more general "helping". If we're going to shorten this, how about some variant of

... that a violent tornado helped volunteers by planting corn in a green field / Iowa field?

There's a lot to be done with the fact that the corn was planted in a city named Greenfield, in Iowa, a state known for its corn. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed- this is a great bottom hook, but I don't really see it as an April Fool's hook, in comparison to everything else in the holding area. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought this would be perfect for April 1. Is there any way I can connect all of these dots to get it there? Departure– (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you open to the hook not running on April 1 but instead as part of a standard set? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have done the GA so soon if I didn't want it to run there, so I'm trying my damnedest to clean it up to DYKA standards. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: I think it could be workable, maybe something like "... that a violent tornado helped volunteers?" — but as I was looking into the sourcing, I'm not even sure if the hook can be run as is at the moment; neither of the sources refer to the term "volunteer". You have linked this as a source in the nomination but it doesn't appear in the article. Also paging @Lullabying and RoySmith:. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to link it in the article, as I didn't notice use of the term "volunteer" was unsourced. Is there a way I can link the "planting corn in a field" bit plausibly in a workable April 1 hook? Departure– (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I feel a bit baffled as to why running the article for April Fools Day seems to be non-negotiable for you, instead of being at least open to the hook running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I nominated it for the holiday because it has a cool hook that likely wouldn't fly any other time of year, that in my opinion is very interesting and in the spirit of DYKAPRIL. The "one of the strongest on record" by itself has worn out its welcome in my eyes. Departure– (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If ultimately AFD passes without it running, would you be okay with it running as a regular hook, or would you rather withdraw the nomination?
To answer your other question: I don't think the cornfield angle works for AFD either regardless of working. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to run as a regular hook, then I'll ask for it to be on hold temporarily as I'm going to be out of town for a while, and then it can be sorted out down the line. As for the hook itself and this running on DYKAPRIL (I'm guessing AFD is a typo), I'm fine dropping a lot of it and boiling it down to "... that a violent tornado helped volunteers?" If we're going for maximum fool-ishness then we can add "corny" before volunteers or something because surprise surprise Maize was the crop that was grown. "... that a violent tornado helped out corny volunteers?" Departure– (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get the desire to want a funny hook for AFD, but that's becoming dangerously close to violating WP:QUIRKY: Note that quirky hooks still need to meet the regular guidelines on sourcing and accuracy: quality and truthfulness should not be sacrificed for the sake of being quirky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then drop the additional word; the fact is the tornado assisted volunteer crops, specifically corn, a fact that has been reported in reliable sources, as has the word "volunteer". Departure– (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the April Fools set going to be done sometime soon so we can promote more hooks? SL93 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I filled the rest and moved the set to a queue. SL93 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (31 March 0:00)

[edit]

QuizKnock (nom)

[edit]

@Miminity, Tenpop421, and Tarlby: The sentence in the article, "They collaborated with the Tokyo Imperial Palace..." is not technically correct according to the cited source, which repeats over and over again that the collaboration was with the Imperial Household Agency, which is not the same thing. I think the sentence in the article needs to be fixed and that depending on how it's fixed, we may need to adjust the hook as well (or not). Please advise. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about ... that QuizKnock created puzzle in the Imperial Palace East Garden?
Original Text: このイベントでは、皇居東御苑を散策しながら苑内の謎解きパネルを探し出し、スマートフォンで問題を読み取って解き進めていくゲーム企画で
Translated: This event is a game plan in which participants stroll through the East Gardens of the Imperial Palace, find mystery-solving panels in the gardens, and solve the questions by reading them on their smartphones
Anyhow, I probably mistranslate or misunderstood the part I was looking at. Thanks for point out Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 23:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway  Fixed Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging: @Cielquiparle: for reply Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity Unfortunately I don't think the ALT hook really works either but I'm not sure how to make it more precise without making it less interesting. By now the event has been running for over a week. Has there been more coverage of the event, which could help more detail to be added to the article, so that we could make an interesting hook? (Right now the article only has 2 sentences with very little information about it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: This is the only english reliable source I found [1], JP sources --> [2] [3]
That here is a more bits of info
"... that QuizKnock collaborated with the Imperial Household Agency to create puzzles in the Imperial Palace East Garden?"
I'll try to expand in a bit Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed the hook to ... that QuizKnock created puzzle games for the Imperial Palace East Garden? (Swapped in "Imperial Palace East Garden" to replace "Tokyo Imperial Palace" in the existing hook.) Thanks Miminity for adding to that section in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation area 1

[edit]

As nominator I would like to make a small linking edit to the hook about Amman Hejaz Railway Station.

From: * ... that the opening of a Hejaz Railway station in Amman in 1904 helped to transform the city from a small village into a major commercial hub in the region?

To: * ... that the opening of a Hejaz Railway station in Amman in 1904 helped to transform the city from a small village into a major commercial hub in the region? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited it Tenpop421 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SZA hook (Queue 3)

[edit]

@Launchballer: is there any valid reason why the "stopped wearing the hijab after 9/11" part was removed? WP:DYKTRIM was cited, but I am having a hard time why the trimming was needed; as the hook writer, I think removing that bit made the hook lost its shine. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other people associated with the nom B33net, 750h+, Tarlby .. | Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 14:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was extraneous and that the hook was punchier without it.--Launchballer 14:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; what about it is punchier? I don't think an unfamiliar person will care if a musician was a hijabi as a kid --- maybe they still are one, this person might ask. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the hook is punchier with the last clause. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstated it.--Launchballer 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret (song)

[edit]

Some time ago I pulled this hook owing to WP:DYKINT concerns. It's currently back in the unapproved pile and will time out in 10 days. Alternative hooks were suggested; however, I'm concerned that the possible options proposed during the relevant WT:DYK discussion (listed as ALT3 and ALT4 in the nomination page) may violate DYKHOOKBLP. Asking for second opinions on whether or not those hooks violate the guideline, as I'd really want to approve those two if they aren't considered problematic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New style check module for prep builders

[edit]

Did you know ...

Stuff
Stuff
  • ... that prep builders new to DYK no longer need to be stressed about the stylistic and formatting rules unique to DYK, including all the {{'s}}, {{`s}}, {{-?}}, and (pictured) stuff?
  • ... that I created a module to show an error atop the queue and prep area pages if any are found?
  • ... that it ignores subjective things like {{lang}}, extra parentheses, and temporarily MOS:SOB?
  • ... that this module should prevent many reports from ending up at WP:ERRORS?
Extended content
  • ... that you can disable it by replacing your hook's * ... with *...?
  • ... that it is mostly disabled on lines with nowiki's presence?

216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. As a #visualeditor I was reflecting that I have completely ignored the under-the-hood DYK formatting rules and that I had been relying on everyone else to clean them up. (Thanks everyone.) Is this just running automatically so I don't need to do anything? This is huge. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't need to do anything. You can just keep promoting hooks using PSHAW, open the prep area page, and look at the error message if there is one. Some recent examples can be seen at permalinks of prep area 1 and prep area 5. It's an "error" but if the rules are still confusing, I'd say fixing it can be still be left to whoever rakes it to the queue as before.
Checking the article itself still needs DYKCheck, spelling/grammar should be mostly underlined in red by browsers, and WP:DYKINT is what humans do well. That leaves extra parentheses and {{lang}}, which are too subjective for machines. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... that you can disable it by replacing your hook's * ... with *...?
No, please, please, do not do this. Lots of existing software knows how hooks are formatted. Do not tell people to change how they format hooks to signal your script to do something. This sounds like a very useful bit of automation, but find some other way to turn it on and off other than changing how the hooks are formatted. RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned that this has apparently been turned on for everybody, with no previous discussion here. And by an IP editor, which means there's no way to contact them (i.e no talk page, no email, no way to ping them) if something goes wrong. RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The *... came from an inability to detect hooks missing the space. Then I left it in as useful for others to selectively disable the check for a hook when claiming exceptions to the guideline. What should the script check for? Nowiki tags, hidden comments, or {{nobots}} could be options.
The previous (minimal) discussion was at WP:MP/E and linked pages. Like DYKcheck, my module is not "the law." and it tries to reflect consensus and does not prescribe it, which is another reason I discussed below instead of enabling MOS:SOB detection. You can still promote and rake hooks while ignoring whatever it says.
I took extra care to make sure there are no false positives. If something still "goes wrong", anyone can set disableAll = true. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of issues here, but for now, I'm going to concentrate on the "*..." part. WP:DYKMOS is as close to an official specification as we've got. It says Every hook that appears at DYK follows the same basic format: an asterisk for the bullet point list, followed by a space, followed by three dots, followed by another space, followed by a hook that ends in a question mark. You are telling people to deliberately break that. Don't do that. RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just noticed the "nowiki" thing. Again, don't do that. You're telling people to put stuff in their hooks, contrary to the established format, for the benefit of your script. That's just wrong. What other effects will putting nowiki into a hook have on other software which processes hooks? I don't know. Do you? What testing have you done on its effects? Have you asked other people who write hook-processing software if it'll be a problem for them? RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Removed the nowiki opt-out.
There are a few ideas left: 1. A special word in a hidden comment (hidden comments are already used successfully by special occasions) 2. Do nothing and give up with the "selectively disable" thing and let them do disableAll if the unlikely happens 3. What should I do?
I thought it would be uncontroversial, when the module detects that DYKMOS is already broken, that there's no difference if people break it further in a minor non reader visible way. The *... thing was designed to reduce controversy, by showing there's a Lua-free shutoff even if unlikely problems occur. I was wrong. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would do nothing. If it comes up with false positives, people can just ignore them. There's a long history of linters. Most of them use pattern-matching heuristics (as does your script) and will occasionally call out problems that aren't really problems. People often invent ways to mark up their code (usually by imbedding magic words in comments) to tell the linter to ignore certain things. While well-intended, the fix can be worse than the disease. RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit harsh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it was in response to somebody who is obviously not a new user choosing to remain anonymous while making changes to core parts of the DYK machinery without discussing it here first. If you do strange things like that, you invite harsh responses. RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a day and a half ago, so I've created a new list of all 12 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 18. We have a total of 195 nominations, of which 119 have been approved, a gap of 76 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 8 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) 05:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Benvenuti (Queue 2)

[edit]
−
[[children's literature|children's book]] [[illustrator|illustrations]]
+
[[children's book illustration]]s

@Launchballer: We should fix the MOS:SOB problem. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't really see a reason that the hook should include a link at all? people know what children's book illustrations are, it's not really necessary to help them understand the hook... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, I'm not going to make a huge fuss arguing for a pull or anything, but I don't think a hook along the lines of "career visual artist also did other forms of visual art" is the most surprising. just my opinion, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion: Is MOS:SOB important?

[edit]

@ERcheck, B33net, and Tarlby: The above linking looks intentional. Let's assume the article children's book illustration didn't exist. Would it still be preferable for one of those links to be removed? It think it would be controversial so I didn't enable the detection by my module yet. However, WP:DYKMOS says any two non-boldlinks or two boldlinks must be kept separate. Should we change that guideline from "must" to "should"? 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of "background views"?

[edit]

I see the footnotes at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders & am struggling to find a definition of background views.

Would someone explain what they are/how they are calculated, or point me to where they are defined? = paul2520 💬 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Background views" means the normal amount of views that the article would have gotten if it had not been for DYK. It is calculated by User:GalliumBot/vandyke/vandyke.py, and is basically the opposite of Wikipedia:Million Award § Qualifying articles. We basically take the views during the DYK spike, then exclude the background views by subtracting the average views of the days around it. 209.227.161.66 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👀 Thanks! = paul2520 💬 14:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bot ready for testing!

[edit]

Been working on User:GalliumBot#retro, which finds open untranscluded nominations and puts them back where they go. The nice thing about this is that if it gets approved, it'll be much easier for me to finish the PSHAW hook-pulling script, since it can rely on the bot to retransclude instead of doing the work itself. Does this sound like something people want- concerns, objections? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds useful, thanks for your work on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK didn't update

[edit]

@DYK admins: Either something is wrong on my end, or the next set didn't update. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting up both bots, DYKUpdateBot is updating now. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

Chtonobdella limbata

[edit]

Roy Bateman keeps on adding the unsourced content of "The genus name Chtonobdella is derrived from Greek and means 'land leech' and the specific term limbata is from the feminine form of the Latin adjective meaning 'edged' or 'bordered'." to the article per their edit summary of "restore content: standard Latin - no ref. needed." It is my understanding that even without DYK, it should be referenced. What would stop someone from making up Latin translations considering not everyone knows Latin? I do know that an article can't run on DYK, or on the main page in general, with something not being cited. SL93 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found [4] and [5], but only separately. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add those later. SL93 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


SL93 Refs applied: content should mostly refer to the species C. limbata, with information about the genus better placed in Chtonobdella. If you want to improve this article I would also suggest reducing repetition e.g. explanations of anhydrobiosis. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Garden Flora

[edit]

How is the fact "that the 1918 book A Garden Flora was published posthumously" even remotely interesting? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why bring it up now? I have no reason to answer at this point. SL93 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I thought it was unusual enough for primetime.--Launchballer 16:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be lying if I said it didn’t make me mad when my hooks are brought up as not interesting when it’s already on the main page after a long process. Bringing it up at that point is petty to me. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is your hook … that Zhou Enlai reportedly enjoyed watching the play Li Huiniang, while Mao Zedong did not? interesting to those who don’t know the names? It’s also only “reportedly”. I promoted that one because I didn’t feel like starting something and no one else raised an issue. SL93 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means it's interesting to those who know the names at least... It's nothing personal and I had no idea who was behind the article or hook. It simply caught my attention when I saw it on the Main Page. Granted what's "interesting" or not might be contentious at times, but I really don't know what to make of this. Surely there have been hundreds if not thousands of works released posthumously and I hope this doesn't inspire a wave of "DYK x was released posthumously" hooks... Fair enough if something was released a hundred years after the author's passing, without their consent, discovered in a secret vault, etc. etc. but the circumstances behind the release of A Garden Flora seem way more pedestrian. Anyway as Cielquiparle says this does motivate me to look at WP:DYKNA now. @SL93 Once again I hope you don't take it too personally, nothing to be "mad" about if you ask me. If you sincerely still feel that this hook is interesting then I rest my case. Peace! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I really wanted to quibble with the article, it should also be pointed out that it doesn't even meet the 1500-character requirement if you take out the quotes!!! Oh well 🤷‍♂️ KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes do count as part of the length. At least my hook is an actual fact and not reportedly. It makes me mad because no one can fix something that isn’t a factual error once it reaches the main page. My hook was that the book was published shortly after the author’s death to focus on the tragedy of her dying so young. Launchballer changed the hook. SL93 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, quotes do not count—I'm surprised you didn't know. "Articles featured at DYK must exceed 1500 characters of prose. Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles." KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have never had that happen with quotes, and that does not mention quotes. Pinging BlueMoonset and Theleekycauldron for clarification. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice is generally that quotes in running prose (like, those offset by quotation marks) do count, but blockquotes and excerpts don't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce What DYK could always use more of is more re-reviewers at WP:DYKNA – in other words, more eyes on hooks and articles that have already been approved once...but really should be looked at again for bulletproofing. (And then if the hook or article isn't actually ready they can be questioned/downgraded or sent back to "Unapproved" to give nominators more time to fix their hooks and articles.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's set

[edit]

Since this year's April Fool's set is so short, would we possibly have room to fit in Alan MacMasters hoax (nom)?

(Just read it and it seems like a good fit.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article extensively cites Wikipediocracy and Inverse? are we sure those are RSes? Plus it's an event article relying on sources that are all from the same year... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I've done the math right, the April 1 set is Queue 4 which already has 10 hooks in it. That doesn't seem short to me. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion of whether this should be an April Fool's hook, though the hooks in queue 4 are much shorter than usual (in terms of characters, it's actually less than half the size of prep 1) and we ran 10 last year.--Launchballer 21:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your question seems far more important than the DYK one, theleekycauldron. Why the heck is a four source article, with one of the sources that is used most extensively being an unreliable reference to Wikipediocracy, listed as a Good level article? The sourcing is bad enough as it is that I would argue the article is borderline non-notable. I would hope more source coverage exists out there on the subject or this seems like a prime AfD candidate. SilverserenC 03:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren I just restored the version with more reliable sources (FT.com, BBC, Telegraph, MIT Technology Review, etc.) which was undone by an editor who probably has access to Wikipedia Library but maybe isn't logging in to ProQuest the right way. I can probably go through and replace many of the PQ links later after doing a pass through and adding all the other sources, but I'm pretty sure we can remove Wikipediocracy as a source. This hoax continues to be discusssed in the debate over whether ChatGPT is will ruin Wikipedia, as representative of the citogenesis problem Cielquiparle (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA reviewer here. I also pointed out Wikipediocracy's general unreliability in the review, but B33net argued that it was necessary and I decided to let it pass as an acceptable primary source. I apologize if this decision was improper. It was my first time reviewing a GA and I may very well have misinterpreted the instructions and the passing criteria. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what those three other sources really bring to the article. The MIT Technology Review has a single sentence right at the end mentioning it. The Financial Times one has a couple sentences in a sort of lineup of statements by different editors and even that is just discussing the BBC article on the topic. The Telegraph piece similarly has a couple sentences just mentioning the topic in an article otherwise about ChatGPT. I don't see what notability improvement any of these three brings to the article. Is there really no other significant coverage other than a single BBC article, an IFLS article just re-stating the info from the BBC article, and then the article from the marginally reliable Input magazine? This doesn't even pass WP:THREE standards. SilverserenC 04:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren I was still in the middle of trying to fix it. It takes some time but I keep getting reverted. So I will stop now and withdraw my request to run this on April Fool's since it's obviously not a stable article. I leave others to work out nominating the article for GAR and AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I will unpromote it from the Prep set for now to allow more time to work out all the issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reverting was only really being done by one editor (@Chrisahn) who didn't seem to be in the loop here. I have no issue with the edits that Cielquiparle has made, nor with the article being improved or deleted if it can't be improved. Again, I'm sorry for the trouble my GA promotion of the article may have caused. I'll be sure to keep the lessons learned here on board if ever I review a GA again. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax#Sourcing for article. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looping in @SL93 as the original hook promoter and @BeanieFan11 as the DYK approver. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK the artile is looking much better now thanks to B33net, SilviaASH, and Chrisahn. In all seriousness, can we re-open the discussion for possibly adding this hook to the April Fool's DYK set? It's an important article with interesting and relevant content that seems timely for April Fool's Day, in a year when we don't seem to have a very strong set of April Fool's hooks – perhaps overrelying on short quirky statements for "jokes". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I withdraw this request for consideration. I guess it would likely massively backfire and trigger more hoaxes. Well, at least the article is a lot better now. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be a big deal, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be for the best for it to not run on AFD, but that doesn't mean it can't run as a regular hook later on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (2 April 00:00)

[edit]

Somuk

[edit]

@SL93 and ITBF: The article says "is said to depict the origins of trees and plants", which got turned into a more definitive statement in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Migration background

[edit]

@SL93, Moondragon21, and MtBotany: Earwig calls out lots of duplication. Most of it looks like direct quotes and multiple uses of the phrase "people with a migration background" which can't reasonably be reworded. Still, it's worth having another set of eyes look at it. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I could almost swear that when I ran earwig the last time it said something like 32% instead of the 55.1% it is showing right now.
Looking over more carefully it is lots of short phrases, as you say. Not just "persons with a migration background" but also "concept of migration background", "Germans with a migration background", "Federal Republic of Germany after 1949", "of the Federal Statistical Office", "of the population in Germany". The very longest I can find is "In 2007, the German Federal Statistical Office started publishing data regarding "the population with a migration background"." I'm not sure why this is getting counted as 55% as there are no other complete sentences that are identical. Is this an error? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1282975578"