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]
  • Yes per User:Kusma and User:Tenpop421. The basic point is that it's easy to "reformat" a mythology-related hook to focus on the source, the storyteller, the cultural impact, the perceptions of a particular group, etc. Suriname0 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that I'm not convinced it is. Could you "reformat" the hook which led to this discussion such that it complies with DYKFICTION (must be focused on a real-world fact), so as to illustrate this? – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, maybe I was being too diplomatic: I wouldn't have promoted that DYK as-is. Although, I also have no experience participating in the DYK process, I just thought this was an interesting discussion. Suriname0 (talk) 04:32, 4 April 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]
Have you chatted with User:BlueMoonset about this? Every so often we sweep for untranscluded nominations and BlueMoonset flips through them. My understanding is that a large chunk of these nominations are rejected / deleted as part of this housekeeping. My concern is that if such nominations are retranscluded instead, it may create more work for either the nominator or DYK regulars. Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it puts open untranscluded noms that people never transcluded in the first place (so not put back), then we could end up with nominations that people decided not to go through with, or where people just disappeared, which is why they weren't transcluded. It would be nice, however, to have noms put back that have previously been transcluded, were promoted, and were subsequently removed from prep or queue and reopened without having been retranscluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I'm not sure I agree that there's a good use case for leaving a nomination untranscluded? Full disclosure, my main motivation is that checking whether a nomination has previously been transcluded is quite expensive, but I also think that the vast majority of these noms are just malformed and need to be dealt with, which can more easily happen if they're returned to the main pages. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, theleekycauldron, I'm not sure I care enough about this to worry either way. It's one less thing to keep track of if the bot becomes active. The phrase if they're returned to the main pages isn't accurate if they've never been on the main pages to begin with, as is definitely the case sometimes, but you're right in that they'll get attention, even if it's to get them deleted—some of these have no hook and/or no clear article, or are badly malformed, perhaps to the point of messing up the Nominations page, which I suppose could be an argument against. Given the number of people who pull hooks from prep or queue and forget to retransclude them, it's probably best to have an automated process to clean up after such sloppiness. Would there be confusion caused by the interaction between this bot and Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot, which warns editors when their noms aren't transcluded, if it a warning became no longer true ten minutes later when your bot ran? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (3 April 00:00)

[edit]

Aliko Dangote (nom)

[edit]

@SafariScribe, Toadboy123, Cielquiparle, Rjjiii, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: I'm just checking whether this article meets the qualification criteria for DYK? The nom (which was opened on 28 January) says it is a 5x expansion, but when I look at the last version 7 days before the nom (7791 B / 1262 words) compared with the version at the time of the nom (4516 B / 729 words) and the current version (11 kB / 1785 words), I don't at any point see a 5x expansion.

It looks like the article is at GAN currently so if it's deemed ineligible then we could always pause this nom now and then if that GA passes we could put it back in at that point... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the GAN could hold or be withdrawn right away? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GAN isn't the issue, just that I'm not sure how this is eligible right now. There are three routes to DYK - new creation, 5x expansion and passing GA, currently I'm not sure it satisfies any of those but in a few days or weeks or might become GA eligible.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would close it and then start a new nomination if it becomes a GA. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing this from the queue and replacing it with a nom from prep. (Of the three portraits, two were mine and I think the Jesus Guy should be kept for Easter.)--Launchballer 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Launchballer, I was going to do this myself shortly. Now I just need to run a check on the new hook  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected Aliko Dangote since it doesn't qualify as new enough or long enough per the 5x expansion rules. Re-reading the review now it seems so obvious that the reviewer didn't even mention the article newness or length criteria, so it was an obvious flag. @SafariScribe and Toadboy123: It's worth having a read of the DYK rules and instructions at WP:DYKRI and strongly recommend you install the WP:DYKCHECK tool, especially if you plan to participate in or review 5x expansions in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be worth pointing out that SafariScribe already has multiple failed nominations prior to this. As such, I think it would be a good idea if one of the DYK regulars could serve as a "tutor" for them and help them with the process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Beyer (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that four-time NAIA scoring champion Grace Beyer has scored more career points than any female basketball player at a four-year college or university?

A few points here - firstly, I'm not sure how the "four-year" part fits in here. The two sources seem to be [1] (which establishes her breaking the record) and [2] (which gives her final tally of 3,961 although the article's figure 3,961 actually uses the first source which doesn't say 3,961 - I've tagged as such). Neither of those sources mention four-year university tenures as far as I can see. And the obvious elephant in the room with that is that (according to the article) she in fact was at the college for five years. Do we even need to qualify it as four years? And finally, maybe this is a minor quibble, but the sources saying she was the all-time top scorer were a year ago, so theoretically someone could have surpassed the record since then. If we can somehow cite that she still holds the record that would be optimal. Pinging @TonyTheTiger, Lazman321, Narutolovehinata5, and Tarlby:  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger, Lazman321, Narutolovehinata5, and Tarlby: - I've moved this out to Prep 1 now, to give time for more discussion on this issue, since there hasn't been a response so far. If more time for discussion is needed, I could reopen the nom page too, but hopefully it can be resolved easily enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my main concern with the hook is actually interest: I'm not confident it would interest non-basketball fans. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lace tells (nom)

[edit]

Just wondering what supports the use of the word gruesome here? The word only appears in an image caption within the linked article, and no particular context is given for the use of that term in Wikipedia's voice, or explanation as to what was gruesome about the rhymes. I suppose lines like "lace tells "often concerned punishments, domestic violence, sexual murder and premature death induced by work"" could be construed as "gruesome", but - perhaps it's just me - I feel like if we're to use a term like that it should be rather more directly clear what it refers to. @Zanahary, Tenpop421, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a pretty neutral and plain description. Sources use the words gruesome, violent, morbid, etc. In what way do you feel “gruesome” does not have a “directly clear” referent? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I've added the word "gruesome" into the body against Hopkin's quote, so think that's fine now, thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Salwan / Lily Mei (nom)

[edit]

I think the rules for multi-article hooks was discussed quite recently, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Anyway, my concern here would be that the overall hook fact - first Indian-American mayor succeeds first female/Asian-American mayor - is not directly mentioned in either article, and hence we may be giving this succession more prominence than the actual pages or the linked sources do. Are there any sources out there that note the succession of these two minority candidates as being remarkable? To be clear, the three constituent parts of the hook are all cited and mentioned, but the tying together of those three motifs may be borderline WP:SYNTH. @Moon motif, Tenpop421, Launchballer, and Tarlby:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION applies.--Launchballer 20:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but DYK isn't the regular encyclopedia... if placed in an article, the above line would be completely unobjectionable. But our hooks are more than that, they are chosen because they meet the guidelines for hooks, one of which is that the whole hook fact must be verifiable to reliable sources and in the article. And for this case, the hookiness relies on the "juxtaposition", as you put it, of the two firsts. Put a different way, if we rephrased this as:
then this clearly wouldn't be an interesting hook. I would expect that the two successive firsts has has been noted somewhere in sources, in the same way that if Hillary Clinton has succeeded Barack Obama to the presidency that would be two successive firsts and probably widely remarked upon. But if it hasn't been noted then I wonder why we are noting it, that's all.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the hook was set to run on the 3rd I've bumped it off to prep for now to give it more time. That does mean that the set now has an open slot that needs filling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I backfilled the slot.--Launchballer 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru! Would it be possible to only nominate either Lily Mei or Raj Salwan instead? (I have a preference for Mei) I think I might have bitten off more than I can chew here with the double article nomination. I can't find a source specifically noting the hook. Moon motif (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can also have separate hooks for both if you don't mind working on both articles. In such a case, they will run on different days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, maybe I'm backpedalling on this one a little bit, it's probably not such a big deal given that both facts are true and we're not really implying anything outlandish or genuinely WP:SYNTH by this. If nobody else objects then maybe we just run with it as is. Otherwise, the separate hooks route may be the way to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the double hook is fine.--Launchballer 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good either way. I'd still prefer the original hook since I wrote them together but separating the hooks is perfectly fine by me. Moon motif (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antennacanthopodia (nom)

[edit]

Velvet worms are mentioned a few times in the article, but I don't see it directly mentioning explicitly that it is a relative of the Antennacanthopodia. Have I missed that, or can it be added? @RenaMoonn, Soulbust, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It’s at the beginning of the Classification section where it says “So far, Antennacanthopodia is the only widely accepted stem-onychophoran lobopodian from the Cambrian period.”
Stem groups are early diverging relatives to a usually larger crown group like onychophorans (velvet worms). Thanks for pointing this out though. I’ll add a link to the word “stem” so people can redirect to another article if they don’t understand the concept RenaMoonn (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RenaMoonn: thanks... I think part of my confusion stemmed from the fact that I didn't know that onychophorans and velvet worms are the same thing, and the article doesn't clarify this - in fact it has links to onychophora and velvet worm in separate places, which both end up in the same place. I think clarifying that they are the same thing and probably using consistent terminology throughout would help with this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelatedly, why does this say they "had" this ancient relative? Velvet worms still have this ancient relative. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Have" would suggest that the ancient relative is still alive. SL93 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree. Homo habilis IS our ancient relative. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if there can be no present tense “having” of relation when one party is not alive, then it makes no sense to say that velvet worms ever “had” this relative, because they never coexisted. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Woods (gurner) (nom)

[edit]

Sorry, this has turned into rather a busy set but I have a couple of points here. Firstly, is it really appropriate to be calling her the world's ugliest woman? Yes, it's in quotes, but that's really rather a derogatory epithet for her. I guess if she herself identified with that title and embraced it that might be fine... and I suppose she's not covered by BLP, having died ten years ago, but still. And that brings me on to the second point - what exactly is the origin of this sobriquet? As a quotation the article should say who called her this, per WP:INTEXT. @Edwardx, NegativeMP1, Cielquiparle, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru This source says, "Woods wore the 'Ugliest Woman in the World' badge with pride and helped put Egremont on the map." SL93 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. I've tweaked the article text a bit to satisfy the WP:INTEXT concerns, and good to go I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYKmake vs DYKnom?

[edit]

What's the difference between {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}? More specifically, I'm looking at Prep 3. It's got three bolded links (OFTV, Danielle Sellers, and Jessie Wynter), and two nominators (@Launchballer and @Meena). This resulted in a total of four credit templates: 

* {{DYKmake|Danielle Sellers|Meena|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|Danielle Sellers|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|OFTV|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|Jessie Wynter|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}

all of them {{DYKmake}}. Is that what it's supposed to be? RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I understand it, DYKnom is for those who driveby nominate but haven't actually worked on the article.--Launchballer 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. DYKmake is for editors who have worked on the article, and DYKnom is for people who are nominating articles they haven't made a significant contribution to. In this case, as it's a two-article nomination, and both editors have worked on both articles, four DYKmakes is correct. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are three articles there and I worked on all three, though the above is rather moot given the below. I will try GA (and probably GARC) when I'm in a better mood. (I was planning on bringing Shannon Singh here via that route anyway.)--Launchballer 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manual update needed

[edit]

@DYK admins: The bot doesn't seem to have run.--Launchballer 00:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Shubinator. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKUpdateBot back up & running, it's updating now! Shubinator (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this wasn't the only bot to drop that day. @GalliumBot: didn't update Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders either.--Launchballer 13:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: @Shubinator: I just noticed that the next set is due to publish at 02:23 UTC. I think this should be reset to 00:00.--Launchballer 20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will fix itself automatically over the next few days. No need for manual edits. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, except all of the sets are scheduled to run at 2:23 according to Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times.--Launchballer 20:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The bot is giving each set slightly less than 24 hours until it returns to 24 hours per set. As I said, it will fix itself automatically. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The controls for this are at User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift (admin only). —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have linked to the history of Template:Did you know/Next update/Time where you can see how the bot deals with this kind of situations. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice feature; I'm impressed. RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirella Freni

[edit]

I was travelling when Mirella Freni was discussed, and the fact to support ALT2c (which was approved) was not in the article. I have added it now. You can replace the hook currently in Prep 4:

ALT2c: ... that Mirella Freni (pictured) and Luciano Pavarotti, who shared the same wet-nurse, appeared as lovers Mimi and Rodolfo?

Looking at her importance [3][4], I'd prefer to have her pictured on a later date. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ALT2c hook was approved in the DYK nom, and the additional fact about them appearing together as the lovers is cited within the article, I've taken the liberty of switching what's in Prep 4 to that version. I get that the last fact may not be recognizable to all readers, but when juxtaposed with the earlier thing about them sharing a wet nurse I personally agree with the reviewer that this adds to the hook with extra colour about her relationship with Pavarotti and is a compromise between Gerda's preference for focusing on her operatic accomplishments vs another reviewer's contention that there was no broad interest in that and to focus solely on the wet nurse story. Regarding the other points - switching it to be a picture hook or moving it to a later set - that's beyond my pay grade so will leave to others to discuss. I think picture hook requests are rarely granted, but perhaps there's a case for it here, who knows.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, ALT2c was approved after Gerda messaged an editor known to be partial to her hooks and nominations, after an earlier talk page discussion where she expressed her objections to the existing review.
As for ALT2c, I'm not a fan largely for multiple reasons. My original primary objection (that it was not mentioned/cited in the article) is resolved, so that's taken care of at least. However, I still think that mentioning the names that readers may not know is suboptimal, especially when all they have to go with is a link without context. I would be more open to ALT2c if La bohème is mentioned by name rather than just a link (so "appeared as the lovers... in La bohème"). My second concern with ALT2c, although admittedly this is more of a nitpick than anything, is that they've actually performed together multiple times, and the hook gives no context as to that, just that they co-starred. There's a difference between playing Mimi and Rodolfo together just once and them doing the same role multiple times.
As such, I'm opposed to ALT2c as currently written; however, I'm open to a revised version that addresses the above concerns. I still think the mention of Mimi and Rodolfo is sub-ideal per WP:DYKTRIM, but given how Gerda would not accept a hook that doesn't mention Mimi, a compromise that satisfies the concerns I raised would be the best option here. @Amakuru: If you don't mind, could you suggest a new version of ALT2c that satisfies the concerns? Adding "in La bohème" should be easy enough, but that doesn't address the "multiple co-starring times" issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All these extra things were omitted to please your taste for brevity. You could also miss that they were lovers also in other operas. I'd like to see Mimi mentioned because several sources agree that she was the best Mimi (which is a different fact from just saying that she played Mimi). Mimi is a modest character, "starring multiple times" is not in (her) style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT: ... that Mirella Freni (pictured) and Luciano Pavarotti, who co-starred as lovers Mimi and Rodolfo in La bohème at La Scala in 1968, shared the same wet nurse?
The hook puts Mimi and Rodolfo earlier in the hook so that should bring them more attention at least. Re-reading the article, they don't actually specify how many times they've co-starred as Mimi and Rodolfo, so I've only specified one specific performance (their La Scala one). If they actually did co-star multiple times, that would probably add interest and thus could go in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Narutolovehinata5: Please kindly do not attempt to create nuisance by accusing me of corruption. Please see the whole conversation here: [5]. The article and its DYK template were already on my watchlist, and I did not need to respond to requests for comment. I am not a puppet, and I have as much a right to opinions about hooks as you do. Thank you.
Please look again at the layout of the nom page. It is set out as if you created ALT2c, Narutolovehinata5, and I supported it in attempt to accept a compromise from you. (Looking again at my talk page, and at your comments here, I am still not sure which of you wrote it). So please do not try to characterise me as one of "us and them" in the tedious DYK battle between you and Gerda. My intentions on DYK nom plates is always to get the job done as correctly and as quickly as possible - and in the case of you two, in the hope of a compromise on hooks where necessary. So please do not cause trouble where there is none. As I write, I have just looked at Prep 4, and the hook looks OK. I have just seen the above ALT, and I am happy with that. Storye book (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The ALT is acceptable. Strange chronology though ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @Storye book and Amakuru: Would either of you mind subbing the hook with the new ALT? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited the preps page, and I am not sure whether I would be allowed to move the existing hook to a picture slot. So please ask Amakuru to do that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's allowed to specifically request for a hook to run in an image slot or not, so it might be a good idea to leave the decision to an editor like Amakuru or perhaps one of our regular prep builders like Launchballer and RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since there seems to be a bit of a groundswell of consensus here to move this to an image slot, I've gone ahead and moved it to prep 7. I know generally such requests are frowned-upon turned down and the allocation is supposed to be outside of anyone's personal preferences, but I trust nobody will be making a habit of this so in the spirit of the compromising that seems to have gone on here I've WP:IARd it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it is probably already too late for this, but in hindsight, I think it would have been a better idea for an uninvolved user (i.e. someone who had not commented at any point of the article's DYK journey) to have decided if the image slot request should have been granted or not. It's water under the bridge now, this is more for next time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope each time that there won't be a next time. (For the record: I requested the image for the hook we had when the thread started. I hoped for a later slot because I had different plans for today when it would have appeared. - Having said that: I believe that the image does justice to her position in cultural history.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Carl James Joseph

[edit]

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Tenpop421: Possibly worth saving this one for Easter?--Launchballer 11:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, especially given that he lives at the Church of Holy Sepulchre. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 11:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back into SOHA.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia (Amman)

[edit]

@Cielquiparle: Any chance we can move this hook somewhere else to have it with the picture included? The article is well and thoroughly written, already attracting lots of traffic; I think it deserves a spotlight. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't encourage article nominators to lobby for picture slots. It is a good article so I promoted it. The hook packs a lot of ideas in, so having a picture there in addition to that seems overwhelming. (Also, if your goal is to have more people read the article, it's often better not to have a picture; otherwise you "lose" clicks to the image.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not a fan of lobbying for picture slots, but if we were to run an image, I think File:Temple of Hercules (Amman) at sunset.jpg would be a much better visual. RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve previously lobbied for picture slots and it was successful. And you’re right, something realistic can be more eye catching. I hope this suggestion is taken into consideration. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have we thought of making it the quirky, that slot or another? (I - reviewer - had my reservations regarding the image.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Sellers in two different queues?

[edit]

@Tarlby, Meena, Launchballer, Pbritti, SL93, Theleekycauldron, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: Queue 1 and Queue 3 both contain hooks from Template:Did you know nominations/Danielle Sellers. I see there's some discussion about "splitting" the hooks, but I'm not following the logic here. How did one nomination end up getting in two queues? RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I reopened the nom, I added three more articles and proposed one quadruple 200-character hook. Airship then suggested splitting that in two.--Launchballer 15:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's so many weird things here, it's hard to know where to start, but I guess reopening your own nomination after it's been pulled sure seems out of process. I can't find anything that explicitly forbids it, but I think WP:DYKRR can be generalized to "You're not allowed to administratively process your own hook or article". If you wanted to create a new submission, you should have nominated it and let it go through the normal approval process. If you wanted the pulled nomination to be re-opened, you should have made that request here. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Danielle Sellers, but I guess asking one person isn't quite the same as opening it to the floor, so point taken. I suggest rewording that part of DYKRR to clarify.--Launchballer 15:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that breaking the 1-to-1 correspondence between published hooks and nominations seems likely to cause trouble for all sorts of software that processes these things, which is how I noticed it. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar happened at Lucy Tun and didn't cause any problems (other than Airship having to manually promote two of them).--Launchballer 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That nobody objected at the time doesn't mean it was a good idea. Another issue is that hook publication slots are one of our limiting resources, and people's nominations sometimes wait months to get published. Having a single nomination consume multiple slots seems unfair to those people waiting their turn. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I initially proposed one long hook. I'm fine with them being merged again, e.g. "that the OnlyFans creators to have filmed for OFTV include Demi Sims (pictured), Danielle Sellers, and Jessie Wynter?".--Launchballer 16:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the OFTV hook from Queue 3. I'm not going to replace the one in Queue 1 with this proposed combined one because that was never approved. I'll also remind everybody that it's important that the folks who keep DYK running to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of using their positions to their own advantage. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Louis of Wales date request

[edit]

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Louis of Wales has requested it run on 23 April. Thriley (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in SOHA.--Launchballer 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update to WP:DYKRR

[edit]

DYKRR now says You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article. I'd like to change that to the more general statement You're not allowed to take any administrative action (approve, promote, close, reopen, alter after promotion, etc) related to your own hook or article. Is that OK? RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this except for "alter after promotion"; there may be edge cases where altering a hook after promotion might be allowed in limited circumstances (for example, minor edits such as linking or fixing typos). It might be good to instead to change it to "significantly alter". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely not supposed to modify your hook after promotion. But I do think people should be allowed to reopen their own noms if they were pulled with no prejudice against reopening? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that people should be allowed to reopen their own pulled nominations in that circumstance.--Launchballer 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice is that even altering typos is something we've put a hard 'no' on after promotion, because promoters need to make a cohesive set and nominators each wanting their own way for their hooks can get in the way of that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Naruto's suggestion into account:

You're not allowed to take any administrative action (approve, promote, close, reopen, make non-trivial post-promotion alterations, etc) related to your own hook or article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
Approval of own hook is an obvious thing to prevent. Altering post-promotion probably as well, as Theleekycauldron notes. However, the rest seem rarer events that might have a few different causes. CMD (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unilaterally pulling your own hook shouldn't be allowed. It has to be by request here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly ignore that rule if one of my hooks comes up at WP:ERRORS. Getting it right is more important than not touching my own hooks. —Kusma (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed! letting people pull their own hooks is something i think we definitely have done for a while. their name is fairly to the hook, so i think that's a decent measure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot down?

[edit]

Something's messed up unless I'm totally off base here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot both back up and running! Toolserver's been less stable lately. Shubinator (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A DYKN undergoing good article reassessment; still eligible?

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Wii U GamePad (by User:TzarN64) was created after Wii U GamePad passed a GAN review three days prior. However, there is a current GA reassessment for the article. Is the DYKN still eligible? Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider GARs to be no different from an AfD for DYK nominations; the article should go on hold.--Launchballer 05:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree RoySmith (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree if the nom is based on it being GA. If it's long enough for a 5*expansion, it should be eligible right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so people are aware, this seems to have spun out of control. See my talk page RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised this is even a question. Putting noms on hold if the article is undergoing a GAR has been standard practice for as long as I can remember. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (8 April 00:00)

[edit]

J. C. Walter, Jr.

[edit]

@SL93, ERcheck, and Tenpop421: The hook makes an extraordinary claim, which is not backed up by the cited source. RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I see "On April 1, 1981 he underwent heart surgery. Nine days later, Joe concluded a merger with Tenneco and retired to his ranch in Brownwood, Texas, a retirement that lasted all of three weeks." I think the only thing that isn't really verified is "then founded Walter Oil & Gas three weeks later?". The source says his retirement lasted three weeks, and that he organized Walter Oil & Gas in 1981. It doesn't say that he organized the company exactly three weeks later. I support removing "then founded Walter Oil & Gas three weeks later". SL93 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at 9 days after his transplant, Walter completed a merger between Houston Oil & Minerals and Tenneco, a major American multinational corporation which is cited to https://www.pge.utexas.edu/alumnus/joe-walter/. I don't see where that supports the claim. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I edited the article to make it clearer that it is referenced between the source that I linked and the one that you linked. This verifies that he had a heart transplant - "After a heart transplant at Methodist Hospital". The other source verifies everything else - "On April 1, 1981 he underwent heart surgery. Nine days later, Joe concluded a merger with Tenneco and retired to his ranch in Brownwood, Texas, a retirement that lasted all of three weeks." under the Houston Oil & Minerals part. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support just removing "three weeks later" from the hook. I don't see it verified that he founded a company exactly three weeks later. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 I've made the change you suggest, but the more I look at this, the more I wonder if we should just pull this and let it get reworked without any time pressure. Besides the problems we've discussed here, both of these sources are marginal. I strongly suspect both are based on biographies supplied by Walter himself (because that's how these things work). It's not that I flat-out don't trust them, but I'd really prefer to have more solid independent sources. RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled this and replaced it with Izawa Takushi - courtesy pings to @SL93, Miminity, Cielquiparle, and Juxlos:.--Launchballer 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and RoySmith: - ALT hooks? — ERcheck (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Arches Bridge (Amman)

[edit]

@SL93, Makeandtoss, and ThaesOfereode: There's a lot of text duplication from gpsarab.com/shop11/en/content/248-capital-governorate-amman (permalink. I think they copied from us, but another set of eyes looking at this would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article myself; they copied from WP and not the other way around. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting hooks with PSHAW in prep 3

[edit]

This happens after every hook promotion. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Almost certainly caused by the | in the caption.--Launchballer 01:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd to me that it can't be used in the caption. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added it after escaping it using {{!}}.
@Theleekycauldron: Are piped links not allowed in captions or should PSHAW stop splitting by |? VectorWorld (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
iiiit should probably stop doing that! hm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The magic word also doesn't work. (I did consider linking it in the hook, but it would almost certainly violate WP:DYKDIVERT.)--Launchballer 01:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My {{!}} made it worse because I missed how right in the same regex, PSHAW also splits by }. VectorWorld (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that trying to parse this stuff using regexes is a losing game. Unfortunately, the alternative is using mw:Parsoid and that's painful enough that people don't do if they can avoid going there. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: for a moment there, I did forget that it's usually a bad idea to have links in hooks the first place! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (9 April 0:00)

[edit]

2025 Sino-Metals Leach Zambia dam disaster (nom)

[edit]

@Noble Attempt @Pbritti @SL93 Each and every claim made in the hook must be verified by a sentence within the article that has a footnote at the end of it. It doesn't matter if you "prefer" a citation style where footnotes appear at the end of each paragraph; these are DYK rules. Please fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Attempt You have been editing, and this needs to be fixed before it reaches the main page. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it with Andrew Hughes (political staffer) - courtesy pings to @Cielquiparle, BeanieFan11, and WikiOriginal-9:.--Launchballer 00:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: Bot seems to have fallen over.--Launchballer 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noble Attempt Thanks for fixing. @SL93 Thanks for pinging Noble Attempt. @Launchballer Thanks for moving; I have moved this hook back up one set to Prep 3 which still has gaps. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret (song) (nom)

[edit]

I wrote this hook as a drive-by because the nomination discussion was going on and on. But as we all know, drive-by hook-writing is often a source of errors. Could someone else please double-check this? (Even though I think it's quite straightforward?) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 'said she cried' yet the hook puts it in wikivoice. I'd drop 'said she' from the article.--Launchballer 10:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I've actually fixed the hook so that it matches (and isn't wikivoice anymore) rather than the other way around. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (10 April 00:00)

[edit]

Cinema Toast

[edit]

@SL93, Kingsif, and Elias Ziade: Somebody's going to have to walk me through the sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of this hook that would survive a WP:DYKTRIM (the poker factoid) needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 22:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's too complicated to follow the sourcing, the hook is probably too complicated! Feel free to (as Launchballer nods at) trim or tweak or whatever. Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 30. We have a total of 236 nominations, of which 142 have been approved, a gap of 94 nominations that has increased by 15 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki to Chinese for WP:DYK

[edit]

Why there is no zh wiki interwiki (zh) for Wikipedia:Did you know - Wikidata? There are even interwikis for the three niche Chinese dialects for this project, but not the main zh. And DYKs exist on zh wiki; their T:TDYK is connected to [6], but their higher level, 维基百科:新条目推荐 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书, links to our Wikipedia:Recent additions - Wikipedia. If someone here is active on zh wiki, maybe you can try to fix this problem, or inform someone who may be interested? At minimum, there should be a redirect on zh wiki that we could piple to the main Wikidata property... Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The zh.wiki system seems to be structured differently: zh:维基百科:新条目推荐 appears to be their archive, so the current link to Wikipedia:Recent additions seems correct. CMD (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what is their main "Did You Know" page, with instructions or such, that one (I...) can refer people to, if they ask me how to nominate their article for a DYK in zh wiki? Usually the answer is 'look at interlanguage links for WP:DYK", but that doesn't work for zh wiki :( Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to have instructions on their nomination page zh:维基百科:新条目推荐/候选 (equivalent and interlinked to Template talk:Did you know). CMD (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 (12 April 00:00)

[edit]

Lope Martín

[edit]

@SL93, Kimikel, and OlifanofmrTennant: I'm very confused by this hook. Was it Martin who was executed, or Mosquera? And completing the west-east voyage was the crime for which this execution was the punishment? I'm just not following this at all. And the hook that's currently in the queue isn't what was approved in the nomination. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help, but the source supplied in the nomination is a print source. Maybe pull for now since the nominator hasn't edited all month? SL93 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo: The Price of Freedom

[edit]

@SL93, Jon698, and Juxlos: The hook per-se is fine, but a statement like "is still being shown at the Rivercenter IMAX theater" in the article needs to be qualified with {{as of}} RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Done. Jon698 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK didn’t update

[edit]

These are still yesterday’s hooks. Posted both here and at ERRORS, not sure which place gets noticed faster. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this exists, seeing if it pings the right people. @DYK admins: . Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn’t realize it pings 16 people. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKUpdateBot is updating now. Shubinator (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Porn hook

[edit]

The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620 (nom)

[edit]

I have dropped the controversial porn hook to Prep 1 (bottom set) for now in case that's what is putting people off from promoting more hooks. Isn't it WP:GRATUITOUS?

Or, is there a consensus to defend this hook all the way to WP:ERRORS on the day, or can we demote and reject it? I would expect complaints and requests to take it down immediately from the main page. @Launchballer @Tarlby @Sammi Brie Personally I would reject; in any case I'm not promoting or defending it. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about similar topic matter in November 2024 (search Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203 for "cock destroyers") and the consensus was that it came under WP:NOTCENSORED.--Launchballer 03:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beg the question, what do you find WP:GRATUITOUS about it? We can't read your mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's the set up of the hook. Maybe it's more jarring if all you're doing is fact-checking for DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the set up is gratuitous in your opinion? You actually need to explain your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally not want it to run because of the likely complaints it will bring, but Launchballer is right about DYK not being censored. SL93 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging WP:ERRORS admins who come to mind for their views so we can short-circuit either way – run it with their support or pull. @Fram @Black Kite @Amakuru @Schwede66 (Anyone else?) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Kusma Cielquiparle (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And @RoySmith Cielquiparle (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about Lily Phillips in January which also involved @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Secretlondon, and Gatoclass:.--Launchballer 05:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so based on the feedback there, I'd say "keep working on the hook" Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's a shame people use WP:NOTCENSORED for this, when our ability to have False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is a much better reason for citing it. Secondly, the hook doesn't seem at all interesting. Why does this event have a wider cultural significance that a worldwide readership would be interesting. I can't see that in the hooks here, so I'd suggest pulling it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there topics which by very nature would fail WP:DYKGRAT?

[edit]

This has been a recurring issue on DYK for quite some time where there is pushback against running articles on NSFW topics (for example, pornography) largely on DYKGRAT grounds. In some instances, editors have opposed running such articles seemingly because of their very nature, and not necessarily just because of the hooks (i.e. they find it difficult if not impossible to have a non-gratuitous hook about the topic). WP:NOTCENSORED and DYKGRAT, on the surface at least, may sound contradictory (even if not really). Given the disputes and confusion, do we need more clarity or guidelines regarding how to balance NOTCENSORED and DYKGRAT? Like, should we really just ban NSFW topics from DYK wholesale? Probably not, but you get what I mean. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a hook goes beyond simple titillation it should be allowed. And yes, sometimes the name of an article contributes to the titillation factor. Otherwise, see WP:OM: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." In the case of DYK, we have huge numbers of equally suitable alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles or topics won't make sense for a main page hook, beyond NSFW concerns. When the open-source license article was promoted to GA, I chose not to nominate it for DYK because any hook about the topic could be plausibly read as some kind of meta-commentary on Wikipedia's licensing. In another case, an article was pulled about a recent suicide where the deceased man's girlfriend was being sued in court and harassed online for allegedly taking advantage of him. There are reasons other than NSFW to reject an article, and there are NSFW articles that are clearly encyclopedic (like sexuality after spinal cord injury or clitoris). Rjjiii (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I never nominated Bollocks to Brexit for DYK because of the immediate backlash it might have caused. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're engaging in self censorship because you fear bad actors? Its very hard to see how that backlash could be appropriate or good faith. Can we just block the jerks and move on? If someone believes in censorship like that they're WP:NOTHERE, its not compatible with our core values. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that WP:NOTCENSORED is not particularly relevant here, because it talks about content, rather than placement of content (Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content). If we choose not to run this hook, we are not censoring its content, merely making a decision of whether placement on the Main Page is suitable. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take on this is that it's fine to have material on the main page despite it being offensive to some people. But what I see here (and in a number of other hooks over the past year or so) is putting these hooks on the main page because they will be offensive. It's a subtle difference, and I understand each of us will legitimately draw the line in different places. Those of us who have been around for more than a couple of years will remember the C of E debacle [7] [8] [9] [10] which was an extreme case of this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting we're anywhere near the C of E level, but having once been burned, people become more cautious about playing with fire. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My line in the sand is based roughly on harm. This hook and others of mine comprise women doing things they enjoy with consenting adults and making a lot of money from it - exactly the sort of thing we should be running in my opinion (though I'm sure others will argue WP:RGW). I would have run Bollocks to Brexit all day long. (I suspect @Rjjiii: is referring to suicide of Fat Cat.)--Launchballer 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one. I had (mis?)remembered the author moving it to draft when they withdrew the DYK nomination. Rjjiii (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But what I see here (and in a number of other hooks over the past year or so) is putting these hooks on the main page because they will be offensive." that is a big statement about the intent of your fellow editors, I expect you to follow that up with specifics and diffs or retract it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer the question asked no, there are no topic which by their nature fail WP:DYKGRAT. I would also note that most seem to be acting as if DYKGRAT bans sensational or gratuitous hooks but it doesn't, it actually explicitly allows them because it tells us to reject "excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks" meaning that their is an appropriate amount of sensationalism and gratuity we are expected to accept. Anyone saying that we aren't allowed to run sensational or gratuitous hooks is lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1284604984"