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.

2/day

[edit]

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

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

DYK's use of the T: pseudo-namespace

[edit]

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

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

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

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

What I can't promote

[edit]

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

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

Eye-rolling hook in Q5

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 1

[edit]

Sam Kee Building

[edit]

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

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

Pantropiko

[edit]

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

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

Liang Sishun

[edit]

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

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

Eoscorpius

[edit]

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

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

Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)

[edit]

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

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

Queue 2

[edit]

long-legged lovebird

[edit]

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

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

1453

[edit]

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

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

Queue 3 (26 January)

[edit]

It Was on a Friday Morning

[edit]

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

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

Limits of being involved

[edit]

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

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

Prep 1

[edit]

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

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

Prep 6 Queue 6

[edit]

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

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

I am confused by this hook:

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

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

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

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

I am fine with whatever. That said, I prefer the original and did not necessarily agree with the reviewer that it wasn't hooky, but trying to be more 'go with the flow' at DYK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with my version, just because it doesn't repeat "Packers". Happy to adjust if someone has better ideas. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma @Gonzo fan2007: One could also read that as Green Bay winning at home for the ninth consecutive time, but only the ninth time was against Seattle. Consider:
... that the Green Bay Packers defeated the Seattle Seahawks at home for the ninth consecutive time in the 2019 NFC Divisional playoff game?
Hopefully that conveys nine straight wins, all at home, all vs. Seattle. —Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been queued by Ganesha811. I think my version is clear enough, but we could reorder to "ninth home victory agaist the Seahawks in a row".

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 12. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hearld

[edit]

The current hook in Queue 5 was a last minute one that didn't make it in time for Christmas. It is quite boring. Would it be possible to replace it with something close to this:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1272191144"