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 queuesT: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.

Christmas DYK sets

[edit]
A. krampus living in Brazil

With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?

If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used:

In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:

Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). @Z1720: Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason why Revelation of the Magi was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled.--Launchballer 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't mind if Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/National Gingerbread House Competition which might be nice to run in the holiday season - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sets?

[edit]

I just noticed this proposal was for two special sets. I think that's excessive. One would be plenty. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the more the merrier. Assuming we have more than enough for one set that is. And they don't all have to be run on Christmas Day, they can be split over Christmas Eve/Christmas Day or even Boxing Day or New Year's Day and so on, depending on their relevance. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Gail Damerow

[edit]

This is more of a sanity check or a strawpoll rather than raising an issue. This was the promoted hook, while the alternative was:

  • ... that Gail Damerow's book described by the New York Times as the "authoritative book on ice cream" was created because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet?

Which is 190 characters, but is beside the point. The reservation I have is I'm not sure if the first hook works if people don't know who Cesar Millan is. I personally know who he is, but many readers may not. So this is more of a strawpoll from the others here: does the hook work without knowing Millan? And is the promoted hook more interesting or a better option than the alternative? Courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29 and reviewer Toadboy123, although input from uninvolved readers is appreciated. In the interest of transparency: I prefer the other hook, but this is a strawpoll to test consensus, and if consensus is in favor of the promoted hook then I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Do you know of a way to trim ALT1? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that Gail Damerow wrote the "authoritative book on ice cream" because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at the source, I see that it actually says "one of the most authoritative books on ice cream making", which is quite different in a couple of ways. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original. It's more clicky. Also, it becomes hilarious once you know who Millan is, because the idea of someone being a 'chicken whisperer' is wonderfully absurd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now in Queue and it doesn't seem like we've reached a consensus on what hook to use, although multiple editors did state a preference for ALT1. Should it run with the current hook (i.e. status quo), or should the hook be bumped off to a later prep to give more time to make a decision? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington

[edit]
  • ... that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered as president of the United States?

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm surprised none of the hooks mention that it was six days after 9/11, which seems an essential detail for me, and one which could replace "as president of the United States": I included the detail "as president of the United States" in case it would be necessary identifying information for readers potentially familiar with the United States generally but not individual presidents specifically, but you make a strong point in favor of mentioning the 9/11 context. While I think the current hook still works as a hook, I would also support something like that (something like "... that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered six days after the September 11 attacks?"), but I don't know if that'd require going through a review process all over again. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Rivaldo

[edit]

I would like to request second opinions regarding the suitability of ALT1 and its hook facts, which for context reads:

  • ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo "used to think that all gay people were hairdressers"?

Although the more interesting hook among the two options proposed, I am worried that it might be considered offensive without the context provided in the article. Given that I am not LGBT, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to determine if the hook as currently written is suitable or not. I would like to ask for second opinions and suggestions on the hook, particularly from our LGBT regulars, if the hook as currently written is acceptable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we want a slightly more positive focus, then perhaps:
  • ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo found that there were "gay lawyers [and] gay businessmen" after moving to San Francisco?
However, I don't find the current hook to be offensive, as it's pretty clear that Rivaldo viewed that presumption as inaccurate. Maybe I'm only saying that because I'm not gay, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a gay man, and after looking at the Jim Rivaldo article, I do find it rather offensive that the hook chosen actively plays off a negative stereotype of the LGBT community, rather then going with ANY of the other options, such as having worked with both Harvey Milk and Kamala Harris.--Kevmin § 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the appropriateness of the hairdresser angle, the issue is probably that the Milk/Harris angle is a lot more niche especially outside of America. Many non-Americans obviously know who Harris is, but probably not Milk. In addition, that angle primarily targets politics buffs, which not even all Americans are. I'm not saying the hairdresser angle is the best angle and indeed I'm very much open to suggestions, it's just that the Milk/Harris angle is probably not the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

Jordan Watkins

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Thriley: the hook verifies, but it's long and complicated. Can we come up with something simpler? RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6/Queue 6

[edit]

Any chance of getting Template:Did you know nominations/Packers–Seahawks rivalry into queue 6? I had put a special date request in, but it never got added to the holding area. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 and Di (they-them): Possibly showing my ignorance, but I'd worry that fact could date; they could conceivably play each other again. Got anything else?--Launchballer 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot that that rule was repealed last month. Promoted.--Launchballer 00:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, for my own benefit, what rule are you referencing? The Packers and Seahawks play each other often (which is why there is a rivalry page!), I just wanted the rivalry page to be on DYK during the game, as it will likely lead to more hits. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're talking about the "unlikely to change" rule, which said that a hook fact must be "unlikely to change". It was criticized for being too impractical and vague, so it was recently changed to instead say that it is an "established" or "definite" fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I am now grasping the concern. So fundamentally the fact will change when the game starts, because the teams will have played each other 25 times. Is there any opposition to adding a qualifier, like "prior to today" or "before 2024"? So it could ready "...that even though the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks have only played each other 24 times before 2024, 4 of those games have come in the playoffs?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule itself has since been repealed/changed so there's nothing to worry about anymore in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7

[edit]

Huaju

[edit]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

[edit]

2007 Greensburg tornado

[edit]


Currently in Q1:

Well sure, what tornado doesn't rotate? Wouldn't the more appropriate word be "orbiting", per the satellite tornado article?

Pinging nominator User:EF5 - Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. EF5 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

René Vallon (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that René Vallon (pictured) achieved the first flight and was the first flight-related death in China?

@Crisco 1492, ProfGray, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this hook is grammatically ambiguous on whether the first flight was the first flight anywhere or the first flight in China. (And this is more of a nitpick, but is it idiomatic to say that someone was a death?) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, would you please offer a suggested edit for the hook? It's been discussed a lot. (Btw, if a reader wonders if that's the first flight anywhere, will they wonder why they've never heard of Vallon and, hmm, they'll go to the wikipedia page on the Wright brothers.) ProfGray (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding commas after "flight" and "death" would make it unambiguous. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've moved this hook to prep 5 to prevent four consecutive black and white images. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

[edit]

Raul Meza Jr. (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that serial killer Raul Meza Jr. began using drugs at age eight?

@Swinub, It is a wonderful world, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this might violate WP:DYKBLP. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How Jlwoodwa? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no response from the nominator and reviewer I've gone ahead and pulled it. For what it's worth, even if Meza wasn't a living person the hook would probably still be a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timoshenko the cat

[edit]

Currently in P2:

  • ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II?

Who cares what the cat's name was? Surely the hook should just read:

It's a fascinating question, actually. The reason why the cat shares its name with Semyon Timoshenko is historically interesting. The Russians and the British were allied in their fight against the Nazis and the cat was named in honor of the real Timoshenko after he began mounting major counter-defenses during the German invasion of the Soviet Union. I think the cat was named Timoshenko by the crew of the sub after the counter-offensive in Rostov, I'm not sure. I suspect it was a morale booster, and with a cat named Timoshenko walking around the sub, it was a reminder that the war was not yet lost, there was hope. So there's a lot of history here, and for that reason, the name is interesting. Others may disagree. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then that should be explained in the hook, otherwise it's a complete puzzle why the name is included. Suggest changing it to:
* ... that a cat named after a Soviet general joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II? Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My own thinking: less is more, and such "puzzlement" as you put it might lead to more people visiting the article. Also, not too keen on linking before the main article, but if you unlinked it, it would probably still work. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delinked, thanks. I cannot agree however that adding the name of the cat adds anything of value to the hook, because the name alone will be completely meaningless to 99.99% of readers. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to your new version, but I think what you and I consider "meaningless" might be different. It sounds like you oppose names in hooks, and I can understand that as I tend to oppose dates. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I oppose names in hooks for non-notable persons, or to put it another way, names that cannot be linked to an article. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? They are just conveying a piece of useless trivia. There's another reason I oppose them as well, but stating that might lead to another debate which I'd prefer not to have right now - cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I have substituted the above version - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fen Juhua

[edit]

Also in P2:

- appears to be a clear breach of WP:DYKFICTION. Pinging nominator User:Crisco 1492, reviewer User:Prince of Erebor and promoter User:AirshipJungleman29. Gatoclass (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested alt:

That's fine by me - substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Leather

[edit]
. Verified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamm Building

[edit]

Nazi crimes against children

[edit]
Resolved

Currently in P3:

There are some issues with this hook. Firstly, "victims" do not only include those killed, and the way the hook is phrased conflates the different categories of victims.

Secondly, the article states that more than 2 million Polish children lost their lives in World War II - but were they all killed in crimes, or is this the total number of children who lost their lives from all causes? Also, since this number refers only to Polish children, shouldn't the hook have "in Poland alone" appended (assuming they were all crime victims)?

So I'm strongly inclined to pull this hook until the issues are sorted. Pinging the nominator User:Piotrus for comment; any other comments welcome, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass Maybe it is late here, and I am tired, but I don't under stand your first concerns. Victims means all children who lost their lives because of Nazi policies and actions. Just like Holocaust victims includes not only people murdered directly, but those who starved, froze, etc.
Regarding the second point, yes, we can append the hook with "in Poland alone", that would be a correct clarification if deemed useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus, given that it's often quicker to propose an alt hook rather than debate the merits of another, I think I will just do that:

@Gatoclass Thanks. I am fine with this, arguably even better than what I came up with, thanks. Pinging reviewer @Darth Stabro and mod @AirshipJungleman29 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (image question)

[edit]

Does anybody mind terribly if I swap the image for The Horn of Plenty from the current one to File:Lee Alexander McQueen & Ann Ray - Rendez-Vous 61.jpg? The newer one was just uploaded yesterday (Elli is my queen) and, being made to look like bubble wrap, is a clearer demonstration of the trash concept imo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much nicer image, too. First thing I thought of was bubble wrap. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas: A Biography

[edit]

Hello, I need someone to choose a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography and move it into the Christmas queue. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, are you saying that the nomination is passed? If so, please add the tick and I can promote a hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m saying we need a second reviewer to choose a hook, as I don’t find any of the hooks interesting. I have asked the nominator to add different ones from the secondary sources (of their own choosing) that I find both interesting and educational, but the nominator disagrees. To their benefit, the nominator has offered many different hooks to choose from, but is singularly focused on a hook style I do not like. I’m hoping other eyes can decide in favor of the nominator or otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Due to time constraints on building a Christmas set, I will just go ahead and pass the hook in spite of my disagreement with the interestingness criterion. That way you can choose from the set. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I passed it. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently taking a look at the nom to try and determine the best course of action. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have promoted one of the hooks that seemed interesting to me, but many others also seem fine. Not really sure what all the fuss was about in the 40kb nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that saved me some work :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Well, the discussion was huge because there was some persistent disagreement on how DYKINT works, some long reply paragraphs, and a quick look at the book itself. Good thing everything was sorted out in the nick of time. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog mode

[edit]

@DYK admins: At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:DYKUBM, the suggestion was that we go through backlog mode "with the goal of reducing the number of noms at WP:DYKN to 80 or so". We're now at 79. If there are no objections, I propose ending backlog mode at 00:00 UTC.--Launchballer 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Template:Did you know/Backlog mode? and Template talk:Did you know, believe that's everything.--Launchballer 00:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKHOOK: Facts that will likely change while posted

[edit]

A few weeks back, WP:DYKHOOK changed as follows:

−
The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change
+
The hook should include an established fact

Currently on the Main Page, there is a hook that resulted in a thread at WP:ERRORS about a fact that changed: the total number of games between two teams was in the hook, but it became dated because they were playing each other shortly after its posting.[1]

While there's consensus that a hook doesn't need to remain true in perpetuity, I wasn't expecting that it would likely become dated while it was posted. This was flagged earlier at #Prep 6/Queue 6 (above), but it was decided that no hook changes were needed given the recent guideline change.

Question: Should "unlikely to change while posted", or similar, be added to WP:DYKHOOK? @Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, and Narutolovehinata5: Courtesy ping as participants from the above thread. —Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, or at the very least some clarity that the hook will need to be updated accordingly while it is running. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 made the change, so pinging for their input here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that wording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the last WT:DYK discussion in November, I had mentioned hooks that bcome dated before posting, but didn't think of it changing while posted. I'd be OK with that wording, or an alternative that addresses this recent case. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no objections and AJ29 not responding to the above discussion, I've gone ahead and changed the wording back to my original change. "Established fact" seemed vague anyway and was probably not the best term to use regardless of the outcome of the above circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that in the past, we've had some timely DYKs that contain hook facts relevant to the day they're posted, and they've usually been handed and worded so that they aren't false at some point in the day (... that, until today... or ...that, today is the Xth time... or similar) – and aside from the wording in the guideline this seems logical and something that should have happened in this case anyway. Was there any reason why not, besides relying on the changed wording? Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry at Template talk:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes

[edit]

Copied from nomination talk page; feels like it should have broader review than just one talk page on one nomination that may not be watched. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment

Royiswariii, why did you close this as "rejected by reviewer"? The reviewer, Launchballer, gave it the approval tick. Sdkb talk 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded it to T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, can you be specific what on DYK nom i rejected? Royiswariii Talk! 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royiswariii, see the heading of this section. Sdkb talk 02:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The direct link to the nom page is here. —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 22 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 8. We have a total of 284 nominations, of which 208 have been approved, a gap of 76 nominations that has decreased by 39 over the past 7 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) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Qian Xingcun

[edit]
Doing.--Launchballer 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.--Launchballer 01:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeotherium

[edit]

Nazi crimes against children

[edit]

Nazareth Hall Preparatory Seminary

[edit]

Queue 4

[edit]

Nina Tikhonova

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Spiderpig662, and 4meter4: There's extensive copying from The Independent, a clear violation of WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed before this can go live. RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also has a {{Lead too short}} maintenance tag, which also needs to be addressed. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderpig662 I see you took care of the worst of it. If you take a piece of text and just change words here and there but keep the same underlying structure and order, that's the definition of close paraphrasing. That's what you had (and to a lesser extent, still do). What you should be doing is reading the original source and then formulating your own way of expressing the same information. RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I didn't even realise about close paraphrasing, thanks for letting me know. I'm planning on rewriting more of it tomorrow. Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could be of service. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Headley Green

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Chaiten1, and PCN02WPS: If I'm reading this right, the last set of papers were published on his 18th birthday, not before. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - he published his 200th paper in 2004, and was still publishing new papers aged 18 / 72, in 2008 Chaiten1 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where it says that in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Edoardo Tiretta

[edit]

@WoodElf: The lede's too short to summarize article's key points. Please expand, thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is updated. User:WoodElf 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 I'm unsatisfied with the new wording of the hook for William C. Roberts (pastor) in prep 3 as I believe it is now incorrect. In my mind, the construction was said to be "incurable" is important since I don't believe it to be true that her illness was magically only curable if she went back to New Jersey specifically. To say his wife's illness was only curable if she returned to New Jersey is presenting the physician's opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which I think should be avoided (especially in this case, since the absurdity of the advice was the appeal of the hook in the first place). The new wording also throws out "New Jersey" with no explanation, which doesn't make any sense, and in isolation doesn't really add much to the hook. I'm definitely not saying the hook can't be shortened, but I believe its new wording to be less than ideal. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to have "was believed to be only curable" in there PCN02WPS, which would resolve the wikivoice problem, but I don't see how the original explains "New Jersey" any more than the current version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 From how I read the source, it seemed like the "cure" was to have her return to her home state, not New Jersey specifically. Maybe the hook could be ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was said to be "incurable" unless she returned to her home state? or, with the new wording, ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was believed to only be curable if she returned to her home state? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1263818423"