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]

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]

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".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusma (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Having "in a row" separated from "ninth home victory" somehow sounds strange to me. But I'm no grammar expert. —Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

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

More than one month old

Other nominations

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

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:

Thriley I have changed it. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One filled queue

[edit]

@DYK admins: We are now down to one filled queue. I would love to promote preps to queues, but I have built most of the sets because not many people care to promote hooks to prep. Just like apparently not many admins/template editors care to promote preps to queues. I don't think it's burnout with so many people who can just chip in with two queues or even just one. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Science Fiction Chronicle

[edit]

I approved the promoted hook. Can someone double check the nomination? Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chauburji (Agra)

[edit]

Pinging AmateurHi$torian The hook says, "... that the Chauburji might have been the Mughal emperor Babur's original burial place? The article says, "is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." It doesn't match. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ram Nath identifies it with the Chaukhandi within the gardens named Bagh-i Zar Afshan, which is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." A building called the "Chaukhandi" is considered to be the original burial place of Babur. Now, whether Chauburji is the Chaukhandi, is disputed, hence "might". -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Moore

[edit]

The current hook of "... that Darren Moore's Sheffield Wednesday were promoted even after they lost the first leg of their play-off semi-final 4–0?" seems like it wouldn't make much sense to non-fans. The hook "... that Darren Moore (pictured) led Sheffield Wednesday to promotion after they lost their play-off semi-final first leg by a four goal margin?" makes more sense, but I think that it should be made clear in the hook that Sheffield Wednesday is an association football club. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging EchetusXe SL93 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (31 January)

[edit]

Lilium nobilissimum

[edit]

@SL93, Ornithoptera, and Cremastra: The article states the name denotes the sleeves which were used to hold the lily .... Why did this get turned into may refer to the sleeves... in the hook? RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I based it off of "There are two theories as to how the lily had received its name, one being that due to its native habitat being that of steep cliffs, the only way one could reliably transport them home was placing the bulbs in their kimono's sleeve pouches (袂, tamoto) while scaling the sea cliffs,[9][7][4][1][11] and the other was that the native habitat was close to a locale called Tamotogaura (袂ケ浦).[5][12]" Would fixing that first sentence in the lead solve the issue? SL93 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you could update the lead to match what it says in the main article, that would be good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann McMillan

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Miraclepine, and Surtsicna: I don't understand this hook. Why is "playing" in quotes? Where does this appear in the article? RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See note a); playing is in quotes because you can't really "play" a tape recorder except in this one context. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Henry A. Henry

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Ploni, and AmateurHi$torian: there's a fair bit of WP:CLOP from opensiddur.org. I'm honestly unsure what to do here. The source says it's CC0 in one place, but I'm not sure if that also applies to the sections from which we paraphrased. And even if it does, I think our policy is that we need to attribute it in some way even if the CC0 source doesn't require that. Somebody who understands our copyright policy better than I do should look at this. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Fennec fox

[edit]

The nominator was indefinitely blocked and given a community ban (see the linked discussion in the nom page for details). The nomination however remains open. Is anyone willing to adopt the nomination as it was passed as a GA and the GA pass stood, or should it be closed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1272537898"