Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs • Removed hooks: 2023–24

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 February 2025 edit (UTC)

I'm not sure what exact text should be used. Rjjiii? Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(pictured) is fine.--Launchballer 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: The section Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions is entirely cited to Discogs, which according to its RSP entry is generally unreliable and should not be cited. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not realizing that Discogs isn't a reliable source. I am now curious if the 9th reference is reliable as well. SL93 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JIP Will you be fixing this, or should I remove the unreliably sourced content? SL93 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two unreliable references have been removed. Some parts where they appeared are also backed up with other references. JIP | Talk 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JIP What are the references? SL93 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding SL93's question. WP:DYKCITE requires all content that could reasonably be challenged to be supported by an inline citation no later than the end of the paragraph, and Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions now has no citations. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After removing the references to Discogs, I was able to find at least some references about the release of the album's editions. I still have a copy of Norres's book I loaned from the library, it might have some more information. If there is anything in the article that I or anyone else simply can't find any reference for, it might have to be removed. JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that a Doctor Who story used the largest staged fire in a BBC studio at the time of its release?

@DoctorWhoFan91, Johnson524, and SL93: I can't tell whether this means "the largest staged fire to ever happen in a BBC studio" or "the largest staged fire in this particular BBC studio". jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was in that particular studio, but realising the ambiguity of the sentence now, I think the reviewer might have thought the other. DWF91 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any issues, I also like ALT1. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never even saw the ambiguity and thought it meant all BBC studios 😅 Yeah if an alternative wording is not proposed for ALT0 I believe ALT1 should be used instead. Cheers! Johnson524 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo, Lazman321, and SL93: The sentence Bergman continued to help lead the BARU as it grew into a national organization and changed its name, first to the Revolutionary Union and then (in 1975) to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP). is uncited. I tried to find a citation for it myself, and it seemed promising that the neighboring citations were from the same book, but the version I was able to access (Heavy Radicals at Google Books) doesn't have any page numbers. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa I bought the Kindle version because the topic interested me. I had to use three pages to cite the information. I would add the relevant quotes from the book, but the nerve blocker from my right shoulder surgery is still affecting the fingers on my right hand. Let me know if you need it after the nerve blocker wears off. SL93 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Prezbo (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook for Marusankakushikaku in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders fails to show up, with the entire hook replaced by "6". I'm assuming the special character confused the living heck out of the bot or something. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because there's a = in the hook. Pinging @Theleekycauldron: as maintainer.--Launchballer 08:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

took a whack at a fix, should resolve itself on the next update :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: @IceWelder: @PARAKANYAA: This seems like one of those "first" hooks we should probably avoid. I don't see how anybody can prove that this was the first one. RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says first hooks require very good sourcing, not that they are verboten. If we can’t then it should say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was already a topic in the DYK review. Since sources before, during, after, and long after talk about it being the first, I think the rule for "exceptional sourcing" should be met. IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: @Bunnypranav: @Win8x: @Surtsicna: Extensive WP:CLOP vs tomshardware.com. Earwig shows some of the problem, but by eye I can pick up lots more examples that Earwig didn't flag. This really should have been picked up in the initial review. RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed part of it. I'm sure someone else can finish the rest within the next few days. If not, I might do it. I can't do much in real life anyway at the moment. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) the text was added by a new editor, they didn’t know. It looks good now. win8x (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I am having trouble finding more, but I admit that it could be because of how technical it is. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SL93.for fixing this, I too did a check and couldn't find more. If anyone does find more clop, pleased ping me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that "The King" Richard Petty's campaign in the 1996 North Carolina Secretary of State election veered off course due to a hit-and-run?

I think "veered off course" is too strong a term to use for the effect of the hit-and-run, at least given what's contained in the article, which merely states that "The event had an impact on some voters"; that's not the same as saying the incident completely derailed his bid.

Also, on another point, the "Results" section has no prose at all, just a table, which IMHO mean it's not quite main-page ready. If this was presented at ITN it would probably be rejected on that basis, and WP:DYKCOMPLETE also mandates that the article be "reasonably complete", something which isn't the case if it's missing discussion and analysis on the results. (See 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election for an example of how a results section is normally presented with prose). If nothing else, the results section would be another chance to mention whether the hit-and-run was the ultimate cause of Petty's defeat. Pinging @CaramelizedMargaritaLime, Daniel Case, Pbritti, and Cielquiparle: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have unpromoted it to allow for more time to address the concerns raised above. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I promoted the wrong hook and have struck the ALT0 in the nomination template, and properly formatted ALT1, so there is no confusion. The issue regarding the "Results" section still needs to be addressed though. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Edward IV had his own brother executed in the Tower of London, probably by drowning him in a butt of malmsey?

(sorry this was a late swap-out from tomorrow's queue, Queue 5, as I didn't get to finish checking it until tonight)

I'm a bit confused about whether this is a true story or not. References to Edward IV within the body of the target article are entirely within the "In Shakespeare" and "In literature" sections, which makes it seem like the story of Edward executing George in the butt of malmsey is potentially entirely fictional. (It's well-known that Shakespeare's plays don't necessarily adhere to historical accuracy). If there is a historical basis to the story, then that should be dealt with in a section outside of the literary/Shakespeare analysis, whereas if there isn't a historical basis, the hook would not be permitted per WP:DYKFICTION. @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Darth Stabro, and Rjjiii:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted the section heading away from Shakespeare, apologies if it was confusing? The text itself makes it clear that the execution is an historical event independent of Shakespearian licence; the problematic aspect is the method used to carry it out. The blurb is thus accurate on both counts. Cheers. And thanks to Rjjiii for alerting me to this discussion. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: thanks for that, at least that makes it clear that this isn't just a Shakespearean story anyway! However, I'm not seeing the hook as written fully matching the article currently in two ways: (1) "Edward IV had his own brother executed" - the article says "Clarence was arrested on charges of spreading slander and usurping royal authority; the following year he was put on trial and attainted"; while it may perhaps be accepted that the king was behind this judicial process, it isn't directly the same as saying he "had him executed". And (2) the assertion that he was "probably" killed in a butt of malmsey seems a much stronger assertion that the article's "Legend has it that he was drowned in a butt of malmsey, but the veracity of the story has never been proven or disproven, and it is unknown whether, if it happened, it was deliberate or accidental". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies if it's a radical concept, but you know: kings had people executed. It was called royal justice. The usurpation of which by Clarence is at least in part the basis of the article. So obviously that can't change. Unless you are suggesting that someone other than the king took it upon themselves to kill the king's brother.^{[citation needed]} On a lighter note, though, feel free to change "probably" to "possibly", that's OK. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, I don't suppose that's a radical concept at all... to you and probably to me it's obvious that a mediaeval "trial" of the king's brother wouldn't be carried out without his permission under a separation of powers constitution. But (and I hope you won't throw me into the malmsey yourself for me raising this) - does it fall under the WP:CALC or WP:SKYISBLUE school of facts that don't need citations? Not really. If we want the hook to state that Edward ordered his brother's execution then the article needs to say that too, and it needs to be backed up by a reliable source which also says that. If those three things can't be brought into line then it isn't valid... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to spell 'medieval'? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 00:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that George was privately executed and that the method is unknown but soon after the butt of malmsey story spread as a rumour. Based on reading all available sources, it's the most common telling and would be considered historical fact as far as the history that was written down says it is so, but Edward kept the execution a private affair so no means of punishment seems to have been recorded. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, I should have read the article more closely. The book cited says that the drowning "appears in most contemporary histories" The article has a lot of explanation cited to a 100-year old paper juxtaposed with a claim (cited to a 200-year old paper) that you can't fit a man in barrel. Regardless of the hook being adjusted, the article itself could be clarified, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read this hook in Q7 and compared it against what is written in the article, I wanted to bring up the same issue that Amakuru has beaten me to with his point number 2. I suggest that the hook and the article should be more closely aligned. Otherwise, this will likely show up at Errors. Schwede66 07:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed below, from which I replaced the hook.--Launchballer 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 4. We have a total of 335 nominations, of which 185 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has increased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Blow Up (French TV series)
• January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Communism in Brazil
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Point the Finger
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Elon Musk gesture controversy

Other nominations

• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/David Szymanski
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Dale Carson
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Beyer
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Brown (footballer)
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Soepojo Padmodipoetro
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Hennepin Avenue Bridge
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Yuika (singer)
• January 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Lois Riess
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Naenano
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Chunj
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Huwie Ishizaki
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Olympic Airways Flight 3838
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Baggu
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Madmuin Hasibuan
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hogan (motorsport executive)
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadna Qasai Mosque
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Elena Gorolová
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Marion Wiesel
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/François Guiter
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret (song)

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) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy @SL93: and @Premeditated Chaos:, thanks for promoting my hooks regarding the two different Hennepin Ave bridges. I'd wonder if it would be best to move one of them out of a prep so that they have a bit more time in between each other to avoid confusion as they're two separate bridges. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, for sure, I didn't see that they were back to back. Someday I'll learn to read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were promo'd within ten minutes of each other, so totally understandable that you missed it. No worries! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that as head of the Philadelphia Drug Enforcement Administration division, Gary Tuggle led potentially the largest heroin seizure in Delaware history?

I feel like this should be attributed, as this is a subjective claim made by the Delaware US Attorney's office, who obviously have an interest in promoting it as such. Also, the source is more specific and says "largest seizure of prepackaged heroin" rather than just heroin in general. Courtesy ping to nom Queen of Hearts, reviewer jolielover, commenter SL93. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that's covered by the word "potentially". Prepackaged can be added, sure. jolielover♥talk 04:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "potentially" covers that, but I added "prepackaged" to the article and hook. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the US Congressman Mike Collins called for Bishop Mariann Budde (pictured) to be "added to the deportation list" after she preached mercy to President Donald Trump?

Something about this phrasing just seems off to me. Maybe "[...] after she asked Donald Trump to show mercy to marginalized persons"? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tagging User:Pbritti, User:Surtsicna. Feel free to ignore but the phrasing just feels off in the OG hook. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the hook has been changed for the better. SL93 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the population of Mammillaria albiflora halved in 20 years and it is now critically endangered?

@Surtsicna, Mhhossein, and SL93: I don't think "this species has become critically endangered" is an interesting hook on its own. How about including another fact from the article, like the poachers breaking through the fence, or (as vigilantcosmicpenguin suggested to me on Discord) going for something humorous with the just a phase quote? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that Mammillaria albiflora is mainly threatened by illegal plant collecting? I have never head of illegal plant collecting until now. SL93 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa, @SL93 I love the "just a phase" idea. How did I not think of it first! ALT2 then: ... that a botanist initially dismissed this little cactus as "probably just a phase" but came to take it seriously? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the hook and added a direct citation. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce, Pbritti, and SL93: I'm not sure this article is adequately sourced. For tables and other non-paragraph-based information, WP:DYKCITE requires every line with content that could reasonably be challenged to have an inline citation. If every row of a table is supported by the same citation, I can understand ignoring that rule and just putting one citation for the entire table. But I think at the bare minimum, every section should have at least one citation, and 2025 U.S. Open Cup § Early rounds has zero. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jlwoodwa I took care of the sourcing. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that a lost stone monument for a park in Seoul that closed in 1918 was discovered lying in the grass in 2002?

@Seefooddiet, Sahaib, and SL93: Hanyang Park § History says that the park was closed in 1919, not 1918. Which is correct? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Could we use "1919"? I think the date given in the source that uses 1919 is more detailed and likely more accurate. I'll update the article. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have: DYK ... that William Bartram was both the father of William Bartram and the grandfather of William Bartram?

I just wanted to put this here for the regulars as an example of a hook that would get extra scrutiny if it was a sports-related DYK (specifically AmerFoot), and likely would not be approved by many regulars because it is not "hooky" enough. This DYK basically says "did you know that people name their sons after themselves", an extremely common phenomena. Now from my perspective, its hooky because of the word play, which is fine! But what frustrates me is the double-standard that is often applied for topics that are more niche than "politics" or "history". We should really clarify that criteria to either allow these type of "wordplay" type hooks or ban them altogether. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK turns Wikipedia in to vandapedia. No respectable encyclopedia would have did you know on their front page. Who are the real vandals? 217.52.247.73 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If DYK gets people interested in topics they wouldn't be reading about otherwise, then it's doing its job. Wikipedia is not censored, and even then, DYK is still subject to civility and it isn't a battleground for unsavory images or content to be added to the main page. Departure– (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

217.52.247.73, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't censored, so sexual innudedo will be bound to end up on the Main Page. — E_F⁵ 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that over 5,000 genres on Spotify use the suffix -core?

The longer string the suffix -core? should be bolded to clarify the fact that, well, it's a suffix, and its specific use is the subject of this article. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: I don't see why we would bold this anymore than we would bold "the actor" in "the actor Dabney Coleman". What's your concern about? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but this differs because people can infer what an actor would be just from their name. Bolding the suffix will make it hyperspecific what we're referring to (no room for interpretation). I don't know how else to explain it and it ultimately isn't a world-ending issue but it's one I think could stand to be corrected. Departure– (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the hyphen marks that we're dealing with a suffix here. I'm not sure if that addresses your worry. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can narrow down my concern a bit more by stating that the -ose suffix only receives four bolded characters, all at the very end. Spotify isn't the bolded article but receives much more linked area. This is definitely more of an aesthetic issue, I recognize. Departure– (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easy solution to this is that we really dont need to have Spotify bolded in the hook at all. Its a well known music app/service, and is linked in the article itself.--Kevmin § 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem now. Support Kevmin's solution. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Spotify already isn't bolded in the hook. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unlinked 'Spotify' (and 'Geneva' in another hook) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Queen of Hearts, and Jolielover: The hook is fine, at least as far as matching what's in the article, but the statement seizure of US$488,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns is not what the source says: "48,800 bags of heroin with a street value of nearly a half million dollars". RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to - "announced the seizure of about US$500,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns and US$40,000 in cash near Newark, Delaware." SL93 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle, Launchballer, Georgeykiwi, and Grnrchst: There's a whole paragraph that's identical to one on thenewimagefm.ca/on-hits. I'm reasonably sure they copied from us, but somebody should give it another look to be sure.

thenewimagefm copied the Wikipedia lead. The lead was edited by multiple editors over a year, not written/copied in any single edit. Some parts were improved recently in response to GA feedback. If it's correct, the copyright date on thenewimagefm is for this year (2025), but parts of the lead were written in early 2024. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis I'm having trouble finding the hook information in the article. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the concern the number? If so, would changing "formally proposed annexing the counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" help? This could be expanded to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede in order to separate from Cook County and Chicago" as well, although it reads a bit redundantly in the context of the rest of the article. CMD (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first suggestion would be fine. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CMD (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: I just need someone to look this over because I promoted it. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 10:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: There are now seven queues, so we should go to two-a-day.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But not, of course, until after the midnight UTC run, which is about an hour and 35 minutes away. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Viriditas: Two issues; the source redirects to a YouTube channel, and I'm all ears as to why 'sign' is capitalised.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer The source brought me to this which is not a YouTube channel. It does contain a news video though. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking that link redirected me to [1]. Possibly a geoblock?--Launchballer 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is very weird. I'm not sure what to do with that. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'd guess not wanting to comply with GDPR.

On the capitalization, as you can see from the nom page I originally had it non-capitalized but moved it; I think I saw a few sources that had it capitalized and it seemed more like a formal name rather than a descriptor. I'm fine with it either way, can be moved back to Grain Belt Beer sign. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s capitalized because "Grain Belt Beer Sign" is its historical NRHP designation.[2] I’ve worked with these assets in the past and they are always capitalized on Wikipedia, IIRC. It's the same reason Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio is capitalized. It's the formal title after receiving the historical landmark designation. It looks like the rules of historical properties are entirely different in the UK. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima and Tenpop421: I don't see how this meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does to general audiences. The hook seems just fine to me (Marxism being used in psychology does sound unusual, at least to a layperson). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Frankfurt School. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As layperson, I disagree. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than going to Russia for the Pavlov centennial, I'm not seeing anything else usable in the article. Maybe just reject? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean as a layperson, I disagree that it isn't interesting. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline interesting, but as an alternative, it might work to play the fact off the suppression of his work during the Cultural Revolution. For example,

ALT1: ... that Pan Shu, who incorporated Marxist principles into his psychological theories, had to write psychological theory in secret during the Cultural Revolution?

@Narutolovehinata5: @Launchballer: does this work for you? Tenpop421 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped it with the second half of ALT1.--Launchballer 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(It looks like this hook got moved to Prep 1)

@Gerda Arendt, Aza24, Grimes2, 4meter4, CurryTime7-24, and Narutolovehinata5: This hook is decidedly person-does-their-jobby, comprising nothing other than 'bloke forms group with four other blokes', all of whom would want trimming.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed in the nom. It's not "does their job", - they were all still students. It appears in his obit as the first thing, described as of nationwide influence. Three people are mentioned in the lead, five in the prose of the obit. We can be fair to list the two not always mentioned also, especially since one of them also died recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both 4meter4 and CurryTime said that the names mentioned were well-known in Europe and elsewhere so I deferred to them regarding interest. I personally didn't find the hook all that interesting, but I was wondering if it was just an effect of my experiences and that people from other places would think otherwise (and it's happened before). I took a look at the article and nothing immediately came to mind when it came to alternative hooks, although maybe the other pinged editors can chime in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I went by the opinions of editors who said they were well-known. I'm fine with it being changed or pulled. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the obit I linked to just above? It's not my pet fact, but from The Guardian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the hook fact is prominently placed in the subject's obituary in The Guardian. The argument presented here is spurious given the stature of the group of individuals within classical music/performing arts, and the fact that the hook fact was already prominently featured in an internationally known newspaper in relation to the subject. The hook is fine and should remain.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given we have an editor who objected to the hook (Launchballer), two who are unsure (myself and SL93), and two supports (Gerda and 4meter4), it seems that there doesn't seem to be much consensus to run the hook as it stands. It's probably a safer option to just pull the hook for further workshopping. @Launchballer: In your opinion, is there anything else in the article that stands out and can work better as a hook for you? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is scheduled to run on the 1st given the switch to two sets a day, where do things stand with this? Should it be bumped off, pulled, or just be allowed to run? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RoySmith or SL93 regarding the above so we can have clarity either way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Guardian as an objective source for the information, and that it had impact for the culture of a country, - do you understand that? What else do you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't The Guardian mention or The Guardian being used as a source. The issue is if the hook meets WP:DYKINT. Even if the hook fact was prominently featured in an obituary, the question is if general, non-specialist readers would find the information interesting enough to click on Geohr's article. The reliability or reputation of the source is irrelevant to this concern. As it stands, its interestingness to a broad audience is an open question and it might be for the best to just pull the hook reopen the nomination for further workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You define interestingness by what the broad audience wants to know, and I define interestingness as what would be good to know for the broad audience, and we will probably not get together. This fact is good news about collaboration, for the introduction of something new, regardless of what the something is, and I would like it spread. - I'd like a move of the hook away from an early-morning position on 1 March when Europe sleeps, to a later position, while we discuss if we should really limit the facts we give our audience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "interestingess is defined by what the broad audience wants to know" is what is supported by WP:DYKG, specifically the criterion that hooks should be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". That is, even if the reader is largely unfamiliar with the context, they will still find the fact interesting. Your view of interestingness is contrary to what the guidelines state, as well as going against what is established practice on DYK.

As for the goals, I don't necessarily see them as inherently incompatible. A nominator can propose a hook that they want people to know, and is also likely to be received well by said people. The thing is, because it is the readers' interests that are supreme, per WP:DYKINT, such a compromise would still need to be within the purview of DYKINT. Meaning, a hook that the nominator likes and is interesting even to readers not in the know. Hooks that appeal only to the nominator but will alienate or turn away readership go against DYKINT and generally should be rejected for violating DYK guidelines.

Of course, in this particular case, it's unclear if the hook is interesting or not to a general audience, but I was speaking in general terms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kicked the hook back. For what it's worth, we're scheduled to go back to 1-a-day on 1 March, so hooks in this set should still get 24 hours.--Launchballer 11:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I heard that before, while I tried to explain that in this particular case, an average reader who knows nothing about music might perceive as interesting that their were people working together for something new. We have enough desasters, crime, you name it. - Thank you for the move, Launchballer, - I wasn't concerned about only 12 hours, but about about those 12 hours when most of those interested would sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I read the article and found the bit about New Music Manchester confusing, so I tweaked it slightly. The New Music Manchester article (not written by you) isn't very informative either. TSventon (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think, though, that "as students" is redundant, when the previous sentence said that they studied. I have no access to the sources of the group's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is fine. I am profoundly sad that anything having to do with classical music is labeled as not interesting, but we're OK running scatology. Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience? RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what our audience is without feedback from readers. I didn't come back to this discussion for a while because I don't care if it runs. I'm not a good judge of classical music or sports hooks anyway. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has never been about classical music specifically, we've had multiple hooks regarding it that have been proposed and ran without objection. DYK doesn't really have an anti-classical music bias (one could argue that it's actually the opposite given how often they disproportionately run compared to other topics, like how DYK has a bias for radio and TV stations, but that's a topic for another day). The issue has been if the hooks proposed meet WP:DYKINT, and that is something that applies to all topics and not just classical music (sports hook also sometimes fall afoul of it). It's not impossible to write a classical music hook that meets the guidelines, and it's been done many times before.

To answer SL93's question, this isn't perfect feedback, but one possible data point is page views. Generally speaking, hooks that use Gerda's usual role hook format tend to do really poorly views-wise (in fact, many times they're among the least if not the least-viewed hooks for a month). By contrast, classical music hooks written by other editors, or those that don't follow her usual "jobby" format, tend to do a lot better. Not usually spectacularly, but often at least closer to average. So at least in this case, the data suggests that classical music isn't the issue, it's how the hooks are worded and proposed. I haven't checked the stats for sports hooks and how our readers receive them, but I do remember that hooks about regular pop music surprisingly tend to underperform as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 thank you for your well-reasoned response, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience?" We should be making editorial decisions based on more than just what hooks we think will garner the most clicks. If clicks were our only metric, we know how to maximize that: lots of sex, scatology, and Taylor Swift. I'd prefer that we aim a little higher, and not worry so much about the click counts. RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I remember when we had a bunch of Taylor Swift hooks a while back (to the point there were complaints), they surprisingly didn't do all that well among readers. Indeed, pop music hooks have tended to underperform, which is a bit counterintuitive when you think about it. I agree that views aren't everything, it's just something to consider. We also already have guidelines on avoiding excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks, so in practice sex or scatology hooks wouldn't necessarily make the main page anyway. I do think that certain hook formats (for example, most role hooks) are fundamentally incompatible with DYK's goals, and there doesn't seem to be much if any appetite to get rid of DYKINT wholesale anyway (and if that did happen, it would definitely open a whole can of worms). As I said earlier, the issue is rarely if ever subjects, because no topic is inherently "uninteresting". Classical music isn't inherently uninteresting, and neither is American football (among other topics). A perfectly fine and also broadly interesting hook can be proposed regarding even the nichest of topics. Often, the question is if such hooks are even possible, and if they are, if the nominator is willing to propose or agree to them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, looking at the hook again right now, while I don't really think that the hook is that interesting, it's at least marginally interesting especially with the "progressive force" quote. My main concern was more about if the names involved are well-known enough that a hook gain interest just by their mention, thinking that maybe they're more well-known in certain parts of the world than over here in Asia. The thought I had is that maybe the hook would be more appealing to American or European readers, and that said names are well-known enough there even among the general public. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is, the hook could probably stand as is.

I'm not completely a fan of the hook and would rather it just be pulled for further workshopping (mainly because of concerns raised rather than my own personal views), but I wouldn't object to it running as is either. It's at least apparently more interesting than previous hooks that are solely about opera performers doing such-and-such role, a format that consistently underperforms views-wise and as usually written almost always violates DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure– and Mgreason: Hook appears in the lead uncited, while the body says "one of the most heavily affected" and both it and "theft" lack an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up in the body. I think that per the source, the hook can be changed to say "the neighborhood with the most devastating damage from" instead of just "affected by". Departure– (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grumpylawnchair: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SL93 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I approved this, so must ask for more eyes.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I've checked it and fundamentally it's OK... there would be two points I'd raise on it, (1) is a magazine describing Moira as a "battleaxe" really a suitably interesting hook for this? I'd have thought most characters in soaps are battleaxes, it sort of comes with the territory and if she is one that's down to the writers, not a result of any astonishing real-world facts; and (2) is this really eligible for a fair-use screenshotted image from the show? I don't think such an image is in any way necessary to understand the character, and also a photograph of the actress in some other setting would serve the same purpose just as well, and could probably be obtained if anyone bothered to try, which means the fair-use image is replaceable and not valid IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both fair cops. Narutolovehinata5 and SL93 have probably already seen this, but perhaps @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: would like to comment. I will decide what to do about the malmsey hook when I've eaten.--Launchballer 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping :) Regarding the hook - I had suggested other hooks but other editors did not like them, so I am not sure. The reason that I proposed the battelaxe hook was because Moira was referred to that in many sources/pieces of reception, which is unusual for critics to use the exact same wording. Additionally, I have read/written/expanded many character articles and rarely any of them have been viewed/seen as battleaxes. As for the photo, it has a fair use rationale as a TV screenshot as a way to identify the character, just like most TV character articles, and there are no free images of the actress (and over the years, many editors have tried). However, honestly if this is going to be such an issue, I would rather withdraw this nomination. I did want this to be a DYK, but I also do not want it to be stretched out for so long and cause issues for the article or anyone on here. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Unless I'm missing something, this fact ran on 12 February for Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. I think this needs a different hook. (Note to self: I haven't yet looked at the article.)--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: this is already being discussed above. The claim in Wikipedia's voice that Clarence was executed in a butt of malmsey is not backed up by either Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence or Butt of malmsey, which both state that the assertion is a "legend" or "tradition" of unknown veracity. I have no idea why this wasn't picked up during the review of that hook, but it might almost be better to run the hook in a modified format here, stating that it's just a legend, just to set the record straight a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this hook can't run, I have to say this leaps out at me from the article:

ALT2: ... a butt of malmsey was required to make "Tyre that is excellent", as part of a mixture of "fat Bastard, two gallons of Cute [and] Parrel".

Might work as a funny hook, as it reads as a bit of literary nonsense to the modern ear. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer Have you finished eating? I'm about to pull the hook myself. SL93 (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with ALT2; if a 'correction' hook can be finalised in the next couple of days, feel free to replace it.--Launchballer 07:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new hook sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per RM, the piped link of August 2020 Midwest derecho should be changed to 2020 Midwest derecho. Departure– (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.--Launchballer 16:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, Pbritti, and SL93: I'm guessing the hook is about the fact that the plant took multiple years to be demolished, however the image (a .gif labeled as an "animation") is two frames, one before and one after demolition, with a transition between them. It doesn't have any intermediate stage of the plant partially demolished. This really should be two images on the article, or alternatively, an actual timelapse or something other of the plant's demolition. The slow speed also makes it unclear that this is an animation at all. Is there a better or clearer animation or image that can be used instead? Departure– (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to pull the animation and use File:Plutonium Finishing Plant in 2012.jpg instead. And change the hook to:

... that the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant (pictured) processed more than 66 metric tons of plutonium between 1949 and 1989.

RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as is, and the caption makes it clear that it is an animation. SL93 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7's "approved by a human" header isn't displaying correctly, probably because of the equals sign in Launchballer's signature. Changing the template call to {{DYKbotdo|1=...}} makes it display correctly (at least in preview), but I don't understand the bot well enough to know whether this change would cause problems for it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take on that is that the job of your signature is to let people know you wrote something and nothing more. If you've made it so customized that it's breaking stuff, you need to fix your signature. RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the immediate problem, but my statement above still stands :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SIGPROB. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: please reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 43200 right away—certainly before noon UTC—so we can start three days of two-a-day promotions. (This is because we had seven filled queues before midnight and—more to the point—have six filled queues now, effective after tonight's midnight promotion, which is the agreed-upon trigger for the change.) There are no special occasion hooks I know of to worry about at the moment. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Yue, and AmateurHi$torian: I don't think we need the units conversion in the hook. MOS:CONVERSIONS makes an exception for "topic areas (for example ... American football where yards are primary)". I think any sport where distances are universally reported in meters would fall under that exception. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind the conversion being removed. Yue🌙 03:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either. Thanks for pointing out the policy :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, MSG17, and BaduFerreira: Even the article equivocates with "reportedly the first". Not to mention that the source says "with a product on WeChat" That's not the same as having "an account on WeChat". I have an account on Facebook, but I certainly don't have a "product" on facebook. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I would just replace "reportedly the first" with "the first" or "the only" per the source. To the nominator, just because a source reports something does not mean that "reportedly" should be used. I would then go on to say "with a product on WeChat". Although I still see why "account" was used and that is because it is an account that was set up for a product. SL93 (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith ... that Documented is the first non-Chinese newsroom in the United States with a WeChat account for its product? SL93 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article. SL93 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that Documented is the first non-Chinese newsroom in the United States with its product on WeChat? SL93 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to this to match the source. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93 and MumphingSquirrel: The article says into her seventies" which got turned into "well into her seventies" in the hook. And I can't find anything in the cited source which supports either statement. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I'm not sure why the article uses that source because the DYK nomination used a non-English reference. I just replaced the source in the article with a different English reference. It says, "Marguerite would eventually marry a fellow acrobat, perform under her new name Madame Saqui, and gain fame and the patronage of Emperor Napoleon himself, dancing the rope into her seventies." so I would remove "well into". SL93 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I changed the "Saqui continued to perform well into her seventies." to the source that the nominator mentioned below. SL93 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now stated her specific age for that performance in article, line above had already given context. Source cited does specify this - on page 190. "Elle a près soixante dix sept ans" tranls "She was nearly 77 years old". Very much well into her seventies. MumphingSquirrel (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The line above was sourced to an image that didn't mention the fact. SL93 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Departure–: This copies a lot of text (almost the entire article) from mnopedia.org. It's properly acknowledged as using a CC-BY-SA source, but I think the quantity of text that's copied goes beyond what's acceptable. It may not be a strict copyright problem, but is this really what we want our encyclopedia to be? RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you pull it from queue, I'd be happy to try to rework it a bit but I won't be able to get to it for a few days. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue. Everything is still cited. The copied text is both compatible in license and attributed in the article, and is reasonably well-written by Wikipedia standards. Departure– (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least 1500 of the 3726 prose characters must be original to Wikipedia—that is, not copied from MNopedia; per WP:DYKLEN, content duplicated from public domain sources is not counted toward the DYK length requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKSO says that a thematic set is usually assembled for International Women's Day, which is 8 March and Prep 7. (Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times says different, but we come out of 2-a-day at midnight on 1 March and prep 7 is the eighth set after that.) I've taken the liberty of starting this, but I need Serving cunt promoted and Japanese Girls Never Die and Women's History Museum of Zambia approved so I can promote them.--Launchballer 17:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Launchballer: would you be interested in Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Shahar for this set? Tenpop421 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. While the biographies are a bit more 'fluid', there's already a lawyer hook in that set and that's probably a bit more positive than "man is mean to woman".--Launchballer 07:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I took in an extra biography, so my priority is the first two.--Launchballer 08:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair Tenpop421 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The precedents I've seen, from recollection, are mixed. In some cases, all articles needed to have the hook fact explicitly mentioned or supported, but in other cases, it was sufficient for just one article to do so. The guidelines don't make it clear how to handle hook facts based on multiple articles, whether the hook is based on information spread across multiple articles, or in cases where multiple articles are nominated but only one directly states the hook fact. Should this be clarified in WP:DYKG? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook fact should probably be present in its entirety in one article in the spirit of WP:SYNTH. (Possibly there are exceptions, but it seems a good general rule.) However, a hook fact might only makes sense written out in the context of one article, so requiring it in multiple articles may only result in adding fluff to articles or running similar topics multiple times, which we seem to generally try to avoid. CMD (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to gauge your opinion on this @Chipmunkdavis: This recent multi-article hook I nominated has its facts (i.e., the translations of the various titles) distributed across several articles. Would you object to that? Tenpop421 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that Jack Hobbs is remembered for a bout of explosive diarrhoea?

@SL93, Launchballer, and IanTEB: Can we please not run this attempt at infantile humor? Surely there's something more interesting we can say about him? RoySmith (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether the hook should run or not, but for what it's worth the subject isn't a BLP and it appears that the subject did not consider the diarrhea thing offensive when he was still alive. Having said that, the article is relatively sparse on hooky material, though maybe a hook about the "special" kind of book could be an alternative? It's admittedly less eye-catchy than the diarrhea angle though (I don't think hooks that rely solely on Milligan's mention would work per WP:DYKINT). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an attempt at humour; so far as I can tell, that's almost entirely what he was best known for (it takes up more than half the main source), and it is (in my opinion) by far the most interesting thing about him. I have no opinion of the "special" hook.--Launchballer 11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hook is good. It points the reader towards a fun anecdote, and I don't think we could sum up the most notable thing that happened to Jack Smith in a less obscene way. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the best we can come up with to write about Hobbs, let's not run this at all. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I promoted it because I did not see much difference between it and earlier hooks, but it does seem like it's almost insulting even to the dead to say that is the most interesting thing about him. That would be a key difference. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pretty hilarious story, but I would not summarise it as "remembered for a bout of explosive diarrhoea". The mishap involved not just diarrhea, but also leaving a train station wearing a women's cardigan and a hat instead of trousers and underwear, and was made famous by comedian Spike Milligan. If we make a hook that isn't just about shit, perhaps it has potential. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example,

• ... that a real life story involving Jack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear was utilised in comedy shows by his friend Spike Milligan?

tells the story without gratuitously smearing feces on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy with Kusma's hook.--Launchballer 16:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like that hook. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its kind of wordy, but certainly better than the original, so I've put it in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is okay but I wonder if there's a better way to make the hook flow better. Maybe:

• ... that comedian Spike Milligan would often tell stories about his friend Jack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear?

The original wording is 193 characters, this new one is only 173 characters. My only concern is that the phrasing might make more people click Milligan's article than Hobbs, but I guess other editors can chime in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that a specimen of Tyrannasorus rex had six legs and wings and was killed by a legume?

@SL93, Surtsicna, and Paul2520: I'm thinking we should hold this for April 1. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I like that idea. = paul2520 💬 15:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know but obviously did something wrong because it's not showing up there. I tried Special:Purge and force-reload in my browser, but still not seeing it. Any idea what I did wrong? RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not because I did not mean it as a joke. April 1 hooks tend to twist wording and formatting to achieve an effect. I do not see a straightforward science fact fitting there. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, OK, I have no objection if somebody removes it, but given that I seem to have screwed up the adding, I'll leave it to somebody who actually knows what they're doing to remove it. RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, now it's showing up. Do purges just take a while to have effect? In any case, I'll still leave it to somebody else to undo, to make sure that's done correctly. RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the nom hadn't been reopened yet.--Launchballer 20:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]