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.

Halloween set

[edit]

I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer of my hook Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert suggested that I post it here. The hook mentions Stranger Things (scary), Halloween monsters (spooky), and the American health insurance system (AAAHHHHH!!!).
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haunted (Laura Les song) is nominated for GAN. This might be a potential option for this set. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work up articles/expansions for a deathcamas and a "ghost of Gondwana" spider species--Kevmin § 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Slime (fantasy creature) to go with this set. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also asked that Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) be included in the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentricity?

[edit]

I know we've done Halloween sets before, but I wonder if this is excessively ethnocentric? This is historically a Christian event (although it's been co-opted by people outside the Christian faith) and Geography of Halloween says The celebrations and observances of this day occur primarily in regions of the Western world. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't explicitly endorsing Halloween, it's just a fun project to get spooky/thematically appropriate hooks on October 31st. I really don't think this is an issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halloween is celebrated everywhere where there is a strong American influence, which is quite a large part of the world, especially the English speaking one. We should try to celebrate some Indian holidays too, but there isn't anything wrong with a Halloween theme. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowe'en hooks

[edit]

Listing the proposed Hallowe'en hooks below, their topic, and their progress. These are not listed in any particular order:

If other hooks are proposed, please add them to the list above. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're targeting Prep 2 the next time it rolls over.
I think we're targeting Prep 2 the next time it rolls over.

I would definitely go with Slime (monster) for the lead hook because it's got a great image. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's wonderfully goopy and a nice Halloweeny green color. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of the hooks are shorter, would editors be OK with 10 hooks? OTD can add hooks if it gets too long for Main Page balance. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original plan, as I remember it, was if we had 9 short hooks, we'd go with 9. If we had longer ones, we'd go back to 8. That plan seems to have lasted about 5 minutes :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love the caption for the prep set, but we might get yelled at in ERRORS. @AirshipJungleman29: who selected this caption: are we OK with the caption as it currently stands, or should we look for something more encyclopedic? If we keep the caption, I suggest that someone monitor ERRORS or pre-emptively put a note there saying that consensus was to have this caption and it shouldn't be changed. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

omg I love the caption haha Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launchballer, thanks for the ping about the edit to these hooks. As for the Waites hook, I would trim Cabot House—that was added in by a second reviewer but I think the name of an undergraduate dorm doesn’t mean much for most people. If that leaves room to put the books back in, I think that’s more interesting than the name of the dorm, but I’m also fine if you want to leave both out to make it punchier, so just, she’s said to haunt an undergraduate suite at Harvard College? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a moot point because @AirshipJungleman29: reverted the edit.--Launchballer 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that Haunted (Laura Les song) was nominated. If someone reviews it, I will promote it.--Launchballer 16:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer Reviewed and passed. CMD (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. I did suggest Killer Cakes above.--Launchballer 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Template:Did you know nominations/Get the Hell Out could make the cut? Was about to promote it for another set until I realized it's a zombie movie hook. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Good idea. Assuming it checks out, ALT0/2 would work best if we're doing that. That set is currently being held up by #Progradungula barringtonensis - if you could give that a third review, I can assess this.--Launchballer 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider ALT1, which I just copy edited and trumps the other hooks IMO Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. My objection was that it didn't mention 'zombie', but I see no reason why it can't be mooched from another approved hook. I just checked the article and while a GA reviewer might whinge about the length of some of its sentences, DYK is very much not that, so you may put it in the prep set.--Launchballer 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven hooks?

[edit]

I notice Prep 2 has eleven hooks in it. Is this a good thing? RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did trim some of them, but @AirshipJungleman29: reverted me. Also, I just pulled one.--Launchballer 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was when we had ten hooks. That Brian Gilbert hook stands out as being quite long and not that Halloween-y. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back now it has an excellent image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did it!

[edit]
Good job everyone! This was fun, let's do it again next year. :) Di (they-them) (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
woooooOOOOOooooo.... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Richard Nevell, and Piotrus: I have concerns about whether this meets our WP:NPOV requirement. Also @Personisinsterest: who did the GA review. Frankly, when a reviewer writes The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza is a really important part of what’s happening right now, and it’s kind of overlooked. I’m glad people are doing this it leads me to wonder if they are applying NPOV as rigorously as they should be. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking for stuff to say honestly. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's something inherently wrong with being happy about the existence of an article that one considers informative and educational, and I can't help but find it a little absurd to impugn the quality of a review on the grounds that a reviewer complimented the creator. I like libraries and 19th-century American history and want both to appear more on Wikipedia, and I don't think that renders me incapable of doing decent reviews of 19th-century librarian biographers (I use this personal example because I have done such a GA review). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss any concerns, but I should say that I've got a long train journey this evening and another tomorrow, and am busy between 9am and 5pm (UK time) so I can't guarantee a rapid reply.
We do of course need to uphold NPOV and I appreciate that ARBPIA articles are contentious. Is the concern about the hook, the article, or the topic area and its generally contentious nature (or a combination)? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some detailed comments
Richard Nevell, some thoughts after looking through the article. There are parts that seem extraneous to the core topic, and a few other changes that could be made which might help address concerns. The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage. The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions). The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage. The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section). The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed. The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source. There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding. The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information. The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs. The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs. The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source. The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers. On the DYK, I would have taken ALT1 over ALT0, as ALT0 seems a disconnected list whereas ALT1 has a more specific focus. CMD (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for those comments. I don't have time to address them properly now, but will do so this evening. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I've broken your points down below to make it easier to reply inline. I've tried to explain the reasoning behind some of the choices. It's a bit long, so might need to be collapsed.
The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage.
That’s a good point. Intangible heritage is mentioned in the body as a component of cultural heritage, but is not fully addressed. In part this is because the loss of intangible heritage is harder to quantify than tangible heritage such as buildings, but I have added some text explicitly addressing ICH. If that’s insufficient I’m happy to remove ICH from the lead.
The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions).
Though the term isn’t mentioned, my thinking was that in the 'International response' section the mention of South Africa’s case in the International Court of Justice and the destruction of cultural heritage being part of that was enough. On reflection, I can see that there is some disconnect so I have now covered that in the 'International response' section.
The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage.
I believe that the fact that half of the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed as a result of the conflict is important context. If that isn’t included, the article would be presenting the destruction of cultural heritage in a vacuum, and the silence could imply that no other buildings or structures were damaged. With that information included, it is logical to me to note the consequence that people have been displaced, especially as this is related to the inability to access the region and carry out on the ground assessments. The destruction of cultural heritage is part of the wider destruction, not isolated from it, so in my opinion it belongs in the lead.
Half the buildings being damaged is contextual, "leaving residential areas devastated" is an emotively worded repetition of that, and that is not a strong relevant point regarding displacement. It is also a very dubious proposition that a reader will read the lead and come away with the impression that this war was a selective targeting of various cultural sites.
I have removed that phrase from the lead while retaining the bit about the extent of damage and displacement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section).
It is perhaps not needed in the lead so I have removed it. My thinking has been that the statement that cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure in the same way that hospitals, transport networks, and energy infrastructure would show that it has value to society. It seems that may not have been successful, and as the quote is used a third time in the 'International response' section, I have removed it from 'Cultural heritage in Gaza'.
The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed.
With the background section, I was likely to err on the side of including more information than needed. I think it is important to explain what cultural heritage is and why it is important. The first is addressed in the opening sentence of the section, and the third paragraph addresses the second angle. That cultural heritage is linked to identity – shaping it and being shaped by it – is an important part of understanding it. I think that the reader would be worse off not having the fuller explanation of paragraph 3.
Perhaps that might apply to the first sentence, but the second sentence is about heirlooms, which is not covered in the article, and the most applicable interpretation of the third sentence is that this war is creating more cultural identity, which is possibly true but does not feel like an encyclopaedic point to make.
@Chipmunkdavis: It is not solely about heirlooms, but material culture broadly - though objects are of course part of that and indeed cultural heritage. I have reworked the second sentence to hopefully make this clearer. As for the third sentence of the same paragraph, I included an example to make it less abstract and think that removing the example would not be an improvement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That change is not in the source, which is about "residues of a universe that is no longer", and is based on research in Jordan. This veers close to WP:coatrack, and background not about the subject in question (cultural heritage in Gaza) is better covered through the main article link. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnographic research conducted in Jordan was with Palestinians living in exile. The point is that heritage and material relates to memory and identity, points which help the reader understand the importance of heritage. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source.
At some point I had access to the 2018 edition of Malpas, but can't find where that was. Once I find it I will check against what the source says so that I can answer fully. I really should have made a note.
If it is a different version the link will need to be changed, the current gbooks page 199 is part of a list of chapter references.
@CMD I have updated the ISBN to the version of the book I have been able to access. The Google Books preview clipped the page leaving out quite a lot, and oddly the preview didn't even include the keywords which had me second guessing. The relevant section reads (in part anyway since the relevant part is longer) "It is notable that the obliteration or destruction of places has commonly been used as a tool of genocide and as a weapon of war. Indeed, it was so used by the Romans ... It was used by the Nazis against Jewish communities and against communities in occupied territories that offered resistance to such occupation". Richard Nevell (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding.
Jean-Baptiste Humbert quote: this is included because it adds perspective. ie: cultural heritage is important, but not as important as essentials, therefore Gaza is not able to invest in its cultural heritage. That is important for understanding the region' cultural heritage.
Mariam Shah quote: this quote addresses the intangible cultural heritage of these sites, without using those terms. It talks about tradition and symbolism, which are important to understanding heritage. These places are part of life and history in Gaza. It could perhaps be reworded, but I think it's a good quote and any summary of that sentiment that I could come up with would be much poorer.
I don't see those interpretations at all, both are statements that are pretty universally applicable. The priority issues raised by Jean-Baptiste Humbert apply to every government, even rich and unoccupied countries will choose food and education over investing in heritage. The Mariam Shah quote is a statement that would apply to any reasonably dates churches and mosques.
These quotes are explicitly about Gaza and while the dynamic about, for example, investing in food and education over heritage might not be unique to Gaza it remains helpful to understand cultural heritage in the region. And religious buildings being symbolic is not unique, but that's also useful context to understand why their destruction is significant; it speaks directly to the consequences of the conflict. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many quotes that could be about Gaza, but both of these are universally applicable statements (not just regional). Pulling them out reads as odd, especially when there is already a background section. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As these quotes are about Gaza I don't think there is a problem with the content. Yes, there are other places that make decisions about investing in things such as healthcare or energy infrastructure over heritage sites but not many places do that in the context of "the crushing that has been inflicted by the occupying forces over the past fifty years". That difference is worth highlighting. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information.
Do you mean the bit which reads "The foundations of Palestinian society are being reduced to rubble, and their history is being erased"?
Yes, it's essentially an emotively worded repetition of the article topic.
The UN quote is worth having because it is the UN and they are a major NGO. UNESCO is mentioned earlier but that is in a different context and a branch of the overall organisation. The quote has a similar gist to that from Middle East Studies Association, so I have summarised the MESA quote to make it less repetitive. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easily stated more concisely with a "has condemned the destruction" or similar formulation. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the level of detail to aim for, it's possible to merge the sentence with the previous one about Icon, which I've now done. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs.
This section doesn't have a rigid structure, which perhaps isn’t helpful. It is a bit chronological, and a bit thematic, so some similar sites are groups (eg: libraries) but I still tried to follow a chronological narrative. It's not straightforward since reports sometimes don't specify the date on which an event occurred. My plan was to have a rough chronology but some events did group naturally. With the library example, a list of dates on which the libraries were destroyed would have been repetitive so I opted for a summary. I am open to restructuring this section so that it has a more clearly defined thematic or chronological approach if the current one is felt not to be effective.
One structure or the other is perhaps more helpful. If there is a mix, it may be best to start with topics and then add chronology; there may be enough detail for subsections on religious buildings, libraries, etc.
I'll experiment and see how it turns out. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs.
These are two separate instances of Quran burning – one in Rafah in May and the other at the Bani Saleh Mosque reported in August. The problem with a chronological rather than thematic approach is that this may appear like duplication.
Perhaps add the Bani Saleh Mosque is in the north, to help clear this up further.
Done - along with noting that Rafah is in the south. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source.
I've changed the heading from level 3 to 2, since having it as its own section rather than a subsection sounds like a good idea. I'll work on adding sources for the construction dates.
And the dates are now sourced. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers.
Good suggestion, and done. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell Sorry for the delay, some replies above. CMD (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how that could look bias. And it’s because I am. I am pro-Palestinian, as I have said before. And it was an overlooked part of the war. But I checked it. I checked to see if it was reliable and neutral. And when it explicitly stated the destruction was genocide, I toned it down. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is inherently subjective, since it talks about problematic behavior of a particular group (to keep it general). As such, there are always going to be some NPOV concerns lingering around. However, the article is stable, not NPOV tagged, and I did not notice any red flags in my reading. Unless we rule out any controversial topic as DYK-ineligible, I don't see what else we can do here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a holocaust analogy should be a significant red flag, there is a lot that can be done here. CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear there is controversy here. I've swapped this out to Prep 3 so we've got time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible to me as this probably isn't a discussion that would be helped by time pressure. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKToolsBot not working

[edit]

RoySmith, DYKToolsBot hasn't updated in two weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. There's a cron job that's been running for a bit over 14 days, which is probably what's holding everything up (as I understand it, cron won't kick off a new job while an old one is still running). I'm not sure what got it wedged, but I've manually kicked off a run and that seems to be working fine so I'll probably just kill the stuck job and see what happens. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside on this, I'd really like to see more joint custody of all the bits and pieces that make DYK run. I hadn't looked at this stuff for over a year and it took me some time to figure out how it all worked again. If I got run over by a bus and somebody had to pick it up from scratch, it would have been even harder. The more we're all familiar with all the moving pieces, the more resilient we all are to roving homicidal busses. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, just noticed that GalliumBot is down, if theleekycauldron isn't already aware. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen

[edit]

Hi there. Would it be possible to request a second pair of eyes at Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen? The reviewer, Buidhe and myself disagree about the use of CCP-related sources and its potential impact on article neutrality.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 1. We have a total of 280 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 170 nominations that has decreased by 10 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) 21:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open question: How much should a DYK reviewer edit a page they review?

[edit]

Hi all, I've reviewed some DYKs in the past, but I've been bothered by the thought that editing an article before reviewing it gives the impression of a conflict of interest. I've found that some articles (especially written by novice or ESL editors) are interesting and worthy of a DYK, but have issues (e.g., copyediting, flow of prose, citation formatting) which are fixable. However, in my experience, fixing these issues can take you into adding new sources or new information. What's best practice here? How much is too much? Does this ever give the impression of a COI? Tenpop421 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know I regularly fix punctuation and similar grammatical errors, or add convert templates. But that's one or two small edits, generally. Its not close to the 30, 40 edits I make polishing the articles I write. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, the goal is to add the best content we can to the encyclopedia. If editing somebody else's submission helps do that, it's a win. As far as COI, as long as it's just minor edits like punctuation, spelling, or sentence structure, I don't see any problems with also reviewing the submission. Once you get into major edits and adding sources, probably better to leave it for somebody else to review. RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly boring "Did You Know" selections

[edit]

I've seen far too many "Did You Know" selections recently that pander purely to geeky American interest. Who needs interesting historical facts when you can find out which video game character wasn't on some random video game website's Christmas list? Who needs neat facts about physics when you can learn about some Japanese animated girl with pronounced bosoms?

I think there needs to be more actual interesting facts that most English speaking people can enjoy that aren't just pop culture or things that just don't matter in the grand scheme of things in either a historical or metaphysical way. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:7847:EEBF:15EE:9E83 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then go write those articles yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world. Lead the charge! But that requires effort, doesn't it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even have to write the articles. Just keep an eye on Special:NewPagesFeed and when you see something of interest, write a hook and nominate it. Scrolling the feed right now, I see 1931 Barcelona rent strike which might interest history buffs. Physics is a bit harder, but the other way to become eligible for DYK is to become a Good Article, so watching WP:GAN#PHYS would keep you abreast of upcoming physics GAs. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to devote large amounts of effort just because I want to point out a problem. If I said "I think animal kill shelters are unethical" you wouldn't expect me to adopt all the animals from them and devote all my time to them. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:8C4E:625A:EA34:D3EF (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can point out millions of things you see as problems. Doesn't mean anyone else needs to jump to fixing them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. And writing an article that meets the DYK criteria isn't much of a timesink; if you have sources available, a couple hours is more than enough. The bar is a low for a reason: to make it accessible.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've actually been trying to have a wider variety of hooks, as well as weeding out specialist hooks by implementing WP:DYKINT. However, it's easier said than done, and it's not uncommon for there to be resistance towards it being enforced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

[edit]

George Frederick Cumming Smillie

[edit]
I gave it a proper lead, but in terms of DYK criteria, this is fine. (Apologies for the delay in me doing these, I hit a wall a couple of days ago.)--Launchballer 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Hanhai

[edit]
I see no problems with this. I note that part of the hook is in a footnote, which I personally have no problem with but noting here anyway.--Launchballer 12:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

[edit]

The True Record

[edit]
How interesting is the hook without knowing what May Fourth Movement is?--Launchballer 09:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That hook checks out.--Launchballer 10:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything wrong with the article.--Launchballer 10:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (3)

[edit]

2022 Bahrain Grand Prix

[edit]

Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]
  • Given that the hook would hit the main page at 16:00 EST on US election day, I feel like it should be delayed another day at least due to the involvement of several current candidates. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

[edit]
I thought the election date was the fifth. These are scheduled to hit the main page at 16:00 on the sixth.--Launchballer 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Cock Destroyers +1

[edit]
I can't touch this because I wrote the articles, but would "that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a "gloriously queer" sex education video for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer" flow better?--Launchballer 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dundonald House

[edit]
My count is 439 bytes before expansion, 2219 bytes after expansion. That is narrowly above x5. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/It's OK I'm OK

[edit]
Resolved

I would like to move towards resolution here, but I need someone to take a look at ALT1 and my proposed rewrite of that hook in my review, and if possible, present it in a proposed new hook form or offer up other ones. Nominator is currently inactive. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

[edit]
  • ... that Margaret Pargeter was one of the most widely read authors in Britain in 1986?

The data in the source is from 1985 (the article was published in March 1986, so it can't provide information for that year). I'm also not convinced about the data being bundled by genre (the most popular books were romance novels by five authors including Pargeter, but it doesn't give any actual data for each one) but that's not objectively wrong because of the dreaded "one of"... Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it checks out, "that Margaret Pargeter wrote 49 novels between 1975 and 1986 and published her 50th in 1997" would be a good hook. All references to it in prose are cited to the 1997 novel though. Also, pinging @Cielquiparle, ResonantDistortion, and Hilst:.--Launchballer 10:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like your alt hook. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Thanks for the suggestion. Here's my tweak (to make it less "pat" so that there is still something to click for):
  • ... that Margaret Pargeter published 49 novels within 11 years, followed by her 50th novel 11 years later?
Cielquiparle (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source? It doesn't appear to be user generated, and it cites your alt hook apart from the fact it says the 50th was published in 1998 (suspect that might be the US release date, as all other sources say 1997). For someone who was supposedly such a widely-read author, there is very little about her work - I can't even find a proper obituary. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact she was a volunteer fire-fighter in the ARP during WWII might be a decent hook as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per [1], basic members can update the site. So no, not an RS.--Launchballer 14:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My DYKs

[edit]

Hi, can someone please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog (2nd nomination) and Template:Did you know nominations/Fishing cat, and either promote or fail them? It's been weeks now. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently a few dozen approved hooks nominated before yours, so it'll probably be a while yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. We're at one set a day, which means eight hooks per day. Since these are not biographies, nor are they American, they will likely not be bypassed for balance purposes; they'll probably end up being promoted more quickly than more common classes of article nominated at the same time.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It often takes about four weeks on average between nomination and promotion (my guess) and about a week in a prep/queue. Both articles were nominated two weeks ago and DYKs usually don't get promoted within that period (unless it has to run on a special day). For comparison, my noms get reviewed either within a week, or after a month. JuniperChill (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot is down; midnight update delayed

[edit]

Regrettably, DYKUpdateBot didn't run at midnight; normally, the update of the main page and all the other moves and credits would have been completed by now.

I have notified Shubinator on his talk page (I initially noticed that DYKHousekeepingBot was down, and discovered that DYKUpdateBot also seemed to be down), in the hopes that he can start the bot soon. In the meantime, we will need an admin to do a manual update: pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that one of you can step in. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the adminny stuff, if someone else can handle the credits and tags :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYKUpdateBot came back online a few minutes after BlueMoonset's message, and had already updated when your update began. Probably best to undo your update? Otherwise one set was on DYK for just 5 minutes. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just undid. My bad! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks good now! Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1255556008"