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.

Back to 24 hours?

[edit]

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 January

[edit]

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Josie Childs

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, SL93, and Flibirigit: Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like there's no credit template for this. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fell out in this edit. I've added it.--Launchballer 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Fenner

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Metropolitan90: The article says "profits ... helped finance" which implies it was one of several sources of funding, but the hook says "was paid for" which implies it was the only source. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith We could insert the word partially if you think it is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hefker

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, ProfGray, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It seems to me that to get from the the paragraph ("For David Bergelson, hefker refers to expressionist poetry itself...") in the article to the hook requires a bit more insight and interpretation than is typical for DYK, but I'd like a second opinion on this one.

There was also a question raised on the nom page about whether most readers would understand the word "Talmudic". My guess is that most people, while perhaps not actually knowing what the Talmud is, would at least recognize that it's a historic book associated with Judiasm, but let's see what others thing about that as well. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also contains some long direct quotes from PD sources. That's fine, but I think they need to be set out as quotes with explicit attribution. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses Template:Source-attribution to credit the public domain source. As I understand it, this attribution, plus inline citations, is enough to meet the requirements of WP:FREECOPY. If I have misinterpreted this policy, I will re-approve the nom once the changes have been made. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear people's thinking about this DYK. Let me clarify that the scholars Naomi Brenner and Harriet Murav are the ones who make the interpretation (or finding) that hefker conveys both senses of freedom and abandonment. FWIW, I think "Talmudic" is acceptable but, to err on the side of caution, I edited the article to give a brief descript of the word Talmud. Please let me know if there's more needed on my end. ProfGray (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 26. We have a total of 283 nominations, same as last time, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 112 nominations that has increased by 19 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing that we've been running two sets per day for the past five days and the deficit is still moving in the wrong direction. I wonder if we should be looking at 10 hooks per set after we get done beating down this backlog? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
171 approved hooks per this list, 190 per the last one; 93 non-approved per the last list, 112 per this one. The number of approved hooks is shrinking. Am I missing something?--Launchballer 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I interpreted "has increased by 19" as "gotten bigger". Silly me. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind the gap. If you look at the Approved noms page, last night it was fully transcluded for the first time in weeks. Progress is being made on the deficit; thanks to recent promotions to prep, we're now down to 141 approved hooks, a drop of 30 in the past day and a half. But the number of unapproved hooks is increasing now that we're not in backlog mode and the GA backlog drive is in full swing. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps an increase to 10 hooks per day is warranted at least temporarily? TarnishedPathtalk 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that increasing it to 10 hooks per set (I wrote day above) would work if the 2x QPQ requirement was also set at editors with more than 10 nominations instead of the current 20. I forgot to write that previously. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why those two things are connected. RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer above gave figures which indicated that while approved hooks was shrinking unapproved hooks was increasing. Reducing the QPQ x 2 requirement from editors with > 20 nominations down to editors with > 10 nominations would address that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That two-QPQs requirement only comes into effect when backlog mode is on, which is only for brief periods when the unapproved hooks get extremely high. 112 unapproved is far from extremely high, and we want more-experienced reviewers to do those second QPQs, not people who only have five reviews under their belts. (Five freebies and five QPQs is the standard experience for someone on their 11th nomination.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (10 January)

[edit]

Clay M. Greene

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Pbritti: The hook conflates Some sources claim he was the "first American born in San Francisco" with Greene himself, who controversially claimed he was "the first white child born in San Francisco" RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources cited in the lead that looked to verify the statement "first American born in San Francisco" statement. While one is an old headline, it is from the NYT and there's a secondbut offline source present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of what the sources say. It's that the hook says something that the article doesn't say. Per WP:DYKHOOK The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was confused as to the issue. Would appropriate resolutions be rephrasing to something like "claim he was 'the first American' born in San Francisco" or dispensing with the quotation marks entirely? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding what the issue is here.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the hook says that Greene claimed he was the "first American born in San Francisco". That is not what the article says. RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the lead paragraph. Second sentence. It states what is in the hook. The selective quote about Greene's comments later in the article is not representative of all of Greene's statements on this subject as he repeated these claims in various words across many speeches. 4meter4 (talk)

@RoySmith. would this hook be more suitable as it more closely matches the lead: ... that multiple sources state that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) was the first American born in San Francisco; a controversial claim spread by the writer?4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just do the obvious thing and use the wording from the aricle:
  • ... that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) claimed he was the "the first white child born in San Francisco"?
that would solve the problem. RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Ok. If that is what you think is necessary. In digging up that source again and double checking for accuracy, the exact quote is "the first American white child born in San Francisco". I modified the text accordingly in the article to exactly match the source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll make the corresponding change to the hook. BTW, I tried to read the source, but newspapers.com seems to be broken at the moment. Do you have a URL where I could get at it? RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hard time digging it up again myself as something weird is going on (i used newspaperarchive and not newspapers.com) I had to physically go into the archive for that publication and open the date of the page for that specific newspaper as a word search wasn't getting a hit. It was really odd. Here is the link through the wikipedia library: https://access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/us/nevada/reno/reno-evening-gazette/1933/05-24/page-4 Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the source of the confusion. I was expecting to see a direct quote of Greene saying, "I was the first American white child born in San Francisco", which is why I was insisting on reproducing the text exactly. But that's not the case. Regardless, I think what we've got now is fine, so let's go with that. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lingnan School

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Crisco 1492, and Yue: The article uses the word "criticism" which got turned into the stronger word "condemnation" in the hook. I'm not sure that's justified. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've used "condemnation" in place of criticism in the article. Source supports it: "In the increasingly anti-Japanese atmosphere of the times, this freshly made-in-Japan appearance was a liability much heavier than the first generation of Lingnan painters had had to bear twenty years earlier. ... After the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937, such appeals to cultural conscience were useless and the Japanese background even more damaging to the Lingnan School. ... With Japanese armies transcending China's borders, a cosmopolitanism that included the national enemy was not in style." (Croizier), "Despite some explicitly anti-Japanese art by Gao Jianfu and his followers at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, most works displayed unmistakable signs of Japanese stylistic influence, which aroused the ire of patriots as well as artistic conservatives." (Croizier and Liang) — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Then the solution would be to change "criticism" in the article body to "condemnation" because as the source suggests, it was not merely artistic criticism. Yue🌙 20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Picher–Neosho tornado

[edit]

@EF5: A citation is needed at the end of the first paragraph under the section titled Tornado summary. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. EF5 14:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

2020 NFC Championship Game

[edit]

@SL93, Gonzo fan2007, and OlifanofmrTennant: Why is the statement in the hook in quotes? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a direct quote from the source Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should also be in quotes in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: As it seems like a fact and not an opinion, could it not have been paraphrased instead? —Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Persson

[edit]

@SL93, MumphingSquirrel, Chaiten1, and AirshipJungleman29: I question whether SKBL (cited in the nom) is a WP:RS, and this is the kind of "first" which can be problematic; it's really hard to know if any woman in Sweden had ever driven a bus before she did. There's also a fair amount of WP:CLOP vs skbl.se/en/article/BertaPersson; not just the exact matches Earwig highlights, but continuing to the surrounding text. As an aside to Airship; you said in the nom that "I don't have time to check fully". If that was the case, then wouldn't it have been better to not approve it yourself? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would have been best, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can go ahead and fix the CLOP, but the About page made it seem to me as reliable. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Earwig now reports the article as violations being 0% across all sources. SKBL is a reliable source per this on the About SKBL page - "The project leaders are Lisbeth Larsson and Maria Sjöberg. The editorial board comprises Berith Backlund, Linus Karlsson, Ulrika Lagerlöf Nilsson, Cecilia Pettersson, Scharolta Siencnik, and Linnea Åshede. The dictionary entries were written by experts and researchers (listed under the entry for ʻArticle authors’) and translated into English by Alexia Grosjean. The database was developed by Språkbanken and is managed by Swe-Clarin. The database and the dictionary form part of KvinnSam – the National Resource Library for Gender Studies at the University of Gothenburg... As for the hook fact, Sweden's official Facebook page agrees. I don't see a reason to doubt the Swedish government in this case. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starbuck (film)

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Reidgreg, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I don't understand this hook at all. I can't parse ... that the comedy film Starbuck and the Holstein bull after which it was named both had cloned remakes? as an English sentence. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe it's supposed to be ... that the comedy film Starbuck, and the Holstein bull after which it was named, both had cloned remakes? RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, both seem comprehensible to me, and maybe more comprehensible if you move the "both" to after the "that"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just go with Airship's suggestion sans the serial comma, Roy? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
updated RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilium lophophorum

[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but that picture looks like the plant from Little Shop of Horrors. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Aquilegia daingolica (nom)

[edit]

@Pbritti, BeanieFan11, and SL93: it may be my poor understanding of botanical literature, but the source seems to say that a specimen was collected as early as 1906? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Sloppy work on my part. I have added the collection of the 1906 specimen, now characterized as a paratype, to the article. If you would be so kind, please adjust the hook to read "that specimens of Aquilegia daingolica were collected in 1906 and 1909, but it was first described as a new species in 2013?" Apologies, and outstanding catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I see that I became confused. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Is the new hook acceptable? SL93 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allied prisoners of war in Japan (nom)

[edit]

An interesting hook, but it says that " the harsh treatment of Allied prisoners of war in Japan is well known in the West but mostly forgotten in Japan itself?". The article, however, says that it is "ignored or glossed over", which do not appear to be synonyms of "forgotten". Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator Piotrus. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite @SL93 Fair point, feel free to changed to "ignored" or "glossed over" or a more apt synonym. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always Happy to Explode (nom)

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29: Your edit to the hook here improved my admittedly clunky syntax but I think also introduced ambiguity. The reason I had worded it such a way was to indicate that the quote refers to the one individual song, whereas I think the updated wording loses that distinction and makes it sound like the quote refers to the album as a whole. Would it be an improvement to say,

ALT0a ...that when asked about a song on Always Happy to Explode, its principal songwriter asked listeners to "love it for me, for I cannot"?

If you or others think my concerns are unfounded then I will defer, just thought I'd propose the alt. Thanks, DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is unambiguous. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My fiance thinks I'm over thinking it too, ha. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manual update needed

[edit]

@DYK admins: @DYKUpdateBot: appears to be down.--Launchballer 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted DYKUpdateBot, it's updating now. Shubinator (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Debris fallout (nom)

[edit]

@Departure–, @Piotrus, @SL93: I have some concerns about this hook.

  • The 6.0 number isn't even found in the article, the figure given in the text is 5.5-6. It also contradicts other content in the article, which says "A later study focusing on debris fallout discovered that debris from an intense tornado was lofted as high as 12 km (7.5 mi) into the atmosphere". Why use the lower range, and why arbitrarily pick a single figure from that lower range?
  • Using "debris" unqualified could be misleading, given that the common meaning of debris is something like rubble or wreckage. Most people will not think of paper, and the idea of a piece of rubble being shot 353 km away is quite a bit more startling than a piece of paper drifting that far in the air.
  • Speaking of, the 353 km figure appears to be an extreme outlier, but this hook pairs it with the (I assume) more common 6km figure, making it instead appear like this is something that happens often.

It's possible I'm being too picky here, but I think this one needs some revision. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos Hmmm, the figure I see in the text is 5.5–6.5 km (3.4–4.0 mi) which averages the one from the hook. So an average of the lowest range, contrasted with the highest range, seems ok to me. As for classifying the paper as debris, well, it's a small piece of one, but the term does not strike me as inaccurate, and it seems to be used by professionals in this context? Granted, I am not an expert in weather - perhaps ask for a WP:30 from Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted a quick and easily citable figure for the height. 6.5 is (I believe) the highest figure from the Super Outbreak paper (the easiest to verify), so any figure it should be (5.5, 6.5, 7.5 (which I didn't use as I believe that specific measurement was potentially unreliable and questionable)) is going to work fine in the blurb. You'd be surprised how often "debris" unqualified is used to refer to anything the tornado lifts (literally its definition) - it's also not explicitly just paper, as it's impossible to verify the contents of non-meteorological debris in the atmosphere. The outlier figure from Lenoir City could be feasibly qualified with a "record" or "on one occasion" in the hook. Departure– (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that that's how "debris" is used in the actual literature, considering the article is titled "debris fallout". My point is that the layman's perception of what "debris" means is not going to be paper, and the hook comes off quite a bit differently when you read it without any qualification. If you're going to focus on the 353 figure, and it's certainly interesting enough that you could do so and ditch the 6.0 entirely, I would make it more clear that it's an outlier figure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with this too, for a different reason than @Premeditated Chaos. Our article says Debris was frequently lofted as high as 5.5–6.5 km, which is apparently based on Knox et al which says These heights are consistent with the 5.5- to 6.5-km peak heights for debris lofting estimated by Forbes (2012) So we've taken a "consistent with ... estimated by" and turned that into a wikivoice "frequently". No bueno. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, in the article text. The hook is actually better in this sense as it hedges with "has been known to". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"has been known to" is still not justified when supported only with "consistent with ... estimated by". RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new hook without the consistency with debris lofted into the atmosphere, still verified by the source:

...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 tornado included a windbreaker being found 107 km (66 mi) and a photograph being found 353 km (219 mi) downstream from their origins?

This is much better verified from the source, and focuses on the individual outlier event. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd trim it a bit, and skip some of the links:
...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 tornado included a photograph found 353 km (219 mi) downstream from its origin?
RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with that. I had hoped to include the windbreaker as it qualifies as the "heavy debris" mentioned in the article, but the hook works fine either way. Departure– (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are going to include it, perhaps mentioning the fact that the debris was recovered in a different state will increase the hook's interesting quality.

...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 US tornado included a photograph found 353 km (219 mi) in a different state downstream from its origin?

Specifying the US for the purposes of including "state". Departure– (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting is how far the storm moved an object. Storms don't worry about political boundaries, so telling people it's a different state doesn't add anything. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I think that RoySmith's hook is the best option. I agree with his thoughts about boundaries as well. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then that hook it is. State boundaries aren't too important to me, as I think that crossing at least one border (if not multiple) is expected at 353 km. Thanks for bringing that up, RoySmith. Departure– (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, the hook needs to have a space between the "..." and the following "that". Please add the space when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for having my back. RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name change discussion

[edit]

Can an article with a requested name change tag be promoted? I am referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack. SL93 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines § Presentability, I don't think an ongoing move request is a reason to reject a nomination. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be showing up as verified??

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Goodman (basketball) is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch, User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, User:Panamitsu, maybe User:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when 2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Does your edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
    5 Nov Nominated
    7 Nov Approved
    25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hilst, see ALT9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-Australia New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject being Australian New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate main page underreprentation by these category sizes Category:FA-Class New Zealand articles (count 57) and Category:FA-Class Australia articles (count 478). So the WP:TFA ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is not due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Zoe Smith

[edit]

@BennyOnTheLoose, AmateurHi$torian, and SL93: I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Wikipedia's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Wikipedia birthday thing sounds great as well :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the standards given on WP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Wikipedia's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India

[edit]

@Za-ari-masen and Surtsicna: Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer I added the word "monk". SL93 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoflow

[edit]

First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one was), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in Martin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations.[1][2][3] RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ scholarship.law.columbia.edu https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship. Retrieved 12 January 2025. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
  3. ^ "June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz". Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Retrieved 12 January 2025.

RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Roach (bishop)

[edit]

@Kingoflettuce, Darth Stabro, and Hilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casey is dead, cannot find anything for Schwartz.
Perhaps as an ALT1: "... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation at World Youth Day 1993 when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Launchballer 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Thamirys Nunes/Minha Criança Trans

[edit]

@Skyshifter, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF fine.--Launchballer 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl De Sousa

[edit]

@Queen of Hearts, Generalissima, and Hilst: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, done. charlotte 👸♥ 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Chongguo

[edit]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: One of the notes needs a citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the wuwu year is. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed these Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burt (crocodile)

[edit]

@CFA and WikiOriginal-9: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 hook sets?

[edit]

We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, 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 January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 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) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1269197674"