Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

RfC on DYK and COI

[edit]

A discussion is currently taking place regarding how to treat articles created with a COI on DYK. That RfC was procedually closed, so I've started a new one below as this is the appropriate place to discuss it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

[edit]

Should articles created under a conflict of interest be allowed to run on Did you know? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

The previous RfC, which was started by Thriley, came in the wake of two nominations by Sammi Brie, who recently took up a paid editing position at Arizona State University. She nominated one of the articles which she created under the ASU's auspices, although she made it clear that the nomination was made independently and was not directed by the ASU.

Discussion (DYK and COI)

[edit]

Pinging participants in that closed RfC to give their thoughts here: @Tryptofish, Launchballer, and Justiyaya:, as well as commenters @Firefangledfeathers and Flibirigit:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a page that is seen by a larger segment of the community than this one would be the best location for this. The implications of allowing paid articles on the front page are serious. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who closed the previous discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini - I felt myself that it was in the wrong venue and multiple editors had already said as much. To an extent, I also agree with Thriley but I think this is probably the best venue for an initial discussion. If necessary, it could be advertised at and/or moved to WT:Main page and WP:Village pump but I do think discussion about what should be allowable in WP:DYK should be held here. As other editors said in the previous discussion, where a paid edit has been clearly disclosed and is in line with both the English language Wikipedia's policies and the Wikipedia Foundation's terms, I see no issue with a DYK nomination from a non-paid editor based on a paid editors contributions. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick questtion- original RfC said "articles created for payment", while this version expands that to "conflict of interest". Before this gets underway, is there a reason this RfC went for a much broader scope? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t appreciate that the wording was changed. This is about paid editing. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to see this as an RfC. The issue was pre-emptively raised by Sammi Brie at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#ASU — disclosed paid editing, which received no objections, so the WP:RFCBEFORE showed no objections. If there is an RfC, there should be another discussion first to get a better understanding of editors' thoughts on the matter. CMD (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini prior to the opening of the original RFC at that page which I closed. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have also mentioned, there was some objection in that discussion. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems that the objection came only from Thriley. The closed RfC found support in the limited time it was open, which is in line with the lack of objections when this was previously discussed here. I think there is merit to further discussion, which could shift perspectives, but as it stands the existing discussions do already indicate some consensus on this matter. CMD (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, further discussion might have merit. I don't think it would have been all that useful in the initial venue, though. As I said above, I don't really see any issue, but paid editing on Wikipedia can be a very touchy subject so if anyone has legitimate concerns they want to voice here that I haven't considered I am happy to be convinced. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view remains the same as it was a day or two ago, when I posted it at the previous discussion, so I'm linking to it, rather than repeating it here. (Since editors here are taking specific note of the issue of paid editing, I'll add that what I said still applies the same way to WP:PAID.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mine as well.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis. What Sammi is doing should be fine, but we have had questionable cases in the past like TonyTheTiger and his sister. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to discuss this, just to avoid anything like the Gibraltarpedia story. Certainly we should not have ASU stories every day (but I trust Sammi to not do something like that). —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A specific note from me here... Most of my work for ASU is going to involve improvements to existing pages. Graham Rossini is kind of a "right place at the right time" one. I identified him during an extremely large project that nearly quadrupled the size of ASU's alumni list (and resulted in 13 new sublists). Rossini didn't meet the GNG until he became ASU's athletic director, because it's precisely that job that gave him his SIGCOV. And further, athletic directors of major universities tend to be notable. ASU has a navbox of past ADs. Ten of the fifteen other Big 12 ADs have articles per List of NCAA Division I athletic directors, as do 16 of 18 in the ACC and all of the SEC and Big Ten. That doesn't mean I don't see gaps or ASU-adjacent projects that I'd like to fill on my own time, of course (Charles S. Harris, for instance, is the only permanent ASU AD to not have an article going back to the 1950s). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to the view that it's permissible, provided the COI is clearly disclosed on the nominations page. One could perhaps require an additional safeguard such as a second reviewer, but so long as it is independently reviewed and meets all the criteria there shouldn't be an issue. If in future it shows signs of becoming an issue, one could always revisit the matter, but a blanket disqualification at this point would seem premature. Gatoclass (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Tony did all of those things when writing an article on a family member, and almost nobody was okay with it. Rjjiii (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Tony's case was not the COI itself, it was the circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, editors interpreted his nomination as a way to promote his sister, not helped by the fact that he wanted it to run on her birthday (which at the time was not in the article). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it's important to be clear whether this is about paid editing, or COI editing. They are different things. I, for one, don't do the former. I am currently writing an article where I have a COI (in draft, conflict declared, and the article is going to be peer reviewed before it goes into main space). Hence, I'd say be clear what the RfC is asking about. Schwede66 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 16. We have a total of 325 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has increased by 30 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

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) 02:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I suggest italicizing DYKs that requires a new reviewer to differentiate it from DYKs that haven't been reviewed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeromi Mikhael, thank you for the suggestion. In the past we've differentiated between new and continuing reviews, and it didn't stick. I don't plan to italicize or otherwise distinguish between them going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nominations/Margono Soekarjo

[edit]

I've just lodged a new hook here. Is it allowed to nominate single and double hooks in a DYK nom, especially if the two articles were made on a different date? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, although the later article would take the earlier article's date.--Launchballer 23:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, do I need to transclude this DYK nom to Djamaloeddin? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, but I updated the nom.--Launchballer 00:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion. I meant transcluding the DYK template (the header of this discussion) to the talkpage of the Djamaloeddin (the more recent) article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Fat pope, thin pope (nom)

[edit]

@Darth Stabro, Chipmunkdavis, and Launchballer: I get this is meant to be a quirky hook, but technically the hook as currently written is misleading. For one, the article outright questions a literal interpretation of the article title (i.e. that it does not actually follow that fat popes are generally succeeded by thin popes, and vice versa). Another is that the saying is not literal: it's actually referring to the idea that popes tend to follow a different ideology from their predecessors. So as written, the hook is arguably inaccurate. Given that this is a special occasion hook, we'll probably have to come up with an alternative hook or wording as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 I get what you're saying, but I think this works, under a combination of poetic license and WP:DYKQUIRKY RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QUIRKY says quirky hooks still need to meet the regular guidelines on sourcing and accuracy: quality and truthfulness should not be sacrificed for the sake of being quirky. I don't think the hook as currently written meets the spirit of that, at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an adage: it's "true", even if not in a literal sense. If There is no such thing as a free lunch was nominated, would just the adage be a good hook that meets the guidelines? I'd say yes. Also, admittedly policies may have been different in 2012, but the shortest hook ever was simply a question mark. I'm fine with the hook being "... that an Italian adage says a fat pope follows a thin one?" if need be, but I really don't think there's anything wrong with running it as-is. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Narutolovehinata5. We always get into trouble at ERRORS for repeating things that aren't true for the sake of quirk, and I think repeating the adage in our own voice would absolutely mislead readers into thinking that it's fully or mostly true when RSes don't act that way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest putting the phrase in quote marks or adding "an Italian adage says".--Launchballer 15:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the time sensitivity of the hook I've gone ahead and made the change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even find it unusually quirky. It's a saying, and the hook very simply repeats the saying. CMD (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization

[edit]

A new reviewer is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization, as the current reviewer is mandating a lengthy quote of a primary source as a means of avoiding "interpretation" in the article, while I as the nominator maintain that this is against policy and that blending content from secondary sources is routine. Extra input will be needed to settle the matter. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mandated a lengthy quote, a simpler solution would be to not base so content on one press release. CMD (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 6 May 0:00 UTC

[edit]

Indigenous drag performers (nom)

[edit]

The hook says, "... that the aesthetic expression of indigenous drag performers can be seen as a strategy for cultural survival and resistance?" It sounds awkward and inappropriate to say that in wikivoice; it's still the interpretation of an academic. Can you please reword this to make it clear who the source is? "According to..." or "has been interpreted as...by scholar" or similar within the article and in the hook? @Paul2520 @GMH Melbourne @Hilst Cielquiparle (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could certainly do:
  • ALT2a: ... that according to researcher Treena Clark, the aesthetic expression of indigenous drag performers can be seen as a strategy for cultural survival and resistance?
but that's kind of wordy. How about:
  • ALT2b: ... that according to researcher Treena Clark, indigenous drag performance can be seen as a strategy for cultural survival and resistance?
RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALT2b. Thanks, RoySmith! = paul2520 💬 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul2520 @RoySmith If you are changing the hook like that, you absolutely have to make the corresponding edits to the article as well -- i.e., call out the "researcher Treena Clark" in the sentence that contains the hook fact (or in proximity of it). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. My bad. Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahuel Carabaña (nom)

[edit]

Per WP:DYKCITE: The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear... Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient, and this rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. Could you please fix this in the article? @Riley1012, Jon698, and RoySmith: At minimum, I would expect the sentence about the cyclist turning around to have a footnote. (Also, the reviewer didn't sign the review.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Made a change to address this. Jon698 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutie mark (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cutie_mark)

[edit]

Per WP:DYKCITE: The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear... Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient, and this rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. @GregariousMadness, John Cummings, and RoySmith: Could you please fix this in the article? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never really understood the point of that rule, and generally don't enforce it. We already have rules for how citations apply to text: each statement is supported by the next following citation, with the proviso that citations can't span paragraph breaks, and one special case for direct quotes. It's simple and unambiguous. Why does DYK need to do its own thing in that respect? RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly to allow for quick verification. Having the reference next to the relevant sentence allows the reviewer to immediately check if the information is in the reference. IIRC there have been cases in the past where an end-paragraph citation proved to be insufficient because the hook material was not supported by the paragraph's reference. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the citation didn't support the material, then it doesn't matter if it's at the end of the sentence or the end of the paragraph. And certainly, if the point of the rule is to aid the DYK reviewer, then it's just busywork to go back and add these extra citations after the review is completed. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith To me it's not about the DYK reviewer per se. It's about the fact that the article is going prime time on the main page, which means that thousands of readers will be looking at it and several will start to make edits –  generally constructive, but sometimes lacking context (always a risk in drive-by editing). Leaving the sentence that contains the hook fact without a footnote at the end of the sentence leaves it more vulnerable to often well-intentioned but possibly careless drive-by editing. (This is why I personally prefer lede paragraphs with citations, especially for controversial topics.) It's not a guarantee by any means, but people are to some extent less likely to mess with a sentence if they can see a footnote at the end of it. And also...yes. After seeing how WP:ERRORS works I think it's important for all readers (not just the DYK reviewer) to be able to easily search and find the source(s) for each hook claim. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would approach it is that there's no point in having something like:

Hook fact.[1] Other sentence.[1] Another sentence, end of paragraph.[1][2]

That's pretty clearly redundant. But there are situations where it's useful, like:

Hook fact.[1] Another sentence, end of paragraph.[1][2]

Sure, you could technically eliminate the cite from the hook fact, but then it'd be harder for people to figure out what's actually being used to source the information.
If I were rewriting DYKG, I would change it like so:

The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear, unless doing so would produce two identical consecutive sets of citations, in which case extraneous citations should be omitted.

But maybe some other approach works. It's one of those things that doesn't take up a lot of time and we don't always follow it to the letter anyway, so I don't think it's worth a whole RfC or whatever. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roy, DYK policy should conform with policy elsewhere. In the case of an article I'd previously nominated for DYK, I'd put citations at the end of each sentence to only have other editors remove them stating that it's only needed at the end of the paragraph and the one citation supported the whole paragraph. TarnishedPathtalk 04:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregariousMadness could I ask you to address this? I don't understand the topic well at all and I am honestly a little confused about what the rule is. John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Frischmuth

[edit]

In Prep 5, we read:

  • ... that Barbara Frischmuth (pictured) lectured that humans are just one of numerous species on Earth and should not presume to rule over others?

This was trimmed by removing "Austrian novelist". My point is that the fact would be more interesting when attributed to an important person in literature, instead to a no-name woman. We could rather trim the longish sentence after "on Earth" without changing the meaning. What do you think? (I first approached RoySmith who trimmed). Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting part of the hook, its main point, is the "should not presume to rule over others" point and not the "one of numerous species" aspect. Cutting the hook after "Earth" would result in an uninterseting hook. In fact, arguably the hook can be trimmed, but rather as:
... that novelist Barbara Frischmuth (pictured) lectured that humans should not presume to rule over others?
If we move the "humans should not rule" part then the entire hook loses its meaning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I disagree, - the consequence seems so logical that I personally don't see anything hooky in it but accept that you do. Now please read that hook loud to yourself: how would anyone guess that you/it is supposed to mean "over other species"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... that novelist Barbara Frischmuth (pictured) lectured that humans should not presume to rule over other species?
Better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the original reviewer Miraclepine for input on the new wordings. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Apologies to the delay due to family commitments. That third one is concise enough; we should go with that. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @RoySmith: I guess this can be swapped in? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that to you. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Not sure if I'm allowed to do so since I proposed both the original wording on the nom page and also the shortened version. Maybe we can ask an uninvolved editor? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron:, seeing as you just put this on the main page?--Launchballer 07:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: sure, although i've changed "lectured" to "argues" to avoid the pejorative sense. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer @Theleekycauldron Given that she already died, shouldn't it be "argued"? Also the new wording is somewhat inaccurate since the original wording referred to a specific lecture of hers and it's directly supported in the article that she actually argued it in general during her life. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we regularly use "argues" to refer to dead people, ie "Plato argues in The Republic that ..."
i think you missed a "not" somewhere in there, because I'm not sure what your other issue is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the source does support a general statement, but now I'm wondering if the article has translation CLOP? I'm headed to sleep now, so I'll look more into this in the morning if i need to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other was a second concern about the "argues" wording, since I don't think it was an argument she regularly did, it was specific to that one lecture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've added some content from the source and it should match now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page

[edit]

The hook is now on the Main page, pictured, and surely will find many readers because of the commanding image. It still has no "novelist" to indicate where she comes from, which - as said before - would make the hook stronger and more interesting than as a statement from just some woman, imho. Also, this hook could probably be said about several people, while what I suggested was specifically about her, an exceptional woman. Sad. I'd be a bit less sad if some admin would included "novelist". Please remember that for millions of readers of the Main page - those who won't click - the hook will be their only introduction to the person. Please also remember that I had to delete (again) the phrase in the credit "Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page." because it tastes like irony to me: suggest and you will be rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was updated to include "novelist" sometime in between you receiving the credit and you writing this post :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move it? Article moved post-DYK nom

[edit]

tl;dr Template:Did you know nominations/Class (book) should be Template:Did you know nominations/Class (Cooper book) - can I just move the page?

Hello all, I put an article into main space as Class (book) and wisely it was moved to Class (Cooper book), however this happened after I made the DYK nomination. I've not come across this before and I wondered whether I should just move the template page, or whether if I edit the DYK nom it will bring up Class (Cooper book) as the page. This was kindly pointed to me by ERcheck! Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When situations like this happen, we leave the template page as is. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the article in the hook needed to be updated, but that has already been done. TSventon (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TSventon: I made the move. @Darth Stabro: I wasn't sure of the process. I renamed the template page as well. Should it be changed back? — ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ERcheck: No, you should not have done that, since moving templates can break things. What you should have done is simply changed the link in the hook. That is, changing Class to Class without moving the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Apologies. I found it confusing as the Class (book) now directs to a disamb page. Time for me to accept a trouting. Should I undo those changes? — ERcheck (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Done. Changed back and move noted on nomination page for clarity. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone, I appreciate the help and thanks to @ERcheck for swifting reverting things. Happy editing Lajmmoore (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording issue with hook in Q3

[edit]

The hook slated to run in less than 24 hours:

As written this could easily be read as implying that only 17 children ever have been raised in a Chabad family. Might this not be better (and tighter)?:

Pinging @TarnishedPath: (nominator), @Annwfwn: (reviewer) and @SL93: (promoter). Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the rewording, although I would have never read it that way because the hook doesn't use the word ever or something similar. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "family of 17" mean 2 parents plus 15 children? RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It could also be one parent and 16 children. Or even one grandparent, one parent, and 15 children. Or... SL93 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case, I think @RoySmith is potentially correct when they state that "family of 17" means 15 children and 2 parents, but it could also mean 16 children and 1 parent, etc.
From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Avi Yemini grew up in St Kilda East, in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish home of 17 children. (He was number 10.) His father, Zephaniah Waks, was a Jew of Russian/Polish extraction, while his mother, Haya Yemini, was born in Israel to Yemeni parents.

We could potentially say
but we would be making a presumption that there were no grandparents living with them and given the size of the family I don't know if we are entitled to make that presumption. TarnishedPathtalk 03:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK then:

@Daniel Case, I see no issue with that change. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"one of 17 siblings" would make it clearer that it was one family. CMD (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with replacing children with siblings. TarnishedPathtalk 07:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daniel Case, taking CMD's suggestion we could word it:
... that Avi Yemini is one of seventeen siblings who were raised in an ultra-Orthodox Chabad family?
TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! That works best! Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (7 May, 00:00)

[edit]

Bill Cottrell (nom)

[edit]

I think in general we're very wary of "first" claims, unless they're so widely attested and sourced that there's no doubt. I'm not sure that applies here. This article here, for example, gives the honour of the first black center to Wally Highsmith. It's hard to really work out the details on this, because the article doesn't actually state any particular game in which he is known to have played center anyway. For his first season it says "He had made the team at center, but in the second game of the season was thrust into the starting lineup at tackle" so at least at that point, he wasn't yet playing center. Given the uncertainty, I'm not sure this can run as stands. @BeanieFan11, Lullabying, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given time constraints I've pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he made the team at center then moved in game No. 2, then game No. 1 he was a center and thus the first, given that Highsmith only played in years afterwards. One could say " ... that football player Bill Cottrell is believed to be the first black center in the NFL?" or maybe "is credited as the first". BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're going to say he's "the first center", with no other qualification, I would infer that he was the first to play a game in that position, not just that he was signed on as such. If it's that he was the first black center to be signed to a team, then we should make that clear. Adding "believed to be" or "credited as" doesn't really resolve the issue, it just adds another layer of uncertainty to it IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified in the article that at minimum, he was used at center in 1968 (and he appears to have been center for game 1 in '67). Looking at Highsmith again, Highsmith played in the AFL and thus Cottrell's claim to being the first in the NFL still seems valid. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how you look at it. AFL history is fully integrated into NFL history. From the perspective of the time, an AFL player was not an NFL player. But looking back from now, that same player is part of NFL history. And any "firsts" are NFL firsts.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that you phrased it as "in the NFL" as opposed to "in NFL history". That might be enough. Or you might need to say "first to play on a team that was part of the NFL at the time". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 @Khajidha @Amakuru For what it's worth, a couple of new hooks were proposed at the nomination that move away from the "first" angle entirely, so maybe those are worth discussing rather than continuing with a seemingly problematic angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, Highsmith played in '68, whereas Cottrell was a center for a game in '67. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dexcom G6 (nom)

[edit]

Similar to the above, this is another "first" claim that doesn't necessarily seem to be confirmed in all sources. It seems like the "FreeStyle Libre" is another contender for being the first CGM not to need calibration, and indeed our own article continuous glucose monitor says "In September 2017, the FDA approved the first CGM that does not require calibration with fingerstick measurement, the FreeStyle Libre". This paper here - [1] says that the G6 came in 2018, after the FreeStyle Libre. So unless this is about the first to be invented rather than the first to gain approval, but again this would require some more sourcing for us to be sure which was really the first, and probably clarity about what exactly the claim is saying. @MallardTV, Jeromi Mikhael, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recall another user pointing this out to me, I’ve got more sources at home. I’ll send em when I get there if you need. MallardTV Talk to me! 12:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, @Amakuru I do think it would be a good idea to change it to "first Dexcom CGM" MallardTV Talk to me! 12:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds promotional and less interesting. So what if it's the company's first such product? In fact, I actually the hook needs replacing because one could argue that it reads like an advertisement for the subject even if it's not intended as such. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks

[edit]

Just to point out that there are two hooks about West Bengal politics in this set (one election and one politician). Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: I've pulled both of the above hooks, so we have two open slots that need to be filled in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I have moved in Jim Aldred and Parasitic ant from a prep. SL93 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped one of the hooks with Peter Sprenger from Prep 7. I proposed Jatin Chakraborty's hook wording (albeit as a trimming of the nominator's original proposal) so I'm technically involved, but given how I did not modify the hook in Prep I hope this is allowed. If not, feel free to leave me a trout. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (6 May, 00:00)

[edit]

Dennis Walker (banker) (Nom is here)

[edit]

This is a new article. However, whilst obviously an unsavoury character, according to the article Walker was never convicted of any crime; he disappeared when he was accused by the state, and was later found dead. Given that, I don't think the name of the article, nor its first sentence ("Dennis Lyle Walker was an American criminal...") can stand in Wikivoice. Pinging @Jon698, SL93, and Juxlos: Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, did not notice that. Maybe "Dennis Lyle Walker was an American banker" would work better in this case? Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would. The article will need renaming but I have not done so as I was unsure if it would break DYK. Someone more au fait with the complexities will have to do this. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: as far as I know it doesn't matter too much. The DYK nom page doesn't necessarily have to change to match. What would you rename it to?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: Dennis Walker (criminal) can be moved, but per prior precedent (which I recently added to the guidelines), the nomination page should remain at "Dennis Walker (criminal)" regardless of the article's new title. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've moved it, someone may like to check I haven't broken anything; the nom page is still at the original place. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What source supports the hook's "by defrauding investors"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not including it in the original nomination. Source 3 states that "Walker deposited investors' cash in, and then wrote checks on the bank's Ashland commercial bank account to purchase exhibits and rent space for a new business - the National Sports Hall of Fame." Source 7 states "got money to be used for offshore banking, and instead of buying monetary instruments, he bought sports memorabilia." Jon698 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're going to use "defrauding", we need a source that says "fraud" explicitly. The sources themselves are attributing, with your first source attributing to analysis by the Oregon government and your second source quoting an auctioneer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I have checked another source, #6. It states "According to the state's fraud claim, bank funds were used for "the personal benefit" of bank organizer Dennis L. Walker." and later goes on to list the sports memorabilia he bought. I also added "The state claimed as part of its fraud case against Walker that these funds were being used for his personal benefit." to the article. Jon698 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
McLaughlin, the prosecutor for financial crimes in the AG office, is the one being cited by the article for what Walker was using the money to buy. Jon698 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we can say Walker was accused of fraud, and thank you for adding that to the article. Can we say that he was in fact guilty of fraud? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is running soon. Are you able to pull it, Black Kite. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it simply a question of removing it from the queue? In which case, yes I can, though the set would be one short. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's involved! It seems like admins usually pull and replace, and I've always been to unsure to action hook issues at ERRORS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it work to just remove "by defrauding investors" from the hook? SL93 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes the hook too uninteresting, becoming "banker buys expensive things". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that people could click on the article to read the information about how he might have obtained the items, because the hook doesn't state that he is a banker. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Black Kite How about we tack on "according to the Oregon Attorney General?" to end?Jon698 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or change the hook to "... that Dennis Walker acquired millions of dollars worth of sports memorabilia before being investigated for racketeering and selling unregistered certificates of deposit by the Oregon Attorney General?" Jon698 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: We're just over an hour before the set gets promoted, so the hook will need to be swapped out while discussion is ongoing. Since the set is already cascade-protected I can't do it myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Thank you, but the hook is 199 characters long and thus is just below the 200-character limit. Maybe stop the hook at "certificates of deposit"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's under the limit, why bother changing it? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood that either. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 and SL93: WP:DYKTRIM says don't be afraid to trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses and some hooks cannot be reduced in length without losing essential information, so don't assume that every hook that is 200 characters long requires trimming; however, I don't really see the Oregon Attorney General mention as being essential in this particular case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion for 17 May

[edit]

I'm a bit close for time with a special occasion hook: Knox Mountain Hillclimb, a new article about a motorsport event in British Columbia, Canada. For anyone inclined to review, I'd like to draw attention to the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Knox Mountain Hillclimb. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a date request for 17 May: Remember Monday, which is a triple nom and needs Holly-Anne Hull reviewed.--Launchballer 20:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ check and old noms

[edit]

I feel like I'm ruining a good thing here as it's kind of funny and sad at the same time. This discussion has likely come up many times before, but I can't keep track of everything so I'm probably asking a question that has been answered many times already. I will try to keep it very brief: regarding this nomination, it says the nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations, but I see ~21 listed on their user page, and I've been able to confirm several. Has the user found a hack that allows them to skip the QPQ requirement? Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is significantly older than the QPQ requirement (and older than proper vetting of hooks and articles). I explicitly asked to be exempted from QPQ for my eighth self-nomination, not even counting noms for others. (They looked like this). If the non-QPQ DYKs are over 10-15 years old, don't worry about them. I think we should perhaps be asking for QPQs but not for the first nomination under the new system. —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense. It looks like one more nom will kick them over the 10 year threshold, as I count five within the last five years, but 6-21 from 2010 and before. I was unaware the bot could figure that out. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas I think the bot counts nomination pages created by the editor: they have created four so far, so they have one more free nomination and then will have to start doing QPQs. It appears that the nominations from before 2011 were made before the introduction of nomination pages. TSventon (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date request

[edit]

It has been requested that High and Low (1963 film) run on 22 August as that is the release date of a remake of the film by Spike Lee. Is this ok? Thriley (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say no bueno. 22 August is almost four months away and WP:DYKSO recommends "not put[ting] emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject".--Launchballer 13:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Voldemar Jannsen

[edit]

In Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, the third hook mentioned that "... that Johann Voldemar Jannsen was rejected by the Estonian nationalist movement he helped found, only for a song he wrote to become Estonia's national anthem?" I visited the boldlinked article and didn't find the fact. The hook is so interesting. But I wonder if the nominator forgot to add the fact on the article or something else? I don't have access to the source and find the fact and then add that to the article with inline citation is time-consuming. Can anyone look into this? Mehedi Abedin 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing penultimate sentence of "...Tarfu" and the last sentence of "Death...", although a) I'm not entirely sure 'rebuked' means the same as 'rejected' and b) this probably needs an end-of-sentence citation in any event. Pinging @RoySmith, Thebiguglyalien, and GreenLipstickLesbian: for their input.--Launchballer 14:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehedi Abedin thanks for noting this. I remember this being one of those where I had to piece together the backup from bits and pieces of the article, but eventually convinced myself there was enough to support the hook. Now that I look at it again, yeah, I do remember deciding that "rebuked" and "rejected" were basically the same thing, but I could be wrong on that. If people think this needs more work, it could certainly be pulled for now to give us more time to get it right. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Well the thing is the article mentions, "He remained cordial and cooperated with the Baltic Germans that held control over Estonia, leading to accusations that he was corrupt or that he had betrayed the movement. The nationalist movement rebuked him as he advised caution, and Jakobson founded a more popular nationalist newspaper, Sakala." When I read that part, it gave me the understanding that he was rebuked as he warned nationalists. My question is if they reject him then why they accept his song as their national anthem? It doesn’t make any sense. It is possible that he wasn't rejected but he was kinda isolated from their political environment. Mehedi Abedin 14:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is the next prep up so I'll just pull it and folks can sort it out back on the nom page without any time pressure. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here says that the nationalist movement chose the song to be Estonia's national anthem. The national awakening was in the late-19th century and the song was selected as a national anthem in 1920. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Then it was not the case. Is it possible that the source used "rebuke" to mean almost same as the word "reject"? Can his post-rebuke life clarify that? (I know this is becoming complex, but if others can clarify then it would be better and even I could learn from this). Mehedi Abedin 15:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the hook has been pulled. I suggest people continue this discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Voldemar Jannsen RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1289425465"