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.

Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore?

[edit]

Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

For some time, there has been disagreement if WP:DYKFICTION applies to mythology and religious stories or not. For example, would ahistorical stories from the Bible, legends about mythological figures like Zeus and Amaterasu, or folklore about deities and the like, be considered "fiction" for DYK purposes or not? On the one hand, some argue that, because these did not happen, they count as fictitious events and thus require real-world links. On the other hand, the other argument is that excluding such works is not was intended by the guideline or its spirit, as it primarily intended to focus on works like literature, movies, TV shows, and video games. There's also the argument that such stories were not considered "fictitious" by those who made them, so the intent is different from an actual work of fiction. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Yes - Mythology, religious stories, and folklore count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.
  • No - They do not count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.

Please discuss below and indicate your choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before everyone gets to arguing about whether mythology is fiction or not, I wanna emphasize that squabbling about the outer bounds of fuzzy concepts isn't actually productive. DYKFICTION is meant to prevent a certain class of really awful hooks that just rely on someone else's work for clicks and don't convey anything edifying or valuable. I could weigh in on what I think of mythology hooks directly, but what I would suggest other commenters consider is whether DYK as a project should be running mythology hooks, not whether they meet some subjective definition of fiction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes What makes hooks that violate DYKFICTION boring is that fiction, unlike reality, is bounded only by human imagination. This isn't quite true, fiction is also bounded by the society that makes it, and this is true moreso for religious and mythological stories, which have to be in some way plausible to those who believe in them. A hook about fiction violates DYKFICTION if it is only interesting if we pretend it happened in real life. A hook doesn't violate DYKFICTION if it's interesting that someone would have imagined it and written it down in a particular social context. The mythological hook that prompted this (I think) is interesting because we have a pre-conceived notion of the seriousness of the Greek gods, and this is a slightly ridiculous episode. A recent hook on Sterne is similarly interesting, because it plays an episode in a novel off of 18th-century reality. DYK should be running mythology hooks, but narratives in mythology aren't themselves interesting, they're only interesting when they're interesting against the social reality that produced them. So DYKFICTION applies. Tenpop421 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would generally lean towards Yes -- while ancient mythology could be viewed as more "noble" / "higher" than conventional modern fiction and so this standard could cut off a small portion of standalone mythological hooks that don't fall into the "lower" staandards of modern fiction, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and this seems to be a good place to draw it. Like Tenpop421 said, this will steer DYKs to reflect on the social/historical/astrological realities they reflect. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here is an example of a hook that I remember receiving objections for violating DYKFICTION but that would be okay with the proposed change:
  • I have found the strict implementation of DYKFICTION regarding folklore/mythology to be too limiting in the past. I can't find it at the moment, but I remember a hook about Burmese mythology that had a hook that seemed to clearly convey a mythical framing that I found interesting, that was rejected by a later reviewer. To answer theleekycauldron's question, I don't see why we wouldn't run mythology hooks? We seem to run every topic except immediate politics, I'm not sure why mythology should stand apart from this. CMD (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should have an issue with mythology hooks. To answer theleekycauldron, we barely ever have mythology hooks nominated in the first place. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a No. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I agree with commenters above that mythology hooks should be allowed. I do also generally agree with Tenpop's point that mythological stories, in the context of DYK, tend not to be interesting in and of themselves, but interesting in how they tell us something surprising about the society or culture which produced them, or about their way of thinking or how they viewed the world. To use Greek mythology as an example, most people in the English-speaking world already have at least some notion of Greek mythology, and of the ancient Greeks, so being presented a piece of information which contradicts or challenges your pre-conceived ideas about what the Greeks believed is interesting.
    That said, I don't think mythology should be grouped in with "fiction" in relation to DYKFICTION. For example, the aforementioned hook for Amalthea (mythology) isn't by any measure a real-world fact (in DYKFICTION's words); that it tells you something about how the Greeks viewed the world, and the nature of the stories they believed, doesn't change this in my view. I also think there are meaningful and substantial differences between ancient mythology and modern fiction: ancient cultures believed in their myths (or most of them, at least), and these myths could be closely connected with ritual practice; in addition, myths were rarely the product of a single person's imagination, typically being stories handed down over centuries, subject to rationalisation, interpretation, and variation.
    As an editor in the area of mythology, I also think it's worth noting that if hooks including information from mythological stories were to be disallowed, it would be near-impossible to write hooks on many mythological figures (figures who are lesser-known, and play little to no role in cult or art); I don't really see what's to be profited from doing that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: The line needs to be drawn somewhere and applying WP:DYKFICTION to ALL fictitious events seems like the appropriate place. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There is no need to exempt mythology, as hooks are easily enough connected to the real world. The story of Xenu actually gets more interesting by the real world information how scientologists tried to keep it secret. The story of the Nephites gets more interesting because there are people who believe in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon and have searched in vain for archeological evidence confirming it. Most stories from ancient Western mythology feature widely in Western art, so we can easily go beyond repeating plot points. Many mythological stories have also been re-interpreted again and again, allowing for an out-of universe treatment. I also really don't want us to pronounce what is "mythology" and what is "fiction": one person's religious text can be another person's speculative fiction. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Mythology, etc should not count. Hooks should be phrased appropriately, i.e. not "DYK... that Zeus did this?" but "DYK... that according to Greek mythology, Zeus did this?", but as long as it is from a suitable time period ago - say from BC/BCE - then I don't see why we shouldn't include them as interesting points. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine saying yes to mythology and fiction that is 1500+ years old, but whether some story from the Iliad is "mythology" or "fiction" isn't a decision I would like to make. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, where do you draw the line then? Would '... According to TarnishedPath's mythology, they sailed across the moon?' cut it? If not, how is that any different to any other work of fiction? TarnishedPathtalk 02:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Darth Stabro's view is kinda the one I would be taking. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, mythology should not generally be excluded from DYK. Mythology is not "bounded only by human imagination"; rather it comprises the very specific stories of a group of people. These stories often had great real-world relevance, and (as Michael Aurel point out) were believed and modified over many hundred of years, unlike modern fiction. If we were to restrict DYKs about mythology, then by the same reasoning we would restrict DYKs about many other beliefs, even ones which perfectly suited the spirit of DYK; for example, that XYZ believed that the moon was made of green cheese may be a surprising and interesting fact, despite its being "unbounded" in the sense that people can believe anything. XabqEfdg (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that simple Having a think about what hooks we would get from this, I would not put a firm yes or no on all of mythology and legend. I mean, I'd love to see conflicting hooks run at the same time saying "DYK according to mythology, Zeus did..." and "DYK according to Assassin's Creed, Zeus did...", for the comedic value, but I think we need a separation between mythological figures and myths themselves. The former are, for DYK's intents, historical people. The latter are stories.

    I think, then, that 'biographical hooks' for mythological figures, should be treated as any other biographical hook (but probably with some in-line attribution, like we sometimes do for very old real people when sources conflict) - rather than like fictional character hooks.

    Comparatively, I think any DYK hook for the stories of myths should recognise that such stories are fables (and that just saying "DYK, X happens in the Edda" isn't really interesting - DYK is not for plot summaries) and require real-world facts. Honestly, I don't think this should make writing DYK hooks for myths any harder: in general, we (general) know more about the context of production and re-discovery of really old myth stories than we necessarily do about the content of them, which also changed through retellings. It could be easier to write a good real-world hook for myths. Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • No per reasonings of SL93 and Darth Drabro. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

(now promoted to Queue 4)

Sophie Rain

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and TarnishedPath: The quality of the sourcing seems well below what we need for a WP:BLP on a controversial subject. As far as I can tell, Evening Standard is a scandal sheet. WP:RSNP says about People Magazine the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source and about VICE There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. I don't see anything on https://www.complex.com/ which describes their editorial process, so I'm assuming they're not a WP:RS either. I strongly suggest this be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, the most I was able to find on Complex's editorial process in a search I just performed was at the bottom of their pages: "COMPLEX participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means COMPLEX gets paid commissions on purchases made through our links to retailer sites. Our editorial content is not influenced by any commissions we receive. © Commerce Media Holdings, LLC All Rights Reserved". Given that Complex makes up about half of the sourcing of the article that doesn't really cut it. If it was only one reference it could just be removed and something else found. I agree with you. TarnishedPathtalk 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Evening Standard is not a scandal sheet (tabloid format =/= tabloid journalism) I agree with your points on the rest. NHL5 has pulled it, and I've promoted Mike Doherty (cricketer) in its place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not-deer

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and AmateurHi$torian: questions were raised at the nom discussion about the quality of the sources, and supposedly the unreliable ones were removed, but I'm still seeing https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/ (" founded in January 2021 with the mission of using entertainment as a catalyst for social progress"). There's a long thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373 about Skeptical Enquirer which basically comes down to "maybe". The East Tennessean source appears to be a blog post. National Geographic is certainly a WP:RS but as far as I can tell, it's the only one in the entire article, and that's not enough. RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how A Little Bit Human or Skeptical Enquirer are unreliable. A Little Bit Human being an entertainment news website does not automatically make it unreliable, many entertainment-focused news sites are reliable. The discussion on SE coming down to "maybe" does not mean "unreliable", it means "no consensus"; those are two different things. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that these sources are reliable. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been a discussion about SE that has no consensus, that's evident enough that it is not considered unreliable by consensus. As far as ALBH, I see nothing that indicates unreliability. It has multiple editors, indicating editorial oversight. I'm not really sure what objections you have to ALBH besides it saying that it focuses on entertainment-related news, which really means nothing considering IGN is considered a reliable source. I can't really address any concerns about unreliability if you haven't provided any specific concerns. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, entertainment websites with an editing team are considered reliable. I'm not sure what the complaint is towards it. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith When digging deeper, I did see that East Tennessean isn't a blog and it does have an editorial team, but I don't think it should be used because it is a student newspaper. I do agree with you about Skeptical Enquirer because anyone can submit their articles. Despite the editorial team, that along with the references at the bottom not being complete concerns me. I tried to look up those references to use those instead, but I had no luck. I suggest pulling it. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought older discussions of the applicability of student newspapers came to the conclusion that they were reliable on a case by case basis. In my own personal experience, they tend to be highly reliable as they are under greater scrutiny than you might think. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSSM: Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.
So yes they can be reliable, on a case by case basis, however given my experience reading Australian ones I'd say that most are crap and we're better of using other sources. TarnishedPathtalk 02:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Skeptical Inquirer source:
Rjjiii (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the online popularity section is important to include because it provide context for why what was once a very niche story in a single town is suddenly now associated with Appalachia as a whole and why it's well-known outside of that town. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are concerns about notability, an AFD could be started? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not-deer RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth (nom)

[edit]

@Elias Ziade, Richard Nevell, and SL93: This hook is a bit on the long side: would you be fine with stopping the hook at "1970"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Narutolovehinata5, I don't mind. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's ok with el.ziad rthe suggested trim is fine by me. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Special occasion hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved

[edit]

@DYK admins: two hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved so that they run on March 16 as originally planned.

I'd like to suggest that they get split up and run in different sets, since the hooks are about different countries, and the idea is to run them during a 12-hour period when it's both March 16 UTC and also in the local country featured in the hook. Here are the destination queues:

  • Queue 2: please move the Queue 7 final hook about the Japanese cat who is lord of Bitchū Matsuyama Castle here (it'll run 09:00 to 21:00 in Japan); suggest swapping final hooks since both are quirky
  • Queue 3: please move the Queue 7 fifth hook about the Mexican emos and anti-emos here (it'll run 06:00 to 18:00 in most of Mexico); not sure which hook it should swap with except that both sets have four bios so a bio shouldn't be involved

Whoever does the move should try to separate the two adjacent bios in Queue 7 (currently seventh and eighth hooks), while not ending up with two U.S. hooks adjacent (Jennison is U.S., as is 404 Fifth Avenue). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Damian Chong Qui is also a U.S. hook. I have made all of the fixes. SL93 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

2024 Tallahassee tornadoes

[edit]

The hook on the tornadoes in Tallahassee should say that they merged over a golf course near downtown, or otherwise some variant of "after striking downtown", I wasn't fully paying attention when revising the hook. Here's the source. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SL93 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hit N Fun (nom)

[edit]

@Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry, but I don't really see how this hook meets WP:DYKINT: if the reader is unfamiliar with the former film, I don't know why they would care that the cast reunited in a later film. I see that the reviewer's preference in the nomination was ALT1: maybe we can swap with that one instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find ALT1 far less interesting than this hook: a film cast reuniting for an entirely different film is interesting and unusual no matter the specific films. By comparison, one holiday film earning a different amount to another holiday film in one country is pretty normal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Airship mentioned, it is common for perhaps two or three actors to star together again, but it is rare for the ensemble cast to reunite in another film. Regarding ALT1, the gist is supposed to be the significantly lower box office, as the 2025 champion film grossed only about one-third of the 2024 champion, yet it has already claimed the title. But to be honest, I struggled to come up with hooks for this film, as nothing about it seems particularly special or interesting. I initially put ALT0 as ALT0 because I found it the most interesting of all (although it is a bit technical); films typically take years to produce, and four months is even shorter than the shoot for many projects. Perhaps we can consider this option if there are divided opinions on ALT1 and 5? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought ALT0 was the most interesting option, but I guess there's not much appetite for it. I'd like to hear from Tenpop or other uninvolved editors first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 is fine with me too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's awfully uncommon for an ensemble cast to reunite. I'm happy to compromise on ALT0. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry everyone! I actually meant to say that I thought ALT1 was the most interesting and not ALT0, I had my hooks mixed up. I understand that AJ29 objected to ALT1 though, so if others don't like it either then we can stick with ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date request

[edit]

I'd like to run Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday on 17 May, which is just over two months away, as they are scheduled to perform at that day's Eurovision Song Contest and WP:DYKSO obliges me to ask here first.--Launchballer 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Lydie Pongault (nom)

[edit]

@Lajmmoore: at 1541kb, this article is barely above the prose limit for DYK. I just wanted to check that you're sure you couldn't find any more detail on the article subject? Otherwise a copyeditor who happens to stumble across the article might well be able to inadvertently make it ineligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Jacob Ferber (nom)

[edit]

@Yakikaki, Piotrus, and SL93: I don't think the hook is grammatically correct as it stands: the samples of mosaic are the subject of the sentence, but being non-sentient, they cannot "demonstrate" anything. Would we be fine with a rephrasing along the lines of "... that using samples provided by Johann Jacob Ferber, it was demonstrated that mosaics at Pompeii were made with glass paste, not stone?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I agree. Yakikaki (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe coding (nom)

[edit]

@WikiOriginal-9 and Sohom Datta: just notifying you (AndyGordon has already been notified on their talk page) that the article has been nominated for deletion and will be pulled shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Sohom (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruothild (daughter of Charlemagne) (nom)

[edit]

@Srnec, Elias Ziade, and SL93: unless I am misreading Nelson, she doesn't specifically comment on "bare breasts", just their reputed one-breast-ness. Personally, "one-breasted" seems more interesting than "bare-breasted" - could it just be changed to that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Also fine with me. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stevenson says "bare-breasted" (here). A good image of the tapestry is here, but I am not sure if tapestries are sufficiently two-dimensional to meet Template:PD-art. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: They do fall under PD-art, per this page on Commons. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the image. Srnec (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Battle of the Bosporus

[edit]

@Cplakidas and Tenpop421 The hook says that the battle happened in a narrow strait, but I only see "narrows" in the lead with no citation. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a nitpick since the Bosporus is a strait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see nitpicks brought up a lot on Errors. I'm just hoping to avoid that step. Wouldn't "narrow" be superfluous anyway?SL93 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Some straits are wider than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Then I don't get your point about how referencing "narrow" is nitpicking... SL93 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't see why using the word "strait" in the hook is problematic even if it's not directly mentioned in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that, nor did I mention it. The hook says, "narrow strait", but the article only mentions narrow in the lead with no reference. "Strait" is not problematic because that is referenced elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all straits are the same; the Strait of Malacca is several tens of kilometres wide even at its narrowest. The Bosporus is much, much narrower, and the battle happened at its narrowest part, roughly where the Bosphorus Bridge is located now, where it is less than a kilometre wide. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I've added a citation for this fact. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the reference; the narrows are not where the original encounter took place, but where the actual battle began, namely inside the Bosporus. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terry A. Davis

[edit]

@OpalYosutebito and Chetsford The hook says, "over 120,000 lines of code", but the article says, "ultimately had over 100,000 lines of code". SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the article, then. Sorry for the confusion! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Rising

[edit]

I promoted this so I need someone to look it over. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 13:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2-per-day run be paused?

[edit]

It's been five days now, I thought it was supposed to end after three... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is day six, and we review every three. We're at seven queues, so we go again for another three.--Launchballer 20:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes if there was no one filling queues. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the pause was automatic, to ensure people weren't overworked... I guess I misunderstood. IMHO it really should stop after three days, the whole point is to avoid fatigue setting in among those filling the queues and errors possibly creeping in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that editors can ignore filling queues if they feel overworked. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to pre-load the work. If people feel like doing the work, they can run the queues up to full capacity every three days and we keep going. As soon as enough people don't feel like doing the extra work, we drop back to one-per-day at the next assessment point. Nobody is obligated to do more work than they feel like doing. At some point, I'll probably write a bot to fully automate the switchover process.
The old method was that the switch was driven entirely by how many approved hooks we had. We would get into situations where we had enough approved hooks that the rule said we should keep going, but nobody wanted to do the work so all the queues were empty. This is what the control system people call open loop That was untenable. If somebody wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm willing to listen. My only requirement is that whatever process you propose has to have some kind of built-in feedback based on the number of filled queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, DYK goes to one set a day with under 120 approved nominations. If so, we are almost there. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not per below. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of a manual switch between 1/day and 2/day is that we can easily make exceptions for special occasion date requests without having to be afraid of bot interference. —Kusma (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Paleobiota of the Latah Formation

[edit]

The nomination page says "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material" is in the reference Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States: New Evidence from Fossil Fungi | Research, but I don't see that in the reference. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kevmin. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its in the Supplementary section 1:Supplementary Information 1 – Stratigraphic Columns for the Clarkia Konservat-Lagerstätte, Alum Bluff, and Bouie River sites of Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States which you can download at the bottom of the page you linked. "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material".--Kevmin § 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 here is the specific quote.--Kevmin § 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Current, Ontario

[edit]

Pinging P199 "Ontario Highway 6 goes through Little Current." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Cindy (singer)

[edit]

The hook cites a blog called Mikiki by Tower Records. Is this a reliable source by English Wikipedia standards? @Miraclepine @Tenpop421 @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so since it's operated by the notable music company Tower Records. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, seconded. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kwek Leng Joo

[edit]

I revised the sentence in the article about the collaboration between Kwek and Lin (which the hook refers to), to make it clearer, and added a source. See what you think. @Replicative Cloverleaf @Prince of Erebor @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite a fool for forgetting my password (here I am with a new account), but I've changed that sentence so that it makes a bit more gramatical sense ("to modern photographs by Kwek" to "to modern photographs taken by Kwek"). Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth

[edit]

Regarding the claim in both the hook and the article that that the library of the Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth contained over 24,000 volumes by 1970: The source actually says environ 24 000 en 1970 which would usually be translated to "approximately 24,000" or "around 24,000", which is not the same thing as "over 24,000". What if they were rounding up? I'm quite sure the hook can't run as is and needs to be fixed ASAP. Please advise. @Elias Ziade @Richard Nevell @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only read English so I will take your word for it. I have no suggestions. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that "Library has books" is an interesting hook, but in terms of accuracy Cielquiparle is correct. The source says "La bibliothèque comptait 16 000 ouvrages en 1962, 17 000 en 1964, 19 200 en 1967, et environ 24 000 en 1970", so it's just showing the increase of the library over time. "about 24,000" fixes the hook. CMD (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting part of the hook was slashed for being too wordy. SL93 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 thanks! that unhelpful comment of yours only tells so much about you. Your negativity doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.
@Cielquiparle you're absolutely right, it was a translation oversight. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What unhelpful comment? I’m honestly confused. I just said that the second part was slashed for being too wordy which it was in an earlier discussion, and I found that part to be the most interesting. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 omg this is embarrassing. I thought you meant you found the hook completely uninteresting. Sorry for the harsh comment. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Elias Ziade. SL93 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Treaty of London

[edit]

A couple of issues with this article and hook:

  • Error in footnote 41: The citation is to "Rogers 1994, pp. 388–389" which can't be right because the 1994 journal article only goes from pp. 83–102.
Thank you. They should have been cited to Rogers 2014; I have no idea what I was thinking, but now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More than a quarter of France": The claim in the hook is ... that by the First Treaty of London England was to gain more than a quarter of France? but the other source cited (Wagner 2006, p. 198) clearly says "about a quarter of the kingdom" which is not the same thing as "over a quarter of France". In fact, the article also doesn't say "more than a quarter of France"; it says "approximately a quarter of its territory" in the lead section and just "a quarter of France" in the body. The hook should be changed; the simplest solution might be to strike "more than" in the hook. Please advise. @Gog the Mild @Dahn @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the simplest solution would be to strike "more than". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cielquiparle (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to 1 set a day

[edit]

We are now at 117 approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently on day two of a three-day burst. Before they were instituted, we flicked back and forth at 60 and 120 noms. I think we should keep going.--Launchballer 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pinged some stalled nominations. I think we should wait until the end of the three-day cycle before making a decision to switch: if we are above 120 and the queues are filled, we should keep going. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what WP:DYKROTATE says. Go for 3 days following the initial trigger, then at the end of those 3 days, IIF both 1) six queues are filled, and 2) there are over 120 approved nominations, then it can keep going. CMD (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just because we drop below 120 in the middle of the three days is not a reason to stop; the full three days should be completed. Back in the old days we'd keep going until we dropped below 60, so dropping to 117 (now 118) is nothing, especially when we have another 122 hooks promoted to the thirteen and a half full sets in line for a turn on the main page. I'm frankly hoping we burn through a bit more of that backlog before going back to one a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like we're lacking in supply either. I say we keep going while we can keep at seven queues.--Launchballer 14:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Not a massive deal or anything, but I was wondering why the Marilyn Fisher Lundy hook was last since it's not particularly funny or amusing. No funny hooks left? @SL93: jolielover♥talk 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @LunaEclipse: as they moved mugging out of the quirky slot here. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I procedurally repromoted #Vibe coding (nom) above after snow keeping it and saw a quirky hook in that, so I put that there instead.--Launchballer 11:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, WP:QUIRKY states that the last slot is not required to have a quirky hook, and there's nothing wrong with including a regular hook if no quirky hooks are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (22 March 00:00)

[edit]

Fabián Cháirez

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 and Mason7512: I suggest changing "feminine" to "effeminate" in the hook; it's the word the source uses, and it's more accurate. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating which of the two to use, and would be okay with using either. Mason7512 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Rondelle Theater

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, and Uriahheep228: Could the hook be rephrased to avoid the awkward "that though executives thought"? RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so I've created a new list of all 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 10. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that is the same size as it was 6 days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock edits and DYK

[edit]

User:Oddballeditor1997, recently banned as a sock, has one DYK nomination pending (waiting for a GAR to be resolved). Is there any rule against sock noms going forward on DYK? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing the GA but was waiting for a second opinion as I am not sure if it meets the criteria. I am not sure whether to close it now or to await a second opinion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected both.--Launchballer 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G5 allows for edits made by socks to be speedy deleted. There's some caveats that must be met, and I'd have to dig into the edit histories of these to see if they qualify for G5, but keep it in mind for future cases like this. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1281188070"