Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 09:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 9 hours ago(

)

Template:Archive box collapsible

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

Donner Party hook in queue

Isn't it a shame that such a good article as this is given such a horribly phrased hook: "... that the three primary factors to survival in the Donner Party were age, sex, and the size of each person's family group?" "Three primary factors to survival"??? This would shame even a sociologist. It's live in an hour or so; can someone please rewrite this in English? Ericoides (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 item 8

The It's A Crime, Mr. Collins hook currently reads:

... that the 1956 radio program It's A Crime, Mr. Collins was "a flagrant rip-off of The Adventures of the Abbotts in which only the names had been changed"?

It should really read "...was deemed to be a flagrant rip-off...", as the reference in the article is to a single person's opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a proper thing to do?

I know that administrators, who were involved with editors are not allowed to block the editors. I strongly believe that the administrators, who were heavily involved in the articles deletion requests should not be allowed neither to comment nor to vote on DYK nomination of that article. It dictates by common sense.It is simply a bad tone to do otherwise. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the DYK nomination that you're referring to? rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about this edit. I have promoted that article, but did/do not object its removal - the article does have its problems (including undue accent on Kennedy's views) and I would go on and not make a drama of it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The nomination was removed with the reason "AFD closed as "no consensus" " [1]. It is extremely unfair and wrong. The most vocal opposer was User:Gatoclass. Please see some language the user used in the deletion request badly sourced, POV rant, when asked how he could call Robert Kennedy writings "rant" I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant (he later deleted word "rant" after I complained at his talk page). Then he said "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism". Later in DYK nomination he said to me: "As for time wasting, seems to me you are the one who has wasted a great deal of everyone's time by writing an article that was immediately nominated for AfD on the basis of numerous apparent inadequacies, and which others have had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to rectify, so I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of this particular vice" that was a clear discrimination towards my English and writing skills. The truth is that Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) is extremely well sourced article, that was re-written by many other editors to remove any POV, there is no POV tag present in the article now. It was removed by me on March 13, and nobody posted it back. There was no valid reason not to promote the article. It was a wrong thing to do, and should be corrected.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask Materialscientist or anybody else to link me to few other examples that were closed as "no consensus". Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was certainly plenty of time to object to the promotion of this hook while the article was under discussion. To quietly vaporize the hook after it has been promoted and without returning it to the talk page for discussion is improper, at best. The hook should, at a minimum, be restored for further discussion. However, as the article is significantly improved and a neutral hook has been carefully crafted and promoted, I feel returning it directly to the queue is called for in this case. The objection raised is that it's "unencyclopedic" and, per WP:Unencyclopedic, ""Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really." - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a convention here that there has to be at the very least, a solid consensus in favour of promoting an article. Usually even a couple of noes from regular contributors to DYK is enough to sink a nom. In this case, there were no less than 17 users who expressed the view at the AfD that the article was unencyclopedic, and it was closed as "no consensus". I hardly think that is the kind of article we would want to feature on the main page.

I might as well point out that had I placed a POV tag on the article, it would have been automatically disqualified until disputes had been resolved in any case. I refrained from doing that because I didn't want to be responsible for trying to fix the article, but certainly I would have been entitled to do so. I have done that in the past, but why should I have to? It is the responsibility of nominators to ensure their articles meet policy, and if they fail to do so, they only have themselves to blame if their submission is not promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The time and place to raise those objections was in the several weeks it was on the DYK talk page before it was promoted. In any case, you should have put the hook back on the DYK talk page for discussion instead of simply disappearing it. The objections of commenters in an AfD discussion that closed "no consensus" is interesting but not relevant here. Surely every article taken to AfD has at least some editor objecting to its inclusion in Wikipedia, at least initially. If they wanted to object to an article being promoted at DYK, the place to voice those objections is at DYK on the talk page.

While not every commenter at AfD is DYK-savvy, certainly that's not true of you, Gatoclass. If you felt the article should have been tagged, you should have tagged it. If you felt the article should not have been promoted after it survived AfD, you should have objected on the DYK talk page. The hook was promoted and you removed it from the prep area without discussion citing "unencyclopedic" as the reason. As this is not a valid reason, per policy, it should be restored or, at the very least, returned for further discussion. To simply stab it in the dark without tagging, discussion, or return after promotion is quite frankly unacceptable. - Dravecky (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term "unencyclopedic" in this instance as a means of summarizing the various arguments that were made against the article at the AfD - specifically, that the article content was not notable, that it was POV, COATRACK, OR, SYNTH and so on.

As to your charge that removing it from the queue without restoring it to the Suggestions page was "improper" - I felt in this instance I was justified in doing so given the large number of users who had opposed it at the AfD. Given our usual policies about consensus, I felt it was self evident that the article was not going to achieve consensus here either.

I will concede in retrospect, that in spite of my sense that the article was clearly going to fail, it probably would have been better to return it to the Suggestions page, if only for the sake of transparency. I confess however that after a week of discussion about this article, and some less than pleasant exchanges with Mbz, I was hoping to spare myself and the community any further unpleasantness by simply dropping it from the page.

Since the discussion has now been reopened however, I am obliged to reiterate my opposition to the promotion of this article. I do not believe it is anywhere near NPOV and it is likely to take considerable work to fix it. I am hoping not to be forced to try and fix it myself, but if there is now going to be a move to promote the article, I will have no choice but to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency in the face of controversy is, in my opinion, always the best policy. If proper objections had been raised on the Suggestions page, it likely would not have been promoted and this drama would have been avoided. To unilaterally completely delete a hook after promotion and without discussion, especially by an involved editor, is always going to create more controversy, both over the article and the tactics, than any discussion of the article by itself could ever raise. (Who ever said this stuff was supposed to be easy?) - Dravecky (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I did raise objections at the Suggestions page. I think the mistake I made was not to reiterate them after matsci noted the AFD had closed as "no consensus" and Mbz proposed a new hook. I guess that made it look as if I had no further objections, when in fact my concerns had not changed. I have now rectified that error in the revived thread. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the hook to the Suggestions page for further discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs, Dravecky. I do not think so far somebody responded my initial question, which was, it it is a proper thing to do to allow the administrator, who was one of the most vocal users in the deletion process, who keeps attacking my English and writing skills, once again saying that I "wasted an enormous amount of the community's time by writing an article that had and which still has significant problems", to impose his more than biased opinion on DYK nomination? IMO the editors, who was so heavily involved with the deletion process as Gatoclass was, should excuse himself from DYK discussion on the article. The bottom line is: There's no POV tag, there's no edit warring, the article meets each and every DYK criteria. It is the time to move it directly to the queue.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ucucha has removed the discussion, what was of course the proper thing to do, and long overdue. The user wrote: "Lengthy discussion removed. Comments from uninvolved editors are needed on the suitability of this article for DYK, but there have been two uninvolved editors, who commented at the nomination and here already. So, IMO the opinion of two uninvolved editors should be enough to proceed with the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed my concerns about this article at the article talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an update. The nomination was removed once again. That's fine. I just wonder, if there were any precedents like that before, when a nomination was promoted, added to Queue, removed from the Queue, added back to nomination lists and removed without anybody actually declining it? I mean I am just interested, if this is the only case of unbelievable unfairness, or there were similar situations before?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feast or famine?

Hi all, are we in a feast or famine as far as hooks go? If the latter, I will prioritise fivefold expanding a few more articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of nominations at T:TDYK page almost halved from after the New Year. Currently, it is neither feast nor famine, but. I would argue that the number of strong nominations has decreased significantly and it is often difficult to find a good lead. Thus your expansions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget there's a fair few April Fool's Day DYK hooks which need verifying, plus those already verified. Less than 4 days to go now. Mjroots2 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist, when you say a "good lead", is that in reference to the article itself (well developed, etc.) or the hook, or the image used? Yazan (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three are important. Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triple hook

Does it makes sense that all of the content in a DYK hook for a triple nom is required to be in every article and be together? I have a current nomination for USAC Stock Cars, one of its champions Norm Nelson, who won one race in rival series NASCAR at the only time NASCAR raced at Las Vegas Park Speedway. For instance, why should the USAC article have content about a race in a rival series? USAC itself only raced once at that speedway, so having content about that race is too trivial and off topic to be included in the USAC article. Even less relevant should be content about a race done by a rival sanction, right? The rules are written for a single nomination and don't fit cases like this one. I thought we had consensus for cases like this, but I don't find it in the "Rules" or "Additional Rules". I think that's because we don't want the rules to be too wordy and list every last scenario. Royalbroil 12:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storey book is mistaken in this instance. There is no requirement that the hook statement in a multi be present in all the articles, it only has to be in one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gatoclass - I didn't know that. I still think that the hook under discussion should be reviewed by someone else, though.--Storye book (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:

... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?

I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook?Smallman12q (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I too was bothered by the "falsely claimed" phrase as, far-fetched as the notion is, there is no way of knowing what someone does "in secret". Gatoclass (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's off the main page now, but I do agree the hook failed NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply idiotic as a Main Page hook. Can the standards of DYK really get any lower? Physchim62 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't have been all that bad, since we only had the one complaint for the six hours it was up. But I do agree it needed some work. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imho Baseball Bugs' comment on ANI that we have Muslims claiming him to be a secret Jew and right-wing commentators claiming he is a secret Muslim would have made a much better hook for its "priceless"-ness (to quote BB). Regards So Why 09:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslims"? plural? "claiming him to be a secret Jew"? where? We have one single extremist nutcase saying that Obama "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews", nothing about him doing it secretly. In fact, it is factually accurate that Obama has 'prayed the prayers of the Jews' [2] and there are thousands of photos of the occasion. It is surely no coincidence that Obama's visit to the Western Wall came less than four months before al-Zawahiri's diatribe, which also included such slurs as "House Negro". The only evidence I can find of a conspiracy theory that Obama is Jewish comes from the Huffington Post [3][4][5][6], and it's obviously not meant to be taken too seriously. Physchim62 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also very much like to know how on earth that hook got approved. I don't know too much about the DYK approval process, but...I mean, if the bar is set so low that this hook actually MET the DYK standards, I'm thinkin' we might wanna invest in some new bars.GJC 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was approved by Dravecky in here and moved to prep by Materialscientist in this edit. I'm not here to blame anyone...I would simply like to ensure that we have quality dyks. This hook, is an example of something that should not have been approved...perhaps we should make a list for poor hooks?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cop to the "falsely claimed" phrasing as it was my suggestion to replace more troubling language. That said, the article is well referenced, reasonably neutral, and meets the basic DYK standards. Remember that this is not GA or FA. You may also note that I warned that this article would attract a certain element of the Wikipedia userbase and clearly that was prescient. As always, I do encourage interested editors to review the long list of hooks nominated for DYK and make any concerns known. This hook drew little comment in the almost two weeks between nomination and promotion. - Dravecky (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day DYKS

I did mention it earlier, but it seems to have got overlooked. 1 April is almost upon us, there are 30 hooks approved, and 17 still to be approved. This quantity of hooks may mean a tweak in the duration each batch appears for. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look through and left some comments, but it looks to me as if they have all pretty much been reviewed now. 30 hooks is enough for April Fool's in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are draft queues assembled at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. I suppose leftover hooks can be featured right after. An important and urgent question is when exactly do we launch these queues? Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 0:00 UTC time 1st April. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See ur point. Sidney seems to beat the other time zones by at least 1 queue, unless I'm missing something Calmer Waters 05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special days are done on UTC time. We tried doing it by local time a year or two ago and copped a lot of criticism for it. Basically, we have to conform with what the FA does, and they do it on UTC. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the current queues, when the next update is done, that empty queue will then be the first to appear on 1 April using UTC. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 is the queue that should have the first 1 April update. Updates are currently running 9 minutes longer that the normal 6 hours in order to resync with UTC.[7] Baring any server or bot problems knocking the update clock off again, I will manually correct the remaining time offset and returning to normal 6 hour updates while Queue 2 is being displayed. This will have the result of Queue 3 being displayed on the Main page starting at midnight. --Allen3 ^talk 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now he tells me. I just reloaded queue #3 :/

Never mind, we'll figure it out when AF Day comes around. Gatoclass (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back the edits. Gatoclass (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had originally hoped Quehanna Wild Area might be the April Fools TFA, but it qualifies for DYK this year and is a new FA. Just nominated it here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted first April 1 set to Queue 3 (just to be sure we'll have a set while I'm offline). Removed promoted hooks from April 1 area. Note that draft queues have 9 hooks whereas we usually run 8, thus if problems with the last April 1 queue then it can be filled using other queues. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 tweak

Hook 1 of Queue 6 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left it out, as others may have, because this one reads better with the pictured within the hook rather than in brackets. I may be wrong, but with April fools OI thought it would be ok today. Calmer Waters 05:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. I'm so used to scanning for "(pictured)". But you're right, it probably is better as it is. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday

Max van Egmond was reserved for Good Friday and is not in a queue for April 2. I hope that will be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kurt Equiluz would be good for the date as well but wasn't approved yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "the date"? Isn't 2 April the date for Good Friday (Max van Egmond was placed for April 2 and promoted accordingly)? Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

left over April 1st submissions

What to do with left over hooks from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2010? look to be about 15 that weren't exactly declined. Should we move them back to the talk template under their prospective submission dates? Most if used, will probably need their hooks changed now that 0401 is done. Calmer Waters 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have annihilated most of them now, moved a few eligible back to T:TDYK, and one to prep2 (great nom dashed by that Moscow bombing). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that Materialscientist:). Calmer Waters 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting talk page content

Hi, It is my understanding that we generally don't delete talkpage content that is not otherwise in violation of policy, normally we tend to collapse a conversation which has run its course or reflects a previous reality. Is this the case on DYK as well? I am seeing an editor repeatedly removing talkpage comments and while I don't want to harass the person I find it unlikely that such deletion is proper, could someone set me straight either way? Thanks! Unomi (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "talk page", but if it refers to the comments left below DYK nomination on the T:TDYK page then they must stay until the nomination is deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much, please consider these edits [8],[9], [10]. I am at 3rd rv. Unomi (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not appropriate, especially given the very dubious reason for scratching them, which is purportedly that the user in question "agreed" to have his comments scratched, per this edit. I'll take a closer look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was given permission to remove irrelevant contest] in order not to influence an independent reviewer opinion on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, you can hardly cite someone's comment that they don't care what you do with the nom as "permission" to remove part of the thread. In any case, it doesn't conform with our conventions here and you have an obvious COI in removing criticism from a nomination submitted by yourself. Please don't do this again. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. I meant it when I said I didn't care what Mbz1 did with the nomination. For one, I quickly grow tired of accusative people (and the conversation is very evident of this attitude) and I wasn't going to go into an edit war over this, because I know there are many more qualified contributors, than I am, here that will comment on the nomination regardless of whether my criticism is there or not. Mbz1's behavior and assumption of bad faith is hardly the issue here though (for me at least), my main concern is the article. The article is about a very interesting place, and if I were Mbz1, I'd listen to the criticism as they are "criticisms" not as attacks or "attempts to kill her nomination," but rather to improve it. As I said, I will refrain from contributing any further to the article or the nomination, but I felt, since I was mentioned here, I ought to explain. Yazan (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]