Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Prep 2

[edit]

FoodPharmer

[edit]
Not happy with the use of unattributed quotes, particularly for a stuff that very clearly isn't a health drink. I propose trimming everything after "pictured" to "once shamed Bournvita into reducing its sugar" or somesuch.--Launchballer 12:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bournvita was marketed in India as a "children's health drink" at the time of the video, and was the very reason the video was made. I do have sources that can be added to back up the claim:
—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've updated Bournvita's article with appropriate references. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX Melbourne

[edit]

Second opinion needed

[edit]

Hi, could we get a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness (Talmud)? There's been some changes since my review, and I would like to move this forward with a yay or nay. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look and left a few comments. Rjjiii left a few good comments as well. Andre🚐 01:12, 23 December 2024 (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 all 24 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 15. We have a total of 310 nominations, of which 223 have been approved, a gap of 87 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Planting a Rainbow

[edit]

I reviewed this originally, so somebody else needs to look at it. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien: Romulus

[edit]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Lankyant, and Ippantekina: The use of quotes in the hook ("resurrected") implies this is a direct quote from someplace, but that doesn't appear in the article. I note that MOS:SCAREQUOTES was featured in today's WP:ERRORS, and that applies equally well here. RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Fix ping. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Kwan Man-ching

[edit]

Other

[edit]

Prep 5

[edit]

Ceechynaa +1

[edit]
I'll look at Bernard Gray when I've eaten. Looking at this now, I wonder if it's worth tightening the hook slightly, e.g. "that a reviewer identified an "audible contempt" for men in the songs of Ceechynaa, who entered the UK singles chart earlier this month with "Peggy"?--Launchballer 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin E

[edit]
The hook fact, in the Lead and in the History section, is now followed by the Evans 1936 reference. The ref is also used after the next sentence in the History section, which attributes the suggestion to the name of a Greek scholar in a footnote on page 321. David notMD (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain this edit @Darth Stabro:?--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it must have been an accidental misclick of the rollback button. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)

[edit]

Bernard Gray (Sunday Pictorial journalist)

[edit]
Looks good to me.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl Reactors 5 and 6

[edit]

Queue 6

[edit]

Phoebe Plummer, Christopher Hehir, Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest

[edit]

@Launchballer, Folkezoft, Crisco 1492, and AirshipJungleman29: The quote from the source is "Unfortunately for them, they got Judge Christopher Hehir." Some editors at ERRORS might have issue with the word change, so perhaps one of the below would be better:

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the spelling of "unfortunatly" to "unfortunately" in both ALT hooks, and fixed the apostrophe-s template in ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that "unfortunately" --> "unfortunate" was covered by MOS:SIC, although now I don't see anything about adverbs in it. (I could have sworn the approved hook had the bold links in a different order?) In any event, all of the hooks are wrong; Plummer uses "they/them" pronouns.--Launchballer 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Kane

[edit]

@Ergo Sum, Chaiten1, and Hilst:

While the article talks about how O'Kane was ordered to halt construction, I cannot find where it states that the building never received approval, including that it did not receive retroactive approval. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more info about the approvals to the article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

[edit]

@Di (they-them) @Tails Wx @Hilst Doesn't this hook as currently written not meet WP:DYKFICTION? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. Maybe we could go with "... that SpongeKnob SquareNuts, a porn parody of SpongeBob SquarePants, has been described as 'like a train crash that you just can't look away from'?" or "... that the costume for the titular SpongeKnob SquareNuts character consisted of a box and a condom?". – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these alternatives are fine with me. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea I had was actually something like "... that SpongeBob has a porn parody?", but I guess we can have another reviewer decide. Not sure if the other proposals fail WP:DYKGRAT or not (maybe they don't and I'm just being too conscious or conservative), but I guess that's also up to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That also works. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to the "box and a condom" hook because I thought that was the most interesting. Others are welcome to suggest changes or advocate for another hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the use of the word "titular" feels odd in this sentence and it's not clear if the sentence is referring to the character or the film. Might I suggest tweaking the wording?
"... that a SpongeBob costume used in the film SpongeKnob SquareNuts consisted of a box and a condom?"
Di (they-them) (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1
I used titular because I had just woken up and my brain works very poorly in the morning :V – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in Queue, so a sysop will need to swap with the new wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure this is notable? I don't see any of the sources in the article making a particularly compelling case for a GNG pass... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It now needs pulling, if it hasn't already been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled this per below.--Launchballer 16:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12-hour sets?

[edit]

WP:DYKNA currently has over 130 approved noms. Should we start doing 12-hour sets? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Approaching 12-hour backlog mode? and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:DYKUBM and the consensus was that we start when there are seven filled queues.--Launchballer 13:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If two more preps are promoted in the next 20 hours—we have five queues filled and need seven—we will switch to 12-hour sets after midnight and continue for three days, after which we switch back. We actually have over 200 approved noms (202 to be precise): the 133 that are counted in the table, and another 69 that aren't transcluding on the Approved page and therefore aren't counted by the bot as being approved, because the bot can only count transcluded noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this does happen, then my #Ceechynaa +1 hook will need to move. I put in a request that it run on the 29th, her birthday.--Launchballer 04:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's another GA backlog drive in January. Which means if we don't dig into our own backlog over the next few weeks, we'll be totally swamped by February. So, we need to get those queues filled. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

Diddy parties

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, No Swan So Fine, and Darth Stabro: I'm concerned about the WP:BLP aspects of this. It also looks like the credit template got lost. RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the credit template. I think the move wreaked havoc on it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have issues with the hook itself, but do see a potential BLP issue with linking this from the main page. The article talks about "White Parties" (parties mainly at his home that were widely covered by the news as like big time cultural events) and "Freak-offs" (parties mainly at hotels that are being investigated for a range of criminal activity). It doesn't quite make a clear distinction between the two, but that accurately reflects the sources. The BBC talks about his neighbors complaining at the White Parties hosted in his home because women staggered into the streets, partially clothed, and looking disoriented/dazed. It says, "various lawsuits detail alleged sexual assaults at parties held at Mr Combs's properties". And so the article has these lists of all these famous living people that attended his "White Parties" like Al Sharpton, Martha Stewart, and Elton Brand with a kind of implication that they could have been involved in or known about the crimes currently under investigation. And where the article does directly address whether individuals had involvement or knowledge (Leonardo DiCaprio & Marlon Wayans) they are explicitly denying it and don't seem to have any charges right now. Also, the Marlon Wayans interview is prefaced with "White Chicks might have been inspired by real-life events" but the cited source seems to hedge much more saying that White Chicks "ha adquirido un nuevo significado [has taken on a new meaning]". I'll post a neutral link to WP:BLPN to get outside input and accept whatever the consensus is. Rjjiii (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De Worsten van Babel

[edit]

@Hilst, Bogger, and Figureskatingfan: the article doesn't mention "espresso". RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. - Bogger (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse

[edit]

I nominated this for ITN and now I think it's been lost. I requested it be moved so there aren't two tornado-based blurbs, but the move wasn't done perfectly and it wasn't put into another queue. It was replaced in its original queue with Planting a Rainbow but that one's original queue wasn't updated, and when it went to Errors, was replaced by another blurb from somewhere else. Template:Did you know nominations/Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse - promoted 12 days ago but not on any queue anymore. And whatever anyone does, please keep it away from Prep 5 and the 1991 Andover tornado so we don't have to go through this all over again. I'm not too concerned with getting this up in a timely manner, moreso with having it on DYK at all. Cheers. Departure– (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with #SpongeKnob SquareNuts above.--Launchballer 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

[edit]

Transatlantic cables incident

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Chetsford, and Dumelow: There's yet another incident of this kind happening right now Finland Seizes Ship After Undersea Cable Is Cut. The Historical context section really should get updated before this goes live. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

[edit]

See Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Helong civil unrest, we just moved the underlying page for a DYK, is there anything that needs to be done on the DYK nom now? seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the link in the hook to the new article name, I think that was everything. TSventon (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the DYK header, DYK nompage links, and DYKmake templates to reflect the article move. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

[edit]

Hi. I nominated Rescatemos a David y Miguel for this date, and the nomination was approved on December 9. According to the established timeline, it should have been placed in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 by now, but it is still in the approved queue. In the past, I've missed similar nominations even when they were submitted within the established 6-week period. I understand that there are many hooks waiting to be posted before this one, but my main concern is that I've planned other articles for February and March that I won't need to nominate within the next three to six weeks due to the DYK rules, which could potentially apply to the same situation and I'd need to know if I'd have to nominated them even before the 6-week period. (CC) Tbhotch™ 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1265499273"