Template talk:Did you know

DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

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
Holding area	WP:SOHA
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
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

For instructions on how to nominate an article, see Template:DYK nomination header § Instructions for nominators.

"Template:Did you know nominations" redirects here. For the list of approved nominations, see Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, it.

TOC:   ↓ Go to bottom ↓     ↑ Go to top ↑

Count of DYK Hooks
Section	# of Hooks	# Verified
July 18	2	1
July 19	1
July 26	1
July 27	1	1
July 28	3
July 29	2
August 1	2
August 3	1
August 4	2	1
August 5	3	1
August 6	3	1
August 7	2	2
August 8	2	1
August 9	1
August 10	4	1
August 11	4	1
August 12	2	2
August 13	2	2
August 14	9	6
August 15	5	4
August 16	6	3
August 17	8	4
August 18	9	8
August 19	7	3
August 20	5	3
August 21	2	1
August 22	5	4
August 23	9	3
August 24	7	1
August 25	10	4
August 26	5	2
August 27	13	9
August 28	14	6
August 29	16	6
August 30	20	7
August 31	9	7
September 1	7	6
September 2	9	5
September 3	7	4
September 4	7	5
September 5	5	3
September 6	8	4
September 7	10	1
September 8	8	4
September 9	9	3
September 10	7	2
September 11	6	2
September 12	8	1
September 13	3
September 14	5
September 15
Total	296	135
Last updated 00:25, 15 September 2024 UTC Current time is 00:27, 15 September 2024 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing. Further information can be found at the DYK guidelines.

Nominate an article

Frequently asked questions

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below).

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Instructions for reviewers

Main page: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

• Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
• Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
• The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
• To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Advanced procedures

How to promote an accepted hook

At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for details on verifying a hook's acceptability. Promoters should not promote their own nomination or their own review. When promoting hooks intended for a particular date, keep in mind that when the number of available approved nominations exceeds 120 we switch to two sets per day, and when that number drops below 60 we return to one set per day. Check list for nomination review completeness Select a hook from the approved nominations page that has one of these ticks at the bottom post: . Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed. Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting. Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed. Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated). Hook should make sense grammatically. Try to vary subject matters within each prep area. Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set. Steps to add a hook to prep In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote. In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to. Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :) For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue. Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number. Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot. Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end. Check that there's a bold link to the article. If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template. Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom Check your work in the prep's Preview mode. At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake. Save the Prep page. Closing the DYK nomination page At the upper left Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage Change |passed= to |passed=yes At the bottom Just above the line containing }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> insert a new, separate line containing one of the following: To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]] To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]] To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]] To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]] To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]] To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]] To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]] Also paste the same thing into the edit summary. Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom. Save. For more information, please see T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook.

Handy copy sources:

• To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
• To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
• To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
• To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
• To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
• To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
• To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]

How to remove a rejected hook

• Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
• In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue

• Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
• Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
  • View the edit history for that page
  • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
• If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

Nominations

Older nominations

Articles created/expanded on June 22

To Prep 5

Current nominations

Articles created/expanded on July 3

Ok, i've updated the template with the corrected source for the first one (I guess I mixed up the two scientific american articles, I think they bothy say that GPT-3 releases 552 metric tons of Co2, but only one talks about the comparison to cars. Thanks for catching that! Also fixed ALT1, thanks for fixing that as well! Apologies for incorrect info, I'll try to read a bit slower with these articles. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't dig to hard on that spammy site earlier, sorry. I agree that they stole from enwiki and not the other way around. All three hooks are good to go. I think ALT0 is the most compelling. awkwafaba (📥) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is this true? jp×g🗯️ 22:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The sourcing for the release of CO2 by a lot of AI models is well established, and it was a news item last week that Google's emission had increased by 50% or something cuz of their big AI push. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, I am a little concerned that statistics-heavy topics like this, when they're directly related to buzzwordy trending topics in the news cycle, tend to be very ill-suited to being patched out from headlines. That is to say, writing the shark attack and dog attack based solely on news coverage would give the impression that these were both uncommon things that do happen every once in a while, when in reality the yearly rates are eighty versus several million. This article quotes a bunch of figures from news stories back-to-back, and there doesn't really seem to be much attempt at comparison or context. For example, there is a paper cited that projects 85-143 TWh of global power consumption from neural networks by 2027, based on a conjectural optimistic scenario where NVIDIA/TSMC transition their entire manufacturing output to A100s (all of which are installed in data centers and used for nothing but LLM inference). By comparison, this paper estimated that video gaming consumed 34 TWh/year in the United States alone in 2019; this document from the DoE says that aluminum production in the US in 2000 consumed a total of 279.2 TWh/yr. The US consumes about 16% of the world's electricity, so a very rough approximation here would give a ballpark estimate of 212.5 TWh for gaming (the US does about 2% of aluminum production worldwide, giving us around 13960 TWh yearly for global aluminum production). It also seems like there is a lot of ambiguity between training (a fixed cost, as models are only trained once) and inference (the process that happens when running the model, which typically requires billions or trillions of times less computation). I am somewhat worried about having this on the front page. jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

you are literally using us energy gov stats to WP:SYNTH a whataboutism argument… by the same logic, the criticism section of any industries environmental impact can be called misleading because theres always another more polluting industry you can point to. the comparison you suggest is “missing” is literally that training ChatGPT training took as much energy as 123 gasoline powered cars yearly footprints. and suggesting that including examples from news articles headlining the carbon footprint is a bad thing for wikipedia is inane. most articles on here use secondary souces such as news articles. and most DyK hooks are eyecatching Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For the specific task of literally writing an encyclopedia article about a topic, I would say that answering questions like "why is this statistic relevant" or "what does this number mean" is probably its most important purpose. I gave a couple examples to illustrate what this looks like, obviously there is no reason why aluminum manufacturing in particular is more relevant than anything else. The most appropriate source here would likely be something like a textbook or monograph about electrical consumption by various industries, and how this related to environmental concerns in general. Since this is a subject of rather large significance, it is important that our writing on it be accurate, and not news. I am opposed to running stuff on the main page where vague insinuations are made by factoids of unexplained significance -- e.g. what's a terawatt-hour? what's a gram of CO2? why are some figures given in one and some as the other, and still others given in folksy derivative units like average midsize sedan gasoline consumption rates over average suburban commutes? jp×g🗯️ 01:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, ALT0 is not supported by the source. Indeed, OpenAI's well-known sleazy refusal to be transparent about any of its operations or research means that the source cannot say that, because the source does not know. The figure claimed as fact in this hook is, in the source, carefully and explicitly presented as an approximate figure derived by estimation (it's from https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350 -- note the methods they are using). jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing these bad faith arguments after this. The source link is literally right there for anyone to read. There are three links I cite with the 552 metric tons figure in the article. Most of the "environmental impacts of" are similar collections of "factoids" discussing various industry leaders. And by your logic of WP:NOTNEWS, we should remove most news articles discussing long term trends in any industry. WP:NOTNEWS specifically states no original reporting on wikipedia (we don't report the news ourselves, we cite it), and calls for enduring notability of information (we don't do an article if its just one or two articles). if you find a reputable source arguing that this is a false number or a false comparison, feel free to edit the article. I respect your work as an admin, and your experience, but this is silly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 4

I've removed the points I'd consider to be minor nitpicks and left a couple I do think should be addressed as they concern the factuality of the article. Apologies for going overboard. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't love the party fingers usage, but it'd be silly to hold back the DYK over it in isolation. Hook looks good now, so I'd give this a stamp of approval. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 6

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go with main or ALT - both verified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on July 7

• • @BeanieFan11: thanks for the review! QPQ has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    • BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

See also: WP:SOHA

The holding area is near the top of the Approved page. Please only place approved templates there; do not place them below.

Do not nominate articles in this section—nominate all articles in the nominations section above, under the date on which the article was created or moved to mainspace, or the expansion began; indicate in the nomination any request for a specially timed appearance on the main page.

Note: Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful. Discussion clarifying the hold criteria can be found here: Hold criteria; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: Six week limit.

April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.