Template talk:Did you know
There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
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 | |
To ping the DYK admins | {{DYK admins}} |
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.
Count of DYK Hooks | ||
Section | # of Hooks | # Verified |
---|---|---|
March 14 | 1 | |
March 19 | 1 | |
March 25 | 2 | 1 |
March 30 | 1 | |
April 2 | 1 | |
April 4 | 1 | |
April 5 | 1 | |
April 7 | 1 | |
April 8 | 1 | 1 |
April 10 | 1 | 1 |
April 13 | 4 | 2 |
April 14 | 4 | 1 |
April 15 | 5 | 4 |
April 16 | 4 | 3 |
April 17 | 5 | 3 |
April 18 | 8 | 5 |
April 19 | 9 | 5 |
April 20 | 6 | 5 |
April 21 | 8 | 6 |
April 22 | 6 | 4 |
April 23 | 8 | 6 |
April 24 | 14 | 9 |
April 25 | 8 | 3 |
April 26 | 10 | 6 |
April 27 | 11 | 4 |
April 28 | 12 | 7 |
April 29 | 7 | 2 |
April 30 | 13 | 4 |
May 1 | 12 | 3 |
May 2 | 5 | |
May 3 | 3 | 1 |
May 4 | 5 | 4 |
May 5 | 7 | |
Total | 185 | 90 |
Last updated 16:02, 5 May 2024 UTC Current time is 16:17, 5 May 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 supplementary guidelines.
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
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:
If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a lineArticle length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.
:* <!-- 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
|
---|
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 May 27
Articles created/expanded on May 29
Articles created/expanded on May 31
Articles created/expanded on June 2
Articles created/expanded on June 3
Articles created/expanded on June 8
Articles created/expanded on June 10
Articles created/expanded on June 11
Articles created/expanded on June 14
Articles created/expanded on June 16
Articles created/expanded on June 17
Articles created/expanded on June 18
Articles created/expanded on June 19
Articles created/expanded on June 24
Articles created/expanded on June 25
Articles created/expanded on June 26
Articles created/expanded on June 27
Articles created/expanded on June 28
Articles created/expanded on June 30
Articles created/expanded on July 1
Baby Gronk
Articles created/expanded on July 2
Articles created/expanded on July 3
Articles created/expanded on July 5
Articles created/expanded on July 6
Articles created/expanded on July 7
Articles created/expanded on July 8
Articles created/expanded on July 10
Articles created/expanded on July 11
Articles created/expanded on July 12
Articles created/expanded on July 16
Articles created/expanded on July 17
Articles created/expanded on July 18
Articles created/expanded on July 19
Articles created/expanded on July 23
Articles created/expanded on July 24
Articles created/expanded on July 26
Articles created/expanded on July 27
Articles created/expanded on July 28
Articles created/expanded on July 29
Articles created/expanded on July 30
- My reading of what has happened is that despite protests, the courts permitted the cutting. It happened over a period of weeks. It has ceased. Police barriers prevented access, but drone footage enabled the observation that it is about 60% cleared. Could more happen in future? Who knows. i.e. the cutting has stopped, past tense is correct. CT55555(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take the opposite view here. Are there any sources that explicitly state that the cutting has finished or is this our own deduction? The two more recent sources in the article (Balkan Insider, 8 August, this one from later in August) both refer to the process in the present tense. Therefore the present tense seems more appropriate until we have definitive reporting that the cutting has indeed stopped. That's why I approved the hook. --GGT (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have left a source before. [1] says "Chainsaw teams that arrived to start felling trees a week ago have now finished their work" on July 31. Larataguera (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take the opposite view here. Are there any sources that explicitly state that the cutting has finished or is this our own deduction? The two more recent sources in the article (Balkan Insider, 8 August, this one from later in August) both refer to the process in the present tense. Therefore the present tense seems more appropriate until we have definitive reporting that the cutting has indeed stopped. That's why I approved the hook. --GGT (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of what has happened is that despite protests, the courts permitted the cutting. It happened over a period of weeks. It has ceased. Police barriers prevented access, but drone footage enabled the observation that it is about 60% cleared. Could more happen in future? Who knows. i.e. the cutting has stopped, past tense is correct. CT55555(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Larataguera, CT55555, GGT, and Chidgk1: What is the status of this nomination? Does the verb tense in the original hook need to change? Or are we still debating the facts? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I reviewed recent articles (and there isn't a lot of news in the past week), and I don't think there's currently any cutting. But I also think it's a minor point, so I wouldn't like to hold up the nomination over it. I see Chidgk1's point about ongoing deforestation over a period of months or years. There is some recent coverage that discusses the cutting as if it were ongoing: The Guardian
It is difficult to know how many trees have been destroyed so far...
. So if there is no consensus to rephrase for past tense, I withdraw my concern. Larataguera (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC) - I also reviewed everything I could. I have a slight preference that I presented above, but I think we are splitting hairs. This is a multi year issue. We could debate if it is still ongoing or not (is it ongoing if the guys with the chainsaws took a 3 hour break? A 3 day break? A three week break?) I don't object to it going up as currently written. CT55555(talk) 13:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on July 31
Articles created/expanded on August 1
Articles created/expanded on August 2
Articles created/expanded on August 3
Articles created/expanded on August 4
Articles created/expanded on August 5
Articles created/expanded on August 6
Articles created/expanded on August 7
Articles created/expanded on August 8
Articles created/expanded on August 9
- If this is your second DYK nomination, I'm pretty sure QPQ review isn't required... so DYK should be good to go.--Orygun (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on August 10
Articles created/expanded on August 11
Articles created/expanded on August 12
Current nominations
Articles created/expanded on August 13
Articles created/expanded on August 14
Articles created/expanded on August 15
Articles created/expanded on August 16
Articles created/expanded on August 17
Articles created/expanded on August 18
Articles created/expanded on August 19
- Source is paywalled but otherwise RS. Article is NPOV, new enough and long enough, and Earwig returns copyvio unlikely. The hook is interesting. It appears editor is still QPQ exempt, unless I'm missing something. Chetsford (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Articles created/expanded on August 20
Special occasion holding area
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: [2]; discussion setting the six week limit can be found here: [3].
- April Fools' Day hooks are exempted from the timeline limit; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know.