Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Prep 2: Island or volcano?[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Paul 012: @Narutolovehinata5:
Nowhere in the article is this called "a former island". It is called a guyot, a seamount, or a volcano. The piped link needs to be changed. Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to say "seamount", as seamount appears to be the general term in this case (inclusive of guyots). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but then the lead should call it a seamount, not a guyot. Waiting for page creator's input. Yoninah (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
According to the guyot article, a guyot is a kind of seamount. Simple substitution of terms like this should be okay. As for the original hook using "former island", this is covered by the last sentence of the Carbonate platform and late volcanism section: "It is likely that this volcanic activity caused the formation of a volcanic island above the carbonate platform," and the following paragraph which mentions its drowning. Personally, though, I think "undersea mountain" or just "guyot" would probably be more interesting for a DYK hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is false that the article doesn't state that it is a former island. It doesn't use those exact words, but it is clear through much of the text that it was an island and now is not. If you want a specific sourced sentence, try the one "In the case of MIT, the platform underwent a temporary uplift before drowning." towards the end. I happen to think that "former island" is likely to be more attractive to DYK readers than some technical jargon meaning the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with David Eppstein's statement, including the part about "guyot" and "seamount" not being good replacement terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. Back to "island". Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Helen Woodrow Bones image[edit]

Could someone crop the image to remove the border and photographer's name? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done, here. I cropped a little more than the border off the bottom to remove some other defects in the image. MB 03:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@MB: thank you very much! Yoninah (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Lorena Cuéllar Cisneros[edit]

Nomination was approved, but there is a lot of information (mostly in the infobox) that is mentioned as absolute statements of fact but have no sources to back it up. Ideally, this info should be added in the body instead of adding refs in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE. The lead mentions "LXIV Legislature" but is not cited in the body. Pinging Raymie (nominator), Cwmhiraeth (reviewer), and Yoninah (promoter). Please let me know if you have any questions. MX () 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is running live on the main page so probably should be at WP:ERRORS for immediate attention. Of course, QPQ doesn't address article quality, it simply verifies the hook, so the rest of the article can be junk. Tomorrow was no exception with Arena running full of poor grammar and repeated blocks of text. Thankfully that one was spotted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@MX: I've commented out the unsourced information in the infobox; the last sentence of the lead is fine, as it's supported by the body. Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this is a perennial problem of infoboxes, rather than anything else; I've seen FACs ignore unsourced information in the infobox. Infobox bloat on is a real issue; I seem to recall a signpost article about it a while ago. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've reviewed sports biographies and I am always amazed by some of the things that are included in the boxes even if they come with sources; they often don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the help guys. And I apologize for not using the errors page. I saw this page as a link in the article's DYK nomination template and figured this was the right place. And to your point Vanamonde93, yes, unsourced info in infoboxes is a real issue here. I'm very strict about it but it seems most are not. I try to catch them when they appear on the main page and often try to do the work myself (i.e. unsourced DOB/POB that I can simply pull with a Google search or by using the sources already cited), but when there is a lot of unsourced info I try to get the nominator involved. MX () 16:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I might as well say that I went and grabbed from the LXIII Legislature of the Mexican Congress article the information corresponding to the last federal deputy from the district, as well as Tlaxcala's two current senators. This information, along with the birth date, place and party, can be verified by searching the SIL system which contains biographical and party information. Raymie (tc) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Raymie: That's fine, but you should still copy the citations over, preferably to a specific individual's page rather than to the database. Vanamonde (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I just did that (the SIL has individual pages, and pretty much every Mexican legislative article should cite them). In the future I'm definitely going to pay attention to adding citations into the infobox. Raymie (tc) 19:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Raymie: Thank you. You may also wish to look at the information currently hidden (using the <!-- --> tags, so it's visible in the edit window) and see if you can source any of that; if not, it's best removed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Königsgarten[edit]

I came by to promote this hook, but found the article rather hard to follow. All the information is there, perhaps in chronological order, but not in a logical or organized way that would make for easy comprehension. The nominator disagrees with me, saying that DYK already has too many rules and we shouldn't put off new nominators with trivial reasons of style or format. I would appreciate other eyes here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's quite true that the article doesn't section easily, but I don't think it's a lost cause: I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Done, commented at the nomination page. Vanamonde (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I didn't mean to imply it was a lost cause; it just needed someone like you to put in the work! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure. Vanamonde (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Vanamonde. As the unnamed nominator mentioned above, I am asking a more generalised question below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Article issues[edit]

Is it reasonable to demand that before it is promoted, an article nominated for DYK must conform to certain standards even though these are not covered by the DYK rules? The examples that come to mind are article layout (subdivision into sections, the presence of a lead, the lead being too short), the article being an orphan or the method of formatting the citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good list of common sense checks. Of course, articles which exhibit such problems can simply be tagged which would render them invalid for DYK in any case, so it’s probably better to check for such obvious issues before promoting. We’ve had a few stinkers recently where it’s been obvious that only the hook was checked, and that’s really not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Back in the days, my approach to submitting DYK was a way to get more exposure for these articles to get the valuable copyediting they need. Although time has changed, this approach is still somewhat retained in ITN, but not exactly in DYK. My thought would be if it is a newer editor, I wouldn't "demand" any changes prior to promoting the article; but after five articles or so by the same editor, quality standards should started to be asked if the same type of concerns continues to exist. I am sure people are always happy to improve their content creation. Alex Shih (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I always informally try to help improving the article by suggestions, but would hesitate to make things more formal, as we have rules enough. I am dealing with a nom where two editors raised even more concerns than I did, content more than formality, - so I will wait a bit before approving, and perhaps will not. Case-by-case, I'd say. The typical short DYK article doesn't "need" a lead or sections. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
TRM has a good point that if the article does not meet basic Wikipedia standards, it will be tagged, and then it will be ineligible for DYK. Certainly something should be written into the DYK rules that since the article is appearing on the main page, it should satisfy basic Wikipedia guidelines. (Perhaps there's one page that could be referred to. I know the WP:Women in Red project has drawn up its own checklist for new contributors.) In order to promote nominations that have been approved but that still fall short of certain Wikipedia standards, without starting a long back-and-forth with a new page creator that will delay the promotion even more, I often go in and do a light copyedit, or format the references, or even look for new reliable sources to improve the referencing. Of course, if I do too much, I recuse myself from promoting it. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but where does it say in the rules that DYK nominations are ineligible if the article has tags? So far as I am aware, the only tags that render a nomination ineligible are dispute tags, per supplementary rule D6. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Excused. We're talking about dispute tags being added when articles fail basic Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I don't think it would be reasonable to fail a nomination because the article doesn't have enough sections, for instance; but I don't it unreasonable to ask the creator/nominator to do a little additional work beyond the rules. For things like leads on a short article or creating subsections, it isn't much work, but makes for a drastically better article, so I'm not against holding up a nomination until this is done; particularly with more experienced creators. I've done so myself on a number of occasions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I am in two minds about this myself. Sometimes there is a lengthy review and much discussion of a suitable hook and then, just when everything seems settled and the hook is ready for promotion, the nomination is scuppered for some reason that is outside the rules. If any article creator gets disheartened by the process and decides not to nominate their articles again, we have failed in our role of encouraging new article creators. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like the review process is not fit for purpose in that case. DYK isn't a free pass to sending articles with fundamental issues which contravene Wikipedia guidelines (and, for example, are "dispute tagged") to the main page. That's not how it works, nor should it be. DYK has its own "rules" but Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which trump anything a DYK nomination might allow. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
From experience, I have encountered at least one case like this, where the article wasn't sectioned, but the nominator declined to make the requested changes, and a second review by another user said that such changes weren't necessary. Consensus may have been different then, or that it was debatable in the first place if the requested edits were needed, but it would probably be important to take note. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that adherence to Wikipedia guidelines is of paramount importance. If, upon review, articles fail to meet those guidelines, they can simply be tagged until the issues are resolved. It doesn't really matter what DYK "rules" say, preserving the integrity of the main page using Wikipedia guidelines and policies trumps DYK every single time. Ironically, I think putting sections into articles is one of the least of these problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, the presence of orange clean-up tags has usually been regarded as the first indicator of unacceptability for bold Main Page links. This criterion is listed at WP:ITN, and is also the bar for OTD. Minor formatting issues such as sectioning would only warrant yellow tags, and shouldn't be too bad for the Main Page. I don't usually consider them against DYK. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's not the rule for DYK, so ignoring dispute tags contravenes QPQ rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Your understanding of a "dispute" tag differs from mine. Do you consider "Orphan" or "Lead too short" to be dispute tags? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just look at dispute tags if you're confused. If I suggest that other tags should render articles ineligible then that's because I think we shouldn't promote articles with any tags, because it's unprofessional and looks crap. Our readers should not be subjected to crap articles, it's nothing to do with them that DYK offers such a poor level of quality control. Do also note that {{cn}} is listed there as a "dispute tag", ho hum...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Now see, I thought that any maintenance tags in general are undesirable, at least on the bolded link article, for DYK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'm not quite sure which exactly is your position. On one hand, I gather that you mean that (a) DYK rules (specifically, supplementary rule D6) disallows articles with current dispute tags (the aforementioned orange tags, plus a few more including {{citation needed}}), and (b) personally, you think other issues such as {{sections}} and {{lead too short}} are also undesirable, even if they're not against DYK rules. But then you also said "that's not the rule for DYK" in reply to my comment about sections issues not being against DYK rules. This seems rather contradictory. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all. You do know some dispute tags are yellow, right? And you do know some dispute tags don’t even have colours? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I get now what you're saying. I'd have been easier to understand, though, if you pointed that out directly, instead of jumping around and forcing the reader to try and figure out what your point was. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The DYK rules have said dispute tags for some while. It’s been there in black and white and red and orange and colourless. I’m not here to re- xplain these basic rules, just remind you all to follow them and enforce them at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just... never mind. I understand now that what you meant above was that "we should be talking about dispute tags, not orange ones", and not that "minor formatting issues such as sectioning are against DYK rules". --Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well now we all know what a dispute tag is, hopefully the rules can be finally followed! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But the original question raised in this discussion was about style issues and other issues that don't warrant dispute tags ("The examples that come to mind are article layout (subdivision into sections, the presence of a lead, the lead being too short), the article being an orphan or the method of formatting the citations"). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those were just examples. That sprung to mind. There’s a significant issue with the overall quality of a lot of DYKs but if nothing else, this thread has taught a few people a few things, and will inevitably result in fewer poor articles making it to the main page as they’ll fail D6. But as a general rule, no part of the project which contributes to the main page should be promoting articles with any kinds of tags, as I said, our readers don’t deserve that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for ... the presence of dispute tags", but TRM states "But as a general rule, no part of the project which contributes to the main page should be promoting articles with any kinds of tags, as I said, our readers don’t deserve that." So there we are then TRM says no tags and TRM always knows best! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There is not one single good reason to promote anything to the main page which has maintenance or dispute issues. Only DYK does it multiple times a week. DYK is not special as far as the readers are concerned. I will continue to call out dross before it gets to the main page, and I will continue to tag issues as I find them. And judging by WP:TRM, I really do know best. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked earlier if there was a DYK rule I had missed that prohibits the promotion of articles with any kind of tag (as opposed to articles with dispute tags which are prohibited under D6) and it appears from this discussion that there is no such rule. So hopefully that's clear to everybody now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I clarified that DYK is the only section of the main page which allows such leniency. It's become very clear in the course of this discussion that there's a serious misunderstanding as to what constitutes a "dispute tag", and now you're all aware that includes [citation needed], you're all going to have to work harder to ensure nominated articles are reviewed thoroughly enough such that tags of that nature are not required to be added after promotion. Please work harder on this, the average of more than three errors per day with DYK alone, including just basically factually incorrect hooks (like one tomorrow!). It's letting the main page down severely. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just like the "longest loop trail" DYK which has been posted on the main page now for eight or so hours, replete with disputed tag on top. It's not factually accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Manual categorization of archives is no longer needed[edit]

I've updated {{DYK archive header}} to include automatic categorization into Category:Wikipedia Did you know archives. When archiving DYK history, you no longer need to do add the category manually. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: European pilchard[edit]

I don't really have problems with the hook wording itself: in fact I find it interesting. My concern is more of quirkyness: it's a sardine, and sardines are commonly sold canned. I'm not sure if the variety of ways it's sold (fresh, frozen, canned, fish meal, etc.) is uncommon either, and I can think of several examples of fish that are sold fresh, frozen, canned. Perhaps we need a new hook here? Pinging nominators @Cwmhiraeth and HLHJ: and reviewer Gerda Arendt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Late reply from reviewer: I didn't like the hook much - as you can see in the nom - but believe in the nominator's right to suggest something, and go along if I "don't have a problem". I know already that the day will be too short for the things I want to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Linking the actual DYK nom template for reference: DYK nominations/European pilchard — Maile (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have access to the source for this sentence "Multiple batches of eggs are produced over a long breeding period, total fecundity being 50,000 to 60,000", but it seems to me that if that egg count is from one sardine, it might make an interesting hook. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you know ...the difference between a European pilchard and a sardine? Or perhaps something about its commoness as food, since I many people may not be aware that they eat European pilchards? Maile's suggestion is good, but I don't have access to that source either. HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The European pilchard article has an image that could be used as a mainpage image, if that's a problem. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A different-names hook suggestion. "Juveniles" is used in the article. HLHJ (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't like either of these suggestionsn. According to #3 in the article, there are twelve different species of fish that are acceptable in canned sardine or sardine-type products. Eleven of these do not grow up to become pilchards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Returning to prep for further work; discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK Sturm Cigarette Company[edit]

Separate issue: the first hook (SA cigarettes) is not ready for the main page. We were discussing it, and the first clause is not really supported by recent scholarship. Could it be pushed back until the discussion of the hook is finished? I've let the discussion slip, I will try to get it sorted this weekend. HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually the nomination itself was approved by Catriona, the question was more of what hook to use (the nominators were leaning towards ALT1). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook from prep, and reopened the template. There are often nominations where an original hook is approved, and then others want an alt hook. As long as there is a discussion going on, with no final check-off or closing of that discussioin, the nomination should remain open. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I've done some work and messaged Catrìona, so hopefully this will be ready soon. HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of August. Right now we have a total of 278 nominations, of which 130 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones remaining from July and early August.

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Josette Frank[edit]

@Etzedek24: @Argento Surfer:
The second hook fact is not mentioned in the article. The corruption part seems to be implied by the Ellsworth quote, though I'm not so sure about that. The whole career section is rather sketchy on Frank's contribution, being dominated by that Ellsworth quote. If her comics advocacy is her claim to notability, I think more should be drawn from the sources to improve the article. Also, I think the hook as a whole is rather clunky and could be a lot sharper. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I think that the Sterling North quote shows the corrupting claims pretty well. I will try to update her profile with some of her Child Study publications or some stuff from her book in the near future. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need a list of publications, but more information about her career and her activities, why people were so against her (as stated in the sources but not in the article). Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that this hasn't yet been resolved, I have pulled the hook from prep; it wasn't supported by the text in the article. There's a slot open in prep five, if this is fixed soon. Vanamonde (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Frosta AG - Queue 4[edit]

I've promoted this to a queue, but I just found that the source used for the hook is from this website. It does not inspire much confidence; can someone see if I've missed something, and it is in fact reliable? @Ultracobalt, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: Vanamonde (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It might be wise to remove the "first company in Europe" claim but I think the rest is satisfactory, and is backed up by the company's website providing the company's history:
  • Yes, probably a good idea. If we're unhappy about the source, though, I'm not too keen on basing the hook on it at all; if it is such a big company, there should be secondary sourcing available, right? Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the change above, I think the original hook was more along the lines of the first frozen food company in Europe, but the current hook is easier to read. The info on removing additives are backed up by secondary sources 12 Die Ziet and 13 Greenpeace Magazine, but naturally those are in German. Cmwhiraeth moved the valves ref closer to the claim in good faith and because that was the English version. Hope that helps. Ultracobalt (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ultracobalt: That's good: but could you please duplicate those sources where those facts are mentioned? Vanamonde (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done. And a little jockeying of text for clarity. For reference, the fact mention "first in the industry" (in German) occurs at the bottom of the 3rd paragraph in Die Ziet
Thanks. I've tweaked the hook per Cwmhiraeth above. To be honest, even with the secondary source, a claim like "the first in Europe" is pretty extreme, and likely incorrect, so it's best left out. Vanamonde (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a small note, the source above is not by "Die Zeit" at all. It is from a small monthly business magazine called "Brand eins". So it is highly misleading to claim it is by "Die Zeit". There is some partnership between the two but that should not be used to fluff up a source by using the name of the big reputable newspaper and not the actual publication. "Brand eins" is only featured sometimes but has otherwise nothing to do with the newspaper as far as i could see. Not saying the source is not reliable but it is not from whom it was claimed to be here. (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Double entry[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Uchchhishta is on the approved page twice - Sept 8 and 11. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)