Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener[edit]

An editor has proposed this hook:

IMO this is graphic enough without the anal sex, which is anyway speculative. I suggested this ALT:
ALT1: ... that in 1394 John Rykener, known as "Eleanor", was found committing an "ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns?
However, the nominator is insistent on using the original. What do others think? Should the original go up on the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is precisely the kind of thing that the much-abused WP:NOTCENSORED (which is abused precisely because editors all too often forget that it is policy) applies to, and Yoninah's WP:IDLI is very much at odds with it: ..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The activity the two people were involved in is not only at the heart of the article, but pretty much at the heart of what we know of the subject's life. It is, therefore, both relevant and explanatory to the WP:READER. Further, since the only explanation of the illegality of their conduct left in ALT1 is "ignominious vice", you are relying on the reader (whose first language may not be English) to understand or otherwise try and find out exactly what that archaic phrase actually means. It also implies that we know what they were doing; whereas, when they link through to the article, it will be made clear to them by numerous RS that it is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. I feel, strongly, that the disambiguator is necessary to clarify to the reader what his offence was in plain and simple English, and avoids the obfuscation that ALT1 throws up by not clarifying whether sex with "friars [or] nuns" was the "ignominious vice"—when, of course, technically, it was neither. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm undecided and won't have time to look more closely into it now, but my first response is, why not use the full quote: "that detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice", which is much more intriguing (and would be better without the "anal sex" spoiler anyway). Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:CENSORMAIN is the guideline for the main page. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
To some extent, I agree: of course it does say, Each situation should be judged on its merits, and there shouldn't be a blanket rule that says "anal sex is banned" :) even so, it's actually an essay, not a guideline (let alone policy). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The hook may be somewhat graphic, but if ever there were an article for which that would be appropriate, this—which is not a salacious stub created solely for DYK, but is a serious treatment of an object of serious academic interest—is probably it. The hook is less prurient (compare with the occasional irrelevant sex joke) than it is directly related to the substance of the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
But as Maile points out, CENSORMAIN is the operative guideline for DYK hooks. Censorship of the article itself is not the issue. As a more intriguing hook, I think the suggestion by Gatoclass is much better anyway — not only does it allay main page concerns, likely it will actually pique the reader's interest even more to read the article out of curiosity!  JGHowes  talk_
No, it obfuscates the scenario even more, and will likely leave the WP:READER all the more bemused. In any case, CENSORMAIN does not apply (well, not unless one takes a particularly puritanical slant). This hook is not "relating to pornography or gore"; "clearly offensive content"; use (or over-use) "fuck"; or generally shocking. On the other hand, "the words are treated with the same impartiality and neutral tone as any other". —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The "probably anal sex" clause is redundant in any case because the hook goes on to say he had "sex with both friars and nuns". You don't have to beat readers over the head with the fact. Suggested alt:
  • ALT2: ... that in 1394, John Rykener, known as "Eleanor", was apprehended for committing a "detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns? Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:OWN, this discussion has stalled. WP:CONSENSUS is against the nominator, but he is insistent. I do not think DYK exists as a personal showcase for page creators. Perhaps it's time to fail this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As a matter of policy or practice, is a DYK hook an exception to OWN, such that the nom has the final say? If so, then since the nom adamently rejects Alt1 and Alt2, I'd have to concur there's no alternative to fail.  JGHowes  talk 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi all, apologies for my WP:OWNership issues, I don't quite know what possessed me; I don't usually care enough to argue :) anyway, this has been an interesting discussion—and I hope not too much of a waste of anyone's time, including my own—and I am very much persuaded towards the collegiate approach, viz, let the community decide. Yes, I think that means you lot :)
    Pinging participants—@Gatoclass, JGHowes, Maile66, Usernameunique, and Yoninah:—to the discussion for final verdict.
    Cheers, and thanks for all the time you have all taken with this. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think ALT1 is a decent compromise since it makes readers curious. ALT2 is too long. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Naturally I'm in favour of my own suggestion, ALT2, for which I gave my reasons above - I think the full quote is more intriguing (and amusing). Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: well, obviously I'm now recused, but FYI, Nurotolovehinata was noting that ALT2's currently 6 characters ove-budget. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO people follow the letter of the guidelines too closely these days - the 200-character outside limit was intended to prevent long, turgid hooks, but if a hook scans well - and I believe this one does - it really shouldn't matter if it's a few characters over the limit. However, if you want a strictly compliant hook, you could go with:
  • I like ALT3 best. Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Since the DYK nom with the original hook was tick'd by @Catrìona: do they need to re-approve with ALT3?  JGHowes  talk 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I approve ALT 3. Catrìona (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll move ALT3 back to prep. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


For many years, 5,000 hits has been the gold standard for acceptance to our Stats page. But for many years, hooks ran in sets that lasted 6, 8, or 12 hours on the main page. Now, with hooks appearing for 24 hours at a time, a hook just has to attract some 200 viewers an hour in order to qualify. This is a far cry from the 1,000 (or more) hits per hour that hooks in years past had to collect, and it detracts from those other hooks' accomplishments. I think we should change the lower limit to 10,000 hits for hooks in 24-hour sets to qualify. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter too much, because we normally compare only within a month. - We could instead think about making the permanent lists not by hits, but by hits/hour, and set a high limit, to make it more meaningful for comparison over a longer period. - The question further up if Donald Trump baby balloon was pictured or not for these everlasting lists, has not been answered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As a nominator who had 10 articles get over 5,000 hits in July, from 11 featured, I would agree that 5,000 is too low a threshold. Increasing it to 10,000 seems the easiest and simplest "solution". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? Having said that, I am kind of sympathetic to the idea of raising the bar somewhat. However, if we are going to start fiddling with the criteria, perhaps the first thing we should be looking at is changing the basic criterion to hits per hour rather than total hits, given that we still switch from 24 to 12 and sometimes still even 8 hours per set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, 250 hits per hour seems like a good baseline. But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As someone whose hooks don't tend to hit 5,000 (with only one exception so far), I don't really care for any particular number either way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
250 hits per hour is very low. That's where we're holding now with a 24-hour set. I would say at least 500 hits per hour, and better, 1,000 hits per hour, which will equal the totals earned by previous hooks. But @Gatoclass: we're averaging the hooks per hour anyway. Why not stick with the overall total number of hits? Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
1000 hits per hour? That would be 24,000 hits per day - almost five times the current threshold, I think that's far too much. I was thinking perhaps 375 hits per hour, which would equal 9000 per 24 hours. I think we wouldn't be archiving enough hooks at 10,000 per day, but there are usually a fair few that don't quite make it to 10k, so 9k might be an acceptable cut-off. I'd probably prefer 8k per 24 hours, but that ends up being an odd number of hits per hour. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and with regard to your question about total number vs. hits per hour - the problem is that if you just go by total number of hits, then hooks up for 24 hours have double the time to reach the minimum threshold by comparison with hooks displayed for only 12 hours, which obviously puts the latter at a great disadvantage. Also, total hits gives a misleading impression of the most popular hooks, because the list is skewed in favour of the hooks that were displayed for longer time periods. Gatoclass (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, perhaps aiming for 10k hits per 24 hours would be an appropriate cut-off, it appears, at least from recent trends, that that would result in about 20 hooks per month going into the hall of fame, which might arguably be enough. I might want to look into that some more though, and I don't have time right now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
"On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? " Isn't that an argument in favor of doing this? A "best of" list is supposed to be smaller than the complete list, or there would be no reason for having the "best of" list in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but it's a question of where the best cut-off point might be. You don't want to have a "best of the month" table that only features a handful of hooks. I'm currently thinking that about 20 hooks per month might be an appropriate cut-off, and that would probably be achieved with a cut-off at 10,000 per 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
(As Gerda says) a per-hour measure is fairer. It means popular hooks that don't run for long will be recognised alongside hooks that run for longer. 5k over 24 hours would be 208 per hour. 10k would be 416 per hour. I don't have strong view about the right level, but somewhere about 400 per hour seems fair. We should revisit the all-time list requirements (currently 25k for a lead, 15k for a non-lead) at the same time if we make the switch. › Mortee talk 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the most pressing issue DYK has, better get the completely irrelevant stats in order first and leave the plethora of other more pressing issues unresolved. Is this really the highest priority issue to fix/improve? Just confirms even more that DYK is not for readers but regular contributors... (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, as I noted above But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. It's transparent what the mission statement here is nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don't understand people like you, If you have an issue with the DYK project, mention it in a thread about that issue, not in a thread about a different issue. Surely you don't expect the majority of Wikipedia contributors to spend hours researching and posting articles on a public-domain source that can be copied by students, authors, and who knows who else, out of the goodness of their hearts? The paltry online "prizes" and statistics charts are hardly sufficient thanks for their efforts. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. I've created literally hundreds of good and featured items and expect nothing back at all in any shape or form. So yes, I did it out of the goodness of my heart. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i have been very busy and had no time to reply. My point is that DYK has many issues like quality control, major issues with QPQ, structural issues, etc. The stats are only relevant to the internal workings of DYK, and an utterly non-vital part of it at that(if one can even say a stat page is part of the workings, which is more than debatable). My issue is prioritization, like fixing the reasons embarassing stuff hits the main page on a regular basis first and not something as inconsequential as this. After that is sorted, go ahead and worry about unimportant project internas. And what a strange thing to say indeed Yoninah, there are tens of thousands of people improving the encyclopedia without chasing DYK stats, the vast majority don't take part in DYK, no? I am also not entirely sure how an entry on a stat page with 34 views a day on average which no one outside of this project ever looks at, or even knows of, is so vital for 'rewarding' people. And i actually do expect volunteers to do things out of the goodness of their hearts and without anything in return, that is the point of volunteering ones time and money after all. (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That is kind of the entire idea behind Wikipedia, you know? It's a VOLUNTEER project. I think we should ban and purge all such recognition tags, barnstars, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the threshold. The vast majority of articles still don't make 5,000 so it not as if there is a big influx of entries on the stats page. Seems completely unnecessary to change it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Leonard Owen[edit]

Can someone please put this in the queue for main page? It's already been thoroughly reviewed and approved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WugBot has already done so: it automatically moves approved hooks to the approved page about every hour or so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
More precisely, WugBot has moved it to the "Approved nominations" page where it is available, along with about 50 other approved hooks, to be promoted to a Prep area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

About that special occasion hook rule[edit]

  • Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion...

In practice, this rule isn't always uniformly applied. For example, right now we have Bombing of Wieluń which was nominated in June for a September 1 occasion (though this was explicitly an IAR case), Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau which was nominated in July for a September 11 occasion (a request that was approved against my objection). There have been similar cases of this taking place before, including my own Inori Minase hook (nominated March 31, was suggested by the reviewer to be a May 23 hook even though May 23 was way beyond six weeks after March 31). In some of these cases, to be fair, by the time they were reviewed, the special occasion fell within six weeks of the review date, though the rule talks about the nomination date rather than the review date. Considering in practice the rule is regularly "broken", should something be done about it? Say, revising it or perhaps getting rid of it all together? Pinging Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth as the reviewers of the aforementioned hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering that reviews can take quite long sometimes (see three sections above), I'd propose to get rid of the rule altogether. After all, it only concerns the date when it will be seen on the Main Page. DYK was meant to showcase new content, true, but I think we can all agree that "new" does not really apply to most articles featured, again because of the delays between nomination, review and inclusion. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
We could also leave it and just IAR more, generally. If it's a GA to-be, - it can take LONG until you get it reviewed, so plan ahead. Such an effort shouldn't be punished by applying a rule strictly, in case it gets reviewed more than six weeks before the date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I also prefer IAR'ing occasionally rather than eliminating the rule. Otherwise nominators can routinely ask for "special occasion" appearances on birthdays, anniversaries, etc., months in advance, which wouldn't help us clear the noms page and promote hooks on a timely basis. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I prefer flexibility. If the rule did not exist, one could visualise a situation where there were fifty approved hooks and forty of them were in the special holding area, making it difficult for a promoter to fill a set. But in reality, there are relatively few requests for special dates and this is not a problem. Three months from approval to appearance might be a possible limit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

13 August[edit]

The special occasion that day is the opening of the first Bayreuth Festival in 1876. Related hook, with an iconic historic image: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Lehmann (soprano). Waiting for completion of the review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Space cleared in Prep 1 for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Madonna's 60th birthday[edit]

There are 2 hooks in the special occasion area for Madonna's 60th birthday (I just promoted one). With two hooks in the same set, it would be nice to have one in the image slot, but there isn't a good portrait in either article. Could we add an image from the main article to one of these nominated articles? Pinging @IndianBio: @SNUGGUMS: @Gatoclass:. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: sure, what about this image? Do I need to add it anywhere just let me know. —IB [ Poke ] 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Perfectly fine image choice. No preference on which hook it gets attached to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Good choice, @IndianBio:. Please add it to the Rescue Me article, which has plenty of room for it, and I'll move the hook up in the set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I was wondering do we really need the image in the actual article? For the DYK page I can understand it gives identification, but in "Rescue Me", which is a Madonna song, I think its quite redundant. —IB [ Poke ] 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I'm now thinking we should use it in the Life with My Sister Madonna hook and will add it to that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the one you proposed with the image its good, so on August 16 prep area we will have the image corroborate both the book and the song article. —IB [ Poke ] 05:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@IndianBio: per DYK rules, the hook image has to appear in the article. But I don't think the Life with My Sister Madonna is a good enough hook at the moment to feature in the lead slot, while the Rescue Me hook is hooky. Please work on the book hook if you want that featured in the lead slot. Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok @Yoninah: I have added the image to the "Rescue Me" article. Once Life with My Sister Madonna is done we can move that too. —IB [ Poke ] 10:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 5 pipe link suggestion[edit]

  • I suggest switching the pipe link from swineherd to pig farming, as the latter is a proper article without maintenance tags. I apologize for overlooking this on the nomination page. Flibirigit (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The visible text was changed to "pig farming", but it still links to swineherd. I agree that if it's to be linked, it should be to pig farming. (Personally, I think it should just be unlinked.) In any case, the hook also needs a space after the ellipsis. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Unlinked, thank you Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also in Queue 5, the caption includes "Frescoes", while the hook spells it "frescos". According to the fresco article, both spellings are correct. One spelling should be used consistently, and since the DYK article, as well as another article linked to in the hook, spell it "frescos", I recommend using that. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not a spelling I'm familiar with, but I've made the change for the sake of consistency as requested. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hook 4 of queue 2[edit]

I fail to see how this is interesting:

... that American video game producer Ben Judd is fluent in Japanese, speaking the Kansai dialect?

Someone's able to speak a different language. Whoop-de-doo. Why don't we discuss his involvement in the video game industry or a game he's helped develop? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a foreigner knowing the Japanese language is a bit commonplace, but a foreigner being fluent in the Kansai dialect, a dialect that even among Japanese is considered weird (hence its frequent use in comedy and the like) does sound a bit unusual. Usually foreigners fluent in Japanese would be familiar with the standard (i.e. Tokyo) dialect, not Kansai's. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It gets Kansai dialect onto the main page, so I think it's useful. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Always good to promote an article which has been maintenance-tagged for ten years. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but it's not against the DYK rules so far as I am aware. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it was against DYK rules, just that your satisfaction at seeing a super shit article highlighted on the main page with a maintenance tag dating back ten years (that's rare!) is quite interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "super shit" article, it looks like a labour of love to me, and well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations. But admittedly I didn't take a close look at it before making the above comment. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The very first sentence states that one dialect is a group of dialects. And it just gets worse from there. And how the hell can something be "well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations"? Those are contradictory statements. --Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a tweak to put the emphasis on the dialect. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived early yesterday; here is an updated list with 38 of the non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 3. Right now we have a total of 205 nominations, of which 76 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

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) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ernst Königsgarten[edit]

I would like to propose this article for DYK - but as I am from the German Wikipedia I do not know how to do it. Could somebody please help me or do it for me? My idea for a hook is "Did you know, that Ernst Königsgarten performed fencing for King Edward VII?" (Is the language correct?) Many thanks in advance, --Nicola (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)