Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:DYK admins)
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 queuesTM: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.

Should the six-week limit specified at WP:DYKSO be loosened or abolished altogether?

[edit]

Right now, special occasion requests should be done at most six weeks before the request date, and any requests made outside the date require either approval from the reviewer, or an IAR exemption request here at WT:DYK. The limit, however, is rather unpopular, and editors have expressed views ranging from loosening it to abolishing it altogether. On the other hand, other editors have supported it in the past, stating that its existence ensures that articles that run on DYK are "fresh", in line with DYK's goal of promoting new and newly-improved content. With that in mind, given the wide views regarding the current six-week limit, what should be done about it? Note that the current exception regarding April Fools' hooks will not be covered by this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1: Status quo (six-week limit).
  • Option 2: Loosen the limit to eight weeks or two months (specify which exactly in your !vote).
  • Option 3: Abolish the limit altogether.

Discussion

[edit]

Pinging @Thriley, Viriditas, BeanieFan11, AirshipJungleman29, Berchanhimez, Launchballer, Chipmunkdavis, and RoySmith: who were involved in the above discussion that inspired this one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the ping. I support quasi-option-3. I don't support a full abolishment - it shouldn't be permitted for someone to propose (and have accepted) something that is only tangentially related to a subject 11 months ahead of time and it be held. At the same time, I think we should be able to trust individual reviewers to determine whether the hold request is reasonable or not. In other words, let the reviewer decide whether the hook is relevant enough to the proposed date to hold, and whether the hold request is reasonable. It's possible a request 12+ months in advance may be reasonable if it's being held for the next year's date to run along with another hook that's still in development, for example. At the same time, a hook about Rook (card game) shouldn't be held for a date relevant to the game of chess, even though the term is the same. If someone is unhappy with a reviewer's assessment of the hold request, they can bring it here for a third opinion or further review.
    I also support removing the arbitrary limit on special occasion hooks. If 5 articles specifically and clearly related to George Washington get improved to DYK requirements, for example, they should all be able to run on a date that's relevant to him. I do not, however, support removing the requirement for regular special occasion sets to be approved here. In other words, if someone thinks that there should be a one-time set related to the Olympics on the day of the opening ceremony, and they have the approvable hooks to back that up, there shouldn't need to get it approved. But if people want a special "olympics" set to run every opening ceremony, that should require approval. Obviously such a one-time "special set" shouldn't be approved if there isn't already evidence there's enough hooks to fill it (or mostly fill it). But a one time special set shouldn't require explicit approval if the hooks are relevant and there to fill it at least halfway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think that it's one-time special sets that require a discussion. We've already had a negative experience in the past before regarding a special set that happened despite there being no consensus to do so but rather it happening as a concession, and it would not be a good idea to repeat that. Besides, having a discussion would not only mean more scrutiny to make sure that the set actually has consensus, but it would also allow for easier coordination and supervision over the whole process. If anything, the only restriction I would suggest is that such sets should not be at a very short notice (like a week or two from the requested date), but instead should be proposed several weeks in advance, to allow for more preparation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If my proposal (eliminate any arbitrary timeframe but allow reviewers to decide) is accepted, then this wouldn't be a problem. Let's say the Bastille Day hooks above were proposed 3 days before the current year's Bastille Day. Under my proposal (no hard rule), the reviewer could say "yes, I think these can run on Bastille Day, but it's too soon to run them this year and allow time for objections, so I'll approve holding them for next year so that others can object if they have valid objections". That's the biggest problem currently - DYKSO suggests/"requires" them to only be proposed at most 6 weeks in advance, and they can take time to be reviewed. Allowing them to be "approved but postponed" if the reviewer thinks the special occasion request is valid would eliminate this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loosen it to 2 months or abolish to give creators greater leniency on the dates that they want to hook to presented on. I think 2 months is a good way to go but I am not against abolishing it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 months, simple calendar calculation, easy for nominators and for reviewers (make it 2 months + 1 day to account for timezones if needed). No conflict with the timeout considerations. Not inherently opposed to abolition, but it seems a venue for further arguments regarding potential rejection. CMD (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a "simple calendar calculation" opens this to be a venue for arguments regarding why it's actually necessary, similar to above. It should be based on merit, not based on whether the nominator created/expanded the article a bit too early. We shouldn't be encouraging people to hold off on improving the encyclopedia because of some arbitrary timeframe where they can get it on the mainpage if that's what they want. There is literally 0 benefit to the encyclopedia from having a timed rule. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it opens the venue any more than any other option. The benefit is to keeping DYK ticking along well, and DYK has a specific purpose of encouraging new articles. If we're starting to hold things for years the machine slows down, and that's a whole year of asking for objections, which does not seem a positive culture to create. CMD (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the purpose is to encourage new articles, then it fails if we say "your article shouldn't be created until it's close enough to the relevant date to meet this arbitrary criteria". We should encourage creating (or expanding) articles now. Even if it's months before a date relevant to the hook/article.
    On the subject of culture, the only objections allowed should be that the hook/article isn't relevant enough to the date proposed - and would still require consensus here (or on a talkpage made specifically for this purpose, such as WT:DYK/Hold requests or similar). In such cases, the only "harm" is that the hook would be put back into the normal "queue" to be run normally on DYK. Which is no different than happens now. The only change is that the articles would be able to be created/expanded at any time, rather than waiting for 6 (or 8) weeks before the proposed date to comply with this arbitrary restriction. We're here for our readers - and limiting DYK special occasion hooks to any timeframe before the date only encourages people to hold their improvements to the encyclopedia (for our readers) until that date is closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We already encourage creating articles now, and the ways we don't (eg. x5 expansion) are hard to avoid. There isn't going to be a system without some edge cases. A more complicated process is a harm, if PSHAW ever works for me I don't want to be digging through a new page to check consensus on year-old SOHA discussions. CMD (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how having no time restriction is a "more complicated process". If anything, it's less complicated - the person submitting doesn't have to abide by some arbitrary timeframe if they want their article to be on DYK, and the reviewer doesn't have to worry about the timing either - they're able to focus on whether the request is reasonable and warranted. So in other words, without adding anything new to the submitter/reviewer's workload, it takes an arbitrary check out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong feeling one way or another, but I will point out two reasons that it might be best to stick with the status quo. One is that DYK is, in theory, supposed to feature new and newly improved articles. Yes, six weeks is already longer than a lot of nominations take, but 6 months is enough time to get your article to FA, at which point it can't really still be called new. The second is that would normalize basically any date request and the SOHA getting waaay bigger, which means we'd have to probably move it to its own subpage to prevent transclusion issues and that's another page for prep builders to keep track of (we can't build out sets more than two weeks in advance under the current setup, max). I do get that the requirements are cumbersome, and maybe my not wanting to change it is just me getting more small-'c' conservative, but there are philosophical and technical issues with extending the limit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the flip side, we should remove the limit for special sets we know we want to run every year, like Halloween and Christmas. It's often a last-second dash to get enough hooks together, and it'd be nice to encourage people to get those in early. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping moving to an obvious calendar trigger (I know I have to get my Christmas hooks in at 25 October) might remove a bit of the psychological block, but I'm not sure any particular fix will remove the last-second dash completely. CMD (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The counter-argument is that having a time restriction on nominating for DYK encourages people to wait to improve/create/move-to-mainspace articles until they are close enough to the desired date. For example, if I draft a good new article on a Christmas-related topic right now, and I move it to mainspace now for the benefit of our readers to be able to see it, I wouldn't be able to nominate it for DYK and have it held for 25 Dec this year. So if I were a "hat collector" looking to just get more DYK credits, I'd either keep the info offline and wait to start drafting it until mid-November at least, or I'd leave it as a draft (in userspace or draft space) until then. That would mean there's 5 more months where a notable topic, with a decent article, isn't in mainspace and our readers can't benefit from it because I'm looking to get a DYK credit for it but not have it run randomly in the middle of the (northern hemisphere) summertime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a problem with the article creator as opposed to a problem with the time limit. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 - do away with special occasion hooks. It gets posted when it gets posted. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, with the exception of thematic sets. SOHA squabbles are generally more trouble than they are worth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two months sounds fine to me, but generally special occasion requests should be rare and strongly related to the article and hook. —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - pointless rule.--Launchballer 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (10 June 00:00)

[edit]

Sheldon L. Toomer

[edit]

@History6042, Noneofwiz, and BeanieFan11: The article doesn't say anything about a "day-long trip" RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like I missed that. I added it to the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I'll still dubious that seven miles is a day-long trip by horse, but that is what the source says, so whatever. RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's wrong by our standards. It would have taken them 2 to 3 hours to cover the distance. However, they might have had to stop along the way for various reasons (mail, water, food, gawking, whatever) and it could have taken them longer. So, I don't think "day-long" means the same thing to us as it does to them. I'm also wondering if there's other considerations, such as there was a time when it was too hot to travel, so they had to travel at a certain time, and that added more hours to the trip. Personally, I think "day-long" is being used to mean something differently. The distance might have been closer to eight miles depending on the route. I often walk eight miles at a brisk pace for exercise, and it takes on average around two hours. It makes no sense that it's going to take them a day unless the rolling hills are very steep and the roads are difficult. One is forced to wonder if this an example of Southern storytelling, or "spinning a yarn". Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, I just realized something. I was writing about this same idea in another article and the same topic came up several weeks ago. It would be most helpful if I would just refer to the source text, but I'm doing something else right now and will go from memory instead. Basically, these people arrived on one side of the island of Maui and had to be transported to the other side. The trip would take about 10-15 minutes today by car, perhaps 20 at the outer reaches of the area. But for them, I believe it was described as "day-long" because they were loaded into ox-carts which were really slow and some of the trip was slightly hilly. Overall, I think the same trip took them 4-6 hours if I recall. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about replacing "day-long" with "seven mile". The source, a local paper, says "nearly day-long" and the hook omits "nearly". I presume that the round trip, including travelling seven miles each way, getting served at the bank and possible refreshments would have taken most of a working day. TSventon (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Good solution. Although you may want to confirm that distance. I looked at a map and it said the distance was between seven and eight miles depending on the route. Also, if "day-long" assumes round trip, then you probably don't need to change much. I think the confusion arises because we don't account for the RT. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says seven miles, which is obviously (Google maps) about right and we don't know the exact start or end point.
"seven mile" also avoids the problem of working out what "nearly day-long" means. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I think that the problem was caused by changing " the nearly day-long trip just to do his banking" in the newspaper into "the day-long trip to the nearest bank" in the hook, as the first implies a round trip and the second a one way trip. Also the word "nearly" got lost and the fact was not added to the article by the nominator. The trip was by horse and buggy: according to various websites an Amish buggy travels at 5 to 8 mph; perhaps for an important trip you had to base the timetable on the slower speed. TSventon (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: did you see my comment above and are you happy with the hook? TSventon (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon I'm sorry, I lost track of this. Just so I'm clear, what's the new hook you want to use? RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith:, I suggest using "seven-mile". I have changed journey to round trip in the article based on my reading of the source. TSventon (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that Sheldon L. Toomer, tired of the seven-mile trip to the nearest bank, founded a new one?
Got it, thanks. Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of a double nomination hook

[edit]

In reviewing a double hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote, I have encountered a hook that is true, but not explicitly mentioned in either article. It rather requires the reader to compare two separate articles to verify it. Does this meet WP:DYKHFC? Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the nom page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

The Old Elm

[edit]

The third reference is unreliable because it is user-edited. Pinging Yelps. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source supports all the claims of the "parameters" section except the age (plus the fact that its stem in cemented but removing it wouldn't be the end of the world... Except that the claim was the ALT1 of the nom), so then should we merge the age claim in the lead and remove the entirety of the "parameters" section altogether or something? Should seek further input first probably. Removing from prep probably isn't needed unless this issue turns out to be more problematic. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 09:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yelps I would just remove everything that uses it as a source. SL93 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, also added another source and overall shuffled around a lot of stuff. Let me know if this is good enough! Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 15:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine now. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Burgle Bros

[edit]

The third reference is an unreliable WordPress blog and Co-op Board Games seems to be an unreliable blog as well. Meeple and the Moose is an unreliable blog. BoardGameGeek is user-edited. Pinging CanonNi SL93 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CanonNi I will remove this from prep if not fixed. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 apologies, didn't see the previous ping. I'll find some better sources now. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CanonNi These might help - Gamezebo and 148Apps. I mean, if you want to add information about the video game also. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 alright, I've replaced the unreliable refs. Thanks for your refs too. Just curious, where'd you find those? Cuz when I google "Burgle Bros" all I get are store links and YouTube videos. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember. One of my Google searches brought up MetaCritic. The third review featured on the website is now a dead link. SL93 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on editing Did You Know nomination...

[edit]

Hi!

I was wondering if someone could help me out...

I just nominated a new article I wrote for Did You Know, and everything is fine, except for the hook which needs additional references. Nominating the article was easy enough as there were designated spaces for the article title, the hook and the references, but now there's only the discussion page for Did You Know, I can't reply to the comments or edit the page on visual editor, and I don't know how to use the editing format it does allow and I'm kind of stumped. If anyone here could guide me through this, it would make this newbie very happy.

One of the comments also said that it would be failed if I didn't apply the corrections within a week, and I was also wondering if there is a way to ask for extentions.

Here is the discussion I'm referring to: Template:Did you know nominations/Rephaim text

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the refs for the hook here or elsewhere and they will be added for you. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! Thank you!
After I saw @Launchballer's reply I tried adding it in myself and it worked.
Thank you for your offer!
Moonshane1933 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Moonshane1933: My apologies for not saying 'addressed' rather than 'remedied'. I'll try to keep this as simple as I can, but to edit that nomination page, you need to click 'edit source' at the top of the page (near 'talk'). Scroll to the bottom of that window and type your comment above the line that says "Please do not write below this line". I'll assume you figured how to sign since you did that correctly on my talk page (four ~s).--Launchballer 21:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thank you!
Moonshane1933 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Everyone Hates Elon

[edit]

@Ravenpuff Thank you for your copyedit to the Everyone Hates Elon hook! This was pretty much how I originally drafted the hook, but in the end I opted for the more concise "let" wording to avoid a construction like in protest against ... and to raise money. Just so I understand, can I ask what the problem was with the wording as submitted? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging reviewer @Vigilantcosmicpenguin and promoter @AirshipJungleman29 of the nominated hook per WP:DYKTRIM. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no strong opinions about the phrasing here. But if we are changing the phrasing, I would probably remove the words "in protest against Elon Musk", as that's fairly clear from the rest of the hook. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good point, that hadn't occurred to me! So ... that Everyone Hates Elon invited members of the public to destroy a Tesla Model S to raise money for food banks? Or how about ... that Everyone Hates Elon invited members of the public to raise money for food banks by destroying a Tesla Model S? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineapple Storage: Thanks for the ping and sorry for the delayed reply. In response to your original question, there wasn't a problem with the submitted wording per se, just that I thought "let" didn't quite convey the right sense here, since the campaign group were actively inviting people to destroy the Tesla instead of passively letting them. I agree with Vigilantcosmicpenguin, though, that we can trim the obvious fact from this hook – I think your first suggestion works slightly better, because the public were specifically invited only to destroy the car, with the fundraising being only a future outcome not directly involving the public. I've made the relevant change in prep. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, thank you for explaining. I totally agree with you, but that had completely passed me by so I'm really glad you caught it! :) Thanks for making the edit to condense the hook—and thanks to @Vigilantcosmicpenguin for the great suggestion! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Matobato

[edit]

I was re-reading the nomination for this Matobato recently and I think the ALT1 hook for it would better meet WP:DYKINT. Vigilantcosmicpenguin's review also said that ALT1 was unexpected, and on a second reading of the nom, I feel ALT1 would raise curiosities than ALT0 (which is somewhat predictable for the subject). Could the hook currently on Prep 5 be swapped in with the ALT1 hook on the nom page? Chlod (say hi!) 08:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

FlexiRide

[edit]
  • ... that FlexiRide bus services have no fixed route, operating only when passengers book a trip with a mobile app?
  • Is this interesting? I don't know if on-demand bus services are rare in Australia, but certainly here in the UK they are extremely common in rural areas (for example, our local transport website lists nine services run by four different companies in this area alone). Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the services operate within a fixed service area, I don't find this particularly interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the idea of an on-demand bus service unusual at least (they're not a thing where I'm from, unless you're talking about bus rental services, which do exist). If they are more common elsewhere though, then yes maybe a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of such a service, so it's interesting to me. RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, fair enough then, if they're not a very widespread thing then that's alright (and none of the ALT hooks look particularly much better). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is fine, though it wants ending at 'route'.--Launchballer 14:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The second part is what kept my interest. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm normally someone who prefers trimming, but this is a case where the main point work together well and are rather essential to understanding the main hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about ending at "... only when passengers book a trip?" It's a little shorter and more accurate as well; apparently the app is not the only way to book a ride; you can also call a phone number. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I nominated the article and will confirm that this is more correct than what I originally wrote. ThatPB95 Fan (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I nominated the article. DRT is pretty rare in Australia compared to the UK/USA, specifically there are at least 5 (2 in NSW, 2 in QLD, and 1 in VIC (i.e. Flexiride). It's also worth noting that FlexiRide is the only one of its kind in Victoria. ThatPB95 Fan (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (13 June 00:00)

[edit]

Lucky Day (Doctor Who)

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, TheDoctorWho, Pokelego999, and Sammi Brie: The cited source doesn't say anything to support the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

??? @RoySmith: Re-checked the source, the exact quote says "And it's been really interesting talking to people in the village because, you know, they're really excited and want to know how much prep goes into all of this. But it wasn't until I sat down the other day and realised - per block, we have an allocated budget for six-weeks, and we spent two-thirds of that budget on three nights filming here. So it just gives you an idea of quite how much we've got going on." TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're not looking at the same source? I'm looking at [6], which is https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002bw76/doctor-who-unleashed-season-2-4-lucky-day. But, I did just notice it says at the top, BBC iPlayer only works in the UK. Sorry, it’s due to rights issues, so I'm wondering if we're just getting different versions of the page? RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait. In the nom, you've got "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assume that quote is something that's said on the video. In the article, you're missing the "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assumed I was just supposed to find the supporting text on the page itself. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the template used on the nom page and in the article is {{cite episode}}, and that's the link to view the episode. The time isn't included in the article cite, because that same source supports other claims as well, that extend outside of that time frame. I included it on the nom page for ease of verification for a reviewer. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can indicate the times for the individual citations using {{rp}} with "location=time index 10:44–10:53". See SoHo Weekly News for examples. RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Thriley, and Davide King: The hook is supposed to be about the subject, not about subject's predecessor. In fact, I don't see how this article passes WP:N at all, i.e. WP:1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how 1E and NOTINHERITED are applicable at all, but if you disagree you are of course welcome to start an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would we have an article on him if he wasn't the successor to the man who went on to become pope? The fact that the article was created the same day the 2025 papal conclave ended makes me suspect not. I'm not foolish enough to start an AfD because I know how that would end, but we still need a hook that says something about Córdova independent of his predecessor. RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could say something about him and just him, but the current belief in DYK is that it has to be interesting, and what's most interesting about him is that he followed big footsteps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there's nothing interesting about him. That's exactly the point of WP:INHERITED. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "nothing". I said that we have this interesting (leaning towards sensational) belief. Perhaps modify that, and then we can say something worth knowing about the new person on that unusual job, where "smell of sheep" is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably be looking for better sources than at current if I were to vote "Keep" at an AfD. Unless I am missing something, there appears to be only one source that is actually about him in any depth (as opposed to press releases and lists which just say "Fr. Cordova has been appointed X"). He's almost certainly notable, but I'd like to see more extensive coverage. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic bishops are notable from their position. There are approximately 5,600 bishops that serve a population of nearly 1.5 billion catholics. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that much is clear from WP:CLERGY. But my point still holds that if we're going to put somebody on the main page, we need to be able to say something about what they've done other than hold some position which was previously held by some more famous person. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is hooky. The pope is one of the most well known people in the world. Taking a position that was just held by Babe Ruth, Donald Trump, Micheal Jackson etc seems hooky. Thriley (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think the hook fails the "hook must be about the subject" criterion, or at least its spirit, since the hook is arguably too attached to Leo XIV rather than actually being about him. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hook which states the subject and the pope held the same position as bishop of a diocese in Peru is about the subject. It connects him to the diocese he serves and to the pope. Thriley (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. If the hook fact is reliant on him being Leo XIV's successor in that position, instead of it being a hook where he can stand on his own, that is an issue. A hook that is about a subject's relationship with another person isn't necessarily wrong or even disallowed (I've proposed similar hooks in the past myself), but this is a different case since it's about succession and not something like inspiration. There has to be a better option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cottrell

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Lullabying: I don't see how this passes WP:DYKINT. It's basically, "After leaving his first job, he got another job". RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 is interesting to me. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It's not necessarily the "after leaving their first job, they found a new one" that's the point, it's what that job is. Being in HR is very different from playing American football, so I thought the contrast was unusual. With that said, I wouldn't oppose a switch to ALT2 if consensus leaned that way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything becomes less interesting if you summarise it generically. It was interesting enough for me, see what NLH5 says above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This quote from the Detroit Free Press is the interesting story

"In the 1960s in pro football, the positions up the middle – quarterback, center and middle linebacker – were reserved for white players because they were 'thinking man's' positions," Acho said by text. "It wasn't until Bill Cottrell, who was extremely smart, that it was thought that black players could play center. He was the first."

and a hook should be built around that. I get that the first hook was pulled for lack of sufficient sourcing for the "first" statement, but the overcoming of the NFL's racism really is what we should be highlighting. WP:DYKINT says "Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more". If somebody really were intrigued by the idea of a football player going into labor relations and clicked through to find out more, they would be disappointed to find that we have exactly one sentence on this aspect of Cottrell's life. Surely if this is important enough to put on the main page, it's important enough to give greater coverage in the article. Looking at it another way, why does the {{Short description}} not say "American football player and labor relations supervisor (1944–2025)"? RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, are we actually sure that he was the first black center in the NFL? We've already had many issues with "first" hooks in the past, so if we are to revisit that angle, we actually have to make sure that the claim is watertight. I do think it is the most interesting fact in the article, but given how much of an exceptional claim it is, I don't know if it is the most practical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So write a hook about his overcoming the NFL's racism with focusing on the "first" aspect. RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: @Gonzo fan2007: Could either of you try to write a hook based on RoySmith's suggestion? @RoySmith: Did you mean to say "without focusing on the 'first' aspect"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something like, "... that it was thought that black men could not play the "thinking man's'" position of center in the NFL until the career of Bill Cottrell?" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the right idea. My only concern is whether we need to have more explicit attribution, i.e. "According to Jim Acho ..." and how to do that without generating something that's excessively verbose. RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped the hook to Prep 4 for now to give us more time to discuss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Roy, this is not interesting. It should be pulled. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Burgle Bros

[edit]
  • ... that the box of Burgle Bros 2 transforms into a two-layer game board (pictured)?

@CanonNi and History6042: The Wikipedia article's prose does not mention that the box transforms into a two-layer board game. This should be included in the article text. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I've added it into the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four (cycling)

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Four (cycling) was promoted to prep 1 on May 31.[1] In this edit,[2] @AirshipJungleman29: said "needs looking at", but have no further explanation that I can find. It was promoted into then pulled from Queue 1 in this edit[3] by AirshipJungleman29, who said "swapping problematic hook back into prep", but again, I canot find any explanation of the problem. Where is the communication and what is the problem? Courtesy ping @Verylongandmemorable:, the nominator. Flibirigit (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 3. We have a total of 339 nominations, of which 250 have been approved, a gap of 89 nominations that has decreased by 50 over the past 9 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) 06:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{dyk admins}} Didn't spot that we were that low. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#New nominations are not transcluding at WP:DYKN, I suggested coming out of backlog mode at 100 and received no objections; unless there are any, I plan on toggling it off at midnight.--Launchballer 08:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: Fix ping.--Launchballer 08:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1295034737"