Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Queue 3 (14 April 00:00)

[edit]

Manhattan Project feed materials program (nom)

[edit]

No accuracy issues with this one that I can see, but I'm just curious whether this meets the "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers" requirement? Is there something significant about mining uranium in Canada or near the Arctic Circle? It has to be mined somewhere, and Canada is traditionally an allied nation with the US so doesn't seem particularly out of the ordinary... @Hawkeye7, Tenpop421, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hook doesn't seem to be particularly unusual or interesting. The article is pretty long so I'm sure a better hook can be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is obvious that the uranium had to be mined somewhere, most accounts of the Manhattan Project skip over this detail, giving the mining only a brief mention. The article was developed from questions on the talk page about the subject. Today, most uranium is mined in Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia and Australia; but only Canada featured before World War II. Mining in the Arctic is routine today, but was unusual in the 1920s and 1930s (and uranium mining is no longer carried out in the Northwest Territories). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is specialist information that most readers are unaware of. If the hook is reliant on deep knowledge that requires being a Manhattan Project buff or familiarity with the nuclear industry, that's less appealing than something that relies on broader knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be swapped out? I have no strong opinion either way. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it with Haniwa horse from Kamichūjō - courtesy pings to @SL93, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, and Tenpop421:. Not a DYK issue, but you may wish to resolve the {{incomprehensible inline}} tag before this runs.--Launchballer 22:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer I took a crack at the tag. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: No specialist knowledge is assumed! That the Manhattan Project made bombs and uranium was involved is probably the extent of most people's knowledge. Even after reading the main article on the subject, only a short section is devoted to the acquisition of uranium. Readers who have not read the main article would likely assume that the uranium was mined in the United States. In fact, most of it came from Canada and the Belgian Congo. I think most readers' response to the hook would be that they did not know that! If you have a better hook, go ahead and propose one, but I found the story of the prospector in the Arctic to be a compelling one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something based on Black oxide was mainly used by ceramics industry:
although it would take a little rewriting to get the right source material into the article, probably pulling from Fiesta (dinnerware)#Radioactive glazes. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith What are your thoughts on reopening the nomination? SL93 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. No good reason for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently in a prep that will need to be promoted soon. There is no consensus to run the hook as is so I will take it out of the prep whether or not the nomination has been reopened. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to delete the hook! It was approved by two editors! If you want to delete the article, take it to AfD! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously stepped into something more complicated than I realized. I'll just bow out and let you two sort it out. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will just let the thing run as is. If someone else finds it to be too specialized, they can deal with it. I’m fine if everyone who doesn’t like the hook backs off. I just don’t want any delays with preps. -SL93 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the hook has run, although given it's still on DYK and won't be out of it for another hour, we'll have to wait a bit if the hook did well or not. For what it's worth, I still think the dinner plates hook was a better option and I don't understand why Hawkeye7 was seemingly against it. I'm also confused as to why Hawkeye7 thinks that there were objections to the article and thus it should be brought to AFD, when in fact the issue was with the hook. I had been busy over the last few days so I wasn't able to see this discussion play out, but had I seen this earlier I would have just swapped the hook with the red dinner plates one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the hook interesting and informative; I don't understand the objections. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the dinner plates hook was that it was not in the article and supported by any of the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It received 17,205 views. SL93 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950 (nom)

[edit]

I'm a bit confused by what's going on here. Firstly, the hook should be more clear about what it is discussing; the "football" should be clarified as American football, for international audiences, and if this article only pertains to the period 1949–1950 then that should be made clear in the hook (and I think for the article title the disambiguation should be in parentheses rather than with a comma).

Also, on that note, Gannon clearly has a football program now, and our main Gannon Golden Knights football redirect points to the Athletics section of the university's page. I think the structure needs to be harmonised a bit. Either there should be a clear hatnote to this subtopic within the overall Gannon football topic or perhaps even better it should be expanded to include the modern team and then the "1949–1950" bit dropped altogether. @Cbl62, Sammi Brie, and Cielquiparle:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me reply to each of your areas of confusion:
  • Our naming structure for "American football" teams is to refer to them simply as 19XX XXX football team", not as "19XX XX American football team." Moreover, the first sentence of the actual article clearly states that it is an American football team for anyone who chooses to click the link. That said, I've proposed an alt 1 below that addresses your concern. It seems unnecessarily clunky to me, so I've also proposed alt 2 that disregards this element of your concern.
  • Yes, the article "only pertains to the period 1949–1950" which is stated in the article title. The proposed alt 1 hook below clarifies it in the hook as well.
  • Yes, the years could be in parenthesis, but this article follows an established naming system for multi-season articles, which uses a comma. See Category:College football multi-season team articles.
  • Gannon began its football program in 1949 and then discontinued the program after the 1950 season, despite having tremendous success on the field (but not at the ticket booth). That is the iteration of Gannon football covered by this article. Several decades later (c. 1989), the school began a new football program, though the new program competes at a low level of competition (and without any extraordinary success), and nobody has cared to create any articles on this later iteration.
  • alt 1 ... that the early Gannon Golden Knights American football program was discontinued after only two years (1949 and 1950) due to fan "apathy" and despite going undefeated and shutting out six of eight opponents in its first year?
  • alt 2 ... that the early Gannon Golden Knights football program was discontinued after only two years (1949 and 1950) due to fan "apathy" and despite going undefeated and shutting out six of eight opponents in its first year?
I hope that answers your questions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with not having to specify "gridiron" or "American". The whole point is not to overexplain in the hook. Putting all the facts in the hook spoils the mystery. Appreciate the thought and effort on all sides, but personally I still prefer ALT0. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer alt0 but want to be flexible, if needed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going against the grain here and I agree that "football" needs either "college" or "American" here (ideally the former since "college football" almost always refers to gridiron rather than soccer). Not specifying what kind of football it is and leaving the ambiguity isn't not "spoiling the mystery", it's a show of US-centrism. In addition, from experience, hooks that are reliant on specialist sports terminology (and yes, this includes soccer) tend to underperform among readers, so I'd actually consider stopping the hook at "going undefeated". Most non-sports fans may not necessarily know what "shutting out" means. I have no opinion on whether or not the article/hooks need to use the years or the "early" phrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shutout is a common term used across most major sports (and even outside sports), including association football, rugby, baseball, and hockey. And the fact that Gannon shut out six of eight opponents is the most remarkable aspect of the hook. Also, the terms "shutout" or "shut out" have been used in 25 prior hooks without any concerns about confusion. We could wikilink "shutting out if that allays the concern. Cbl62 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copying in DYK resident gridiron expert @BeanieFan11 please to weigh in and provide context. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, most of those 25 other hooks probably came before the recent greater scrutiny on sports hooks. Just because they were accepted in the past does not necessarily mean they would be accepted now; consensus can change. Personally I understand the hook, but based on experience we may be overestimating the general non-sports fan's familiarity with sports terminology. As for the above mention of "shoutout", I've never heard that term used in association football, probably because shutouts are very common due to the nature of the game (you're more likely to hear about clean sheets instead). Maybe it's more of a North American terminology? Having said that, I don't have an issue with the specific fact, but maybe we can use less specialist terminology to describe the same thing (i.e. preventing multiple opponenrs from scoring). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the hooks using "shutout" or "shut out" run the gamut of time frame including this User:Wizardman hook from less than a year ago: "that John 'Tacks' Neuer is the only person to pitch a shutout in both his Major League Baseball debut and his final game?" Cbl62 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn we have used the term "shut out" in at least one American soccer goalkeeper DYK. I would argue that unlike other sports terminology, "shut out" at least has an intuitive meaning that a reader can kind of guess. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the suggested wikilink of shutout to the alt 0 hook. Trying to explain within the hook what a shutout is makes the hook unnecessarily clunky IMO. Doesn't linking the term, as suggested by Beanie, solve your concern? It also allows a curious reader to click the shutout link and learn more about the concept. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean why is there an apprent attachment to the term "shut out". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the above question, normally I'd be inclined to agree that linking to shut out might help address the concerns, we've recently had concerns raised about these sports hooks, especially with how they tend to underperform with our readership. Given how "shut out" seems to be a primarily North American term too and is seemingly uncommon elsewhere (I'm not sure if it's commonly used in, for example, cricket, so please let me know), it might be better to compromise and appeal to the non-sports fan. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the hook is supposed to be running in a few days, I've swapped the hook with Paul Shorten from Prep 1 to give this more time for discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Narutolovehinata5, it might be worth reopening the nom page eventually since there seem to be quite a few unanswered questions. I think the proposed alt hooks satisfy some of my concerns, but I'd still like to see a more coherent structure to the page layouts given that Gannon Golden Knights football has no link to the page under discussion at all. And I think clarifying that it's American football and not relying on confusing terminology such as "shut out" is a good call.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I reopened it. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: I created an overall structure at Gannon University#Football. After thinking about it, I think that's what you were seeking. Yes? Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only attachment to "shutout" is not emotional, but derives from a preference for clear and concise writing -- and some frustration given that it's a common term in numerous sports, including global sports such as baseball, rugby and association football -- that, according to our own article on the term -- and that it's been used in 25 prior DYK hooks including two last year. In any event, I offer the following to try to put this to bed:
By coincidence, I was reading a The Guardian article today about a soccer match and it did use "shut out", although they do have a large US readership so I don't know if it actually is that common at least in the UK or if it's just The Guardian being The Guardian. Having said that, I think ALT3 is a reasonable compromise since it makes the point of the hook a lot clearer (non-sports fans may still find "shut out" confusing, "hold scoreless" is more obvious). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks that I can't promote

[edit]
My nomination of Godfrey Hattenbach was promoted, but the not the ones I reviewed. Please help. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, regarding Hattenbach, how do you mean? I see "... that Godfrey Hattenbach is said to be the father of Sioux City's Jewish community? promoted to prep 3. On the nomination page, I see that hook suggested and followed by "That's fine." I feel like I am missing something, Rjjiii (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He means the other four noms in this section.--Launchballer 04:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think, if I had been less medicated when I read that, I may have understood the words. Also, SL93, I checked the others out, some had been promoted, I promoted one, and March 22 - Template:Did you know nominations/The Dark Domain didn't match up with the sources in the article. Rjjiii (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 (21 April 00:00)

[edit]

Tolarian Community College

[edit]

@SL93, John Cummings, and Lajmmoore: The article doesn't say anything about suicide prevention. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a the word “suicidal” to make it “Beginning in 2020 the Tolarian Community College runs an annual fundraiser for the charity Trans Lifeline which offers phone support to suicidal transgender people.” SL93 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching this and fixing it, I'm not sure how I managed to miss that out of the article. John Cummings (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (22 April 00:00)

[edit]

1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware

[edit]

DYK that U.S. congressman Harris McDowell twice lost reelection to the same seat? How does that possibly meet WP:DYKINT? And Leeky was already hinting at this problem during the nomination discussion. There are articles that you just cannot nominate for DYK because there just isn’t an intriguing fact that you could write a hook about. Elections would generally fall into that category. Schwede66 17:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't defend it too much, but my thought was that the careful reader might notice that once you lose reelection once, you're not in the seat and therefore can't run for "reelection" again... unless you somehow got elected again. Managing to get voted out as an incumbent is rare in the U.S. Congress; getting elected back to the seat and then getting voted out as an incumbent again is pretty rare. Most reps retire when they know they aren't winning. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those in the US with an interest in politics may know that it's rare for an incumbent in the U.S. Congress to get voted out. But outside the US, that would be virtually unknown, and the article doesn't explain it either. Hence, my notion that it fails DYKINT. It reminds me of a certain serial nominator of classical music DYKs; she always got hammered that her hooks required too much knowledge of the topic for the average reader to be interested in it. Schwede66 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Bunnypranav and OlifanofmrTennant: should have been pinged to this (Leeky too, though she got here anyway), though for what it's worth, I found the original hook marginally interesting. As this is less than 48 hours from the main page, I swapped it with Big Three (World War II) so we have a little longer to discuss this...--Launchballer 00:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went digging for a few more facts. This says that William Roth hoped to shake the hands 50,000 voters by election day. It also says Roth made criticism Lyndon Johnson part of the campaign but words it in a funny way: "The republican candidate for congress is running against the president of the united states". So that might be something.
This contains talks about how Roth belived he had the support of the female vote and contains the quote, "I believe that the women are going to vote the rascals out" and that there would be a "housewives' revolt" Olliefant (she/her) 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that particular suggestion. LBJ was a Democrat, so it's kind of obvious that a Republican candidate would be running against him. The 50,000 voters aspect is probably more promising, though it might be a good idea to at least try to find a source if he ever pushed through with it and/or if he ever accomplished it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt find anything on if he succeeded, although I do think the Johnson thing might meet DYKINT, something like:
Olliefant (she/her) 20:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still have reservations about this angle given how Roth was a Republican, so it's kind of obvious he was running against the incumbent Democrat. It would have been unusual instead if Roth was a Democrat. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Leeky and Launchballer on the marginal and borderline interestingness of the hook.
@OlifanofmrTennant: The 50K hand shakes is more interesting, but only if there are sources proving that he achieved it (or atleast tried?), not just wanted to do it. Clipping of the above link for those who don't have newspapers.com access. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall note that the hook is back in queue without change. Schwede66 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled this and replaced it with Shlomo Levinger (@Yeshivish613 and Sohom Datta:).--Launchballer 22:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three

[edit]
...except that the article says 'Truman and [...] Attlee are also sometimes counted as the members, as "five individual members of the Big Three"', and the hook puts it in wikivoice that there definitely were five. Apologies to @SL93, Piotrus, and Jeromi Mikhael: for pinging them twice, I thought I'd checked it already but forgot I found this.--Launchballer 01:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is ALT3 acceptable? SL93 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Launchballer proposed it themselves, one would think so - although I, for one, find it rather bland. There is also ALT0a which should address the wiki voice issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the hook to ALT0a. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's article idea

[edit]

I have just stumbled across a Punch photograph, which I've redirected to this quick description. I suspect that it could be turned into a separate article, if someone took the time to look through older sources. I think it could be turned into a decent entry for Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know, as it's not a photograph in any sense that we'd use that word in now. (It was a way of marking rail tickets with descriptions of passengers.) The book I cited is available through the Internet Archive. I am unlikely to develop this idea any further, so if it interests you, please take the idea and run with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 7. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 154 have been approved, a gap of 109 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 7 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) 02:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

(now at Queue 5)

@RoySmith: regarding Prince Louis of Wales, @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: suggested using File:Trooping the Colour 2023 (GovPM 41) crop 3.jpg instead of what's currently on the article. I have no opinions either way, but what do you think?--Launchballer 11:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's another low-quality image. Specifically, the face is in deep shadow against a distracting high-contrast background. In general, deep crops from larger photos rarely make good images. RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, this has been on DYK already. Why are we running it again? RoySmith (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 197#Discussing the DYK guideline of one DYK per article maximum.--Launchballer 12:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yeah. That was one of the dumber decisions DYK has made. Recycling old content is the kind of thing you do when you can't scrape up enough new material to keep your pipeline full. We have more than we can handle.
I could see the value of a rerun if the article had undergone some major improvements, but it's barely longer than it was when it ran the first time, and even at the minimal size it is, it manages to tell us three times that he's fourth in line of succession, and twice the names of his brother and sister. Not to mention such exciting facts as he attended various official functions with his parents and he was enrolled in nursery school. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have an official guideline that, if an article is to run on DYK again, it must run with a substantially different hook from the first time. Does anyone here have any other ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith, Launchballer, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: I was about to move the hook to a later prep, but I see it was reserved for April 23. Should the hook be replaced with a different hook? We can invite MSincccc or another editor to give new suggestions.
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the hook is entirely different from the 2018 hook.--Launchballer 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed, but RoySmith objected to it, so maybe we need a different angle. For what it's worth, I thought the hook itself is just fine and is still interesting, so I'm not sure why he was against it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, his objection was to the article running twice. He didn't say anything about the hook.--Launchballer 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the discussion resulted in a strong consensus in favor of allowing former DYK articles to run again, I don't think there's much he can do on that part; I doubt consensus would change even if he started a new RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, @Narutolovehinata5 and @Launchballer I included an additional comment requesting that the hook (preferably with an image) appear on the DYK main page on 23 April, to coincide with Louis’s seventh birthday. MSincccc (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I (grudgingly) accept that policy allows this to run a second time. However, the prime consideration for what goes in the first slot should be image quality and the image that was supplied was terrible, as was the suggested alternative. RoySmith (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I understand your concerns. By the way, what are your thoughts on this image—File:Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee 2022 - Platinum Pageant (52124830349) (cropped3).jpg? MSincccc (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "deep crops from larger photos rarely make good images" and this is a prime example of that. It's really time to move on. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. I will be more careful with DYK nominations including images in future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Hey @SL93! I noticed you promoted one of my nominated hooks (Template:Did you know nominations/Oval Office Swedish ivy) to Prep 7 without the image I nominated, even though the image is approved. If it's all the same I'd rather save the hook for when it can be used with the image? Apologies if there's some kind of policy in place for this right now if we are overloaded with image hooks at DYK or something, I glanced around but didn't see anything so my bad if I'm missing something. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the job of the prep builder to decide what image to use. There's almost always more images than we have space to run. Looking at File:Obama 2012 56.jpg, it's really not a great image; the main subject (the ivy) is barely recognizable in small size. On the other hand, the image that was used (File:S. Hripsime Church Southwest.jpg is excellent, so I'd say @SL93 made a good call. RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking to replace the image used in prep 7. But if the consensus is not to run the image, that's fine, just disappointing is all. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough problem, as certain images aren't conducive to that spot. It would be nice to have some additional guidance when it comes to plant images, for example. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 (27 April 00:00)

[edit]

Rita (chimpanzee)

[edit]

@SL93, GreenLipstickLesbian, and Morgan695: I seem to be on an image thing lately. I suggest we not run File:リタ１９３８年.png on the main page. Between the low contrast and busy background, its not even recognizable at main page scaling as a chimpanzee. I tried playing with the exposure and such and couldn't get any substantial improvement. Looking at the exposure histogram, I can see that it's not continuous, which is typical of images which have been upconverted, so the poor quality is not surprising. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; as it was the only hook in the prep and there were some in prep 3 including an image, I moved those into prep 2 and knocked this into slot 2.--Launchballer 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

Saint Hripsime Church

[edit]

@Bunnypranav, Yerevantsi, and Zanahary: I added a {{cn}} that should be remedied before primetime.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blood on the Silver Screen

[edit]

@Voorts, Piotrus, SL93, and TarnishedPath: Just noting that I swapped this with my Sophie Rain hook as I don't like delegating.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rita (chimpanzee)

[edit]

Just noting that I swapped Joint Operations Command (Japan) with Rita to avoid having two earthquake hooks in the same set, courtesy pings to @GreenLipstickLesbian, Morgan695, Ominae, and Flibirigit:.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Griffin (athlete)

[edit]

@Yeshivish613: The hook strikes me as improper WP:SYNTHesis. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the claim of synthesis. There were five hooks proposed on the nomination. Are all of them unsuitable? Flibirigit (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook implies that his death was related to his nickname, and the other hooks in the nomination have only had one check when they need two (they weren't promoted).--Launchballer 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled. There is no such implication in ALT1. If there is question is about promotion, then @SL93: should be contacted. Flibirigit (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook does not imply that his death was related to his nickname. It's fine. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the word "despite"... fine. For the record, I did ping SL93 above, I don't like sending lots of pings to one person.--Launchballer 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what "despite" can imply, but I also think that you're nitpicking. The hook is just showing the irony of the subject's nickname and what happened - just like the reference. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "although" is a less implicating word? Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about "that a journalist known as "lucky" by colleagues died in an airplane crash"?--Launchballer 22:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishment of Fudanshi Bartender

[edit]

@Lullabying, Tenpop421, P199, and Narutolovehinata5: Does this meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE? I can't see anything about background or production.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, currently, yes, it does fail DYKCOMPLETE. However, Lullabying suggested on the nomination page that there simply wasn't much information about the series available online, which I think means that coverage about that kind of information simply doesn't exist. From experience, it's actually quite common for TV series in Japan (including anime, though this isn't one) to simply not have any coverage about production online, even in Japanese sites. So I don't think it's Lullabying or the article's fault in this case. This has always been a gray area with DYKCOMPLETE that needs to be discussed at some point: how to deal with cases where the article is incomplete simply because coverage for that part does not exist at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of trimming an obvious duplication error from your comment for readability, feel free to revert if you object. For now, I'll pass it, but we should have that conversation.--Launchballer 22:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware

[edit]

@OlifanofmrTennant and Theleekycauldron: Hook violates MOS:EGG (I'd expect it to go an article about McDowell's defeats rather than one of them). ALT1 should probably be substituted in.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

didn't we pretty much agree that this hook fails DYKINT? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i guess the consensus is more that it's a borderline pass. hmm. i think the current hook reads better than ALT1, so if there's a way we could make something in the middle... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just pulled it, we can discuss it at the nom.--Launchballer 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around

[edit]

@Riley1012, 7kk, and JJonahJackalope: Not happy with this hook on WP:DYKHOOKBLP grounds. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Gibbons

[edit]

@PrinceTortoise and Suntooooth: I'm not convinced 'person I've never heard of says something about someone else I haven't heard of' meets WP:DYKINT. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. John Bellany is a notable painter. Relevance about John Bellany can also be added to the hook. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do like ALT1 more. ALT2 - "... that cats are painted by Gibbons?" is a total bore. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, "that gibbons painted cats" would have made an excellent April Fool's hook. I don't think that's a good enough reason to pull though.--Launchballer 22:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 wasn't approved because not all of it was in the article. I will gladly add the sourced info if others like that hook. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also like that hook.--Launchballer 22:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the information to the article. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Packing Company

[edit]

@Kung Fu Man, 7kk, Pokelego999, Juxlos, Gonzo fan2007, and BeanieFan11: Just noting that I swapped this with Pinsir as I proposed its hook and I don't like delegating. I also trimmed this per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, this isn't a "trim", you completely changed the hook and the interesting part of it, which was duly approved by BeanieFan11. Please change it back or provide more clarity on why this is necessary. The idea that "Packers" was named after a "packing company" is hardly that interesting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gonzo fan 2007. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no less interesting that 'firm known for animal welfare gets on high horse about animal welfare', but I added it back.--Launchballer 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer which part of WP:DYKTRIM were you citing here? The hook isn't pushing 200 characters, isn't overly confusing, etc. Your commentary is somewhat confusing, as PETA asking a 100 year old team to change its name because an association can be made with animal mistreatment is a bizarre and intriguing request for PETA to make. Stating that the Chicago Bears were named after bears, as a comparable example, would be a comparably straightforward, obvious, and uninteresting factoid (similar to saying the Packers were named after packing). If you had issue with WP:DYKINT, then maybe a discussion about that would have been more appropriate instead of a unilateral change? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was extraneous, and bold post-promotion edits by promoters are specifically allowed by that policy.--Launchballer 22:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1287085791"