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.

Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

[edit]
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 February 2025 edit (UTC)

Request for third opinion on hooks at Ana María Iriarte

[edit]

Hi, could someone provide a third opinion on the interesting-ness of ALT0 (or ALT0a) and the interesting-ness of ALT1a (not necessarily which one is the more interesting) at Template:Did you know nominations/Ana María Iriarte. The discussion between myself, Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5 seems to have reached an impasse. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can try. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Viriditas! That's what we need. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes would be nice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forget it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue promotions

[edit]

@DYK admins: We have 3 filled queues, and we will have only 2 filled queues tomorrow morning. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The switch to two per day was on March 6th. I'm assuming we're not going to get enough queues filled in the next seven hours to keep going so my plan is to revert back right after the next update. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should try to figure out why not that many editors are loading preps to queues. I thought we had enough help. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 and Cielquiparle are both at WP:PERM/TE right now and I assume both will be approved, so we'll have some more help soon. RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switch is done. RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Yang Nien-hsi

[edit]

I'm not really sure why this is an interesting hook or remarkable fact... Are baseball players from Taiwanese universities supposed to sign for American MLB teams? Is 2008 to 2024 an unusually long period of time? Without context, this doesn't sound particularly surprising at all but maybe because I'm not so familiar with the sport. @Butterdiplomat, Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems rather uninteresting. Sadly, reading the full article, I can't find anything better. RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about any sports. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be at least it seemed like a marginally interesting hook idea, but if consensus thinks is uninteresting we can pull. For what it's worth, baseball is the most popular sport in Taiwan but I don't know if it's considered unusual for Taiwanese players to sign in the MLB or not (I think it's a lot less common than with the NPB). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is almost off the main page now and in queue 6. How? SL93 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that certainly makes this all moot. I don't see any reason to pull it from the MP, but obviously we're not going to run it again in a few days. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That hook has been moved around a couple times ever since my promotion. It appears that a mover forgot to also remove it from an old prep. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was my fault. I swapped this and #Rutherford Chang so that I could queue a set, swapped that set with another because I thought we were heading into two-a-day (see #Seven queues) and then forgot I made the first edit when I hit 'rollback'. I must be more careful. I've put Chang back in this set.--Launchballer 23:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

Emmett Barrett

[edit]

The image was flagged at the nomination for being unsuitable, but it has now been used; any reason for this DimensionalFusion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns raised in the nom about both the quality of the image and the copyright status. The file page claims it was published without a copyright notice, but I find that difficult to accept on its face. It was in a newspaper, so I would expect the copyright notice covering the whole paper to be on the masthead, not directly attached to any individual photo. RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Also as I said nomination, the expression "American footballer" makes me cringe...what does it even mean...?) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who plays American football. Normally I'd agree with "American football player" being vague, but given how it's a well-known fact that Americans call football "soccer", it's not actually that big of an issue. NFL player might have been a suitable alternative (though it wouldn't apply to players who've never played in the NFL). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newness?

[edit]

On Template:Did you know nominations/The Wizard of Oz (1939 album), the article was created from a redirect on 15:32, 27 February 2025, the expansion begun on 15:37, 27 February 2025 and it was nominated on 23:59, 6 March 2025 which is over the seven day mark and per WP:DYKNEW article is considered new if, within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion. Does this count as new or not? and should I fail this or not? Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's under the one-two day extension that's allowed per WP:DYKNEW. Even if it was late by a couple of days, in practice it could still have been allowed depending on the circumstances. However, I've closed the nomination due to a lack of QPQ: a QPQ should be provided at the time of the nomination, and none was added. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Natalia Maree Belting (nom)

[edit]

@SL93, Makeandtoss, and Rjjiii: I don't think this hook meets WP:DYKINT; is there something I've missed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you don't clarify. SL93 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest - ... that Natalia Maree Belting wrote a book based on over 6,000 documents, mostly of French records from their Illinois colony, that dates from 1708 to 1816? or ... that the language of Natalia Maree Belting was said to be "spare, rhythmic, and resonant." SL93 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both are much more interesting to my mind. If someone else approves them, I can swap one in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second hook, see it the article, and can verify it in the cited source. Rjjiii (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species in the United Arab Emirates (nom)

[edit]

Jolielover there is a citation tag that needs addressing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that sentence. jolielover♥talk 14:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One away from seven queues

[edit]

If someone queues a prep set we can move to two-per-day for 72 hours. I can't because I promoted a few hooks therein. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Emos vs. Punks in prep 4 will likely need to be moved out. It's a special occasion hook for March 16. SL93 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can take that this evening if no-one else gets to it before then.--Launchballer 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing.--Launchballer 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were two special occasion hooks in Prep 4, and Launchballer moved the one that wasn't Emos vs. Punks; I've now moved it, too, to Prep 7.

I just filled the last queue. No problems found, but earlier today I did upload a cropped version of the lead image which I think works better. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And PS, I see that both @Narutolovehinata5 and @Cielquiparle were granted TemplateEditor earlier today, so we've got two more sets of hands to help out. Thank you to both of you for stepping up. RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an I also see that @Launchballer did a more complete review than I did, so good job there. RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone ever changed the update frequency; we have seven queues again, so if an admin can do that after 00:00 UTC that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll handle it. RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RoySmith. As it happens, starting a day later than planned does not affect the special occasion hooks in Prep 7; they'll still run on March 16, assuming that we fall back to one a day starting with at midnight March 14. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

NGC 1700

[edit]

@C messier, EF5, and Cielquiparle: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C messier @EF5 I have added repeat footnotes citing the Chandra X-Ray Observatory at the end of each sentence relevant to the hook. However, I think it would be better if we explicitly state the "glowing in X-rays" part in the actual Wikipedia article for NGC 1700. (It's clear in the original source but not in the article.) Could you please fix this ASAP? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When I read over these, this was the one item that I pondered about. Ultimately I decided what we had was OK, but @Cielquiparle is correct that a more explicit statement would be better. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Added the glowing in X-rays in the article and some more end-of-sentence citations. C messier (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Storm

[edit]

@BeanieFan11 and Sammi Brie: Not seeing where "after seeing" is in the article.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be implied. He was the coach. Of course he'd be seeing his team lose. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't expressly rule out the possibility that Storm's intervention was preplanned.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Israr

[edit]

@JustJamie820 and Maximilian775: Hook's a bit bland, what else have you got?--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is something along the lines of
"... that Rashid Israr was born in India but played cricket for Pakistan?"
RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:RoySmith and User:Launchballer:
To Roy: I'm not the biggest fan of the born in India/played for Pakistan hook. Also, as he didn't play cricket internationally, it would be "in Pakistan", not "for". (Wow, that's so pedantic on my part...yikes...)
To Launchballer and others: The reason I mentioned the 12 1/2 hours in the hook was that it was (and still is) one of the longest individual innings by time in cricket history. Is there a way we can spice that up to make it look more interesting? If it's not possible, maybe I will accept Roy's idea with the word change.
If it were useful, I'd add a source talking about how he has the highest score at a particular cricket venue (Gaddafi Stadium), but would that reset this process if I tried that? -- JustJamie820 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an idea, it it's not to your liking, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere in that paragraph is the phrase "third-highest". There's a hook in that.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn that into a hook then. Feel free to tinker with it as you will. Maybe:
"... that in 1977, cricketer Rashid Israr recorded the third-highest score ever recorded in Pakistan?
I do like that, though my own wording may need some spice.
Note that he is fourth-highest now...but that's only mentioned as a footnote. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the "unlikely to change" criterion, that may need further revisions, or simply a new angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if something resembling the alternative hook that User:Launchballer inspired works well enough, we can keep the year in the hook. I think Pakistan's domestic season has concluded, so I don't believe someone else will pass Israr's score in the country for a few months, but third-best looks better for a hook than fourth-best. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest replacing "in 1977" before "cricketer Rashid Israr" with "once" after it - this should be enough disclaimer, I think.--Launchballer 10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cushin

[edit]

@Jolielover and Epicgenius: This doesn't strike me as particularly unusual. What else have you got?--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.... that singer Andrew Cushin used to play as a goalkeeper in Newcastle Benfield F.C.'s youth team? SL93 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty unusual for someone to have multiple celebrities backing their album release, but I don't mind SL93's hook. jolielover♥talk 03:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My beef with the queued hook was that it isn't unusual for any amount of celebrities to back a career. SL93's hook is fine by me, although there probably shouldn't be two football hooks in the same set as a cricket hook and I may move it to a different set.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. All queues are currently filled though so we'll need a swap, or perhaps a bumping off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Smalley

[edit]

@Jon698 and Grumpylawnchair: Two problems here; the refs Cheyenne 1890 and Caroline Obituary 1915 don't point anywhere, and the article says "was referred to as the political boss of the Vermont Democrats" and we've got that he was in wikivoice.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Fixed the ref issues. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer I would just remove "referred to" from the article. The source doesn't say he was referred to as a political boss by anyone. It just flat out says that Smalley was "the active political boss." SL93 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut that.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djabal Club d'Iconi

[edit]

@Cloudz679: This really ought to say "after a player was found guilty of witchcraft".--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Assume you refer to the article, fixed it there. C679 05:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the hook, which I've now fixed.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

The Ethereal Rock (nom)

[edit]

@Kingoflettuce, Munfarid1, and SL93: The current wording is rather wordy, and arguably as currently written may not be interesting to a broad non-specialist audience considering the abundance of names that are unfamiliar to general readers. Can the hook be tightened or perhaps an alternative be proposed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 ... that the inspiration for the short story The Ethereal Rock, about a man's friendship with a rock, was the painter Mi Fu? SL93 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an improvement since it's reliant on knowing who Mi Fu is. I was actually wondering if a hook about the "whose obsession with rocks had become proverbial" quote would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... that the short story The Ethereal Rock, which "details the reciprocal love between a collector of rocks and a prized rock", is related to the Chinese concept of obsession known as pi? SL93 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit on the wordy side, but I'd like to hear from the nominator and reviewer for more input. It's too bad we couldn't just focus on the reciprocal love quote since otherwise the hook would violate DYKFICTION. @Kingoflettuce and Munfarid1: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (mythology) (nom)

[edit]

Unless I've misunderstood, the goat in the version of the story mentioned is not actually Amalthea (even though in some other versions of the story Amalthea is the goat herself) but rather, Amalthea is a nymph who assigns a terrifying goat to raise Zeus. The text of the article says:

Zeus's mother Rhea gave him as a newborn child to Themis, who handed him over to the nymph Amalthea, who had the infant nursed by a she-goat. Pseudo-Eratosthenes goes on to relate that this goat was the daughter of Helios, and was so terrifying in appearance that the Titans, out of fear, asked Gaia to hide her in a cave on Crete; Gaia complied, entrusting the goat to Amalthea.

Given this, having a link of the form goat who raised him seems like a MOS:EGG issue, the article links to Amalthea but Amalthea is not the goat. Also I'm not sure if this is a rule, but it seems like the hook should be directly about the subject linked, not about something else mentioned in the article. Thus if in this account Amalthea is not the goat, that's more of a tangential fact. @Michael Aurel, Queen of Hearts, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue, although I'm not sure if this is relevant in this case, is the previous question on whether or not mythological stories meet WP:DYKFICTION or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: The version in which Amalthea is the goat is mentioned in the next paragraph of the "Nurse of Zeus" section:
An account which is largely the same as that given by Pseudo-Eratosthenes is found in a scholium on the Iliad, though the scholiast describes Amalthea herself as the goat whose hide Zeus uses in his fight against the Titans (rather than the owner of the goat).
The only difference between the two accounts (other than Amalthea being the goat) is that the goddess Themis is specified as the source of the prophecy (so everything relevant to the hook is the same). That said, I had wondered if the hook could be slightly confusing, as – while everything in the hook is correct – the story is only told in full in the first version presented in the article (the one from Pseudo-Eratosthenes, where Amalthea is the nymph), as it of course wouldn't be necessary to retell the narrative again with minor differences. Let me know if you think the hook (or article) should be reworked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's interesting @Michael Aurel:, a potential concern I might have with that is that the hook fact isn't directly stated in the article or (if I understand you correctly) the source. The story of the Titans being afraid of the goat is told in Pseudo-Eratosthenes, while we're told that a scholium on the Iliad gives "largely the same" story with Amalthea actually being the goat, but a bit of WP:SYNTH required to deduce that the Titans were afraid of the goat in that version of the story. WP:DYKHOOK states that "citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook", which I'm not sure is met here.
As for Narutolovehinata5's point about DYKFICTION, I'm probably neutral on that. I can see a case that this is effectively just a made-up story, but on the other hand mythology from antiquity does seem a somewhat separate class from modern fiction... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: That's fair enough. It is directly stated in the primary source of course (which is cited), though the cited secondary source (Gantz) doesn't explicitly state that she was terrifying in appearance in the scholiast's version (that said, I'm not sure it would be particularly easy to come away with a different conclusion, as Zeus of course only uses the skin because the Titans are afraid of it). Perhaps it would help things if I made the article a little more explicit? For example, specifying that in the scholiast's version Amalthea is the "terrifying goat" whose hide Zeus uses in his fight might work? If not, I could expand on things a little more, retelling a bit of the story; I think I avoided this at the time because it felt repetitive (as the full story was just recounted in the previous paragraph), but if it'll avoid confusion I wouldn't have an issue with doing so. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Michael Aurel: sure, that sounds good. I think if it's clarified that this account has a terrifying goat and that goat is actually Amalthea then it's fine. Mainly because it's difficult for readers to read further and verify that claim otherwise (personally I didn't even spot the subsequent line that you mention above - my initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats). As for it being a primary source, that's probably OK, that's not specifically against the rules I don't believe. If others watching this page have a different opinion on that and the DYKFICTION question, they can let us know here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I personally disagree with the idea that mythology hooks violate DYKFICTION, but I know other editors subscribe to that idea and feel strongly about it. I wonder if an RfC might be in order at some point because it is a bit of an open question and one that has caused confusion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted the hook because I don't think DYKFICTION counts in this case. SL93 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks – I've hopefully rephrased things satisfactorily. The point about my initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats was my initial concern with the hook. (Another solution would have been to swap the order in which the two versions are mentioned, though Gantz intimates that the scholiast was writing after Callimachus, which would imply that the scholium is, at a minimum, from the century after the Eumolpia was written, and the article is ordered roughly chronologically.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth instituting a time limit with DYKFICTION—to allow hooks from when "human imagination" was much less "unbounded", and creative works which pushed the envelope are per se interesting. Something like "creative works published before 1900(?) can be allowed leeway", if anyone wants to make a formal proposal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That cut-off wouldn't make sense because otherwise we'd just be having hooks solely about plot points from Shakespeare (as an example). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1500, then? Or simply "stories that can be considered mythological or legendary"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is probably the better option, though it might be a good idea to have an RfC regarding that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of the second suggestion seems reasonable. I think most cutoff dates would inadvertently result in certain lesser-known mythological systems being excluded, while also allowing a number of works most would consider "fiction". An RfC seems a sensible idea to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an RfC below, see #Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the hook should be pulled, at least until the discussion below concludes. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to open up DYK to all of the stories from the Book of Mormon without putting them into real world context. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

David D. Demarest (nom)

[edit]

@Zeete, Phlsph7, and SL93: The hook isn't exactly a spectacular one, and while I can see the appeal of "sacred rhetoric", otherwise might not meet WP:DYKINT. Are there any alternative options? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that David D. Demarest was a professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric for 33 years? SL93 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeping the original, a "first", and adding the years of service:
... that David D. Demarest was the first professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary and served for 33 years? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Against the new proposal. It doesn't at all address the interestingness concern (not to mention it being too long and complex). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about both hooks not being interesting, so that leaves us with no consensus. SL93 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To make things clear, the "not interesting" response was meant for Zeete's proposal, not your proposal. Yours is better, but it feels marginally interesting at best. Is there a different angle that can be used there? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that I can think of is ... that David D. Demarest received an honorary degree while serving as a professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric? SL93 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original version. If something happens for the first time, it is usually considered interesting. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First hooks tend to be problematic on DYK because they often require high sourcing standards since being first is considered an exceptional claim. It's not an issue in this case since the claim has been verified, it's just something to keep in mind. I have to disagree though that first hooks are inherently interesting: being first in something does not automatically mean it's interesting, it has to be a notable or at least intriguing first.
To answer SL93's question, the new hook isn't that interesting either. Honorary degrees are dime-a-dozen. If we have to go with a hook, the 33-years angle might be the best option, but otherwise, we may have to reject and fail this nomination because even that hook seems marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first saw the unusual phrase "pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric", I was very intrigued and knew it would be the hook. It was unique. I could not find any other use of the phrase in the Wikipedia, but did find two biographic entries at Wikisource.(see "Demarest, David D." . Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1900. and Wikisource "Demarest, David D.". The Biographical Dictionary of America. 1906.) Being the first added to the interest level. It needed to be qualified, the first at the seminary. It needed to have a reliable source.(see Raven, John Howard (1912). "David D. Demarest". Biographical Record: Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, 1784–1911. New Brunswick, New Jersey: New Brunswick Theological Seminary. pp. 40–41. In 1865 the General Synod elected Dr. Demarest the first occupant of the professorship of Pastoral Theology and Sacred Rhetoric in the New Brunswick Seminary.) The position of Professorship of Pastoral Theology and Sacred Rhetoric at the seminary was new, notable, and intriguing.(see Demarest, David D.; Van Cleef, Paul D.; Corwin, Edward T. (1886). "From the Establishment of the Fourth Professorship to the Present Time. 1865–1884.". Centennial of the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in America. 1784–1884. New York, New York: Reformed Church in America. pp. 130–132.) The original hook is short, unusual, intriguing, and interesting. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Archive

[edit]
Moved from WP:ERRORS
... that an illegal search engine for books and scholarly articles has been used to train large language models?
  • I'm not sure if it's really clear in the article that the site is illegal (problem per WP:DYKHOOKCITE); like, it probably is, but none of the cases in the legal issues section seem to have actually resulted in a decision that the site is, in fact, illegal. Maybe you could argue that the blocking in certain countries constitutes this, but I'm not sure. "illegal" as a adjective also seems a bit subjective; illegal where? Not a huge deal but thought I'd bring it up. Perhaps "questionably legal" would be better, but that is also not sourced explicitly either. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article makes it clear that the website infringes on copyright which is illegal. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia infringes on copyright. We don't mean to, but it happens. That doesn't make Wikipedia illegal. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but Anna's Archive's whole purpose is to do that. It's no accident. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was going to make the exact same point, Roy. Hosting copyrighted material (as WP no doubt does, despite our best efforts) does not make it an illegal website. I've minus Swapped this out to Prep 6 and we can continue the conversation at WT:DYK.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does if it's the intent. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules at DYK are pretty clear. The hook must reflect what's in the article and the article must reflect what's in the source(s). We can call it an "illegal website" if you like, but that must be in the article and explicitly cited. It hosting copyrighted material doesn't count; that may or may not be obvious to us, but it's WP:SYNTH either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but it should be common sense that it is illegal to violate copyright law. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did more searches, and the owner admitted that it's illegal in certain jurisdictions. And again. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @BruschettaFan, Thriley, Bruce1ee, C messier, Rjjiii, Cielquiparle, Darth Stabro, SL93, RoySmith, and Cwmhiraeth: who were involved with this nom at one time or another.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ars frames "illegal" as an unresolved allegation: "Until this question is settled by courts or lawmakers, companies training AI on the Books3 dataset will likely continue to face lawsuits from rights holders, particularly from those who see AI models as an extension of harms caused by these allegedly illegal shadow libraries."[1] Anna's Archives calls their service a "shadow library" but denies that is is illegal based on the premise that they are providing a link to copyright infringing material but not directly providing or hosting the infringing material. Vice frames the site as a search engine for pirated (illegal) books, rather than an illegal search engine.[2] Rjjiii (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But just linking to copyrighted material that was not added by the copyright holder, with the intent to do so, is against the law in the United States and other countries. The hook could just say that it is illegal in some countries. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's almost certainly illegal. I'm noting that after looking at several sources, they are not yet saying it is illegal, and that "Anna" obviously will deny that it is illegal unless a court rules otherwise, Rjjiii (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing it as "allegedly illegal" seems supported by the article considering the various lawsuits from publishers. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The owner, in the second link, I provided above said - "Not too long ago, “shadow-libraries” were dying. Sci-Hub, the massive illegal archive of academic papers, had stopped taking in new works, due to lawsuits. “Z-Library”, the largest illegal library of books, saw its alleged creators arrested on criminal copyright charges. They incredibly managed to escape their arrest, but their library is no less under threat. When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate description of the site could be something like "a search engine for so-called 'shadow libraries'". BruschettaFan (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cited sources use "shadow library" in some way, perhaps because it's not disputed by either side. Van der Sar (April 16, 2024) "Free ..." cited in the article would also support something like "a search engine for pirated books". Rjjiii (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that works, although piracy is illegal as well. I remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads about film piracy. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this description since it's immediately understandable to a general audience. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This works and is hooky. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is now more precise and more interesting. Well done @Rjjiii. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret (song) (nom)

[edit]

This is going to run in the next set, so asking for feedback on it since the queue is now cascaded-protected. Is this hook interesting to people who don't know who Antonoff or Qualley are? I'm not really sure. Pinging nominator Jolielover, reviewer Tenpop421, and proposer Viriditas. In the meantime, maybe the hook could be moved to another prep while discussion is ongoing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: Apologies for the ping, but after some more thought it might be for the best to either pull this, or to put it into a prep to workshop a better hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the hook (and I understand you see it differently) is that it is constructed in a way that maintains interest without having to know the song or the people. I realize that not everyone is going to be on the same page with this, but as a fan of music and its long history, the first thing you learn is that most songs are love songs, often in a fictional or detached mythological context full of archetypes and tropes (country music songs are famous for this, for example). Knowing this, from my POV, it is interesting that a popular song is a love song about how two real people met, and I don’t have to know who they are to find it interesting. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's really beautifully written, and I agree. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did an informal survey over on Discord and the responses were pretty much along the lines of "not interesting, even if you know who they are". I do think the hook is somewhat interesting to me, but it seems others may disagree. Maybe we don't need to throw out the hook fact entirely, but maybe a more "accessible" wording can be found? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some alt hooks:
ALT2: ...that Margaret Qualley had to confirm Lana Del Rey did not leak her wedding date on a song?
Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/jack-antonoffs-fiancee-confirms-lana-del-rey-did-not-leak-couples-wedding-date-on-margaret-3443313
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-margaret-qualley-wedding-date-1234734440/
ALT3: ...that there was speculation Lana Del Rey had leaked a celebrity couples' wedding date on a song?
Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/jack-antonoffs-fiancee-confirms-lana-del-rey-did-not-leak-couples-wedding-date-on-margaret-3443313
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-margaret-qualley-wedding-date-1234734440/
ALT4: ...that Margaret was certified silver in the UK?
Source: https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/20840-3320-1 jolielover♥talk 08:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think ALT2/ALT3 are better options, but I'm concerned that they might violate DYKHOOKBLP. If they don't, then either could be used. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: et al - I've swapped the Margaret hook out to Prep 6 to give more time for the above discussion to evolve; next change is only 20 mins away. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Jarrad Searby (nom)

[edit]

I'd like additional opinions on whether this hook meets WP:DYKHOOKBLP and if the article is notable (personally, I think both are just about fine). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have nominated the article myself, but I also think both are just about fine.--Launchballer 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Village (Paris) (nom)

[edit]

I reviewed this, so another check is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.--Launchballer 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Hawkeye7, and Grumpylawnchair: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation and could probably take a trimming. What is your opinion of "... that the Paris Olympic Village's use of wood and concrete helped reduce its carbon footprint?"--Launchballer 11:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it to be directly cited because the facts about the wood and concrete are right after each other, and then there are two citations after it. SL93 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trimmed version is not correct. The use of concrete increases out the carbon footprint; it was the use of ultra-low carbon concrete that made the difference. Suggest the hook be trimmed to "... that the Paris Olympic Village's use of wood and ultra low carbon concrete helped reduce its carbon footprint?" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. McMahon (miniseries) (nom)

[edit]

@Royiswariii and 4meter4:, according to the article "McMahon has also expressed interest in purchasing the rights", which is much less certainly stated than the hook's "attempted to buy". By the look of it, the original Puck source by Matthew Belloni is much in favour of the latter, so the article needs to be adjusted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (15 March 00:00)

[edit]

Botetourt Medal

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Pbritti, and Tenpop421: It's not an issue for DYK, but per MOS:CONFORM, the long quotes from the inscriptions should be set in sentence case. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Good to know! Done. Gave me a chance to fix a citation! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Chong Qui

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, TNM101, and SL93: I have no clue what a triple-double is, nor do I suspect will many of our readers. RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that having the wikilink for it will work, and I see no way to describe it in a hook without it being bloated. SL93 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SL93. The only other way to say it would be that 'he scored at least 10 points, had at least 10 assists, and had at least 10 rebounds'; and will expand the hook far beyond the 200-character limit of DYK and would make it sound weird TNM101 (chat) 13:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had no clue either, but the term is cool. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (12 March 12:00)

[edit]

1932 Winter Olympics medal table

[edit]

@SL93, Arconning, and Vacant0: The hook says "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in different events". Are there any events that appear in both the summer and winter games? I suspect not, in which case "in different events" is extraneous. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith What about "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in two events". It seems like "different" was used as a poor way to say that they were not the same event. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get what you're saying. I would just remove "in different events" or say "in two different events." SL93 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith The 1920 Summer Olympics and 1924 Winter Olympics had figure skating as an event, where Gillis Grafström won both gold medals, making him the first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal. Whereas Eagan won in boxing and bobsledding, making him the first person to win in different events. Arconning (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Bersey Electric Cab

[edit]

Just bringing this up here to see if others think that it is referenced sufficiently for such a first. I think that it likely is. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Chalá

[edit]

Ping GanzKnusper. The hook says "most of his life" while the article says "much of his life" which isn't really the same thing. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. The source says "gran parte de su vida", which literally translates to "large part of his life". My Spanish is not good enough to say whether "most" is implied. Feel free to change the hook. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louafi Bouguera Olympic Bridge

[edit]

Ping Hawkeye7. The hook information needs an end of sentence citation. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Roland L. Bragg (nom)

[edit]

I'm somewhat sceptical that the image attached to this hook, File:Pfc Bragg.png is actually correctly licensed. The file page says that it was sourced from the Bragg family via the Associated Press, which checks out, but it then also claims that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" with a stated author of "United States Army Center of Military History".

Where's the evidence that this phonograph was taken by a military officer or government employee? We ostensibly know little about it other than that it was supplied by the family. Perhaps they took it themselves, or it was taken by someone else and donated to the family later. Unless more evidence can be supplied of where exactly this photo came from, I'm not convinced we can run this on the main page. Pinging @DMVHistorian, Darth Stabro, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this SFGate article, the photo is featured in an unnamed book about the history of Nobleboro, Maine, which may contain more info on the photo if anyone can track it down. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article also refers to it as a "military photo", but that's a little ambiguous. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in the Eisenhower book that talks about the ambulance incident? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to be in The Bitter Woods. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the Nobleboro historical society about their book to see if it has a record of the provenance of the photo. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru et al - The current digital format of the image was sourced from the family via AP wire and has been denoted as a military photograph in the SFGate piece and other articles. It is currently published on the Airborne & Special Operations Museum website, with the copyright footer stating that it is "hosted by the United States Army Center of Military History" Army Museum Enterprise (official U.S. Army site for the museum).
I do not have a copy of the Nobleboro Historical Society's Nobleboro Maine - A History (published 1988), but that may be the earliest known publication which included the photograph, and it would be interesting to learn if it is also denoted as a military photograph in that book, too. Thank you @Darth Stabro for taking the initiative on that!
If there are significant concerns about the licensing of the image, I would suggest someone either 1) utilize a capture/screen grab of the colorized and digitally remastered military portrait of Bragg which was just released on DVIDS and produced/published by the Army. (Linked here: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/954583/fort-bragg-honor-private-first-class-roland-l-bragg) or 2) somehow utilize this image of the exhibit of Bragg (including his military portrait and uniform) which is now on display at the museum. The photographer of the image of the exhibit is listed as Pfc. Richard Morgan. DMVHistorian (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 4. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 181 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that has decreased by 27 over the past 6 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) 18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore?

[edit]

Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore?

Background

[edit]

For some time, there has been disagreement if WP:DYKFICTION applies to mythology and religious stories or not. For example, would ahistorical stories from the Bible, legends about mythological figures like Zeus and Amaterasu, or folklore about deities and the like, be considered "fiction" for DYK purposes or not? On the one hand, some argue that, because these did not happen, they count as fictitious events and thus require real-world links. On the other hand, the other argument is that excluding such works is not was intended by the guideline or its spirit, as it primarily intended to focus on works like literature, movies, TV shows, and video games. There's also the argument that such stories were not considered "fictitious" by those who made them, so the intent is different from an actual work of fiction.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Yes - Mythology, religious stories, and folklore count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.
  • No - They do not count as "fiction" for DYK purposes.

Please discuss below and indicate your choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before everyone gets to arguing about whether mythology is fiction or not, I wanna emphasize that squabbling about the outer bounds of fuzzy concepts isn't actually productive. DYKFICTION is meant to prevent a certain class of really awful hooks that just rely on someone else's work for clicks and don't convey anything edifying or valuable. I could weigh in on what I think of mythology hooks directly, but what I would suggest other commenters consider is whether DYK as a project should be running mythology hooks, not whether they meet some subjective definition of fiction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes What makes hooks that violate DYKFICTION boring is that fiction, unlike reality, is bounded only by human imagination. This isn't quite true, fiction is also bounded by the society that makes it, and this is true moreso for religious and mythological stories, which have to be in some way plausible to those who believe in them. A hook about fiction violates DYKFICTION if it is only interesting if we pretend it happened in real life. A hook doesn't violate DYKFICTION if it's interesting that someone would have imagined it and written it down in a particular social context. The mythological hook that prompted this (I think) is interesting because we have a pre-conceived notion of the seriousness of the Greek gods, and this is a slightly ridiculous episode. A recent hook on Sterne is similarly interesting, because it plays an episode in a novel off of 18th-century reality. DYK should be running mythology hooks, but narratives in mythology aren't themselves interesting, they're only interesting when they're interesting against the social reality that produced them. So DYKFICTION applies. Tenpop421 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would generally lean towards Yes -- while ancient mythology could be viewed as more "noble" / "higher" than conventional modern fiction and so this standard could cut off a small portion of standalone mythological hooks that don't fall into the "lower" staandards of modern fiction, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and this seems to be a good place to draw it. Like Tenpop421 said, this will steer DYKs to reflect on the social/historical/astrological realities they reflect. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here is an example of a hook that I remember receiving objections for violating DYKFICTION but that would be okay with the proposed change:
  • I have found the strict implementation of DYKFICTION regarding folklore/mythology to be too limiting in the past. I can't find it at the moment, but I remember a hook about Burmese mythology that had a hook that seemed to clearly convey a mythical framing that I found interesting, that was rejected by a later reviewer. To answer theleekycauldron's question, I don't see why we wouldn't run mythology hooks? We seem to run every topic except immediate politics, I'm not sure why mythology should stand apart from this. CMD (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should have an issue with mythology hooks. To answer theleekycauldron, we barely ever have mythology hooks nominated in the first place. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a no? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a No. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I agree with commenters above that mythology hooks should be allowed. I do also generally agree with Tenpop's point that mythological stories, in the context of DYK, tend not to be interesting in and of themselves, but interesting in how they tell us something surprising about the society or culture which produced them, or about their way of thinking or how they viewed the world. To use Greek mythology as an example, most people in the English-speaking world already have at least some notion of Greek mythology, and of the ancient Greeks, so being presented a piece of information which contradicts or challenges your pre-conceived ideas about what the Greeks believed is interesting.
That said, I don't think mythology should be grouped in with "fiction" in relation to DYKFICTION. For example, the aforementioned hook for Amalthea (mythology) isn't by any measure a real-world fact (in DYKFICTION's words); that it tells you something about how the Greeks viewed the world, and the nature of the stories they believed, doesn't change this in my view. I also think there are meaningful and substantial differences between ancient mythology and modern fiction: ancient cultures believed in their myths (or most of them, at least), and these myths could be closely connected with ritual practice; in addition, myths were rarely the product of a single person's imagination, typically being stories handed down over centuries, subject to rationalisation, interpretation, and variation.
As an editor in the area of mythology, I also think it's worth noting that if hooks including information from mythological stories were to be disallowed, it would be near-impossible to write hooks on many mythological figures (figures who are lesser-known, and play little to no role in cult or art); I don't really see what's to be profited from doing that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: The line needs to be drawn somewhere and applying WP:DYKFICTION to ALL fictitious events seems like the appropriate place. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There is no need to exempt mythology, as hooks are easily enough connected to the real world. The story of Xenu actually gets more interesting by the real world information how scientologists tried to keep it secret. The story of the Nephites gets more interesting because there are people who believe in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon and have searched in vain for archeological evidence confirming it. Most stories from ancient Western mythology feature widely in Western art, so we can easily go beyond repeating plot points. Many mythological stories have also been re-interpreted again and again, allowing for an out-of universe treatment. I also really don't want us to pronounce what is "mythology" and what is "fiction": one person's religious text can be another person's speculative fiction. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Mythology, etc should not count. Hooks should be phrased appropriately, i.e. not "DYK... that Zeus did this?" but "DYK... that according to Greek mythology, Zeus did this?", but as long as it is from a suitable time period ago - say from BC/BCE - then I don't see why we shouldn't include them as interesting points. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine saying yes to mythology and fiction that is 1500+ years old, but whether some story from the Iliad is "mythology" or "fiction" isn't a decision I would like to make. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

(now promoted to Queue 4)

Sophie Rain

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and TarnishedPath: The quality of the sourcing seems well below what we need for a WP:BLP on a controversial subject. As far as I can tell, Evening Standard is a scandal sheet. WP:RSNP says about People Magazine the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source and about VICE There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. I don't see anything on https://www.complex.com/ which describes their editorial process, so I'm assuming they're not a WP:RS either. I strongly suggest this be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, the most I was able to find on Complex's editorial process in a search I just performed was at the bottom of their pages: "COMPLEX participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means COMPLEX gets paid commissions on purchases made through our links to retailer sites. Our editorial content is not influenced by any commissions we receive. © Commerce Media Holdings, LLC All Rights Reserved". Given that Complex makes up about half of the sourcing of the article that doesn't really cut it. If it was only one reference it could just be removed and something else found. I agree with you. TarnishedPathtalk 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Evening Standard is not a scandal sheet (tabloid format =/= tabloid journalism) I agree with your points on the rest. NHL5 has pulled it, and I've promoted Mike Doherty (cricketer) in its place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not-deer

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and AmateurHi$torian: questions were raised at the nom discussion about the quality of the sources, and supposedly the unreliable ones were removed, but I'm still seeing https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/ (" founded in January 2021 with the mission of using entertainment as a catalyst for social progress"). There's a long thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373 about Skeptical Enquirer which basically comes down to "maybe". The East Tennessean source appears to be a blog post. National Geographic is certainly a WP:RS but as far as I can tell, it's the only one in the entire article, and that's not enough. RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

2024 Tallahassee tornadoes

[edit]

The hook on the tornadoes in Tallahassee should say that they merged over a golf course near downtown, or otherwise some variant of "after striking downtown", I wasn't fully paying attention when revising the hook. Here's the source. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1280278252"