Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)

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

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

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

Robin Surgeoner

Robin Surgeoner is currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. I realize it's pretty late in the process, but as I read the article, I immediately noticed that it doesn't mention what his disability is. That seems like a pretty glaring omission. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So please add it to the article. Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I just did a little searching, and can't find any sources for this information. In fact, I hate to say this, but looking at the sources in the article, and what I found myself (in an admittedly rather cursory search), I'm not sure this has enough WP:RS to pass AfD. Is this really front-page material for the encyclopedia? I'm tempted to bring this to AfD myself, but don't want to disrupt the DYK process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
NSPORTS says he's notable (i thought a little on the same line) for having won a medal at the Paralympic Games - and thus is likely to be kept Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these issues, RoySmith. I thought you were the nominator, so that's why I asked you to fix it. Meanwhile, I found a dead link in a source. I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
A nine-time Paralympic gold medal winner is being considered for AfD?! That's somewhat patronising! At least his MBE gave him some recognition if this place isn't able to! His actual disability is not something that must be discussed. His category is noted and, given that he doesn't even go into detail about his disability himself on his own, very thorough site, I don't think that it is necessarily our place to describe it. violet/riga [talk] 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You're joking right?! Pulling a hook and suggesting an AfD on a 9 time Paralympic gold medallist. Ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I pulled the hook for the article not mentioning his disability, and for a dead link, not for his being a 9-time medalist (which the hook doesn't say). Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Questions were raised so it's fair enough holding fire on the nom. violet/riga [talk] 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw a wrench into the works here. My concern is that most of the references in the article look like primary sources to me. I'm not seeing the reliable secondary sources required by WP:BLPSTYLE. I'm not an expert on sports articles, and I know there's a long-standing controversy about what presumed notable means with respect to WP:NSPORTS vs WP:GNG. Maybe the sources are sufficient to pass NSPORTS, but I don't think they're enough to pass WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that WP:NOLY is pretty clear: "Athletes ... are presumed notable if they ... have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". That criterion is satisfied. Regarding secondary sources, most of the links are to the IPC or BPA which are certainly secondary sources. violet/riga [talk] 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That answers whether Surgeoner meets the "presumed notable" clause of sports notability, but not what "presumed notable" means. If it's the same as "notable", what is the purpose of the extra word "presumed"? And if it's not the same as "notable", then we would still need to determine whether they are notable in some other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That might be something to discuss on that talk page - it is a little vague. violet/riga [talk] 22:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Are we able to move forward with this now? violet/riga [talk] 13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Presumed notable" means that normally, for Paralympic medalists, there will be sufficient sources available (like here); however, especially for the first few games, there are quite a few medalists where we don't have enough information to identify them (e.g. the South African "Bosch" won the 100m freestyle 5 in 1972), and if there are no other sources with more information on them, we shouldn't create an article on them. Note that at the early paralympics, the participation standards were very low, and most participants didn't get attention in the press for being at the Games or even winning. People participated at the same games in e.g. swimming, table tennis and athletics, not because they were good at all sports but because they were there anyway and wanted to have a good time / get the most out of it. See e.g. this Canadian gold medal winner for whom further information is missing. They are for our purposes just a name in a database, and until some secondary source does the research and pays personal attention to them, they are just not notable, even though they were pioneers in their own way. But all this doesn't apply to Surgeoner, for whom we have the required additional information and attention. Fram (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that this is all resolved?, right? violet/riga [talk] 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My initial objection (i.e. not saying what his disability is) has been resolved. I'm still not 100% convinced the sources are good enough to pass WP:GNG, but neither am I convinced that they're not, so I'm not going to stand in the way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: - could you now move this forwards? violet/riga [talk] 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

  • ... that in her book, Elizabeth Kane used pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the Mormon polygamists she was interviewing?

@Skyes(BYU): This hook seems a little vague: it doesn't seem that clear that it's Kane and not the polygamists who used pseudonyms. Could this hook be revised to make the connection clearer? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As a revised hook, how about:

  • ... that Elizabeth Kane published her first book under pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the Mormon polygamists she was interviewing?

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to:

  • ... that in her book, Elizabeth Kane gave pseudonyms to the Mormon polygamists she interviewed to protect their anonymity? Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Actually, reading the article again, it's not exactly clear there either if it was Kane or the polygamists that were given pseudonyms. Both the hook and the article might need some revision regarding that.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the hook is that interesting after all: it's pretty common practice these days to give pseudonyms to people who don't want to be publicly identified, so it's not a unique case. I would suggest @Skyes(BYU): to propose additional hooks that don't discuss the anonymity thing. Like, for example:
  • ... that the businesses in the settlement of Kane, Pennsylvania closed down in honor of the funeral of founder Elizabeth Kane, despite the funeral being private?
  • ... that physician Elizabeth Kane was skilled in botanical drawing, wood carving, microscopic picturing, and photography, and fluent in at least six languages?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there can be much doubt about who the pseudonyms were given to - you only need to look up the author of the book to establish that - but I agree with your other points, and I like the second alt you have provided (about the skills). Rachel Helps will probably want to be part of this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, actually, at the time, protection of sources wasn't as common. Per this Washington Post article, the first time it came up legally was in 1896, and Kane's book was published in 1874, so I think it's still an interesting hook. Maybe it would be useful to mention the year "In her 1874 book..." If you don't like that hook, what about using some of the alternate hooks that were approved in the nomination? The hook you suggested about her skills isn't quite accurate. She was only fluent in English and French, and had some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, and German. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): Considering the context of that was not clear in the text, I'm sorry to say it's still not that interesting. Yes it may have been uncommon at the time, but readers today probably won't know that. As for the skills hook, how about:
  • ... that physician Elizabeth Kane was skilled in botanical drawing, wood carving, microscopic picturing, and photography, and knew at least five languages?
The article notes that she was learning Spanish at the time of her death, which I counted as part of the six. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as the other hooks in the nomination page, I suppose I actually like ALT2 there (about her not practicing medicine) the most. Let's see what Gatoclass, Ritchie333, and Yoninah say about this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Well I personally think ALT1 is not nice and ALT2 is dull - however if consensus is for ALT2 to get on the main page, I won't object. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: thoughts on any of the hooks proposed in this section? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I think we should probably stick with the Mormon angle since her works on the topic seem to be the things she is most notable for. The one about her being "skilled" in a bunch of things isn't entirely accurate in any case as these were just her hobbies and we don't know how skilled she might have been at them. I don't find any of the hooks terribly interesting but polygamy is an inherently interesting topic to many people so that's another reason to stick with it IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps another hook regarding her work on studying Mormons could work? I'm still not too keen on the pseudonyms hook, but I guess they're acceptable if there's nothing else that can be used. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Narutolovehinata5, that is another possibility. Rachel, any suggestions? Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
*... that after visiting 12 Mormon homes, Elizabeth Kane wrote a book sympathetic to Mormon polygamists while simultaneously objecting to how polygamy subjugated women?
*... that Elizabeth Kane, an 1883 graduate of medical school, believed that since pregnancy was so dangerous, wives should be able to refuse sexual advances from their husbands? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The first hook about being sympathetic towards polygamists is a much better hook and my preferred hook among the two proposals. Thoughts Gatoclass, Yoninah? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the first hook about being sympathetic towards polygamists is excellent. Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I substituted the above hook, though without the "after visiting 12 Mormon homes" phrase which I'm not sure adds anything essential. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

@Muhandes: @Raymie:
Why is this hooky? Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the picture talks for itself. A diorama exhibit from a museum (pictured) was taken out and photographed by a well known photographer in nature. Hopefully this is interesting enough for the reader to read the article and find out the picture appeared in more than a hundred newspapers and won some acclaim. I thought it was hookey enough. --Muhandes (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: perhaps replacing "exhibit" with "diorama exhibit" improves it? --Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I think what's bothering me about the hook is the emphasis on where he took the picture ("at Topanga Canyon against the background of the Santa Monica Mountains"). I'm from Los Angeles, so I know where this is, but our general worldwide readership will have no clue where this is or why it's important. Why did he even take a picture of it? The hook doesn't say. A hook is supposed to draw readers in, not be so vague as to let them pass over it. You have so much more good material in the article to make a hook—the purpose of the dioramas, the composition of the dioramas themselves. If you think the hook stands on its own, I would move it out of the image slot. If you'd like to work on a different hook, let's move this back to the noms area. Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: May I suggest that perhaps this sounds less interesting to you because you know where "Topanga Canyon against the background of the Santa Monica Mountains" is? For me the point is that these places, which I know nothing about, sound like "nature" places and a diorama exhibit does not belong there. The fact that a diorama exhibit was shot in a nature setting is the interesting part. Am I making sense? I'd really hate to loose the image, I think it is a good, interesting image and will draw readers in itself. --Muhandes (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I agree, the image is important, and enhances the DYK section on the main page. But the hook is too weak. Who would make the connection you're saying, unless the hook tells you this? Let's move this back to the noms area and I'll suggest some other hook ideas in a few hours, when I have more time. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: You are the expert, do what you think is best. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Since this was resolved, what's the next step? --Muhandes (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago. Here is an updated list with 37 older nominations through the end of February that need reviewing, about half of which are left over from last time. Right now we have a total of 254 nominations, of which half (127) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from January.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Bot down?

It looks like the bot is down. Wugapodes, Shubinator, can either of you guys assist? Gatoclass (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the bot is Shubinator's; Wugapodes wouldn't be able to help. I have pinged Materialscientist in the hopes that a manual update can be done; I don't know which other admins can handle those these days. I've also posted to Shubinator's talk page about DYKUpdateBot, which updates the main page; interestingly, Shubinator's other bot, DYKHousekeepingBot, is still running. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It's okay BlueMoonset, I'm pretty sure I still know how to do this, although it's been a while since I had to. I pre-date the bot by quite a while after all ;) Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Shubinator now has the bot back on line, so the next promotion should be automated as per usual. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

I suggested the image for the lead slot, hoping that someone would crop it so just the top half of the statue fills the frame. Could someone help here please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Shaitan Singh (cropped).jpg
Yoninah, here is a cropped version. I think this is what you meant. MB 02:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@MB: Yes! Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB

Having a bit of difficulty with this nomination: I'm not sure if the hooks proposed here are fine or not: while the hooks are interesting, they seem too BLPish for me considering they focus on the lawsuit's plaintiff sleeping. I also struck ALT1 because, while it was my preferred hook had the hook been less-BLPish, it was cited to The Daily Beast, which seems to be discouraged at the moment. Additional advice is welcome here regarding the eligibility of the hooks, and the possibility of proposing alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As nominator, my view is that there is no BLP issue as the hooks proposed are NPOV, Verifiable and NOR as well as not being "unduly negative" as they feature only the facts as they were presented in the case (which is what the hook is about), without any particular angle or opinion on the person involved. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - fifth-largest eruption

... that the fifth-largest known volcanic eruption on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, spewed 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres of rock? Yoninah, Jo-Jo Eumerus

Yet the article linked within the target to List of largest volcanic eruptions lists it as 17th largest. Plus "spewed" isn't encyclopedic (nor is it used in the article), nor is a range that varies by up to 30%, perhaps "at least 2,451 cubic kilometres" (and a conversion please). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Volume estimates of volcanic eruptions are not that precise. I'd agree with adding a conversion, and to change to something like "explosive eruption" (the Paraná-Etendeka Traps were an effusive eruption). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't address the issue of it being listed at number 17, not number 5, in our own article of big eruptions. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
That'd be a problem for that article. It does lump explosive and effusive eruptions together and given that estimates are uncertain, it is not a strong argument against the hook.
ALT1: ...that the fifth-largest known explosive volcanic eruption on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, erupted 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres (588–840 cu mi) of rock?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Well it's a problem for the target article which links the list which diretly contradicts this claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly, since the list does not purport to be an exact ranking of the size of eruptions given that it says that some estimates are uncertain and that in others the unit may actually be the product of more than one eruption. Having said that "... that one of the largest volcanic eruptions on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, erupted 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres (588–840 cu mi) of rock?" probably captures it better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I would agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Typo in tomorrow's DYK

In tomorrow's DYK, the caption mis-spells "asteroid" as "asteriod". Rontombontom (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

Currently in Prep 5 there are two hooks related, and linking to, 1900 English beer poisoning. This struck me as odd, and I thought it best to bring it up, just in case it's unintentional. Dahn (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like the endless parade of Japanese voice actors, we need to separate them into at least their own sets, if not separated by a few days just to stave off the possible boredom our readers would experience by reading the same thing, same day... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It is intentional and was by special request of the nominator here. If we can have eight women's bios on one day I don't see why two poisoned beer items can't appear together. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but seeing them together, even spaced apart, does look a little odd, as the beer poisoning article is the subject in one and a secondary link in the other. I think they would work better separately. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks clumsy and rubbish, fix it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Eight women, and even eight Japanese voice actors, will have at most a theme in common. However, in this case, the common characteristic is much narrower: it is the exact same event, with the exact same link, twice in the same queue; also: the poisoning is a regular link in the top entry, and the actual subject of the hook in the second, which is even weirder. Dahn (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Come on, this needs to be fixed. If not by the prep builder themsleves, I'll do it myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. It appears the two articles were inserted into the same set by request of the nominator, but I agree it's not a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA