Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"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
Stats WP:DYKSTATS


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.

Prep 1 - "superb mastery"

"... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz acquired a superb mastery of horsemanship, once riding a wild stag and another time riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing?" Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, Auntieruth55 (nom).

This is a nice hook, interesting and all, but "acquired a superb mastery" without attribution or without being a quotation is way POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I had already tweaked the hook before I saw this comment, but I did leave the word "superb". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, so the problem is still there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That phrase - "superb mastery of horsemanship" - appears in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. See s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Seydlitz, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.66 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying the phrase didn't exist somewhere, I'm saying it needs attribution since in our modern encyclopedia's tone of writing, it would be considered highly POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The source talks about him doing daredevil stunts on horses. I edited the hook in prep to read:
I like mostly, apart from "and another time" which reads a little clumsily.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes but without the "and another time" it suggests he rode through the windmill sails on a wild stag. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that, I'm simply saying "and another time" is the sort of language my three-year-old would employ. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Could be the start of something new. "It took me four years to paint like Raphael but a lifetime to paint like a child". Perhaps "also" could be substituted. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "and another time" is repeatedly used by Shakespeare. If such phrases are used by great authors and works like Britannica, we should not waste time second-guessing their use in approved hooks. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No good. The word "once" is not appropriate for the windmill feat because he did that repeatedly. Drive-by copy-editing of hooks like this is dangerous if you don't go back to the original source, which states "They frequently rode between the whirring sails of a windmill while at work – a piece of skill in horsemanship which Seydlitz repeated many years afterwards...". You see he learnt these tricks after learning to ride early at the age of seven, rather like skateboarding and cycling children do now. We should wait to see what the main author of the article, Auntieruth55, has to say about all this before turning it into a free-for-all. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's hardly a free-for-all, more like a community-based discussion. See the section below for how we resolve such clumsy hook issues, it's a good idea to get more input than from those involved in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a good idea; it's disruptive. See WiR where a number of editors expressed their dissatisfaction:
  1. "quibbling ... I'd rather ... avoid all the conflict."
  2. "avoid DYK as Byzantine & capricious"
  3. "they have to find something wrong"
  4. "Too much nitpicking"
  5. "The winner is whoever is able to grind everybody else down until they give up."
  6. "The nitpicking has gone beyond the pale."
  7. "needy personalities ... so out of control."
  8. "fiddling on the queues"
  9. "And as a result, we are losing more and more enthusiasts."
Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I see multiple people there who were among the most active DYK participants, and among the most active noms, promotors or reviewers of incorrect hooks (like the people involved with the Italian provinces fiasco, and the people working together with Nvvchar without realising or caring how much nonsense was in his articles, and an admin who is still active on DYK but seems to have problem with people aiming for accuracy as well). No wonder that these get quoted here as evidence of how checking hooks for accurarcy is "disruptive". I can indeed imagine that it is disruptive for people who want to have "wife-beating" in a hook because it is used in some books, even when the books have no relation to the article and the context of these uses is not the same as the context for the hook. It is indeed disruptive nitpicking to prefer correct hooks instead of click-baity, lazy, and/or simply wrong ones. I do love the arguments they use; "they do it out in the open, to get attention" "yes, and they do it hidden away, to avoid attention" "boo, boo!" It's the same tired old arguments one sees here: if you ping people, you are only here to name and shame them and not working constructively and collaboratively. If you don't ping them, you are trying to do it behind their back and not working constructively and collaboratively. Apparently this is all about ego, getting DYK credits and main page exposure, and not so much about getting it right or encouraging new editors. Nothing new there. Fram (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman, whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing and, on one occasion, riding a wild stag. Kingsindian   09:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
On the nomination, I suggested just going with one of them for more punch:
ALT1: ... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing?
But if you want both, it should read:
ALT2: ... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing and riding wild stags? Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh? The article clearly says that he rode a wild stag as a dare once, not that he repeatedly did it. I quite like the increased punchiness of your ALT1, but ALT2 seems to be unambiguously worse than Kingsindian's version. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Since no one else is commenting and the prep is inching toward the queue, I will be bold and trim the hook to ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - "wife beating"

"... that Ivy Josiah led opposition to wife beating in Malaysia?" Cwmhiraeth, Yuitsum, Andrew Davidson, G-Eazy951, (nom)

I've twice changed this to reflect the actual article (which doesn't mention "wife beating" at all), but have been reverted twice by the involved reviewer. The article mentions "battered women" who aren't necessarily anyone's wives, and that "battered women" redirects to domestic violence. This individual works for "women", hence her setting up Women's Aid Organisation which helps " women fleeing from domestic violence", not necessarily victims of "wife beating". I sumbit that the alternative I provided " that Ivy Josiah led opposition to domestic violence against women in Malaysia?" which is factually accurate and encyclopedic in tone, unlike the current hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This wording was discussed in the nomination and then approved. TRM should not get to impose his personal view just by being the last to touch it as a consensus has already been established. In the hook, we want simple, plain language, not wordy euphemisms per WP:DYK which advises " please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in". The shorter form is therefore best. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's inaccurate and unencyclopedic. Other than that, it's fine. Please now allow other, uninvolved people have their opinion heard. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's easy to find the phrase "wife beating" used in encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse. It's plain English and that's recommended by the manual of style, "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is inaccurate. It's not about "wives" it's about women. There's a good reason we don't have an article entitled "wife beating". Now please allow other, uninvolved people to have their opinion heard. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Rambling Man on this. The term "wife beating" does not appear in the article and the reasoning behind the comment by Edwardx supporting use of the term in the hook could be considered as OR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Notice how the editors who discussed the hook in the nomination have been pinged selectively, excluding those who supported it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Notice that I pinged the nominator, the updater, the reviewer and the promoter. That's more than sufficient, but if you wish to elicit comments from people who favour your position, feel free to canvass them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wife beating is a blue link because it is a common usage. It appears in the OED ("The action of beating one's wife or female partner, esp. habitually") with citations ranging from 1650 to 2014. It is a short and punchy way of conveying the concept, which is what we want in a hook. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the article, this is not about "wife beating", which isn't even mentioned in the article. This isn't about punchiness, we should never toss out verifiability for your version of "punchiness". Wife beating is a "blue link" because it's a redirect to an encyclopedic article about domestic violence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The article states (unsourced, but the WAO's own website agrees) that the Women's Aid Organization also assists trafficked women and migrant domestic workers who are being abused, so it might better be phrased as "opposition to violence against women" ... Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I started this article at a women's event. I do not care about the exact wording as long as the meaning stands. It is typical that men feel they need to argue over such a minor matter. Yuitsum (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    How unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so we have one person in favour of the original hook, three people in favour of changing it, and who doesn't care. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM; we're running an encyclopedia here. As hooky as "wife beating" is, it's not in the article/source and it's not encyclopedic. BTW the article refers to "battered women and children", while the source only says "domestic violence". I think the article should be toned down too. Yoninah (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless they were in favour of non-wife beating, the DYK is inaccurate. And not in the article anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wife beating" is a subset of "domestic violence against women" and "violence against women." Using the former as a shorthand for the latter excludes many women Ivy Josiah sought to help. It could also be read as suggesting Josiah was only concerned about violence against women perpetrated by their husbands, excluding (say) family violence from father / uncles / brothers, etc. The alleged consensus at the nomination page is illusory as the issues TRM notes were raised and not properly addressed. The hook should not have been given a tick, let alone be promoted, in my opinion, and edit warring in the prep over it is absurd. TRM's opening statement in the thread is mildly worded and correct. If the original hook goes onto the main page, it will not survive long after the inevitable posting to WP:ERRORS. Black Kite's comments underline the scope of the WAO as far beyond only wife beating, and argue for a hook that notes the breadth of behaviours that Josiah opposes and the groups that the WAO helps. EdChem (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think that's overwhelming consensus in favour of changing the hook before it runs. If no-one does it soon, suggest we pull the hook and pass it back to noms with a link to this useful discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everyone saying that "wife beating" is not the same thing as domestic violence or violence against women, and have changed the hook in prep accordingly. Feel free to tweak that wording. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ONUnicorn. Given the depth and breadth of opposition to the hook that was passed, we probably need to work out how to prevent such controversial hooks being passed and promoted in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, ONUnicorn, but as noted above and in the source, violence against children is also part of the organization's mandate. I'm returning this to the noms page and referencing this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pediatric Symptom Checklist

I reviewed the DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Pediatric Symptom Checklist and the only issue that I can find is that the hook in the article isn't directly cited. The editor hasn't edited since May 2 and I do see the hook fact in the first reference, but I don't know if I can add that citation as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: You certainly can. And you can make other minor changes and still finish the review. If you feel you have edited an article to the point that you could be considered a co-creator, then add your name to the DYK credit line and call on another reviewer to complete the review. Yoninah (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Christmas Carol

Two reviewers questioned the mundanity of the hook but the nominator refused to consider any alternatives. A third editor promoted the hook to the image slot. I initiated a short discussion at the promoter's talk page, which was joined by others. In light of a small sample of consensus, I returned the hook to the noms page. Anyone who wishes to weigh in on the hook can comment at Template:Did you know nominations/A Christmas Carol. Generally DYK reviewers are willing to concede to a nominator's hook if s/he feels very strongly about it, but to feel very strongly about a boring hook doesn't help the project at all. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the outcome was that the article turned to be ineligible as it had been repeatedly run on the main page before. That's something to look out for with such vital topics. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WTF?

Too late now, but how on earth did "... that the 2017 French presidential election was not fought between left and right, but between open and closed?" get on the main page? This is merely one [1] political analysts opinion, stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice for 12 hours, yet not mentioned at all in the presidential election article. If DYK wants to be removed from the main page as some have suggested, it's doing a good job with complete nonsense like this. User:Smurrayinchester's original hook was OK - why was it changed to ALT1? Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When does the clock start ticking?

"DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days... Created...". But I recently made an article, and it was nominated for deletion and is currently under discussion. Yeah I know "nominated for deletion" doesn't sound like a good recommendation for a DYK, but in this case article quality is not an issue (it has plenty of material, notability, good refs, etc. to meet all the DYK criteria) but rather other questions (whether WP:NOTNEWS applies, basically). I assume we don't want an article currently at AfD to go to DYK. For all I know the discussion will be extended, but even if not the "seven days" may have expired by the time the AfD banner is removed, so if they article passes AfD it will have "aged out" of DYK. Is there an exception for cases like this? De facto by practice or written down somewhere? Or no exception? Herostratus (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You can still nominate it for DYK within 7 days of creation even if it is under AFD, it just means the review gets held until the AFD finishes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominations

I am completely new at the DYK section .Can anybody tell me if Narada sting operation can be made into a DYK now.I know its time limit has expired but since I was unaware of this process can some leeway be givenFORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 05:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The article seems to have been moved into mainspace on 4th May and there was some sort of merge on 11th May, so the nomination is outside the time limit of seven days. However, some discretion is given, especially to editors new to the DYK process, so you might get lucky! However, I should warn you that the hook would have to be carefully chosen so as not to be unduly negative about living people or allege criminal activity, unless the people involved have been convicted of the offences. If you decide to nominate the article, you should do so as soon as possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Done a day ago.But as per the message underneath the date at which I placed my nom(May 4) is already archived@Cwmhiraeth:FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 07:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The nomination has been made satisfactorily and someone will review it in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived many days ago; here is an updated list of 37 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 202 nominations, of which 75 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the ones from early April that need a reviewer's attention.

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) 17:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are articles padded in order to meet length requirements

Brownheaded ash sawfly was recently featured on the main page. Now that points have been scored, can it be edited? Specifically can non-reliably sourced, non-notable information about how a researcher once, in 1933, observed a specific species of bird bash its larvae 18 times against a tree trunk before noiselessly eating it and noted it in notes to an some unnamed article, but not the article itself, be removed now that the length requirement for being on the main page has been met and awards passed around, and since the actual source of this singular observation is not in the citation?

Seriously, is there any limit to what one can pad an article with to meet the length requirements? This improperly cited, non-notable (even the researcher didn't elaborate or include it in the actual article) information has now been copied to hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors. You're creating cyber hits, which appear to amount to notability by spreading non-notable information in order to pad articles to meet length requirements.

Shoot the messenger. But some if us get tired of reading crap that originated on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great idea, but it is not a social network. Get your kudos on Twitter and Instagram.

That a researcher once saw two birds do something 18 times does not make it notable and encyclopedic information. Every single thing ever published in a research article (welp, the source is not named, so it might not be a research article, this is an assumption), does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Can I remove this now, or does the length have to stay for DYK after it has been on the front page?

--2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

<personal pet peeve mode>Say WP:UNDUE as "notability" does not apply to article content.</personal pet peeve mode> You are absolutely allowed to remove that content at any point if you think it is undue information. I can't say that I am familiar enough with bird behaviour to know whether "bashing larvae against twigs" is noteworthy behaviour - to me one would simply chew and swallow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I mix up the lingo, but this is a real distinction. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I very much doubt this information was added to "pad" the article, even without it, it would be bordering on the minimum 1500 characters, and you don't need permission to edit articles on Wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, I was told on the article talk page that the article would be too short if this information was removed. Only if I found real noteworthy information am I allowed to remove the padding. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't try to pad the article. I even said multiple times that I was fine with the DYK not running if the hook was considered to not be acceptable. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't the hook, thankfully, that was run. Can you either remove the information or fully source it at the very least? An anonymous page from an archive is not a source. The pages you selected don't say the journal name, if you are the one who added this info. It essentially says, "Two birds hit an insect against a tree according to notes at the end of an unnamed book in a library." --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"At this point, this is a relatively small article, so I'm all for bringing in more sources and adding more info. .... If we can find better material, than I'm all for replacement. I don't think just removing it actually benefits the article in itself though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)"

Replacement with better material, but not removal. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Special holding area

How long ahead can one hold a DYK hook? I have one for the end of Novemeber that I am waiting on to expand and promote.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, we just had this question a little ways above. As it says in the Special Occasions area, six weeks is the maximum. So if you really want to hold it for the end of November, wait until mid-to-late October to start expanding it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I wasn't around for that discussion, but it is kind of perverse incentive to set up a system encouraging editors to hold off on improving the encyclopedia. We hold up to a year for April Fools. ~ Rob13Talk 04:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13, why is it so important to wait for an anniversary? We could run the hook in June. April Fools' Day is an odd duck, and the sort of oddities that one gets for that date aren't that easily come by, if I understand the rationale behind it. Special occasions used to be special; now it seems any old thing can be saved for a certain date. I wasn't around when this aspect of DYK was set up very many years ago, but I imagine the reason we don't save things for months and months is that DYK is supposed to be for recently created/expanded/improved work; having hooks then sit around for months on end rather defeats the purpose. We actually don't encourage people to hold off on improving the encyclopedia; if they decide they'd rather work on something else now and save an article for later, well, I suppose that could be perverse, but that particular improvement does eventually come and others come sooner than they might. Or the planned occasion could get pre-empted by someone else who expands the article sooner. WikiCup has its own incentives that I imagine have delayed the appearance of improvements; I'm sure people have worked on articles offline so they could come out swinging on January 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I doubt that, since the early rounds don't require many points. I suppose people could hold back contributions between rounds, but I haven't noticed that. I don't find it important, but some article creators do, and ultimately we should be encouraging content creation in any way possible. I don't have particularly strong feelings here, but I do think the incentive structure is weird on this one. ~ Rob13Talk 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'd agree the incentives were weird if this were a widespread occurrence; but it's not. There really isn't a generic incentives to delay improvement at DYK, unless a person is really hung up on a specific date, and as far as I can tell there's only a handful of such hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

Not going to pull this, because Tachs is in my pool for the Wikicup and it could be seen as a COI. But, our hook for Vijay Kumar Kapahi seems to be based on a dodgy web source and on Kapahi's own paper. This is not, in my opinion, enough to credit a scientist with evolving a new anything. With no disrespect intended to anybody, all scientists tend to think that they have got something new. We need reliable secondary sources for this kind of stuff. @Tachs, IronGargoyle, and Cwmhiraeth: Vanamonde (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, IronGargoyle, and Cwmhiraeth:, ALT1, the selected hook, is referenced by the citation of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize, one of the highest Indian science prizes, given by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the apex body scientific research in India as well as the scientist's profile on Indian National Science Academy, which is one of the three major Indian science academies. For the other hook, the science paper related to the hook fact was only a secondary source. Since that hook was not the one promoted, it would be inappropriate to discuss that matter here, so, I am not commenting further on that. --[email protected] (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. On further examination, it would appear that IronGargoyle only approved ALT1, but the original hook was promoted. Cwm, would you mind fixing that? I'd question whether this hook is interesting enough, but that's a much messier discussion. To a non-specialist, the hook reads "a physicist did some physics". Vanamonde (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the hook to ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=782864430"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know
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