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 queuesT: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.

Back to 24 hours?

[edit]

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 January

[edit]

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 January

[edit]

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be showing up as verified??

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Goodman (basketball) is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch, User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, User:Panamitsu, maybe User:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when 2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Does your edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
    5 Nov Nominated
    7 Nov Approved
    25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hilst, see ALT9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-Australia New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject being Australian New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate main page underreprentation by these category sizes Category:FA-Class New Zealand articles (count 57) and Category:FA-Class Australia articles (count 478). So the WP:TFA ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is not due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Zoe Smith

[edit]

@BennyOnTheLoose, AmateurHi$torian, and SL93: I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Wikipedia's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Wikipedia birthday thing sounds great as well :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the standards given on WP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Wikipedia's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India

[edit]

@Za-ari-masen and Surtsicna: Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer I added the word "monk". SL93 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoflow

[edit]

First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one was), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in Martin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations.[1][2][3] RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ scholarship.law.columbia.edu https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship. Retrieved 12 January 2025. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
  3. ^ "June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz". Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Retrieved 12 January 2025.

RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Roach (bishop)

[edit]

@Kingoflettuce, Darth Stabro, and Hilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casey is dead, cannot find anything for Schwartz.
Perhaps as an ALT1: "... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation at World Youth Day 1993 when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Launchballer 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Thamirys Nunes/Minha Criança Trans

[edit]

@Skyshifter, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF fine.--Launchballer 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl De Sousa

[edit]

@Queen of Hearts, Generalissima, and Hilst: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, done. charlotte 👸♥ 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Chongguo

[edit]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: One of the notes needs a citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the wuwu year is. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed these Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burt (crocodile)

[edit]

@CFA and WikiOriginal-9: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 hook sets?

[edit]

We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 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) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Donum Montford (nom)

[edit]

@Generalissima, PCN02WPS, and SL93: both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trucker (nom)

[edit]

I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings @CanonNi, JJonahJackalope, and SL93:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29:, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely warp drive and maglocks - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could WP:IAR this one? Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could add more to the article from the XboxEra source to do this hook ... that Star Trucker "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? SL93 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of Star Trucker have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be this article. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1269809415"