Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 10:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 10 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Christmas DYK sets
[edit]With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?
If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used:
- Template:Did you know nominations/Pflaumentoffel: Food, needs a review
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Christmas Invasion: TV,
currently in Prep 6at SOHA - Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk: Ship,
ApprovedSOHA
In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:
Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). @Z1720: Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm planning to do a nativity painting. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Dickinson pumpkin. I just made a Christmas hook for this. Thriley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I nominated this, and thus a second pair of eyes is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will do when I'm less frazzled, probably the morning.--Launchballer 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--Launchballer 23:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Danke. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--Launchballer 23:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will do when I'm less frazzled, probably the morning.--Launchballer 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Article needs a citation directly after the hook fact. Tagging PARAKANYAA, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 shuffled the information around to fix the issue, hopefully? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, this looks good now. Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 shuffled the information around to fix the issue, hopefully? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Do song lyrics meet or not meet WP:DYKFICTION?
[edit]I remember there being some kind of dispute if song lyrics count as "in-universe" or not, and interpretations seem to vary depending on the user. Can we get a clear answer on this? Asking because of the Dune hook that's currently in Prep 3 and how it's a hook based on the song's lyrics. Courtesy pings to nominator Tokisaki Kurumi, reviwer OlifanofmrTennant, and promoter Crisco 1492, although this question is more of a general question and not specifically about Dune. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but the way the hook is written avoids DYKFICTION. The hook tells the reader what the song is about rather than discussing the fictional world of the song. Others may disagree. This resembles the previous discussion about the science fiction hook that ran several weeks back. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- We really need some kind of clarification or footnote regarding that guideline, at least for edge cases like songs, because the line between "in-universe" and "real world" can be really blurry. I'm not sure if editor discretion is sufficient if there can be disagreements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- My take, and it could very well be wrong, is that the hook under discussion highlights the theme of the song, not the fictional world, a subtle difference. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- We really need some kind of clarification or footnote regarding that guideline, at least for edge cases like songs, because the line between "in-universe" and "real world" can be really blurry. I'm not sure if editor discretion is sufficient if there can be disagreements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would say it's a violation, because the hook as it is refers to conditions on a fictional planet. However, if the hook was altered to refer to, say, what the fictional planet is reportedly a metaphor for, ergo, the "desert-like atmosphere" supposedly prevailing at the time on the Japanese video site Niconico, that would not be a violation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That’s the theme of the song, in other words, "the end of life", a very real thing. It is separate from the fictional element itself, although the story will express that theme as a consistent thread. Themes aren’t fictional, IMO. The hook is saying, the message of the song is the end of life. That’s taking one step back from the fictional story and looking at it from a level once removed. If I write a story about a robot left behind on an alien planet trying to find a connection with alien life while finding itself alone, and I say the theme is isolation, am I talking about the fictional story or the message it is conveying? Robots, alien life, those things are fiction, but if I write a hook saying the theme is isolation, I am not talking about fiction, I’m one step removed from it commenting about the work in its totality, not within its universe. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The song lyrics are about the end of life on an imaginary planet. There is no claim in the article that the lyrics are about the end of life in general - quite the opposite, in that the writer says the planet was a metaphor for conditions on the website Niconico. So the hook is both inaccurate and a violation of DYKFICTION. Changing the hook to make it about the metaphor identified by the writer would eliminate those issues, although perhaps it wouldn't make for the world's greatest hook. But regardless, the hook as it is doesn't meet the criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would agree that is a problem. The article says "the theme of the song is a desert planet where life is dying and 'no grass will grow for the next millennium'", but the hook says "lyrics about the demise of life", while the source says nothing about the theme. Looking even closer into this, it appears that the end of life is indeed a metaphor, not a theme as the article currently says, for several different things, some controversial. So yes, based on your explanation, the hook should be pulled or changed. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled.--Launchballer 15:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer and Viriditas: I am not quite sure, but, according to the source, there is this: "where life has eroded and 'no grass will grow for the next millennium.'" (from Japan Times) ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled.--Launchballer 15:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would agree that is a problem. The article says "the theme of the song is a desert planet where life is dying and 'no grass will grow for the next millennium'", but the hook says "lyrics about the demise of life", while the source says nothing about the theme. Looking even closer into this, it appears that the end of life is indeed a metaphor, not a theme as the article currently says, for several different things, some controversial. So yes, based on your explanation, the hook should be pulled or changed. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The song lyrics are about the end of life on an imaginary planet. There is no claim in the article that the lyrics are about the end of life in general - quite the opposite, in that the writer says the planet was a metaphor for conditions on the website Niconico. So the hook is both inaccurate and a violation of DYKFICTION. Changing the hook to make it about the metaphor identified by the writer would eliminate those issues, although perhaps it wouldn't make for the world's greatest hook. But regardless, the hook as it is doesn't meet the criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That’s the theme of the song, in other words, "the end of life", a very real thing. It is separate from the fictional element itself, although the story will express that theme as a consistent thread. Themes aren’t fictional, IMO. The hook is saying, the message of the song is the end of life. That’s taking one step back from the fictional story and looking at it from a level once removed. If I write a story about a robot left behind on an alien planet trying to find a connection with alien life while finding itself alone, and I say the theme is isolation, am I talking about the fictional story or the message it is conveying? Robots, alien life, those things are fiction, but if I write a hook saying the theme is isolation, I am not talking about fiction, I’m one step removed from it commenting about the work in its totality, not within its universe. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's a violation, but more importantly, the sort of violation DYKFICTION is meant to stop. The rest of the hook is a boring word salad, and the addition of the theme of the song's lyrics—which could be anything in human conception—shouldn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Themes are extremely limited, in the same way that there are only seven (or so) basic plots. Technically, "end of life" falls under the "death and mortality" theme, which is part of 20 or so common themes. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- If that is true (I doubt it) why is noting that this is one of twenty common themes interesting Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good question. I find it interesting because it illustrates the concept of a universal narrative structure, but this is often considered controversial and the subject of much dispute. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- As another edge case, consider the following which caught my attention today:
- ... that Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele (pictured) has referred to himself as the "coolest dictator in the world"?
- The article says that this self-description was meant "ironically" suggesting that it was a joke or parody and so not meant to be taken seriously. And it was posted on Twitter, which is a silly place. The hook strips out all this context and so encourages the reader to take it straight.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, independent news sources also describe him as an autocrat, so whether or not he labelled himself as such ironically, it seems there is some substance to the label. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a DYKHOOKBLP violation; it can't possibly be undue to describe a currently serving dictator as a dictator.--Launchballer 15:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not what sort of politician he is but whether he is the "coolest" such in the world. This seems to be a fanciful bit of theatre, rather like Donald Trump describing himself as "a very stable genius". Such self-promotion is hype and that seems similar to the fictional issue in that the claims can easily be outrageous because they are not real. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be a fanciful bit of theatre. Indeed, and I think readers have the intelligence to recognize that. Regardless, it's a quote that will surely attract plenty of attention, giving people an opportunity to learn something useful about El Salvadoran politics. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- And BTW, no, it is not akin to a fictional issue. The hook describes a real-world event - that politician X said Y - so clearly DYKFICTION is not applicable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I imagine this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think DYKFICTION is a stupid rule and would love to see it revoked. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I personally feel like the spirit is good, but the implementation ends up causing trouble; the hook that started this had real-world applicability, but because part of it dealt with a fictional narrative, the whole thing was canned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how the non-fictional bit is interesting in the slightest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you think the implementation of DYKFICTION causes trouble, you should have seen how things were before it was implemented.
- And I'm afraid I must disagree with you regarding the aforementioned hook Chris. The problem IMO was not so much that it violated DYKFICTION as it was that the hook simply wasn't an accurate reflection of the article contents. Gatoclass (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I remember 2011/2012. I still find myself more aligned with Roy than having regular "this violates DYKFICTION" reports for items that clearly have real-world connections. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- DYKFICTION was added way back in 2009, so if you started here in 2011, you would not have experienced what things were like before it was added.
- However, in a nutshell - when users are permitted to use fictional elements of creative works in their hooks, you end up with, for example, an endless plethora of ho-hum hooks about video game "plots" which almost all feature the same basic elements (good guys defending world against evildoers ad nauseam) - and no clear criteria for, or agreement on, how to separate the occasional arguably worthwhile example from all the duds. Which in turn means either endless arguments about whether or not the plot devices are unusual enough to qualify under the interest criterion, or alternatively (and more commonly) dud hooks making the main page day after day that are an embarrassment to the project.
- So while there might be a very occasional fictional device that would serve to make a decent hook, the amount of energy conserved, and the level of quality maintained, by DYKFICTION vastly outweighs its very occasional inconveniences. Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad nobody brought up DYKFICTION for my Julio and Marisol nom. RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nor should they have IMO, because that is a creative presentation of a serious real-world issue. Gatoclass (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad nobody brought up DYKFICTION for my Julio and Marisol nom. RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I imagine this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think DYKFICTION is a stupid rule and would love to see it revoked. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, independent news sources also describe him as an autocrat, so whether or not he labelled himself as such ironically, it seems there is some substance to the label. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- With the hook that inspired the question now pulled, we still need to have the original question clarified, as in how to treat song lyrics when it comes to DYKFICTION. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's the wrong question to ask. DYKFICTION is meant to prevent a common subclass of uninteresting hooks: hooks that are simply regurgitations of someone else's creativity. Unoriginal and boring. If we make a hook that just recaps the plot/subject of a song, then yeah, that's a DYKFICTION fail. But – provided that music journalism is a functioning institution that produces decent analysis, which it isn't and doesn't – there are lots of interesting ways to analyze lyrics and music, a lot of interesting stylistic choices that are certainly something the reader might find interesting. I find it fascinating that Olivia Rodrigo uses a car as a backing track in "drivers license". Less interestingly, "Mr. Brightside" sets the listener up for a sexually explicit reference, but doesn't follow through on it, just by playing with the rhyme scheme.
- In general, I think DYKFICTION is meant to stop regurgitation and boringness. If you find a hook that isn't just repackaging someone else's work and ripping off their creativity, it's worth considering more holistically whether the hook is actually interesting and should be passed as such. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought we had already dealt with this, but since it apparently isn't clear yet, I would say DYKFICTION is violated if the lyrics describe fictional events and the hook just basically describes what the lyrics say, or as leeky puts it, just "repackages and regurgitates" them. If on the other hand, one has reliable sources that, say, analyze themes or deeper meanings in those lyrics, or relates them to real-world events, that would probably be permissible material for a hook, though obviously it would still have to meet the interest requirement. Hope that helps - Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 and Crisco 1492: The article says "Some coverage ..." which got turned into "regularly covered". That's a stronger statement which may not be justified. RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source says, "In China during the first half of the twentieth century, many newspapers circulated in big cities, but only Crystal in Shanghai and Heavenly Wind in Tianjin regularly had discussions and stories about same-sex relations." Article also has "The Crystal was one of few contemporary Chinese publications to regularly cover same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ issues." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so the article needs to be updated to say "regularly", and then it will support the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Article already does with "The Crystal was one of few contemporary Chinese publications to regularly cover same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ issues". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that works, thanks for walking me through it. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Article already does with "The Crystal was one of few contemporary Chinese publications to regularly cover same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ issues". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so the article needs to be updated to say "regularly", and then it will support the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Lbal, Viriditas, and Crisco 1492: I originally was going to change "passerby" (singular) to "passersby" (since the implication is that this happened to lots of people), but it isn't people passing by, it's various floating vessels being pulled along the canal by mules where those mules end up in the water, not people riding mules and person and steed getting pulled into the canal and needing rescue. "Passerby" is a "one who" definition, not a "something that" word, so it's not appropriate in this context. What's happening is a swing bridge deliberately being opening late and sometimes entangling the tow lines being pulled by the mules, so the mules are pulled into the water and have to be rescued by the locals. A possible edit: replace "profited from passerby by dragging their mules" with "profited from passing vessels by dragging their tow mules". Thoughts? Suggestions? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that sounds good. Lbal (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Updated the hook based on agreement above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine X-eye, Rjjiii, and AirshipJungleman29: I don't see where this is in either of the sources and there appears to be a couple of sentences straight out of sources (see Earwig). Also, in trying to cram six images into one slot, I would argue that none of them show up particularly well at a small size. (If you want to go for views, I suggest using the video.)--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about the image. Maybe just crop out the one dog in the upper-left and use that? I'm not a huge fan of using videos; they don't have the immediate impact that a still image does. RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer & RoySmith, at some point the nomination had this image:
- Also, do the quotes from the sources on the nomination not cover the hook fact? Rjjiii (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do wish we had a better hook. There are so many cool fun facts about dogs we could include, but this is one of the most well-known things about dog history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I think dogs are going to get high views no matter what we run. (If I had my way, we'd be running the dog meat hook suggested in the nom, but that technically would be about dog meat, so would technically fail DYKHOOKSTYLE.) What do you suggest?--Launchballer 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer:
- ... that some studies suggest dogs can sense and align themselves with Earth's magnetic field? (the sourcing wouldn't pass MEDRS, unfortunately.)
- ... that dogs have much more sensitive noses and ears than humans, but have trouble distinguishing red from green?
- ... that dogs can see color, but have trouble distinguishing red from green? (is common misconception, but misconception would have to be sourced and added to article)
- ... that dogs can develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? :(
- ... that dogs have served as shepherds, police, mayors, pest control, and astronauts? (mayors would have to be inserted and sourced as well)
- theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw "that dogs prefer to defecate with their spines aligned in a north–south position", but that probably fails WP:DYKGRAT. The PTSD hook is punchier and definitely checks out at least to the American Kennel Club. @Wolverine X-eye, Rjjiii, and AirshipJungleman29:, what is your opinion of this?--Launchballer 12:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of Everyone Poops myself, but it's totally your call :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should let your dog decide which fact they'd like to see, but as for me, I think the original fact is interesting but maybe, just maybe, my judgment here is off. I wouldn't mind a change in the hook, as long as it's somewhat more intriguing than the original like that fact about dogs wagging their tails in a certain direction. I'm sure this is the most popular article DYK has seen in a long time, so I get where the enthusiasm is coming from. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 13:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did the GA review and so, I think, cannot technically approve a hook. Di (they-them) did the DYK review, so I'll ping them in, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I think that
... that dogs have much more sensitive noses and ears than humans, but have trouble distinguishing red from green?
is my favorite of the ones proposed here because it provides a nice sense of contrast between the two facts, with dogs having superior senses in some ways and inferior senses in others. All of the hooks seem cool, but this is my favorite. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)- I like that hook as well and it checks out. If there are no objections by the end of the day, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 15:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you're looking for something pithier: "... that dogs are dichromats?" RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I saw that hook, my first instinct would be to either click on 'dichromats' or to google it.--Launchballer 23:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped.--Launchballer 23:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you're looking for something pithier: "... that dogs are dichromats?" RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I like that hook as well and it checks out. If there are no objections by the end of the day, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 15:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I think that
- I'm a big fan of Everyone Poops myself, but it's totally your call :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw "that dogs prefer to defecate with their spines aligned in a north–south position", but that probably fails WP:DYKGRAT. The PTSD hook is punchier and definitely checks out at least to the American Kennel Club. @Wolverine X-eye, Rjjiii, and AirshipJungleman29:, what is your opinion of this?--Launchballer 12:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer:
- @Theleekycauldron: I think dogs are going to get high views no matter what we run. (If I had my way, we'd be running the dog meat hook suggested in the nom, but that technically would be about dog meat, so would technically fail DYKHOOKSTYLE.) What do you suggest?--Launchballer 11:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but I think
would work even better. RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Looks good, "examples" needs to be singular. Rjjiii (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done RoySmith (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I noticed that dog had been indef semi-protected 14 years ago. I'm not a fan of indef protection, so I've put it back to unprotected. Let's see what happens. We can always reprotect it if necessary. RoySmith (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't see it in the first source but I do see "The researchers determined that dogs were probably domesticated from now-extinct wolves between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago — before humans began farming around 10,000 years ago" in the second. I recommend truncating the hook at wolves.--Launchballer 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer, I've slightly expanded the language in the article and added a mention and link to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog, the earliest widely accepted remains of a dog to have been found, dating to between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago. The source says the remains date to about 15,000 years ago, but following the citations, it's clear that those papers are saying between 14 and 15 thousand years ago. The source also talks about the genetic evidence for a much older domestication. If this is not clear enough I'll list several other sources below:
- The oldest fossils generally agreed to be domestic dogs date to about 14,000 years, but several disputed fossils more than twice that age may also be dogs or at least their no longer entirely wolf ancestors.
- Archeological evidence for the coexistence of dogs with humans has been identified from as early as 14–17,000 years before present (ybp) in Russia, (Sablin and Khlopachev, 2002); 14,000 ybp in Germany (Nobis, 1979); and 12,000 ybp in Israel (Tchernov and Valla, 1997; Davis and Valla, 1978; Dayan, 1994).
- The fossil jaw and teeth of a domesticated dog, recovered from a cave in Iraq, have been found to be about 14,000 years old. This is the oldest known evidence for man's taming of a wild animal—the wolf in this case.
- Wolf domestication is seen as the result of 2 interwoven processes originating >14,000 years ago during our hunter-gatherer nomadic period.
- We can replace the article's citation with one of these, if needed to meet WP:V, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not Science Direct, that's coming up underlined on WP:UPSD, but something's there and it checks out, so I'm happy with that. Two further sentences appear in their respective sources (see Earwig); who copied who?--Launchballer 02:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye: Both of these are copied from cited sources, and the facts should be re-stated: [1][2] Each one is a single sentence copied nearly verbatim, by two different editors. @Launchballer: Thanks for following up. Of those, this is probably the most reliable and the most relevant if a source needs to be added: [3] Also, the ScienceDirect excerpt is from page 277 in this book. I somehow missed that ScienceDirect's "topics" pages are curated by a chatbot and exist on dubious copyright grounds, so thanks for pointing that out. Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rephrased both. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye: Both of these are copied from cited sources, and the facts should be re-stated: [1][2] Each one is a single sentence copied nearly verbatim, by two different editors. @Launchballer: Thanks for following up. Of those, this is probably the most reliable and the most relevant if a source needs to be added: [3] Also, the ScienceDirect excerpt is from page 277 in this book. I somehow missed that ScienceDirect's "topics" pages are curated by a chatbot and exist on dubious copyright grounds, so thanks for pointing that out. Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not Science Direct, that's coming up underlined on WP:UPSD, but something's there and it checks out, so I'm happy with that. Two further sentences appear in their respective sources (see Earwig); who copied who?--Launchballer 02:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer, I've slightly expanded the language in the article and added a mention and link to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog, the earliest widely accepted remains of a dog to have been found, dating to between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago. The source says the remains date to about 15,000 years ago, but following the citations, it's clear that those papers are saying between 14 and 15 thousand years ago. The source also talks about the genetic evidence for a much older domestication. If this is not clear enough I'll list several other sources below:
- @RoySmith: That went well.--Launchballer 02:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't see it in the first source but I do see "The researchers determined that dogs were probably domesticated from now-extinct wolves between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago — before humans began farming around 10,000 years ago" in the second. I recommend truncating the hook at wolves.--Launchballer 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I noticed that dog had been indef semi-protected 14 years ago. I'm not a fan of indef protection, so I've put it back to unprotected. Let's see what happens. We can always reprotect it if necessary. RoySmith (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done RoySmith (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Michael G. Lind and Seefooddiet: I just added two {{cn}} tags that will need rectifying before this can run.--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492 fixed this, so I believe this is good to go.--Launchballer 02:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that I did prep-to-queue for this last month; its title was the problem and that's been fixed, so I will rely on my earlier review.--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Soman, Crisco 1492, and NightWolf1223: There's an unsourced footnote which should probably be cited. (And I hate that WP:CLUMP on a cellular level, however much it isn't a DYK issue.)--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Soman, if you have a ref... otherwise a fundamental part of me wants to hide it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, having that long of a list in the footnote detracts from the article and is bordering on indescriminate. I would not be opposed to removal. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The ref for the footnote is the same as the ref for all the geographic delimitation of the constituencies, the Manipur Gazette. I find no other way to express the the delimitation of the constituency than to include the list, I have no euphemism for this group of villages. --Soman (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, having that long of a list in the footnote detracts from the article and is bordering on indescriminate. I would not be opposed to removal. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 10:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Me and @AirshipJungleman29: disagree as to the notability for Anna Holland; he believes that they do not meet WP:CRIMINAL but I believe that they meet WP:CRIMINAL#unusual crime. I'd appreciate another opinion on this. Also pinging @Crisco 1492: as reviewer.--Launchballer 02:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- At time of review, they seemed to be an edge case, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't write enough about crime to have the precedent of WP:CRIMINAL memorized. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- When in doubt, AFD. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- When in doubt, AFD. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
[edit]The previous list was archived yesterday afternoon, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 6. We have a total of 307 nominations, of which 163 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has decreased by 44 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Leather
- October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Anastasia Somoza
- October 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Ratnākara
- October 15: Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Batman by-election
October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Lyncoya Jackson- October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen
- October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Izvestiya Soveta rabochikh i soldatskikh deputatov goroda Askhabada
- October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Mwene Muji
- October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Revant Himatsingka
October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron Kennedy- October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign policy of the Masoud Pezeshkian administration
- October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/A Nail Clipper Romance
- October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilopez Kabayao
- October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Chromakopia
- October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Thielscher
October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Suggs- October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/7th National Eucharistic Congress (United States)
- October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Gifted (2022 novella)
- October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Details Cannot Body Wants
October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Backflip (figure skating)- October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Zhu Baosan
- November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Museiliha inscription
- November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack
- November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Moe's Books
- November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 400 metres
Other nominations
- November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Clifton House School (two articles)
- November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/James Michael Reardon
- November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Pro-Fatimid conspiracy against Saladin
- November 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Oasis (Minecraft clone)
- November 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Gohobi
- November 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Dostrotime
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) 20:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I approved this one, so somebody else will need to review it. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article uses a Wiktionary link for "mouthpiece". Should the hook?--Launchballer 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- My opinion is no, due to the poor quality of the Wiktionary defintion on the one hand, which tells me it should be removed from the article as well. On the other hand, the article is using the term loosely, and a close reading of the text shows that it was an allegation waged by an opposition party to make claims about propaganda, which might not be accurate. However, one could conceivably link to state media, which is true, and yet has other connotations that lend itself well to "government mouthpiece". However, is is unlikely that ZIZ is factually classified as "state media", so I must rule that out as well. The article states that ZIZ is public media that relies on a revenue model. Best to leave it unlinked due to the nature of the claims at hand. Just my opinion, of course. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, Elias Ziade, and Dwkaminski: The article says the funds were "intended for", which got turned into "were used for" in the hook. That's not quite the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)