Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Welcome to the Wikipedia:Did you know talk page

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

Main (T:DYK)
Rules (WP:DYK)
Suggestions (T:TDYK)
Queues (T:DYK/Q)
Archives (T:DYK/A)
Discussion (WT:DYK)

Typo or grammar error

There is a typo (maybe a grammar mistake) in the first Did you know hook on the main page, about "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash". The part of the sentence with the mistake is "...inspired by Bernie Sanders in which is dedicated to political posts...", and the corrected sentence would say "...inspired by Bernie Sanders which is dedicated to political posts..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TK421bsod (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

updation

It was 3/12/20 when it was last updated, can it be updated again. Muchas gracias. 47.16.99.72 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally our did your know only gets updated every couple months. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

James Polk has bad grammar

It currently says "... that James K. Polk has the shortest retirement than any other President of the United States when he died three months after leaving office?"

It should be "... that James K. Polk had a shorter retirement than any other President of the United States when he died three months after leaving office?" or "... that James K. Polk had the shortest retirement of any President of the United States when he died three months after leaving office?" Naddruf (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vista Tower appears to be complete already

The hook for Vista Tower (Chicago) says that it "will be" the tallest skyscraper designed by a female architect. It appears that it has already been constructed, so this is outdated. [1] [2]. Naddruf (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Typo or grammar error (trail > trial)

Third hook today: "Pope Formosus [...] put on trail". 89.8.158.121 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Frequency of DYK updates

The paradigm for this wiki seems that DYK updates are once every month. I think since we already have for queues with multiple hooks, some of which are already full(though the holding area has not been used), perhaps it would be a good idea to update them once every week(or once every two weeks) instead. I think that doing this would maybe bring more attention to DYKs as they are being updated more frequently. This could be done until DYK has less active users, but I think there are a few people who seem to intend to stick around for a while. What are your thoughts? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this decision, we have seven queues on hold, and I nominated Little Trees 2 months ago, and it will be on the DYK page in 5 months. That's more than half a year of waiting! Now that the DYK project is becoming more active and more queues are being created, I think that this is a necessary change.

@Ferien @Eptalon @TDKR Chicago 101 Would you agree that this should be changed? Lallint (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint: We could start another discussion on Simple talk to see what others think? That's what I did last time and it was kept at one per month. Do you have any opinion on how often you'd like DYK to be updated? --Ferien (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ferien Certainly not once a week, perhaps once per 14 days? That would mean we still have 3 months worth of hooks left, and considering how often new hooks are added, about 3 - 5 per month, that would mean we'd have enough to keep going, as to not overproduce them and cause a massive backlog, and instead of 7 queues there could be 2 or 3. If that would be cutting too much maybe it could be 3 weeks? Lallint (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, maybe two updates for every month. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint Unfortunately, looking at the activity in DYK right now, I think that increasing the frequency is not viable right now. —sgd Feohfang (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Variety

We should try to avoid having too many articles of a similar type on any one list. The present list is dominated almost completely by biographies. It doesn't look good that way, although we're all aware that probably the most pages are biographies. More variety in the choice of topics would make the lists more interesting. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Partially incorrect/incomplete DYK

Regarding

• ... that U.S. Senator Ed Markey is the first person to beat a member of the Kennedy family in an election?

In the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election Democratic Primary, J. B. Pritzker (the nominee) and Daniel Biss (2nd place) beat Christopher G. Kennedy. I believe more Kennedy's from other states have also been beaten. I think this oft-cited factoid only refers to Massachusetts elections. -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK Image

Supplementary image is still from the last DYK set - not updated to current pictured fact (Reverend Santa Claus). DovahFRD (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@DovahFRD Sorry about that, now fixed. Thanks for saying something! Lights and freedom (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Michael Caine

The article is currently in Queue 1, meaning it will reach the main page soon. I have an issue with this. I have marked a lot of unsourced statements in the article, including an entire section. I do not think that the article is ready for the Main Page until these are fixed. Pinging TDKR Chicago 101, who nominated the hook. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing issues fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, everything now looks good. There are no more issues with the hook. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

When can hooks be moved to queue?

Was the rule supposed to be three days after the hook was approved, or three days after it was posted. I'm asking because of this edit here, and because recently some were moved to the holding area only 1-2 days after they were approved. Kk.urban (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I check with Ferien offwiki and they confirmed its the date they were originally posted. Bobherry Talk My Changes 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Update DYK frequency

Not sure what the current frequency of DYK updates, but seeing the massive amount of hooks on hold/increased DYK activity, would it be possible (at least until the waiting area is nearly cleared out) we could resume updating DYKs every week/every ten days? I wonder what everyone's thoughts are on this. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Too many

DYK at over 100 waiting is too long a waiting list. It could be pruned or it could be changed almost daily. Preference might be given to topics which showed some originality. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree @Macdonald-ross:. In my last post (which is seen above) I proposed updating DYKs a bit more frequent given the high amount of hooks in the holding areas and the increase in activity in nominations. I think, seeing how long the waiting list is, I think we're pretty much ready to update DYKs weekly as we did back in the "old days". TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Ep is in charge, but it could be delegated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with that for as long as we still have a stockpile of hooks. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: What do you mean by hooks that showed originality? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing very startling! Some hooks are intrinsically more attractive than others. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: & @QuicoleJR: Agree with Macdonald-ross. So, are we okay with updating DYKs every week? If so, how do we get this ball rolling? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to give Ep a chance to respond first. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll ping @Eptalon: for good measure to get their two cents. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello all,

I'd be favorable to more frequent updates. Should we have the bot pick 'at random' (one preferably with image, the others Without? What Weekday? Ideally, we get the new hooks before weekend? Do we have a way to tag the hooks by theme? To get some variety, we don't want half the hooks about biographies.... Eptalon (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon: We could update DYK on Sunday, to start off every week with new hooks :) Usually, we try to balance each queue different, such as Queue 1 has three bios and two non-bio hooks and then Queue 2 would have three non-bio hooks with two bio hooks and so on. In the event that we have more pictured hooks than without, we could also remove some pics but that's a problem when we get there. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ep's in charge, but if he feels too pressed, I would not object to seeing TDKR do it. And just before weekends is a good time to do it, Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I would do it, but I can't promise anything (semi-retired). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK Update

@TDKR Chicago @Eptalon Why is the DYK list not updated yet? It was supposed to be updated yesterday (Feb 26)? -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in charge of updating DYKs, but I think It may be updated on March 1. We've been updated them twice a month (usually the first half of the month and then the second month of the half). However, I've been advocating in pushing for a more frequent DYK updates. Perhaps once every 7-10 days given the large number of queues on hold. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but I saw in the Queue list it was written next update 26 February so... If there's any voting or something then tell me bcoz I also support frequent DYK Updates atleast till the time we have a long queue waiting. -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Added a notice on Wikipedia:Simple talk for advice on next steps or how to get the ball rolling for more frequent updates. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, Thanks -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Active politician hooks

We currently have a decently large number of hooks about active politicians waiting in the holding areas and the queues. While I have no problem with featuring these articles in DYK, I am concerned that if placed on the main page at certain times, these hooks may be seen as an endorsement of the politician. We would not want to put Joe Biden or Donald Trump on the front page in November. Therefore, I propose that we use a simplified version of enwiki's DYKELECT and make it policy for the Simple English Wikipedia. The simplified version of DYKELECT is:

Articles and hooks about candidates in elections can not appear on the main page in the 30 days before the election or while the polls are open, unless the hook has bolded links to articles on all of the main candidates. Approved hooks should stay in the holding area until after the polls have closed. They can be run after the polls close.

QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Tentative Oppose pending evidence of a problem that this rule would solve. Generally, rules meant to solve hypothetical problems end up having non-hypothetical downsides. Preemptive strikes pass through the imaginary target and hit whatever solid thing was standing behind it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

@QuicoleJR Can you link to where you got the statement please for ease of looking at it? Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the rule being proposed. The original version from enwiki can be found here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR So if we don’t have the guideline here, I recommend we change it to a policy here, as it would show bias if any one candidate or their VP mate were featured by themselves. Just my 2¢! We may already have something similar on a policy or guideline already. You can search at the top for a keyword(s) and see what pops up. I would recommend perhaps “Candidates in elections” as a starting point. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, any policy or guideline on enwiki is treated as a guideline here if we don't have our own. Not saying we shouldn't write a simple-language version, just that we can use enwiki's as a guideline. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 There is also nothing that says that we cannot make it a policy so it’s followed instead of being a “meh, let them be shown.” At some point, I feel we need to stop using everything at en wiki as a go to for everything and make our own policies, through consensus, of course. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: That would be ideal, but creating a new policy or guideline requires discussion, even if we're just simplifying enwiki's. That would be a lot of work. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I’m talking just about the section on hooks for candidates, not the entire page. That should be easy and if the proposal passes after 7 or 14 days (or snowballs) prior to the end, we can make it a policy. @QuicoleJR Would just need to change the wording on this request to state policy and not guideline. I mean the entire paragraph is above. If something else needs to be brought over for some reason another request can be opened. IMO that would not be a lot of work and it is pretty easy to simplify that (technically it doesn’t have to be because only admins (I believe) can touch it) to begin with. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: I agree. I was talking about where you said "stop using everything at en wiki as a go to for everything and make our own policies" -- that's what would be a lot of work. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Oh I misunderstood you. Apologies. We can do it as things come up. I’m not suggesting an all in one sitting type of scenario. I know it will take time. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

How would I update the proposal to make it a policy instead of a guideline? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR My recommendation is to say Therefore, I propose that we use a simplified version of enwiki's DYKELECT and make it a policy here on Simple Wikipedia (Italics are my emphasis). Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, @Auntof6: What are your thoughts on the proposal? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I don't mind if people want to make a simple version of it. I do think that the text given should be simpler if we're going to have our own version. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Which parts are not simple? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hello, I see two possible issues: First of all, this requires knowledge about the election process and election dates. The US will elect a new president end of the year. So rather than saying no hooks about Biden or Trump in November, I'd suggest a different approach: Supposing Trump and Biden turn oout to be the candidates: If there's a hook about Trump, there must also be one about Biden, in the same queue. That way we are not pushing the view that we support the election of one candidate over the other, but we are giving people a choice. Of course, this does not take into account that in the U.S. it is not the people who elect their president. The person who becomes president is not necessarily the candidate who gmost people would have elected. --Eptalon (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  The rules actually do say that putting the two people in at once is an acceptable exception. unless the hook has bolded links to all the main candidates is the relevant section. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• We should laso have rules that allow to automate the publication as much as possible. The easiest possible alorithm is: pick 5 hooks at random; possibly prefer older hooks; pick one hook with an image. If this is to exclude certain hooks, we need a way to add metadata, such as: don't pick this hook between ... and ... (two dates). This makes the process a lot more complex.--Eptalon (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  That does not really work for other reasons, like having a variety of topics in the set. We would need metadata to fix that anyway, so I do not see how this proposal would add any new problems. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I will also mention that I do not see our policy of following enwiki applying here. We have already written our own DYK rules that are not very similar to enwiki, so we do not follow enwiki's DYK rules. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Has there been a negative event that this proposal would have prevented or is it a solution looking for a problem? I could see how it's theoretically possible that someone could put up a DYK of some X-year-old scandal concerning a candidate and try to time it, but has anyone done that? If it's not an issue, then rules like this can sometimes cause more problems than they stop. I'm not sure Simple.wiki is the same kind of target that en.wiki is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Darkfrog24: The scandal issue you mention is not the main issue this is meant to prevent, although that is a bonus. My issue is that, with all of the active politicians in the holding area, it's possible that featuring a hook about them that isn't negative this close to an election they are participating in might be seen as advertising or an endorsement. That is also why there is an exception for hooks that feature all of the major candidates, since a hook like that would not cause this problem. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Auntof6@Darkfrog24@Eptalon@QuicoleJR - This would be my proposal language for the policy.
  

"Articles about candidates in elections cannot appear on the Simple Wikipedia main page in the 30 days before the election or while the polls are open. Under our constitution, election day is defined as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November," i.e., the Tuesday that occurs within November 2 to November 8. There is one exception to this. If the articles for the main candidates all have bolded links, then they can be run 30 days prior to election day and on election day."

References

Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 19:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The American presidential election is not the only one in existence. There are other elections in the US, and other countries are also democracies. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR American can be taken out so it includes everyone. This is just a mock-up of what I feel would be simple. The main one coming up (and has a lot of...yeah just gonna keep it neutral) is the American election and has worldwide coverage and thoughts. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, I was just saying that you would need to remove the "our constitution" part of it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR And that is fine. Again, it is just a mock-up or draft if you want to call it that as well. Subject to change at anytime before being approved as policy. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 20:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, take out the entire sentence that starts with "Under our constitution." We don't need to specify an election schedule or anything specific to any one country. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Revised wording:

"Articles about candidates in elections cannot appear on the Simple Wikipedia main page in the 30 days before the election or while the polls are open. There is one exception to this. If the articles for the main candidates all have bolded links, then they can be run 30 days prior to election day and on the day(s) that the polls are open."
Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the tradition of November elections isn't worldwide, and we shouldn't be so America-centric.

My other question stands: Has there been a problem that this new rule would solve? 1) Did we have a DYK about a politician in the thirty days before his or her election and then something bad happened because of it? 2) Did we ever have a DYK about a politician in the thirty days before his or her election at all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I was just using America as an example, as it is coming up. As for #2, I am not sure. There are other elections as well, as we are all aware. The language I used can be generalized to say 30 days prior to and on the day(s) the polls are open (I believe some countries have polls for more than one day or due to other issues they remain open). Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

But has it happened? The thing you're worried about. Forget for the moment whether it really is a problem. Has it happened? Can you post a diff or name a politician and date? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 a question for @QuicoleJR to answer :) Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

IIRC there will be elections in India, in a short time (1-2 months), are we sure we are discussing a case that actually happened. Suppose there was a candidate that was liberal, and another that wanted to outlaw Wikipedia, or restrict access to it. Would it be bad if we publicly said we did not want the second candidate? How much influence will it actually have? Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon We cannot reject what they say, if they say that. Both candidates have to be equally represented or not represented (however, using that scenario, if we don’t run them both per the policy then we are censoring, which isn’t allowed). We are not publicly voting. We are putting the either all candidates or non of the candidates on the main page. We can change the proposed policy to remove the exception and make it that we never run candidates the 30 days prior to (and beyond if needed) and while polls are open. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)