Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 2

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Djsasso in topic Blatant Lie

Proposal: recognize the conributor

I will propose to start recognizing the contributor who wrote the DYK article by sending him/her a DYK template message in his/her talk page as done in English Wikipedia. This will encourage editors to nominate more DYKs as they will get recognition. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That already happens. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, wasn't thinking. We give recognition on article tp. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was actually kinda disappointed that nominators don't get recognized for their dyk's on simple... --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with cremepuff entirely. In addition to being courteous and recognising someone's work, it could perhaps draw new contributors. Lauryn Ashby (d) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I added the template they use on the english wiki for recognizing the contributor. It can be found at {{UpdatedDYKNom}}. I don't see the harm in using it. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
See no problems with this... Pmlineditor  12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
We have talked about this before and said no because it does not necessarily recognize the people who really deserve the credit. Anyone can nominate any hook from any article. But, why recognize the nominator when it is the editor of the article who went about the effort of finding the source and editing the article? The nominator is often someone who just stumbles upon the article and finds the fact already cited. I think this kind of recognition rewards the wrong thing and is not needed here. Either way (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I put the following in a section below, then realised it was even more appropriate here!:
"DYK is very interactive; often the hook put up is not the one originally suggested. The admin doing the work doesn't want to scratch his head and wonder who gets the credit". Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Large hook

I am currently simplifying some pages to add to simple.wikipedia. One of the pages is the play The Author's Farce. It was bad Henry Fielding, held at the Haymarket Theatre, had a puppet play about puppets, and this would make five pages that do not exist (I just made a small stub for Henry Fielding). I wanted to use a hook like: "that when Henry Fielding's The Author's Farce was shown at the Haymarket Theatre, it had a puppet show with puppets played by people?"

What do others think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is fine. Cheers, Pmlineditor  05:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problems here, I look forward to it. :) Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Special occasions

Do we really need a Special occasions section in DYK? We find it difficult to update DYK every 5 days; even if 20 hooks are nominated, it is difficult to find reviewers to approve 5 of these. The last few special occasion attempts have failed and I see no reason to continue it till we have a sufficient number of users who regularly help out at DYK. Pmlineditor  05:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds okay to me. I'll go ahead and remove it again. --cremepuff222 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Adapting DYK rules


at the start, DYK was created to foster the expansion of short articles. This is reflected in the rules, which are easy to apply to short articles. If we take the idea that DYK gives a spotlight to an article needing attention, we should think about changing the rules, so they can be applied equally well to longer articles. The problem with such articles is that under the current rules, they cannot be nominated, because they may contain a {{complex}} tag, even though that tag only applies to certain sections of the article. I therefore think we should review the rules, and adapt them, so they can also be applied to longer (20k+) articles, that need attention.

What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a good idea, as it would promote complex articles which could become Very Good potentially, as they have the length and information. Yottie =talk= 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proposed rule changes

I propose to change the DYK rules as follows:

  • The article linked should be easy to read --> replace article with section
  • The article should not be tagged as complex --> replace article with section where the hook is from
  • If possible readablity tests... --> remove this rule, it's unenforcable as its formulation is imprecise. --Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support. Yottie =talk= 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support. πr2 (talk • changes) 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Exempt the last suggestion, I strongly oppose this! People, we need to remember that we show those articles on our main page. The hooks should be from some basic quality. We [simple English Wikipedia] are supposed to use simple words and have simple articles. It would simply be a shame if we show complex articles on our main page (or link to them). The main page is to show how good we are, not how complex our articles are. If we feature complex articles on DYK, we can just be named English Wikipedia and close this site. Sorry, but linking complex articles from our main page is a no-go. -Barras (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Nope. Basically a carte blanche for poor article substance. It gives the message "hey, I don't need to write it that well, as long as the hook section is okay". PeterSymonds (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No from me... We need these quality metrics to ensure our best gets showcased. Jon@talk:~$ 18:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The basic reason I bring this up is that I wanted to use Abiogenesis for a hook. I copy-pasted the thing in 2008 (with attribution), and spent over 75 revisions simplifying it (about half the article's history); Macdonald-ross did some more (his edits account for the largest part of the other half). I can't say the article is "simple-enogh" so the flag can be removed. The proposed changes were made so that such articles (I am sure we can find others of the kind) get more exposure. There is a lot of work to be done there. This work will sipmly not be done if the article does not get the exposure it needs. (eye is another article that falls into the category). My question is therefore: how can we adapt the rules so that such articles can be given the exposure they need? --Eptalon (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We've got another page called Origin of life which addresses a similar theme in quite a different way. It's also got a complex flag!!
I thinks it's one of those areas where we are poorly served by enWP, and nothing they have seems to be a good basis for one of our pages. Since we don't actually have any direct evidence on the origin of life, the question arises of what should go in an article? The golden rule in science is, when all else fails, use a historical approach and tell them who did what and said what. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Minor grammar change

Change a.k.a to also known as. It would make it a bit more simplified. Battleaxe9872 Talk 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. You could've done it yourself. The page isn't protected. -Barras (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Update time

Hi all! We currently lack sufficient helpers here and we lack of hooks. I think it might be helpful to change the update cycle to once a week, means all seven days instead of all 5. Thoughts? -Barras (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No objection. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The five day time is a minimum and not necessarily a guideline. We go in cycles; in spurts and I wouldn't want to limit ourselves from keeping up to date in the future if/when this project becomes more active. Kansan (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK. If we see it as guideline, I think we should from now on until we have some backup, only update the page all 7 days. Currently we run out of hooks. -Barras (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Archive query

Is the last entry in Archives correct? Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very insultedconfused!

Someone posted the hook about caesium in T:DYK and didn't even notify me! I originated it! ;) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mh...we don't do this normally... -Barras (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really insulted, as you can tell by the hidden emoticon; but I saw it on the main page and wondered where the thread went. It normally happens on en.wikipedia. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
DYK is very interactive; often the hook put up is not the one originally suggested. The admin doing the work doesn't want to scratch his head and wonder who gets the credit. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Simple Wikipedia's DYK system does not give recognition to nominators. It's been our long standing policy not to do that. Sorry, Either way (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can we start giving credit? Jon@talk:~$ 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, because there are only a few people who regularly add hooks. So we would simply spam there talk pages. Not needed. -Barras (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think the trinkets are encouraging, and I would love them on my talk page. To be totally... honest. :) Jon@talk:~$ 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply


Anyone know why we subst: the templates on TT:DYK? Seems to me there's no reason to do that, as it would be much tidier and easier to understand if the templates were not subst'ed. EhJJTALK 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. πr2 (talk • changes) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is (I think) a left over from BG7, when he mainly maintained this pages. I don't have a problem to not subst the templates. -Barras (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  Subst: removed -Barras (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

29 August 2010 DYK hook for Mercury

The hook states "Mercury is the only metal with a known melting point lower than caesium". Would it be good to remove the "known"? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. -Barras (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

removed a voting icon

I removed the "WP:AGF/Hook cited but not available on the net". The fact that a source is not available on the internet does not make it any less reliable, is not a RS rubric, and does not require a faith assumption. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A imo very bad idea. I'd oppose hooks with sources not online from not yet trusted people. Anyone could just look up a book and add it as reference. Noone would notice. -Barras (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We have google books, and such. Any reference... is a reference. This sets a bad precedence that internet references are by virtue, more reliable.  ? Jon@talk:~$ 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply


I suggest a time limit on repeats. Some pages do have the possibility of several good hooks, but we should limit their frequency. Reason: Front page is advertising space for articles. It must be good to have variety, and to prefer new entrants to old. How about: no repeat of a page on DYK within four months? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two months. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's already a limit that we decided upon, though I'm not sure that it was ever written down a long with a lot of the DYK process. I seem to remember that it was, basically, a gap between updates as long as it wasn't the same hook. The reason behind this was the general lack of hooks that we sometimes otherwise get. Goblin 09:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!Reply

Template redirects

I created redirects for the DYK evaluation templates; {{dykyes}}, {{dykagf}}, {{dykalmost}}, and {{dykno}}. Before the DYK had to be capitalized and several editors forgot to do that. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Grammar: verb in wrong tense, should be 'are', not 'were'. I'm sure someone will know how to make this change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{sofixit}}? Goblin 11:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!Reply
Sometimes I have to ask another's help to fix something because I'm not sure how to do it myself. This was a bit terse I think.  ?? Jon@talk:~$ 06:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply


Where did the "too many redlinks" guideline originate... redlinks are not a "bad thing" as they encourage article creation. Help me understand this? Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 06:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, an encyclopedia needs blue links too. There is nothing wrong with red links, providing that you have enough blue links.-- (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


When a request is accepted, how long does it take to appear on Main Page?-- (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Queues 4 and 5

I object to the decision made a few weeks ago to limit it to three queues instead of the five we had before. Three is too few, and the move was made without discussion or consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, three is too few seeing that we get so many hooks nowadays.</sarcasm> Tell me, when was the last time we had 15+ hooks waiting in the queues? Probably more than a year ago, I think. So rather than complaining about changes that are causing no problems to a dying process, I suggest you try to nominate hooks. If we get 15+ hooks (or even 12/13+ hooks) waiting, we can get 4 & 5 restored, but at this moment, it's pointless and a waste of time. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Pm, we've actually never had more than 15 hooks or three queues filled at once. 5 was optimistic on my part when I added in additional queues as we were at a high. If we are having more than 15+ hooks then they can just sit on the nominations page for longer till a queue comes free, like they did when we had only one 'Next Update' preparation page. Goblin 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!Reply
There's more to queues than the number. You have to separate similar topics into different queues. Also, narrowing it to three completely limits our flexibility. And what if we want a seasonal queue? Then we'll only have two queues plus the seasonal queue, and you know that we CAN fill two queues at once. There's a whole lot of reasons why having the bare minimum of three is unwise. Finally, I will disapprove of this edit for no other reason than because Goblin BRDed, or at least never bothered to link to anything that said he didn't Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  1. Seasonal queues have never been successful due to the lack of input. We pretty much agreed not to do that anymore, and haven't done it for quite some time. When they did happen, they used an additional queue, giving us 3+1.
  2. How is flexibility limited? We only ever work one or two queues ahead, so three is a perfect number.
  3. If there's "a whole lot of reasons", please do expand on them, as you've not given any.
  4. NVS has already met the comment regarding BRD below.
  5. Finally. If a hook can't go into a queue, it remains on the nominations page. No big deal. There is no rush for hooks to be moved.
Until you come up with some substantiated, well-thought reasoning to alter the number of queues back to what it was, I will continue to block any move to alter it. Goblin 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!Reply
I gave you a whole lot of didn't even notice most of them, like the fact that articles on similar topics have to be in different queues. Oh, and you claim on your talk page you have "a lot of people agree with you". Yeah, right. All I'm seeing is PM. By flexibility, your proposal is much less prepared for unforeseen consequences than mine (in yours, we could end up with 10-12 DYK hooks with no place to go). How was the old system of five queues hurting anyone, BTW? Your argument to overturn a long-established policy is weak. My reasoning is clearly substantiated and well-though, with many more tenets than yours, yours just seems more like a lark. And your threat to "continue to block" smacks of ownership to me. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Disapproving of an edit only because someone BRDed is not conducive to the consensus building process. It is ok to disagree, work together, find agreement... if need be, agree on getting a third opinion, or ask one of us to decide or mediate if you can't find consensus or agree. There is more than one way to resolve a dispute. Jon@talk:~$ 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, I'm reminded that I owe someone a DYK, I need to work on that today. Jon@talk:~$ 16:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Proposed rule change

In light of recent discussion I suggest we add a new rule: "That the DYK hook links to one main article only." This does not mean there can only be one link in the hook. It means the hook is to feature one article. This main article is the link which is in bold. This article must meet the DYK rules. Any other links in the hook are minor links. Peterdownunder (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would be happy with this. It is in line with what we usually do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yup. It's what we do now anyway so not a contentious issue. Putting in writing what's already been agreed, something we evidently need to do now... :P Normandy (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's basically what already happens, but making it official wouldn't hurt. There are a lot of people who are being overly bureaucratic with the "It's not in the rules, so it's not true!" thing. Hopefully that will put a stop it it. :) Orashmatash 19:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep. That makes complete sense. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mee too. πr2 (talk • changes) 00:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Date links

Why is it, I wonder, that the date links on DYK credits to talk pages lead to years &c that have no relevance? Should not the link be to the correct item in the correct archive? Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Number of DYKs per queue

Hey folks! As you all currently know and see, we face the problem to regularly update the DYK section on our main page. We don't really have enough people who help with all this and I'd suggest a little change. Currently, every DYK queue needs five articles to be used on the main page. If the time for the update comes near, and we don't have enough articles, I'd suggest to also allow to only have three or four articles on the main page for a week. I just today happened to look at the archives of enwiki's DYK and noticed that they also had problems at the start and had days with only one article featured as DYK. Are there any objections to this? (Please note that I'd only cut down the number when there are really not enough articles available.) Remember that we are a small community and that even five can be a quite high number, especially when only very few people around here help out there. -Barras talk 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. The last update was just (one day) under a month overdue which really is not good... -Orashmatash (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah that. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm... I wouldn't like to see it drop below four. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, as said, really only in emergencies. Better to only have three (or four) DYKs on our main page than again one month the same set of articles. As long as we get 5 (or 4), we won't go down further. -Barras talk 13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


In the current DYK hooks, it states that neutrinos travel at the Speed of light. Actually, they have a very small mass and therefore travel slightly slower than light.--Gilderien (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Although our brains are far too simple to understand neutrino oscillations with Lorentz violation, we see the main enWP article [1] is not so clear-cut as you suggest: "So far, the question of neutrino masses cannot be decided based on measurements of the neutrino speed". The detailed account of neutrino speed measurements in the enWP article ends: "An independent re-creation of the experiment in the same laboratory by ICARUS found no discernible difference between the speed of a neutrino and the speed of light". So I think we should keep our DYK as is. If more accurate measurements refute this picture, then we can change our page accordingly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Galápagos tortoise

I would like to submit this entry (will add sources soon) but is it at acceptable length? Best, Jonatalk to me 15:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it over 800 characters? Length requirements are outlined within The Rules. Goblin 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!Reply

size of pics

Just to remind people: the pics should be 100x100px, not 100px. The reason is that the first formula limits the dimensions on both axes, whereas the second formula only limits the horizontal span. The upshot of that is that portrait-shaped pics tend to disrupt the layout of the suggestions page, and that makes it less readable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quick note

There is a slight issue at Queue/2 which I'd rather address here than fix, as I am not an admin. In hook 3, Pearl S. Buck, the article recently created for DYK, is not in bold. I would appreciate it if the slight error was fixed. Regards, Greengreengreenred (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed. Thanks! Osiris (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Greengreengreenred (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nominations formatting

Just a quick reminder to everyone to make sure that you use {{-}} at the end of nominations, particularly when you're including an image. It breaks up the nominations and just makes the page a bit clearer for everyone. :-) Goblin 16:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ TCN7JM!Reply

Not enough users

After Oregonian was banned, there has been very very few users contributing to the DYK nominations hook and plus updating is staring to get pretty slow. What I'm trying to say is that we must encourage users old or new to contributed and help pass or nominate hooks. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to cross-post this to ST. Osiris (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Meeting the requirements

I get a little tired of checking the nominated articles to see if they meet the requirements. Could ask nominators to mention certain things, so we know they have been checked? Some of the more subjective requirements would have to be checked, but here are some objective ones that could be mentioned in the proposals:

  • Grade level as given by one or more online readability tests
  • Character count (counting only the text, not infoboxes, navboxes, tables, related pages, references, other websites, and maybe other things)
  • The reference for the hook

I'd be a lot more willing to evaluate proposed hooks if I knew I didn't have to check these details. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should ('s) be bold if not part of link?

Can I change Günter Schabowski's to Günter Schabowski's, making the ('s) not bold? Or, is bold the correct style? I just thought it looks strange for ('s) to be bold since it's not part of the name/link. Also, I'm thinking to make the change myself, but I just don't want to break style or rules, if there are any for that? o.o Zeniff (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's better to let the whole thing be bold/colored. We see something similar with piped links and links like Austrian ([[Austria]]n); the bold/colored text isn't the exact link for those, either.--Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the answer and example! I understand now! :) (And, sorry for my late reply!) Zeniff (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

error in main page

The main page has a Disney World Did You Know that has an error. It says the park is 50 square miles long. Long is a linear measurement, not a measurement of area. It should say that it is 50 square miles in area. Lakeshook2 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Factual error

{*mp}}... that Chicago is the largest city in the United States to have had a female mayor since 2012?

should read

{*mp}}... that as of 2012 Chicago was the largest city in the United States to have had a female mayor? SashiRolls (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@TDKR Chicago 101: User:SashiRolls appears to be correct. Can you address this? (I would, but I'm not familiar with where the queues are.) Unless the hook is still true as of now, I think we should just remove the item: things that were true in the past but now aren't are not interesting as hooks. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
We were due for an update so I put the next queue on the main page. Working now on the behind the scenes part. I think TDKR mentioned stepping back from wiki for a while. --Tbennert (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Does that old hook need to be removed so that it won't appear? (Showing my lack of knowledge about how it works!) --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Carnivorous plants hook

One of the current hooks says:

Did you know ... that the first well-known book on carnivorous plant was published by Charles Darwin in 1875?

That should say "carnivorous plants" in the plural. Can this be changed, please? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

When will this be updated?

The DYK has not been updated in 6mos. A hook of mine was successful, and approved, so I was wondering when it would be updated next? Or if anyone is currently updating it? Am I allowed to update it myself?

Thanks ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Error in current DYK

One of the current hooks says that that Van Buren was the first President born as a natural born citizen. The first "born" is redundant. You cannot become a natural-born citizen in any way other than birth. Diadophis (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Blatant Lie

The hook for Parkinson's disease says that “that people who smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, have high cholesterol, and drink more coffee are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease”, however, the page for Parkinson's disease says “Research suggests that people are slightly less likely to get Parkinson's disease if they smoke cigarettes”, this template is lying to readers Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not really a blatant lie. Those both say the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Djsasso: The article doesn't mention alcohol, high cholesterol, or coffee --Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
But does the source? Just because it's not in our article doesn't mean it's not true or a lie. Just means our article is not finished or someone removed it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "Did you know/Archive 2".