Template talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. To discuss Did You Know please use Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

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

Instructions[change source]

Did you know? (DYK) entries are interesting facts that many people may not know. On this page possible entries are listed and members of the DYK project assess the nominations for the DYK section. DYKs are listed on the Main Page.

How to enter a DYK[change source]

List articles on this page under the Nominations area, below. The newest nominations go at the top. If you would like to make a nomination, you should read the rules below.

If there is a picture that you would like to see used with your nomination, please add it with your nomination as shown below. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion.


  • Only one article can be nominated for a Did You Know hook.
    • 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.
  • Information presented in any article nominated for DYK should be verifiable and unbiased. There must be a citation of a credible source to support the fact contained in the hook.
    • Articles that are tagged for bias with {{NPOV}} or for lack of accuracy with {{Disputed}} are not suitable for DYK.
    • Articles where facts are questioned with {{fact}} tags may not be suitable.
  • The article linked should be easy to read.
  • Articles nominated for DYK should not be too short.
    • Three-sentence stubs are not suitable.
    • The text of the article must be at least 800 characters. The number of characters can be measured with this tool.
  • The hook used to encourage people to read the article should be interesting to read. Information mentioned in the hook should be in the article text (not in a footnote, or in a linked reference, or in an infobox).
    • Whether a hook is not interesting should not be a matter for only one reviewer to decide. The first reviewer marks as {{DYKalmost}} if they feel the hook is not sufficiently interesting, with wording like "Is there a more interesting hook?". If 2 assessors (including the initial one) agree that the hook is uninteresting and no alternative has been put forward, the nomination is rejected with {{DYKno}} and advice to the nominator that "2 reviewers feel that this hook is not interesting, please suggest an alternative hook."
    • Articles may be re-nominated, but a different hook must be chosen. Also, two different hooks of the same article should not be added to the same update or updates that follow each other.
  • DYKs should not be very good articles (VGA) already as VGAs already get their own spotlight on the Main Page as the "Selected article".
Proposed facts should
Suggested facts (also known as hooks) should be
Suggested pictures should be
Have in-line citations Interesting From Wikimedia Commons
Articles on living people must be carefully checked to make sure that no unsourced negative information is in the article Short (less than about 200 characters, including spaces) Small (100x100px)[1]
Articles with good references and citations are needed. Neutral Already in the article
  1. Formatting for pictures is: [[File:image name |right|100x100px]] and placed above the suggested fact.
  • Editors may only nominate up to four hooks at any one time. If more nominations are desired, existing nominations must either be removed, promoted to one of the DYK queues or placed in the holding area.
  • Hooks cannot be moved to a queue or removed from the nominations page until they have been there for a minimum of three days. The only exception to this are hooks that can be "snowed". Hooks can also be removed if there has been no input from the nominator after five days from the last review. Unreviewed hooks however cannot be removed until there has been a review.


Please use one of the following templates when reviewing nominations.

Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
Symbol confirmed.svg {{DYKyes}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
Pictogram voting keep.svg {{DYKagf}} Yes, WP:AGF Hook cited to a source not on the Internet, but to a reliable publication.
Pictogram reply.svg {{DYKfixed}} Yes, issue fixed. The issue preventing DYK, or request for improvement has now been fixed.
Symbol possible vote.svg {{DYKalmost}} Almost Article is on the way to being ready for DYK, but the reviewer has questions.
Symbol delete vote.svg {{DYKno}} No Article is unable to be used on DYK, the time limit has passed, or there are larger reservations.


Nominations[change source]

Please add new nominations below with newer nominations at the top. Nominations should be headed with a ===Level Three=== header containing a link to the article that the hook is from. If possible, all hooks should contain a relevant file from Wikimedia Commons – this can be a picture or a sound. The subject article should be '''bolded'''.


Mass shootings in the United States[change source]

Birthday effect[change source]

  • ... that a 1987 study about the Birthday effect, found that women are more likely to die right before their birthdays while men are more likely to die right after their birthdays? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir Michael Caine[change source]

Andrés Manuel López Obrador[change source]

Trapezoid[change source]

F. W. Murnau[change source]

Atomic theory[change source]

  • ...that John Dalton developed his atomic theory by watching how chemical elements combined into compounds? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Does this article qualify for DYK or is it too difficult to read? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Part of the problem is that we try and add everything into one sentence. If this is split in two ("that..." and "He watched how chemical elements combined") it reads quite nicely. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Further comment: I think "saw" or "seeing" is better than "watched" or "watching". We don't quite know that he actually eyeballed this or inferred it from observations. It's also simpler English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...that John Dalton measured how chemical elements combined into compounds, and this led to his atomic theory?
    Now it's a compound sentence (no pun intended). How about "that watching how chemical elements combined into compounds led to John Dalton's atomic theory?" Or even leave out "into compounds" to shorten it.
    However, I don't see that specific fact in the article. You kind of have to read between the lines to get it, or am I missing it somewhere? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ...that watching how chemical elements combined led to John Dalton's atomic theory?
      • @Auntof6 I like this wording. I have added another sentence to the article to say this directly. It is true that one of the laws was developed by Proust instead of Dalton, but nevertheless, it was created by watching elements combine, and it led to Dalton's theory. Either "watching" or "measuring" could be used here. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Lights and freedom: There isn't a source for the fact. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Auntof6 There was a source for this information before, but this information was briefly touched on and not stated that clearly. I have added another source that devotes more space to this information. Both are at the bottom of the section (Atomic theory#Dalton's atomic theory) but they verify everything in the section below the numbered points. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atlantic slave trade[change source]

The text in the page makes clear that the abolition was not simultaneous, but this excerpt does not. And it leaves unsaid that Spain and Portugal carried on the trade for quite a long time. I would prefer a statement with fewer loose ends, such as "Denmark was the first European country to ban the slave trade". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't one single law that banned both, but it's interesting that both countries, to which the slave trade was pretty important, banned it in the same year. There was probably some coordination involved. I don't see why the DYK has to say everything about the article. It's just an interesting fact that will make people want to read more. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Among Us chicken nugget[change source]

Yeah this one's a real doozy and I think I could probably reword the hook a little bit, but I think it definitely has real potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMeAndMrMe (talkcontribs) 09:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, I don't think so. Isn't it saying "criminals ate chicken"? Who cares? Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know where you get "criminals ate chicken". As for who cares, I think it is a very interesting bit of information that would make me want to read into it. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 21:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what the link says. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe it should be "conspiracy theories", not "conspiracies". Aside from that, the hook is good. It seems bizarre, and it's hard to understand without reading the article, but that's simply because the conspiracy theory is so bizarre. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If the meaning is so unclear, it should not be a candidate for DYK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't think Lights and Freedom said that it is unclear, they just said it would a little more context for the entire situation to make sense. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex toy[change source]

  • ...that sex toys have been used for medical therapies?--Eptalon (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't be too surprised about the second fact, it seems somewhat like something that would happen in some countries. This first fact, however, definitely makes me ponder and makes me want to read more on the subject so I would suggest using the first tag, if properly sourced. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I definitely agree with MrMeAndMrMe. The first hook is much more interesting. --Ferien (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For hook 1. Simple enough, interesting, sourced. No problems. --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...that certain sex toys are illegal in countries such as India or Malaysia?--Eptalon (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both are rather vague. I'd be surprised if some were not used, and others banned! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC) 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ...that monkeys on Bali have used sex toys too?

Moral panic[change source]

My objection to this is that it is basically untrue, or true of certain parts of the U.S.A. at some times. Not only untrue, but quite preposterous. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT.1 ...that both Blues and Jazz have been seen as Satan's music in the 20th century?--Gazozlu (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who really thought in terms of "Satan's music"? I ask you! Just some journalist anxious to get a showing in the press. Seen by whom? Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase Satan's music is not attributed to a contemporary source. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon: Pinging so you can see the review by Macdonald-ross. --Ferien (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, was busy with other things. I have added another source to the article, and extended it by 2-3 sentences. The reference is a 25-odd page paper (mostly on the legal aspects), which might reveal more, if properly analyzed- After a number of teenagers had killed themselves after listening to (heavy metal?) music, a parents' group in the U.S. was unsuccessful with having the music labeled as "satanic", all that seems to be left is the sticker "Explicit lyrics". If someone has the time & interest, the linked paper seems to be openly accessible. Eptalon (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • En:Youth suicide is an En wiki page on the topic. It is a leading cause of death among modern teenagers. Excerpt: "those who died by suicide are 327% more likely to have experienced lifetime sexual assault. Similarly, a suicide victim is 285% more likely to have suffered physical violence as an adult".Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's the difference between 'those who died by suicide', and 'a suicide victim'- are the victims those that survived their attempts? Eptalon (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe. Probably just the usual WP writing poor English. The word "victim" suggests an external causative agent. English wiki is the place to go for bad English (except the music articles, which are a beacon in the dark). Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? - Without reading the original study we have no idea; though I'd think 'either they committed suicide, or were unsucessful (failed attempt)'. We are looking at a group to age 20, perhaps 25 years old. So, if the guy killed himself aged 20, there's not much time for 'suffering physical violence as an adult'. Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we can take this much further. I think in times past people aged 18+ would be regarded as fully adult. My maternal grandmother married at 17, for example. Boys went to work at 14 up to WWII. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seyrani Monument[change source]

  • ... that the Seyrani Monument, a sculpture made by Gürdal Duyar in 1976, became a symbol of Develi, Kayseri?--Gazozlu (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Gazozlu The intro doesn't even mention who Seyrani is, and there's no article about him. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article is about the monument, not Seyrani himself. I've added who Seyrani is to the intro in accordance with your feedback. I have found no other issues with the article and think it is ready to be promoted. Gazozlu (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It doesn't pass the test of "Is it really interesting?" Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2 reviewers feel that this hook is not interesting, please suggest an alternative hook. --Ferien (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holding area[change source]

Hooks that are ready to be moved to a queue for update may be held in this area until a space in a queue comes available. To be eligible to move into this area, a hook must meet all of the promotion guidelines as outlined above. Hooks in this area do not count towards a user's nomination limit. If you change or re-review a hook in this area, it must be moved back to the main nominations section for discussion to continue. The only changes permitted here are formatting or spelling changes, or adding an associated file.