Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Christmas DYK sets

[edit]
A. krampus living in Brazil

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason why Revelation of the Magi was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled.--Launchballer 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't mind if Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/National Gingerbread House Competition which might be nice to run in the holiday season - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Two sets?

[edit]

I just noticed this proposal was for two special sets. I think that's excessive. One would be plenty. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the more the merrier. Assuming we have more than enough for one set that is. And they don't all have to be run on Christmas Day, they can be split over Christmas Eve/Christmas Day or even Boxing Day or New Year's Day and so on, depending on their relevance. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKHOOK: Facts that will likely change while posted

[edit]

A few weeks back, WP:DYKHOOK changed as follows:

−
The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change
+
The hook should include an established fact

Currently on the Main Page, there is a hook that resulted in a thread at WP:ERRORS about a fact that changed: the total number of games between two teams was in the hook, but it became dated because they were playing each other shortly after its posting.[1]

While there's consensus that a hook doesn't need to remain true in perpetuity, I wasn't expecting that it would likely become dated while it was posted. This was flagged earlier at #Prep 6/Queue 6 (above), but it was decided that no hook changes were needed given the recent guideline change.

Question: Should "unlikely to change while posted", or similar, be added to WP:DYKHOOK? @Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, and Narutolovehinata5: Courtesy ping as participants from the above thread. —Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, or at the very least some clarity that the hook will need to be updated accordingly while it is running. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 made the change, so pinging for their input here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that wording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the last WT:DYK discussion in November, I had mentioned hooks that bcome dated before posting, but didn't think of it changing while posted. I'd be OK with that wording, or an alternative that addresses this recent case. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no objections and AJ29 not responding to the above discussion, I've gone ahead and changed the wording back to my original change. "Established fact" seemed vague anyway and was probably not the best term to use regardless of the outcome of the above circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that in the past, we've had some timely DYKs that contain hook facts relevant to the day they're posted, and they've usually been handed and worded so that they aren't false at some point in the day (... that, until today... or ...that, today is the Xth time... or similar) – and aside from the wording in the guideline this seems logical and something that should have happened in this case anyway. Was there any reason why not, besides relying on the changed wording? Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Nina Tikhonova

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Spiderpig662, and 4meter4: There's extensive copying from The Independent, a clear violation of WP:CLOP which needs to be addressed before this can go live. RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also has a {{Lead too short}} maintenance tag, which also needs to be addressed. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderpig662 I see you took care of the worst of it. If you take a piece of text and just change words here and there but keep the same underlying structure and order, that's the definition of close paraphrasing. That's what you had (and to a lesser extent, still do). What you should be doing is reading the original source and then formulating your own way of expressing the same information. RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I didn't even realise about close paraphrasing, thanks for letting me know. I'm planning on rewriting more of it tomorrow. Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could be of service. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This still has the maintenance tag, so I've swapped it down to Prep 3 to be worked on. RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Headley Green

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Chaiten1, and PCN02WPS: If I'm reading this right, the last set of papers were published on his 18th birthday, not before. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - he published his 200th paper in 2004, and was still publishing new papers aged 18 / 72, in 2008 Chaiten1 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where it says that in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Edoardo Tiretta

[edit]

@WoodElf: The lede's too short to summarize article's key points. Please expand, thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is updated. User:WoodElf 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29 I'm unsatisfied with the new wording of the hook for William C. Roberts (pastor) in prep 3 as I believe it is now incorrect. In my mind, the construction was said to be "incurable" is important since I don't believe it to be true that her illness was magically only curable if she went back to New Jersey specifically. To say his wife's illness was only curable if she returned to New Jersey is presenting the physician's opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which I think should be avoided (especially in this case, since the absurdity of the advice was the appeal of the hook in the first place). The new wording also throws out "New Jersey" with no explanation, which doesn't make any sense, and in isolation doesn't really add much to the hook. I'm definitely not saying the hook can't be shortened, but I believe its new wording to be less than ideal. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meant to have "was believed to be only curable" in there PCN02WPS, which would resolve the wikivoice problem, but I don't see how the original explains "New Jersey" any more than the current version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 From how I read the source, it seemed like the "cure" was to have her return to her home state, not New Jersey specifically. Maybe the hook could be ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was said to be "incurable" unless she returned to her home state? or, with the new wording, ...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was believed to only be curable if she returned to her home state? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, legends, folk tales, and the like?

[edit]

For context, Template:Did you know nominations/Pisidice of Methymna is stuck as the original hook was about an event in Greek mythology. Concerns were raised that the hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Wouldn't that be overkill? Plus, wouldn't saying that DYKFICTION applies to mythology, legends, and the like would mean that much of the Bible, as well as other religious texts, would also fall under DYKFICTION? I sort of see where the idea was coming from, but I really don't think that mythology was something that editors had in mind when that guideline was codified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by this because you closed Template:Did you know nominations/Pabhāvatī after it was rejected for DYKFICTION with the same argument. CMD (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I marked that nomination for closure not due to DYKFICTION concerns, but due to DYKTIMEOUT (it was already two months old with outstanding issues). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The outstanding issues were DYKFICTION ones. CMD (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice or realize that the concerns were regarding DYK fiction, only that it remained unapproved after two months, hence why I timed it out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we exempt religious texts and make a difference between L. Ron Hubbard's fiction that was widely available and the fiction that was only sold to Scientologists? Involving the real world isn't too difficult for religious texts; they don't need an exemption. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with attempting to apply DYKFICTION to folklore, mythology, and so on. In fact, there should be an explicit disclaimer added to DYKFICTION that it does not cover those, since this has come up before. The intent of DYKFICTION was to discourage "did you know that (in-universe fact like "the fictional alter-ego of Jimmy Wales defeats 100 criminals in just 10 seconds") in Some Novel? Because that's a trivial issue someone just made up. But if we're talking folklore, it really is relevant to say what the folklore is. That's something true in real-life culture. Like if Paul Bunyan became a GA, mentioning that he carved the Grand Canyon with his axe would be a totally valid hook. Same with religious / theological topics - if there's a suitably hooky fact about what some guru / saint / etc. is said to have done, that's precisely the point. Knowing what precisely Hermes was the god of isn't "fictional", it's basic human knowledge of a field. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could DYKFICTION be reworded to incorporate this? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to feature a legend of Paul Bunyan, just make sure to incorporate the real world in your hook. Say where it comes from, who recorded it, where there are statues commemorating it. This is generally easier with legendary characters than for general plot points in fiction. —Kusma (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the main page is aimed at readers, and the best hooks are short that ideally highlight just one fact. If that fact is something about the legend, that should be acceptable; we shouldn't feel a need to create an awkward dual-hook that says the interesting thing we want readers to care about, and then some later bit that might be less interesting. SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a hook "... that Paul Bunyan was said to have carved the Grand Canyon with his axe" as any better than "... that in Star Wars, backwards Yoda speaks?" —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a mythological topic has a Wikipedia article, it needs to be the subject of multiple non-narrative sources. Those will provide non-fictional analyses of the subject which can be used as a hook. The later sections of Pisidice of Methymna provide numerous examples.
People have been inventing stories using the limits of their creativity for millennia. It makes no sense to allow a hook like "that in the Aeneid, Aeneas went to the undwerworld", and to disallow "that Darth Vader used to be called Anakin Skywalker" when everyone involved in creating both stories knew they were entirely fictional. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to the underworld and Vader turning to the dark side are far more than fiction. They are part of a large body of mythology based on archetypes related to patterns in literature, concepts in philosophy, and more controversially, psychology itself. The element of fiction is just the appearance of the larger iceberg, 90% of which lies beneath the surface. If we reduce all of this to "just fiction", we aren't even addressing the most interesting and salient features of the idea. That's why DYKFICTION is so limiting. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hook that hints at these archetypes already involves the real world to a degree sufficient to pass the guideline. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying so, as I will write a hook that does just that (next year!) and then ask you to review it. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Leather

[edit]

Just leaving a note here that I've pulled the Diane Leather hook from the main page (got there via Q2) over copyvio concerns as reported at Errors. Schwede66 08:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that the copyvio existing for a year back in 2014 and 2015, was mentioned on the talk page, but nobody had ever done a revision deletion. I've done so now and restored the article. Schwede66 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch I certainly appreciate the diligence of finding this old issue, but I'm curious how you noticed it. Do you have a tool which searches all old revisions for copyvios? RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Diane Leather#Copyright problem removed (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/A Nail Clipper Romance

[edit]

This nomination will be two months old on Christmas Eve, but it hasn't moved forward despite a request for a second opinion. Requesting any interested editor, preferably those fluent in Chinese and/or have an interest in movies, to take a look and help it move forward. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to move it forward, you can collapse the discussion as "extended content". I was going to do that before another user stepped in and requested the second opinion. My purpose was never to hold it up, but rather to present an opinion. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

[edit]

René Vallon

[edit]
Doing both.--Launchballer 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first hook, but I think it's unlikely a prior flight/fatality would have gone unnoticed. This should be fine, but I'm going to ping @RoySmith: just in case.--Launchballer 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm inclined to think we can go with this one, partly because the WSJ is a good source (although I strongly suspect in this case they did no investigative reporting beyond reading the 100 year old North China News article) and partly because anything involving aviation in 1911 was big news. It's hard to imagine some previous flight having been taken in secret. I do however note that the WSJ talks about "China's first powered flight". It's likely there were previous unpowered flights (i.e. gliders or hot-air balloons). And for sure, the Chinese were flying rockets 100's of years ago, and a rocket is certainly a powered flight. So maybe we want "... first airplane flight". And similar rewording in the second part of the hook; I would imagine the first flight-related death in China was in the 13th century either as the victim of a rocket attack or an accident on its launch pad. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mingxing films

[edit]
I've adjusted the article so that the number 174 has an end-of-sentence citation, as I don't particularly fancy going through 50 references. This set should be fine. Incidentally, I was wondering if my Ceechynaa article could run in the next prep 5 (i.e. the next prep area to open when this is queued), as it runs on 29 December, which is her birthday.--Launchballer 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

[edit]

My article (?) Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse should ideally not be on the same DYK template as 2022 Andover tornado. They're both tornado blurbs less than a year separated (both with CCTV footage, coincidentally) and should be spaced out to achieve a bit more variety. Since Andover already has image rights, I'd like mine to be swapped with one a day ahead or behind where it is. Departure– (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 (2024-12-20)

[edit]

@Crisco 1492: I'm confused about Special:Diff/1264135387. Both of these were indeed in Prep 7 (which I just promoted to Queue 7). RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puff-puff (onomatopoeia)

[edit]
@Cukie Gherkin, Crisco 1492, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I saw close paraphrasing in the article.--Launchballer 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some tweaks to hopefully reduce paraphrasing. If this was not adequate, could you point me to the concerning text? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "a Puff-Puff, only for it to turn out to be a" should be reworded.--Launchballer 21:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine, though as I'm falling asleep I'll double check in the morning.--Launchballer 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine.--Launchballer 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hee-ok

[edit]

Queue 7

[edit]

Voltairine de Cleyre

[edit]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Grnrchst, and AirshipJungleman29: The article says expressed her disapproval, which got turned into refused to accept in the hook. I know next to nothing about Catholic rites, do these two phrases mean the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source says "she expressed her displeasure with a grimace". When I reviewed this set, I felt that the two were functionally identical within the context of an avowed and non-verbal anarchist who actively campaigned against religious doctrine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas carp

[edit]

Can someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas carp? It would be so nice if it could run on Christmas Eve. Thriley (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. I made some copyedits and added missing info. The only question I had was whether the lead should say Christmas carp is one of several different fish dishes served at the traditional twelve-dish Christmas Eve supper in Central Europe. I did add a link to it in the last section. I don't think I should do the formal review since I added content, but I think it checks out in all respects. I checked Earwig, spot checked sources, and fixed the grammar. I think it's ready to go, but others might want to change the hooks. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time is running out and this still needs a review. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is passed. CMD (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Cantata for 26 December

[edit]

Bach first performed Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121 on 26 December 1724. I hope for a DYK on that day. I had to make it GA, which happened but later than I wanted, I nominated for DYK even before that happened, the review began right away, and today it was approved. - The set (Prep 2) is full. Any chance? Because any other day would look strange to an observant audience ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There probably shouldn't be a sugar hook next to a vitamin hook, so I've made a hole in prep. I'll assess the cantata in the morning.--Launchballer 00:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see @AirshipJungleman29: beat me to it.--Launchballer 11:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thank you, and it is already in prep 2, thanks to AirshipJungleman29, who took ALT1b: ... that on 26 December 1724, Bach led the first performance of Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121, based on a hymn that Luther (pictured) had derived 200 years earlier from "A solis ortus cardine"?, and then dropped the end.
I am glad! Having said that, I wonder if some "derived" makes any sense if not saying from what. Teach me English. In this case it is a hymn that was already 1000 years old when Luther derived, 1200 years when Bach wrote, and is now 1500 years. Interesting, I think. Ideas? I thought that just linking to it was the most neutral way. - As for Bach's name: I believe that many readers would know who is meant by Bach even without a link. A link can serve those who don't, but the full name just takes space. (The Salzburg Festival, dedicated to the works by Mozart, never writes Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, just W. A. Mozart.) In 2010 and 2011, we had an almost weekly DYK about Bach's cantatas (because he composed them weekly for 2+ years), and most hooks just said Bach without a link (see Christmas 2011)). - Please reserve space on 1 January, Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41 is already nominated for GA, - a review would help ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derived can be used in this context. I agree with your suggestion about just using Bach's last name. I also now realise that Luther's derivation was done in 1524, which is exactly 500 years ago and should probably be highlighted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

FoodPharmer

[edit]
Not happy with the use of unattributed quotes, particularly for a stuff that very clearly isn't a health drink. I propose trimming everything after "pictured" to "once shamed Bournvita into reducing its sugar" or somesuch.--Launchballer 12:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bournvita was marketed in India as a "children's health drink" at the time of the video, and was the very reason the video was made. I do have sources that can be added to back up the claim:
—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've updated Bournvita's article with appropriate references. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX Melbourne

[edit]

Second opinion needed

[edit]

Hi, could we get a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/The Heart Knows its Own Bitterness (Talmud)? There's been some changes since my review, and I would like to move this forward with a yay or nay. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look and left a few comments. Rjjiii left a few good comments as well. Andre🚐 01:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 24 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 15. We have a total of 310 nominations, of which 223 have been approved, a gap of 87 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Planting a Rainbow

[edit]

I reviewed this originally, so somebody else needs to look at it. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien: Romulus

[edit]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Lankyant, and Ippantekina: The use of quotes in the hook ("resurrected") implies this is a direct quote from someplace, but that doesn't appear in the article. I note that MOS:SCAREQUOTES was featured in today's WP:ERRORS, and that applies equally well here. RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Fix ping. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1264846460"