Template talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. For the discussion page see WT:DYK. Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.


Count of DYK Hooks
Section # of Hooks # Verified
September 11 1
September 23 2 1
September 27 1
October 4 2 1
October 6 1
October 8 2 1
October 9 2
October 16 1 1
October 18 1
October 20 1 1
October 22 2
October 23 1 1
October 27 2 1
October 28 5 1
October 29 2 2
October 31 3 1
November 1 2 1
November 2 4 1
November 3 5 3
November 4 9 6
November 5 5 3
November 6 9 9
November 7 15 11
November 8 16 8
November 9 12 9
November 10 15 12
November 11 12 9
November 12 11 7
November 13 12 3
November 14 12 7
November 15 13 4
November 16 5 3
November 17 6
November 18 21 2
November 19 8 3
November 20 2
November 21
Total 223 112
Last updated 01:43, 21 November 2017 UTC
Current time is 02:42, 21 November 2017 UTC [refresh]

Instructions for nominators[edit]

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:
Official DYK criteria: DYK rules and supplementary guidelines
Unofficial guide: Learning DYK

To nominate an article[edit]

Read these instructions completely before proceeding.
For simplified instructions, see User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2.
Create the nomination subpage.

Enter the article title in the box below and click the button. (To nominate multiple articles together, enter any or all of the article titles.) You will then be taken to a preloaded nomination page.

Write the nomination.

On the nomination page, fill in the relevant information. See Template:NewDYKnomination and {{NewDYKnomination/guide}} for further information.

  • Not every line of the template needs to be filled in. For instance, if you are not nominating an image to appear with your hook, there is no need to fill in the image-related lines.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion.

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination.

  • At the top of that subsection (before other nominations already there, but below the section head and hidden comment) add {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}.
  • Add an edit summary e.g. "Nominating YOUR ARTICLE TITLE for DYK" and click Save page.
  • Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically).

How to review a nomination[edit]

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

  • Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
  • Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
  • The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

    If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
  • Save the page.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Frequently asked questions[edit]


This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

Where is my hook?[edit]

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Search archived DYK nomination discussions[edit]

Instructions for other editors[edit]

How to promote an accepted hook[edit]

  • See Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas for full instructions.
  • Hooks that have been approved are located on the approved nominations page.
  • In one window, open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to promote.
  • In another window, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
  • In the prep set...
    • Paste the hook into the hook area (be sure to not paste in that that)
    • Paste the credit information ({{DYKmake}} and/or {{DYKnom}}) into the credits area.
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted [[Jane Fonda]]", preview, and save
  • Back on DYK nomination page...
    • change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
    • change |passed= to |passed=yes
    • Add an edit summary, e.g. "Promoted to Prep 3", preview, and save

How to remove a rejected hook[edit]

  • Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
  • In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue[edit]

  • Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
  • Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
    • View the edit history for that page
    • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
    • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
  • Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
  • If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.
  • Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals.

How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit]

  • Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.


Older nominations[edit]

Articles created/expanded on September 11[edit]

Patrick Henry Cronin

Famous murder victim Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin
Famous murder victim Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin
  • ... that in 1889, nearly 12,000 people came to view the coffin of Patrick Henry Cronin, who was murdered because of his involvement in a secret society? Source: Hunt, Henry M. The Crime of the Century; or, The Assassination of Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin. A complete and authentic history of the greatest of modern conspiracies. University of California Libraries. Chicago : H.L. & D. H. Kochersperger, 1889, pp. 224.
    • ALT1:... that the Patrick Henry Cronin murder trial was, in 1889, the longest running in American history? Source: O'Brien, Gillian. Blood Runs Green: the Murder That Transfixed Gilded Age Chicago. The University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Created by MidwestCuttlefish (talk). Self-nominated at 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Nomination is late, but squeaks by via Rule D9: new as of 1 August and 5x expanded starting 29 August, so newer than the oldest on the nominations page (23 August). In addition, it's only MidwestCuttlefish's 4th DYK, so leniency is more appropriate. Article is long enough, sourced, and hooks check out with inline citations. QPQ provided but not necessary. Although several of the defendants were ultimately acquitted, that two were found guilty (without verdicts being overturned) seems enough to sustain the claim made in ALT0. MidwestCuttlefish, you should probably also add the claim in ALT1 to the body of the article, not just the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "Thousands of members quit Clan na Gael in sympathy, forming their own camps" with "thousands of members quitting Clan-na-Gael in sympathy and forming their own camps". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: the nomination was not late, contrary to the original review, since it was moved from a user sandbox to article space on September 11, one day prior to its nomination. The close paraphrasing still needs to be addressed, but since the nomination disappeared from the DYK pages after it was pulled from prep and was just restored and the nominator notified today, nothing is considered late due to that disconnect. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing has been addressed. MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the particular example provided has been edited - suggest comparing article against sources to guide further work in addressing close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I ran the Copyvio detector and edited the issues. Maybe you could be more specific about what you're objecting to? MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Copyvio detector will only detect exact matches - that's not the primary issue here, my concern is close paraphrasing. To give you another example, compare "Clan na Gael was a secret revolutionary society devoted to forcibly freeing Ireland from British control, a spin-off of the Fenian Brotherhood. The Clan was popular among Irishmen and Irish Americans, and by the 1800s, the Clan had 40,000 members. The organization was skilled at fundraising for Irish causes" and "Clan na Gael was a secret revolutionary society dedicated to freeing Ireland from British control by force. An offshoot of the Fenian movement, it proved enormously popular among Irishmen and Irish Americans in the United States, and by the late 1880s its membership had swelled to 40,000. The Clan excelled at fundraising for the Irish cause". The two are not identical and so will likely not be flagged by the tool, but they are too close. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I made a few more changes, but I feel some instances that you consider close paraphrasing are because there are limited numbers of ways to say the same thing. Maybe we could get another opinion. MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Have your concerns about this nomination been met? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: See here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
There have also been similar concerns regarding close paraphrasing in MidwestCuttlefish's other current DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Chambers Morgan. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @MidwestCuttlefish: You asked for a second opinion on this nomination so I compared the article with one of its main sources using "Duplicate Detector" and I agree with Nikkimaria. It's not that passages have been copied wholesale from the original, but the structure of the paragraph tends to follow that of the source, with various substitutions of different words. You should look at the advice given here, where it states that you should "review information from reliable sources, extract the salient points, and use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for the article". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on September 27[edit]

Mausoleum of Abu Huraira

The portico facade, 2010
The portico facade, 2010
  • ... that the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira has been called "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine"? Source: Petersen, 2001, p. 313
    • ALT1:... that the ‘’’Mausoleum of Abu Huraira’’’, also known as the Tomb of Rabbi Gamaliel of Yavne, has been described as "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine”? Source: Petersen, 2001, p. 313

Moved to mainspace by Huldra (talk) and Onceinawhile (talk). Nominated by Huldra (talk) at 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

  • New enough (but please in future give date moved from draft), long enough, reads well (though a bit confusing on the actual building history, or it its early phases), AGF on hook quote. Earwig finds nothing - or rather one one source that has not been used but should be - I've added a note on the article talk. GTG - signing late. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest to wait till the RFC end to solve any NPOV issues. Shrike (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There was no icon given to the original, unsigned review, but the article should not be approved until problematic sentences like The formation of Jewish sacred place was based on the argument that many Jewish sacred burials were Islamized during history of the region. have been fixed, and the tags in the article related to the RFC have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry; that was me. It was meant to be GTG at the time, but there has been a fair deal of contentious editing since my review, including Shrike adding the sentence you have rightly highlighted as near-gibberish. Johnbod (talk)
  • Note DYK hook (and to a lesser extent the article) contains some rather strong POV language. The tomb is located within Israel proper (deep withing pre 1967 lines), and the tomb is an officially designated Jewish shrine as Rabban Gamaliel's Tomb which is also how it appears on contemporary maps. Stating the tomb has been described as one the finest in Palestine may confuse the modern reader. That this statement was made by a modern writer in 2001, is an indication of possible bias in the source chosen.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sigh. That quote is from a Professor in Islamic Archaeology, in UK. That is about as RS as you can get. That you-don't-like-it: yeah, we get it. But unless you have a WP:RS who says that the present language is "strong POV language", then the above is just your 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • RS on Islamic Archaeology perhaps (have not checked his creds). Not on geopolitics, where he may have a POV (or his original quote may have been clear in referencing the historic region, if so this has been lost in the quotation). Stating that a location in one country is in a diffrrent entity is tantamount to denying the existence of the former - which is highly POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually, no. It is rather standard Archaeology etc, to use the name Palestine, as it has been since the 19th century. It does not refer to a country, but a region, Palestine, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
          • 1. This is not used by all authors. 2. This is improper for DYK, without context, the current quote to a reader passing by implies that this is not in Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Did you see the article it leads to, Palestine, or without piping: Palestine (region)? It clearly shows that the area includes Israel. Yes, yes, we know that some are allergic to the word "Palestine"...that doesn't mean that WP:RS are allergic to it, too. Huldra (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
              • The article is in a better state in this regard in that Israel is in the first sentence (I do however intend to expand the Jewish history and present use). The DYK text is a problem. Using a piped link to a meaning that is not the one usually used, while omitting Israel, conveys an impression to the reader that does not look at the source or click every link. This could be a very nice article and DYK if POV were not asserted.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles created/expanded on October 6[edit]

Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above

Martin Luther
Martin Luther
  • ... that "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above", originally in German as "Vater unser im Himmelreich", by Martin Luther (pictured) and translated in 1863 was one of the more aggressive hymns that challenged Catholic teaching during the Reformation? Source: The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel and Christian Music. Hal Leonard Corporation. p. 28. ISBN 063402938X.

Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC).

Comment: I don't understand how Luther wrote anything in English. Please clarify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean Vater unser im Himmelreich? I'd suggest you expand that article with what concerns Luther, and reserve the one in English for Winkworth's translation and others, and their position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It has been clarified now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean by saying that it was in German originally? Not enough. No original title, no link to the existing article, and no reason to say similar things in both articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
ps: the hook also doesn't work, because the the hymn was not even translated at the time of the Reformation. No English hymn was more or less aggressive then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
IT is in the original that it is referencing which has now been mentioned in the hook as you requested. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear enough. The English (translated) hymn didn't exist until 1863. It was nothing at the time of the Reformation, 500 years ago. You cannot speak about it in historic context before that, - it's misleading. Expect a merge request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You can if its in relation to the original text which was translated. I have further clarified it for a future reviewer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Some may think they can, - I can't. I can't write Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman. If you look at our featured article about the composer, it's free from such a nonsense claim. You can imitate that quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Catherine Winkworth wrote the hymn "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above", translating "Vater unser im Himmelreich" by Martin Luther (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking the original hook, which at 229 characters excluding "(pictured)" is far too long for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am trying to get some form of Reformation reference in as that is why I requested for the 500th anniversary. I have reworded the original here and hope this is sufficient. ALT2... that "Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above" was translated from a German language hymn by Martin Luther (pictured), which was one of his hymns that challenged Catholic teaching in the Reformation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to focus on "aggressive" that day. My idea is the opposite. - I still think the article should be part of the one about Luther's hymn, or be about the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to focus on aggressive, I wanted to focus more on the Reformation hence why I wanted the hook to include it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg On hold until the merge proposal has concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 27 October