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 queuesTM: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.

Mark Hearld

[edit]

The current hook in Queue 5 was a last minute one that didn't make it in time for Christmas. It is quite boring. Would it be possible to replace it with something close to this:

Thriley I have changed it. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thriley (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One filled queue

[edit]

@DYK admins: We are now down to one filled queue. I would love to promote preps to queues, but I have built most of the sets because not many people care to promote hooks to prep. Just like apparently not many admins/template editors care to promote preps to queues. I don't think it's burnout with so many people who can just chip in with two queues or even just one. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Science Fiction Chronicle

[edit]

I approved the promoted hook. Can someone double check the nomination? Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a DYK admin, but for what it's worth, the nomination looks good to me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chauburji (Agra)

[edit]

Pinging AmateurHi$torian The hook says, "... that the Chauburji might have been the Mughal emperor Babur's original burial place? The article says, "is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." It doesn't match. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ram Nath identifies it with the Chaukhandi within the gardens named Bagh-i Zar Afshan, which is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." A building called the "Chaukhandi" is considered to be the original burial place of Babur. Now, whether Chauburji is the Chaukhandi, is disputed, hence "might". -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Julius Caesar

[edit]

Should the hook "that the month of July is named after the Roman dictator Julius Caesar?" be changed to "that the month of July is named after the Roman dictator Julius Caesar?" The AP (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Ravenpuff:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @SL93: as they were involved with the hook The AP (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current link text is effectively the clearest and most unambiguous option we have, as per the guidance at MOS:MORELINKWORDS. A longer link also helps to draw the attention of readers and leaves no doubt as to the target article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 this is especially important for accessibility reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Moore

[edit]

The current hook of "... that Darren Moore's Sheffield Wednesday were promoted even after they lost the first leg of their play-off semi-final 4–0?" seems like it wouldn't make much sense to non-fans. The hook "... that Darren Moore (pictured) led Sheffield Wednesday to promotion after they lost their play-off semi-final first leg by a four goal margin?" makes more sense, but I think that it should be made clear in the hook that Sheffield Wednesday is an association football club. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging EchetusXe SL93 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you. I tried to make it more understandable to non-fans rather ahead of being concise. I think the best solution for either hook would be to say "football manager Darren Moore..." ? EchetusXe 09:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (31 January)

[edit]

Lilium nobilissimum

[edit]

@SL93, Ornithoptera, and Cremastra: The article states the name denotes the sleeves which were used to hold the lily .... Why did this get turned into may refer to the sleeves... in the hook? RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I based it off of "There are two theories as to how the lily had received its name, one being that due to its native habitat being that of steep cliffs, the only way one could reliably transport them home was placing the bulbs in their kimono's sleeve pouches (袂, tamoto) while scaling the sea cliffs,[9][7][4][1][11] and the other was that the native habitat was close to a locale called Tamotogaura (袂ケ浦).[5][12]" Would fixing that first sentence in the lead solve the issue? SL93 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you could update the lead to match what it says in the main article, that would be good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann McMillan

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Miraclepine, and Surtsicna: I don't understand this hook. Why is "playing" in quotes? Where does this appear in the article? RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See note a); playing is in quotes because you can't really "play" a tape recorder except in this one context. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Oh, you absolutely can - see Martin Swope/Mission of Burma. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about

Henry A. Henry

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Ploni, and AmateurHi$torian: there's a fair bit of WP:CLOP from opensiddur.org. I'm honestly unsure what to do here. The source says it's CC0 in one place, but I'm not sure if that also applies to the sections from which we paraphrased. And even if it does, I think our policy is that we need to attribute it in some way even if the CC0 source doesn't require that. Somebody who understands our copyright policy better than I do should look at this. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac as someone who may know the answer. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question (Henry A. Henry) doesn't actually cite OpenSiddur anywhere; a link from it is used in the Publications section. The OpenSiddur link does have a bio at the bottom seemingly copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia article.  Ploni💬  05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • CC content absolutely needs to be attributed in some way, usually with {{Cc-notice}}; it didn't just appear from the ether, and indicates where the content came from. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Fennec fox

[edit]

The nominator was indefinitely blocked and given a community ban (see the linked discussion in the nom page for details). The nomination however remains open. Is anyone willing to adopt the nomination as it was passed as a GA and the GA pass stood, or should it be closed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 (2 February)

[edit]

Tomoko Aran

[edit]
  • ... that Tomoko Aran, despite her unsuccessful 1980s singing career, became a city-pop icon in the 2010s?

I have concerns about the use of "unsuccessful 1980s singing career" here... This appears to be a violation of WP:DYKHOOK because the word "unsuccessful" (or indeed "success") doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and while the article talks about her career in the 1980s in general terms, there is no part of the text which can directly translate to us saying her having 1980s singing career was unsuccessful. On another note, I'd also question whether the article supports the assertion that she's a "city-pop icon", stated directly as a fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. The prose says "both the Manila Bulletin and Robert Moran of The Age considering her iconic in the genre", but that's not the same as saying she's an unambiguous and widely-recognised "icon". Would be better to just say that she was described thus I'd have thought. Pinging @Miraclepine, Cukie Gherkin, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I added a sentence to the article about being referred to as a city pop icon with two references. I suggest this from the nomination - ... that singer Tomoko Aran became a city pop icon decades after her initial music career? SL93 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that works for me. Amended accordingly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: the wording should be city-pop icon, not city pop icon per the compound modifier guidelines at MOS:HYPHEN. When I first read this I thought it means a pop icon from the city, rather than an icon from the genre of city pop, so the distinction is important here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I understand. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taur Ikhbeineh

[edit]
  • ... that archaeologists found evidence at Taur Ikhbeineh in the Gaza Strip of interactions between Egyptians and Canaanites in the 4th millennium BC?

@Richard Nevell, Vice regent, and SL93: maybe a slightly minor point, but it's worth dotting our is and crossing our ts... I assume the hook refers to the sentence in the body which says "the earliest occupation layers at Taur Ikhbeineh included evidence of Egyptian and Canaanite cultures interacting". However, this doesn't directly mention the 4th millennium BC. I gather that this should be true because two paragraphs above we're told that the period of occupation was the 34th century BC, but per WP:DYKHOOK it really needs to be directly stated and the source used needs to directly say this in all its aspects. Does the source for this fact directly mention the time period in which the Egyptians and Canaanites interacted there? If so, please update the sentence in the article to make this clear (Also, as an aside, the citation should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook as well as at the end of the paragraph, at least until the DYK is done-and-dusted, them is the rules!) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I will see what I can do later today if no one else gets to it. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I've made the statement about the date more explicit in the Wikipedia article (and doubled up the reference). Does that fix it? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: that's great, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesius

[edit]
  • ... that Ernesius, a 12th-century archbishop of Caesarea, was once prevented from crossing the Mediterranean by such a severe storm that he refused to make a second attempt?

Morning @Surtsicna, Arbitrarily0, and SL93: - just noting that the article doesn't mention the "Mediterranean" anywhere. It's also not clear where the ship was trying to sail to and where exactly it encountered a storm. It would be good to add that detail, but at the very least the hook needs to be explicitly in the article and explicitly cited. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer proposed naming the Mediterranean and we agreed that "the Mediterranean" is essentially WP:CALC as the ship sailing from Syria to Europe has no other sea to cross. I am fine with not naming the Mediterranean. The article says that the ship was sailing to Europe. I thought it was clear that the storm was in the vicinity of Acre, but I suppose that can be made more explicit. Surtsicna (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anymore if CALC works for this. It doesn't mention geographic features. Either way, I don't think it would hurt to add the Mediterranean. I personally would if it was brought up. SL93 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The article implies that the ship was sailing from Acre to some unspecified destination. It's not within the scope of WP:CALC to say that a storm on such a journey was definitely in the Mediterranean. If the origin and the destination were explicitly named, for example Acre to Marseille, then maybe that would be OK... but as SL93 says, even then it doesn't hurt to be explicit. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna Can you update the article to address the issue? SL93 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru @SL93 They encountered a storm two days after they set off from Acre. Acre is on the Mediterranean cost and they could not have reached any other sea within two days. It literally could not be any other sea. If it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" because it is not explicitly named in the article, then surely it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" in the article because it is not named in the cited source. As far as I am concerned, the sea does not need to be named in the hook either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: since you've said the sea doesn't need to be named, and it's running tomorrow, I've changed Mediterranean to simply crossing the sea. Hope that is OK. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks

[edit]

I noticed that there's three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks set to run soon. They're all on different incarnations of bridges over the Mississippi River at Minneapolis, but perhaps someone more acquainted with DYK can say if this will be an issue going forward because I personally think one could arise. Courtesy links:

All active, two approved, one by me before I spotted the others or perhaps before they were added. None have been promoted to a prep yet. If we want to double down on the problematic aspect to overcome it, perhaps they can all be run on a single set (with year disambiguators present) as I know (or at least think) DYK has done in the past. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created/expanded these over time and really didn't really anticipate that I would have had time to work on and nominate them all in such a short span - but also a long enough span apart that they wouldn't be a single nomination. I'd like them to be separate hooks as they're all independently interesting, but as you suggested I think having clearly different names in the boldlink would be good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine with some sort of delayed running of the hooks so that they don't all run within a couple weeks of each other. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your initial proposal - having them all in the same set would be great, though I would not like to combine them into one hook. Though, if we do something like that, I could try to whip up an article for the last of the four bridges (though also the least significant) it a four hook combo would be fine... ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing is virtually never done, and I wouldn't be in favor of it here. A single multi-article hook would be fine; three hooks in one set about different incarnations of a bridge is against all of the guidelines about set balance, and there doesn't appear to be anything enormously special about these bridges that would warrant such special treatment. These three nominations should be run separately and with many days between each hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my general thought as well, combined with giving the bridges as unique of link titles as possible, as I've already attempted to do. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, folks have done sets for a single topic (Christmas, Halloween, fear, Olympics, etc.) but not a single subject. I think there was a really negative reaction when all the main page sections had content about the Queen of England but cannot remember the exact details. I would prefer running these hooks really spaced out to trying to cram them into one set. Rjjiii (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was also another case of a set being based around a relatively obscure religious feast a few years ago that also got a lot of pushback after it happened. The reaction was so bad that I think it actually led to the current guidelines regarding themed sets (i.e. they can only happen with prior consensus, unless they're for established occasions like Christmas). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Julier Pass

[edit]

@SL93, Toadspike, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: the image used is not great quality and mostly looks like a grey blob at small size. Why don't we go with File:Julierpass Columns Füssli.tif instead? RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I have no problem with that. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've dropped that in. It's still not wonderful, but I think it's an improvement. I would be great if we could find something even better. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Befrienders

[edit]

@SL93, Cielquiparle, and Miraclepine: I see the article talking about one critic (Jean Blackmore) laughing, not "some critics" (plural). RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: There's another critic besides Blackmore laughing: In a review for The Observer, George Melly wrote, "Seldom have I seen on television a more incredible hotch-potch of morally dubious attitudes, fake drama and the worst kind of tear-jerking schmalz. At the same time, I must own up to frequently bursting into astonished laughter." Should be easy to find by searching "laugh" on the page. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I read the first quote as belonging to Blackmore. I've done a little copyediting to clarify it. RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS, yes I've reviewed enough of these things to understand how to search for stuff :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to start addressing things during my work break, but I see that editors are moving fast. It’s good to see. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bugia (candlestick)

[edit]

@SL93, Maximilian775, and Mattythewhite: Why is it spelled "Bougie" in the article but "Béjaïa" in the hook? Also, I've trimmed "or other prelates" to make it a little shorter. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the etymology section to use Béjaïa. According to its article, Béjaïa is an Arabic name that was italianised as Bugia. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roll-A-Palace

[edit]

@SL93, Evedawn99, and JIP: I think we should attribute the quote as an opinion rather than stating it in wiki-voice. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it would work due to still being quoted. I will keep that in mind if what RoySmith said is the consensus. SL93 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

Wanted to tag Bunnypranav on this one. You probably should not be running more than one broadcasting hook from me per set. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought one of them forward before realising that there are now four in four sets. I'll do some more rearranging later this evening.--Launchballer 18:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I rearranged the sets so that they run every two sets - they're inoffensive enough that this should be enough of a gap but this can be revisited if we go to 2-a-day. (As far as I'm aware, there's no rule preventing me from moving one of my own from a queue back to a prep.) Unless I'm missing something, the picketing hook mentions one lead anchor but the article and source mention two.--Launchballer 01:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Reg Miller was fired outright. Laurel Sauer was only demoted (but removed from the evening newscasts all the same). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should be added to the article.--Launchballer 04:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies @Sammi Brie for missing distribute the hooks,and thanks Launchballer for doing the needful. I'll look more at the subject of the page before promoting to preps. Thanks for bringing it up! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eunos MRT station

[edit]

I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask this question but can someone change the hook for this article? AmateurHi$torian and I have decided to submit ALT3 instead of ALT0, which is seen in the review. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icepinner I can't do that because a reviewer cannot approve their own hook. What I can do is reopen the nomination for someone else to review ALT3. SL93 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Icepinner @SL93: I think we can temporarily remove the hook and revert the promoted close. That'll add back it to the queue for someone else to review the new/diff hook. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on doing that if Icepinner wants to. I just thought I should check first because it is such an old nomination. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunnypranav@SL93 nevermind, I don't think it's worth the hassle. Even though ALT3 is better than ALT0, ALT0 is good enough for a DYK. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Wielka, większa i największa

[edit]

I've just dipped my toes into promoting a hook, and I'd appreciate anyone with more experience verifying that I have done everything correctly. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Wielka, większa i największa to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You probably shouldn't be putting a seventh hook in the bottom set when it recommends leaving four empty, though admittedly there were bigger sins in that set before you got there, and I frequently make minor tweaks to articles I promote/queue (which, given that I'm already beat after reading this, hasn't been that many!) Otherwise, nice work.--Launchballer 13:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEEK (conference)

[edit]
  • ... that so many people attend SEEK, an annual Catholic young-adult conference, that the Eucharistic liturgies are planned more than a year and a half in advance?

Looking at the source for this one, I'm not sure it makes the same claim that the hook does. The hook says that the reason for the planning beginning far in advance of the conference is because of the number of people attending. But the source for this reads as follows:

Planning one liturgy for 17,000 people is a major task. Planning five Masses and an adoration night is even more complex.

Hellwig begins planning for the SEEK liturgies over a year and half before the scheduled conference. This gives him time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests.

So while the number of people is mentioned as presenting a major task, the primary reason given for the long planning period is the need to coordinate with other priests and the local diocese, not necessarily the 17,000 attendeees. Also, on a secondary note, I raised a query at WT:MOSCAPS#MOS:ALLCAPS in cases where there are almost no sources not rendering it that way about whether the title should be SEEK of Seek'. There isn't a definite answer yet, but people interested in this article may have a view on that. @Arbitrarily0, Aneirinn, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I read it as they needed "time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests" because of the attendees. I guess I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I interpreted it like SL93. The number of attendees are the ultimate reason so much preparation is needed (which includes coordination problems with the diocese). I can't imagine smaller Catholic conferences needing nearly as much lead time. But I think Darth Stabro is an expert in this area and perhaps would be willing weigh in. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SL93 and Arbitrarily0: and thanks for the responses... And I do agree that's a possible interpretation of what's written. It's a big event, lots of attendees, five masses and an adoration night, it all plays into the need to start planning well in advance. That's a reasonable inference, but perhaps not the only one. The issue is that WP:DYKHOOK is very strict in this regard - "The hook should include a fact that is unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page; citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable". The size of the congregations and the number of masses are not directly given as reasons for the long lead time; only the need to coordinate with the diocese and invite priests is directly mentioned in connection with the year and a half period. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find this to be within the bounds of DYKHOOK. I don't see a plausible interpretation in which the long lead time is ultimately caused by something other than the size of the conference. Yes, the coordination with the diocese is a proximate cause; but what explains the proximate cause is the remote cause, viz., the size of the conference. The context of the passage makes it clear that this is what's intended. That said, I don't wish this to be an obstacle; and I appreciate, Amakuru, your attention to detail. Here's a similar hook which might address the issue:
  • ALT1 ... that the Eucharistic liturgies of SEEK, a Catholic young-adult conference which attracts thousands of attendees, are planned more than a year and a half in advance?
I could also see the clause "which attracts thousands of attendees" being removed. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 21. We have a total of 300 nominations, of which 172 have been approved, a gap of 128 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

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) 16:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1273527901"