Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:40, 9 January 2025

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 10 hours ago( verify reset purge )

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs • Removed hooks: 2023–24

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Back to 24 hours?

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 January

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

8 January

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

QPQ: per-nomination or per-article?

At User talk:Reidgreg, User:Reidgreg is arguing that the QPQ they previously used for a failed DYK nomination should remain valid for a new nomination for the same article (newly re-eligible after a GA pass). My impression is that a QPQ is per-nomination: once you use one on a nomination, even one that fails, you have used it up and need another one for any future nominations, even of the same article. (I also think that doing a QPQ should be no big deal, so why not just do another one rather than insisting on not doing one.) Can anyone clarify this point in the rules, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The rules aren't 100% clear on this, but based on previous precedent, it is indeed per nomination. For example, if user Example nominates Foo, uses Bar as their QPQ, and Foo's nomination fails, then the QPQ for Bar is already used up. The spirit of this is suggested by WP:QPQ: A review does not need to be successful to count as a QPQ. The corollary of that would be that a nomination does not need to be successful for the QPQ to be used up. There may be exceptions for when a QPQ is vacated or pulled for reasons, for example the nominator deciding to withdraw their nomination before it is reviewed, or the QPQ being a donation anyway only for them to take away the donation, but those are the exceptions and not the rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, if there aren't any objections, I'm going to add that clarification to WP:QPQ later today (a QPQ is used up regardless if a nomination is successful or not). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no caveat at WP:QPQ that it's only tor successful nominations:

... you must complete a full review of one other nomination (unrelated to you) for every subsequent article you nominate‍

The failed nomination still required someone's time to review it, so that old QPQ was burned. I don't think we necessarily need a special rule for this wikilawyer case. —Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to clarify this in the rules. In the case at hand (first nomination failed because it did not quite satisfy the 5x expansion rule) I think it is acceptable to leave it to the reviewer's discretion whether to require a new QPQ (basically the question is how much extra work still needs to be done by the reviewer). But indeed a QPQ should be no big deal, so asking for an extra one (especially given our backlog) should usually be fine. —Kusma (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me for the hijack, but I just noticed the guideline now says "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination". Last time I checked, one could complete the QPQ requirement within a week of listing a nomination. When was the change made, and why? I fail to see any good reason why QPQ's should have to be done prior to nominating rather than within a few days of doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it a few months ago, and the consensus was to discontinue the old practice of allowing QPQs to be provided up to a week after the nomination, in favor of requiring QPQs at the time of the nomination. This was because, in practice, many nominators would be very late in providing QPQs, but due to backlogs, this lateness would not be noticed by reviewers even if over a week had already passed. This coincided with a fairly long backlog at the time and was also implemented around the time DYKTIMEOUT became a thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 201 § QPQ timeouts. —Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Bagumba. I'm not seeing a clear consensus for the change in that discussion, but rather a number of different proposals, so I'm not sure how the conclusion was arrived at that there was a consensus for this.

The guideline as it currently stands doesn't even make sense. What does it mean to provide the QPQ "before or at the time of the nomination"? What does "at the time" mean exactly? Within an hour? Two hours? 24 hours? Who decides? If the requirement is for providing a QPQ at the same time as the nomination, then clearly it would have to be done before the nomination, in which case "at the time" is redundant.

Part of my objection to this change is that it was apparently made because some users found it irritating to have to chase up people who didn't get their QPQ's done within the required week. But that could have been addressed simply by adding the clause that the nomination will be failed without warning if the QPQ is not provided within the alloted time. There was no need to require the QPQ before the nomination to solve this issue, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just the messenger.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In practice, I think there is still some leeway. But really, for our veterans, best practice is just doing a few reviews when you have time and saving them up so you do not run out of QPQs when you need them. Too many veterans provided their QPQs late, some very late, so we changed the rules to reduce friction. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, if the problem is that veterans are providing their QPQ's late, then the solution would be simply to add the clause that nominations which fail to provide their QPQ's within the alloted 7 days will be failed. There was no reason to remove the 7-day grace period as well - that just penalizes the users who find it more convenient to add their QPQ's after getting the other aspects of their nominations in order. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it not difficult to just simply do the QPQs before making nominations? As Kusma said above, it should be encouraged for nominators to review noms ahead of time and to build up a stash of QPQs, instead of waiting until nominating an article before QPQ. The change was done because, as I mentioned above, even reviewers would themselves forget to fail or remind nominators that their QPQs were late. For example, a nomination that had a pending QPQ several weeks after nominating, but no reviewer noticed until it was too late. The removal of the grace period was regrettable, but it was a response to a situation that had become untenable, to prevent such cases from happening again.

As Kusma said, in practice there is still some leeway given. Nominators are often still given a reminder about their QPQs. The change merely allows discretion in immediately failing a nomination if a QPQ is provided, which can be a big issue especially for veterans who, frankly, should have known better regarding the requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well if in practice, there is still "some leeway given", why does the guideline say that nominations without QPQs may be closed "without warning"? The one contradicts the other - either there is "leeway" or there is not.

I don't think it fair to leave closures of this type to the whim of reviewers. Either provide clearly defined "leeway", say in the form of a compulsory warning before closure, or just state outright that nominations without QPQs will be closed immediately "without warning" and with no do-overs. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Leeway is already implicitly stated by the wording "may". It's not "must". It's left to reviewer discretion. For example, if the editor is unfamiliar with the rule, they can be given a notice or warning, but if they're a DYK regular and do not give a QPQ within, say a few days, then it can be closed without warning. In practice, it's usually not a good idea to close a nomination a day or two after it is created without a QPQ. Three days is probably enough time, one week is too long. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Our most valuable (and limited) resource is the time volunteers put into the project. When you ask somebody to review your work, you are consuming some of that resource, so it's only fair that you pay the project back by contributing your own review. If you keep that basic concept in mind, then all the wikilawyering goes away. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's also the argument that a strict implementation without a grace period would also discourage tardy QPQ reviews. If nominators were aware that they have to provide a QPQ at the time of the nomination, and know that their nominations can be closed at any time without a QPQ, they may become more likely to do the QPQ instead of putting it off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For example, if the editor is unfamiliar with the rule, they can be given a notice or warning, but if they're a DYK regular and do not give a QPQ within, say a few days, then it can be closed without warning.

Well, that's your interpretation, but who's to say anybody shares it? That's the problem with inadequately defined guidelines.

But if you want to argue that users should have three days to add their QPQs or have their nominations tossed without warning, I could get behind that. But then, why not codify that in the guideline so that everybody knows exactly where they stand? Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The point here is that whether to immediately close a nomination for lack of a QPQ, or to warn the nominator first, is left to editor discretion. It really depends on the case in question. That's the reason for the "may" wording. There's no firm rule. The only rule is that there should be a QPQ provided at the time of the nomination, and a nomination without one provided can be closed at any time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then, if your nomination can be closed without warning at the whim of a reviewer, then in effect, there is no leeway, is there? If your nomination can be closed without warning if it doesn't include a QPQ, who is going to risk that?

But if that's how you want to play it, what's the difference between closure without warning at the time of the nomination, or closure without warning three days after? The only difference is that the latter puts those who prefer to do their QPQs after their nominations on the same footing as those who like to "bank" their QPQs beforehand.

For the record, I have never "banked" a QPQ. When I am active on DYK, I review nominations frequently, but I don't keep score and don't care to. When I submit a nomination of my own, I provide new QPQs for the nomination, that way both I and the reviewer can see that they are new and haven't been used previously. I basically use my nominations as an incentive to do more reviews than I would otherwise do. And I happen to know that I am not the only user who operates this way. Forcing us to provide QPQs prior to nomination will remove that incentive to the net loss of the project. I can also see it pushing me to rush reviews in order to get my nomination out in a timely manner. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I had never banked QPQs either, but I do now, it's a simple change to make. I have one I haven't even written down yet, maybe I'll get around to that soon. Alternatively, I've done QPQs in the seven days I had to nominate the article. The seven day window is still very much there. CMD (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If it were just one or two QPQs, the idea might not bother me so much. But my nominations are usually multis - for example, I am currently working on a multi with five or six articles. That's one heck of a lot of QPQs to plough through before even being able to list my nom. It's turning the DYK experience from something that is supposed to be fun into just another chore. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Why does the QPQ/nom order affect the overall fun? CMD (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can understand the rules being strict in order to swiftly deal with abusers but I can also understand general leniency given for the most part. I've got 20 QPQs banked so it's no big deal (doing my part to keep this afloat). As mentioned the rules are not 100% clear and I was inquiring about that with the previous reviewer. I don't feel that I was insisting or wikilawyering. I never had a DYK rejected before (it was argued to be marginally below a 5x expansion) and didn't contest that rejection. Anyways, new QPQ up and since I'm paying for it, I'll request a new reviewer to make sure this is above board. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Josie Childs

@AirshipJungleman29, SL93, and Flibirigit: Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like there's no credit template for this. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fell out in this edit. I've added it.--Launchballer 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thomas P. Fenner

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Metropolitan90: The article says "profits ... helped finance" which implies it was one of several sources of funding, but the hook says "was paid for" which implies it was the only source. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith We could insert the word partially if you think it is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hefker

@AirshipJungleman29, ProfGray, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It seems to me that to get from the the paragraph ("For David Bergelson, hefker refers to expressionist poetry itself...") in the article to the hook requires a bit more insight and interpretation than is typical for DYK, but I'd like a second opinion on this one.

There was also a question raised on the nom page about whether most readers would understand the word "Talmudic". My guess is that most people, while perhaps not actually knowing what the Talmud is, would at least recognize that it's a historic book associated with Judiasm, but let's see what others thing about that as well. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This also contains some long direct quotes from PD sources. That's fine, but I think they need to be set out as quotes with explicit attribution. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The article uses Template:Source-attribution to credit the public domain source. As I understand it, this attribution, plus inline citations, is enough to meet the requirements of WP:FREECOPY. If I have misinterpreted this policy, I will re-approve the nom once the changes have been made. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's good to hear people's thinking about this DYK. Let me clarify that the scholars Naomi Brenner and Harriet Murav are the ones who make the interpretation (or finding) that hefker conveys both senses of freedom and abandonment. FWIW, I think "Talmudic" is acceptable but, to err on the side of caution, I edited the article to give a brief descript of the word Talmud. Please let me know if there's more needed on my end. ProfGray (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few 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 December 26. We have a total of 283 nominations, same as last time, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 112 nominations that has increased by 19 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sugya
• November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Family Stress Model
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Tellus (app)
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India

Other nominations

• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song)
• December 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Browning
• December 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Tarif-i Husain Shahi
• December 16: Template:Did you know nominations/2014–15 College Football Playoff
• December 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Aon v Australian National University
• December 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Wilson Warbirds
• December 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Yogini with a Mynah Bird
• December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Lars Chemnitz
• December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Troupeau Bleu
• December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Theresia Bauer
• December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Wu Zhong (general)
• December 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma Boy
• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Legend of Aphroditian
• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Dhumnath Temple
• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Devarani and Jithani temples
• December 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Roddy MacLellan
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Armand Ceritano
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev Posad
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Sitaleshwar Temple
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Scorsese Baby Daddy
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Di Algemeyne Entsiklopedye
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Kerekorio Manu Rangi
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Joy to the World (Doctor Who)
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick W. Hinitt
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Orphic Hymns
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/East Kangqiao station

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) 04:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing that we've been running two sets per day for the past five days and the deficit is still moving in the wrong direction. I wonder if we should be looking at 10 hooks per set after we get done beating down this backlog? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

171 approved hooks per this list, 190 per the last one; 93 non-approved per the last list, 112 per this one. The number of approved hooks is shrinking. Am I missing something?--Launchballer 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I interpreted "has increased by 19" as "gotten bigger". Silly me. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mind the gap. If you look at the Approved noms page, last night it was fully transcluded for the first time in weeks. Progress is being made on the deficit; thanks to recent promotions to prep, we're now down to 141 approved hooks, a drop of 30 in the past day and a half. But the number of unapproved hooks is increasing now that we're not in backlog mode and the GA backlog drive is in full swing. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (8 January)

Debra Toporowski

• ... that Debra Toporowski (pictured) was unable to receive Indian status in Canada before 1985, because her mother had been forced to relinquish her status after marrying a Chinese-Canadian man?

The text in this hook is not matched with the text in the article in a two places - (1) the article says "membership within the Cowichan Tribes" was not possible before 1985 rather than "Indian status in Canada"; it's not obvious to me that those are the same thing. (2) the article says "her mother had married a Chinese man", not a "Chinese-Canadian" as per the hook above. These discrepancies should be resolved so the hook reflects the article and the cited sources exactly. Pinging @Ornithoptera, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good day Amakuru, seems like the hook was altered after approval. I have adjusted the article to say "Chinese-Canadian". The reason why the 1985 date is important is that adjustments to the Indian Act to remove the provisions that were applicable to Toporowski's case had occurred. The Cowichan Tribes barred Toporowski from membership because her mother had lost her Indian status through that act, and therefore she too would not be applicable for membership within the tribes. As a bit of a TLDR, her mother, and Toporowski before she was born, simultaneously lost both their status and their membership. If this is difficult to reconcile, we could use ALT0 or ALT2 as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ornithoptera:, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this can be reconciled - if it's possible to summarise the above points in the article, so that the hook fact can be married up with what's written there, giving us a close match, then that will be fine. But if that isn't possible, a switch to another hook would be the way forward I think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A bit busy in terms of my work schedule at the moment, if it would be implemented it would probably be a footnote. Would it be possible to switch to ALT0? Ornithoptera (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: OK,  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bæddel and bædling

• ... that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?

Does this count as a "definite fact" per the stipulations at WP:DYKCRIT? I'm not convinced that something that merely "may have" been true is legitimate for DYK, given that the hook gives readers no context on which to judge it's likelihood of being true. The article itself is not really terribly forthcoming on the weight of evidence for the different interpretations of this either... @Generalissima, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a definite fact that they may have been (compare "Ellen Thesleff's self-portrait may have been drawn in a trance-like state?", "an enigmatic ancient site deep in Madagascar (pictured) may have been built by Zoroastrians?" ). The evidence for these terms is limited (the article itself is able to go over more or less all of the attestations), and I think the article well summarises the interpretations that this limited corpus has been given. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

that's fair, but i'm not sure i agree with that – if that's the standard, then pretty much anything can be a definite fact, since almost anything may be true? what's more accurate and definite is that smart, reputable people have suggested it is true. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

While not currently supported by the article, would either of these alternative wordings adddress the concerns?

• ... that scholars have suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
• ... that it has been suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?

The idea is that it would better meet the "definite fact" guideline by showing that it is the suggestion that is definite, and not the third gender claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, and Tenpop421: I would be happy with the first of those two suggestions if it could be made to match what's in the article - attributing the claim to "scholars" while also being clear that it's only one interpretation, gives it a sufficient air of legitimacy and IMHO elevates it to the point where the speculation itself is a definite fact. Currently the lead says "scholars have suggested that bædlings could represent a third gender", but this is not directly mentioned in this language with a citation in the body AFAICT, so that would need to be done before go-live. As an aside, my interpretation is the same as leeky's that I wouldn't count "X may be true" as a definite fact. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No opinion on this particular case, but when scholars have said something may be the case, it is a definite fact that they have so opined, which is sufficient to meet WP:DYKCRIT. Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've amended to add "scholars have suggested" per above and an update to the article to reflect this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

1957 Ruskin Heights tornado

• ... that pilots reported debris at an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m) after the 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado?

The article doesn't as far as I can see mention that the debris at 30,000 was reported by pilots. The relevant text simply says "Debris from Hickman Mills was found in Iowa, 165 mi (266 km) away, and other debris was carried aloft 30,000 ft (9,100 m; 5.7 mi; 9.1 km)", without saying how the elevated debris was known about... @EF5, Wildfireupdateman, Departure–, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of verifying ALT0 and never checked this one. I don't have access to the source, but I did find that the NWS source the figure of 30,000 is sourced to states:

On May 20, 1957 the atmospheric wind profile displayed a clockwise change in wind direction from the surface up through 30,000 feet in the atmosphere. This type of atmospheric wind profile often is associated with rotating or supercell type thunderstorms (Figure 6)

This refers to helicity in the atmosphere, not debris. I can't access most of the sources cited there. However, the Weather Bureau May 1957 Storm Data source states:

Debris carried to height of 30,000 feet and to many miles from damage path.

I'd remove the "pilots reported" part. Even though I'm not sure how else it would be verified, pilots aren't mentioned in any of the sources I can access. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the book Significant Tornadoes, 1880-1989: Volume 2, a Chronology of Events by Grazulis(undoubtedly an RS, archive link https://archive.org/details/significanttorna0002thom/page/400/mode/2up), "A cancelled check from Hickman Mills was found at Ottumwa, Iowa, 165 miles away. Pilots reported debris at an attitude of 30,000 feet." If needed, you can change the source to this book. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if that's WPOR by Grazulis though, so I would be fine if "pilots reported" was removed. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Can a statement by a subject matter expert be considered original research, though? Departure– (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is that he might have gone "there's no other way to see debris at 30k at that time, so it must be from pilots" and he would be right, but I'm afraid of that being OR. But again, WP:VNT is a thing, so by that standard the original hook would work. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reworded to remove the reference to pilots reporting it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK time???

Under Template:Did you know/Queue#DYK time, we've got:

The next empty queue is 3. (update · from prep 3 · from prep 4 · clear)

What do these links do? I'm afraid to click on any of them to find out for fear of doing something I might regret. Do these force main page updates from those various sources? RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I just clicked on all of them. They don't do anything, just take you to various pages. I suspect they are a hangover from the days of manual queueing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

They open up the editing windows for the next empty queue, next two preps, and Template:Did you know/Clear. See Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Admin instructions#Moving a prep to queue 2.--Launchballer 15:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (8 January)

The Bootleggers (Hopper)

@AirshipJungleman29, Viriditas, and Randy Kryn: The article says "thought to depict the smuggling of alcohol" but the hook presents this as authoritative fact in wiki voice: "portrays the illegal alcohol trade" RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Take another look. The sentence you refer to doesn’t hedge the question of smuggling alcohol, but rather the location depicted. Viriditas (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I’m partial to ALT1, but it is long. Viriditas (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Blossoms Under Somewhere

@AirshipJungleman29, Prince of Erebor, and Artem.G: I'm a little concerned about the WP:BLP aspects here, heightened by the fact that most of the sources are in Chinese, making it difficult to verify. I see that the nom includes English translations of excerpts from the relevant sources; maybe we could include those quotes in the article references so our readers can have access to them? RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith, Great suggestion! I have added the quote and its English translation to the source that supports the hook fact. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Flag of Okinawa Prefecture

If it's decided to keep the flag as the primary hook in and from Preparation area 1, please add a border so the shape of the white flag is clearly visible. Thanks! Yue🌙 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Yue:  Done. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Goro Takahashi

@Sonovawolf, Ornithoptera, and AirshipJungleman29: I see WP:CLOP which needs remedying. I also don't find the hook interesting.--Launchballer 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Re the CLOP: Using Earwig I can see there might be minor parts of common sentences that are similar like "at the age of 28" or parts of quotes like " would travel back to the United States" but nothing major. Are those the problem you are referring to, or if not, can you be more specific?

Re the hook: I believe there are many parts of this article that could pique people's interest:

1. A Japanese man in the 70s traveled to the USA to learn silversmithing from Native Americans. He was so loved by them that they adopted him and allowed him to attend a Sun Dance. Perhaps it's a problem of rewriting the existing hook?
2. A Lakota family adopting a Japanese man is quite rare and interesting in itself.
3. Celebrities like Eric Clapton and John Mayer collecting the silversmithing work of a Japanese man that learned his trade from Native Americans seems like it would appeal to a more general public, but also seems less edifying to me.
4. Goro starting the whole movement of Native-American inspired jewelry in Japan seems interesting.

Do you think these are too niche?

Anyway, thank you for your edits on Goro's page. Sonovawolf (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The current hook is:

* ... that Goro Takahashi, a silversmith adopted by a Lakota family, was the first Japanese person allowed to attend a Sun Dance?

Not sure if that was the hook Launchballer was referring to above, but in terms of interest it looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It relies on knowing what Lakota and Sun Dance are. I'm English, and I don't.--Launchballer 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Heck man, that's what the links are for. Sheesh. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I tend to assume that if I haven't heard of it, a broad audience also won't.--Launchballer 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I may have to agree with Gatoclass here. I don't really know what a Sun Dance is, although I do know who the Lakota are. To me, the interest here is the "first Japanese person to be allowed to see X" thing, what exactly is X is more secondary to the point. Like, if he was the first Japanese person to see X, it must have been some kind of big deal even if I don't know what X is. I imagine that readers may feel the same way, although of course other editors may disagree. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection then, but I still have CLOP concerns. (It's things like "at the age of 28" and "would travel back to the United States".)--Launchballer 16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I think I took care of the CLOP concerns. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Chromakopia

I'm involved, so must ask for more eyes.--Launchballer 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is the quote from in the "Background and recording" section? Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I assumed it came from the same source the previous sentence quoted from. Cut.--Launchballer 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this passes DYKNEW. The nomination says it was 5x'd by MontanaMako, but I'm not seeing this expansion in the user's contribs. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to write an article to nominate it, but pinging @Sammi Brie, MontanaMako, and AirshipJungleman29: anyway.--Launchballer 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but checking the revision from just before the nomination vs a revision from seven days before shows just a 1.4x expansion. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I reckon it's a 5x expansion from about 10 and a half days before nominating to now and MontanaMako is a newish nominator. I won't pull it, but I won't object if someone else does.--Launchballer 16:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems I didn't fully understand what 5x meant for DYK. I thought it meant that the article itself was 5x by all Misplaced Pages editors, not just me. If this mistake means this isn't okay to be on DYK, then so be it. Apologies for all the confusion this simple nomination caused. MontanaMako (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You were understanding it correctly. 5x expansion is by all editors, not necessarily the nominator. The question is if a 5x expansion was accomplished within seven days of the nomination, regardless of who expanded it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. To be honest, I kind of assumed it would be 5x because I nominated it after the album released, thus there’d be a lot more info for the article. I could’ve been wrong though. MontanaMako (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

From Prep 5:

• ... that land vertebrates and freshwater fish like limias (example pictured) have been hypothesized to have colonized the Caribbean islands via a controversial land bridge?

Apart from the clunkiness of the prose (ie, "have been hypothesized to have"), the phrase "a controversial land bridge" is just confusing. How can a piece of land be controversial? What the phrase is trying to say is that a certain land bridge hypothesis is controversial. A better hook might perhaps be something like:

• ALT1: ... that a hypothetical land bridge may account for the presence of certain land vertebrates and freshwater fish like limias (example pictured) in the Caribbean islands?

Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Your ALT1 is definitely an improvement and I agree with your concern. "may account" could be weakened to something like "has been suggested as an explanation for", but of course that is getting a bit long. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the really interesting thing here is a land bridge enabling fish to migrate, so perhaps the hook should concentrate on that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact is already implied in the suggested hook. But the article doesn't really expand on the method by which that may have occurred, so highlighting that particular angle further would only lead to reader disappointment. In any case, it would be a tough job combining that with the info about the bridge being hypothetical. It was a pretty tough job coming up with a hook that successfully linked the two bolded articles already, and I don't think I can do any better. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

... that a hypothesized land bridge may have allowed some fish species (example pictured) to island-hop from South America to Cuba?"

Neither article explicitly mentions Cuba, but the cited Rodríguez-Silva et al paper does, so that could be added. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, so long as the fact is in the article and cited.

Please note that I will probably be unable to respond further here today, as I'm about to take a break. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

- substituted above alt (with minor tweak for verification). Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Richard Stratton

Also, the Richard Stratton (diplomat) hook has way too many quotes in my view - and few of which add any information of real value. Pinging the nominator User:BeanieFan11. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• The hook only has one quote? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not the hook User:BeanieFan11, the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree there's lots of quotes, probably too many, but WP:OVERQUOTING isn't a DYK criteria. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

- I gave it a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Details Cannot Body Wants

Two paragraphs lacking cites. Pinging the nominator User:Icepinner. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Tick marks in preps

@Gatoclass and I have disagreed on whether its OK to mark up prep sets with tick marks as in Special:Diff/1267766097. I know this was discussed once but I can't find the thread, and I don't believe his assertion that it "is an accepted method of reviewing" is correct. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 200#Adding comments in-line with hooks in preps and WP:DYKPARTIAL. That said, given that all nine have been assessed I can't see why it can't be queued.--Launchballer 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (10 January)

Clay M. Greene

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Pbritti: The hook conflates Some sources claim he was the "first American born in San Francisco" with Greene himself, who controversially claimed he was "the first white child born in San Francisco" RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There are two sources cited in the lead that looked to verify the statement "first American born in San Francisco" statement. While one is an old headline, it is from the NYT and there's a secondbut offline source present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not an issue of what the sources say. It's that the hook says something that the article doesn't say. Per WP:DYKHOOK The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I was confused as to the issue. Would appropriate resolutions be rephrasing to something like "claim he was 'the first American' born in San Francisco" or dispensing with the quotation marks entirely? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what the issue is here.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the hook says that Greene claimed he was the "first American born in San Francisco". That is not what the article says. RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

See the lead paragraph. Second sentence. It states what is in the hook. The selective quote about Greene's comments later in the article is not representative of all of Greene's statements on this subject as he repeated these claims in various words across many speeches. 4meter4 (talk)

@RoySmith. would this hook be more suitable as it more closely matches the lead: ... that multiple sources state that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) was the first American born in San Francisco; a controversial claim spread by the writer?4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not just do the obvious thing and use the wording from the aricle:

• ... that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) claimed he was the "the first white child born in San Francisco"?

that would solve the problem. RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith Ok. If that is what you think is necessary. In digging up that source again and double checking for accuracy, the exact quote is "the first American white child born in San Francisco". I modified the text accordingly in the article to exactly match the source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the corresponding change to the hook. BTW, I tried to read the source, but newspapers.com seems to be broken at the moment. Do you have a URL where I could get at it? RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I had a hard time digging it up again myself as something weird is going on (i used newspaperarchive and not newspapers.com) I had to physically go into the archive for that publication and open the date of the page for that specific newspaper as a word search wasn't getting a hit. It was really odd. Here is the link through the wikipedia library: https://access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/us/nevada/reno/reno-evening-gazette/1933/05-24/page-4 Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of the confusion. I was expecting to see a direct quote of Greene saying, "I was the first American white child born in San Francisco", which is why I was insisting on reproducing the text exactly. But that's not the case. Regardless, I think what we've got now is fine, so let's go with that. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lingnan School

@AirshipJungleman29, Crisco 1492, and Yue: The article uses the word "criticism" which got turned into the stronger word "condemnation" in the hook. I'm not sure that's justified. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've used "condemnation" in place of criticism in the article. Source supports it: "In the increasingly anti-Japanese atmosphere of the times, this freshly made-in-Japan appearance was a liability much heavier than the first generation of Lingnan painters had had to bear twenty years earlier. ... After the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937, such appeals to cultural conscience were useless and the Japanese background even more damaging to the Lingnan School. ... With Japanese armies transcending China's borders, a cosmopolitanism that included the national enemy was not in style." (Croizier), "Despite some explicitly anti-Japanese art by Gao Jianfu and his followers at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, most works displayed unmistakable signs of Japanese stylistic influence, which aroused the ire of patriots as well as artistic conservatives." (Croizier and Liang) — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• Then the solution would be to change "criticism" in the article body to "condemnation" because as the source suggests, it was not merely artistic criticism. Yue🌙 20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2008 Picher–Neosho tornado

@EF5: A citation is needed at the end of the first paragraph under the section titled Tornado summary. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. E_F 14:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

2020 NFC Championship Game

@SL93, Gonzo fan2007, and OlifanofmrTennant: Why is the statement in the hook in quotes? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Its a direct quote from the source Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Then it should also be in quotes in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Berta Persson

@SL93, MumphingSquirrel, Chaiten1, and AirshipJungleman29: I question whether SKBL (cited in the nom) is a WP:RS, and this is the kind of "first" which can be problematic; it's really hard to know if any woman in Sweden had ever driven a bus before she did. There's also a fair amount of WP:CLOP vs skbl.se/en/article/BertaPersson; not just the exact matches Earwig highlights, but continuing to the surrounding text. As an aside to Airship; you said in the nom that "I don't have time to check fully". If that was the case, then wouldn't it have been better to not approve it yourself? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably would have been best, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can go ahead and fix the CLOP, but the About page made it seem to me as reliable. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith Earwig now reports the article as violations being 0% across all sources. SKBL is a reliable source per this on the About SKBL page - "The project leaders are Lisbeth Larsson and Maria Sjöberg. The editorial board comprises Berith Backlund, Linus Karlsson, Ulrika Lagerlöf Nilsson, Cecilia Pettersson, Scharolta Siencnik, and Linnea Åshede. The dictionary entries were written by experts and researchers (listed under the entry for ʻArticle authors’) and translated into English by Alexia Grosjean. The database was developed by Språkbanken and is managed by Swe-Clarin. The database and the dictionary form part of KvinnSam – the National Resource Library for Gender Studies at the University of Gothenburg... As for the hook fact, Sweden's official Facebook page agrees. I don't see a reason to doubt the Swedish government in this case. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Starbuck (film)

@AirshipJungleman29, Reidgreg, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I don't understand this hook at all. I can't parse ... that the comedy film Starbuck and the Holstein bull after which it was named both had cloned remakes? as an English sentence. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, maybe it's supposed to be ... that the comedy film Starbuck, and the Holstein bull after which it was named, both had cloned remakes? RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, both seem comprehensible to me, and maybe more comprehensible if you move the "both" to after the "that"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps just go with Airship's suggestion sans the serial comma, Roy? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

updated RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Lilium lophophorum

Maybe it's just me, but that picture looks like the plant from Little Shop of Horrors. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Aquilegia daingolica (nom)

@Pbritti, BeanieFan11, and SL93: it may be my poor understanding of botanical literature, but the source seems to say that a specimen was collected as early as 1906? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Sloppy work on my part. I have added the collection of the 1906 specimen, now characterized as a paratype, to the article. If you would be so kind, please adjust the hook to read "that specimens of Aquilegia daingolica were collected in 1906 and 1909, but it was first described as a new species in 2013?" Apologies, and outstanding catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see that I became confused. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Allied prisoners of war in Japan (nom)

An interesting hook, but it says that " the harsh treatment of Allied prisoners of war in Japan is well known in the West but mostly forgotten in Japan itself?". The article, however, says that it is "ignored or glossed over", which do not appear to be synonyms of "forgotten". Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Piotrus. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Always Happy to Explode (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29: Your edit to the hook here improved my admittedly clunky syntax but I think also introduced ambiguity. The reason I had worded it such a way was to indicate that the quote refers to the one individual song, whereas I think the updated wording loses that distinction and makes it sound like the quote refers to the album as a whole. Would it be an improvement to say,

ALT0a ...that when asked about a song on Always Happy to Explode, its principal songwriter asked listeners to "love it for me, for I cannot"?

If you or others think my concerns are unfounded then I will defer, just thought I'd propose the alt. Thanks, DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Manual update needed

@DYK admins: @DYKUpdateBot: appears to be down.--Launchballer 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restarted DYKUpdateBot, it's updating now. Shubinator (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know discussion pages