Talk:OneBlood

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by GGOTCC (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A Big Red Bus in Tifton, Georgia

• ... that one blood bank served about 90% of Florida's blood donation needs in 2015?

• Source: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/healthcare/2015/07/31/blood-bank-merger-will-save-costs-and-improve-services/15673859007/

• • ALT1: ... that OneBlood served about 90% of Florida's blood donation needs in 2015? Source: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/healthcare/2015/07/31/blood-bank-merger-will-save-costs-and-improve-services/15673859007/
  • ALT2: ... that Big Red Buses (example pictured) help with OneBlood donations in the Southeastern United States? Source: https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/healthcare/2015/07/31/blood-bank-merger-will-save-costs-and-improve-services/15673859007/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bad Piggies / Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah Green (golfer)
  • Comment: QPQ to be done soon. Nomination is being flagged as "Possibly ineligible as date is not within the past week", and while technically a few hours past the 7 days, it is still the 16th in my time zone, 7 days after I created this article on the 9th, so hoping for a kind extension here. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Created by Soulbust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 48 past nominations.

Soulbust (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC).

• @Soulbust: I will close this if I don't see a QPQ in the next 24 hours.--Launchballer 21:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Launchballer: It's in progress right now. Soulbust (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, full review needed.--Launchballer 01:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'll still participate in the aforementioned Bad Piggies DYK nom, but for the purposes of getting this one moved along in the process, I completed another QPQ here. Soulbust (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Article is long enough, new, properly cited, stable, and written in a neutral POV. I've amended the hooks to include "in 2015" because this fact was from over 10 years ago when the merger happen. I'm fine with removing this only if we can find a recent source (perhaps no more than three years old) that shows this is still the case that they do 90% of donations. I'm just concern that the info could be outdated so please feel free to come forward with a new source and we can amend it back.

Anyways, QPQ is done, I'm choosing ALT0 but the rest are fine and fully cited. There are no AISIGNS and no copyright violations (Earwig pulls 14%, but after further inspection all of these matches are from organization names and not direct text from the sources). Ready for the main page. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Pulled DYK

@GreenLipstickLesbian: @Theleekycauldron: This pull seemed to be based on an overly pedantic(?) reading of the sourcing and hook. At least in my opinion, it seemed to lean too much into "ermm actually ☝️" territory, when ermmmm technically the hook was true regardless. I wasn't really able to edit too much last week, so I missed this when it happened (and figure I can't re-submit this for DYK, ... so that's disappointing, but was hoping to, because there were ALT hooks that were approved in the original reviewing of the nom). But regardless, the source, sure, was published half-way through in 2015, but my original hook did not specify the year. The served (past tense) in the hook is pretty intentional, because it's meant to convey that just this one org at one point served 90% of the state's needs, which is true. Even if it was specifically for some point in 2015, still true, when the previous Blood Alliance entity merged into OneBlood, then OneBlood at that moment became the service for 90% of the state. It wasn't a prediction, it was reporting on how much of the state was covered by OneBlood's services after its merger with The Blood Alliance. So, I really don't know why this was pulled off that reasoning. Also it was mentioned that a corrected version of the hook would be opposed because it wouldn't be "all that interesting" but the original reviewer (courtesy pinging @Morogris:) seemed to think it was interesting to approve it in the first place, and was only concerned that the source provided would be outdated (I included that source because it was to source it being true upon the merger). Again, I wasn't able to edit too much last week, so wasn't able to provide the more up-to-date sourcing that Morogris suggested (but here's one that is in-line with their request that it would be within the last 3 years, and yes, according the President & CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, cited in this source, it is still true that OneBlood provides 80 to 90% of the state's blood).

If for some reason, this could be re-submitted for the DYK section, I would just like to go with the ALT2 I had which was "... that Big Red Buses (example pictured) help with OneBlood donations in the Southeastern United States?. That one seems like it'd be less contentious. Soulbust (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The served (past tense) in the hook is pretty intentional, because it's meant to convey that just this one org at one point served 90% of the state's needs, which is true. The average reader would likely interpret the hook to mean that OneBlood served 90% of all of Florida's needs across all of 2015; if it were just, for example, a single day of 2015, we would have needed to rephrase the hook. And we don't even have a source that says what the hook, only a hook that predicted it to be true for the latter half of 2015. The Fox source says 80–90%, which is not 90%, and it is not said in the source's voice. Unfortunately, I don't see how the hook could be restored given that it had already done nearly its full run by the time of the pull. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that's fair enough. I think if the 2015 bit was not present, the average reader would probably just have interpreted it as OneBlood having served 90% of Florida's blood needs at some point. I think my ALT2 would've not encountered the same risk of being pulled, and for the hook that got selected, I think under better circumstances/timing (me being online at the time), it probably could have just been tweaked to be less technical on the exact percentage, particularly given the Fox source. But I guess it's whatever, it was just me trying to do the "one blood" play-on-words there... I just missed all this during some time off of Wikipedia, so that's just the disappointing bit for me personally. All that said, I understand your point on it having done nearly its full run, so that's fair. Soulbust (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely my bad for not checking whether there were viable ALTs, I should've. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ahh it's all good. I do appreciate how hard-working you are with the DYK section and just on Wikipedia in general, so like, stuff happens and that's okay :) Soulbust (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)