Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 200←Archive 205Archive 206Archive 207Archive 208Archive 209Archive 210

Special occassion request

Is it too early to put in a bid for November 15, 2026:

  • ... that Voyager 1 is now one light-day away from Earth?

RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering it's already been promoted to good article status and has been a GA for a while, it wouldn't be eligible for DYK anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
How about List of man-made objects one light-day away from Earth? RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
A classic of the Wikipedia-list genre. CMD (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Date request

Was hoping for a speedy review of the quadruple nom Kate Nash, as her birthday is on July 6.--Launchballer 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I can do it later today. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5 (30 June)

As much as I'm a space nerd, perhaps three space hooks in one prep set is too many? RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is too many. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Idk, it would be worth experimenting with but having thematic collections of hooks might bring in attention. It happens often enough, we could have "space Sunday," "Sports Saturday," ect. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The Harris Schurmeier hook really needs to be replaced - only one source supports it, two others say another guy handed out the peanuts and one of them includes a quote of him taking credit for it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I booted back a bunch of American hooks per WP:DYKVAR and that's why they're in there. Why not merge Schurmeier with the Ed Stone hook? Something like "... that Ed Stone, invited by Harris Schurmeier to become Voyager's project scientist, held the role for 50 years?". Pinging @Artem.G:.--Launchballer 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
hm, I'm ok with replacing the peanuts hook with an ALT one, but I don't think it's a good idea to merge them. Let's just move it to another queue and show it several days later. Artem.G (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I kicked it back.--Launchballer 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7

Would a better hook for Horace Niall be "... that Horace Niall served as both a magistrate, defence lawyer, executioner, and coroner – for the same group of men?" The hook would be sourced to . Courtesy ping to the nominator and reviewer; @BeanieFan11, @TarnishedPath. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That hook is good. TarnishedPathtalk 01:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I made the change. Repinging @BeanieFan11 as the change has actually been made. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The End of the World with You

This DYK was submitted and ran in March earlier this year but I realized I mispelled the author's last name (It's Marukido, not Narukido). Is it possible to correct it in the archives? lullabying (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Not really, the archives are a reflection of what appeared on the main page. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Day of Blood

The nominator is requesting a second opinion regarding the interestingness of the nomination's ALT0. A response is appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Multi-hooks and interestingness

One thing I haven't seen discussed much regarding regarding multi hooks is if a hook having multiple bolded links inherently makes the hook interesting or not, especially if there are several bolded links. An extreme example of this would be the New Zealand MP hooks in the past: obviously those hooks were impressive given the sheer number of names provided, but in cases like that, are those hooks actually interesting regardless of the number of bolded links, or are they only interesting because of there being so many links?

To me at least, ideally a multi-hook should not rely on padding out bold links just to be deemed interesting, it has to be interesting in its own right even if, theoretically, it only had a single bold link. That is, if the hook's interestingness is not because the hook fact itself is interesting, but rather because of there being so many links, then that hook is in fact arguably not compliant with the guidelines.

Courtesy ping to Launchballer, whose Kate Nash nomination partly inspired this question, although it's been something that's on my mind for a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Multi-hooks condense the backlog and they reduce the chance that one of our regular readers (which we seem to have) will ask why we have so many hooks relating to the same topic. Going hard on them is not going to make our lives any easier. CMD (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that the question is if these hooks still need to meet DYKHOOKSTYLE or DYKINT, or if they are de-facto exempted from it. One could argue that, if it's the latter, it would be unfair to other hooks or nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
They should meet them, it's just another factor to weigh. I'm not sure how it's unfair. CMD (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I have seen some hook proposals in the past where it seemed like their interestingness hinged on the number of bolded links, rather than the hook fact itself being interesting in its own right. The former could arguably be gaming the system, since it isn't the hook fact itself that is interesting. To me at least, ideally multi hooks should be the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The DYKINT requirement has always been relaxed to a degree for multis, because they are a boon to the project given that they reduce the number of noms. Having said that, judging by the quality of some of the single-article hooks lately, multis have nothing to worry about. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The opposite can also happen, such as at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote, where a very interesting multi-article hook has been divided into two fairly boring individual hooks with no real justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the proposed multhook was interesting, but nobody else commented on whether it met verifiability requirements. Comments at the nomination page are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

Taraxacum brachyglossum

  • ... that Taraxacum brachyglossum (pictured) can reproduce both sexually and asexually, depending on environmental conditions?

@MallardTV, CatchMe, and SL93: I was not able to find in the article or in the source where it states that the species can reproduce asexually. Can someone quote the prose in the article and the source where this is stated? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah dang I think I forgot to write it into the prose. I’ll do that… MallardTV Talk to me! 02:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a good example of how WP:JARGON (agamospermy) might get in the way of reader understanding. At least in the lead, it might be better to use language as plain as that chosen for the hook. CMD (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Gatoclass pointed out earlier that "depending on environmental conditions" isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
can we please add it into the DYK style guidelines that hooks about species should avoid specific epithets if at all possible? "purple-bracted dandelion" is way easier for most people to digest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes the common name is far less common than the scientific name. In this case, the "common" name purple-bracted dandelion gets a grand total of 20 Google hits Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
There are also species that don't have common names at all, so requiring the use of common names would be highly impractical in practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I did say "if at all possible", I know not all species have common names. @Surtsicna: Point taken, but I think most readers wouldn't know "Taraxacum brachyglossum" either and I think they'll be less likely to feel lost looking at "purple-bracted dandelion". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
That's actually something I often wonder about, @Theleekycauldron. Per WP:CRITERIA, the article title should be something "that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". Does this translate to what we call things in the running text? Or in DYK? I am not sure. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that for article titles in general, enough people know what specific epithets are that it's most useful to maintain consistency for AT#5. For one-off DYK hooks, though, it's nice to be more presentable and accessible wherever possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Washington University in St. Louis

@Wozal, 4meter4, and SL93: I added a citation needed template to the article to a sentence that either needs to be cited or removed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 15. We have a total of 282 nominations, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 111 nominations that has increased by 12 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Monthly statistics not updating

Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders hasn't updated automatically since the 17th. Is there any estimate for when the bot will be updating it again? Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 22:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been quite busy over the past few days, but it's on my list :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, take your time :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 23:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Quit Dreaming and Get on the Beam

Launchballer said that a new hook is needed because it isn't interesting. I feel like that's unacceptable to just go by their thoughts, so I am opening it up for discussion here. Launchballer said that it isn't interesting because something would be Bill Nelson's highest charting album in his native UK. I don't understand the complaint. To me, it's interesting that an artist's album from 44 years ago is still the highest charting when the artist is famous and still active. Also, I feel like it being from any year would still make it snag interest. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's good that Launchballer said that, because I was going to leave a note to that effect on the nomination. Any British artist is going to have a highest charting album in the UK; this hook would only be interesting if the artist was famous and the album not. In my case, despite having lived in the UK all my life, I have never heard of Bill Nelson. I would thus seriously question how a worldwide audience is supposed to know, not only who he is, but that he is "famous and still active". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I will just withdraw this, while we still pass uninteresting after uninteresting hooks about sports - and music when Gerda is involved. That isn't meant to be mean because I just find her hooks to be boring even after substantial workshopping. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, many here would probably not hesitate to reject Gerda noms either if it wasn't for the fact that she gets very upset about her hooks/nominations being questioned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I could have sworn Gerda had decided to stop doing DYK. And people should just let her get upset and deny her hooks. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I will start mentioning uninteresting hooks and I didn't because interestingness is usually subjective. Such as Launchballer's April Fool's Day nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song). Who is supposed to be fooled by such a hook and how? SL93 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Please do. I find that hook even more uninteresting. Unlike the Bill Nelson hook, it isn't even comprehensible by your average English speaker. Though if it's intended for April Fool's, in which case it's marginally more acceptable. Still, it's not so striking that I'd hold it for ten whole months. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Other stuff exists, although to be fair there is a lot of it. I've promoted about 20 hooks in the last couple of days; the last one came from the post-PEIS part of Approved because so little of it caught my eye. To defend my hook; as Pfeiffer's article averages 5000+ views per day, I'd say she's clearly familiar to a broad audience and thus (for the purposes of that day) almost any hook would meet the 'intriguing' part of WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 23:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I still think it should be interesting to those who don’t know of her or much about her. We also don’t know where those viewers are located. I do wonder why you didn’t say anything about those other nominations that didn’t catch your eye. Skipping over them without saying anything doesn’t help matters. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree here. I get it's an April Fool's hook, but even to me the hook is incomprehensible, and if you don't know who Michelle is, the hook makes little sense. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@SL93: I've definitely noticed that it's not a tool you take out of your toolbox very often, so I for one would love it if you started mentioning which hooks you don't think are interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
In general, I feel like we don't spend a lot of time dissecting why a given hook is intriguing. What are the reasons this hook giving readers to click on the article? What would they be looking for? I think those are basic questions we should be asking when we talk about how intriguingness that we skip over – I honestly don't think this is as subjective as everyone says it is. We have an audience, we have data, we should make hypotheses and test them and learn from our mistakes. (None of this is specifically about your hook, SL, I just think that part of what makes the interestingness debate so hard sometimes is our refusal to actually have the debate.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Like, here, take this hook on the Main Page right now:
I think readers will like this hook at least a fair amount because it raises two questions:
  • Why was Vairo forced off the freshman team? Was there some kind of misconduct? [He couldn't cover the cost of a new jersey when he lost his.]
  • How did Vairo fix whatever kicked him off to make his way to the senior team? [The article doesn't say.]
It's the strength of those questions – or really, the intensity with which readers want the answers – that drives them to actually look at the full article. Hooks that get a lot of views will have more things going for them than just this, but for your standard hook, this is a pretty good starting place that I think we skip over. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
theleekycauldron Let's see then.
Honestly, I would not have approved the Maude Simmons hook given the need for familiarity with the names involved (even though I do know who Poitier is). I have to disagree with The Acres though: at the very least, I think ALT1 is interesting because, yes it's "people build things", but it's the residents that build things and not just anyone, it's saying people are building their own houses. I would not approve ALT2 since Wright would turn into the Jilly Cooper of architecture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not surprised by people building their own things. It's just DIY. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Interesting is in the eye of the reader. I went to engineering school when women were rarely found in technical fields (I was fortunate to have the opportunity to take some classes with Mary Blade) so hearing about a woman having an important engineering responsibility during that era is interesting to me. Perhaps women engineers are common enough these days that it's no longer interesting to many people. If so, that's a positive statement on how the world has advanced, but I still think it's an interesting hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand that, but the hook lacks context. The only connection to the time period is the Hoover Dam. I feel like at least a year or time frame could be added for non-western or non-US readers. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: If there's a way to turn Total's comments about it taking "a great deal of time to get familiar" with the music (on the album?) that would be great. This kind of habituation or acclimatization to new forms of art like music is a real phenomenon but hasn't received as much attention as it should. I'm not sure how you would put this together as a hook, but it is something that appeals to me as I've been following this for a long time. One of my early memories is hearing my father play a recording of the Brandenburg Concertos while we were driving in the car and my mind being unable to place it in any kind of category until I could acclimate to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that the fact it was originally recorded while he was part of Red Noise before being released two years later as a solo album to be more interesting than any of these suggestions. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I marked the nomination as withdrawn days ago. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Manual update needed

Two things: DYK hasn't updated, so pinging @DYK admins: and @Shubinator:. Also, as we ended yesterday on five queues and have been at 2-a-day for six days, we should revert to 1-a-day.--Launchballer 00:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot back online, it's updating now! Deferring the frequency question to the other admins. Shubinator (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I've reset things back to a 24 hour cycle. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I've returned it to 12 for now. I currently have some spare time to devote to promotions, and we need to reduce the backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Gatoclass, changing the update frequency of DYK is an admin action, which should not be reversed without ... (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I think reversing an action that was taken to comply with a guideline would count as 'likely to be objected to'. It's great that you have some extra time to work at DYK – the backlog for sure needs to come down – but I really think it'd be at least courteous to give Roy a heads-up if this comes up in the future. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
thank you, i'm sorry to be a nag :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass the current WP:DYKROTATE system evolved because people were getting burned out scrambling to keep up with 12 hour mode. The way things work now, we only switch to 12 hours if we already have enough filled queues to last us three days and at the end of three days we reevaluate the rule to see if we still have enough to last us another three days, etc. So if you want us to stay in 12 hour mode, the way to do that is to keep promoting queues ahead of time.
Also note there's supposed to be advance notice before each switch because changes in either direction have implications for hooks scheduled to run on specific days; somebody needs to check to see if any changes are needed and shuffle hooks around to keep them scheduled for the right days. RoySmith (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Jeff Baena, but he's already in the right place.--Launchballer 10:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thanks guys, since there are no SOH's currently, I will switch back to 12 hours if I can get another set done in the next 90 minutes, otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Admittedly biased given I have a hook on the main page, but doesn't DYKROTATE recommend switching after midnight?--Launchballer 10:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The important part is switching before noon UTC. —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, the edit doesn't need to be immediately after - just the switch. There won't be one happening today BTW - too many errors to deal with, as per usual. Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the edit" vs "the switch", but the important thing is that the value in User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates changes at the right time. If it changes after 12Z, the bot gets confused. Or maybe it's just the statistics processing that gets messed up? Either way, badness happens. RoySmith (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. The edit to the template just has to be made so that the bot change occurs before midday (per Kusma) and not prematurely. For example, for a switch from 24 to 12, the edit can be made any time between after midnight and before 12 midday and the bot won't notice the difference. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Shubinator: Is there any specific reason we have needed some manual updates recently? If the bot is not running completely reliably, I would certainly not want to go to 12 hour mode (doing manual updates is enough of a chore if you have to do one of them per day). —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, could we increase the bus number by having more than one person able to manage this? I don't want to get into any deep debugging of somebody else's code, but I could certainly restart a toolforge job if it gets wedged. I'm sure there's a few others here who could do the same. RoySmith (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd also be happy to get the update bot unstuck when I'm around :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
That would be great. The other bot we rely upon (KrinkleBot, who deals with Commons protection for the images) can be restarted by a few people who are easily contacted via the WP:DISCORD server. —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Generally, when the bot goes down, Toolforge has killed the job. (The bot logs don't show anything, which means the bot didn't crash due to an error in its code.) If folks know of a way to get more information on why Toolforge has killed a job, I'm all ears.
The topic of adding more maintainers, I'm happy to revisit this down the road if/when I'm less active - currently I consistently take action within 24 hours to "bot down" messages on my talk page. Especially because the bot is an adminbot, it's designed to fail closed, and minimize potential damage to the wiki. Adding maintainers who don't understand the code increases the probability of the bot being enabled in situations where we'd rather it be offline. And the mess created April Fools 2024 shows different people have varying risk tolerances for undefined adminbot behavior. Shubinator (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: SL93 fixed the COVID kit hook, are there any further obstacles to returning to 2-a-day?--Launchballer 00:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: and other editors: I feel uncomfortable going to 2-a-day with 0 preps ready to be promoted. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
There are nearly four preps ready to go now so I will switch back to 12 hours after midnight. Unfortunately though, some things came up off-wiki in the last few days that are likely to substantially reduce the time I have available to work on the backlog, so it may have to be an intermittent effort from here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
The whole point of the current rule is that it guarantees we have enough material already in queues to get through the three-day sprint even if nobody promotes anything else. The previous rule used to count some mix of queues and preps and didn't have a fixed endpoint for when we would revert back to 24 hours. That was a mess. RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Yes, but in the past editors have expressed frustration when we have flipped back and forth too much, as sometimes hooks have to be shifted around. By having preps ready to promote, we are less likely to flip back after 3 days. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you that having more preps filled before we switch would be good. But it's not what people agreed to. RoySmith (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (25 June 00:00)

Aprank monastery (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29, Yerevantsi, Darth Stabro, and Launchballer: Why is this interesting? Lots of things can be seen from that distance. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, firstly, they are not that big - it's their location that makes them so visible. Secondly, five miles seems like a long way to me, and will probably seem that way to a lot of other people. I'd be willing to bet this one will get a decent number of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Roysmith; parts of Cedar Point are visible up to 9 miles away and it’s on flat land with trees. EF5 15:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Hell, One World Trade Center can be seen from 45 miles away on a good day. EF5 15:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I also don't see where that hook was approved.--Launchballer 16:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
It was never a hook, it was an example. A hook on 1WTC would almost certainly be about it’s symbolic height. EF5 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I don't see where the current hook was approved, and have kicked it back accordingly.--Launchballer 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
That's a skyscraper with 94 floors. These khachkars would be barely taller than a two-story building - hardly comparable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I strongly oppose this objection. I find the proposition that an ancient monastery being visible from 8km away is less interesting because a roller coaster or a modern skyscraper also is to be extremely bizarre. It's like saying that a person living 500 years wouldn't be interesting because redwood trees do it all the time. The standard of interestingness is intentionally vague and by implication low. Facts don't need to be eye-popping to appear on DYK. And the ever-increasing effort to meet that nonexistent standard is leading to a rash of bad hooks that mislead or outright misstate facts in order to appear "more interesting." -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, we can see stars trillions of miles away. Is that trillions of times more interesting? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

You're Lost Little Girl

... that Robby Krieger was unable to record his guitar solo for "You're Lost Little Girl" until he got stoned on hashish?

@AirshipJungleman29, Rlendog, and Launchballer: As noted in the nom discussion, I'm worried about the WP:BLP aspects of this. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where BLP issues were brought up regarding that hook; but for the Doors, stoned on hashish is so tame it's laughable. See e.g. this for Krieger's public discussion of ... well, his ludicrous consumption of hard drugs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Ready for 2-a-day?

@DYK admins: and other DYK watchers: There are seven promoted queues at WP:DYKNA and over 133 approved hooks. Does DYK want to go to 2-sets-a-day? If so, I hope editors will help us keep stay in 2-a-day for a while, as there are lots of hooks not transcribing at DYKNA. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Please no. I don't understand this thought process: "there are lots of hooks not transcribing, therefore prep-builders and admins must work to the bone to solve this harmless situation." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The backlog of hooks at WP:DYKNA delays the amount of time it takes an article to appear on the Main Page. Some editors are motivated by this, especially newer editors (I used DYK as motivation continue editing Wikipedia when I was starting out). If it takes a long time to get articles from nomination to Main Page, it might cause some editors to lose that motivation. If editors do not want to participate, they do not have to. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
If anything, we should be making efforts to move away from 2-a-day. It burns out prep builders and may also invite complaints from nominators who wonder why their hooks only run for 12 hours instead of the usual 24. There's a reason why we made it so that 12-hour set runs now have a fixed timeframe instead of being indefinite. We don't want to use them too often. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I know what would cause me, if I was a new editor, to lose motivation, and it would be having the article I worked hard on run 12 hours instead of 24, maybe when I and everyone I know are mostly asleep, just because others want to get rid of a meaningless backlog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

a different idea

What if we strengthened the timeout rules to cap the backlog size? There are something like 230 hooks in DYKNA; we could implement something like When there are more than 200 approved and unpromoted nominations, promoters may, at their discretion, promote, decline, or unapprove the oldest approved nomination at DYKNA (returning it to DYKN) until the backlog has returned to under 200.

That'd be the main mechanism here. We could play around with a few things here: one, we might want to give nominators some kind of warning before entering a purge like this. Two, we could change the 200 number, or even separate our starting trigger and ending trigger (the way we did with the old rules on 12- and 24-hour sets). Three, we could expand the range of noms that are subject to this rule to the n-200 oldest, or to all of them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd support an idea like this, but I do have a question: what if they're stuck not because of any hook issues, but simply because they haven't been promoted yet? It would seem unfair to time out nominations just because they're yet to be promoted, especially when there are no actual issues with the nomination and they're just waiting for their turn. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
If the promoter feels it's worth saving, they're allowed to promote it, so it doesn't force any noms out of rotation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm in favour; I don't know how many others would be. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT, you do not get to penalize the nominators due to the selection preferences of the promoters skipping over a hook they personally may or may not have a lack of interest in. DYK should never devolve into the wikpedia equivalent a highschool year book popularity contest.--Kevmin § 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The proposal would probably exclude hooks that are already approved and are just waiting to be promoted. It would instead focus on nominations that remain unpromoted because of outstanding issues or concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
This would be "back to the roots" for DYK, which used to be a showcase of Wikipedia's newest articles: Back in 2006 or so, nominations that had not made it to the Main Page after a week or so were routinely discarded as no longer new. I think in our system (which allows anyone to promote hooks), if some hooks do not make it to the preps after a long time, that is a good indication that nobody finds them interesting. This does not require "popularity", just one single person who finds the hook compelling enough to promote it. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Kusma the aspect this misses is that "Back in the day" we were churning and burning Four sets per day, not a single set per day, that how we managed to move though the nominated material so rapidly. The slowdown has been that since then we've increased the duration on the main page and added two full additional checks of every single hook that didnt exist in 2006. Penalizing the nominators for the excessive amount of work that has been fored into the process from outside sources is not how we fix the process.--Kevmin § 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kevmin, we have indeed added several layers of quality control to almost all aspects of the process, which helps us prevent nonsense or copyvios on the Main Page. The part of "quality control" that has become worse is that of interestingness: we have mostly dropped the "timeout" method that made it possible to not run hooks without explicitly rejecting them, and DYK is usually full of boring hooks. I am looking for a way to get rid of boring hooks without much discussion and without hurting people's feelings. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Wait, I thought you were opposed to this to preserve the integrity of the content-review process – but now you're saying it'd be better if we went back to promoters and admins not doing content review at all? Going back to a time when DYK churned out content that was mostly unvetted? I thought I understood where you were coming from, now I'm a little lost. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Im opposed to the triple check system that was forced into DYK by a very select number of opponents to the DKY process as a whole around 10 years ago. Those users actively weaponized MP:Errors as a venue to vilify DKY and paint the picture of the project being unvetted and lawless. What percentage of the issues that were being brought up here over the last 3 months were "interesting" based and could have just gone to main with out any commentary speeding up the whole process. I would say the quickest way to avoid "stale" nominations is to dump the "interesting" rule all together, sine a group of 7ish mostly US/UK editors are in no way representative of the global readerships interests.--Kevmin § 15:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I think that's just not an accurate assessment of what prep building is. Most of the time a "cabal" member (never too late to start prep building, there's no barrier to entry!) spends vetting a hook has nothing to do with interestingness. And... yeah, I guess if you're opposed to rigorous vetting to make sure the content we air is actually true and policy compliant, then it'd make sense to run four sets a day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Without the triple check system, this article that we caught literally today would have gone on the Main Page. That doesn't seem like a great result to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
To kind of zoom out on why I think this is necessary (sorry for a long post): I think we're out of options. We've always been getting more nominations than we could reasonably handle, and our approaches to that have burned out the people who do this and given us a reputation for low-quality output. That's because fundamentally, our backlog isn't a "backlog" problem, not in the way that, say, maintenance categories or CCI cases are a backlog. In terms of our end product, we've virtually always had a set ready to go at the next update – that's the goal, not getting the number of approved noms down to 0.
Fundamentally, this is a resource allocation problem – we have a limited number of spots. DYK sets are 9 hooks each, and our resting pulse is one set per day. But we receive and approve more than 9 nominations a day, and so without intervention, the backlog would just keep growing forever and ever and wait times to actually get on DYK creep up to the order of months, even years. In fact, it's already been doing this – we used to do 12-hour sets when we had 120 approved noms, but we stopped doing that, and right now we have over 230.
We don't need the backlog to be 0, but it can't just keep growing indefinitely – articles aren't really "new" when they've been sitting in line for months, and it doesn't make nominators happy, either. So we have two choices on how to better allocate our spots: we can make more, or we can be picky. For a long time, we tried the "make more" strategy – more sets in a day, more hooks in a set. The result was that, combined with conflict-averse DYK reviewers, we burned out promoters and admins and gave DYK a reputation for hooks that are sloppy and boring. In the last few years, we've turned this around a little bit and pivoted towards being pickier – in part because we've gotten better at this and in part because the promoters have said they can't take it anymore. Any promoter can tell you that the 12-hour-set sprints are miles south of fun, and we're not getting paid. But now that DYK runs at a somewhat more sustainable pace, being picky hasn't been enough – the backlog has swelled.
Practical considerations aside, the north star is still the readers. If we can – while staying true to our principles – build engagement, build a following, turn around DYK's reputation for hooks that are sloppy or boring or sensationalist, we'd be doing our readers a service by giving them informative content that makes them curious about the world. We'd be doing content creators a favor by giving their better works more time in front of the audience, and we'd be doing promoters a favor by not making them do work they're refusing to do anyway. The inclusionist/deletionist debate was so fierce at AfD because it took us a long time to figure out that unlimited space still doesn't mean unlimited editor-hours – but here, we also have limited space. It should be clear which way we have to go.
So, to the regular nominators: I know competition isn't your first choice, and it's not mine either. But competition is already happening. So, would you rather wait 3 months or more for a spot that may or may not be a full day, may or may not have your image, may or may not run when you're actually awake, and may or may not embarrass you and us and the project if it turns out we didn't vet it correctly? Or would you rather roll the dice? There is no secret third "demand more labor from others" option, and so far, there hasn't been a wave of nominators volunteering to help. And at the end of the day, competition really does make our sets better for the readers. I can't stress that it enough. It should just be the primary consideration. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I really don't see enough people agreeing with this. SL93 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I don't really gain or lose whether or not this passes – I'm just not interested in breaking my back to keep the backlog down, or promoting hooks that I think shouldn't run. If nominators are fine with waiting increasingly long periods of time (including nominators whose hooks we do want to run) because I think we're all feeling that way to some extent, then I guess it works out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we have to be more willing to reject bad hooks. The issue is that some nominators tend to be very unhappy when the hooks they want are not the ones that are ultimately used. One of the reasons why nominations take a while to get reviewed is because they just aren't interesting enough. Of course, "interesting" is subjective, even with our current definition of "interesting", but maybe we can have some kind of baseline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Even if we rejected 80% of all hooks that failed DYKINT – which we definitely do not – nominations with no viable hooks could, on average, get through by just throwing 5 hooks at the wall. I mean, you've seen it happen. The hook-by-hook method really hasn't been enough to keep the backlog down or make DYK sets better. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree with it. We have always handled all comers and I see no reason to change. We might just need to have dedicated drives the way we used to do, the problem is likely that the three-days-of-12-hours-then-back-to-24 is probably not sufficient to reduce the backlog. I would suggest deciding on a time to run a backlog drive, and then notifying all previous DYK admins of the drive in order to increase manpower. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyhow, we currently have a full queue so why haven't we switched to 12 hours? Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Because the people who do most of the work have voted with their feet. You're an admin, so you have the technical ability to do it. Just follow the instructions at WP:DYKROTATE. RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: We've had seven filled queues for most of the last 24 hours and still have seven, as I just queued a set you've clearly already checked. Whatever the state of the Approved backlog, that's a bottleneck that needs relieving. I strongly recommend spending the next three days at 2-a-day.--Launchballer 00:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Thank you. I rearranged some stuff to accommodate the Rosa Parks date request, but we should be fine now.--Launchballer 09:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. I think timing out nominations that not a single prep builder has found compelling enough to promote is en excellent and fair way to both deal with the backlog and improve quality at the same time. DYK used to be more selective and time out nominations after days, not months; the idea that there is a right for a DYK nomination to make it to the Main Page if it complies with all rules is something from a decade and a half ago or so and was not a good move. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

See my comment above, (As a long time contributor), DYK wasn't any more selective at all, it was way less burdened with triple to quadruple checking nominations, while having a shorter run rate. --Kevmin § 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I can't help but agree with leeky's essay re. the problem here. How about we break down the practical options for keeping optimal output without requiring more work, and let people vote on which options they prefer. Feel free to suggest more, but I see it as: A. be more selective about hooks at any or all points in the review process, B. promote hooks in general order of approval at the rate we have now, with the same amount of checks as now, C. go to 2-a-day sets, promoting without one or both of the final checks, or D. reduce hooks per set and let the 'backlog' build. Putting it like that, I would rank A first. Kingsif (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I think that giving users "the discretion" to reject as many approved noms as needed to get the number of approvals to under 200 is ... stupid (let me know if I'm reading When there are more than 200 approved and unpromoted nominations, promoters may, at their discretion ... decline ... the oldest approved nomination until the backlog has returned to under 200 wrong). I'd rather have my nomination wait three months for a 12-hour slot than "roll the dice" and have my nomination arbitrarily rejected because it "took too long for someone to promote it". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    I would also rather have 12 hours rather than no time at all. SL93 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    @BeanieFan11: It would not be "arbitrary", because the more interesting hooks would arguably have been promoted before. Anyway, we either need more people to do the work required to get articles on the Main Page (prep builders and prep to queue promoters) or we need to restrict what can go on the Main Page. Appeals to get more people to share the workload have been tried regularly with only little effect, so it is not clear that we can afford to run 2/day DYKs for long. Rejecting boring nominations is better than burning out our prep builders and queue promoters. If you have a less stupid idea, please explain what it is; leeky's suggestion seems significantly less stupid than burning out people to reduce the backlog. —Kusma (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Kusma to be very clear you mean to say "not interesting to a group of less then 7 souls" who have a very select view of what THEY view as interesting, regardless of what the hundreds of millions of daily main page viewers will look at. DYK is NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST, AND NEVER WAS ONE. The "interesting" caveat was added originally out of fear that suddenly every nomination would be "the sky is blue" level boring, ignoring that even that level of hook will drive traffic to a new article. I will 100% take a delayed appearance over a cabal of 7 people forcing their persal view of interesting on the entire project.--Kevmin § 15:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    The cabal are the people who show up to do the work. I hereby present you with an invitation to join the cabal. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    No, I mean "interesting enough to at least one Wikipedian other than the page author that this Wikipedian promotes it to a Main Page prep". If there are only seven people who do Main Page prep work, more power to them. I don't know why you are talking about popularity contests: do you think that "one Wikipedian finds the article interesting" is too high or too low as a bar for Main Page appearances? —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    When assembling a prep area, I try to make it as interesting as possible, with the best lead hook and a snappy trailing hook. But it requires real crystal ball gazing to spot the best hook. Have a look over the DYKSTATS and see how many you would have spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Straw poll: quantity or quality?

The basic tension in the discussion above is whether we want to publish more hooks at the expense of quality, or if we want to press for better quality at the expense of rejecting more submissions. So, let's do an informal survey. Indicate where you stand below (sans editorializing).

Please put any extended commentary or discussion in the discussion section below. RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I want DYK to publish more hooks

  • DYK is not: A smaller-scale version of either featured content or good articles, though selected good articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page, but do not have to be of very high quality. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia. (WP:DYKNOT) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think 'quality' here refers to the articles, but to the hooks. Kingsif (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I want DYK to concentrate on quality

  1. RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Per what I said above – we're here to serve the readers, simple as that. And DYK can't do more than its promoters are capable of doing, so if you want to increase output, come help out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. We should be more selective so we get a better overall result. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. I don't want my hook up only 12h and I don't want to do 2 QPQs—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. Ultimately, the people that are DYK's main interest are not nominators but rather readers. Presenting them "bad" hooks provides a disservice and can cause more harm than good in some situations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  6. Quality is important. We should be more careful about actually having exceptional hooks. There are articles I've written that I don't nominate because I know they don't have good hooks. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    (with leniency towards new contributors; but someone with 25+ hooks should really be good at getting a very interesting hook and not just some simple fact) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  7. I think the best way to increase quality is to be more strict on WP:DYKINT (and maybe make it more stringent) – there are a significant portion of currently approved DYK hooks that I simply do not find interesting. I think this can be seen by promoters silently choosing not to promote hooks, which means they stay in /Approved for quite a while. Of the five in /Approved that were created/expanded in April, I find 4 of them to be uninteresting – whilst this is just an anecdote, I think it does show a bit of a broader problem with "interestingness" DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

  • False equivalence. Promoting fewer hooks will do nothing to improve quality, it will just mean that reviewers will spend less time on the project. Gatoclass (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think running fewer hooks absolutely increases the quality of the average set – unless you think that our selectivity criteria are random or actively harmful, of course selecting for quality increases quality. But even if that weren't true, we still get a quality boost from actually running DYK sustainably. Being more selective means we have more time to check hooks before they run, and also fewer promoters and admins getting burned out, so they can check each other's work (it's not great when preps are only built by one or two people, for the same reason every project can't have only one CheckUser). We'd get a larger and more experienced promoter corps scrutinizing a manageable, curated output – I'd say that's for sure a quality increase. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not totally sure what "quality" we are talking about here. In terms of scrutiny / rate of being called out at ERRORS, I am not sure that we can expect significant improvements. But if we were free to not run boring hooks or those with slightly questionable sourcing, we could easily improve the value of DYK for readers. We might also discourage people from submitting every single article they create to DYK; as leeky says that would help with managing the overall volume. —Kusma (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
We just have to be more proactive with rejecting nominations and be willing to push back against uninteresting hooks. Oftentimes, we are reluctant to do so given that it will very likely hurt the nominator's feelings, plus some nominators tend to take hook and/or nomination rejection worse than others. There's a tension: on the one hand, we want to reward editors for their work and give them an incentive and something to be proud of. On the other hand, not every article is a good fit for DYK, and sunken cost nominations often result in poorly-performing and/or uninteresting hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure that our current mechanisms for rejecting boring articles are working or can be made to work, given how subjective "boring" is. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
This project is running on a 24-hour cycle most of the time these days. Have you noticed an increase in hook quality during 24-hour cycles? I can't say that I have. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the present discussion: we are rarely rejecting hooks, independent of whether we are in 12 hour or in 24 hour mode. —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree wit Gatoclass, this is a false equivalence, that is being based on very different historical and modern project structuring. As someone who's been participating since 2008, "interesting" was historically used to at the same rate as now, if not less to deny hooks, and in the whole of that time it has consistently been mis-used to deny hooks that are of little interest to the reviewer, rather then to call out "Sky is blue" level facts, which is explicitly what the "interesting" rule was put in place to ostensibly address. I will again note that the entire collection of editors participating in DYK in any aspect is no were near a statistically valid number of people to determine any one hooks interest to the totality of a 12 or 24 hour period (46.8 million-ish) of main page viewers. Im going to be blunt, exactly what negative effect to Wikipedia will happen if a "boring" hook is run?--Kevmin § 17:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll agree with @Kevmin on this last point. There's some stuff we need to make sure we get right. We need to make sure we're not violating copyright, or WP:BLP, and that the fact we publish is actually true. Making sure our hooks are interesting is a "nice to have", and a far more nebulous thing to control since what's interesting to one reader is not interesting to another. RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
The reviewers are hopeless at determining what is interesting and what is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
All reviewers? I highly doubt you would do any better for a concept that goes by opinions. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
It is a concept that goes by opinions, but we do have statistics. We can't seem to harness them to forecast likely pages views, but we can see the results. I can cite multiple cases of hooks that reviewers tried to kill as "boring" that attracted sizeable numbers of page views. On the other hand, there are also editors who will complain about hooks that are obvious click bait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
We know from statistics that certain subjects which, all other things equal, get less views compared to others. In general, non-Anglophone hooks tend to perform worse than Anglophone hooks, although there are exceptions. From my recollection, the subjects that tend to perform worse with readers include opera, classical music, radio, sports, and surprisingly pop music. Obviously we shouldn't discourage or even ban hooks about these subjects; if anything, this should serve as a challenge for editors who specialize in those topics to push for better hooks and come up with something more spectacular. One issue, however, is if editors actually propose "mundane" hooks on purpose because they do not want "sensational" or "clickbait" hooks, even if the guidelines implicitly state that the goal is for readers to click on the article, so DYK hooks are sort of "clickbait" by definition. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I am reminded of the McNamara fallacy. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • (In reply to DimensionalFusion !vote above). Fewer hooks is not going to result in more interesting hooks. Quite frequently, the longer a discussion about a hook and the more participants, the worse the hook ends up getting. It is basically due to the design-by-committee problem, coupled with the fact that getting agreement on interest is difficult and that many users, quite frankly, are not great judges of hook interest to start with.
You might get a marginal decrease in errors, but at the expense of disenfranchising a great many nominators. And even that is questionable since in my experience people just head for the exits when there is less work to do. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
It wouldn't make individual hooks more interesting, no – nothing we can do about nominator creativity. But it would make sets more interesting on average. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
If it doesn't make individual hooks more interesting, how is overall set interest going to improve? Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Less uninteresting hooks per set equals greater set interest? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The way I see it, we're conflating two related but distinct problems. Some want us to reject more hooks. Others want us to have more interesting rules. One solution really is to just be more strict about pushing for DYKINT. For example, some editors may oppose DYKINT in principle and propose "bad" hooks on purpose: we have to be willing to reject such hooks or even nominations for not meeting the guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
"Interesting on average", according to what statistically significant percentage of the 24+ million people that will view the hooks in a 12 hour run? DKY:INT was never meant to be used as a popularity contest gateway for hook validation, only to prevent the lowest end of obvious. The current usage of the rule has massively crept away from that. 10 people are not a valid judge of what 24 million people will click.--Kevmin §
"10 people are not a valid judge of what 24 million people will click." Why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
A statistically significant sample size for a population of 24 million (with a 5% margin of error), is approximately 385 people. per google, it seems very clear that under 10 is not the same as 385, the interests of 24 million should not be decided by a less then 10 people. This becomes even more clear when the 12 hour period encompasses swaths of non-US/UK population.--Kevmin § 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
How about we take this from theory to practice? I'm fairly certain that of today's set, The Rector of Justin and Charlie Suff will receive the least attention, alongside Marine Terrace MRT station, Kedopok War, and probably Asri Rasad. Let's keep an eye on the view counter and see how my prediction turns out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Why? I will again repeat- What detrimental effect is there to DYK when a hook gets less attention on the main page then other hooks do? WHY is main page click counting in any way shape or form relevant to the project? (hint: its absolutely not)--Kevmin §
Why? Is it not the central purpose of an encyclopedia to be read? What is the point of what we are doing here if it is not fulfilling the purpose of an encyclopedia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Our goal is to present good content to our readers. That doesn't always correspond to what people are going to click on the most. Sometimes our job as curators is to show the readers what we think they should be reading. RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Oh, I've done this on my own a couple times! The way I do it is that I take the eight non-image hooks and guess the order they'll get pageviews in; the scoring is 1 point for each pairwise matchup guessed correctly. For 8 hooks, that's a maximum of 28 points; my median is around 20. (GalliumBot is going to be down until probably tomorrow at least, though, so you'll have look up results for today manually if you want them quickly :p) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Stack ranking comes to DYK! RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
lolll! I don't think the least-viewed hook in a set is automatically bad overall or even uninteresting. comparing within a day is just an easy way to adjust for confounding variables like differences between days and timeslots – it's a mental exercise more than anything :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • If editors want more quality then a way to do that would be to restrict DYK to new GA articles. However, that would not necessarily equate to more interesting hooks and you might struggle to find enough nominations. TarnishedPathtalk 03:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between quality of article and the issue of quality of hook that is often raised, although I suppose on average a Good Article will have more to pull from. I suspect this is a non-starter however, GAs being in DYK is mostly because they had no main page home elsewhere. CMD (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's a misconception that just because an article is a GA means it's a good fit for DYK. While in practice some of us are loathe to reject nominations of newly-promoted GAs since realistically they aren't getting another chance at DYK, that doesn't mean that such articles inherently deserve to be on DYK. They still need to have hook material, and as Chipmunkdavis said, not all GAs have hooky material. They're arguably more likely, but it's not a sure thing. A GA could still lack suitable material for DYK, and if that's the case, there is no shame in simply not nominating it at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    To agree with this, I have had articles promoted to GA and read through them and not seen anything I would find compelling enough for a hook. How we all interpret ‘interesting’ differs, but for my own hooks I prefer compelling and something can be notable without having such a USP. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Sidebar to my point on WP:DYKINT is that I feel the DYK checklist has somewhat enabled uninteresting hooks to be promoted – reviewers can just put a check next to "interesting" with no indication as to how they have decided that it is interesting, and often that check is the extent of the review that goes into the hook's interestingness DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Except that we have never at any point required a reviewer to explain themselves with regard to the "interesting"-level of a hook. I feel that the template has had no impact on how reviewers have addressed it at all, since before the template it was usually not mentioned at all or only mentioned in passing at best, and even still the template is only sporadically used (because it brakes the transclusions quicker by adding wy more templates into the unapppoved page).--Kevmin § 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the point on the DYK checklist was somewhat anecodtal to my point because yes, even without the template reviewers can still address interestingness with a check. That is somewhat beneficial as it allows reviewers that flexibility but on the other hand, hooks that are not interesting do pretty reguarly pass DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • While this isn't the main reason behind the tension, another factor is that there are times when editors push back against comments about their hooks being deemed "uninteresting". Sometimes, objectively bad hooks push through because reviewers are hesitant to reject them as they don't want to hurt the nominator's feelings. Other times, nominators question reviews stating that their hooks are uninteresting. It's hard because, on the one hand, ideally we don't want people's feelings being hurt since conflicts can suck out motivation for both parties involved, but on the other hand, sometimes we do have to be blunt. Letting "bad" hooks slip by just to prevent conflict or to not hurt the nominator's feelings probably sounds good on paper, but in reality it contributes to lower hook quality. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    We don't necessarily have to be 'blunt' as it is, one way to gently handle poor hooks is to try and suggest others or focus on snappiness in encouraging a nominator to trim a hook to something better. If there's no hook options, yes that's more difficult. As are nominators who are insistent on their original hooks, though that may change ones view on rejecting them... But maybe we should be blunt, like in a codified way.
    This is a long way to say, we can often try to improve on a hook's interesting factor or a nom having interesting hooks, but this 1. also takes more time, 2. prevents the user who recommended a better hook from reviewing it, increasing the time and number of users needed to get that nom through. While I'm sure there are users happy to do this anyway in future, and wouldn't discourage it, it's not a reasonable solution to a backlog and poor hooks - whereas being stricter across the board could likely save people's feelings if they know going in that the system is strict and ruthless (i.e. are somewhat prepared for disappointment and know it's not personal). Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    People need to learn to just suck it up and accept that getting your article accepted on DYK (or anything else) is not an inalienable right. And that the process for deciding which ones make it and which don't is not perfect. Sometimes we publish stuff that's broken. Sometimes we reject stuff that's good. In both cases, your reaction should be to thank the people who tried their best and move on. Offers to help out and make things better are always appreciated. Whining about why life is unfair, not so much; you're welcome to cancel your subscription and demand your money back. RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's easier said than done. We could tell nominators to be willing to accept that hook or nomination rejection is a possibility, but that would not necessarily stop them for asking for second opinions until they get the response they want, or objecting to the review. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place because there is really no easy answer to this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    Making the crit stricter on rejecting hooks/noms is IMHO that easy answer (see above). Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

One elephant in the room that I haven't seen discussed yet in this discussion is that the DYK community cannot even be in agreement over what editors actually want for their DYK hooks. There's a conflict between editors who push for more pageviews and higher readership, and editors who are just happy to have their articles featured on DYK at all and any stats are just bonus. These two goals are not really compatible, and it does not help that the current interest guidelines seem to at least implicitly encourage the former. The guidelines say that hooks should be as interesting to as broad of an audience as possible, and we can do that. However, if a hook "underperforms" despite all that, is it actually an issue? For some, it is because the viewership isn't as good as expected. For others, it doesn't really matter, because the real goal is just to have the article on the main page as a whole.

For a while now, DYK has become more and more of a dick-measuring contest, when it was never intended to be one in the first place. That's a slippery slope that's arguably contributed to much of the tension that has been plaguing us for years. I'm not saying that we should not have standards on interestingness: in fact, I'll be the first to defend our interestingness standards. But we do have to have a discussion, or at least think deeply about how to make these two seemingly incompatible goals compatible. In my case, for DYK purposes I tend to specialize in an admittedly niche topic (Japanese voice actors and anime singers), so I already expect that my hooks are already at a disadvantage. I'm just happy to see those articles out there and have those names on the Main Page, even if not everyone clicks on the articles. On the other hand, I don't think that specializing in a niche topic is an excuse to propose niche hooks either. When I propose hooks about voice actors, singers, or anime, I try to propose a hook that is not reliant on knowing about anime. That doesn't always work out in practice, but it shows that topics about niche topics do not need to only appeal to a niche.

I don't know what else to say, admittedly I may be rambling a bit, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say here about whether it is healthy for DYK to continue to chase pageviews, or if we should tone down somewhat and try to seek a compromise. Of course, hooks still need to be broadly interesting, but maybe just keeping "broadly interesting" as the minimum ceiling instead of reaching for the sky all the time could help lessen the arguments and tension? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that doesn't care much about page views. I mean, sure, it's cool when one of my articles gets big numbers, but that's not my primary driver and I don't think DYK should obsess about it as much as we do. I'd also like to see us favor articles by new editors. I remember the first time something of mine was on the MP. It was a rush. That's the kind of positive reinforcement we need to keep new editors interested and coming back to write more. I'm less excited about giving somebody the opportunity to get their 100th (or 500th) DYK. Maybe we should have a rule that every set must have at least one hook from a DYK rookie. RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to give preppers yet another thing to check, but I agree that the process is more important than the exact outcome here. It's sort of an internal quality check, "hey you did good work". There are benefits to reader engagement and so on, but I view those as secondary. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
One thing that is a source of tension is that both camps have a good point. On the one hand, there's a good point that views should only be secondary and the real goal is just to be on the Main Page itself. On the other hand, there's also a good point that you want to encourage people to read your article; you don't have to actually chase numbers, but you would at least not want your work to go to waste. It's why, regardless of what happens, it's probably still a good idea to maintain the status quo of avoiding specialist hooks, as well as cracking down on hooks that only specialists would understand and appreciate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm directly in the DYK is a method to allow for main page appearance of articles that would not otherwise make it there camp. My niche topics of fossil plants, fossil insects, and NE Central Washington State history/geography as a whole are notable, but not likely to ever reach FA level due to low source volumes. I couldn't care less the number of clicks any one of my nominations get on the main-page, its about letting the world in general know the article is there and if someone clicks on the, yay. This fascination with the number of clicks something gets seems to actively be confined to very few nominators, but has been growing over the past few years in perception of being a needed aspect of the project. I reject that.--Kevmin § 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ...neither? At least not as written. For me, DYK has a dual purpose in getting readers to read more articles, and in being a motivational tool for editors of all (most) skill levels. I don't see a purpose in getting an article to DYK just for the sake of it - I don't even nominate maybe half of articles I create/expand/get to GA, if I don't think there's a compelling hook there. But a hook doing well for me is if it has achieved the purposes behind the DYK purpose. With readers who have ended up on the DYK main page, are we enticing them to check an interesting fact for themselves (almost like a parallel to ITN but with perpetual facts - they hear/read something and go to WP to check) and then end up reading the whole article, and then click wikilinks in it, and so forth. DYK stats probably can't give the full picture on this. I don't see a problem with a hook I wrote not doing as well as another hook in the set, and I think sets should be constructed to flow so hooks help each other, encouraging reading down the line. Throwing a specific or simple hook into the right set can help it, and readers may appreciate the whole article more than any possible hook the article could produce. But DYK is not just for the editors (and I doubt it's still a motivational/aspirational achievement for the years-long regulars to just appear on MP) and if there's not something to encourage reading, and that's too regular, DYK is going to become a naval-gazing corner of the MP that readers don't engage with. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Alternate ideas

Besides the hook interestingness discussion above, which is super important, there are other ideas that DYK can consider to tackle the backlog. I'm publishing these ideas to see if there is any editor interest in implementing them:

  • Have 10 hooks a set: This can be combined with shortening the character limit per hook (currently 200 characters) so that DYK doesn't get too large. OTD can always add more hooks to help with page balance.
  • Permanently go to 2-sets-a-day, but decrease the number of hooks to 6: This would cause DYK to publish 12 hooks a day (an increase from 9 a day currently) and allow prep-builders and DYK template editors to build/promote sets more quickly. This might cause individual hooks to gain more attention as a hook will be one of six in a set instead of one of nine, and make it easier to build sets where each hook is from a different topic. Since DYK would be shorter, we could offer TFA more space for their blurbs to help with Main Page balance (which, as a TFA blurb writer, I would appreciate).
  • Increase the length requirement from 1500 characters to 2000 characters: This will make it more likely that the article has a good hook, and decrease the number of nominations at DYK. It also means that the article will be more developed when it hits the main page.

I look forward to reading editor's thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to the third option at least. While a good idea on paper, it has the risk of limiting the variety of topics we feature. There are some topics that can't fit 2000 characters, and increasing the word could would deny them a fair chance of at least being eligible for DYK. An increase of 500 words may not seem like much, but it can lead to a greater systemic bias. The second option would be a bad idea: 2-sets-a-day is already unpopular and causes burnout among prep builders, so making sets shorter would not really help much with that issue. The first is probably the most feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree, I would maybe support option three for an increase of 100 characters, but 500 is a lot. Option A does seem the best due to the negative responses to 2-a-day sets. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Support increasing the length requirement, the encyclopaedia has matured to the point that we shouldn't highlight near-stubs any more (and many short articles struggle with interestingness). It is also an easy number to tweak with potentially large benefits for the backlog. I would go for 2500 characters of prose. —Kusma (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
2500 characters is way too high of a character count and would disqualify even more topics and exacerbate systemic bias. If we're going to increase the character count that high, we might as well require DYK nominees to be good articles, an idea that would, to put it mildly, not end well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd support increasing length, but 2500 is not a high number of characters. It's about 3-4 paragraphs, a lead alone could be longer. CMD (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
From my own work from the last couple of years, Michael Huber (priest) has 1645 characters and Mathias Metternich has 2725. I think Huber was so embarrassingly short that I did not want to put it up for DYK. Metternich seems about the right size for an article you do not have to feel embarrassed about as a start. Do you have examples of articles that only just pass 1500 bytes and can't possibly be expanded but are DYKCOMPLETE and should be featured? —Kusma (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Although I did not nominate Hana Shimano for DYK, it is an article that is under 2000 characters but is essentially complete as it includes all the known information about her available in reliable (or at least accessible) sources. I did not nominate it not because it was short, but simply because there was nothing in the article that was hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I think short articles usually correlate with few GNG sources. In-depth coverage means you can write a few more paragraphs. —Kusma (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
That's the theory, but in practice, in-depth coverage can be hard to find especially for more obscure or less online topics. Raising the bar so high would likely only increase systemic bias because, let's face it, Anglophone topics are more likely to have more coverage in general than non-Anglophone topics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
You're assuming that the only hooks affected would be non-Western ones unable to get to 2,500, but in my not inconsiderable experience promoting, I think a -1,000 byte Western stub bloated up to 1,500 is much more common. The proportions relating to systemic bias would stay about equal, IMO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Fortunately we do not ask for English language sources, so I do not see how "anglophone" is in any way relevant to the discussion. —Kusma (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of problems with the notion of reducing the backlog by taking a harder line on hook interest. The first and most obvious is of course that nobody can ever seem to agree here on what is and is not interesting, so eliminating noms by that method would be very arbitrary. The second one - and this one is of more concern to me personally - is that vetting noms by hook interest alone would potentially disqualify first-class articles that just happened to have a not-great hook in favour of near-stubs that took literally five minutes to write but that happen to have a better hook. If there is a choice to be made, it should be in favour of rewarding those who have written the best articles, not the best hooks.

Other than that, there must be a stack of ways to reduce the backlog without having to resort to arbitrary measures. Somebody mentioned higher minimum article size, it could easily be raised to 5000 chars or more. But the objection to that has always been that it would encourage article bloat. So I doubt that even a minimum of 5000 chars would do much to reduce the backlog.

Another possible method - and one that I am inclined to favour - is to start holding QPQers to account for their sloppy reviews. If, for example, there was a rule that if an error is found in an approved hook, the QPQer loses their associated nom, pretty soon there would likely be either a lot more attention paid to getting reviews right, and/or some nominators just quitting the game or perhaps finding a surrogate to do their QPQ's for them. The reason I favour a model of this kind is that the amount of time spent trying to verify messed-ups noms is exponentially greater than reviewing good noms, and is IMO the fundamental cause of the problem at hand, ie, administrator burnout. Having said that - it would take a bit of work to organize such a system and would inevitably be controversial.

So what does that leave? Well, the next most obvious method would be simply to give the flick to noms beyond a certain age. I might be favour of this, but only if safeguards were in place to ensure that decent noms weren't discarded just because nobody got around to reviewing them or a hook could not be agreed upon. Again, the emphasis should be on quality - substantial articles should get more consideration than piddling little 1500-character stubs. Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am all in favour of timing out old nominations that nobody has found compelling enough to review or promote. Some amount of bloat is encouraged by any numerical size limit, but I question your claim that a minimum of 5000 would do little. Do you really expect people will add more than 200% padding to all of their articles? —Kusma (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
As for holding QPQers to account: not a bad idea, but enforcing this and keeping track of problems is a substantial amount of administrative load in itself (ingenious ideas, anyone?). I certainly agree that sloppy reviews are top of the list of reasons why DYK admin workload is so high. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
It is certainly true that the more progress a hook makes before a problem is found, the more work it is to fix it, so it makes sense to put effort into catching problems early. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you really expect people will add more than 200% padding to all of their articles?
There aren't that many topics that couldn't be readily expanded to 5000 chars. Most of the 1500-char ones would be pretty easy to expand, the authors just don't bother. If a topic really can only be expanded to 1500, there might be a questionmark over its notability. Speaking personally, I don't think I've ever started an article that I anticipated being only 1500 chars that didn't turn out to be several times that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Just looking through my own DYKs, I think the smallest I've ever nominated is about 2500 and they tend to be significantly longer than that. We don't often get nominations that just barely meet the 1500 rule, but when we do, they always look silly to me. So, yeah, I think upping the minimum size would be reasonable. Maybe not 5000, but 2500 seems perfectly reasonable.
We should also switch to specifying the limit in words, which is a much more typical measure of prose length. I'm guessing the original decision to use characters made sense in the old days when it was easier to count, but these days we've got excellent tools that give word counts, so there's no good reason to keep using characters. The standard rule of thumb for English text is 1 word = 5 characters, so 1500 is 300 words, and 2500 would be 500 words, which is at the shortish end of a typical high-school writing assignment. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
If a topic really can only be expanded to 1500, there might be a questionmark over its notability. I think that is exactly my point. From my own noms, I think the last short one was Xie Fei (revolutionary) at 1800 bytes; I guess I could have reached 2500, but certainly not 5000. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Sue Wiles (one of your sources) wrote almost 900 words (my rough count by eye) on Xie. So, yeah, 2500 characters (500 words) doesn't seem out of reach. RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I've had good hooks on topics with under 2,500 and have written articles over that length without good hooks. In the past few months, some good under-2,500 hooks of mine include Vlado Paradžik (8000+ views) or Andrew Hughes (14000+ views). I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that increasing the limit may increase systemic bias; personally, a decent number of my DYKs from developing countries have been under that length, e.g. Waeta Ben Tabusasi, Abdoulkader Waberi Askar or Mohamed Asswai Khalifa (which I'm still particularly proud of given how difficult it was to find sources). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Jeff Baena

The hook for Jeff Baena is in Queue 7, when it should be prep 2/3 - possibly a sets per day change accident? Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it should be in queue 7. We're at 2-a-day until 26 June; should we go for another three day sprint afterwards, then it'll need kicking back.--Launchballer 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks :) Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Aquilegia oxysepala

Hook and article say that the plant has been "used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years", wikilinked to Traditional Chinese Medicine and abbreviated as TCM. The problem is, if you read the TCM article, you'll find out that that name specifically refers to an alternative medicine (aka:pseduoscientific bullshit that sometimes kills people that we should be *really careful* about promoting on the front page) was created in the 1950s/1960s as part of the cultural revolution, and while it draws on old medicine used traditionally in China, they're two very different things. Having a look at the source, and while I see how two distinct statements where synthed to support this hook (Aquilegia oxysepala, a part of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) and A. oxysepala has been used as food supplement and medicine for thousands of years in China), and I can see that wasn't intentional, it's still problematic and needs workshopping.

Courtesy pings to @Pbritti, @Apocheir, and promoter @AirshipJungleman29. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

GreenLipstickLesbian, is there an article that discusses "old medicine used traditionally in China" in greater detail than Traditional Chinese medicine#Ancient history? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Looks like most stuff has just been accumulated in that section over time; haven't looked at the sourcing, but a lot of stuff there could probably be spun out. I don't actually know if we have any articles like that, however - Traditional medicine of India redirects to a psuedoscience and Traditional medicine in Tonga and Traditional medicine in Ethiopia both go to subsections of larger articles. Articles like Traditional Korean medicine and Traditional Vietnamese medicine similarly have both the history of folk medicine in the region and modern pseudoscience. Kampo is mostly historical, but is tagged for fringe issues. Some of this confusion I think comes from these types of alternative medicine common English names. For example, we don't call Humorism "traditional European medicine" (though it is still practised in parts of Asia as a traditional medicine, so maybe we do?) Also, we don't have enough editors specializing in these topic areas. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
And is there any other name for "old medicine used traditionally in China" other than "traditional Chinese medicine" GreenLipstickLesbian? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the one you supplied works rather well. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
The article also says (unsourced) "In TCM, A. oxysepala has been used to treat diseases in women such as irregular menstruation and intermenstrual bleeding." which is suggesting without evidence that it is actually useful for those things. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
unsourced That's not true; it's sourced quite clearly to Yu et. al. 2009. The above statements are a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. The article is merely indicating the same thing as what reliable sources say: that this use has been been present in traditional Chinese medicine. This reaction is especially peculiar when a scholarly paper indicated that there was even a scientifically reasonable explanation for historic herbal use and this Wikipedia article makes no assertion that there is a consensus in support of modern medical applications. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: Specifically addressing your concerns–which are entirely reasonable and appreciated–my suggested revised verbiage for the hook would be as follows:
Additionally, I am removing linked reference to TCM in the articles. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a lot better! The Journal of Food Biochemistry I think is strong enough to support that is is used. I do think there's a worry that a certain percentage of people are going to read "is used to treat X" and will think "it perfectly treats X!", and while that's nobody's fault, there's not really a way to mitigate that I'm aware of other than doing the stereotypical Wiki-fringe thing of, after every mention of a folk medicine/alternative medical topic, adding on a sentence lambasting it. There's a small issue with the fact that the two main authors of that paper work for a research centre designed "advocate modernization, standardization and internationalization of TCM". It's connected to the Chinese Academy of Sciences so it's likely not terrible, but there's a lot of social pressure not to doubt elements of TCM (whether the older folk medicine or the modern pseudoscience) in Chinese politics and academia. (: Since the Mao Zedong era, the government has strongly supported TCM, in part because it was too expensive to offer Western medicine to the masses. It remains taboo for Chinese media to label TCM as pseudoscience. “Criticizing TCM is unthinkable to many Chinese and almost like committing a traitorous act,” says Fang. But a lot of western sources don't take the ideas seriously at all, so that doesn't help. Honestly I hate writing in this topic area, so hats off to you for doing it, and sorry if I'm being a bit uptight about this.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: For reasons I will not get into here, I'm very aware of the substantial dangers and pseudoscientific promotion of the modern incarnation of TCM. I am glad that you read the article (or at least the hook!) and thought critically about it enough to make a very reasonable recommendation to alter it. While I hope the average Joe isn't getting medical advice from Wikipedia (much less anything I've written), the era of LLMs means distinguishing between TCM (pseudoscience) and TCM (mild antioxidant has a mild antioxidant effect) is important. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Reading Yu et al (the full text is available via WP:TWL (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4514.2009.00233.x), I'm convinced that Black Kite's quote is adequately supported by the source. And "traditional Chinese medicine" is exactly the phrase Yu uses, so I don't have any problem going with it. If we're using that phrase to describe some fringe/woo/bs, that's on us. RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (28 June 12:00)

Thai Airways International Flight 114

@History6042, RandomInfinity17, and S5A-0043: There's a substantial amount of copy-paste from asn.flightsafety.org/reports/2001/20010303_B734_HS-TDC.pdf. A fair amount of it is routine phrases (i.e. "at the time of the accident"), but there's enough other duplicated text that somebody else should take a look. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I've attempted to reword some of the highlighted sections that I felt needed to be reworded. It is worth noting that the source material is public domain (at least in Thailand) under PD-TH-exempt (It is an official report/part of an offical report produced by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, an official branch of the Thai government). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Even if the source is PD, it still needs some sort of attribution. I know there's some templates that say things like "This article includes material from ..." which work for US PD sources; there may be something similar for Thai. RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
When I took a lot at Earwig most of the highlighted parts are the more technical phrases (“and the load control supervisor were in the”, “at FR-HiTemp facilities in Titchfield”, “centre wing fuel tank”) which have little to no room for rephrasing, and the largest part highlighted was a quote, so I passed this on the understanding of WP:LIMITED. Though I won’t object if someone has a different understanding of the contents. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Irve Tunick - June 27?

How come Irve Tunick isn't being prepared for June 27 as was stated in the holding area? Remember (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this? Irve Tunick was supposed to run on June 27 and I have prepared for this for over a month. Remember (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, now sure how it slipped through the cracks. I'm looking at this now. I'll probably end up swapping it into Queue 6. RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Remember OK, this is done. Sorry that it got lost and thanks for the reminder. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you!!!! Remember (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Queue 5, surely? The sprint ends on 26 June, and if we go to 1-a-day after then that set hits the main page on 28 June.--Launchballer 00:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
People seem to be really digging in on the queue promotions, so I'm guessing we'll have at least one more sprint, but if you want to move it to 5, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
And, PS, this skipped the prep review, so it wouldn't hurt for somebody to give it another look to make sure I didn't miss anything. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll do both in the morning.--Launchballer 01:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you!!!Remember (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Consider moving the quote I cut to an article where it actually constitutes due weight.--Launchballer 11:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

July 2 special occasion

@DYK admins: just a reminder that we've got a nom on tap for July 2, which at the current 12-hour schedule should go into the next Prep 1 (i.e. after the current one gets promoted). RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I just promoted both to prep 3, as that's the first set that could hit the main page that day, and will kick back as necessary. The two that were in that set are actually in prep 1 as I have a date request for July 6.--Launchballer 12:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3 (27 June)

This looks to be sourced entirely to primary sources, no? Pinging nominator FortunateSons. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass It’s not. That’s all legal commentary, which are secondary sources (see, for example, page 14, page 3). But you’re not the first one with this issue, apparently the equivalent doesn’t really exist in English. See also the article talk page :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem with these sources? Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources themselves seem fine to me, but the citations are incomprehensible to anyone who has not been in contact with the very specific citation practices of German law. I would suggest to @FortunateSons to add full title, full author names and ISBN, then these should be fine. (I think for example MüKo is ). —Kusma (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I‘m happy to do that. Would you suggest replacing it with a standard citation, or adding it in addition to the one currently implemented? FortunateSons (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
If you find the citations as currently implemented helpful, then I wouldn't delete them. Perhaps keep the existing text after the citation template but within the ref tag. CMD (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I’ll try that tomorrow, thank you. The benefit of this citation style is that searching within the standard e-library for German law (beck online) gets you to the exact paragraph. FortunateSons (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I have now updated the citations and cited 2 additional sources. Unless someone objects, I would really appreciate if the article was placed in the prep area again? FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova

@Thriley, Narutolovehinata5, and AirshipJungleman29: I added a "citation needed" template to the article that will need to be resolved before this reaches the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I added a ref (which has that the future pope was among major Co-Consecrators. Or do you request a citation that the person became pope? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Today's DYK question.

It felt like, adding a random event of a porn actress, was a promotion, isn't it? Nimon didarul (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How so? CMD (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't strike me as promotional. TarnishedPathtalk 05:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The only thing this is promoting is new and improved content, which it's supposed to do.--Launchballer 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Although that said, opening DYK with "So Hoi-lam, better known by her stage name...So Hoi-lam" is a bit perplexing. Different Chinese characters, I assume a different language trying to get the same pronunciation, but it's very unclear. CMD (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
It is no more promotional than the Taylor Swift/Megan Trainor-related articles appearing in TFA multiple times a year. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Mykola Chaikovsky (nom)

@Piotrus, Viriditas, and SL93: Doesn't this hook violate WP:DYKFICTION? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

How? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I promoted “… that one of the earliest Ukrainian science fiction novels, written shortly after World War I by Mykola Chaikovsky, features solar power and a radiotelephone?” which I don’t think violates that guideline because of the mention of it being one of the earliest novels, the time period is mentioned, and the mention of two things that exist. I think that the hook is more interesting without RoySmith’s trim. Although I do think it’s still interesting this way so I won’t argue it. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Viriditas, this is not phrased in universe talking about the storyline, its calling out the early use of technologies without any story elements.--Kevmin § 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I think saying essentially the same thing in fewer words is always a win, but if there's consensus to put it back, I won't stand in the way. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
It’s fine. I just would be more keen to click on the link with the extra words because they drew me in more, but that could just be me. I mostly brought it up to let NLH know that I didn’t promote that hook. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
At the very least, it seems like a borderline case. I remember there being discussions about borderline cases like this were the consensus was that just saying something happened in fiction does not make it not in-universe. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
That's why I proposed fixing the hook with "concepts of", to make real world connection better. There were also alt hooks that had no issues with DYKFICTON... check with admin who selected that one on their thoughts about DYKFICTION, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Technically you could interpret it as a breach of DYKFICTION, but the reason it is not in my view is that what the hook is really doing is pointing out that the book presciently predicted the advent of solar power and mobile phones. To put it another way, genuine science fiction is based upon actual science, which is a real-world field, and if a hook is focused on that real-world aspect it can probably be considered legitimate. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Right, that's how I read it too. Still think it may be better with "concept of". But User_talk:RoySmith#Maybe. @RoySmith It's not a complaint just observation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding the words "concepts of" would probably make the real-world connection clearer at least. I understand the wording was removed for DYKTRIM reasons, but the current wording is vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion (or fresh review) needed

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration. I've done too much at this point to close it out so it needs a second opinion. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Can we tighten up the criteria for special occasions?

Irve Tunick is running June 27 because it's his birthday. Kate Nash on July 6 for the same reason. Managing these special date requests is a lot of work, especially as we move between 12 and 24 hour mode. I propose we just stop accepting special occasion requests except for occasions which are truly special. We're already hard pressed to keep up with the essential work, we shouldn't be making things harder on ourselves by taking on optional work. RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Do birthdays really not count as truly special? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I believe that birthdays do count as special occasions and that the rules shouldn't be tightened DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Everybody has a birthday every year. What makes them special? RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Date requests require little extra work; we regularly rearrange preps for compliance with WP:DYKVAR, and the noms are promoted anyway, so it's just promoting them in a different order. They're less trouble than they're worth.--Launchballer 14:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Promoters don't seem to leave <!- -> notes for SOH's anymore - at least, I haven't seen any. Why not? Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I do, but I also don’t use any promotion tools. Maybe it’s hard to add if people do? Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Pretty hard to honour SOH requests without notes to that effect. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe Theleekycauldron could add a function to PSHAW specifying that a hook is a special occasion hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The date requests are Irve Tunick, which is in the right place, Jeff Baena, which I just kicked back, the two UFO hooks in queue 3, which I'll kick back when their corresponding hooks in prep 6 are queued, and Kate Nash, which should be in Prep 3 and I'm tempted to leave a note in prep about.--Launchballer 15:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I definitely should have left notes for the two alien hooks; they're requested to air on 2 July.--Launchballer 20:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Nobody has ever heard of World UFO day and running two hooks on an obscure topic on the same day just looks weird. But the set does have a UFO hook in the lead and that seems sufficient to me. Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
There was a proposal a while back to have a World UFO Day special partial set, but it was rejected. I guess the two special occasion hooks are a remnant of that. Personally, as long as the set still meets DYKVAR, this seems like an okay compromise since there was no consensus for a partial set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Queue 6 is slated to appear on July 1 anyhow. So as things currently stand, neither hook will be featured on World UFO Day. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I still say we should abolish date requests entirely. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any upsides to this, other than making promotions easier. Special occasion requests are harmless and are a fun motivator, the only issue is it the occasion in question is not special enough, or if the request is made too early. I get that it can complicate things especially when we have to juggle between one-set and two-set days, but there are ways to address that without banning them entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, in terms of prep-building, having a fixed starting point (a SOH that must be included) to build around can be helpful - one less (quite big) thing to think about. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally I think if prep builders are fine with special occasion requests, we should try to make them possible. We may sometimes mess up with 12/24 hour switches, though, so there are no guarantees. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The cupboard is bare ...

... the prep cupboard, that is. Queues cannot be filled when there are no preps, so if anybody wants to help reduce the backlog, you can do so by promoting some noms - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Here's the instructions on how to create prep sets, and I highly recommend using WP:PSHAW. If anyone is new and wants a second opinion on a prep set they have created, please post below and an experienced editor will respond. Thanks for helping out! Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4 (6 July)

Broadway Jones (performer) (nom)

@4meter4, Chetsford, and DimensionalFusion: I'm not sure if the hook as currently written works if the reader is unfamiliar with the song (which I imagine many non-US readers, and maybe even many American readers, would be). Is there anything else that can be proposed that could appeal to a broader audience? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I strongly object to changing this hook. "Ol' Man River" is very famous, and Show Boat still gets revived fairly frequently, even in the UK. It's also had productions all over the world because it gets done in European opera houses. We even have a 2014 book Who should sing Ol' Man River? It's not at all obscure. I originally had Show Boat in the hook but it got trimmed while in the queue. That could get put back if you think it is necessary. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is well-known in America (maybe it is for a particular generation), but outside of America it seems to be less well-known (I personally listened to the song a bit earlier to see if I recognized it, and I did not). If the hook mainly interests US readers and not international ones, then a different direction is probably needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it needs a change anyway - it relies on knowing Ol' Man River and knowing enough about Jones that the connection is remarkable. I don't think it hits. Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 At this point I'm just going to say this reads like bias against musical theatre topics. This is a seminal song in the musical theatre canon. Show Boat is to musical theatre what William Shakespeare's plays are to drama. It's often cited as the beginning of the modern musical. "Ol' Man River" is a very famous song that I think a large number of people will be familiar with. It's not at all obscure.4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I was not even aware that the song is a theatre song (which might be part of the problem), so in this case it isn't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
That's because the hook got edited in the queue. It used to have the musical named in it until yesterday. Anyway I can't devote more time to this. Literally, leaving for the airport. I won't be around this week. If it gets pulled don't expect me to propose something new quickly. 4meter4 (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
This is getting silly and I concur with 4meter4 that the objections to this hook are baseless and seem like bias. There is nothing wrong with this hook. It is one of the most famous songs of the 20th century. Naruto, you said you listened to the song and are not familiar with it. I don’t know what to tell you. Get familiar with it? Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I think it could be a case of being from different backgrounds. Songs that may be well-known in one place, even the United States, may not be well-known to an international audience (and vice-versa). So if someone from outside the US says that they are not familiar with a song that is apparently very well-known there, it could simply mean that the song's popularity is more limited than initially thought. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Show Boat is considered one of the most famous and influential musicals in the history of musical theatre. It is a global art form. The production under discussion has appeared internationally since at least 1970. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • How does this sound?
ALT1 ... that singer Broadway Jones got his nickname from always wearing sharp looking suits?
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I actually pulled this already, but that's not a bad hook. I'd propose it at the nom.--Launchballer 15:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Previous DYK nomination didn't go through. Should I just renominate it again?

Template:Did you know nominations/Trichy assault rifle got rejected from further DYKing. I'm bummed by this as I wrote the article back in April. Should I just renominate it again? Been meaning to make it to DYK with this. In case it needs further expanding (5x per DYK rules), I can't seem to further update it any further since I can't comb through the internet (and books) about the AR. Ominae (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

er, no? Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh boy. Then I don't see this being able to have GA status. I'd rather do this again and put it on another day with the proposed hook that wasn't pushed through, but I'm not going to push for that option since I don't think it's the best move for me (unless someone proves me wrong). And even at that, I don't have further hook ideas. Ominae (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, if users could just re-nominate after a nom closure, without any change and after a time out already, we'd be even more overwhelmed with noms (and the more difficult ones) than we are now. That's for reviewers, but for a nominator like yourself, I also think that a bit of breathing room to refocus on potential future noms can be helpful! Kingsif (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I wished I shared your optimism. I realized that after theleekycauldron mentioned concerns about using citations from "The Firearms Blog". I removed them to be safe, though I did not receive a reply from her. Ominae (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Rejected DYK didn't have a reply from reviewer who raised concerns.

@DYK admins: .

Prior to Template:Did you know nominations/Trichy assault rifle being rejected, theleekycauldron raised concerns about using citations from the Firearms Blog, likely due to the name of the site with regards to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. I offered to allay the concerns by also using other non-blog sources (To be fair, other editors here have cited TFB as a source/citation and I don't recall [yet perhaps] them being called out or asked to make change) to back them up. Another reviewer came by and closed it without a reply after I replied to theleekycauldron. I fear that they (substitute references) may not stand up.

I'm assuming that if the answer/s from the others is to keep it shut, that it means I may have to get the article nominated for GA status. I'll just mention that there aren't a lot of places where I can go to look for additional info on it, aside from seeing e-books mined by Google using the same/similar info from here... Which is frustrating on my end as I really took the time to write this up.

Appreciate speaking to other admins if I can. Want to hear something solid before something to proceed in consideration on what else can be done to move this article based to DYK one of these days without being railroaded.

Ominae (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that if the sourcing wasn't good enough to DYK, it's not going to be good enough for GA either. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Want to ping other @DYK admins: to follow up with my question if I can. Ominae (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Pinging DYK admins is generally done when something that requires admin tools needs to be done urgently. It's not particularly appropriate to do so for a 3O request, especially when an admin's opinion is no more significant than any other user's. Kingsif (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Dang. Never mind. Well I'm at a dead end to be honest since this DYK is dead and I'm at a loss. Ominae (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
It might be better to let this one go. The reason DYKTIMEOUT exist is to prevent nominations that aren't going anymore from languishing. It sucks, but not all articles are good fits for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
It sucks, but sucks that I addressed a reviewer's concern, but none nada replies. I'll revisit it in the next few months and work to get it assessed (eventually). No hurry since I have two other articles previously in the DYK lineup. Since nothing can be done, I only ask that reviewers do make an effort to answer replies as much as possible unless something in real life is going to be an obstacle, which I will understand. All in all, I feel like I wasted my time with this. Ominae (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here. RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (30 June 12:00)

Terrorism Confinement Center

@AirshipJungleman29, PizzaKing13, and Relayed: I'm trying to verify the hook, but can't get to the paywalled source. Per WP:DYKCITE, PizzaKing13, could you send me a copy of the FT article? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith This should work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
It does, thank you. RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Vladyslav Gorai

What do others think about Template:Did you know nominations/Vladyslav Gorai? or: give me a hook about him, please, not about his death. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that jumps out at me is that he switched from being a baritone to a tenor, but I have no idea how unusual that is. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
To most people, they're the same thing. I assume this is an opera guy, however, and then the more interesting part relating to this might be the tone of his voice and roles associated with it. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I meant give me a hook in the nom, in case that was not clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
It's in prep, nevermind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, Максим Огородник, and Gerda Arendt: The one English-language source doesn't say anything about civilians. RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I tried to broach this issue indirectly on the talk page by pointing to newer sources. It looks like the consensus in the current sources is that Gorai was on a volunteer mission to help the Armed Forces of Ukraine move materiel, and had been doing so quietly since the beginning of the war. This was revealed during his memorial. An older CNN source that was published before all of this came to light just says he was on a volunteer mission, which is still accurate. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
So, it sounds like the hook is incorrect then, and should be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. It hinges on what "rescuing civilians" means and whether it is accurate or not. Of the many sources that do say that, it could very well be the case that his volunteer mission to deliver materiel was part of a larger mission to rescue civilians. We have older sources that say he was rescuing civilians and sources that say he was on a volunteer mission. Newer, non-English sources say he was delivering materiel and had been doing so since the beginning of the war. (All of these sources were linked in the nomination discussion.) Does this mean that all or some of these things could be true? No idea. We can say he was on a volunteer mission and leave it at that. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Does this mean that all or some of these things could be true? No idea is not the kind of verification to WP:RS we want to put on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The hook is cited to non-English sources that says Gorai was rescuing civilians. It is verified. Since that time, other sources have come out saying other things. Are those things contradictory or do they add more information? We don't know. I tried to point the nom in the direction of a volunteer mission to deliver materiel but the discussion was not followed up on by anyone. I haven't seen any English sources cover it beyond just "volunteer mission". Is that "volunteer mission" compatible with rescuing civilians? We don't know. The newest sources should be chosen over the older ones and we should go with what they say. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

A volunteer mission can imply a humanitarian role (helping civilians) as well as a covert military one (such as delivering supplies to the front line). Two drones, one stone. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Abortion in Tunisia

@AirshipJungleman29 and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: The hook says most abortions take place at expensive private facilities, but that's not what Marri and Affes 2019 says: most women who find themselves in “irregular situations” turn to private clinics or doctors if they can afford them. "Most women" is not the same as "most abortions". But more importantly, the source qualifies this as only applying to women who can afford the private facilities. I also see in our article The rate of abortions in private facilities is unknown,[47]. RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

IIRC the correct source is Marri 2022a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
If there's multiple sources that say different things, I don't think we can cherry-pick just the one. RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Isn't cherrypicking one source, out of many that say very different things, literally the cornerstone of the DYK operation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Airship is correct; my hook fact was cited to Maffi 2022, which says, According to the only available report, abortions in the private sector are between one and a half to three times more numerous than in public facilities, which I think quite clearly supports the hook. You have a point that the rate of abortions is unknown—perhaps the hook could be tweaked as:
... that although abortion in Tunisia has been available for free at government clinics since 1965, it is estimated that most abortions take place at paid private facilities?
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
So tweaked. RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Aquilegia pancicii

@AirshipJungleman29, Pbritti, Kevmin, and Surtsicna: I don't understand why the hook talks about "animals", when it's really "bees". The original ALT0 ("a Serbian columbine species may attract bees with its scent") seemed perfectly reasonable, but was deemed boring. Changing "bees" to "animals" and "scent" to "mixtures of molecular compounds" seems to add obfuscation more than anything else. RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The change of "scent" to "mixtures of molecular compounds" is important, as scent is a word normally used for flower generated smell, while the paper in question tested the whole upper area of the plant with no indication where the aromatic oils were produced or stored in the plant. I'm ambivalent on changing back to "bees" as well, given that Columbines are not just bee pollinated so we should not claim this species is.--Kevmin § 01:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, the article should say what the source says. Right now, the hook says "animals" and the article says "bees". The source (Radulovic et al) also talks about bees. RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The article does say what the hook says. Bees are animals, making the hook correct to the article, and bees are a rather broad group, with the paper calling out one of the very large families (circa 4,500 described species to date anyone). I did mention in the nomination that the aromatic oils origins should be elucidated on more in the article prose--Kevmin § 01:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
It is certainly true that bees are animals, but that's not to say the terms are interchangeable. Would it be correct to say "Wikipedia is edited by animals"? Or "The comment I am typing now is in reply to one made by an animal"? Technically yes, but surely not the best way to phrase it. RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
You admit its true to word as animal. This is for a 12 hour hook....---Kevmin § 17:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Roy that this is disreputable obfuscation. Also, the words "may" and "possibly" indicate that this is not a definite fact; just a conjecture. Andrew🐉(talk) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
When working with plant and animal literature, the word "may" is often used, not to indicate imprecision or something less than factual, but to indicate that further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms underlying the observed behavior. The use of ambiguity here may differ from other disciplines. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Giulio Basetti-Sani

@AirshipJungleman29, M.A.Spinn, and Pbritti: The article says ... the Quran is an inspired scripture which, when read correctly, does not contradict Christian doctrine. That doesn't sound like quite the same thing as ... the Quran was a prophecy of Christ RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In the book in question that is the argument he is making but if there is an issue I can either track down a more explicit statement along those lines and edit the article or we can just modify the hook. I'm not sure why ALT1 was chosen for promotion when it was ALT0 that I went out of my way to document with direct quotes from the authoritative biography of the article's topic—ALT1 was something I threw together a little carelessly in case my main proposal was seen as too convoluted. @Pbritti likewise helped me get things worked out unambiguously for ALT0. M.A.Spinn (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith I just updated the article with slightly more precisely language and a direct quote from the book in my reference. If it's preferable to say "revelation" rather than "prophecy" to avoid any chance of ambiguity that's fine; he uses the language of "revelation" much more frequently than that of "prophecy" and the quote I pulled uses the word "revelation." M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@M.A.Spinn That looks useful, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Wild

The article was promoted yesterday by AirshipJungleman29, but it disappeared from Prep after an edit by TarnishedPath. What happened? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, it looks like both myself and AirshipJungleman went to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration at about the same time (1 minute apart) and for some reason PSHAW has taken out the Matthew Wild at the same time, with my edit. TarnishedPathtalk 10:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, I've just manually edited Prep 4 to place it in. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

PSHAW bug?

I couldn't get PSHAW to promote from Template:Did you know nominations/Lü Hung-chih.

  1. I click "Promote (PSHAW)".
  2. A "#" is added to the address bar, so something is happening.
  3. When I check the console, I see this error message appear after clicking:

Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: can't access property "charAt", string is undefined
    capitalize index.php:15
    Hook index.php:23
    loadHooks index.php:115
    create index.php:31
    promote index.php:25
    jQuery 2
index.php:15:2
    promote index.php:25
    AsyncFunctionThrow self-hosted:804
    jQuery 2

I promoted manually but still thought I should report the bug, Rjjiii (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

grumble grumble I have to add support for hooks incorrectly formatted as [[a|'''a''']], don't i... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's better to reject hooks that are incorrectly formatted because then they'll get fixed. RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I had to fix that when manually promoting but did not realize it was causing the error. CanonNi, would you put the bold formatting outside of the link in the future? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this hook interesting?

I had nominated Michael Basinger for DYK previously with the hooks "that after playing in the NFL, Michael Basinger played "honky tonks"?" / "that football player Michael Basinger "went bananas" after learning he was selected for an all-star game?" It was approved by a respected DYK veteran. Now I see today it was rejected, then closed minutes later before I could say anything, because "no promoting for two weeks". What?? That's ridiculous. Coming here: are these hooks interesting? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm not hugely excited by your current theme of "After the NFL, person X did Y" hooks. I objected to your Bill Cottrell hook a while ago. I paused and thought about Eddie Garcia (currently in Queue 5) but decided to let it go. This one seems like more of the same.
On the topic of "it was approved by a respected DYK veteran", I guess that's true, but it's also true that it was rejected by a respected DYK veteran, both of which sound like they belong on WP:AVOID. RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
If its approved, why should someone be able to reject it then get it instant-closed so neither the nominator nor reviewer has any chance to say anything about it? Why not ask me to propose a new one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I think Leeky's comment that "I'm not sure either hook meets DYKINT" should have been a sign to propose another hook.--Launchballer 18:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
She should've pinged me if she wanted another hook. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
There is no obligation for anyone to ping anyone. To the contrary, Leeky should be thanked instead of reprimanded as that message went beyond expectations and practice, everyone else just passed over it without comment. CMD (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't always see every edit that's made to my DYK noms. If I had been pinged, I could have proposed additional hooks. In fact, I could probably find an alt hook to make now if it makes a difference. In addition, the nom wasn't even two months old, so wouldn't have been eligible for 'TIMEOUT' if it wasn't approved... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, in that case I'll commend Leeky for doing more than needed, and note that it's a good example to follow even if not needed for the busy prepper. CMD (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll hear a hook.--Launchballer 01:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, how many NFL players go on to write charting country songs? That's interesting to me, as a decidedly non-sportsy person. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
It's quite common for English footballers to have hits, though that's not the same as NFL.--Launchballer 02:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Perhaps something like: ... that in the off-season, NFL player Michael Basinger worked at a grocery store? / ... that within a year of nearly quitting football, Michael Basinger became both his college's first selection to the East–West Shrine all-star game and made it to the NFL? / ... that Michael Basinger made it to the NFL a year after he nearly quit football? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: I like the grocery store hook. You may reopen the nom and I'll approve it there.--Launchballer 19:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Would you be okay with the rejection being vacated? The nomination hasn't timed out yet, and arguably the nominator did not get a proper chance to respond. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Give me a break. BeanieFan isn't some noob who doesn't know how to add pages to his watchlist. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Imogen (novel) and Rupert Campbell-Black

Hello all, I'm not sure what happened but the nominations for Imogen (novel) and Rupert Campbell-Black appear to have fallen off the template page, please could someone pop them back? Many thanks - they have both been reviewed as OK and ready for promotion (although I do understand there is reticence) Lajmmoore (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

They seem to both be on Approved?--Launchballer 15:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I couldn't see them and was confused! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Kate Nash

I requested that my Kate Nash quadruple nom run on 6 July, which (at time of writing, and depending on what happens on 2 July) is either Prep 2 or Prep 3. There was a concern at #Can we tighten up the criteria for special occasions? about these not birthdays not being particularly 'special', but I think there was a consensus there that they were. Do I need to do anything else for this to be promoted?--Launchballer 13:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It's in SOHA, and when preps 2 and 3 start to get filled I'm sure it'll end up in one of them. Kingsif (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I promoted it. SL93 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I was getting quite antsy.--Launchballer 15:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
While I do not oppose special occasion hooks in principle as long as they meet the rules, what I do oppose is the idea that special occasion hooks must always be granted. If a special occasion run isn't granted and the hook fails to run on that date, it's no big deal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 1

Template:Did you know nominations/2025 St. Louis tornado - @Launchballer requested an amendment to the hook, which I provided, but before it could be actioned or approved etc the original hook was promoted by @AirshipJungleman29. Departure– (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Didn't think it was necessary. The entire job of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as far as I can work out, is to respond to disasters in the US. If there was a more disastrous tornado that FEMA hadn't surveyed we'd probably have around three articles on the subsequent scandal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewer

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 17. We have a total of 223 nominations, of which 79 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has increased by 33 over the past 8 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) 17:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Ai Scream! (nom)

  • ... that the song "Ai Scream!" by AiScReam that became viral on social media is the group's debut song?

This isn't an interestingness objection per se because the hook is already on the Main Page, but promoters are required to check that all outstanding issues have been resolved before promotion. There was an unresolved (and in my opinion, incredibly valid) interestingness objection on this nomination, meaning there was – at minimum – no consensus to move forward with this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Could've pinged me? I found it interesting, along with the reviewer and nominator, against one objection. Not sure how that's "at minimum — no consensus", compared to say Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Basinger, where you've left a near-identical message but are "happy for another promoter to take it if they disagree". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
that's me explicitly waiving any weight for the purposes of consensus-building – it's just advisory. If Launchballer had used the blue question mark, which they implied here by saying a new hook was needed, i think it'd be pretty clear-cut that the nomination couldn't be promoted yet. Sorry for not pinging you, my bad! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I disagree if the editor who says that it isn’t interesting doesn’t give a reason for why. It’s also only one objection. By the way, I think the hook is fine. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not unusual for people to go viral with their debut singles and I don't see how it's intriguing either.--Launchballer 23:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the general public would still be interested just with the fact that it went viral. Many people want to be up to date with what is popular. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don’t find this remotely interesting. EF5 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I was a Love Live fan once upon a time and even I don't think the hook was interesting to a broad audience. To anime fans or to Love Live fans, sure. But the general public? Had I seen the hook earlier I would have pulled it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
decent split in the promoter corps here – guess we'll see how it did when GalliumBot comes back online :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Using the pageviews tool, I see that it received 4,115 views in a 12-hour run. I think that it did well. I still stand by my statement that there can be interest towards anything that is viral. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, SL93, Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, and EF5: Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders tells us that DYK's audience found this hook more interesting that these other song hooks from June:
... that Lorde wrote a song about herself titled "Man of the Year" the day after attending GQ's "Men of the Year" party in 2023?
... that Robby Krieger was unable to record his guitar solo for "You're Lost Little Girl" until he got stoned on hashish?
... that Taylor Swift compared the metaphors in her song "...Ready for It?" to those in the novel Crime and Punishment?
... that the music video for "The Kids from Yesterday" by My Chemical Romance was directed by a fan?
... that Taylor Swift and Zayn Malik's "I Don't Wanna Live Forever" is the highest-charting Fifty Shades song on the US Billboard Hot 100?
... that TJ Monterde recorded his song "Puhon" under a blanket in his bedroom?
... that Tyla became the second female African artist to score multiple solo entries on the Billboard Hot 100 with "Push 2 Start"?
and that the hook (correcting from GalliumBot's current broken-ness) probably received around the average number of views. Any conclusions you want to draw? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Maybe people were drawn in by the anime-styled image (or subject), something popular in the west? Also, it seems to have went viral on TikTok, which will cause interest regardless of the hook. The hook itself wasn't remotely interesting and I think it's a great example of DYKINT issues we constantly have and are constantly brushed off. — EF5 12:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd have dinged the MCR, Monterde, and both Swift hooks on DYKINT grounds, ended Lorde at the first Year, I still say we should have gone with Krieger's fellatio hook, and there's no way Tyla should have flopped, it begs the question "who was first"! The only thing I can think of is that readers were amused by the ice cream pun.--Launchballer 13:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Hindsight is an invaluable aid. We currently have a Miley Cyrus hook in two sets time Launchballer, you want to "ding" that or do you think it'll perform better than Ai Scream? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I did actually queue that hook so to put more sets between two Swift hooks, and did consider pulling it as it didn't have "the Miley Cyrus song", which implied that it was a different song altogther, although adding another part of the article title probably doesn't violate "be careful not to introduce new facts that require independent verification"? I find "intended for three different albums" to meet the "unusual" part of WP:DYKINT, so probably wouldn't pull it, but I'm not sure I'd bet money on it beating Ai Scream.--Launchballer 14:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Not gonna look at the other hooks at the moment, but i was definitely wrong! Did much better than I expected. Will have to incorporate that into my thinking. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Do quotes still need attribution if they're common sayings or not specifically from particular people?

One common sticking point at DYK, particularly for hooks based on quotes, is if such quotes require attribution or not. However, for quotes that are not specific to particular people, for example common sayings, is attribution still necessary? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Attribution is not necessary for quotes in hooks. WP:ATTRIBUTE, like all the other guidelines pertaining to content, was written with articles in mind, not DYK hooks, and the guidelines do not apply in the same way to hooks and in some cases not at all.
Having said that, sometimes attribution makes for a better hook, so there needn't be a hard and fast rule either way, it's just about what works best in a particular context. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I was asking because it's often come up in discussions if quotes mentioned in hooks need attribution or not. For example, hooks written in Wikivoice are often modified to mention the actual source, and I've seen hooks in the past getting pulled because the quote could not be attributed in the hook itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that happen too, and strongly disagree with it. We should credit readers with the intelligence to understand that when they see something in quotes, it was said by a particular person, not by the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd support amending the guidance at WP:DYKCITE to something like "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to the level of attribution – if the source or article is not willing to say something in its own voice, the hook should not state that thing as a fact." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKCITE says "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information – if the source is not willing to say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well." Am I right in thinking that would require attribution of quotations, at least in the case where the source is itself quoting someone? Anecdotally, this seems out of step with common practice to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
That quote is actually from DYKHOOKCITE, and quite frankly I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. But regardless, I don't see the relevance to the issue at hand. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
A common saying should be attributable somewhere as being a common saying. BD2412 T 18:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Two tasks in one script!

I've finished working on a script that should be able to effectively replace what WugBot has been doing with moving nominations between WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, but it has a couple of added functionalities! First, it takes unapproved nominations from DYKNA and moves them back to DYKN; second, it finds lost nominations and retranscludes them to DYKN/DYKNA. A couple of design choices I'm curious to hear feedback on, as well as any general thoughts:

  • Should a tick in good faith () count as an approval, or a mistake that should keep the nomination at DYKN if that's the nom status?
  • Should the bot avoiding transcluding very new nominations that aren't on DYKN or DYKNA? BlueMoonset raised the point before that nominators might want to keep their nominations off those pages to work on them before submitting them via transclusion.

Pinging Wugapodes as the maintainer of WugBot, since we'll need to do a handoff somehow if this goes to BRFA and a test is authorized – I'd be happy to add you as a maintainer if you'd like, Wug, although I am absolutely crap at enterprise coding so I'd need a bit to figure out how to do that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Our discussion of identified certain aspects that should not be taken on faith, but did not (my reading) find consensus to bar all cases where hooks could not be independently checked. I feel there would be disadvantages to depreciation given this. CMD (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the second thing should be an issue because I don't remember that ever actually happening in practice.
This is unrelated, of course, but a script that would automate the pulling process (i.e. pulling a hook/reopening a nom/putting it back in the usual place) with a single click would really help prep builders. I know this script is intended to help with the "putting untranscluded noms in the correct date section" process, but it still has enough of a delay that a proper pulling script might still be worthwhile. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that sweep being done once every five or ten minutes is fast enough, and given that scripts and bots are in different languages, i'd really rather maintain one tool rather than two. Once this gets online, though, I can turn on the hook-pulling script as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I know I've asked this before, but I'll ask again. Could you please put all this code into github? Not having it available in a public source control system is a barrier to entry for anybody else who wants to work on this. RoySmith (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
working on it! right now it's here, but it seems like my local repo and the gitlab repo disagreed and i'm trying to figure out how to move stuff. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, an AGF tick counts as a tick—approval—in every other aspect, so I don't understand why it might not here. I know that Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot counts them as approved in the tables that are generated for the various DYK pages, so a change in AGF is a change that would need to propagate to many places. WugBot also does other functionality: it removes closed nominations (promoted or rejected) from both the Nominations and Approved pages, and emptied dates from the "Approved nominations" section of the Approved page. I was just thinking it would be nice to add functionality to remove emptied dates from the "Older nominations" section of the regular Nominations page (but not the "Current nominations" section, since nominators are actively adding nominations for seven or eight days); at the moment, I take care of "Older nominations" manually, and I'm not always around to do so in a timely fashion. If the new bot is moving nominations back and forth, it's going to need to create and remove date-based sections regularly. Just a few things to consider. Thanks for taking this on! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:The new script also removes closed nominations and empty date headers, and it'll add new date headers where needed – wouldn't be too hard to preserve empty date headers in the last week, good call! As for the AGF tick, I can't find a link offhand but there was a recent consensus to deprecate it. But I'm happy to count it as either approved or not, depending on how we want to handle that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
WT:Did you know/Archive 206#Let's deprecate DYKtickAGF RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, based on what was said above, there was consensus to deprecate straight AGF approvals (i.e. just blindly trusting offline or non-English sources), but there was no consensus to deprecate the DYKtickAGF icon as there may still be cases when it can still be used. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, and RoySmith: okay, transfem (the script) now treats the AGF tick as a valid form of approval. It'll be up to promoters as a line of defense to sort out if those approvals really are valid or not. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
added functionality for preserving empty date headers in the current unapproved nominations section :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron This looks like a very comprehensive script! All I have is some suggested improvements for whilst you have the opportunity to replace wugbot:
  • The exception function is very basic (which is very reasonable assuming nothing goes wrong) – but mayyybe consider using traceback.
  • Sound the type alarm 🚨! I think isinstance would be better
if type(template) is list:

if isinstance(template, list):
And on a third, somewhat disconnected note: "transfem" – woah that's a cool name! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: changed the type language to isinstance, working on more substantive logging, and thanks! one of the best parts of building cool things is giving them good names :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
resurrecting this thread to make some replies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
okay, I think I've addressed all the outstanding requests. Anyone have any other thoughts before I head to BRFA? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Good luck? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
This looks great Theleekycauldron! My understanding is that this replaces WugBot Task 2 (moving nominations between pages) but not WugBot Task 3 (transcluding nominations on article talk pages), is that correct?
For the actual hand-off, we have a few options. (1) We can schedule the switch and synchronize me turning off my job and you turning on yours. (2) I give you access to the relevant tool account and you can toggle the job as you need---each of WugBot's tasks is a separate tool account so you'd only have access to the DYK-related scripts. (3) You can use partial blocks on WugBot to prevent edits to the nomination pages and unblock when you're done.
I appreciate the offer of being added as a maintainer, but I don't have much bandwidth these days. What were you hoping to get from an additional maintainer? — Wug·a·po·des 01:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Yep! this doesn't replace task 3. Happy to do the job synchronization if that works best, but if I get to pick, I don't think I could resist doing it with partial blocks. Not an opportunity that comes around very often :) if you don't wanna be maintainer, no worries. I figured you wouldn't need much onboarding given that you already run a bot that does exactly this and you have good institutional knowledge about enterprise coding I'm missing, but I can always just come to you for advice if needed; I also didn't want you to feel like I was trying to take this task away from you, if you enjoyed running it and wanted to keep doing it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (5 July 00:00)

Lü Hung-chih

@Rjjiii and CanonNi: I'm working only from the Google translation, but the source for On October 2, 2021, he was elected the party's 4th leader, a position he held until 2024, when he was succeeded by Hsü Yung.[7] is dated January 22, 2012, yet supposedly supports events that happened in 2021 and 2024. I'm assuming that "Lü Hung-chih" and "Lü Hongzhi" are just different transliterations of the same name. RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The source is from 中華民國111年1月22日 = January 22, 2022, but does not actually support either of the claims (it sort of says that Lü was party leader). You are right about the transliterations (Wade–Giles versus Hanyu pinyin). —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, well I apologize; I should have looked closer. With machine translation, it can be hard to say but I'm going through that paragraph and noticing several issues. The first source doesn't seem to say he's a founding member of the Social Democratic Party but of "Democracy Kuroshio". The source cited in footnote 8 seems to mention the subject in the final paragraph, but does not seem to verify the cited content. Also, is this his band? If so, they are using "Burning Island" rather than "Flaming Island" as an official translation of the name. Rjjiii (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Footnote 8 is the same as footnote 9. It verifies the content for 9, but not for 8. Given the extent of issues with source-to-text integrity, I think this needs to be pulled, but I need to run now and can't do it. —Kusma (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Jeannie Rice

@Rjjiii, Bremps, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I'm not convinced worldmarathonmajors.com is a WP:RS. It's not like any of this is controversial, but it is a WP:BLP so we want to make sure we've got it right. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

They managed to interview Rice, so I'd say they're reliable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Bremps... 19:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this falls under SELFSOURCE. The source is used for a statement that is based on a direct quote from Rice, and there is nothing controversial about it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's a primary source, but I think it's fine here. It's an interview of the article's subject conducted by World Marathon Majors, who organizes a multi-marathon competition that includes the Boston Marathon. If secondary sources are needed, the same material has been covered by the Washington Post and Wall Stree Journal. Rjjiii (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

12-hours coming to an end

at some point in the next few days, as we're now under the 120 nom backlog limit at WP:DYKNA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I propose ending this at the end of tomorrow, regardless of how many sets are queued. Three reasons; the vast majority of the backlog's been cleared by @Gatoclass: (thanks, by the way), who has burnt out; tomorrow is day 9 and we do this in three-day spurts; and queue 2 has a date request which will need swapping into queue 1 if we end 12-hours today, which neither of us can do. (Kate Nash also, and Gabby Douglas per WP:DYKVAR - but I should be able to do this myself when the sets are queued.)--Launchballer 14:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, we're back to having 7 full queues; I'm inclined to say we should IAR on the size of the backlog and do one more sprint. Either way, thank you to @Gatoclass who really dove in and did most of the heavy lifting the past week or so and deserves some time off. If it helps, I'll threaten to p-block him if he promotes another queue to encourage him to take some much-needed and much-deserved rest :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
We should revisit that tomorrow afternoon, but given that we're currently at less than 80, I'd take some convincing.--Launchballer 15:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I would keep it at 12 for another three days. The number of new nominations per day is very high - sometimes actually exceeding the 18 per day promoted during the 12-hour cycle. So it will take no time at all to build back up again. Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Despite the fact that I wrote the current rule, I think it underestimates the cost of doing a mode switch (i.e. shuffling date-specific hooks around). So I think as long as we've got enough approved hooks to keep the prep-builders happy, it makes sense to stay here. I'm not building preps these days, so I'll need to rely on feedback from those of you who are. If you tell me that you're already having problems building sets because you can't find what you want, thats a stronger argument in my mind than being below some arbitrary number. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd say we have around two more sets before I'd like to see us switching back (for reasons of quality control—don't want to be force-regurgitating dull hooks). Hence, a switch on the 3rd after midnight would be good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
What happens as you get near to the bottom, as we are now, is certain types of hooks start being proportionately over-represented and others under-represented. So at the moment we are even more over-represented in picture hooks than usual (25 out of ~80 noms have images), and possibly in quirky hooks too. I'd like to slow down before we have to use those bookend-hooks in filling up the middle slots, if that makes sense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure where we're counting days from. We had a couple of out-of-process switches around 22-24 June, but I'm fine with drawing a line in the sand and saying we switch back after Midnight UTC on 3 July. I've put a reminder on my calendar for 8 PM EDT on 3 July. RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Per the above, we ended yesterday on 5 queues, meaning we go back to 1-a-day - and Kate Nash needs to move to Queue 6 from Prep 2.--Launchballer 00:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This needs switching in the next two hours.--Launchballer 09:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

KJZZ-TV

@AirshipJungleman29, Sammi Brie, and Jeromi Mikhael: Not seeing the 'named for the team' part of the hook fact in the article.--Launchballer 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer Added. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Red Ficó

While I like a picture hook that is supported by the picture, saying "DYK [thing] looks like [basic description]" and also showing a picture of [thing] seems... bad. Frankly, the description would be better as a standalone: pairing it with the image does feel like just briefly describing the image that (to most) is perfectly visible, and takes away from the fact the scenario depicted is unusual. There's also potential for a different hook to go with the image (it's a nice image): this could be as simple as expanding with some of the context/meaning behind why the monument looks like it does (that the car became a symbol of resistance after the inverse situation happened), but the football story is also interesting. (Pings: @Dumelow, Arconning, and AirshipJungleman29:.) Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic here. The hook describing the picture is bad because it's a description of the image and that takes away from the unusual situation? Even if that's true, does that matter? Does it meet WP:DYKCRIT? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Just me trying to get the best match-up for an impactful lead hook :) I don't think I can explain it better than I have, but I'll try. The description is of something unusual, which could be hooky, but when paired with the image it to me read more like just trying to briefly describe the image, making me less cognizant of each element by themselves (so it had less impact). It also feels a bit blander with the image there because it does read more like a caption than a related fact. Kingsif (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Did we ever reach consensus on the fate of DYKSO?

Some time ago, we had a discussion on what to do with DYKSO, particularly in the context of whether to relax the six-week limit or even to abolish it altogether. It seemed like it got archived without any proper consensus or conclusion. Does that mean the status quo holds, or was there supposed to be a proper outcome from it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I read no opposition to extending it to two months (aligns with WP:DYKTIMEOUT), but no consensus to abolish the limit or abolish DYKSO altogether. CMD (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Just for the sake of future archive archeologists, I'll point out that the #Can we tighten up the criteria for special occasions? thread I started last week has some overlap with the thread Naruto is referring to. In any case, I think CMD's summary is reasonable; I'm not sure I can identify any real consensus, but extending it to 2 months seems like the option which drew the fewest objections. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James Bunbury White

This nomination turned two months old a few days ago, but there has been no response from the editor who raised concerns about the nomination if their issues have been addressed. Requesting a new opinion here on whether to approve the nomination or to time it out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I couldn't see much wrong with the original hook and I think the ALTs are worse. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

2025 St. Louis tornado - This was trimmed, and the hook for the article no longer contains the part about sirens and I'm worried this isn't up to DYKINT for anybody that doesn't know about the Joplin tornado. Should the hook have the siren claim, or maybe have a footnote saying that the Joplin tornado was the most expensive in history, or something of the like? Departure– (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hook language change

Complaining about a change to my own hook on queue 6. "quack" (linking to quackery) was removed just leaving "medical device" which makes it seem like the device was legitimate. It was not, so it gives an inaccurate impression to the reader. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes, I don't see why that was removed (although the fact that its inventor was sent to jail for selling it should make it clear that it wasn't legitimate!). Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
With DYK, you must preempt every possible misunderstanding someone could possibly have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
The change happened in Special:Diff/1298247266. claimed to cure disease through "a force unknown to science" is pretty much the definition of "quack" so there's no need to say it. RoySmith (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
There is a need to say it because without it there will likely be an errors discussion saying we are promoting fringe or whitewashing it or the like, or some discussion on the fringe noticeboard, as there always is with these kinds of articles, you have to write as carefully as possible or you get complaints. If people object to "quack" it would be superior to pull the hook entirely rather than give an impression that will garner complaints, which I do not mind, I do not really care if articles I write run or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand why it was removed, but perhaps they didn't like the way it worked in the sentence. "Purported" could work just as well. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
"Purported" (or indeed "fake") could be piped to quackery as well, if that isn't too Easter Egg-ish. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't care what word we use or if it's piped to quackery as long as there is some qualifier on 'medical device' to indicate it was not an actual one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I dropped the word "medical" (which isn't sourced in the article anyhow). Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
This is on the MP now, so purely for future reference, I like hooks that are short and punchy; this one meanders. I'm not an expert at parsing English grammar, but breaking this up into thought units, it's:
  • that William R. Ferguson
  • received a two-year prison sentence
  • for selling a device
  • that was claimed
  • to cure disease
  • through "a force unknown to science"?
The last part is the punchline. The rest is just scaffolding to get you there. It would have been a better hook if it had less scaffolding. RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Well the punchline does not make any sense without the "scaffolding". I can't see where you could have easily cut it without violating WP:FRINGE. That forces you to be more meandering than you would otherwise like to be but better than a noticeboard discussion and getting accused of being WP:PROFRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: Alphonso Lisk-Carew

Hello, can we get a promoter over at Template:Did you know nominations/Alphonso Lisk-Carew to take a look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

At Template:Did you know nominations/Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, I am having a disagreement with the nominator over an appropriate hook. I have brought the discussion here as it seems clear at this point that wider input is needed. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Considering an alternate hook

Hi @AirshipJungleman29: and @Launchballer: I noticed you both contributed to and uploaded the DYK hook for the Washington D.C. Temple page. I had previously suggested ALT2 on the talk page, but it didn’t receive any follow-up, and the discussion has since been closed. I’m reaching out here in case a late-stage change is still possible.

I believe ALT2 would make for a more compelling hook. It presents a genuine surprise, as most readers wouldn’t expect Jewish Zionist landowners to have played a key role in making the temple possible. The fact that the land almost became a shopping center draws immediate curiosity, while the hook’s interfaith and cultural angle adds intrigue and depth. This hook was also already approved as well. I’ve made a slight adjustment to the hook for additional accuracy and neutrality:

… the Washington D.C. Temple property (pictured) nearly became a shopping center, until Jewish Zionist owners sold it below market to support temple construction?

I understand there’s now less than 32 hours before the hook goes live, so I realize this might be a tight window. Still, I’d appreciate both of your thoughts on whether this change could be considered. On a side note, a change that I think would be effective for the current hook in Queue 5 is to change "road" to highway, as it is more deliberate and striking, as just using road sounds like it was built off a much smaller roadway than a major US highway. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

When I initially promoted this nom with a different hook (which I think was better because it referenced the appearance of the building, linking with the picture, love a picture hook that does that), I was reluctant to use the hook you suggest now because “temple” could easily refer to a synagogue and the hook doesn’t mention otherwise. Religious owners preferring land to have religious use rather than commercial is mildly interesting, but not as much as other hooks IMO - would be better if the hook could say it was a Mormon temple. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
That was my logic too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both for taking the time to review the nomination and share your thoughts. I could see where you were coming from with the hook, and I thought the version that ended up being published was strong and intriguing.
Part of the reason I didn’t include the word “Mormon” in the hook to clarify the religious tradition was because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked that the term not be used to refer to members. They prefer “Latter-day Saint” as a more accurate reflection of their beliefs, including the central role of Jesus Christ- something that can be misunderstood when the term “Mormon” is used.
I realize this naming convention may not be familiar to everyone, and I don’t bring it up to be nitpicky- just hoping to reflect the Church’s request. Thank you both again for helping shape a hook that made it to the front page. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's more specifically Nelson's request, and at least from experience, many LDS members disagree with that position and continue to use "Mormon" at least in casual speech (from what I've read, it's mostly Nelson who had an issue with the term, and the decision to discourage it had mixed reactions among Latter-Day Saints). I'm not arguing here, this is basically just adding context to what you said above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, @Narutolovehinata5: I appreciate what you said, and that you're not looking to argue. I wanted to add and clarify that other leaders of the Church have also expressed support for using the correct name of the Church, such as here and here.
I understand where you're coming from, and I really appreciate all that you do for DYK. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Credits are incorrect in today's DYK

In Template:Did you know, the hooks are current, but the credits are from July 5, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite, thank you. The credits do not belong on the template at all, they are left over from a manual update that copied more content than needed. I hope I have fixed the issue. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Leads that duplicate content

Fairly often I see nominations of articles which are technically long enough per WP:DYKLEN, exceeding 1500 characters, but the length is achieved by putting the content into a single "Biography" section and then duplicating that content in a unneccessary lead section. André Corvington and Claude-Charles Bourgonnier are current examples. Am I right in rejecting such nominations as too short? If I am, could this be addressed in WP:DYKLEN? Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is too short, and you do not need to point to the DYK criteria: MOS:NOLEAD states clearly "Articles that are shorter than a well-written lead usually do not need a lead." and recommends that an article expand to 400-500 words before installing a distinct lead. Even with their duplicative leads, Corvington and Bourgonnier are still under 300 words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I guess part of the issue is that some people think WP:DYKCOMPLETE means articles must have a lead section, even if they are short. Personally I think we should just adjust the requirements up to 2500 or 3000 characters of prose size and not police in detail how this is achieved. —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I am more inclined to agree with AirshipJungleman29's view that articles under 400-500 words should not have lead sections. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with that, I am just saying that people adding an unnecessary lead section may be prompted by an incorrect assumption that a lead is needed, not necessarily only by the wish to game the 1500 characters rule. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I think most people add a lead just because they're used to it, not to game the system. I assume that editors are acting in good faith when they write "duplicate" leads. In fact, many editors may not even be familiar with MOS:NOLEAD (admittedly, that includes myself). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Its pretty much why when I created Tiny Glade, I didn't know that even non-stop articles may not have a lead. This is a link to the time the lead was removed. I took a look at the MOS guidance and I see why. A lead has since been added by another user a few days ago. JuniperChill (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
There is a difference between Tiny Glade, which has multiple conceptually distinct body sections even if they are short, and the biography examples which have a single body section. It's a bit of an art though, as creating multiple tiny sections just to get around NOLEAD isn't an improvement either. CMD (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
There is also somewhat of a prejudice against stubs—people don't want to be seen as "stub creators", and the easiest way to make a stub seem to not be one is to add a lead, even if it is completely duplicative and unneeded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The Claude-Charles Bourgonnier lead looks fine to me, André Corvington does not. There is nothing wrong with having a lead for short articles, but the lead should be correspondingly short. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The question here is not whether leads should exist or be long or short. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I think we should alter WP:DYKLEN to exclude the lead. You're not required to have a lead, so if (as is often the case with new short articles) there is no lead, this has no effect. On the other hand, if you do have a lead, pretty much by definition it just duplicates what's already in the main body. So it makes sense to exclude it. Again, this is unlikely to affect many articles; most articles with a real lead section are long enough that our minimum size requirements are far exceeded. As for the two examples cited above, I agree that (whether it was intentional or not), the leads just serve to inflate the word count without adding any useful information, so they shouldn't count. People tend to forget that WP:Did you know/Guidelines starts with

To some extent, DYK approval of a nomination is a subjective process. No amount of studying this page can guarantee approval ... The subjective decision might depend on an attempt to circumvent the details of the rules, especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article.

The intent of DYKLEN is to provide some floor level of useful prose for the reader. Inflating the word count by duplicating text in the lead is contrary to the spirit of that requirement. So even if we don't update DYKLEN, it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to say, "Despite the character count some computer program has spat out, this isn't long enough". RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I think we should make checking of DYKLEN purely mechanical and not subject to a lengthy and unproductive case by case discussion, so I would support increasing the length requirement but oppose things like excluding lead sections. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
That would favor cases like André Corvington and Claude-Charles Bourgonnier, where content is duplicated and character count thus inflated, at the expense of, say, Letard I (my nomination), which has 1502 characters with no content duplication. For this reason I believe AirshipJungleman29 is right to point out MOS:NOLEAD. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
If we increase the length requirement, all articles will need a lead section and the problem will disappear. I really do not want to start debating how leads should count when doing 5x expansions. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I do not see how that will solve the problem. If the minimum length requirement is raised to 3000 characters, biographies with a 2000-character "Biography" section and a 1000-character lead duplicating that section will still technically qualify–and the same issue pops up. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I suggest having a rule that says 'articles must be long enough to deserve a lead section'.--Launchballer 13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey now, you can't do that! Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Frankly this is starting to feel like instruction creep. Why not just leave it to reviewer discretion on whether or not an article is too short without a lead? Besides, there are genuinely some topics that really just won't fit 1,500 characters otherwise, no matter how much sourcing one finds. Plus, being stricter does not mean eliminating the possibility of gaming the system anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
This. A reviewer can simply point out that the article qualifies for MOS:NOLEAD. Part of the review process is pointing out when articles don't meet other, generalized, MOS standards. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you want an answer to the question of whether or not you should reject nominations with leads that duplicate content, the answer is no, you should give the nominator an opportunity to reduce the amount of duplicated content to an acceptable level. What constitutes an acceptable level is to some extent a matter of opinion, but again, a short article should have a correspondingly short lead. The Bourgonnier article has four short sentences in the lead and includes perhaps a tad too much info, but nonetheless serves as a brief intro to the subject, while the Corvington article is a clumsy regurgitation.
Whether or not an article is formally divided into a lead section and a body, there is still a case for a couple of sentences which briefly introduce the subject and thus duplicate content, so duplicated content alone is not a sufficient cause in my view for a challenge - it's more a question of proportion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The issue is not the duplication itself. The issue is that the articles do not meet the length requirement when the duplicated content is not counted. If the duplicated content should be counted, the minimum length is effectively halved. Surtsicna (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, of course. My point was simply that there is justification for some duplicated content - some semblance of a lead - even in short articles, so it isn't appropriate to insist on it all being removed. If you think there is too much, ask for it to be reduced, and if the article is too short afterwards, give the nominator a chance to expand it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
On the basis of this discussion, I'm considering unpromoting Template:Did you know nominations/Dag Burgos, because Dag Burgos and Ricardo Burgos' leads are very duplicative of the body. Up until now I've been quite lenient towards these, but my mind has changed after this discussion. Thoughts Gatoclass? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I think Gatoclass has a point. A duplicative lead is not necessarily an issue as long as it does not take too much of the article. Frankly, this whole discussion about lead sections seems like it's punishing good faith editors. Articles that only meet the length requirements due to the lead are not the norm to begin with, and such edge cases can already be dealt with by following current guidelines such as DYKCOMPLETE, or the old "articles that barely meet the 1500 character count may still be rejected by reviewer discretion" practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree that both of those articles probably only need the first two sentences of their current leads. Whether or not that would leave the articles with insufficient length I haven't checked. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Straight repetition as in Dag Burgos is poor writing that should be fixed. And as @BeanieFan11 correctly pointed out in the nom, "Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles" so this already fails DYKLEN as written. —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I was about to make this point too. If the text is a substantial copy, it already fails the "is not original" wording. Enforcing this means DYKLEN is not fully mechanical, and there is going to be a grey area, but that is in line with other forms of evaluating copying vs expansion. CMD (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Unpromoted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

12-hour shift for DYKbot

Currently, there are about 136 approved nominations, and as per the FAQ, once it reaches 120 it should shift to 12-hour sets until there are less than 60. I'm informing as I've noticed this has gone on for a few days and no change has been made. Thank you! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKROTATE also requires six filled queues, which we don't have. In fact, see #No More Queues above; we actually ran down to zero today. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith I was unaware of that rule, thank you for the link, although I feel then that should be included in said FAQ to avoid confusion. That being said, how come then there is still a large backlog of approved nominations that are simply sitting waiting? I feel that, if it has been cleared, then new nominations should be moved to subsequent queues and prep areas. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the FAQ". What page are you talking about? As for why these approved nominations aren't being moved to preps and queues, it's because it's a lot of work to do that and we're all volunteers here. We'd love to have you join the team and start building prep sets. RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Frequently asked questions is the page I refer to. At "Backlogged?", it fails to mention the full queue aspect of the rule. That's where my confusion stemmed from, sorry for not being specific. I understand the volunteer part, but I feel then that admins should help out a little, especially as this is a front page feature after all and therefore a major aspect of Wikipedia. I'd happily join to try to help out, the main reason why I'm here anyway due to concern that it's being neglected despite being an important function to promote articles. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't even know that FAQ existed! The official policy is at WP:DYKROTATE, so I've updated the FAQ to point people there for the details. RoySmith (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
PS, if you want to lend a hand, the best way to start is to go through the nominations waiting for reviews at WP:DYKN and start reviewing them. The instructions are at WP:Did you know/Reviewer instructions. RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

I would like to raise a concern about this edit: , made by Ganesha811. The discussion about the hook looked carefully at how not to claim anything in the hook that would go beyond what the source material would support. Putting in "purportedly" seems to me to go against MOS:ALLEGED, and really seems to me to ruin the hook. As a compromise, I would not object to changing "can change its" to "can potentially change its", which I think accomplishes the same thing without sounding like a Bronx cheer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise and will implement it now - I can always change it if consensus here suggests a better alternative. The proposed language from ALT2 there ("that according to Erica Chenoweth...") would also be fine by me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much! As far as I'm concerned, it's fine now. (I'll continue to watch here, in case anyone else wants other changes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No More Queues

We have run out of queues, some need to be promoted from prep sets. I am not an admin so I can't help, but someone needs to. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: this requires your attention.--Launchballer 00:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Promoted one, may do another later if I have time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Note that template editors were recently given the ability to promote preps to queues. JuniperChill (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
But the next queue up is still fully protected, so (somewhat perversely) if we run down to zero queues filled, it still takes an admin to fix the problem. RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

A bit confused on DYK workflow and Gladys Cromwell

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Gladys Cromwell was reviewed for DYK on May 25, 2024 at 6:41 UTC. At 7:36, WugBot removed it from WP:DYKN. It however didn't add it to T:TDYKA, though it did for the pages it removed at 6:36 and 9:36. Probably related: the nom was apparently closed incorrectly, which was corrected on June 10. The end result is that the hook never got to the prep areas. Should something be done? — Alien  3
3 3 20:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Promoted incorrectly, too; @Arconning: approved and promoted it. I say treat it as a WP:DYKTIMEOUT, and let @Xoak: nominate it for GA in his time.--Launchballer 21:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
As much as I'm a fan of TIMEOUT, if it was the victim of a procedural error, that seems a bit much. RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Well, I think Xoak, the nominator, may not understand that the reviewer cannot promote a hook. So its not like you should reject a nomination because the nomination was unexpectedly lost in the process. It pretty much reminds me of Template:Did you know nominations/IMAX Melbourne where the nomination was lost for over a month and was promoted almost four months after nomination. And it can take several months for a GA to be picked up, unlike two months for DYK. Maybe ask if Xoak still wants to carry on with the DYK, evne though its been a year. If so, I could undo the promotion and promote it myself manually. Although Xoak hasn't edited since 23 June. JuniperChill (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Come to think of it, Thea Austin had to wait even longer. Alright, I withdraw my objection.--Launchballer 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@JuniperChill @Launchballer Hi everyone, so I took a cursory look into this as I'm really tied up IRL but as I understand it, yes I still want to carry on with the DYK. Re GA, I don't really have the intention/time to work on this so DYK's nice, which is already due as it seems. Thanks. X (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I was going to fix this, but it looks like you already promoted it then backed that out, so I'm unclear of the correct status. I'm thinking this should get re-linked back into WP:DYKA, marked as approved by @Arconning, but not yet promoted. Does that make sense? RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Since this nom has already been approved, I'll go ahead and undo the promotion, write a comment, then promote it manually to prep 1. JuniperChill (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Alexandre Mc Queen

Hello. It is becoming quite obvious there is an unfair favoritism regarding this fashion artist who shows up on the daily wikipedia page almost every month or so. Don't know why or who allows this but it's about time it should stop, this person is no more diserving than thousands of others who have never had their page put up on the daily wikipedia page once. Wikipedia is, whether we like it or not, a promotional tool aswell and has a certain responsibility. Why is it we have never seen other fashion artist on the main page, and this Alexandre Mc Queen shows up more times than I can count? No more I say, have a go at Steve Mc Queen for a change or anybody but him who has had way enough attention. 2A01:CB09:D032:B483:0:16:FB83:8701 (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there some particular page or DYK nomination you are referring to? RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
McQueen items have featured 13 times since the start of 2024. Given that DYK has at least 7-8 hooks a day, that's not an issue at all. However, the OP may possibly be talking about WP:TFA, where McQueen items have appeared ten times in the last 18 months (which at a single story per day, IMHO is excessive) Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
pinging @TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720 so they're aware of the issue. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
They are well aware. There was a recent discussion where my opinion was in the minority :) Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
We're aware, there was such a discussion, and we play the cards FAC deals us without fear or favoritism. We can only advise those who wish other topics to write them and get them through FAC, the exclusive way of qualifying an article for TFA. Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
There is no unfair favouritism, we run all of the articles that get nominated provided they meet certain criteria. We do not have any paid staff, so what gets shown is what our volunteers are interested in. More volunteers with other interests are always welcome. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok duly noted, thank you for your responses. Just voicing my concern as a wikipedia lover and hoping that some volunteers through the cracks aren't actually getting paid by an interested party for putting forward promotional content through the daily pages (this would somehow undermine wikipedia's integrity as a fair and non-profit encyclopedia). I have no means of verifying any of this being only a reader, but am simply hoping there are some kinds of safeguards in place to prevent such misuse from actually occuring. If all these Mc Queen mentions come from a simple genuin interest in his work then I don't see a problem. 2A01:CB09:D032:B483:0:16:FB83:8701 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Basically, people write about what they're interested in. Sometimes that leads to a prolific editor creating a lot of articles on the given topic. See #There are an excessive number of features about early American football and Jilly Cooper novels above for another conversation about this. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The author of all of the McQueen articles is writing them because she is very much interested in the topic -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting too that working on one article on a topic (say McQueen) probably gets you in a great position to write other articles within the topic that may share sources or structures, so topic bunching is probably a feature for a prolific FAC run. CMD (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the McQueen articles, and I think it's great that fashion history is getting some attention. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Switching out WugBot's task

Hi! Just giving y'all a heads up that the BRFA to replace WugBot's task 2 (ferrying nominations between DYKN and DYKNA) was speedy approved, and I'll be making the switch in a few minutes (courtesy ping to @Wugapodes, whose bot I have permission to pblock to do this handoff). If there are any bugs with DYKN or DYKNA, I'll be subscribed to this thread, so leave a note here and I'll fix it as soon as I can. If the bot goes crazy and I'm not around, any admin (including Wugapodes) has my standing permission to pblock GalliumBot from editing the two relevant pages and reverse my pblock of WugBot. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As a neat effect of the transfer, the new script will also retransclude lost nominations to DYKN and DYKNA and transfer unapproved nominations back to DYKN! So if someone comes asking where their nomination went, that's a good place to check (keep in mind that AGF ticks are considered invalid), and if you pull a nomination, all you have to do is reopen it and it'll be back on the list within five minutes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
At the moment, GalliumBot is removing the section for the current day (July 13) from DYKN and also moving the Current nominations second-level header from July 6 (where it belongs) to July 7 (where it doesn't), a task that is in the purview of MusikBot, which takes care of adding new dates and moving the Current nominations headers every day at midnight UTC. I'm also surprised that, after our previous discussion that AGF ticks were not supposed to be considered de facto invalid, the bot is treating them that way and will keep them on the DYKN page instead of moving them to DYKNA. I've pinged theleekycauldron (talk on her talk page, but if there isn't an announcement of a fix soon, I'd like to request one of the @DYK admins: to pblock GalliumBot and unblock WugBot so we can get the pages back to how they should be. In addition, my understanding was that this bot would not delete any empty dates in the Current nominations section, because users need to have the dates their for the current nominations! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
responded on my talk and made the easy fixes, but I'm on mobile right now so a more robust update can't come for another hour. is galliumbot removing current nomination headers? i did configure it to keep those, that functionality worked in testing... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
okay, more robust update tested and pushed. will watch for a bit to make sure the bot doesn't do something crazy like putting a header one day off, but i think it should be good.
also, don't know how i forgot to implement the thing on AGF ticks, but i've done that now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC) update: accidentally coded it so that green ticks count as unapproved and white ticks as approved! indeffed the bot seconds before it would have put me in the village stocks, but it's fixed and unblocked now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

Marisa Dick

It's a great achievement to have elements named after you, and I've been known to make some such puns myself, but is the "emdash for emphasis" part of this hook needed. We can say a gymnast called Dick has two elements named after her without deliberately highlighting a very weak dick joke. But also, is there nothing more to say about her? How many Trinidadian gymnasts have namesake elements anyway? (Pings: @Riley1012, Jolielover, and Launchballer:.) Kingsif (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd completely missed the opportunity for that. Why don't we run this as a WP:DYKAPRIL hook: ... that the dick is named after Marisa Dick?--Launchballer 10:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Fairly certain you've missed the point by quite a wide margin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I would also say this might fail WP:DYKINT. Two is not very many, Simon Biles has five and Nellie Kim has seven. Also, this just seems kind of like a joke that would be better suited for something like WP:DYKAPRIL. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Because making weak jokes about her name is rather disrespectful to a BLP with some cool achievements who isn't famous for her name? I have no clue about gymnastics, but I wouldn't mind just leaving out the names of the elements. We could mention that she had an element named after her that she performed during the Olympics? —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with this, when we almost ran a hook saying that someone named Arthur Loveless never married, we got a complaint. We should not be making cheap jokes on names. Especially living people. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Good idea Kusma, like: DYK
... that gymnast Marisa Dick (pictured) debuted a new balance beam gymnastics move at the 2016 Summer Olympics, which was then named after her? Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Korean science fiction

To say that Korea has split into North and South since 1929, even within a specific cultural sub-set, seems incredibly obvious. Unless there's some science fiction-specific process of the genre splitting, I don't find it interesting. Is there anything else? (Pings: @Piotrus, PARAKANYAA, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and AirshipJungleman29:.) Kingsif (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious or uninteresting that the genre would follow the national split in terms of its development, no. Especially given the idea of "North Korean science fiction" is itself interesting if you think about it because of that country's circumstances. I thought this one was pretty interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
While not necessarily a given for industries and cultures to diverge (though more likely than not), so somebody wouldn't know this fact unless told, unfortunately when they are told it did happen like that, it does seem very obvious. And unfortunately, we are just telling people. It'd be more interesting if we took the 'can't know for sure if everything in Korea split' and could say where something didn't really change between the two, which I think would surprise. Again, if there's a reason besides the national separation for the sci-fi split, put it in the hook, that's also subverting the obvious! Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it is obvious whatsoever, the fact that there is a North Korean science fiction genre is itself surprising. IMO it is the most interesting hook in the set. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, I've raised the concern. I don't think North Korea having internal culture is surprising, either, but given the scope of the article, I think I'd like to see some hook options about that. Kingsif (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, everyone can say something isn't interesting, so if that's what it takes to object to a hook nearly all would fail. They aren't exactly in the business of excess luxury; I think this is more interesting than all the other hooks in the prep. And anything about a specific work is going to be less interesting and also misleading in relation to the actual scope of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for trying to explain my concern bro? You see plenty hooks with no explanation just "is this interesting?" getting pulled, forgive me for suggesting improvements. And it's a wild misconception that a hook has to reflect/be an overview/hit main points of an article, especially one with large scope - trying to do so is usually a great way to get a generic obvious less interesting one. Kingsif (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The hook attracted 8,337 views which seems reasonably respectable for a non-picture hook for a low-traffic topic during the slow summer season. The second-guessing above seems otiose. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Florida!!!

This hook is relying on the unusual factor ("oddities" quoted, "Florida" out of context, "!!!") to be interesting, which is fine, but would need to be in a quirky slot if kept as-is IMHO. (Pings: @Ippantekina, Darth Stabro, and AirshipJungleman29:.) Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What is a "quirky slot"? Ippantekina (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
The last hook of a set, ending on a memorable note, with a bit more lee-way as to a hook's inherent interestingness and written standard (here, obfuscation, as neither "oddities" nor "Florida!!!" are contextualised so the hook makes little sense alone. FWIW, if in a regular hook slot, I'd also be asking why not even the article mentions what these "oddities" are or if the lack of explanation from the creators is an interesting hook fact itself...) Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I see, it works for me. I think the appearance of Emma Stone in a Tay Swift song itself is interesting (that is, assuming the general public is aware of these two persons...) Ippantekina (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
The hook does not mention Taylor Swift, though - and I think they both fall into the same school of celebrity so it could be more interesting.
As it is, though, this is more a coherence issue; I would think the feeling of the fact being incomplete and not really knowing what it's saying would be more acceptable in a quirky slot than it is in the middle of the set. Can this be resolved by maybe adding a mention of Swift or something? Kingsif (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
There's some sort of misunderstanding here: any hook that can go in the quirky slot must also be able to go in any other non-picture slot. The slot is just to ensure that very interesting hooks get greater visibility. I personally think that this hook is interesting enough for a normal but not quirky slot. Does that make sense? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
See reply above - and I can't be convinced something is interesting if I'm not sure what it's saying. Like, what does "Stone contributed oddities to Florida" mean to a person who hasn't clicked the bold link yet? It needs to at least mean something, even if using diversion for interesting. Kingsif (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Kingsif: sorry, but the hook that I nominated was, ... that the actress Emma Stone contributed "oddities" to a song by Taylor Swift? not sure why you said that it doesn't mention Swift in the hook... Ippantekina (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Because the hook at the moment is ... that actress Emma Stone contributed "oddities" to "Florida!!!"? Don't know why you couldn't tell that from the explanation. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
In the past, we have had persistent complaints (not just on-wiki) of excessive featuring of Taylor Swift-related hooks, so we try to minimise her prominence in hooks. Hence why I adjusted the hook that said "a song by Taylor Swift" to simply the name of the song. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I think Swift should be readded. That said, there shouldn't be two Swift hooks in three sets, so I'm minded to pull per WP:DYKVAR.--Launchballer 10:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I can readd Swift if there's consensus for that, but DYKVAR doesn't seem relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes I think it makes sense to readd Swift. Not sure about DYKVAR but I'm fine with this being delayed tbh, as Starlight (Taylor Swift song) is also being queued... But bet that WP:SWIFT is not seeing any upcoming GAs/DYKs soon.. Ippantekina (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm gonna go against the grain here in that, unlike some Tay-Tay hooks, I'd actually support keeping her name off the hook. Not just to avoid "Swiftpedia" complaints, but also on DYKTRIM grounds: I don't think it's actually essential to mention that it's a Taylor Swift song, as the "oddities" mention is good enough. I think the only change needed is to add "the song" before "Florida!!!", but I don't think it's necessary to mention her by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok.. "the song 'Florida!!!' " makes more sense than just throwing the song title "Florida!!!" in the hook. Ippantekina (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Manual update needed

@DYK admins: Fairly certain @DYKUpdateBot: hasn't fired.--Launchballer 00:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Starting it up again... Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 21. We have a total of 305 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 158 nominations that has increased by 14 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) 18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: given how few older noms in this set have been reviewed so far, I'm leaving it up for another five days. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Queues needing filling

@DYK admins: All the prep areas are currently filled, leaving no room for promoting approved hooks, and only 2/7 queues are currently filled, so I feel that a few prep areas should be moved to queues to make some room. Thank you! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like that's now been done. So your now welcome to promote more hooks. JuniperChill (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

interesting?

Two samples of what's in prep so seems to qualify as interesting.

  • ... that many of Johann Sebastian Bach's manuscripts were lost because some family members did not care about preserving them? Prep 3
    How is that interesting? At the time - 18th century - music was basically composed for the day, not to be repeated. Why would anybody care about preserving? Bach had that in common with all the others. It might be more interesting to know that we still do have hundreds of his autograph scores. We have many because his widow passed them to the city of Leipzig the year that he died. - Praise to her, not a general dismissal of relatives' not caring. - The other problem I have with the hook is that there isn't the slightest hint at music, - these "manuscripts" could be letters or poems. Interesting?
  • ... that some people chanted "USA, USA!" at the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV? Queue 6
    This had to be feared, is it worthy to be mentioned? The new pope identifies much more with Peru that the U.S., - should we really look narrowly on some who identify America with the U.S.? Interesting?
    (on the first day this year that I am pleased with a hook for an article I wrote, Alena Veselá. I would have been more pleased had her expressive face been pictured for the 12 hours). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The first hook will certainly be interesting to a wide audience. Only people with an intimate familiarity with Bach's world would know he was often writing, in a sense, throwaway pieces only meant to be played once (although I would dispute your wider claim that this was broadly true of composers of the period). Although to be frank, I thought there were better proposed hooks for the Bach article than the one above.
With regard to the second hook - I agree it is not very interesting and not terribly pertinent to the topic. Having said that, it's probably of sufficient interest to pass muster. Hook selection is something of a hit-and-miss affair and there is always going to be a degree of disagreement about it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't that "wide audience" first have to know Bach already? (... while I am told again and again I shouldn't rely on them knowing Verdi and Puccini, and we can't expect them to find about a linked opera?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
A very wide audience would certainly have some familiarity with Bach, given that, along with Beethoven and Mozart, he is one of the three most famous composers of all time. But only a very small number would be aware that most of his music was written for a single performance. That is the kind of fact that only classical music lovers would be likely to know. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
If a hook could be written about that (i.e. that most of his music was only intended to be performed once), and it's based on the article and has a source, I'd actually support a hook about it. Not because it's assumed knowledge (as Gerda says it is), but because it's an unexpected fact for a layperson. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't know the biography article, and have no time right now. Perhaps it has that of 200+ extant cantatas, we have one extant print (and know of one more which is lost), no more, - that tells a story of not writing for posterity. He wrote a cycle of cantatas for a year, and when he was done, wrote a second one, and the obit tells us of five (but not much is left of those), - same story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
There's levels of knowledge. A person may be well-known or a household name, but not everyone will know everything about that person. For example, many people know that Beethoven is a famous composer, but other than maybe a few well-known facts about him, such as him composing the Ninth Symphony/Ode to Joy and him being deaf later in life, not everyone is going to know every single detail about him. Or for a modern example, many people know who Taylor Swift is and that she's a singer, but there's information about her that not even all Swifties know about. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, no argument there. Swift as a celebrity musician is inescapable, but I remain blissfully unaware of her catalogue :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bach hook is now on the main page. It says nothing about Bach, something negative about his relatives (which is unfair to his widow who did a lot to have his legacy retained in Leipzig, as said above). I wrote many DYK about his works, often saying that he composed a piece for a specific day (example from 31 October 2012: ... that John Eliot Gardiner performed Bach's cantatas for Reformation Day in the Schloßkirche, Wittenberg, including Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79?), - observant readers know that already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
DYK was very different back in October 2012 and had much looser standards for hook interest. I cannot imagine that hook as currently written being allowed on DYK today especially with our current guidelines regarding making hooks interesting to non-specialist audiences. The Gardiner hook basically has a target audience of one, Gerda Arendt (and maybe strong Bach fanatics), whereas the current Bach hook is likely to interest even those with only a passing knowledge of Bach's works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
You say "Gardiner hook", and I say it was a hook about Reformation Day, about how Bach created different cantatas for that day, about the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage meaningfully visiting this specific church where the 95 theses had been openly published, which is all far beyond "Bach fanatism", and all unusual and educating = interesting, in my book. However, blaming relatives of a great person without saying how the person was great seems unfair to these dead people and not informative about the subject. I still fail to see how blaming those relatives was interesting for anybody. Best to be forgotten soon. View count was something like 5.6k more than normal, nothing spectacular. Views for Helena Tattermuschová were better. In 2012, I would have made her GA for a DYK. Now, a hook accepted would probably be that she came from a poor family with many children. No, thank you, better no GA then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Both seem interesting to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The problem I have with the pope-related hook is that it is really quite crass from a religious POV. Religion is about (amongst other things) the brotherhood of man. So running a hook highlighting the employment of a tribalist chant at a major religious ceremony just seems inappropriate to me. But I get that secular people are going to be less sensitive to the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in that I am the writer of the Pope hook and am also a Catholic priest, and obviously as the hook writer don't find it inappropriate. If it's something that draws attention to the larger article and isn't straight up blasphemous or sacrilegious, it's fine by me. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
While I also prefer the updated version mentioned below, I promoted it in part because of the contrast - which was a more interesting part of the hook as a whole. Thinking, maybe nationalistic Americans will like this stuff, and everyone else will roll their eyes in 'can you believe that happened', with both attitudes IMHO making readers more likely to want to find out about the whole ceremony/context of it happening. But yes, the addition of the mention of Peruvian flags reflects a more simple joyous pride from both nations, a different take on the hook with hopefully the same outcome. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
As far as people not realizing that Bach's manuscript refer to music, Bach is probably the single most recognized name in music to anybody who's cultural horizon ventures beyond Taylor Swift. I think people can figure out that we're not talking about his poetry. And if they did think that's what we were talking about, that would also be interesting.
I'll admit that I've had more than enough of pope hooks, but I do think there is some interest (in a sad way) that people are so jingoistic as to be chanting national slogans at the inauguration of the most important religious figure in the world. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
It's been like that for a while. When the German Ratzinger was elected Benedict XVI, the German tabloid Bild used the headline We are pope!, analogous to Germany winning a football world cup. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I added to the pope's article concerning the waiving of Peruvian flags, so how about "... that some people chanted "USA, USA!" [and others waived Peruvian flags] at the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    I like that better. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, good :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
    Agree it is an improvement, questions of identity and the church feel more interesting than simply one nationalistic chant (although I suspect nationalistic chants may get the clicks). CMD (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    I've changed the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for discussing and arriving at a more global hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Starlight (Taylor Swift song)

Given that this is going to run in two days, I've bumped it to Prep 7 to give us more time to discuss. Pinging Launchballer for input, as well as courtesy pings to nominator Ippantekina, reviewer CanonNi, and promoter Kingsif. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't find it uninteresting, just simple. Kingsif (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
'Song is dedicated to person' is not unusual; this is only intriguing if you know who Ethel Kennedy is. (You might get away with "dedicated a song to RFK Jr.'s mother Ethel Kennedy".)--Launchballer 13:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I could add something like "... Ethel Kennedy, who became an "unlikely BFF" with Swift"? [with additional source]; if this is interesting I will add this to the article also. Ippantekina (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Eh, it’s not unusual to dedicate to a partner or parent, perhaps, but [random notable person] will at least provoke “who and why?” from the unaware, and is interesting for those who know of both people named. (Aside: ew on the idea of contextualising Ethel Kennedy by RFK Jr, if it had to be done at least use RFK? But, since it’s mentioned, isn’t Kennedy doing some lifting anyway?) Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I think it is interesting regardless of whether your reaction is 'who is Ethel Kennedy?' . . . that's a type of reaction that stirs interest (of course, if you don't care who Taylor Swift is, or about her songs, or what she thinks about when producing songs, than nothing will make this interesting). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting enough for me: she wrote a song to some notable woman and dedicated it to her, interesting. It would not get better by explaining who Kennedy was (actually the opposite), - if it gets more people interested in who she was it would be a welcome side effect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Not interesting. I also think "wrote ... a song to Ethel Kennedy" is incorrect and could be trimmed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
So far I've seen conflicting ideas (3 found it interesting, 1 not...). If this helps: when I nominated this hook it was interesting to me because of Swift's relation to a Kennedy family member. Yes it is normal to dedicate a song to a family member, close friend, relative etc... but a notable member of a political family is something interesting. Might be a little US-centric with this one tho, but when Ethel died US publications referred to her as a matriarch of the Kennedy family. And no pls don't contextualise Ethel in relation to her son/husband etc... Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
What about ... Taylor Swift used Starlight in a commercial for her fragrance in 2013? TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to this alt hook, though I think the original Ethel hook remains more interesting. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, so I've pulled the hook for now for further workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

2018–19 College Football Playoff

  • ... that the 2018–19 College Football Playoff included a game between Alabama and Clemson, making it the fourth consecutive playoff to include such a game?
    Interesting? Piotrus felt not at the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Bit of a borderline case. If you are into college football, which many Americans are, then yes it's interesting. However, with college football not being very popular outside of the US, it's probably less interesting to an international reader. Perhaps a different wording would be less specialist, but the current wording is arguably specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Given concerns, I've pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it requires college football knowledge, but awareness of how playoffs work, and these appear in many sports formats around the world. Kingsif (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

James Edwin Thompson

  • ... that James Edwin Thompson was a founding member of the American College of Surgeons and became their first vice president in 1913?
    Interesting? Dwkaminski felt it was borderline at the nomination ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Borderline interesting at best. If they were the first president and not just the first vice president, then maybe the interest would be there. I suggest pulling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Boring. On the other hand, https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JAMES/ says "He is credited with bringing modern surgery to Texas" and "many credit him as the first surgeon in Texas to limit his practice exclusively to surgery". Neither of those facts are in the article, but if they were added, would make a more interesting hook. We really should have a better source than a vague "many credit him ...", however. Not to mention all the perenial problems with "first" hooks :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    Based on this, I put it in a prep set with another medical-y hook, so they could lean on each other. I know there's been some moving around, I don't know if the other one was removed? Kingsif (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about "Bésame" nomination

At the Bésame nomination, I'm wondering if ALT1 is considered all good per external policy compliance? I specifically reference, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing." ALT1 for the nomination is, "that Alejandro Sanz and Shakira promoted their song "Bésame" with kisses, sparking rumors of romance and jealousy?" I don't know if this is considered "unduly focused on negative aspects of living persons", or if it's fine, so I'm just here to ask. If it's good, I'm fine promoting it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it as being problematic. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Only one biography?
Curtesy pings to @SonOfYoutubers, @JuniperChill and @Launchballer. TarnishedPathtalk 09:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is something to be avoided when the backlog is almost at 50% biography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I'll move two of the non-bio hooks to a prep 3. JuniperChill (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
got into an edit conflict when trying to do that, though its now done JuniperChill (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I also recommend kicking back Ophicleide, though I'll do that myself when I'm feeling up to replacing it.--Launchballer 09:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Bumped and filled.--Launchballer 12:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah there was probably only one due to (at the time) a lack of prep areas, but it seems it's been fixed now. There's more spaces and I'll look to promote more biographies. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Glódís Perla Viggósdóttir

This lead hook has been trimmed to the point that it has lost important information and interest. Now it just says Glódís got her goals the day before she graduated from something. Secondary school? College? A football training program? Without that specificity, it's just blah; at a minimum, "from University" or the equivalent should be restored to the end; I'm not sure about the psych degree. Pinging Launchballer, who did the trimming, 24Anonymous, who nominated the article, and Lefcentreright, who approved the nomination and pre-edited hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Outside the US, "graduation" is pretty much only used in the context of receiving a university award. There US is the only place where "high school graduations" are a thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Some high schools in Australia have formal graduation ceremonies. I even attended a graduation ceremony for my 5 year old daughter going from kindergarten to primary school last year. I agree with BlueMoonset that the hook would be interesting if it states that she graduated from university. TarnishedPathtalk 06:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I readded 'from university'.--Launchballer 07:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
As someone who "graduated" from kindergarten, elementary, high school, university, and post-graduate studies, I can confirm that "graduation" being specific to universities is not the case at least where I'm from. I have heard "moving up" used as an alternative, but only for specific occasions (mostly high school to senior high school). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Larries

Hi there, I requested Larries to be shown on 23 July since it is One Direction's 15th anniversary. This conspiracy theory originated from the band (it is the belief that members Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson are in a romantic relationship). This prep is the one going to be shown on that date. Is it possible for a hook to be swapped out and Larries be placed in? jolielover♥talk 04:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this would be appropriate special occasion hook, especially if it's about a "conspiracy theory" as you say. In bad taste I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Leigh (artist)

The nominator is requesting that a third-party reviewer take a look at this and its sourcing. The nominator and the previous reviewer have disagreements regarding hook interest as well as the appropriateness of the sources used in the article. As such, fresh input is requested. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Stone County Museum

This nomination turned two months old today. It got stuck due to concerns raised by Gatoclass. The nominator and article creator responded but Gatoclass did not reply. Asking for a new look at the nomination to see if the issues were resolved. Courtesy ping to Gerda Arendt as the original reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 Gerda Arendt along with Gatoclass have approved it now, as soon as another prep area is ready, I'll promote it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

There are an excessive number of features about early American football and Jilly Cooper novels

Also Meghan Trainor but she doesn't come up as often. I think I see one Did you know... about some random old time football player or Cooper novel per week. Variety is the spice of life! 2600:1702:20F0:2BD0:3452:757B:DB8A:A268 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed before. There are few restrictions on what gets featured on DYK, and naturally, more hooks of certain topics will get through based on the interests of frequent contributors. This follows DYK's goals of improving otherwise overlooked interesting areas of the encyclopedia; discouraging this means there's one less incentive to improve the project. Departure– (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, there should be such restrictions. As for presenting information on overlooked areas, this doesn't serve that goal, because the world is full of other overlooked authors besides Jilly Cooper, and by now, she is the exact opposite of overlooked on Wikipedia, and especially on Wikipedia's front page. There are thousands of authors whose turn it should have been to be 'in the spotlight' instead of her, based on their relative significance. The page is supposed to showcase the variety and the general growth of the encyclopedia, while the constant hammering on about the same subject creates the impression of a lack of variety and of limited and one-sided growth. As for there being 'one less incentive', there are more than enough people that are sufficiently motivated to improve the project without the peculiar pleasure of showing their work to a multitude of people who are not interested in it and many - possibly most - of whom would prefer not to see it. Wikipedia isn't so desperately short of contributors as to be forced to satisfy this particular desire that a small number of them apparently have. Moreover, I am also quite sure that whoever is so strongly interested in Jilly Cooper's books as to write article after article about them will go on writing about them even if they aren't able to feature them on the front page. That's how strong interests work.
In general, random readers come and complain about this kind of thing again and again every couple of weeks, and every time most Wikipedians respond by rallying around their own, because they apparently feel deep and tender sympathy for the urge of their fellow editors to display their work to as many people as humanly possible. The fact that the issue is raised again and again should arguably make the community finally realise that there is a problem, after all. People seem to forget that Wikipedia, like most texts that aren't diaries, exists for its readers, not for its writers. There is no point in writing a DYK page if it bores and irritates the readers, and this is a higher priority than the pleasure of the people who write it. --78.154.14.90 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I suppose that if you think that DYK's goals should be measured on a daily basis and that half a dozen complaints in a year is statistically significant, you would probably find your way around to construing editors' short-term interest in topics as a problem that bores and irritates readers. Personally, I think of the thousands of readers who quite happily continue to click on the hundreds of thousands of hooks this project has featured over twenty years. If single-figure numbers of readers are so irritated by the content they choose to consume, may I suggest they look at another hook? Or wait a day? Or use the encyclopedia instead of just looking at its cover? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I dunno if I'd weigh the two against each other so directly – ignoring a hook you don't like is easy, clicking a hook you do like is still pretty easy, finding the relevant subpage to complain on is very hard. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
There are thousands of authors whose turn it should have been to be 'in the spotlight' instead of her, based on their relative significance. The page is supposed to showcase the variety and the general growth of the encyclopedia, while the constant hammering on about the same subject creates the impression of a lack of variety and of limited and one-sided growth. - The issue here is that, whoever is writing about these other subjects, they don't seem to be taking the chance to nominate their articles for DYK. The editor who is submitting the Cooper articles is taking that opportunity. Maybe the solution should be encouraging more DYK nominations (while still discouraging uninteresting hooks), rather than discouraging the nominations we already have. Epicgenius (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I've noticed a glut of Frank Lloyd Wright hooks lately. Not that having lots of Frank Lloyd Wright hooks isn't awesome in its own way. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Yep, that would be my fault. Though ironically, I've stopped doing these for the time being so I could focus on other architects' work (although then I suspect people will soon be raising issues about American architecture hooks in general). Epicgenius (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the subjects, but I would prefer hooks that had more educational value. That's my only gripe. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I do think we have to take reader feedback into account rather than just dismissing it. DYK's main interest has always been about serving its readers, so we need to be open to what they say even if we don't necessarily agree with. As a small group of editors, we are sometimes (okay, maybe often) detached from the actual concerns of our readership, the vast majority of whom do not know how Wikipedia works or how such hooks are chosen. This does not mean we need to outlaw Jilly Cooper hooks or whatever, but it does mean we need to listen to what our readers say and perhaps adjust to what they actually want. If we regularly receive multiple complaints about DYK largely focusing on the same topics, and we dismiss those concerns as "Oh that's actually a good thing, because we show readers topics that may be overlooked elsewhere," that could be seen as condescending and thus looking down on the very people we are supposed to serve. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Except these kinds of complaints are generally out of proportion to our readers. In the 1950s and 1960s, an entire television series could be derailed by a little old lady in Peoria writing a complaint letter to the network about how she didn't like a certain character because it reminded her of her Aunt Myrna who used to overbake cakes on Sundays after church. I hope we've moved on from that by now. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
That isn't really my point. My point is that we need to at least listen to feedback from our readers rather than just dismissing it. We don't have to follow it, of course, but knowing what our readers think of the project and the hooks could help us make better hooks and perhaps adjust the kinds of material we present. We already take into account page views, definitely to a fault, so I don't see why we shouldn't take into account reader feedback either (other than "I don't agree with it"). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
It's a slippery slope. Once you sacrifice yourself to public opinion, you end up telling people what they want to hear, and you get things like Fox News. One of the things that distinguishes education from other fields like public relations and propaganda, is that it tells people things they don't want to hear. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Saying "that isn't really my point" and then saying that same point again isn't really a convincing argument, NLH5. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The comment was more directed towards the "generally out of proportion to our readers" thing, not the comment in general. Basically, I'm just not a fan of us looking down on our readers and their feedback. It sounds alienating and frankly condescending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that nobody is categorizing hooks from set to set to prevent repeats over a certain threshold. At best, this is being done for consecutive sets (WP:DYKVAR). People are free to volunteer if they want to help provide set builders this data. —Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I count 8 Jilly Cooper hooks and 21 American footballer hooks since the beginning of June. Particularly for the latter, that is a lot, but we've had much denser runs in DYK history. Courtesy pings to Lajmmoore and BeanieFan11, by the way :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Not really what this discussion is about, but I also see lots of TV station articles. Put together four random letters, add -TV on the end and boom, you're got an article that is short but long enough and sourced enough for DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I believe you can thank @Sammi Brie: for that. That's a lot of articles that otherwise might have been left ignored for years on end; having them on the main page, variety be damned, in exchange for bringing however many up to GA status seems like a very fair tradeoff to me. Departure– (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
And it's not the first time I've been pinged into a discussion of this flavor at WT:DYK, either, usually about broadcasting (and way back when about Mexican politicians). You may enjoy the factoid that I have more than 130 basically complete GA candidates... and that I just completed a DYK-able article that is not about broadcasting (Spark by Hilton). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The real problem isn't that people are doing a lot of work on a lot of similar articles, it is that people are not showing any restraint or judgement on what they submit for DYK. Not every article needs to be submitted. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Corollary to that: not every submission needs to be accepted. Just once, I'd like to see this conversation:
  • Reviewer: Nice article, good hook, but we've run too many articles on that topic lately, so I'm going to give this a pass.
  • Nominator: OK, thanks anyway for your hard work to review it.
RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

  1. If the suggestion is to limit the number of DYKs on a subject over a timeframe then I think that likely going to impact the one person putting the effort in to increase coverage of that topic and saying they can't be rewarded for their work by getting a DYK for all the elligible work. The other likely cause of a lot of DYKs on a topic is a campaign or a competition to increase coverage of a topic. Do we really want to discourage this kind of work?
  2. How would this be organised and is it even a realistic amount of work? We would have to decide how broad the categories we wanted to use to restrict number of DYKs and then keep track of how many DYKs per category per week/month.

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We should discourage "campaigns or competitions to increase coverage of a topic" based on the experience with Gibraltarpedia. As long as we have genuine volunteers writing about their topics of interest without any compensation, any resulting lack of variety is not worrying, but we should not look like we are allowing external interests to rule the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Section break

I haven't read the whole discussion since I last posted, but I have come back to add something that has crossed my mind subsequently: the prevalent reasoning when this subject is raised seems to have some ideological assumptions that are familiar from politics, especially American politics - we supposedly must goad and satisfy individuals' ambition and vanity, even when said satisfaction has harmful effects on the whole, because they allegedly wouldn't be motivated to do anything otherwise. This belief isn't true, and you don't have to sacrifice the interests of the whole in this way. The whole in this case is the DYK page's displaying Wikipedia's variety, as well as its being entertaining and not irritating and annoying. Yes, entertaining readers is not an official goal of the page per se - but it is a means without which the official goals can't be achieved: you can't 'showcase', 'promote' and so on if people don't read your page. The very genre of DYK presupposes being entertaining (as well as informative - again, on a variety of subjects), and that is what motivates people to read. As an aside, the ambition and vanity that we supposedly need as an incentive would also be rather unsubstantiated and comical in this case - 'having a link to your article displayed on the very front page of Wikipedia, OMG, much successful, very ego boost.--78.154.14.90 (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I see another ideological assumption—that we supposedly must satisfy the ambition to never bore/irritate/annoy a single reader because then they allegedly wouldn't read another hook ever again—and think it flawed. The official goals of DYK are clearly visible to all: two are about showcasing information to readers, another two are about encouraging editing, and a last is about improving the Main Page. Please either try to get the official goals changed, or adjust your expectations that the readers are the be-and-end-all of this project. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

A reader is someone who simply visits Wikipedia to read articles, not to edit or create them. They are the sole reason for which Wikipedia exists.

— Wikipedia:Reader

RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with that ideology, and anyway, getting people to create decent articles is what is truly beneficial for the future reader and more important than entertaining today's reader by more variety at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

— Wikipedia:Reader

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Are the readers not supposed to be our audience at DYK, the people we are walking for? After all, if the point of DYK is to satisfy editors and not readers, we might as well throw DYKINT out of the window since that guideline pretty much tells us we have to take readers into account, regardless of our wants. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll be blunt, I've been advocating for THAT (throw DYKINT out of the window...) for years now, as the rule has never been used correctly, and is so stupidly vague and unenforceable when we consider the main page viewership is around 25 million people per any given 12 hour run. All it is doing, as shown in the last 2 weeks is creating exponential mountains of bureaucratic dung that 99% of the time boils down to 1 person not being impressed with a hook, 2-3 other people liking it, and it bogging down the noms/ques/preps for not benefit what so ever. Ive asked before and not received an answer, What is the definable detriment to letting a purported "boring or niche" hook run?--Kevmin § 16:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Another of DYK's goals is to encourage readers to read more about the topic and actually be interested in it. There is nothing wrong with featuring "niche" topics, I will be the first to defend the right for opera or fossil articles to be on DYK. However, if a hook is too "niche" or frankly boring, then virtually no one will be interested in reading the article and appreciating the hard work that the editor(s) put into it. As a prime example, we've already seen how "boring" hooks have hurt readership of our opera and classical music hooks; while admittedly certain topics will always be disadvantaged when it comes to readership compared to others, better hooks could have helped them get better attention. Obviously, opera/classical music hooks are far from the only topic to have this issue, but they're perhaps the most notable examples of hooks that get criticized for being "boring", hence why they're good examples of explaining the problem with "boring or niche" hooks running. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I suspect our DYKINT requirement misses the mark. People who are into opera will click on the opera links, regardless of the wording. Likewise for people into fossils, or football, or Taylor Swift, or Frank Lloyd Wright. We probably spend more time and effort worrying about that than we should. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
True, but we want to ensure that our hooks are also read by others and not just those interested in a field. I wouldn't want my own anime or Japanese voice acting and musician articles to only be read and appreciated by those into Japanese culture, for example. Just as we should be broadening our topics and highlighting even niches ones, we also need to make them appeal not only to their respective niches. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
We can't make people read anything they do not want. I have pointed out a number of times the purpose of the rules actual introduction was to prevent a hook like "dyk...that the sky is blue?". Already there are plenty of other failsafe's in place that prevent it, and if linked to Sky#During daytime it would likely get a large umber of hits. The fixation on click count was never part of it, and is pervasive and pernicious now, actively perverting the various levels of DYK to avoid boredom. You use the word "harm" for hooks that did not do as well as you think the project needs". Harm is actively a wrong choice of verbiage, you mean to say lower viewership, ass there is no harm at all to opera article viewership across wikipedia. They have lower readership because they are not modern mainsteam likes such as Tay Tay, but as long as a main page article gets ONE more hook then it does on an average day, we have done our job. frankly boring is very much a personal opinion that should be left at the project door, we are here to showcase new and expanded content, NOT to be the wikipedia popularity contest. The popularity contesting and boredom shaming are becoming a noxious hyperfication of the project and have dragged DYK away from its actual goals.--Kevmin § 22:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really see the harm of trying to aim for broader audiences, instead of only focusing on a niche. Are you merely opposed to the entire concept of DYKINT, or are you opposed to the idea of hooks appealing to broad audiences instead of only niches? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I wonder why some people get so upset about being asked to write a hook that might interest someone from outside of their particular niche. If you like opera, wouldn't you want to attract as many outsiders as possible to articles about opera so that you can try to show them what you like about opera?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
"The official goals of DYK are clearly visible to all: two are about showcasing information to readers, another two are about encouraging editing, and a last is about improving the Main Page. Would you mind highlighting where you get "the point of DYK is to satisfy editors and not readers from there Narutolovehinata5? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I mean, that's not what the guidelines say, but that's more or less the impression I'm getting from this discussion. The guidelines suggest we should be working for our readers and editors are not the priority, but here it seems like we are downplaying readers or at least their feelings and feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Would you mind typing logically coherent comments? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I made them perfectly clear. Some of our readers made complaints, and the responses here have felt like they were downplaying these complaints instead of at least being open to those thoughts. Ideally, readers should indeed be the end-all for the project, but the reactions in this discussion to said reader feedback has largely been to dismiss those concerns rather than perhaps adjusting in some way based on that feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Ideally, you would have read what the end-all for the project actually is, as I've posted it twice now, but as you seem to be intentionally ignoring it I think we should end this discussion here. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
More variety would be good. Any method I can think of to enforce more variety on the Main Page would be really, really bad. If you have an idea, please share it. If you just want to complain about the lack of variety, all we can do is acknowledge it and suggest that you write other interesting articles to help with variety. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if we should run a public RFC seeking input on our hook selection process. Right now, we're a fairly small group making all the decisions. The only feedback we get is the (IMHO highly flawed) metric of click count, and the occasional brickbat tossed our way at WP:ERRORS. As the custodians of some of the most valuable real estate on the Internet (even if it is below the fold), we have a duty to better understand the needs of our audience so we can serve them better. A good first step towards doing that is asking people what they think. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I would support that, but I don't know how that would work. If it's an editor RfC, wouldn't it just mostly get fellow editors instead of readers? I'm not sure how a reader RfC would work, especially one mainly targeted towards non-editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
We could try to find out what people think about DYKINT, but I generally don't think we should constrain prep builders any further. If people don't like our volunteers' work, let them volunteer better. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Kusma that it shouldn't be a binding resolution our prep builders will be forced to comply with. But I do think we should make an effort to solicit wider feedback in some public forum like WP:VP. If RFC is the wrong term, then maybe "town hall" or "listening tour", or whatever is the politically correct term these days for getting people to open up about what they like and what they don't. RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe add a link to the bottom of Template:Did you know: "Dear reader: we're soliciting feedback on how well DYK serves your needs. Click here to send us your thoughts". RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I wonder how many people would give feedback on the DYK of the day (especially if it has something like a porn actress or a Gaza strip hook) instead of on the overall process. —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
At the very least, I hope us DYK regulars listen to the feedback rather than acting like we know better than them. We don't have to follow them entirely, of course, but we should not be dismissive of feedback either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
There are a lot of things where we do know better, no need to act. Outsiders have no idea what the material we are working with is like. That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen, but we don't have to follow unworkable ideas at all. —Kusma (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
One of the most educational things I ever heard from a product manager was that they liked getting hate mail from customers. If there's something about the product that a customer doesn't like, much better to have them tell us, so we at least know what it is and have a chance to fix it. RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much. Whatever feedback we receive, we do not necessarily have to follow 100%. If they tell us to ban opera or radio hooks, we definitely won't do that. It just means we should at least know what our readers want and discuss how we can adjust to those expectations and wants. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

While we're already here:

I wonder if it would be a good idea to have some kind of comprehensive study on what subjects tend to, on average, do better among readers. We already know, for example, that opera and classical music hooks tend to do poorly with readership, but it's not necessarily clear if it's due to the hooks themselves, or if readers are inherently less interested in classical music and opera compared to other fields. Meanwhile, our pop music hooks have also tended to underperform, which may seem counterintuitive considering how popular pop artists and songs tend to be. Again, it's unclear if it's due to the hooks or simply readers being inherently less interested in them. While I agree with some of the concerns raised that we have become obsessed with page views to a fault, that does not mean that said metric is completely useless. Outside the proposed feedback gathering raised above, it's one of the few ways we can see how readers receive DYK hooks and articles.

The ideal goal here is a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario where we try to make all of our hooks regardless of topic more appreciated. However, to achieve that, bickering about what counts as interesting and what does not is not necessarily the most productive solution (although that is regrettably necessary to an extent). We could also understand better what our readers want and expect for DYK. Of course, this does not mean we should completely bow to that, but it could mean, for example, adjusting our hooks about less-appreciated topics to make them appeal better (which is sort of what we already do, albeit on a trial-and-error basis). Think of it as a performance report: instead of putting down less-performing fields (i.e. banning hooks about opera, radio, songs, American football, Jilly Cooper, etc.), we find ways to make them perform better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Well it's not hard to figure out the point of impact: nomination of the article. While the nominator is usually also the main author of the article and of course they may write many articles in the same topic area, it is the next step that's the kicker and brings us here: nomination. So, if we can figure out a throttle for repetitive subject nominations (over a certain time, perhaps), it would address variety in the blurbs. (This is likely only to effect a small number of nominators, so whatever 'the point' of DYK, it likely won't be much affected at all.) Or simpler adopt a limit of 'X nominations in a month', or whatever-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A per-nominator limit could potentially be feasible if suitable (semi-)automatic tools can be developed so QPQ reviewers don't waste a lot of time on this. But it would not only reduce nominations by monothematic editors, but also those by one-man variety machines like Dumelow. So I am not convinced this would be beneficial overall. —Kusma (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
A per-nominator limit would do more harm than good. It would discourage readers and prevent deserving topics from getting a chance. We don't necessarily need less variety in hooks, we just need better hooks in general. Of course, too much of a single topic (like Jilly Cooper or Frank Lloyd Wright) can be a bad thing, but those are relatively rare cases that most people won't even notice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Just apply common sense. If you have 13 articles in the same topic area, DON'T TURN IN ALL OF THEM FOR DYK. Find the 1 or 2 that have good hooks and turn those in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Or attempt multi-article hooks. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
We currently rely on people using their common sense, but Wikipedia:Common sense is not common. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to have a page listing the hooks with the most page views by topic. This will allow editors to see which hooks in their nomination's topic area have done the best in recent years, and perhaps craft similar hooks. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
... if they care about views. Some editors don't. —Kusma (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the obsession with views is bad for DYK and undermines the point of encouraging people to improve articles and start new ones that are longer than a stub. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  • I think another point of DYK is to encourage readers to come back to Wikipedia every day to see what new hooks are at DYK. If the hooks are interesting, they are more likely to come back to see what interesting thing is there tomorrow. If they come back often enough, they might eventually become editors. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    cf gateway drug RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    Do we have a path leading from the gate to the desired destination? We have "Start a new article" (linking to Help:Your first article), but we also have the slightly misleading "Nominate an article" which probably lies behind some of the invalid nominations that occasionally pop up. Help:Your first article is useful but doesn't link back to DYK. (Nor does it have the secret DYK advice, such as "Turn an entry in Batman (disambiguation) into a GA".) CMD (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
    Until they submit their hook and it is rejected because it won't get pageviews Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, most of the ones I've seen rejected for being uninteresting really were. "Did you know that a singer sang a song?" Stuff like that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
On the one hand, being obsessed with pageviews is detrimental since we should just be happy that our articles get featured on DYK at all. On the other hand, if pageviews are low, it shows that there is room for improvement. It's like a balance: we should not be obsessed with pageviews and think that they are our main priority, but we should not dismiss their usefulness either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of American football hooks

Right now the Preps have four American football hooks in five days, which does seem a bit excessive. Would it be a good idea to spread them out somewhat? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

While we're here, it might also be worth discussing the Fred Shirey hook in Prep 3 on whether or not the high school football in question needs to be specified as American, or if "NFL" being in the hook is enough to prevent confusion with association football. Pinging reviewer ERcheck and promoter SonOfYoutubers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I think you can add it for maximum disambiguation, but it's also partially unnecessary due to the aforementioned NFL. As for the excessive American football hooks, I think the Bob Wicks hook at Prep area 4 can be moved to one of the empty slots at Prep area 6; that creates a gap between the Fred Shirey hook you mentioned in Prep area 3. The other American football hooks are all spread out pretty well I think, with a gap of at least 2 prep areas between them. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 - Are you suggesting that the hook would read "...that it took a two-year "campaign" from future NFL player Fred Shirey, his friends, and coaches for Shirey's father to allow him to try out for his high school American football team?"
That would be very awkward and a tad confusing - what other type of football was there at his high school? Per @SonOfYoutubers, it is unnecessary with the mention of NFL (which is wikilinked in the hook). Pinging nominator @BeanieFan11— ERcheck (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
It already mentions NFL. Very few people are going to read "NFL" and then think "association football???" Making it really clunky with the added "high school American football team" just will make it less 'hooky'. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The likely scenario is that the unfamiliar reader will glaze over NFL as an unknown acronym. I'm not seeing what is clunky about "high school American football team", isn't that what it was? CMD (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
How about linking the football to American football:

"...that it took a two-year "campaign" from future NFL player Fred Shirey, his friends, and coaches for Shirey's father to allow him to try out for his high school football team?

— ERcheck (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Most people into the sport don't say "American football" (personally, I've don't think I've ever heard anyone say the exact phrase "high school American football team" before). The NFL is considered the biggest sports league in the world (at least in revenue), so I would expect most readers on the English Wikipedia to know what it is, although I can accept ERcheck's proposed solution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Not this again. Instead of getting tied up in knots over how to refer to the type of ball sport, just remove it and say "high school team". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. It reads the exact same without football. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Changed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

PSHAW hook puller is back online!

Now that GalliumBot is retranscluding lost DYK nominations, I've reopened PSHAW's script to pull hooks out of prep! The userscript won't itself retransclude the nomination, but after a few minutes, the bot will, so no need to go back and do that on your own. Happy editing! (Ooh, and I just had a small idea on how to make this better...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, have you thought about adding functionality to move hooks between preps or between slots in the same prep? TarnishedPathtalk 05:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that'll be a project for once I've mastered mw:OOUI, because that'd best be done with a lot of drag-and-drop and morebits doesn't really support that. good suggestion, though, will add it to the list! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Fixed the bug we were talking about earlier, where GalliumBot retranscludes by nomination date instead of creation/expansion date! GalliumBot now keeps a running list of nominations by the creation/expansion date they're transcluded under, and when a nomination is lost, it'll consult the list to find the appropriate date to retransclude to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
(edge case: this will only work for nominations promoted from here on out. i could go through all the hooks in prep and manually find the dates they were created/expanded, or do a very computationally expensive automatic run, but i honestly don't think it's worth it. if a nom promoted before now is pulled, it'll be retranscluded by nomination date, unless someone else wants to do that work.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, theleekycauldron, and for the bugfix! Will GalliumBot ever check that the correct creation/move-to-article space/start of expansion/GA promotion date was actually used to begin with (and move the nomination accordingly if not), or will the original placement be enforced thereafter, even if someone moves an incorrectly placed nomination to the proper date? I don't know how expensive it would be to implement, but it should only ever need to be done once for each nomination right after it's been nominated/transcluded. There's no rush if it isn't something your code does now, but it's something a bot could do to fix a long-standing issue. Just a thought! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't know, I'd have to basically rewrite my own prosesize gadget, and even then calculating fivefold expansion can be a minefield. If someone could get that working, though, that'd be great :) in the meantime, no, if a nomination is moved to a different date header, the bot will treat that as the new retransclusion target if the nomination is stranded in the future. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Archive header wording

Moved from Template talk:DYK archive header
 – * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest changing " ... follow the archive link in the DYK talk page message box." to " ... follow the archive link in the DYK talk page message box (or the Article Milestones box)."

Reason: Many DYK articles (e.g. many GA articles) have a "Milestone" box and the DYK links are inside that. Those articles will not have a "DYK talk page message box". The suggested change makes the instructions more helpful to editors. Noleander (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Please link to a couple pages as examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Examples of Talk pages that have the DYK links within the "Milestones" box of the Talk page (and do not have a "DYK talk page message box"):
Noleander (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The template is actually called "Article history" but milestones is displayed on the template. So I'm not sure what wording to use — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I support this change, and feel "Article milestones box" is fine because it is a box within the template (note lowercase "m" though, as the box title uses lowercase). CMD (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done a few weeks ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Iblis re-Open

A user proposed that the Iblis article should not have been GA due to some copy-edit requests. The Copy edits are done now and the article remained GA. It has been suggested that the case can be re-opened now. To be honest, I never had such a case of a re-opening, and I am not familiar with the buerocracity behind that, I was supposed to bring it up here. I would like to not go through the entire process of nominating the article for DYN. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Launchballer who marked the original nomination for closure, and AirshipJungleman29 who closed it. You should not reopen the old nomination, but if permission is granted here, a new nomination could be created at Template:Did you know nominations/Iblis (2nd nomination). Given the circumstances, I suppose we could treat it as a new GA for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I say the nomination should be reopened. Per WP:DYKTAG, nominations at GAR should have gone on hold.--Launchballer 12:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I have reopened the original nomination per the above and WP:NOTBURO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Urien

More information merged discussion ...
Close

@Tipcake, Soulbust, Sammi Brie, JuniperChill, AirshipJungleman29, and Nyttend:

  • Source: Williams, Ifor (1968). The Poems of Taliesin. Translated by Williams, J. E. Caerwyn. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies. pp. xxvi–xxviii.

Urien is a good article and first DYK nomination by Tipcake. The hook ran yesterday but was pulled without discussion by Nyttend at 01:31 here with the summary As far as I can tell, the article doesn't have anything about the linguistic distinctiveness of its language, and anyway, there are plenty of older texts, e.g. the Homeric corpus and much of the New Testament are in vernacular Greek.

I think that Nyttend is saying that the hook fact does not appear in the article, which should have been spotted at review. Also "among the oldest" should possibly have been discussed here. The hook links to Vernacular literature, which excludes classical and biblical Greek.

  • Should the hook have been discussed at errors before pulling it?
  • As the hook only ran for 1.5 hours and there was no discussion, can the nomination be reopened?
  • Is a "may be among the oldest" hook acceptable?

TSventon (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Regards this, please see my comment here! Thanks, Tipcake (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I think to prevent discussions from taking in both places, I would advise that any further discussions should take place at Talk:Urien#DYK hook pulled, where the discussion started.here. JuniperChill (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC) (edited 12:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC))
Given how its run on the Main Page was very brief, and given previous precedent, I would support the article being given a second chance. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from @Nyttend why they felt the hook was so egregiously bad that it needed to be pulled with no discussion. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I think we have the entire errors process wrong. Hooks should be immediately pulled at the identification of any potential problem and then discussion should proceed as to whether it will be allowed back. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. The Main Page is the site's most visible page, and keeping it error-free is more important than anywhere else: there is no policy that forbids me from pulling a bad hook without discussion. (WP:ERRORS is for non-admins to report problems, since they can't edit the Main Page; it's not a place for discussions.) Plus, the problem was with the hook; the article was fine. If the hook isn't supported by the article, it doesn't qualify, and we have a reviewer problem. No complaints if someone wants to put it back to DYK with a proper hook, since I agree that it didn't have a sufficient run. Also, if the hook text were in the article, but different words were used, I think it ought to be edited slightly so that some of the hook words are there — if the article says A, the hook really shouldn't say B, even if the two are synonymous, since it's frustrating to readers who can't find the basis for the hook. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
It is true that there's no written policy which prevents an admin from unilaterally pulling a hook, but by long-standing convention, it's not something that happens at DYK simply for a badly worded hook. If the hook can be "edited slightly" to fix it, that's preferable. And unless it's something like a WP:COPYVIO or a serious WP:BLP violation, there's time for a quick discussion either here or at WP:ERRORS.
On the other hand, I do agree that hooks should basically quote something that's in the article. I should be able to search the article for some keywords from the hook and find the stated fact quickly. We sometimes get away from that and write complicated hooks that take some head-scratching to verify and that's getting away from the intent of The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other. RoySmith (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
PS, I agree with @Narutolovehinata5 that once the problems are fixed, this deserves another run. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: do you think hook phrases like "is among the oldest" or "may be among the oldest" generally need to be discussed here like "first" hooks? Or would a normal DYK review (generally) be sufficient? TSventon (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
My opinion isn't gospel, but I think by the time you've qualified it with "may be among", you're fine. RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all, I have reopened the nomination, please comment there if you wish. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 26. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 161 nominations that has increased by 3 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three 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) 22:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Five-article hook in prep 7

As nominator, a note about the five-article hook regarding the European relay titles of the Dutch team in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7: the sources in the DYK nomination cover the European indoor and outdoor championships, but the claim "having never won a medal before" is currently phrased more generally. Based on a quick scan of the articles linked in Template:Footer World Indoor Champions 4x400m Relay Women and Template:Footer World Champions 4 x 400 m Women the claim seems to hold up for world championships indoor and outdoor as well. At the European team championships, they wouldn't have received medals for a single relay event, and for the rest I can't think of any other medaling opportunities for the national team. So I think there is no problem here.

I also noticed that the current text "European titles in 2021" makes sense in the phrase, but this plural phrasing links to only one title. – Editør (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Skraban–Deardorff syndrome

I promoted this, so it will need another approval. Nevertheless @Strange Orange and Storye book: I see that the disorder was identified in 2017, the figure of 150 cases was first used in January 2023, but the article twice states the figure is "as of 2025". Are there any more recent sources, preferably a WP:MEDRS rather than an "About" page? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to help with sources, but medicine is not my subject, so I can't take the risk of error. I have corrected the date from 2025 to 2023 pending more sources being found. I'll check out the hook to see if we might need a new hook? Let's hope Strange Orange can help. Storye book (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that as of 2023 only about 150 people had been diagnosed with Skraban–Deardorff syndrome, a rare genetic condition whose individuals are often described as sociable and happy? (Sources as per ALT0). Storye book (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that individuals with Skraban–Deardorff syndrome, a rare genetic condition, are often described as sociable and happy? — Strange Orange 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are no more recent sources that quote that. I have searched but have not found any MEDRS either. We could also use ALT2? — Strange Orange 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm happy with ALT2. I have copied the relevant citation next to "sociable and happy" in the article. Storye book (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: a mop holder is needed to swap ALT2 to the now cascade-protected page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm slightly wary of using this one, it sounds like a bit of a sweeping generalisation for people with a neurological condition, and the source used was referring to observed behaviour in a specific group of ten subjects in a study, not the whole population. Also, where does the often come from? Again, the source only mentions this one observation so it doesn't seem to be verified that this is often said... I think more evidence from other sources would be needed to phrase it in the way it is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Then the hook needs an "as of 2023" added, or it can be pulled. Mop holder still needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure,  Done. If anyone thinks I'm barking up the wrong tree with the above, they can always holler, but it just seemed slightly odd to me to be applying a broad label to a group in that fashion... as with any human beings, you'd think some of them would be happy and others not so happy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

1979 New York prison guards' strike

@Apocheir, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and JuniperChill: as this is obviously an American English article per MOS:TIES, we should surely use "labor union" rather than "trade union" in the hook (also would be better if the word "labor"/"trade" was in the article)? There is also a citation needed tag in "Aftermath". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed the citation needed issue. I have no opposition to using the word "labor" instead of "trade". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with changing it to labor union. JuniperChill (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Originally the hook was just "union". I support changing it to "labor union". Apocheir (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Drag in France

@MidnightAlarm, FaysaLBinDaruL, and SonOfYoutubers: While the hook itself seems fine, I have concerns about the neutrality of the "Violent protests" section, which is primarily sourced to a public letter from a drag collective and thus can't really said to be WP:INDEPENDENT. I have tagged the section accordingly and suggest cutting the amount of material reliant on that source, which is currently WP:UNDUE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Hi, this is unrelated to the above, but I saw this hook and thought it could make a good image hook using File:Miss Martini avec la flamme olymique.png. Would that be agreeable to everyone? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'd have no problem with that. MidnightAlarm (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'll keep it in mind if another image hook needs pulling, but I'll also emphasise that DYK receives between two and three times as many image hooks as it can run. Also, the image quality isn't the clearest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I've edited to section to reduce its reliance on the non-independent source and rephrased the sentence about drag queens being attacked in the street to contextualize the source of that claim (i.e., drag artists themselves). I also renamed the section to just "Protests" because I think that better reflects its content. Can you take a look and let me know if you feel more work is needed? MidnightAlarm (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Issues resolved; I've removed all the subsection headers because they felt like verging on editorialisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/George Garcia

This was failed due to the blurb having an explanation. I held my ground that having an explanation does not disqualify a blurb due to WP:DYKINT. Can anyone else take a look? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree that the hook is not terribly interesting. Is there no other way it can be worded, or no other hook that can be used? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 01:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I have another hook in mind (about his original appointment not being acted upon but was reappointed weeks later at a higher position) but it maybe too legal and deserves another explanation thus supposedly failing WP:DYKINT again LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Frankly, if such a hook is "too legal" or complex to be understood, then it would be a textbook example of a DYKINT fail. Not all articles are good fits for DYK, and not all have workable hooks or information that could work as a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
We already know what you feel about this, having additional WP:CREEP rules on top of WP:DYKINT. I'm looking for opinions of other people. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the comment is intended to be a general and not targeted towards any specific nomination, and there was already an opinion from a different editor that agreed that the hook was not interesting. Also, it's not exactly creep, it's simply an application of DYKINT's intent (a hook needing to be unusual or interesting to non-specialists). Complicated information that requires background counts as specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
It's your own personal interpretation of WP:DYKINT. There's an explanation parameter in the DYK nomination template; that should not have been used to sabotage nominations. I don't think other people use that parameter that way. Indeed, this smells like WP:CREEP to me.
Again, I'm open to opinions of other people. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
You have provided more than enough input on this issue, Narutolovehinata5, please allow space for others -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Reading the article, outside of the bribery allegations that we can't use under BLP, I don't see anything overly interesting about the subject --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree. I propose closing this.--Launchballer 12:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith; I've seen you (and others) wondering why reviewers don't like to bring up WP:DYKINT concerns—here's a good example. A reviewer brings up a DYKINT issue and the nominator of the boring-as-hell hook doesn't say "that's alright, maybe there's just not much interesting in this article", but instead "I'm holding my ground because someone is trying to sabotage my nomination!" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a good example of bad reading comprehension. I have no problem of a hook being labeled "boring-as-hell", but adding additional WP:CREEP rules or instructions on top of already subjective criteria here, then using that as an excuse to say it fails WP:DYKINT. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKINT reads: "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic." The reviewer's objection, repeated on three occasions, was that the hook was not interesting to a non-specialist audience. Can you see the obvious link Howard the Duck, or do you need to work on your, what was it, "reading comprehension"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Awwww, it seems that you haven't read my arguments (so I guess it's not reading comprehension if you haven't read it?). The user argued I added an explanation on the "comment" parameter, which was then used as an argument (which you linked on LOL) that "I'm honestly not a fan of hooks that require the nominator to explain its importance or interestingness in the nomination." Now, if the user would have used that argument if I didn't do this won't be determined. This is a lesson on my next nominations, and perhaps for other nominators as well, to not use that comment parameter for that purpose any longer. As Admiral Ackbar says, "It's a trap!" Howard the Duck (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
...am I missing something, or are you seriously suggesting that the objection was that the "comment" parameter was used for a wrong purpose Howard the Duck? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I think you did not read what I initially said here. To copy what I said above, "I held my ground that having an explanation does not disqualify a blurb due to WP:DYKINT." Howard the Duck (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where the comment about this involving the comment parameter even comes from. My comments had nothing to do with HTD's use of that parameter. My issue was simply was that I did not feel that the hook met DYKINT, and the fact that the hook needed an explanation as to why the hook was interesting (regardless if it was a comment in the comment parameter, or was made as a response to a review) strengthened that view. I did not want to repeat myself, but I just wanted to make things clear as there seems to be miscommunication here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Parroting Guerillero, you have provided more than enough input on this issue, Narutolovehinata5, please allow space for others. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem. You said you objected to my complaint about "using the comment parameter." I clarified that the use of the parameter was not my issue all, so I was so confused as to how things led to this. It may seem like I am repeating myself, but what seems to be going on here is some kind of miscommunication, and I just want to set the record straight. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. We already know where you stand. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
AJ29's advice is correct: please re-read the discussion and understand what was my issue. Instead of dismissing my comments like that, all I want is for you to understand that the "I do not like nominators using the comment field" thing is not my concern. I did not want to comment further, but I was so shocked and admittedly disappointed that despite multiple clarifications, you did not get what I was talking about. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
This repetitive WP:BLUDGEONing behavior is frankly appaling. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Is it really hard to understand that my issue was not your use of the Comment field, but rather you proposing a hook that required an explanation to be interesting? I made that very clear in the nomination, and if you got it from this start, we could have avoided this whole exchange. I will not be commenting further, but I just want you to understand that your comment below about "a lesson for all nominators to not use the comment section as an explanation to the blurb." does not make sense, as that was never the issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I will admit, I completely disregarded it; I guess I just didn't believe someone could think that was even a point of consideration in anyone's arguments. My apologies for that, but yes, you probably do want to go back and read the discussion again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
No worries. To clarify this further, I would have no problem if the blurb was argued as "boring-as-hell" from the outset. I had a problem with making a WP:CREEP rule out of thin air. Again, a lesson for all nominators to not use the comment section as an explanation to the blurb. You'd never know... Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck (and courtesy pings for @AirshipJungleman29, @Narutolovehinata5, @Launchballer, and @Darth Stabro) I think I would have to agree that, unfortunately, the hook doesn't seem super interesting. However, before this gets closed, and since I always feel bad seeing people's nominations closed/failed, I have one last idea that maybe could work. Perhaps you can make a hook about all the politicians he has represented, with emphasis on winning the case for Grace Poe, whose citizenship was in dispute? I clarify that I am NOT very familiar with the subject matter, so I don't know if his representation itself helped her win, but if it did, that can definitely be mentioned; I don't think it's every day that a candidate's citizenship is questioned, as far as I'm aware, so it seems interesting enough. Perhaps something along the lines of, "... that George Garcia has represented several Filipino politicians, including Grace Poe, whom he helped successfully win a case in which her citizenship was disputed?" I'm aware it does kinda explain itself in the hook, but to be 100% honest, a lot of hooks with subject matters that aren't Western-centric and aren't common knowledge are always going to have a little bit of explaining in the hook. It's about 163 characters, the sweet spot, so it's short enough too. Hopefully this is considered and can help save this nomination. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
... that George Garcia successfully defended Grace Poe's birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court of the Philippines?
I think it's topical enough, at least for an American audience where this is a current issue, to meet the interestingness standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Yup, that works too. Really any variation, I think, of that particular case should be relatively objectively considered interesting enough. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I considered that but the focus would be his clients and not him. "Birthright citizenship" is not a term used in the Philippines either but I'd indeed consider that because of ummm... Trump. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Well, he's a lawyer; it's natural that the focus should be on his legal cases rather than his shoe size or whatever. But at least in the US, arguing before the Supreme Court is not an everyday thing; I don't know how much that differs for the Philippines. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I did not argue about focusing on his favorite song or potential Tinder profile, only that such suggestions do not necessarily focus on the subject of the DYK. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, U.S. Supreme Court has annual "sessions"; the Philippine Supreme Court meets all year round, so there's more opportunity for lawyers to argue on the Philippine Supreme Court than the U.S. one. Now, as someone who handles vice presidential and presidential candidates, Garcia does argue on the Supreme Court regularly before his government appointment. I won't oppose your suggested nomination. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I think David Eppstein's proposal could work as long as it gives context as to who Poe is, as readers outside the Philippines won't recognize her. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps "... that George Garcia successfully defended Filipino politician Grace Poe's birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court of the Philippines?" SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think that could work. Poe's case was a really big deal back in the day when she first ran for Senator, especially when she was our's greatest actor's (adopted) daughter. Her case actually eventually resulted in a law that protected the rights of foundlings. That's a lot of context but it wouldn't really be known to non-Filipino readers, so that proposal sounds fine enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Is it ok/possible for me to add the proposed hook to the nomination page? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Anyone can add an alternative hook as long as they don't subsequently review the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Everything political or social related to the Philippines has to be put in context when it comes to DYK. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Missing comments on nom

I couldn't seem to see why the comments are appearing on the talk page, but not the nom page. JuniperChill (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Because they were added to the talk page rather than the nomination; I moved them and called for a competent reviewer. Also, I did wonder what "Not for EU" was about, so thanks for bringing this here.--Launchballer 15:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh that was why. And guessed I accidentally taught readers what the label meant, which is what DYK is for. JuniperChill (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist) (nom)

If we were to run this hook, it’ll be dragged to Errors as boring. And that’s not for a lack of something potentially interesting. For example, DYK that the UCI ended Wolfe's BMX career through a rule change? Schwede66 19:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
That is much more interesting -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Jolielover, could you please comment? Schwede66 18:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, sure. jolielover♥talk 18:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with this change. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Why not use then any other of the approved ones instead? Or are they boring too? NeoGaze (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
No other hooks were approved NeoGaze. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I approved three hooks when I reviwed them; ALT2, ALT3 and ALT5. You can check the nomination to confirm what I'm saying. NeoGaze (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
NeoGaze, both other hooks had already been found to have problems: the first was "unworth the odure" even for the person who wrote it (c.f. the bit on CTOPs at DYKCRIT) and the second was uninteresting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough I suppose, but then wouln't have been better to send it back to the nomination page and point the issues? NeoGaze (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTBURO: six editors approved the hook here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Follow Me (lyme & cybelle song) (nom)

@JuniperChill and VirreFriberg: I'm pretty sure the link "lyme & cybelle's " that goes to Warren Zevon#Early life should actually go to Warren Zevon#Early years. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Will also edit the redirect page. JuniperChill (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@GRuban: You're correct, of course. A small mistake by me. VirreFriberg (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
It's great that everyone is fine with that, but the link on Template:Did you know/Queue/2 is still wrong. I can't edit it. An administrator presumably is required. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
And I'm pretty sure it shouldn't go anywhere, given that the hook already links to Zevon's article.--Launchballer 16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Mop needed, aisle 2. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Admin edits to hook

'The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion.'

Including by making them POV? Seems like a bad idea. 78.154.14.90 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Launchballer 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Usual nonsense about Chelsea Wolfe (see above). Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (18 July 00:00)

Meg White (nom)

First of all, I'm always wary of lines in articles which say is considered - generally a statement like this should be attributed per WP:INTEXT, unless the fact in question is cited as being so widely "considered" true that qualification is unnecessary. But if that's the case, why not just say it directly in WP:WIKIVOICE? And secondly, leading on from this, where is this fact cited? The line in the article giving this fact is referenced by , which names her as one of the "best punk drummers of the 2000s" (qualified by the assertion that quite a few people might disagree with that choice). But it doesn't explicitly say she's considered a key figure in a 2000s garage-rock revival. Other cites mentioned at the nom page include and ... the latter does say "Meg’s minimalist, heartbeat-like drumming became a signature of the early-’00s garage-rock revival" which is the closest we've come to the hook fact. If that's the true cite, it should be next to the hook fact in the article. But in any case, it's hard to know if this is one or two people's opinion or a widely held view. Pinging @Watagwaan, Aneirinn, Lajmmoore, TarnishedPath, Launchballer, DimensionalFusion, and JuniperChill:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I saw 'I'd promote' and thought I'd already checked it. My bad.--Launchballer 22:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello! Considered may not be as strong as saying "Meg White (pictured) is a key figure in the 2000s garage rock revival?" which, we could always reword it as that. It is indeed a widely held view for her contributions as a member of the band the White Stripes, along with Jack White. If you look at both Meg's article and the White Stripes article, there are several citations which support the both of them as being key members (not necessarily considered, because then that leaves room for doubt). Another reason it is so is because Meg was one of the most talked about drummers of the 2000s, and recently, of this decade. Her minimalistic style sparked a HUGE discussion that still goes on even today! As for strictly the 2000s, it can be supported by media of the time (which I tried to add in Meg's article) and her inclusion on a number of listings of the best drummers, such as Rolling Stone, NME, and Consequence. The band itself is often credited with the Strokes and the Hives in numerous articles. Watagwaan (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
@Watagwaan, have you added all of that to the article? TarnishedPathtalk 06:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Given concerns and how this is two sets away from running, I've pulled the hook for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
No problem! I am open to further discussion and other ideas for hooks. There are a few others we could make from the article, such as @Narutolovehinata5's earlier idea on the topic of her not being seen in public since 2009. Being in a retirement for 16 years and not being seen in public media since then is fairly impressive — some articles even refer to her as if she's a missing person, which is kind of cool. Watagwaan (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Everything involving Meg, yes! Watagwaan (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, Lajmmoore left a message on my talk page that she will be unavailable for a while, so I am requesting here a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Is it permissible now that it is cited? Aneirinn (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, so we're saying the line "Meg's minimalist, heartbeat-like drumming became a signature of the early-’00s garage-rock revival" is a good enough line to verify that she was a key figure in said revival? I can probably get on board with that... What do others think? @Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, and TarnishedPath:?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    It could work if the sourcing was there and perhaps if it could be attributed in-hook, although I still think that the "not seen in public" fact is still stronger and probably more likely to get attention from readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5, @Amakuru, @Watagwaan, @Aneirinn. Given that Watagwaan has updated the article to state that as of 2025 she hasn't been seen in public since 2009 and provided a source for it, I have proposed a hook ... that Meg White (pictured), has not made any public appearances since 2009?
    I don't think we need to state that as of 2025, when we're actually in 2025.
    Alternatively if we want to insist that we state as of 2025 ... that as of 2025, Meg White (pictured), has not made any public appearances since 2009? TarnishedPathtalk 23:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    The issue is WP:DYKDEFINITE, but since the current wording (after much fighting) says that it only needs to be unlikely to change prior to running, prior to ever, we could probably leave out the year. It still needs to mention why White is important, so simply saying "not made any public appearances" wouldn't work on DYKINT grounds among other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
    Why not combine the two suggested? Something akin to:
    …that Meg White (pictured), a key figure of the 2000s garage rock revival as a member of the White Stripes, has not made any public appearances since 2009?
    Thoughts? @Amakuru @Aneirinn @Launchballer @Narutolovehinata5 @TarnishedPath Watagwaan (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    I think the ALT2 I proposed in the nomination is probably better, albeit without the "as of" wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'd be happy with that.
    ... that Meg White (pictured), described as a key figure in the 2000s garage-rock revival, has not made any public appearances since 2009?
    Any objections? TarnishedPathtalk 03:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Described by whom? There isn't a direct quote for thar or an attribution, so that doesn't work for me. But it is implied by the source as an accepted fact, so I think we are OK to go with the raw form stating that she was a key figure in wikivoice. Watagwaan's hook above looks OK to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    ... that Meg White (pictured), a key figure in the 2000s garage-rock revival, has not made any public appearances since 2009? TarnishedPathtalk 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Amakuru, @Aneirinn, @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5, @Watagwaan we all good? TarnishedPathtalk 14:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    Fine by me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    I've added it into the template, if we can have someone provide a tick and preferably when there is a slot 1 open next if someone can promote it. TarnishedPathtalk 15:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
    I like it! Watagwaan (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Verona Marjanović (nom)

I always enjoy to see a Lugnuts stub being expanded. Thanks, Arconning. I read the bio because I was not sure what the hook was trying to convey. Maybe the hook is not a problem, even if I was left confused. The article is a problem, though. It’s a biography, and there is zero information what this person has done since 1998. That’s an incomplete article or a work in progress; I would not have signed off on it. Schwede66 18:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  • She doesn't appear to have competed in another Olympics, and indeed I can't find anything else out about her at all - maybe there will be more in Bosnian sources. I suspect she would have been hardly notable at all had it not been for the war taking place while she was competing in 1994 and the coverage that generated. Having said that, there are very many sports bios where coverage ends after the subject retires from the sport and does not continue in another notable role. After all, very little could be sourced in those cases. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, there’s always something that could be said. Did she finish her degree? Where does she work? Which country does she live in? Has she got a family? Is she still connected to the sport? Did her parents and siblings survive the war? Yes, you need sources, and with some effort, you may uncover some of it. And it may well require finding a native speaker who can look for Bosnian sources. Schwede66 19:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
    You'd be surprised. Check out David_Batty#Personal_life for a Premier League and England footballer; our coverage of his 21 years of post-retirement life consist of a single charity match 15 years ago and some rather silly speculation. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not surprised at all. Many sports bios suffer from this problem. And if that problem is present, I wonder whether it disqualifies an article from DYK. Schwede66 10:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    It's not ideal, is it? There is the additional issue that she could have married and changed her name since 1998, as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
    I took a look myself and couldn't find anything about her later life. She has a few passing mentions in Bosnian sources discussing the nation's performance at the 1994 Olympics, but as far as I can tell none describe what happened to her afterwards. I don't think it should be disqualifying. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
It's a shame that nobody picked up on my confusion about the hook wording. It did come up at Errors and has now been attended to. Schwede66 23:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Robert Baker Park

  • ... that Robert Baker Park in Baltimore was named after Robert Lewis Baker, whose personal garden was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death?

@842U, Gerda Arendt, and SonOfYoutubers: this checks out in terms of verifiability, but what it says about the park's namesake isn't very interesting, and weirdly isn't connected to the park at all. Indeed, the section "Robert Lewis Baker" composes half the article, and is surely too much detail for the article on the park; I'd honestly suggest spinning it out into a new article Robert Lewis Baker. But to return to the hook: could we have one that focuses on the article subject? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 (and courtesy ping @Gerda Arendt and @842U) I think something focusing on the Federal transportation initiatives could be interesting. I'm not very familiar with the subject, so I don't know how a hook around this would work, but that's the only other "more interesting" thing I see on the article. As for creating a new article, I have no clue if he is notable enough to be able to create a new article, but that's up to the creator to determine if they can add more information; I simply verified that there were no issues and promoted. Looking now though, there's a few issues with the sources. For example, citation 3 and 4 are duplicated, as they are the exact same source. I think a failed link of sorts occurred in citation 18. I believe this is all the issues, everything else looks fine. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I remember now why I stopped contributing to DYK; the rules constantly change making it difficult to predict the outcome, the scrutiny seems more and more restrictive -- and at least for this editor, it just isn't fun. After all this work, I'm done with DYK. 842U (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
The rule about the hook needing to be primarily about the bolded link rather than the bolded subject only being tangentially linked has always been a rule though. Looking at the article, I would agree that the section about Baker should be split off into its own article: I wouldn't call it a coat rack case exactly, but the section is developed enough that it could stand on its own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
But admittedly, what is my direct connection to the park, is another's tangential. This is a perfect example of what bugs me about the attitude at DYK; the "guardians" of DYK have made this all extremely... tangential. 842U (talk)
The solution is to simply create a separate article for Park, and other than perhaps making the article too short for DYK (I have not checked if this will be the case), I don't get the opposition against such a split. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I have split a separate article out for Park; the first article is not too short for DYK. The formerly proposed hook could run for the biography, and a new hook could be found for the park itself; if you can to suggest a new hook for the park article, I can do the necessary bureuacracy User:842U. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
How about a double nom, with both subjects bold? To diminish bureaucracy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Would work too. Might just IAR that; if 842U can do a QPQ, that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Update: can't IAR it, but if an admin can change the hook to something like "... that the personal garden of Robert Lewis Baker, who Baltimore's Robert Baker Park was named after, was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death?" and add the credit   Robert Lewis Baker – 842U (give) (tag) – View nom subpage, that would be great. I'll do a QPQ later, unless someone else wants to donate one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the hook could stay as it is, just bolding the person, for even more clarity and less bureaucracy:
... that Robert Baker Park in Baltimore was named after Robert Lewis Baker, whose personal garden was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death? - perhaps add "in the park" or "there" after "Show". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda. The interest level is fine, the double is a hook in itself and it's important to respect the wishes of the nominator. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
One point: if Robert Lewis Baker is to be a bolded link, the article must be given a full DYK review. Otherwise, it will have to be a non-bold link. The Baker article clearly states that part of Baker's garden was recreated for the garden/flower show, not the whole thing as implied in both of the above hooks. Either "partially recreated" or "recreated in part" would need to replace "recreated" in both hooks if either is to be used. I don't recommend adding with "in the park" or "there" as Gerda suggests as a "perhaps", since there is nothing in either article to indicate that the flower and garden show was held in the Robert Baker Park rather than another (unspecified) location in the city. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
It has been posted on the main page without a link of any kind for Robert Lewis Baker, which seems silly. Give me a moment and I'll do a review so that it can be bolded too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I've reviewed Boating Party. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
A qpq is fine, but how can Robert Lewis Baker be reviewed when the nom for the park is closed, and there is none for him. Should that be created, or can we IAR and do a review right here, or in the closed nom which is not protected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt @AirshipJungleman29: Isn't all the text copied from the park article that Gerda already reviewed? I looked it over and had no concerns, so I went ahead and made a bold link. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't know if long enough, and good enough sources for being notable (had no time to look again), but trust you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I checked the Robert Lewis Baker article. It was mostly fine, including an Earwig check. I expanded the lead and made sure that the park was mentioned. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Is multi-hook length exemption still in effect?

Resolved
C3 (multi-hook length): A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule: subtract from the overall count the bolded characters for each additional new article beyond the first. If the result is 200 or less, the hook length is probably acceptable. Otherwise the hook may still be acceptable (on a case-by-case basis) if it is reasonably compact and readable.[C 3]

This is the old version of the supplementary rules. Is it still in effect, and is it documented anywhere? Asking for Template:Did you know nominations/How to Cook in Palestine. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I came here to look this up haha (nominator). It apparently is as it is still in WP:DYK200. What puts the hook above character limit, however, are the two ndashes, 6 characters each. The counter does not know what to make of them. Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Missing word in hook in P5

"... that the Coronation Street Christmas Day episode was only 30 minutes long as opposed to its usual 1 hour Christmas episodes?"

Should add "2023". Otherwise, it sounds like that was the show's only Christmas Day episode ever, something at odds with the last part of the hook.

And make it "one-hour" per MOS and it being a modifier used this way. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I've just boldly swapped the hook with ALT0 as I think the original hook was stronger and that ALT1 is just slightly more specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

1953–1954 royal tour of New Zealand

In this DYK nomination I have been asked to expand the article for WP:DYKCOMPLETE sake and another user has asked me to expand it but says that it is not because of DYKCOMPLETE. I don't believe there is a problem with completeness for it to appear on Did you know. The article has over 2,000 words according to DYK check. It feels more like a good article review to me than a did you know review. I do not want to expand it any further because I've got other things to do. Input from others would be appreciated. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6

@SonOfYoutubers: Aside from the fact that quote marks shouldn't be bolded anyway, I explicitly requested running Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song) as an WP:DYKAPRIL hook, where the quote marks could be ignored. I also suggested above keeping that set clear for women-related hooks (Ctrl+F for 'set full'), although this might be a different prep are given that we're at six queues.--Launchballer 23:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see any mention of april fools on the page, that's my bad. I put the quotes in bold because it gave an error when it was not in bold. I'll pull the hook. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer Adding ping SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the April Fools' Day request was not explicitly approved in the nomination, so there is not necessarily an issue with the hook being promoted "prematurely". I also do not think that it must run on AFD at all, it works just fine as a regular quirky. If it gets promoted "early", it is not an issue at all. We as DYK editors need to be more flexible and be open to our requests not being granted. We can't always have our way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 3. We have a total of 301 nominations, of which 134 have been approved, a gap of 167 nominations that has increased by 6 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three 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) 03:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Always fun to do this, especially when the set has some very strong hooks! I did bump two back on DYKINT grounds:

  • ... that Ahmed Hamada was part of the first Bahraini Olympic team and later became the first Bahraini gold medalist at the Asian Games?
  • ... that the British indie rock band Girl Ray named themselves after the surrealist visual artist Man Ray? (repromoted by Airship)

As always, no objection to anyone else promoting or stamping them, just not something I'm going to sign off on. [Lately I've been mentally testing and workshopping hooks by imagining telling the hook or something similar out loud to a casually interested observer, like a friend or family member. doesn't map perfectly on every case, but it's a helpful visual!] I'll start reviewing the remaining hooks throughout the day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

avery r. young (nom)

@Miraclepine and Guerreroast: Hook checks out, but I'm iffy on the the citations to poetry foundation. I know they publish an edited magazine, but how are poetryfoundation.org/poets biographies written, and are they fact-checked or even edited? It's not clear to me that those get the same amount of scrutiny, I can't tell where they come from. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, Guerreroast, I'll note that the article wasn't created on June 19 and nominated on June 21, it was moved into mainspace on June 21 and nominated just outside of 7 days on June 28. Miraclepine, a few hours isn't a big deal, but do try to hit within the seven-day limit if you can :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Well, the organization does have an editorial team (not just for the magazine). And I've been doing some QPQs a few days in advance to make up for potential delays caused by RL commitments. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
yeah, but without bylines or a clear editorial policy, it's not clear whether the editorial team vets the blurbs or who writes them. I'm going to make a post at RSN, and in the meantime, I think I'm going to bump this back a few sets. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: FWIW the discussion says that for living poets, the info comes from the poets themselves and may be at the least reliable for basic biographical info. I usually treat it like I do a faculty bio for a professor. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd tend to agree with that – working off WP:ABOUTSELF, I'd cut the last sentence of the poetry section as non-basic biographical information, but other than that, think it's good :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Done. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
restored to the last open spot in Q5 – thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ben Franklin (song) (nom)

Everything checks out here, but I wanted to say – TarnishedPath, are you sure you don't want to save this to use the alternate hook for April Fools? It looks like a solid suggestion to me, but it's your call. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, the nominator stated that they included ALT1 for the potential of April Fools. I personally don't find that hook as interesting. What I would find more interesting for April fools is a slight modification of ALT0 ... that Ben Franklin was inspired by an internet meme?
I'll leave it to your judgment. TarnishedPathtalk 08:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Leafy46? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Brilliant, that hook is much better for April Fools' than the one I've created lol. I'm happy to roll with it, even if it's a little bit of a stretch. Leafy46 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
(For the record, "named after" would be a bit more accurate than "inspired by", though it may lose some of its charm that way) Leafy46 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Ps, the hook currently in the que has "Internet" upercased and I'm not sure that it should be. While the "Internet" is a proper noun, "internet meme" is not. TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
put back into the April Fool's queue with a lowercase 'i', so, resolved! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

James Tengatenga (nom)

@Dclemens1971 and Arconning: Covering a controversy is hard, and I think this is close enough to accurate that I'm not quickfailing this nom, not by a long shot. But this does miss the mark in a few key ways, and I'm leaning very strongly towards pulling this because rectifying those issues might take more than a few days and should ideally come with input from others and a new reviewer.

  • The article doesn't mention that Tengatenga personally opposed Robinson's nomination. (For those playing along at home, Tengatenga is an African bishop and V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was nominated and confirmed to be a consecrated bishop in Los Angeles. The controversy came when Tengatenga was nominated for a lead ministerial post at Dartmouth College.)
  • The article doesn't mention that Tengatenga never retracted his opposition to Robinson's nomination. All it says is that his views have "evolved" (which is too closely paraphrased from the source), but to the extent they have, it's basically only his views on gay rights and institutional discrimination. His detractors point out that he pretty carefully avoided stating his actual thoughts on gay people (which you might argue the public is not entitled to, but the sources don't entirely agree).
  • The article cites an op-ed by Randall Balmer, a bishop publicly aligned with Tengatenga, for a very challengeable assertion of fact.
  • More fundamentally, the article pretty much only gives airtime to Tengatenga's defenders, and while the sources do seem to tilt that way, they do quote people inside the college opposed to Tengatenga leading the Tucker Foundation as well and this article pretty much doesn't.

So, yeah, I think this needs more work before it's ready for the Main Page, but overall the article is still well-written and I think that should happen back at DYKN with a new reviewer supervising. (Even if you did manage to fix all of those issues tomorrow, I'd still want a new reviewer to take a look.) Let me know if there's anything else I should consider, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, alrighty then. Arconning (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
okay, pulled for further discussion, see nompage :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Claude-Charles Bourgonnier (nom)

@Kimikel, Surtsicna, and JuniperChill: bumping this one out because I don't think museum collections or auction houses do super-rigorous fact-checking? I know they're basic biographical details but it'd be nice to get them in a more solid RS. (Also, the hook would need some hedging, because it's a bulletin of the society that banned him, not an impartial source.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I can understand the skepticism regarding auction houses (Christie's, though?), but I would be surprised if museum collections were not reliable. What hedging would you propose? Which part might the society have misrepresented, the barring, the tearing, or the displaying? Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Do museum collections and auction houses have editorial control and fact-checking? I have no idea what the Society may or may not have represented in a 100-year-old stub in a foreign language, but we should it attribute the fact in the hook and article to them because they have a pretty clear conflict of interest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Don Elliot Heald (nom)

  • ... that Don Elliot Heald's voice was heard on an estimated 12 million phone calls a day in 1971?

@Sammi Brie, Miraclepine, and Darth Stabro: I don't want to force anyone to do anything in under a day – happy to bump it back if changes can't be made before showtime – but I'm not comfortable with just the word 'estimated' when the estimate is from the company that operated the phone service. Is there a way to reword the hook that makes that connection a bit more apparent? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron we can link to Audichron: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 09:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • ... that Audichron estimated Don Elliot Heald's voice was heard on 12 million phone calls a day in 1971?
    I'll take it over what we have now, but it still doesn't make the connection between Heald and Audichron super clear? Audichron could still just be a third party with access to lots of telephone data. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    ended up going with:
    should be good to go now! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure, let's go with that and thanks! ミラP@Miraclepine 19:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron It seems the issue with this hook was resolved, but it was forgotten to be readded back to the prep area, which recently was promoted to queue 3 (soon to be queue 2), so I think it should probably be added back now. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@SonOfYoutubers: mm, i think you forgot to check in one place :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Whoops, I didn't even notice it was already fast tracked into today's (just now yesterday's) DYK, sorry for the ping! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

An unusual offer, do you know who the most interesting woman is?

Did You Know that Edinburgh's "forgotten heroines", Eliza Wigham, Jane Smeal, Priscilla Bright McLaren, and Elizabeth Pease, were associated with the Edinburgh Ladies' Emancipation Society (logo pictured)? Ten years ago Wikimania was in Mexico and @Rosiestep: and I (who had met at DYK) decided to launch a project to address the gender-gap on Wikipedia. The project was a much bigger success that we imagined and it became known as Women in Red. The project was launched with a hybrid talk and a feature DYK hook (above) on the main page. As part of the ten year celebration (and achieving 20% women!!) we will be giving a talk in Nairobi at the Wikiwomen event on 5th August. Women in Red has created a list of the "100 most interesting women"... and we have a good list of 99 or so with Eliza Wigham as No.1. It occurred to me that it would be cool to again have a feature DYK about a leading woman at DYK and this woman could be number 100. But its much too late to create and nominate a feature hook by August 5th, however there may be someone who already has an article/DYK hook in development. Ideally we need the article to have a photo and not be an American or a Brit ((or a bloke! but otherwise we are trying for diversity), an African woman would be ideal. If you think that you might help then do have a go. Maybe drop a note on the Women in Red talk page Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could get Eve up to GA status? I know we don't in general like "first" hooks, but this would be a good one. RoySmith (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Current nominations that could be viable include: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
We ran a set full of women and women-related hooks for International Women's Day in March (Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/March#8 March 2025), perhaps we could do something like that again for the 5th?--Launchballer 16:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
There are some great contenders here and Eve would be strangely apt. I'm so pleased that this has caught someone's attention. Thank you. I'll leave it to you guys to decide which it is going to be... if it turns out to be more than one then it will be no different to the first DYK where Eliza Wigham was accompanied by her mates. Victuallers (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
I've been bold and I've put a comment on the DYK noms that @AirshipJungleman29: identified. Maybe we might find one or two who are willing to help celebrate Women in Red at the Wikiwomen event in Nairobi. Thanks for your attention. Victuallers (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi Victuallers, thanks for the heads up! I'm honored to have my DYK nominated here, and I offer my support for the project. I'll be attending Nairobi so feel free to hmu for assistance, or writing new articles for additional hooks. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for considering Alaíde! I don’t know that she’s the most suitable of the candidates on that list, mostly because I don’t think there are any PD/CC pictures of her (and she’s not African), but she is certainly an interesting woman. Just let me know if she’s still what you’re looking for, I guess? Spookyaki (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Also might not hurt to check out current GA noms that could be reviewed then nominated. I think my nom of Elvia Carrillo Puerto might be a better candidate than Foppa, for example, because she does have a PD picture. Other possible candidates could include Jimena Fernández de la Vega or Shreen Abdul Saroor. Spookyaki (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
This week I nominated Erna Meyer and four of her projects: Stuttgart kitchen, Munich kitchen, The New Household, and How to Cook in Palestine. Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Ms Meyer is more than welcome! and Jeromi's offer.. yes please! Our ten year old DYK quoted above started as a simple nomination and then over a few days extra articles were added to the original nomination. I'm so please the idea is being taken up. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Since I was pinged here, I think it'd be neat to have my nomination (Enriqueta Duarte) featured on August 5, although there are definitely other good candidates. Probably the most "interesting" woman I have written about is Mirsada Burić, though that was already featured at DYK not too long ago. (DYK...that runner Mirsada Burić survived a concentration camp, an attempted rape, and snipers' bullets before she competed at the 1992 Olympics?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, she is certainly a great candidate. Mirsada Burić is also very interesting but sadly lack of a free photo prevents her from being a visible woman. I'm not sure of the procedure but I think you need to move your offered hook to the special event area at the bottom of the DYK hook list mentioning 5 August. @Surtsicna: @Spookyaki: @Jeromi Mikhael: If we have more than one offer (and it looks as if we will :-) ) then I will let the person creating the DYK set for that day decide who goes where. I will choose one for our 100 interesting women list. Thank you to all. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Bésame (Alejandro Sanz and Shakira song)

... that Alejandro Sanz and Shakira promoted their song "Bésame" with kisses, sparking rumors of romance and jealousy?

not sure about the sourcing now that I take a second look; anyone else feel it looks a little tabloid-y and comes close to WP:NOTGOSSIP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that hook uses those buzzwords uncomfortably vaguely for something that's meant for the main page. Departure– (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Bumped. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Curtesy ping @1arch, @Surtsicna, @Sammi Brie and @Femke. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I could see an angle about the promotional kiss causing Sanz's girlfriend to unfollow him. It does get into BLP territory though. While most of the sources are probably generally reliable for news (Milenio, Infobae, El Economista), I'm unsure about their track record in celebrity news. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Whole lotta Olympics-related hooks

After constantly scrolling past at least a dozen or so hooks in the approved nominations page that are Olympics-related, I'm wondering if maybe there could be an entire prep area/queue that is only composed of Olympics-related hooks? I have no clue if that's possible, which is why I'm asking, because there seems to be a huge spike in Olympics hooks, and it would take a while to clear them because I can only ever add one Olympics hook to a prep area, skip another area, and then add another, and so on. It would take weeks to clear all the hooks, unnecessarily extending their length before inclusion on the main page. If it's not possible, would it at least be possible to include at least 2 or 3 Olympics-related hooks per prep areas until the backlog of these hooks has been reduced? Thank you! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that themed sets are generally disliked. Even the themed set for Queen Elizabeth's death had haters. WP:DYKVAR would allow two Olympic hooks per set, but then there really shouldn't be any other sport-related hooks probably. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good then. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
If it was 2026 or 2028 and the Olympics were going on, then yes we could have have at least one full Olympic set. As Darth Stabro has said, full themed sets outside of holidays are generally unpopular, so having one is not necessarily a feasible or realistic solution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
A lot of the olympic hooks are firsts and I've been scrolling past a lot of them. TarnishedPathtalk 01:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
This was brought up with the nominator before, and it would probably be a good idea to move away from those "first" or superlative hooks given the issues with them. Granted, unlike other "first" hooks, most of them are relatively straightforward to prove, so it isn't as big of an issue as other superlative claims, but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Some of the first hooks are ok, when they include other interesting details but hooks of the sort '... A person was the first person to represent B country in C at the olympics' is overdone to the point of banality. TarnishedPathtalk 06:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath @Narutolovehinata5 I definitely agree that there's way too many (currently) "first person of country" hooks, I think they should definitely be restricted temporarily for now. Perhaps you guys can go notify nominations about this, so they may create new hooks as soon as possible. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Most of the Olympic hooks were by Arconning; I've left them a message inviting them to this discussion. I've also pulled Ahmed Hamada owing to concerns about it being a "first" hook, as well as interest concerns raised by Theleekycauldron. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh I see, shall change the hooks once I'm pinged in the nominations. I'm incredibly busy irl so I'll get to them as soon as I can. Arconning (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

interesting?

Queue 6 for Sunday:

  • ... that operatic tenor Klaus König, who performed for more than 30 years, also worked as a painter?

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a fan of the new hook working, not because it is uninteresting, but because it removed "house" from "house painter". Saying he was just a "painter" is vague since readers might assume he was an artist rather than a house decorator. Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who trimmed the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Will readd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Another possibility, given the discussion at AirshipJungleman29's talk page, could be to instead go with a variant of ALT4f, which at least mentions that König was an important tenor during his life.
... that opera singer Klaus König, once described as one of the most important tenors of his generation, also worked as a house painter and decorator?
Any mentioning of specific roles like Tannhauser was explicitly rejected in the nomination, so that is not an option. The main issue is that this hook is a lot longer than the current one, so it may be better to leave it to consensus on what wording to use. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that, although I'm not sure where the "and decorator" keeps coming from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
It's apparently the full title of the job. Even the article is at "house painter and decorator", as seen in the above link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh right, because it's illegal to call yourself a house painter, or have the sources describe you as a house painter or even a painter: if a Wikipedia article is titled "house painter and decorator" then everything else must fall in line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
We've been running lots of hooks of the form "Before/after doing the thing they were famous for, Person X also did something else that was mundane":
  • that Chad McCharles, before becoming a bishop, moonlighted as a school bus driver?
  • that Jim Lankas retired from professional boxing and wrestling to enter farming?
  • that after playing just one game, Michael Basinger retired from the NFL and became a country music performer?
I think that whole style of hook is uninteresting and we should stop running those. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Eh, I don't necessarily see that as an issue. In many cases, they are genuinely the most interesting thing or at least the most hook-worthy thing that can be said about a person. It's more the contrast that is unusual, not simply that they did something "mundane". Maybe I'm personally biased as several of my own hooks follow this format, but I actually think that all of the examples you mentioned are interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that Klaus König trained as a house painter and continued in the trade even after establishing a career as an operatic tenor? Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    A similar wording was already proposed in the nomination as ALT4e, although I think your wording flows better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    Since the hook is already in the next queue to run (and thus cannot be edited swapped out except by admins), should the existing hook stay, or should it be swapped with Gatoclass's suggestion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
    Keep, because at least it spends fewer words on the painting, and doesn't lead to an article about it, an article tagged for multiple problems (instead of one to a great opera). But do you find it interesting? This man had a unique operatic career, and was described as one of the most important tenors, especially in the heroic field, which "operatic tenor" is too pale and vague to describe. An operatic tenor's career could be at his little municipal opera house, singing supporting light roles, not at the leading houses in the world the heaviest roles that only selected few tackle. - I made the suggestion to ASJ to at least say heroic tenor, for a simple change. Mentioning the opera he was wanted in would be more precise. Any suggestions? -Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • In the end, the article was viewed 4,214 times during its run on the main page, which is pretty good for a Gerda article. It is also pretty good considering it was not in the image slot. While the hook did not mention Tannhauser, it did accomplish its goal of getting more people to read about him and learn about his career and accomplishments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep areas needing moving

@DYK admins: Just 2 queues filled currently, waited a little bit to see if anyone would update but none so far, so I'm pinging to let yall know. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Sorry for the ping yet again, but there is still just 3 queues filled while almost every prep area is full. The approved nominations are also beginning to stack but there's no space. Can someone please fill it up a little more? Thank you. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Hello, that time again where I pester yall to move a few prep areas to queues to make some space. Thank you!!! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
May I remind you that the DYK admins template is for emergencies only - having three queues isn't that.--Launchballer 17:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure that, in addition to just 3 queues, there's about 140 approved nominations and all prep areas full (except last one as always), so I think that's enough for a ping. I do it in advance anyways because the ping response isn't immediate. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

missing hooks

@TarnishedPath and SonOfYoutubers: Something wonky happened with prep 6. The Don Elliot Heald (nom) hook was there, even though it already ran (i removed it); credits for Claude-Charles Bourgonnier and Hurst Robins Anderson are in the prep, but i can't find the hooks anywhere; and Hurst Robins Anderson is sometimes a double hook with Paul R. Anderson and sometimes not, and in the Paul R. Anderson nom there's a Don Elliot Heald hook for some reason? Y'all are the promoters of record on prep 6 and something definitely trainwrecked here, so if y'all could please track down what it was so that the wrong credits don't go out by accident, that'd be really helpful. thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I have 0 clue what is going on with the credits at prep 6, really weird situation. The Paul/Hurst Anderson hook is not a double hook, but there were other suggestions on the nom page that were double hooks. Looking at the edit history, I suspect that PSHAW thought that, because there were two noms, it should credit both noms. In reality, it should only credit Paul R. Anderson because he's the only one linked in the hook I decided to promote as per the nom page's discussion. I have no clue why there's a Don Elliot Heald hook in the nom page, must've been either some weird glitch or an editor error. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Update: I noticed that actually the nom page discussion seemed to agree to split the two articles into their own separate hooks, which I hadn't realized before. But, it seems they actually agreed to ALT1 and ALT2, which I misunderstood as Paul's ALT1 and ALT2. I'll pull the hook and promote the correct hook accordingly, thank you for raising this issue! :D SonOfYoutubers (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Update 2: I decided to investigate the Claude-Charles Bourgonnier one a bit, and I see exactly what happened. Because of the strange glitch where a Don Elliot Heald hook was located on the nom page, it seems the promoter accidentally promoted that hook instead of one of the Claude-Charles Bourgonnier hooks. I can tell because, on the edit history, it promotes the Don Elliot Heald hook, but gives credit for Claude-Charles Bourgonnier. The fix is a little annoying, since it cannot be promoted now to the same area due to lack of space and because you removed the Don Elliot Heald hook as a "rerun", resulting in PSHAW being unable to pick up on it as a valid hook and therefore unable to pull it and reopen the nom page. Because the Claude-Charles Bourgonnier nom page is now closed, I'll reverse it to open it back up, so that it can be promoted to a different prep area. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
That Claude-Charles Bourgonnier glitz was my error. I had multiple templates open at the same time and I stuffed it up. Thanks SOY for the cleanup. I was about to do exactly what you did. TarnishedPathtalk 05:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Amazing, thanks so much to you both! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I see that SonOfYoutubers has promoted the Claude-Charles hook, but it was formerly TarnishedPath who promoted it earlier and before that, me. Should I be the user shown who promoted the hook, seeing as I was the original and Tarnished pulled it before reversing it? JuniperChill (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
If you reverted back to before I pulled it, would it break anything? TarnishedPathtalk 10:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. I have since restored the original user who promoted it which was me. But I think the error was the fact that you wrote a comment about Don Elliot Heald when the nom was about Claude, which was causing a mess. diff JuniperChill (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
if you want to be counted as promoter of record for bot tallying purposes, the way to do that is to briefly reopen the nom and then close it back up. that should transfer the credit :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

List of songs written by Louis Tomlinson

I'm putting a post here to see if anyone is willing to vouch for one of the three hooks listed in this nomination. I personally find that none of them meet WP:DYKINT for reasons I've left on the nomination's page, but I also don't want to reject a nomination on DYKINT grounds without first seeing if my evaluation is shared. Leafy46 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  • I wonder if the fact that not a single one of those 60+ songs was written solely by Tomlinson is interesting? Actually, shouldn't the article be List of songs co-written by Louis Tomlinson or List of Louis Tomlinson writing credits? Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Well, for that to be a hook, it needs to be mentioned in the article and have at least one source. Proposing that hook right now would be a SYNTH violation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    I think finding a song by a popstar with only them as the writer would be a harder challenge. I modelled the list after List of songs written by Harry Styles; he also has no songs written solely by him, and the list is a FL. It's just standard procedure for such articles to be named as such, and renaming this would mean dozens of other articles' names would have to be reconsidered. jolielover♥talk 11:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (2 August 00:00)

Wilf Pine (nom)

  • ... that Wilf Pine, manager of Black Sabbath, had his arm dislocated by a vibrating bed because Ozzy Osbourne kept feeding it quarters?

The line from the article confirming this says that he has a fever during the tour and that "Ozzy Osbourne put around fifteen quarters into Pine's vibrating bed where he was sweating it out with feverish symptoms, which succeeded in dislocating Pine's arm". Which is an interesting fact, but it seems to be missing any sort of context. Why did Osbourne keep putting money into the bed? And if he "succeeded" in dislocating the arm, does that mean it was intentional? I can't see the source I don't think so not really sure what this is about. My thought is that if we're drawing attention to this AT DYK then the article should explain it fully. Cheers. Pinging @Ericoides, Viriditas, Launchballer, and SonOfYoutubers:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I've read the source and it did not appear to be "intentional" in the sense that he was trying to hurt him. I don't think we can say more than that. It's essentially a "tale from the road" about a touring band. There's really nothing left to say. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

João Barrento (nom)

  • ... that João Barrento had been a distinguished equestrian in Portugal since he was a teenager, but only made his Olympic debut in his forties?

I'm just wondering where the fact that he was a "distinguished equestrian in Portugal" as a teenager comes from? The opening part of the military career section is all seemingly cited to , page 40, which is an article about Carlos Freire. I've run the text through Google translate, as I don't speak Portuguese, and seemingly this is the relevant part -

A very good student at the school, he was the commander of the school battalion in his final year, 1923/1924. That year he was the administrator of the newspaper O Colégio Militar (no. 9, 10, and 11, 1924) and wrote some articles for it. Also physically resourceful, he won awards in athletics and fencing, and practiced soccer and horseback riding with ease. Among his "number of successors" at the school were his brother José (1924/32) and sons Fernando (1946/53) and João (1953/60).

Other names that later stood out in their respective professional activities were part of his course, such as engineers Sebastião Gouveia Beltrão (254), Augusto Cohen Poppe (416) and João Guimarães dos Santos (410), doctors Henrique Moutinho (83), José Pereira Monteiro (212) and Guilherme Abranches Pinto (22), drought veterinarian José Prostes (136) and the future general João Correia Barrento (17) and colonels Fernando Paes (424), Amadeu Santo-André Pereira (252) all these three emeritus knights Daniel Tavares (329), João Terenas Latino (207) and the sea captain and Fonguerra Eduardo Metzener (300), among others.

So this mentions that Barrento was a future general (though perhaps not as strongly as the article's "he and Freire were the only future generals"), but it does not as far as I can see state that Barrento was a good equestrian, only Freire is given such an accolade when he's said to ride with ease. In particular, for a tag like "distinguished equestrian in Portugal", we'd I think need some confirmation that he was actually noted in that country in general as being such. Maybe I've missed the relevant detail though... Perhaps something focusing on the radical shift of career from army general to Olympic showjumper would work as an interesting hook if the current one doesn't succeed? Pinging @Kingsif, BeanieFan11, and JuniperChill: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s a poor translation - where you have it saying “emeritus knights” is the phrase that means distinguished cavalrymen. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

  • ... that Indonesian military officer Gina Yoginda was nominated as ambassador to Afghanistan in 2021 and to Syria in 2024?

Just wondering what the broad interest is in this hook? Being nominated as an ambassador isn't in itself very remarkable, so was the interest supposed to be because Afghanistan and Syria are both recent warzones? Given that Yoginda never even took up the two posts mentioned, I'm checking whether this really passes the criteria. @Jeromi Mikhael, Moondragon21, and SonOfYoutubers: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Nominated for North Korea in 2025 as well, which is marginally more interesting. But I'm wondering if he's even notable. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, if he had actually served in Afghanistan, Syria and North Korea that would be an interesting hook on the basis that all three countries that have been warzones / unlikely destinations to visit / in the news a lot etc. But in fact he hasn't yet set foot in any of the three...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Given that the issue is quite serious, I've pulled the hook for now rather than keeping it in Prep while waiting for a replacement hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I was definitely a little meh about it, so it's fine if it's pulled. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

PEIS limit reached on WP:DYKN

The DYK noms "awaiting approval" (WP:DYKN) has reached the the PEIS limit, meaning the newest noms are no longer appearing on the page (instead showing up as a link at the bottom). I went through the list and pinged editors in stalled nominations (usually when it has been over a week since the last response). Other editors have been more diligent than me in doing this, but this is only a temporary fix.

WP:DYKUBM says the community chooses when to activate a new backlog mode, as the 2021 RFC closed as inconclusive. The previous implementation of backlog mode was activated after a similar PEIS problem was posted here. The last DYKN backlog mode ended June 12.

Should we consider implementing WP:DYKUBM? If so, when should it be activated? Editors interested in avoiding the backlog mode can review some noms (which can be used as QPQs later). Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA had reached the PEIS limit earlier today, just barely for each. DYKN is back below the limit, at least at the moment, but DYKNA is now up to three days (thirteen noms) that aren't transcluding. Maybe we should hold off on backlog mode to see if the DYKN page can avoid serious PEIS limit issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
This might be unpopular, but we could also try timing out older nominations and see if that will help clear DYKN's backlog. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
might be a good place to note that Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count does not count noms that fail to transclude because of PEIS errors; see User:GalliumBot/transfem/DYK hook count for a patched version. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Fundamentally, there's only three possible courses of action:
  1. Process more nominations per day via WP:DYKUBM and/or WP:DYKROTATE
  2. Start rejecting pending nominations per your choice of criteria
  3. Don't worry about it
These discussions always tend to ramble on, but it really comes down to deciding which of those three things we want to do. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I personally want to chip in and say that maybe we just need a more consistent cycle of moving prep areas into queues. I think the current system of filling to 6 or 7 queues, then waiting some few days till it's down to 3 or 2 and then filling it back up is just not working really well. It's great to help save time, and we're volunteers after all, but in reality, it is playing a part in these backlogs because it doesn't create a repetitive cycle. Again, I'm not entirely sure it's possible considering we're volunteers, but ideally, prep areas would be moved daily into queues to continue allowing for approved noms to be moved to prep areas, and in turn, allow for a reduction of the approved backlog and give space for pending noms to be approved, thus reducing the pending backlog too. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@SonOfYoutubers if I may be so bold, when walking into a space where people have a lot of experience and you have very little, it's rarely useful to lead with "Let me tell you folks what you're doing wrong". A better tactic would be to ask "What can I do to help?"
How things flow between the preps into the queues is sometimes a problem, but as long as we have 3-4 queues full, it's not a big deal. But, if that's an issue which concerns you, you could help there by looking over the preps, finding problems (hooks not supported by the sources, etc), and either fixing them or bringing them here for discussion. Getting problems fixed early is a big help. When I promote a queue, the ideal case is I don't find any issues at all and I'm done in 15-20 minutes. Once problems start cropping up, it can stretch out to several times that, especially if the problem is so bad that a hook needs to get pulled.
But, that's not the problem at hand. There's four different places a nomination can live as it winds its way through the system: WP:DYKN, WP:DYKNA, the prep areas, and the queues. While the flow can get disrupted at the transition points between any pair of those, that's not the problem here. You need to look at the whole DYK system as a black box. Regardless of the details inside the box, if you keep putting more stuff into the box than you take out, eventually the box will fill up. When that happens, refer to my list above of ways to deal with it. I suppose I could add "Stop accepting new submissions" to the list, but that's not going to happen. RoySmith (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith I didn't say anything about yall doing anything wrong, I thought I was quite respectful actually, although I can understand if you saw otherwise, my apologies. You're not doing anything wrong, I'm just wondering if it could be more efficient. I more of said what I said because it was just a proposal I thought could potentially help solve the backlog problems that seem to develop quite a bit. While it's true that the transition points don't seem to be a problem, it is because it extends the length in which hooks have to spend in each period (awaiting, approved, prep, queue). A perfect analogy is that one experiment where they drove cars in a circle, and they demonstrated that traffic could just appear out of nowhere just because of small stops that drivers do. Think of these small stops as the transition points, and the cars as the hooks waiting to move past these points. They slowly begin to stack and create a traffic jam and then that can be representative of a backlog. TLDR, I still think a more continuous cycle could help. In fact, another perhaps crazier idea, but why can't more prep areas/queues be created? I have no clue, and I don't see how to verify, how long there's been 7 preps and 7 queues, but perhaps it's time to create at least just a few more, maybe up to 10 each. I'm well aware that this could be complicated, but it would be satisfying to see someone put the effort through to create some more. DYK has grown quite a bit, and Wikipedia in general has grown, so I think its individual components should grow proportionally to accommodate for the increase in size. I'm just giving these ideas to help, and I know they're each a little crazy, but sometimes you need crazy solutions to fix some problems. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Serge de Beaurecueil (nom)

  • ... that after spending a "wretched childhood" dreaming of journeying to a faraway land, Serge de Beaurecueil became the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan?

@M.A.Spinn, Darth Stabro, and SonOfYoutubers: This is a rather exceptional claim and thus requires exceptional sourcing. Are we sure from the source, or from sources in general, that he really was the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan during his time? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Our article Catholic Church in Afghanistan indicates that he was the only Catholic priest to be actively preaching, but there were other Barnabite chaplains engaged in work for the Italian embassy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    An embassy of course is an exclave of its home country; Barnabites in the Italian embassy are not "in Afghanistan" legally speaking. Serge de Beaurecueil was the only Catholic priest in the sovereign territory of Afghanistan. M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Even if we accept this legal argument, unless the embassy priests never stepped foot outside the embassy door, that is not quite true. I don't have access to The Student's Companion to the Theologians, but I did find https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/christianity/Beaurecueil-bio.pdf which says "In the midst of a Muslim community, Serge lived his life as a Dominican friar and priest. He was the only Catholic priest in the country." so I'm inclined to accept this as suitably sourced. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    The author of that article is also the expert and English-language biographer of De Beaurecueil; he developed his work from autobiographical sources as well as from the French-language biographical work of Jean-Jacques Perénnès who I believe belonged to the same religious community as him in Cairo (or was at least a skip and a hop away in Algeria). If we need to be more exactingly precise we can say "only Catholic priest in the Muslim community of Afghanistan." That being said his biographers insist heavily upon the only language. M.A.Spinn (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'm still not confident about this claim. Even with Afghanistan being an almost entirely Muslim country where Islam is the official religion, I find it hard to believe that he was the only active Catholic priest there during his time. If we absolutely must run that claim, it would probably need a qualifier (like "X claimed Serge de Beaurecueil to be the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan"), but right now, given how exceptional the claim is, I'm not seeing the current sourcing meeting the exceptional standards needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Just because the Catholic Church is prominent in many countries across the globe, that doesn't mean it is everywhere. The previously-linked Catholic Church in Afghanistan article says that in 2021, there were only 200 practicing Catholics. Until 1921, there was no Catholic presence at all and the embassy chapel built in 1921 was the only legal place of worship. It really isn't that extraordinary of a claim. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    To use the countability argument I've used before, the Catholic Church keep good records. I trust them to have an exhaustive list of their priests and where they're assigned. The idea that there might have been another priest in Afghanistan that they lost track of seems implausible. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, if this were an issue of documenting medieval history it would be much more contentious, but we're talking about as late as 1983. M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough. If consensus is that the sourcing is good enough, then let the hook run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    @RoySmith and M.A.Spinn: a 1989 New York Times article (accessible through WP:TWL) says "after 24 years as the only Roman Catholic priest permitted to work as such in Afghanistan, the Rev. Angelo Panigati...specifically [forbidden] to propagate his faith beyond the foreign community". I think we will need that "in the Muslim community" precision. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    ALT1: ...that after spending a "wretched childhood" dreaming of journeying to a faraway land, Serge de Beaurecueil became the only Catholic priest serving the Muslim community in Afghanistan? M.A.Spinn (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    That's really not fair, dredging up reliable sources which contradict perfectly good logical arguments :-) BTW, a more easily accessible version here RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
    Alas I was sure that going "☝️🤓 The Italian embassy isn't legally Afghanistan" would suffice but this is more encyclopedic ultimately. M.A.Spinn (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Before I wipe yesterday's Errors, I thought I bring to the attention of Guerreroast (reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (prep promoter), and Crisco 1492 (queue promoter) that apparently, you have collectively produced a "clusterfuck of a hook" with regards to Edward L. Molineux. Just in case anyone is offended by this statement; maybe it's time to straighten out Therapyisgood with some ANI therapy. Last blocked in August 2023 for personal attacks by Rosguill. Schwede66 00:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I've been known to produce some clusterfucks in my time. Don't have the capacity to investigate this now; let me know who needs the trouting in twelve hours, 'kay? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't say its personal; it's directed at the hook. Also could not care if it was a personal attack. Roast (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • And this is why I burned out of DYK again so quickly. Main page talk hasn't changed in a decade. It's just the players.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

DYKINT feedback

I just pinged #not interesting? above and learned by comments from User:Gatoclass and User:Theleekycauldron that the proper approach to a WP:DYKINT objection is to appeal here rather than the nomination page. I had some problems with a recent nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Matakis for DYKINT. First off, Poker players are hard to DYK because they usually don't get enough press to full flesh out a bio. Most poker player bios are focused on various championship or final table achievements and huge payouts. This bio is no different. I haven't been doing many poker bios lately, but this guy is from Minnesota where my sister lives so I decided to dig in. It is not likely to even get 2k views if it were to run.

Sorry long preamble. Bottom line is I didn't feel like fighting about running this one, but since I realize I never properly approached the DYKINT appeal, I should mention it here. This article is only 2 weeks old and was timely nominated. I think the most interesting thing is that he won a 2023 World Series of Poker championship while he was simultaneously seated at a table competing in a live tournament while competing on his phone in another tournament online. In 2024, the poker world changed the rules to discourage this type of behavior, although they did not cite him specifically. I think the fact that the poker world changed the Player of the Year formula in response to this makes it an important fact and the topic that should run on DYK. I was discouraged from pursuing that hook. If anyone could phrase that fact in a manner befitting of DYK, I imagine it is still possible that dispensation could be allowed to reopen this nom due to its youth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally find the first hook to be interesting, though a bit wordy. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
"that Ian Matakis once won a poker tournament while competing in two simultaneously" is a fine hook, and I don't think Naruto should have marked it for closure and closed it. I'm inclined to reopen.--Launchballer 04:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Launchballer, I am happy to discuss refinements from your ALT3 if it is reopened.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I often have gotten feedback that I am trying to cram too much into hooks on DYK, but feel you have really chopped it down. Open for discussion though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has.--Launchballer 04:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
agree, there's a decently interesting core to that hook and Launchballer nailed it. I think NLH5 and Tony talked past each other a bit there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I reopened it.--Launchballer 04:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7

Does this meet DYKINT? After all, the number of songs that have been played live by artists who hadn't yet actually recorded them must be immense. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, the hook does not meet DYKINT and is frankly a boring hook. Pinging nominator Damian Vo for a replacement hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
How about:
... that New York City has been described as a "stupidly fun B-side"?
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20231011181609/https://www.smh.com.au/culture/music/every-kylie-minogue-song-ranked-170-1-20230906-p5e2dk.html TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite Not super familiar with the subject, so I wasn't aware that it's not rare to play a song before it being fully recorded, my fault. Is the newly proposed hook better? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are two more:

... that a remix of Kylie Minogue's "New York City" was made to commemorate WorldPride NYC 2019? (Source)
... that Kylie Minogue's "New York City" contains elements of Mylo's "Drop the Pressure"? (Source from the booklet of the album)

– Damian Vo (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It might be better to go with SonOfYoutuber's proposals as both require more "specialist" (for DYK purposes) knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Given that this is supposed to run on the 4th and the issue remains unresolved, I've pulled it from Queue for now. Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

PSHAW overwriting DYKbotdo on pulls?

@Theleekycauldron Regarding Special:Diff/1303420161, is it intentional that the {{DYKbotdo}} template got overwritten when a hook was pulled? I'm not worried about losing credit or anything like that, just wondering if this was an intentional design decision or a bug? RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

ugh, bug, my bad. will work on fixing it theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
should be fixed now? ping me if there's more issues :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

More Jilly Cooper nominations

Hello folks, As there fhave been a couple of instances where readers have felt there was too much Jilly Cooper in DYK, I wanted to get views on what promoters think would be OK for me to have going through the process? My proposal is to nominate five at a time, then let them run and feature, then repeat the process (twice more, I think). This would avoid there being too many noms for promoters to space out. Does this sound OK? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that 1) we have more nominations in general than we can handle and 2) people have complained specifically that we're running too much Jilly Cooper, why don't we just stop running those? RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Would it be possible to do multi-article hooks? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Why nominate in bundles and not just one by one whenever, wouldn't that naturally space them out in a better way? Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that, even if nominations are done one-by-one, if they're close enough, it could still result in a run of constant Jilly Cooper hooks. Also, with how our workflow works, spacing nominations won't mean much if they're still promoted in quick succession. Unless people are willing to run a Jilly Cooper themed set, which I doubt would ever gain consensus, perhaps the best option would be to simply hold off on the Jilly for a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
We don't want to stem an editor's workflow, if that's the articles they're doing. I think we should be perhaps more comfortable rejecting noms that don't really have anything hook-worthy, if the noms are in a mass theme group, but even if they all get approved there are more workable solutions. Even just throwing them all into SOHA spaced out to however infrequently we deem sufficient (then naturally rejecting any further noms once they go past six weeks' worth). Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
We don't want to stem an editor's workflow, if that's the articles they're doing Why not? I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but my feeling is that DYK's strength is not just showing off new content but also new content creators. Getting a hook on DYK is a relatively low bar compared to most of the other main page departments, and this makes it a great way to let new editors know their contributions are appreciated. I'd rather we concentrate on that mission than run the 100th article from somebody who writes about a narrow range of topics. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Eh, if they were just over the length minimum and copy-pastes of other similar articles, maybe, but the Jilly Cooper articles that I looked over from the OP seem to be high-B class to low-GA quality. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I think there's a balance, Roy. It'd be an interesting thing if we're getting enough nominations from newbies to sustain sets, to focus on those, and see what happened. But what I meant was, the Cooper articles ultimately improve Wikipedia and if making a DYK nom out of it is someone's motivation to get them to that standard, well, I'm not taking that encouragement away. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I occasionally try to scan WP:NPP and WP:AFC to see if there are any viable articles from non-regular contributors which could be nominated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I suggest that you work on a tranche of articles in your userspace and try for one or two big hooks with a dozen articles in them. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I find the Jilly Cooper articles a lot more acceptable than the seemingly endless parade of very obscure sportspeople in set after set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also be happy to see fewer obscure sportspeople :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - I appreciate all the different views and the honesty. It seems to me from the comments above that a middle ground is for multi-article nominations where possible with maybe a couple at most running for nomination at one time? I think I might struggle to find a link for a dozen in one hook (as suggested by Guerillero, but I can certainly try to group them together. There is one as-yet-unwritten article that I think would still be a good stand alone: it is a survival guide to Christmas (which I thought might make a potential contribution to a festive set). Happy editing Lajmmoore (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (3 August 00:00)

Emirto de Lima

@SonOfYoutubers, Arconning, and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: There's extensive WP:CLOP vs https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/921721. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There's some CLOP but it's not extremely extensive, so hopefully @Arconning or @DaniloDaysOfOurLives can make some small edits to the article (or I can, but let me know, as promoter, if I'm allowed to). Here's all the instances I see on the article:
  • "...he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father."
  • "...was the Honorary Consul in Barranquilla for Liberia and Honduras." (This one is meh because I don't know how you could reword it but I'm sure there's a way.)
  • "He then published his first music compositions in 1911. By the late 1920s, de Lima had been active on radio as a conductor."
  • "The following year, he would establish the Philharmonic Orchestra of Barranquilla and continue his work as a music critic."
  • "He later died on 14 August 1972 as a result from injuries stemming from a traffic accident."
Let me know if I missed any, and again, let me know if I'm allowed to make edits and fix these issues. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
You need to look at more than just the text highlighted in red by Earwig. It's not "he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father" It's
Growing up in Curaçao, he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father. He was further educated by Felip Pedrell in Barcelona and then Vincent d'Indy at the Schola Cantorum de Paris
De Lima first studied piano and violin alongside his father in Curaçao, then with Pedrell in Barcelona and finally at the Schola Cantorum de Paris under Vincent D’Indy.
Other passages are similar. RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't use earwig, I just looked manually. Also, that doesn't read like close plagiarism, because how else could you word the rest of that paragraph? Perhaps if there's more information online about this part of his life, it could be filled in-between with more information, but if not, then I think the article version is fine. The specific part,"...he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father.", I highlighted because of the "alongside" specifically which makes it seems like an almost direct rip from Olympedia, so I think that part should be reworded. The rest is fine. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, essentially three out of four body paragraphs are copyright violations. I'd recommend pulling immediately, because whatever article emerges from the rewrite will not be the same as the one which was reviewed in the first place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll fix 'em in a day or two! :) Arconning (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. As you work on this, please keep in mind what WP:CLOP says: Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. So just swapping out one word for a synonym or shuffling the order of words in sentence isn't the right stragegy. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
@SonOfYoutubers I believe I'm finished... needing some help for the wording though... Arconning (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Arconning As far as I can tell, the wording is fine. I don't see any semblance of close-close paraphrasing anymore. There are certain parts that are similar, but as I stated before but was seemingly glanced over, there is no other way to word it; How many ways can you word someone learning the piano and violin from their father and teachers?
That said, in the case that there may be still some concern of close paraphrasing from the other users, I'd say the closest phrases are the following:
  • "He had learned how to play the violin and piano from his father, and teachers Felip Pedrell and Vincent d'Indy while Emirto was located in Europe."
  • "He was the first person to publish local traditional music in Colombia; he composed music titled "Folklore Colombiano" in 1942."
  • "He later died on 14 August 1972 after succumbing to untreated injuries stemming from a traffic accident due to inadequate resources in the area needed to heal him."
These seem the most similar to me and can maybe be improved through the following rewordings:
  • "While living in Curaçao, de Lima was taught how to play the violin and piano by his father. Later while located in Barcelona and Paris, he was further educated by Felip Pedrell and Vincent d'Indy, respectively."
  • "In Colombia, de Lima became the first person to publish local traditional music, composing music under the title "Folklore Colombiano" in 1942." (IMPORTANT: I found this source, Emirto de Lima, from Banrepcultural, that provides some more information on the content of this book. You can 100% include this content within this sentence or in another sentence, I urge you to do so because it helps expand the information in the article and avoids any accusation of close plagiarism since it combines two sources to form a unique, more informative sentence or pair of sentences.)
  • "After being involved in a traffic accident, de Lima succumbed to his injuries on 14 August 1972. His injuries were left untreated due to inadequate resources in his area needed to heal him."
I hope these help make the article more lyrically unique! Additionally, please look out for any grammar errors in the article. For example, I saw a few times that "de Lima" started a sentence, which should be corrected to "De Lima" as per English grammar capitalization conventions; any other references of "de Lima" that do not begin a sentence are grammatically correct. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Update: I only just realized, but perhaps this need not be an Olympics-related hook at all. I think being the first to publish local traditional music, supported by two reliable sources, is quite interesting in and of itself. Just a consideration, something like "... that Emirto de Lima was the first to publish local traditional Colombian music in 1942, under the title "Folklore Colombiano"? is potentially possible, with maybe minor rewordings if needed. Just a consideration! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@SonOfYoutubers I've done some more... let me know if I've done enough! Arconning (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@Arconning Everything looks fine to me, pinging @RoySmith and @Narutolovehinata5 for their feedback. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

S-1 (supercomputer)

I approved this one, so someobody else will need to review it here. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Doing.--Launchballer 18:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Mostly checks out, although I've never heard of the "Cray-1" and would recommend trimming.--Launchballer 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Cray-1 is pretty significant and had wide name recognition in society. If you were born after 1990, then you wouldn’t have grown up with it or heard its name. But if you read about computer history, you would have certainly come across it. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
The Cray-1 was a very big deal in computing history and since it's linked, our readers can find out about that as well. Win-win. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Black Kite and Viriditas above. The Cray-1 was a very big deal. Prior to distributed supercomputers it was the thing. TarnishedPathtalk 23:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
And where else are you going to find something which is simultaneously a supercomputer, a space heater, and a neat looking piece of office seating. RoySmith (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I've never touched or even seen one in real life. Are they comfy? More to the point, Cray was the definition of supercomputing back in the day. —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Phyllis Edness

@Hilst, Arconning, It is a wonderful world, and WikiOriginal-9: Perhaps we don't want to have two Olympics hooks in the same set? Also, WP:CLOP vs https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/65356 and https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/65360 RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've moved the hook to prep 6. I'm not that familiar with the articles, so I'll let the other guys check the CLOP issues. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Eschiva of Bures

@Surtsicna, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and SonOfYoutubers: I'm not seeing where in the article or source it says that the message sent to Sepphoris was a "plea for help", rather than just a message. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah I see what you mean. When I skimmed the article the first time, I think I picked up on the former requested help from Saladin and conflated that with Eschiva sent a messenger on horseback to Sepphoris. RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The article says that she sent a rider to tell her husband that the enemy was about to storm the town. If it is possible to interpret such a message as just a casual FYI, we have two other hooks to choose from. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The article outlines how Raymond and Eschiva had planned, should Tiberias fall, to evacuate onto boats and wait on the Sea of Galilee until the Jerusalem army returned (Braun & Razi 1992, p. 218). Unless your "interpretation" is that Eschiva immediately forgot about this careful plan when Saladin besieged and sent a message pleading for help, I'd prefer to follow the bare facts of the sources: "The messenger informed King Guy of Lusignan, Raymond III of Tripoli—the husband of Princess Eschiva—and the barons that Saladin had laid siege to Tiberias early that morning and that his men were about to storm the town." (Braun & Razi 1992, p. 217). No indication of "pleading for help". Of the other two hooks, I prefer ALT2, which focuses more on the hook subject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

DYK-nomination-wizard.js

is at least partially broken. It just threw repeated errors for correct grammar because it's coded to require a space character after the word "that". For plenty of hooks people are writing, there should be commas around an opening dependent clause and that's perfectly fine. — LlywelynII 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing yesterday. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Tweaks after set has been verified

Hi AirshipJungleman29 I have reverted this edit as I had already checked and signed off this set, and I don't particularly think changes were needed to the links and texts and they had been agreed through the process by the nom, reviewer and checked by myself. Changes in prep are fine but once a set is signed off and ready to go, IMHO only hooks with errors should be changed, or through a clear consensus on this page. Not sure if guidelines say otherwise? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think improvements should be reverted because Process Has Not Been Followed (and I don't see a strong need for process here). If you think your version is superior, by all means revert, but in my views hooks are open to edits by all TEs until they hit cascade protection. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Airship's edit was an improvement. And WP:OWN should apply here as just as it does everywhere else. Best practice is to ping the nominator if you alter a hook post-promotion, but failure to do that doesn't justify WP:OWNership of the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Obviously I think mine was an improvement (WP:DYKTRIM reasons, if nothing else is in the guidelines) but I also don't care enough to revert, and will try to restrict fiddling to prep sets in future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, well I wouldn't revert purely for procedural reasons if I thought the changes were an improvement, but in this case I didn't particularly believe that they were. And on the more general point, the process is set up the way it is so that admins and trusted set builders promote and sign off sets of hooks. With no disrespect to Airship, who does sterling work at DYK and obviously edited in good faith in this case, my view is that if there are constant tweaks happening then it's not really a sign-off process any more because you have to keep checking back to see if the changes introduce issues etc. I suppose the person doing the tweak could sign and take ownership of the individual hook, but for what purpose? I wouldn't generally go and make changes to someone else's signed off set because I assume they've done the due diligence and are happy with it the way it is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Great, now Launchballer has reverted the revert which is borderline WP:WHEEL warring given that this is a protected template not editable by anyone except template editors and admins. I don't want to seem like I'm fighting over minor issues, which clearly this is, but I just think if this project is to work smoothly then we should trust each other and not be constantly treading on the toes of others. That set has my name at the top because I worked all day today going through the set making sure it was all tip-top. It's a lengthy process, and I'm also involved with POTD regularly which is also hard work. This episode just means I'll be slightly less likely to help out in future because this sort of stress isn't what I'm on this project for. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Also I've just noticed that that was the set which was requested above to focus on women/women's works...was that forgotten about, or what? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Finding articles recently 5x expanded

It's easy to find articles that are recently created or moved to mainspace, just by searching WP:NPP and WP:AFC. Does anyone know a way of finding articles that have recently been significantly expanded? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. I did a quick and dirty query for all mainspace pages that have been edited in the past 7 days and are more than 1500 bytes. It's a little under 1 million revisions to explore. But that's raw page size. We're interested in readable prose size, so you'd have to get all of those revisions and parse them to get the readable prose. That's starting to look intractable to solve in the general case.
I suppose a good heuristic would be to only compare the version that exists now with the version that existed 7 days ago, ignoring all the intermediate edits. That's going to miss a few but for the purpose of "Let's find some likely DYK candidates", it's probably good enough. I need to think on this a bit. I suppose you could also say "the ratio of raw size to readable prose size is probably more or less constant", which would let you do a first pass at the 5x filtering inside the SQL query. Again, not strictly true, but good enough for our purpose. That should help a bunch. RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The key question

As I've read over the mountains of stuff people have written on this page over the past few years, I've slowly come to the realization that people here fall into one of two camps:

  • People who are here to put something into DYK
  • People who are here to get something out of DYK

Ask yourself which is you. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing something obvious, neither are particularly negative. EF5 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't even get what it's trying to say. There is nothing to get out of DYK so everyone here is trying to improve the project. What would be an example of the kind of editor the "key question" was trying to passive aggressively complain about? — LlywelynII 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how either camp is mutually exclusive. They don't contradict, and I imagine there's overlap between the two. For example, an editor who focuses on a "niche" topic and wants it to be better known, but still working within the guidelines to create an appealing and interesting hook that gets attention beyond that niche. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Surely the key question to ask should be "how are my contributions at DYK improving Wikipedia". And I think both the givers and takers you describe can improve WP through DYK in different ways. Kingsif (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're trying to say. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that some people are here to do work for the good of the project. Other people are here to take advantage of the fist group for their own benefit. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
How is anybody taking advantage of anyone?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I don’t believe that. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 12. We have a total of 361 nominations, of which 199 have been approved, a gap of 162 nominations that has decreased by 5 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"Interesting" feedback

Medievalfran and I&I22 are suggesting the hooks below and the reviewer,Surtsicna, does not think they were interesting.

    • ALT1: ... that in 2010, activist Andrea Enisuoh and Hackney residents campaigned to keep the name of their local library, honouring Trinidadian writer CLR James? Source: "Andrea Enisuoh". Women From Hackney's History. 1. The Hackney History Society (Friends of Hackney Archives): 45.

Could pagewatchers give some feedback on whether either hook is interesting and whether the sourcing is adequate as one is a "first" hook? It is Medievalfran's third nomination. TSventon (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ALT1 is fine from a DYKINT perspective I think, it's probably just whether the "first" claim is well enough sourced. ALT2 is also okay for interest, though it might perhaps be phrased a little better. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with a multi-article hook

Hello everyone, I am planning on trying to promote a hook with Michael Zimmermann, Dwight Frazer, Jim Denney (ski jumper born 1957), Pam Dreyer, and Vida Ryan. It is not ready yet, however, I would like to know the proper process for making a multi-article nomination. Would I make one main nomination page and redirect the rest or what? The planned hook is ... that Michael, Dwight, Jim, Pam, and Ryan were all Olympians? History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

At WP:DYKCNN, there is an tickbox for creating multi-article hooks. This does all the legwork for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, thank you very much. :), History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
@History6042: I'd question whether a broad audience would have sufficient knowledge of The Office (American TV series) to get the reference.--Launchballer 21:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I will attempt to submit it once it is ready and if it is found that it is not good enough I will figure out a different hook for each one separately. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed here. A fan of The Office might get it, but the reference might be lost with the average reader (I personally would not have gotten the reference either given that I've never watched it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I will just submit them each as individual hooks. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
You have to be careful though. There has been pushback recently against having too many Olympics hooks, so my suggestion would be to spread the nominations out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Or submit hooks which have interesting facts about them, other than the Olympics. TarnishedPathtalk 07:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, was that a reference? Yeah, completely missed that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Drygalski Glacier (Tanzania)

Queue 2 has that it was reported that a glacier on Africa's highest peak had disappeared by 2022? That's sourced to a tour operator Tranquil Kilimanjaro, who seem to be the ones doing the reporting. However, looking elsewhere, and this paper published in 2024 (Hinzmann, Anne; Mölg, Thomas; Braun, Matthias; Cullen, Nicolas J; Hardy, Douglas R; Kaser, Georg; Prinz, Rainer (2024-03-01). "Tropical glacier loss in East Africa: recent areal extents on Kilimanjaro, Mount Kenya, and in the Rwenzori Range from high-resolution remote sensing data". Environmental Research: Climate. 3 (1): 011003. doi:10.1088/2752-5295/ad1fd7. ISSN 2752-5295.) is a lot more reticent, refusing to say conclusively that it's gone. It notes that the 2021 data measured Drygalski at 0.41 km^2 and also called for more observations of the Northern Ice Field to check the existence of the all of glaciers, including those thought vanished, given how small these remaining ice fragments might be if still present. I mean, I'm personally ready to believe that the glacier is well and truly gone by now, given how rapidly it has been melting, but I feel like for a hook there should be better sourcing than a commercial sight-seeing business. (My personal experience with travel companies like this does not give me a great deal of faith in their reliability; there's one in my area that apparently liked to tell tourists that I personally have been going on a sort of pilgrimage to a local glacier since the 1990s. Hilarious, but yeah take anything they say with a grain of salt)

Pings: @Amakuru as article author and @Narutolovehinata5 as alt hook writer, then courtesy pings to @Surtsicna as reviewer, and @SonOfYoutubers as promoter and @Gatoclass as queue person (sorry to bother you twice in one twenty-four hour period!) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging, @GreenLipstickLesbian. Is it not still true that "it was reported"? The source is indeed suboptimal, but it did not strike me as outright unreliable. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
True, but a DYK hook saying "it was reported that X is true" when the actual RS-es refuse to make that claim, or even repeat the claim (because surely they googled the name of the glacier and had that blog post pop up, it's the first result in Google for me), then that's a bit problematic imo. Otherwise, we could make pretty much any hook we wanted to using sources later confirmed to be inaccurate, or contradicted by RS-es.
Also, when I go and add the part about the fact that a study published in 2024 listed it as an extant glacier and called for further observation, then the reader is going to feel very let down or confused and then yay it's happy fun times at ERRORs. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Good catch(!), although, as Surtsicna said, the hook doesn't have any problem, just needs a better source. If one can, please do add that source to the article wherever it needs such sourcing, it will help strengthen it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the hook could be modified to be "had almost disappeared" or wording to that effect, if a better source cannot be found? 0.41 km^2 does seem negligible. If this can't work out, unfortunately we may have to pull the hook.
@DYK admins: Given that it's scheduled to run tomorrow, could the hook be pulled or bumped? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Pulled. TBH, I would have pulled this myself last night except that I saw Amakuru was the nominator, and that made me question my judgement. On closer inspection of the nomination though, he did not endorse that particular hook, so that was an oversight on my part - apologies. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, yes apologies, I found this article as a stub and expanded it as part of the recent destubathon. The article already declared the glacier as gone when I found it, so I perhaps naively assumed that this was a given, even though I could only find a weak source to support it. It seems like someone ought to know if it's still there, given that hiking parties go up frequently, but who knows. My initial proposal focused on a different aspect of the glacier which was deemed to be of insufficient interest, and this one was workshopped in later without me being involved much. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

2024 Sampang regency election - murder or killing?

Currently in Queue 3 as that a murder resulted in five company-sized units of police, soldiers and marines being sent to secure the 2024 Sampang regency election?.

Small issue: hook and article say "murder", currently cited sources don't seem to back that up.

(source in nom) were published within a few weeks of the killing, before the actual trial took place, and so describe it as a killing or slashing. , published after and quoting a member of the local district attorney's office, specifically says that the defendants were convicted on (only?) two charges: of a mob attack/assault resulting in death (Article 170 paragraph 2 KUHP) and breaches of an emergency law on carrying sharp instruments/weapons. Murder looks like it is governed by articles 338 of the current KUHP, and requires intent. I haven't seen any of the sources make reference to that, and I haven't been able to find anything in an RS confirming the perpetrators were convicted of murder. (Obvious disclaimer on the "trying to find new sourcing front": don't speak Indonesian, am working through Google translate, and don't have a good sense for the reliability of online Indonesian newspapers).

Courtesy pings to author @Juxlos, reviewer @Ippantekina, promoter @SonOfYoutubers, and queue-looker-over-person @Gatoclass. Am I missing something here? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 10:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Changed to "killing", thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
No issue with "killing" either. Sorry for the translation. Juxlos (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ShipGoo001

I'm a little concerned about the sourcing. There's a bunch of sources but they're all popular press picking up on a release from University of Minnesota Duluth. If this showed up at GA, I would definitely shoot down the sourcing. Maybe it's good enough for DYK, maybe not? Please take a look. RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Bumping nominator Tryptofish. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but there is actually more going on in those press stories, than just mirroring the university press release. There has been ongoing reporting of facts not available at the time of the press release, which indicates to me that there is ongoing interest. For example, the June 27 press release makes no claim as to what the putative new species is, not even whether it is archea or bacteria. However, subsequent news reports (doubtless getting their information from the university scientists, but those are the people working on it), dated July 17 and August 1, provide the new information that there are actually two new species, one of them an archea of a new order and the other a bacterium of a new phylum, as well as providing new information about where these organisms probably came from, a lubricant applied by the previous owners of the boat. There is also content all along, about how people are reacting to the news.
I don't think this is a GA, either, but I'm not claiming that. If this were a health-related science claim, then WP:MEDRS would apply, but that's not the case. The sourcing clearly passes WP:GNG. So I guess the question is whether we should require peer-reviewed scientific journal content in this case. As noted in the article, the university scientists say that they are preparing a scientific paper. Do we need to wait for that to be published? I don't think there is anything in policies or guidelines that would make that necessary or even desirable. I've been careful in writing the page, not to claim anything unsupported, and to use sufficiently tentative language, indicating what is preliminary or just apparent, as needed. The article doesn't make any claims that are not backed up by the cited sources, and the sources cited are reliable for those claims. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
My thought glancing at this article was that if it's not covered by WP:NSPECIES, I could see this being considered under WP:NEVENT? It seems like the notable thing isn't the organism quite yet, but the event of discovery. (at least, i've lost an article to that interpretation of policy.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think that pins it down very well. Obviously, something that the scientists are still calling "goo" isn't ready for NSPECIES, but as a discovery of something that is novel in so many ways, and that sources tell us is going to result in new species, makes this notable as, and source-able as, an event. The continuing news reports, coming out a month or more after the initial spike of news coverage, seem to me to satisfy NEVENT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
One of the things that struck me is that this is apparently not just the discovery of two new species, but potentially of both a new phylum and new order of species. That sounded very interesting and made me wonder why it wasn't the focus of the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The dumb answer to your question is that this information came out after the DYK nomination discussion was over. The more substantive answer is that I thought about coming back to propose that (I agree with you that this is very interesting), but I decided not to, because the sourcing still is pretty preliminary on that point. Putting that another way, to claim that in the hook, I would want to pass NSPECIES, and that would require the publication of a scientific paper with taxonomic names for the new phylum and order. In my opinion, "might contain a previously undescribed life form", which is the wording in the hook, hits the right spot. It's tentative enough to say ""might", and it doesn't claim what the new life form might be (or even that there might be two of them – but "life form" can be more than just a new species, like an order or phylum), but it's interesting and "hooky", and adequately sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
For whatever it might be worth, the Great Lakes Commission just issued an announcement about the discovery: . It's not really a source for the page, because it just says to see the CNN report that is already cited, but I think it's a little bit of further evidence of ongoing interest in the event, in this case from a between-nations governmental agency. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:DYKINT

Given recent discourse and events, I propose that the following be added to WP:DYKINT: Before reviewers close a nomination due to all hooks being deemed uninteresting, they should bring the nomination to WT:DYK to seek community input and consensus, and the opportunity for new hooks to be proposed. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I support this change DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. This encourages the mind-set that all nominations are presumed to be acceptable and that it's worth investing huge amounts of effort to salvage every one. That's the kind of mindset you adopt when you have so little material to work with that you're struggling to make your quota and enough people time to invest in routine remedial effort. We're in exactly the opposite sitation: we have more material than we can handle (see #PEIS limit reached on WP:DYKN above) and not enough people to handle the current workload. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - this is going to add more work to an already-overworked base. Also per RoySmith. EF5 16:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
This point really needs to be emphasized more on DYK. As much as it hurts to hear: not every article is meant to be for DYK. Not all articles are good fits, not all articles have hooky material, and not all articles can even meet the guidelines. Trying to force an article into DYK when it is not a good fit is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just frustrates nominators (and sometimes reviewers) if they don't turn out, and it diverts attention and effort away from more deserving or at least more feasible material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Support While I would prefer INT to be removed entirely as the purely personally subjective and unobjective or definable bureaucratic time-sink it is. Short of that, this is a small step towards that. INT is NOT at any point something that should be allowed to let a single voice shut down a rules valid nomination that would otherwise pass.--Kevmin § 16:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, we shouldn't make it extra hard for people to enforce the rules. If the nominator disagrees, they can always appeal here, but having the reviewer say that "Giovanni Doe is an Italian football player" is not interesting does not require community review. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose current formulation. Might support instead a note, per Kusma, that the nominator is free to appeal any decision, DYKINT or otherwise, at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as its expected that if the reviewer deems the hook to not be interesting, the nom should (ideally) provide another hook; if not, to request a 2nd (or 3rd?) opinion on whether the hook is interesting, normally via using {{subst:DYK?again}} or even via dispute resolution. JuniperChill (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose DS's proposed wording, although I support the right to appeal. If a hook does not meet the guidelines, it should be rejected, just like what happens when a hook fails other criteria. Nominations are rarely closed solely due to DYKINT anyway: as JuniperChill said, usually alternative hooks are first discussed, with closure being a last resort. I do agree that nominators should have the right to appeal closures for any reason, but it has to be made clear that appeals are not guaranteed to be successful, similar to how DYKSO makes it clear that exceptions to the time limit are not guaranteed. Ideally, our rules should be more straightforward, not less, and the proposed wording, while good intentioned, feels like instruction creep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
It's become pretty regular to face DYK submissions that are pretty terrible, yet still fit the bill to be posted and its sad. DYK hooks weren't always zingers for sure, but it's better than observations about a Canadian municipal SWAT team hiring the citys own regular police force.
Changing a some rules wording isn't really going to do much when the submissions are dire, and get through anyway. 73.217.76.59 (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

An alternate proposal, based on feedback from Kusma and AirshipJungleman29:

Nominations that are declined due to the reviewer finding the hook not to meet WP:DYKINT may be appealed at WT:DYK by the nominator up to [a week?] after the closing. If consensus is reached that an existing hook or a new hook can meet DYKINT, the nomination may be reopened.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The point was that this is not DYKINT specific. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
How about Nominations that are declined due to the reviewer may be appealed at WT:DYK by the nominator up to [a week?] after the closing. If consensus is reached that the nomination can be brought to standards, it may be reopened.? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
How about just adding, to the end of the second paragraph of the lead, "Nominations rejected by a reviewer may nevertheless be appealed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Short and sweet, fine by me. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the general approach, but it seems to me that "may be appealed" might suggest that appeals should be a matter of course, which would not be helpful. Suggested tweak: "Nominators have the right to appeal a rejection of their nomination at WT:DYK". Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I haven't seen any shortage of appealing with the current wording 😭 RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I think we also have to make it clear that this is talking about closures, not rejections. Editors, even DYK regulars, often mix up the two, but they're not the same. Rejection is the adding of a icon to a nomination, closure is the nomination being closed (usually after a rejection). Rejections can always be appealed by asking for a second opinion, usually with the icon. There is not necessarily a need to go to WT:DYK unless a third-party look by an uninvolved editor is explicitly requested. I also imagine that, in many cases, going to WT:DYK is not even necessary. Just bring it up with the closer, and most will be happy to re-open depending on the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
People can actually appeal anything on this page anytime they like. This was basically just a suggestion that a word or two be added to the guideline for the benefit of those who don't realize they can do that. So I don't see much point in trying to limit this to closures specifically. The idea here is just to let people know that when discussion has broken down on the nomination page, they have another option. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
All this would not be needed if a nom wasn't closed because of INT, or wasn't closed because of INT without first requesting a second opinion, or wasn't closed because of INT without giving the nominator a chance to request a second opinion. It might also help if a reviewer wouldn't pick a nom by someone whose different standards of what "interesting" means is known, or at least not almost every nom in such case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
There's also the option of proposing a new hook that meets the guidelines, instead of insisting that a hook actually is interesting, or asking for a new reviewer to approve the hook despite pushback from one or more editors. Actually, many issues with DYKINT closures could have been resolved by doing the former. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I can only nominate something I find interesting which will always be something specific to the subject. On this page we see two cases that brought us here, Klaus König, a tenor who made an exceptional career to one of the few heroic tenors in the world at his time, with highlights such as a concert after the fall of the Berlin Wall that made history, which was diminished in the hook that ran to a mediocre unspecific "operatic tenor career", and Julia Hagen, a cellist whose exceptional concert was recorded by Arte, but you rejected that and closed it for lack of interest, suggesting to say that she began at age four, which is commonplace and says more about her parents than her. Can we arrive at a broader approach to what's interesting? Can we hope that we can interest our audience in facts they don't yet know? If not, could others perhaps find a compromise idea for Hagen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Is König being both an accomplished operatic tenor and a house decorator not also something specific about him? I can't imagine there being that many opera performers who are also in the house decorating business. His article was also viewed over 4,000 times while he was on the Main Page (in contrast to other hooks which did 1,000-2,000 views), which suggests that readers did not agree that the fact was mediocre.
As for Hagen, what is it about her performance in particular that makes it special compared to other performances shown by Arte? Or are you suggesting that being featured on Arte is inherently special? If you really want Hagen to run and for the closure to be vacated, my suggestion is to find more information about her and expand her article. If something about her that can be found that meets the interest guidelines, then I will be happy to reopen the nomination, or otherwise support its reopening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Support. This only applies to hooks the reviewer finds uninteresting so I don't understand the pushback. Another idea appeals to me. I agree that Wikipedia should focus on human-centered and human-focused content generation, but I also think some bot tools can help us during the process. Given that it is fairly easy to identify hooks which generate interest, we could easily have a bot add a trust metric to each nominated hook as a kind of guidepost. I don't expect this idea to gain any support, but I think it is something we could use as a tool to help the reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I would like to point out here that most of us are not here to be the bleeding top of the clicks pile, which seems to be the purpose of your essay. Top performing hooks. I have asked before what the detriment to DYK is for a "low performing hook" is, and the general respose has been that it purportedly turns people away from the topic entirely. Problem with that answer is that its a fallacy predicated on the concept that if a hook doesn't get as many clicks as others the 25 million veiwers during the 12 hour run are all now scarred and will never click on that subject again. (to extend it to the full scope of the assertion). "Trust metric" is still going to be entirely a popularity contest voted on by a single person, and the metrics as laid out fully reflect that popular subjects will regularly get popular clicks, lesser known subjects get less clicks. (eg metric 1, A person has to have knowledge of a topic for there to be any assumptions to disrupt.)--Kevmin § 22:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that you would rather have a "niche" fossil hook whose article is only read by 2,000 readers, than a more "broadly-appealing" fossil hook that is read by 10,000, if the former hook shows the information that you like? I get being upset about the obsession with clicks, I do think we are getting overboard with that, but I really don't see the harm in proposing a "non-niche" hook either. It has to be emphasized that just because a topic is "niche" or gets less attention in general does not mean that hooks about them are inherently also going to be more "niche". A good hook about an underappreciated topic is still very much possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@Kevmin: You might be surprised to find that I completely agree with you. The "essay" you refer to wasn't written by me as the header makes clear, but a two-part LLM report I generated based on the "top performing" hooks and an investigation into the differences between German and American media consumers (as I was trying to investigate Gerda's POV). The only area we disagree is in the trust metric. I was intending for a bot to use criteria like the kind found in the report (just an example, the criteria would have to be decided upon) and then flag each nominated hook with a 1-5 rating. This would be used only to help guide reviewers trying to close out a nom, indicating that the hook received a general interest rating by the bot; no human input would be used for the rating other than determining the criteria. If it receives anything less than 2 from the bot, then the bot could post a short message at the general talk page informing them of a hook needing attention for interest-related concerns. Just thinking out loud. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Using a bot to determine interest is even worse than human decision-making. At least humans have empathy and can understand contexts. LLMs are glorified autocompletes and, while they have useful applications, subjective situations like are not among them. The most practical solution right now just seems to be the proposal here, which is to allow nominators to appeal rejections (which we already allow, it's just not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
You're mixing the two different things together. I used the LLM to generate a list of possible criteria for the purposes of illustrating an example; I did not propose anywhere that we should use an LLM to determine interest. I'm talking about a kind of script that we already use, such as checking for plagiarism, DYK eligibility, and other basic qualities. The bot would only compare the nominated hook to all other hooks that came before it based on their shared attributes. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry for mixing it up, but my point stands regardless. I really don't think that something as subjective as hook interest is something that a bot, a script, or whatever should determine. Other criteria like newness and length are at least objective criteria so those are more feasible (we trialed a bot that checked such criteria around 2016, I can't remember why we never implemented it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree that hook interest is subjective, but I think you also agree that we have a list of the top-performing hooks and time-sensitivity and images aside, there is a shared set of attributes that we can draw on to give it a number from 1-5. This is veering off-topic so this will be my last comment on this at the moment, but as an example: if we look at all of your comments on the nomination pages where you decry the lack of interest, surely we can codify your 100+ objections in a way that a bot would understand and then use it to give a rating to new noms? Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but it's probably for the best not to do something like this. Editors cannot even agree on what counts as an "interesting" hook, as this and other discussions have shown, so even having a fixed set of criteria will not please everyone. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, I agree. My point is to filter out the noms that are probably uninteresting and flag them for comment. It would not be to promote the interesting ones. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I oppose further encouraging disputes here, which flows against the vague ideas floating around to try and concentrate discussions more on nom pages rather than here. On the topic though, there is a related issue in that there is zero incentive for third-party comments on DYK. A new reviewer cannot approve their own proposed hook (necessitating two third-party interventions if a nominator does not produce alts), original reviewers do not benefit (and risk a FIXLOOP), and nominators may simply see it as parts of the bureaucracy fighting. This applies to all aspects of third-party editing, but DYKINT hooks are a good example. Trying to bring DYKINT discussions to this forum might address this to some extent by forcing it in front of faces, but such discussions can get ignored here too. CMD (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. If you don't like DYKINT, propose abolishing it; don't propose making it so unworkable that reviewers feel compelled to accept every nom to avoid a protracted dispute here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - if you are proposing something for DYK, the entire idea is to get people to read the article. If you can't tell me something that might get me to read an article that I have no preexisting interest in, then either 1) you aren't as good of a writer as you think or 2) the article itself is not a good fit for DYK. Really, if someone is continually proposing boring hooks and refusing to compromise, the thing to do is have that person not work on DYK.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

A thought

The thing about DYKINT closures is that they're relatively rare. In practice, they usually only happen if: 1. an article does not have any other suitable material, or 2. all possible hook options have been exhausted (this includes the nominator or reviewer(s) rejecting new proposals). Rejecting nominations solely due to DYKINT is rare, immediate rejection instead of trying to first discuss alternative options is even rarer. In cases where a hook's interest is disputed, shouldn't the solution be to first discuss new hooks? If a reviewer thinks that a hook is not interesting, why not propose a new hook instead of insisting that the hook is interesting after all? If nothing else is feasible, then maybe the original hook can be reconsidered, depending on the circumstances. In many cases, an "uninteresting" hook may have an interesting core, and it is just a matter of rewording to reach a satisfactory outcome. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

They USED to be rare, this has been the spring and summer of every third topic discussion being in some way a debate as to if a hook is boring or not.--Kevmin § 22:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, maybe much of this arguing could be avoided if editors would try to propose interesting hooks first, rather than getting upset at the rules and people complaining. For example, it's not impossible to make a non-technical hook about fossils, just think of hooks as a parallel to WP:ONELEVELDOWN. I get why people are upset about people saying that their hooks are "boring", but it's possible for editors to adjust and either modify or propose hooks, rather than doubling down. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I replied further up. How about a trial period of letting hooks run that you find not interesting, to give us a break? Two weeks of vacation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
DYKINT is currently one of our rules. It is not just Narutolovehinata5's personal opinion, but represents community consensus. If Narutolovehinata5 stops enforcing the rule, others will have to step up. Don't shoot the messenger. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
DYKINT is an established guideline, one that was implemented through consensus and an RfC. Why do you keep proposing hooks that do not follow it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that I said more than once that I can only nominate what I find interesting, or would be not honest to myself. Some operatic tenor career is not, and someone beginning to play early is not, and perhaps not not only for me, but for others as well? I can stop nominating again, as I tried in 2023, but then realised that it brings down German topics and opera topics. There were other voices above questioning if enforcement of interestingness is a good idea when we can't define what's interesting. Understood as it currently is, the enforcement narrows the topics and the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from nominating articles about classical music and opera for DYK. The issue has mostly been about the hooks, not the articles themselves. As a comparison, 4meter4 is also an editor who specializes in classical music and opera, and generally he has been able to propose hooks about those topics just fine, because he follows the guidelines like DYKINT. It is not about being honest with yourself, it is about following the guidelines and abiding by consensus. If you followed 4meter4's example, we would not even be having this discussion, and I assure you, Hagen's nomination would have never been rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say, but that may be my problem, perhaps of language. I can't nominate that someone began playing at age four, because I have no way to find that interesting. Do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
It did not even have to be that exact hook. I only proposed it because the article was so sparse on personal details (it's pretty much a resume in prose), and I couldn't find anything else that was not reliant on being a classical music expert. If you could find more information about her personal life and career and add it to her article, maybe something else usable can be proposed. Consensus was against running that cello angle anyway, so regardless, a new hook angle would have been necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I grant every performer the right to not wanting their personal life exposed. I said what I found interesting, her exceptional performance of course. I asked others what they thought about you rejecting that and closing, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Given that we have too many nominations and not enough people who help building prep sets and moving them to queue, I can't find fault with closing nominations where no rules compliant (this includes "interesting") hook has been found. It is tiring to argue this again and again. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
It happened to me only this one time, and I only asked what others thought. Back to the peer review of Bach where we all could do something constructive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Narrowing of facts is intentional. Narrowing of topics might happen as a side effect if nominators can't find other hooks, but I don't think it is necessarily a consequence. I would certainly like to see fewer "sportsperson played sports" hooks, just like I would like to see fewer "opera person sang opera" hooks. Overall, it is always good to resist the temptation to nominate an article for DYK if there is no good hook material in the article. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I, however, would like to read about a sports person whether she plays tennis or basketball (rather than what she did at age four), and about an operatic soprano whether she appears as Pamina or Isolde (rather than what she did on the side).

Herbert Brandl

Instead of looking back, can we look forward and find a hook for Herbert Brandl? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
We would be very happy to help find a hook for him, if you can promise to be open to suggestions instead of rejecting them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I know the feeling of having a hook rejected. I also know the feeling of someone else nominating something that I said I was afraid would happen. You can imagine what I'd propose for Brandl, but he's not my "baby", it's not music, I just added to what someone else began, and am already satisfied with the views. We could brainstorm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the start. You made my day! You didn't say it came too late - sorry about that. You didn't suggest he began painting at age four!! - I'll try to stay away from the nom and give others a chance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Viriditas for expanding the article and making it much better because more personal! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Input requested at PERM

A request for advanced permissions needs additional input from active members of this group. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks