Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:DYK admins)
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Archive header wording

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

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)[reply]

Please link to a couple pages as examples. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done a few weeks ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (18 July 00:00)

[edit]

Meg White (nom)

[edit]

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 [1], 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 [2] and [3]... 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)[reply]

Huh. I saw 'I'd promote' and thought I'd already checked it. My bad.--Launchballer 22:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Watagwaan, have you added all of that to the article? TarnishedPathtalk 06:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Everything involving Meg, yes! Watagwaan (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Urien

[edit]
merged discussion
Moved from Talk:Urien

@Tipcake, Soulbust, Sammi Brie, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29: the hook was pulled by Nyttend (talk · contribs) 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, so you may want to discuss whether a better hook is needed. TSventon (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there's no discussion on the errors page too. I thought that discussion is required to remove a hook already on the main page since the template is admin protected. JuniperChill (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why the hook says vernacular and the alternate hook explains this further, saying 'i.e. not in Latin or Greek'. Were the eight poems to be from Urien's time, they would be among the oldest literature in Europe that is not in Latin or Greek, this is part of what makes medieval Welsh (and Irish) literature so special! Tipcake (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook uses a superlative (oldest) so it should probably have been discussed at DYK talk per WP:DYKHOOK. Also the hook source seems to be offline so a quotation would be useful.
I don't know whether Nyttend did anything "wrong", but obviously it is helpful to inform involved editors when a hook is pulled. TSventon (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I am very open to how you would suggest emending how it should be worded. A recent magisterial paper that is available online regarding the subject is here, if this makes things easier to verify. Here are the last sentences of the paper, after forty pages discussing all prior material on the matter:

Did Greene succeed in proving that the Welsh panegyrics are no older than the ninth century? Definitely not. Historians and literary scholars should not assume that they are not contemporary with their subjects. Are they definitely sixth-century, then? There I have to echo Bergin in indecision and say: Ní fheadar.

— p. 218
Hence the 'may'. The only other non-Latin or Greek literature in Europe from the sixth century would be that of Colmán mac Léníni in Ireland, since all the other peoples of Europe either wrote in the Classical languages or were illiterate (based on our surviving documents, anyways)... Tipcake (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Regards this, please see my comment here! Thanks, Tipcake (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
PS, I agree with @Narutolovehinata5 that once the problems are fixed, this deserves another run. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you all, I have reopened the nomination, please comment there if you wish. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iblis re-Open

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have reopened the original nomination per the above and WP:NOTBURO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Skraban–Deardorff syndrome

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@DYK admins: a mop holder is needed to swap ALT2 to the now cascade-protected page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

1979 New York prison guards' strike

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I'm fine with changing it to labor union. JuniperChill (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the hook was just "union". I support changing it to "labor union". Apocheir (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drag in France

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Issues resolved; I've removed all the subsection headers because they felt like verging on editorialisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist) (nom)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is much more interesting -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Jolielover, could you please comment? Schwede66 18:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. jolielover♥talk 18:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this change. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Me (lyme & cybelle song) (nom)

[edit]

@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)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Will also edit the redirect page. JuniperChill (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: You're correct, of course. A small mistake by me. VirreFriberg (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Mop needed, aisle 2. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Verona Marjanović (nom)

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Robert Baker Park

[edit]
  • ... 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/George Garcia

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. I propose closing this.--Launchballer 12:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. We already know where you stand. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This repetitive WP:BLUDGEONing behavior is frankly appaling. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is it ok/possible for me to add the proposed hook to the nomination page? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Five-article hook in prep 7

[edit]

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)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

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)[reply]

avery r. young (nom)

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ben Franklin (song) (nom)

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Leafy46? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Missing comments on nom

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Admin edits to hook

[edit]

'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)[reply]

What are you talking about?--Launchballer 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1302088130"