Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

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]

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]
Why not use then any other of the approved ones instead? Or are they boring too? NeoGaze (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No other hooks were approved NeoGaze. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO: six editors approved the hook here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 23 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]
    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)[reply]
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)[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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about a double nom, with both subjects bold? To diminish bureaucracy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've reviewed Boating Party. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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]

@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)[reply]
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)[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]
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)[reply]
(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)[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]
put back into the April Fool's queue with a lowercase 'i', so, resolved! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Tengatenga (nom)

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

Claude-Charles Bourgonnier (nom)

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don Elliot Heald (nom)

[edit]
  • ... 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)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron we can link to Audichron: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 09:10, 25 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]
Usual nonsense about Chelsea Wolfe (see above). Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in hook in P5

[edit]

"... 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)[reply]

Done. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Is multi-hook length exemption still in effect?

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Current nominations that could be viable include: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

interesting?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That's a fair point. Will readd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Prep areas needing moving

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1302469118"