Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	TM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	TM:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

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

DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!
DYK is running 24-hour sets.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 22:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 22 hours ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYKWT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207

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

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

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

interesting?

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

... that many of Johann Sebastian Bach's manuscripts were lost because some family members did not care about preserving them? Prep 3
How is that interesting? At the time - 18th century - music was basically composed for the day, not to be repeated. Why would anybody care about preserving? Bach had that in common with all the others. It might be more interesting to know that we still do have hundreds of his autograph scores. We have many because his widow passed them to the city of Leipzig the year that he died. - Praise to her, not a general dismissal of relatives' not caring. - The other problem I have with the hook is that there isn't the slightest hint at music, - these "manuscripts" could be letters or poems. Interesting?
... that some people chanted "USA, USA!" at the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV? Queue 6
This had to be feared, is it worthy to be mentioned? The new pope identifies much more with Peru that the U.S., - should we really look narrowly on some who identify America with the U.S.? Interesting?

(on the first day this year that I am pleased with a hook for an article I wrote, Alena Veselá. I would have been more pleased had her expressive face been pictured for the 12 hours). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first hook will certainly be interesting to a wide audience. Only people with an intimate familiarity with Bach's world would know he was often writing, in a sense, throwaway pieces only meant to be played once (although I would dispute your wider claim that this was broadly true of composers of the period). ~~Although to be frank, I thought there were better proposed hooks for the Bach article than the one above~~.

With regard to the second hook - I agree it is not very interesting and not terribly pertinent to the topic. Having said that, it's probably of sufficient interest to pass muster. Hook selection is something of a hit-and-miss affair and there is always going to be a degree of disagreement about it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that "wide audience" first have to know Bach already? (... while I am told again and again I shouldn't rely on them knowing Verdi and Puccini, and we can't expect them to find about a linked opera?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very wide audience would certainly have some familiarity with Bach, given that, along with Beethoven and Mozart, he is one of the three most famous composers of all time. But only a very small number would be aware that most of his music was written for a single performance. That is the kind of fact that only classical music lovers would be likely to know. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a hook could be written about that (i.e. that most of his music was only intended to be performed once), and it's based on the article and has a source, I'd actually support a hook about it. Not because it's assumed knowledge (as Gerda says it is), but because it's an unexpected fact for a layperson. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the biography article, and have no time right now. Perhaps it has that of 200+ extant cantatas, we have one extant print (and know of one more which is lost), no more, - that tells a story of not writing for posterity. He wrote a cycle of cantatas for a year, and when he was done, wrote a second one, and the obit tells us of five (but not much is left of those), - same story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's levels of knowledge. A person may be well-known or a household name, but not everyone will know everything about that person. For example, many people know that Beethoven is a famous composer, but other than maybe a few well-known facts about him, such as him composing the Ninth Symphony/Ode to Joy and him being deaf later in life, not everyone is going to know every single detail about him. Or for a modern example, many people know who Taylor Swift is and that she's a singer, but there's information about her that not even all Swifties know about. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no argument there. Swift as a celebrity musician is inescapable, but I remain blissfully unaware of her catalogue :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bach hook is now on the main page. It says nothing about Bach, something negative about his relatives (which is unfair to his widow who did a lot to have his legacy retained in Leipzig, as said above). I wrote many DYK about his works, often saying that he composed a piece for a specific day (example from 31 October 2012: ... that John Eliot Gardiner performed Bach's cantatas for Reformation Day in the Schloßkirche, Wittenberg, including Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79?), - observant readers know that already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK was very different back in October 2012 and had much looser standards for hook interest. I cannot imagine that hook as currently written being allowed on DYK today especially with our current guidelines regarding making hooks interesting to non-specialist audiences. The Gardiner hook basically has a target audience of one, Gerda Arendt (and maybe strong Bach fanatics), whereas the current Bach hook is likely to interest even those with only a passing knowledge of Bach's works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Gardiner hook", and I say it was a hook about Reformation Day, about how Bach created different cantatas for that day, about the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage meaningfully visiting this specific church where the 95 theses had been openly published, which is all far beyond "Bach fanatism", and all unusual and educating = interesting, in my book. However, blaming relatives of a great person without saying how the person was great seems unfair to these dead people and not informative about the subject. I still fail to see how blaming those relatives was interesting for anybody. Best to be forgotten soon. View count was something like 5.6k more than normal, nothing spectacular. Views for Helena Tattermuschová were better. In 2012, I would have made her GA for a DYK. Now, a hook accepted would probably be that she came from a poor family with many children. No, thank you, better no GA then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem interesting to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the pope-related hook is that it is really quite crass from a religious POV. Religion is about (amongst other things) the brotherhood of man. So running a hook highlighting the employment of a tribalist chant at a major religious ceremony just seems inappropriate to me. But I get that secular people are going to be less sensitive to the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in that I am the writer of the Pope hook and am also a Catholic priest, and obviously as the hook writer don't find it inappropriate. If it's something that draws attention to the larger article and isn't straight up blasphemous or sacrilegious, it's fine by me. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I also prefer the updated version mentioned below, I promoted it in part because of the contrast - which was a more interesting part of the hook as a whole. Thinking, maybe nationalistic Americans will like this stuff, and everyone else will roll their eyes in 'can you believe that happened', with both attitudes IMHO making readers more likely to want to find out about the whole ceremony/context of it happening. But yes, the addition of the mention of Peruvian flags reflects a more simple joyous pride from both nations, a different take on the hook with hopefully the same outcome. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as people not realizing that Bach's manuscript refer to music, Bach is probably the single most recognized name in music to anybody who's cultural horizon ventures beyond Taylor Swift. I think people can figure out that we're not talking about his poetry. And if they did think that's what we were talking about, that would also be interesting.

I'll admit that I've had more than enough of pope hooks, but I do think there is some interest (in a sad way) that people are so jingoistic as to be chanting national slogans at the inauguration of the most important religious figure in the world. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been like that for a while. When the German Ratzinger was elected Benedict XVI, the German tabloid Bild used the headline We are pope!, analogous to Germany winning a football world cup. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the pope's article concerning the waiving of Peruvian flags, so how about "... that some people chanted "USA, USA!" [and others waived Peruvian flags] at the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is an improvement, questions of identity and the church feel more interesting than simply one nationalistic chant (although I suspect nationalistic chants may get the clicks). CMD (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for discussing and arriving at a more global hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight (Taylor Swift song)

... that Taylor Swift wrote and dedicated a song to Ethel Kennedy?
Interesting? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is going to run in two days, I've bumped it to Prep 7 to give us more time to discuss. Pinging Launchballer for input, as well as courtesy pings to nominator Ippantekina, reviewer CanonNi, and promoter Kingsif. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it uninteresting, just simple. Kingsif (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Song is dedicated to person' is not unusual; this is only intriguing if you know who Ethel Kennedy is. (You might get away with "dedicated a song to RFK Jr.'s mother Ethel Kennedy".)--Laun chba ller 13:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could add something like "... Ethel Kennedy, who became an "unlikely BFF" with Swift"? [with additional source]; if this is interesting I will add this to the article also. Ippantekina (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it’s not unusual to dedicate to a partner or parent, perhaps, but [random notable person] will at least provoke “who and why?” from the unaware, and is interesting for those who know of both people named. (Aside: ew on the idea of contextualising Ethel Kennedy by RFK Jr, if it had to be done at least use RFK? But, since it’s mentioned, isn’t Kennedy doing some lifting anyway?) Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting regardless of whether your reaction is 'who is Ethel Kennedy?' . . . that's a type of reaction that stirs interest (of course, if you don't care who Taylor Swift is, or about her songs, or what she thinks about when producing songs, than nothing will make this interesting). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough for me: she wrote a song to some notable woman and dedicated it to her, interesting. It would not get better by explaining who Kennedy was (actually the opposite), - if it gets more people interested in who she was it would be a welcome side effect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not interesting. I also think "wrote ... a song to Ethel Kennedy" is incorrect and could be trimmed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've seen conflicting ideas (3 found it interesting, 1 not...). If this helps: when I nominated this hook it was interesting to me because of Swift's relation to a Kennedy family member. Yes it is normal to dedicate a song to a family member, close friend, relative etc... but a notable member of a political family is something interesting. Might be a little US-centric with this one tho, but when Ethel died US publications referred to her as a matriarch of the Kennedy family. And no pls don't contextualise Ethel in relation to her son/husband etc... Ippantekina (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about ... Taylor Swift used Starlight in a commercial for her fragrance in 2013? TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to this alt hook, though I think the original Ethel hook remains more interesting. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, so I've pulled the hook for now for further workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 College Football Playoff

... that the 2018–19 College Football Playoff included a game between Alabama and Clemson, making it the fourth consecutive playoff to include such a game?
Interesting? Piotrus felt not at the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a borderline case. If you are into college football, which many Americans are, then yes it's interesting. However, with college football not being very popular outside of the US, it's probably less interesting to an international reader. Perhaps a different wording would be less specialist, but the current wording is arguably specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given concerns, I've pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it requires college football knowledge, but awareness of how playoffs work, and these appear in many sports formats around the world. Kingsif (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Thompson

... that James Edwin Thompson was a founding member of the American College of Surgeons and became their first vice president in 1913?
Interesting? Dwkaminski felt it was borderline at the nomination ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline interesting at best. If they were the first president and not just the first vice president, then maybe the interest would be there. I suggest pulling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boring. On the other hand, https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JAMES/ says "He is credited with bringing modern surgery to Texas" and "many credit him as the first surgeon in Texas to limit his practice exclusively to surgery". Neither of those facts are in the article, but if they were added, would make a more interesting hook. We really should have a better source than a vague "many credit him ...", however. Not to mention all the perenial problems with "first" hooks :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, I put it in a prep set with another medical-y hook, so they could lean on each other. I know there's been some moving around, I don't know if the other one was removed? Kingsif (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Marisa Dick

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

I'd completely missed the opportunity for that. Why don't we run this as a WP:DYKAPRIL hook: ... that the dick is named after Marisa Dick?--Laun chba ller 10:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly certain you've missed the point by quite a wide margin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say this might fail WP:DYKINT. Two is not very many, Simon Biles has five and Nellie Kim has seven. Also, this just seems kind of like a joke that would be better suited for something like WP:DYKAPRIL. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because making weak jokes about her name is rather disrespectful to a BLP with some cool achievements who isn't famous for her name? I have no clue about gymnastics, but I wouldn't mind just leaving out the names of the elements. We could mention that she had an element named after her that she performed during the Olympics? —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this, when we almost ran a hook saying that someone named Arthur Loveless never married, we got a complaint. We should not be making cheap jokes on names. Especially living people. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Kusma, like: DYK

... that gymnast Marisa Dick (pictured) debuted a new balance beam gymnastics move at the 2016 Summer Olympics, which was then named after her? Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korean science fiction

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

I don't think it's obvious or uninteresting that the genre would follow the national split in terms of its development, no. Especially given the idea of "North Korean science fiction" is itself interesting if you think about it because of that country's circumstances. I thought this one was pretty interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While not necessarily a given for industries and cultures to diverge (though more likely than not), so somebody wouldn't know this fact unless told, unfortunately when they are told it did happen like that, it does seem very obvious. And unfortunately, we are just telling people. It'd be more interesting if we took the 'can't know for sure if everything in Korea split' and could say where something didn't really change between the two, which I think would surprise. Again, if there's a reason besides the national separation for the sci-fi split, put it in the hook, that's also subverting the obvious! Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is obvious whatsoever, the fact that there is a North Korean science fiction genre is itself surprising. IMO it is the most interesting hook in the set. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've raised the concern. I don't think North Korea having internal culture is surprising, either, but given the scope of the article, I think I'd like to see some hook options about that. Kingsif (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone can say something isn't interesting, so if that's what it takes to object to a hook nearly all would fail. They aren't exactly in the business of excess luxury; I think this is more interesting than all the other hooks in the prep. And anything about a specific work is going to be less interesting and also misleading in relation to the actual scope of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for trying to explain my concern bro? You see plenty hooks with no explanation just "is this interesting?" getting pulled, forgive me for suggesting improvements. And it's a wild misconception that a hook has to reflect/be an overview/hit main points of an article, especially one with large scope - trying to do so is usually a great way to get a generic obvious less interesting one. Kingsif (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook attracted 8,337 views which seems reasonably respectable for a non-picture hook for a low-traffic topic during the slow summer season. The second-guessing above seems otiose. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florida!!!

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

What is a "quirky slot"? Ippantekina (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last hook of a set, ending on a memorable note, with a bit more lee-way as to a hook's inherent interestingness and written standard (here, obfuscation, as neither "oddities" nor "Florida!!!" are contextualised so the hook makes little sense alone. FWIW, if in a regular hook slot, I'd also be asking why not even the article mentions what these "oddities" are or if the lack of explanation from the creators is an interesting hook fact itself...) Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it works for me. I think the appearance of Emma Stone in a Tay Swift song itself is interesting (that is, assuming the general public is aware of these two persons...) Ippantekina (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook does not mention Taylor Swift, though - and I think they both fall into the same school of celebrity so it could be more interesting.

As it is, though, this is more a coherence issue; I would think the feeling of the fact being incomplete and not really knowing what it's saying would be more acceptable in a quirky slot than it is in the middle of the set. Can this be resolved by maybe adding a mention of Swift or something? Kingsif (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some sort of misunderstanding here: any hook that can go in the quirky slot must also be able to go in any other non-picture slot. The slot is just to ensure that very interesting hooks get greater visibility. I personally think that this hook is interesting enough for a normal but not quirky slot. Does that make sense? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See reply above - and I can't be convinced something is interesting if I'm not sure what it's saying. Like, what does "Stone contributed oddities to Florida" mean to a person who hasn't clicked the bold link yet? It needs to at least mean something, even if using diversion for interesting. Kingsif (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: sorry, but the hook that I nominated was, ... that the actress Emma Stone contributed "oddities" to a song by Taylor Swift? not sure why you said that it doesn't mention Swift in the hook... Ippantekina (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the hook at the moment is ... that actress Emma Stone contributed "oddities" to "Florida!!!"? Don't know why you couldn't tell that from the explanation. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, we have had persistent complaints (not just on-wiki) of excessive featuring of Taylor Swift-related hooks, so we try to minimise her prominence in hooks. Hence why I adjusted the hook that said "a song by Taylor Swift" to simply the name of the song. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Swift should be readded. That said, there shouldn't be two Swift hooks in three sets, so I'm minded to pull per WP:DYKVAR.--Laun chba ller 10:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can readd Swift if there's consensus for that, but DYKVAR doesn't seem relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it makes sense to readd Swift. Not sure about DYKVAR but I'm fine with this being delayed tbh, as Starlight (Taylor Swift song) is also being queued... But bet that WP:SWIFT is not seeing any upcoming GAs/DYKs soon.. Ippantekina (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go against the grain here in that, unlike some Tay-Tay hooks, I'd actually support keeping her name off the hook. Not just to avoid "Swiftpedia" complaints, but also on DYKTRIM grounds: I don't think it's actually essential to mention that it's a Taylor Swift song, as the "oddities" mention is good enough. I think the only change needed is to add "the song" before "Florida!!!", but I don't think it's necessary to mention her by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. "the song 'Florida!!!' " makes more sense than just throwing the song title "Florida!!!" in the hook. Ippantekina (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 21. We have a total of 305 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 158 nominations that has increased by 14 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

~~May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/100 men versus a gorilla~~

More than one month old

Other nominations

June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/European Australian Movement
June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sraboner Meghgulo Joro Holo Akashe (new reviewer needed)
June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Diagon Alley
~~June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian reserve football teams~~
June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Luigia Borrelli
~~June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Rini Widyantini~~
June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Chennai Super Kings season
June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Newnham
~~June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Ophicleide~~
June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Death (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme state organ of power
June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Koart
~~June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Shirey~~
~~June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Wilf Pine~~
~~June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Verona Marjanović~~
June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Phyllis Edness (two articles)
June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Strong Court
~~June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/SWAT (Regina)~~

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leads that duplicate content

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

Yes, that is too short, and you do not need to point to the DYK criteria: MOS:NOLEAD states clearly "Articles that are shorter than a well-written lead usually do not need a lead." and recommends that an article expand to 400-500 words before installing a distinct lead. Even with their duplicative leads, Corvington and Bourgonnier are still under 300 words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess part of the issue is that some people think WP:DYKCOMPLETE means articles must have a lead section, even if they are short. Personally I think we should just adjust the requirements up to 2500 or 3000 characters of prose size and not police in detail how this is achieved. —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am more inclined to agree with AirshipJungleman29's view that articles under 400-500 words should not have lead sections. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with that, I am just saying that people adding an unnecessary lead section may be prompted by an incorrect assumption that a lead is needed, not necessarily only by the wish to game the 1500 characters rule. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people add a lead just because they're used to it, not to game the system. I assume that editors are acting in good faith when they write "duplicate" leads. In fact, many editors may not even be familiar with MOS:NOLEAD (admittedly, that includes myself). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty much why when I created Tiny Glade, I didn't know that even non-stop articles may not have a lead. This is a link to the time the lead was removed. I took a look at the MOS guidance and I see why. A lead has since been added by another user a few days ago. JuniperChill (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between Tiny Glade, which has multiple conceptually distinct body sections even if they are short, and the biography examples which have a single body section. It's a bit of an art though, as creating multiple tiny sections just to get around NOLEAD isn't an improvement either. CMD (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also somewhat of a prejudice against stubs—people don't want to be seen as "stub creators", and the easiest way to make a stub seem to not be one is to add a lead, even if it is completely duplicative and unneeded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The question here is not whether leads should exist or be long or short. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The intent of DYKLEN is to provide some floor level of useful prose for the reader. Inflating the word count by duplicating text in the lead is contrary to the spirit of that requirement. So even if we don't update DYKLEN, it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to say, "Despite the character count some computer program has spat out, this isn't long enough". RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make checking of DYKLEN purely mechanical and not subject to a lengthy and unproductive case by case discussion, so I would support increasing the length requirement but oppose things like excluding lead sections. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would favor cases like André Corvington and Claude-Charles Bourgonnier, where content is duplicated and character count thus inflated, at the expense of, say, Letard I (my nomination), which has 1502 characters with no content duplication. For this reason I believe AirshipJungleman29 is right to point out MOS:NOLEAD. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we increase the length requirement, all articles will need a lead section and the problem will disappear. I really do not want to start debating how leads should count when doing 5x expansions. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that will solve the problem. If the minimum length requirement is raised to 3000 characters, biographies with a 2000-character "Biography" section and a 1000-character lead duplicating that section will still technically qualify–and the same issue pops up. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest having a rule that says 'articles must be long enough to deserve a lead section'.--Laun chba ller 13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, you can't do that! Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly this is starting to feel like instruction creep. Why not just leave it to reviewer discretion on whether or not an article is too short without a lead? Besides, there are genuinely some topics that really just won't fit 1,500 characters otherwise, no matter how much sourcing one finds. Plus, being stricter does not mean eliminating the possibility of gaming the system anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This. A reviewer can simply point out that the article qualifies for MOS:NOLEAD. Part of the review process is pointing out when articles don't meet other, generalized, MOS standards. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you want an answer to the question of whether or not you should reject nominations with leads that duplicate content, the answer is no, you should give the nominator an opportunity to reduce the amount of duplicated content to an acceptable level. What constitutes an acceptable level is to some extent a matter of opinion, but again, a short article should have a correspondingly short lead. The Bourgonnier article has four short sentences in the lead and includes perhaps a tad too much info, but nonetheless serves as a brief intro to the subject, while the Corvington article is a clumsy regurgitation.

Whether or not an article is formally divided into a lead section and a body, there is still a case for a couple of sentences which briefly introduce the subject and thus duplicate content, so duplicated content alone is not a sufficient cause in my view for a challenge - it's more a question of proportion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the duplication itself. The issue is that the articles do not meet the length requirement when the duplicated content is not counted. If the duplicated content should be counted, the minimum length is effectively halved. Surtsicna (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. My point was simply that there is justification for some duplicated content - some semblance of a lead - even in short articles, so it isn't appropriate to insist on it all being removed. If you think there is too much, ask for it to be reduced, and if the article is too short afterwards, give the nominator a chance to expand it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of this discussion, I'm considering unpromoting Template:Did you know nominations/Dag Burgos, because Dag Burgos and Ricardo Burgos' leads are very duplicative of the body. Up until now I've been quite lenient towards these, but my mind has changed after this discussion. Thoughts Gatoclass? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gatoclass has a point. A duplicative lead is not necessarily an issue as long as it does not take too much of the article. Frankly, this whole discussion about lead sections seems like it's punishing good faith editors. Articles that only meet the length requirements due to the lead are not the norm to begin with, and such edge cases can already be dealt with by following current guidelines such as DYKCOMPLETE, or the old "articles that barely meet the 1500 character count may still be rejected by reviewer discretion" practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to agree that both of those articles probably only need the first two sentences of their current leads. Whether or not that would leave the articles with insufficient length I haven't checked. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight repetition as in Dag Burgos is poor writing that should be fixed. And as @BeanieFan11 correctly pointed out in the nom, "Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles" so this already fails DYKLEN as written. —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make this point too. If the text is a substantial copy, it already fails the "is not original" wording. Enforcing this means DYKLEN is not fully mechanical, and there is going to be a grey area, but that is in line with other forms of evaluating copying vs expansion. CMD (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unpromoted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This was discussed before. There are few restrictions on what gets featured on DYK, and naturally, more hooks of certain topics will get through based on the interests of frequent contributors. This follows DYK's goals of improving otherwise overlooked interesting areas of the encyclopedia; discouraging this means there's one less incentive to improve the project. Departure– (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there should be such restrictions. As for presenting information on overlooked areas, this doesn't serve that goal, because the world is full of other overlooked authors besides Jilly Cooper, and by now, she is the exact opposite of overlooked on Wikipedia, and especially on Wikipedia's front page. There are thousands of authors whose turn it should have been to be 'in the spotlight' instead of her, based on their relative significance. The page is supposed to showcase the variety and the general growth of the encyclopedia, while the constant hammering on about the same subject creates the impression of a lack of variety and of limited and one-sided growth. As for there being 'one less incentive', there are more than enough people that are sufficiently motivated to improve the project without the peculiar pleasure of showing their work to a multitude of people who are not interested in it and many - possibly most - of whom would prefer not to see it. Wikipedia isn't so desperately short of contributors as to be forced to satisfy this particular desire that a small number of them apparently have. Moreover, I am also quite sure that whoever is so strongly interested in Jilly Cooper's books as to write article after article about them will go on writing about them even if they aren't able to feature them on the front page. That's how strong interests work.

In general, random readers come and complain about this kind of thing again and again every couple of weeks, and every time most Wikipedians respond by rallying around their own, because they apparently feel deep and tender sympathy for the urge of their fellow editors to display their work to as many people as humanly possible. The fact that the issue is raised again and again should arguably make the community finally realise that there is a problem, after all. People seem to forget that Wikipedia, like most texts that aren't diaries, exists for its readers, not for its writers. There is no point in writing a DYK page if it bores and irritates the readers, and this is a higher priority than the pleasure of the people who write it. --78.154.14.90 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if you think that DYK's goals should be measured on a daily basis and that half a dozen complaints in a year is statistically significant, you would probably find your way around to construing editors' short-term interest in topics as a problem that bores and irritates readers. Personally, I think of the thousands of readers who quite happily continue to click on the hundreds of thousands of hooks this project has featured over twenty years. If single-figure numbers of readers are so irritated by the content they choose to consume, may I suggest they look at another hook? Or wait a day? Or use the encyclopedia instead of just looking at its cover? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if I'd weigh the two against each other so directly – ignoring a hook you don't like is easy, clicking a hook you do like is still pretty easy, finding the relevant subpage to complain on is very hard. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of authors whose turn it should have been to be 'in the spotlight' instead of her, based on their relative significance. The page is supposed to showcase the variety and the general growth of the encyclopedia, while the constant hammering on about the same subject creates the impression of a lack of variety and of limited and one-sided growth. - The issue here is that, whoever is writing about these other subjects, they don't seem to be taking the chance to nominate their articles for DYK. The editor who is submitting the Cooper articles is taking that opportunity. Maybe the solution should be encouraging more DYK nominations (while still discouraging uninteresting hooks), rather than discouraging the nominations we already have. Epicgenius (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I've noticed a glut of Frank Lloyd Wright hooks lately. Not that having lots of Frank Lloyd Wright hooks isn't awesome in its own way. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be my fault. Though ironically, I've stopped doing these for the time being so I could focus on other architects' work (although then I suspect people will soon be raising issues about American architecture hooks in general). Epicgenius (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the subjects, but I would prefer hooks that had more educational value. That's my only gripe. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do think we have to take reader feedback into account rather than just dismissing it. DYK's main interest has always been about serving its readers, so we need to be open to what they say even if we don't necessarily agree with. As a small group of editors, we are sometimes (okay, maybe often) detached from the actual concerns of our readership, the vast majority of whom do not know how Wikipedia works or how such hooks are chosen. This does not mean we need to outlaw Jilly Cooper hooks or whatever, but it does mean we need to listen to what our readers say and perhaps adjust to what they actually want. If we regularly receive multiple complaints about DYK largely focusing on the same topics, and we dismiss those concerns as "Oh that's actually a good thing, because we show readers topics that may be overlooked elsewhere," that could be seen as condescending and thus looking down on the very people we are supposed to serve. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except these kinds of complaints are generally out of proportion to our readers. In the 1950s and 1960s, an entire television series could be derailed by a little old lady in Peoria writing a complaint letter to the network about how she didn't like a certain character because it reminded her of her Aunt Myrna who used to overbake cakes on Sundays after church. I hope we've moved on from that by now. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really my point. My point is that we need to at least listen to feedback from our readers rather than just dismissing it. We don't have to follow it, of course, but knowing what our readers think of the project and the hooks could help us make better hooks and perhaps adjust the kinds of material we present. We already take into account page views, definitely to a fault, so I don't see why we shouldn't take into account reader feedback either (other than "I don't agree with it"). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slippery slope. Once you sacrifice yourself to public opinion, you end up telling people what they want to hear, and you get things like Fox News. One of the things that distinguishes education from other fields like public relations and propaganda, is that it tells people things they don't want to hear. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "that isn't really my point" and then saying that same point again isn't really a convincing argument, NLH5. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was more directed towards the "generally out of proportion to our readers" thing, not the comment in general. Basically, I'm just not a fan of us looking down on our readers and their feedback. It sounds alienating and frankly condescending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that nobody is categorizing hooks from set to set to prevent repeats over a certain threshold. At best, this is being done for consecutive sets (WP:DYKVAR). People are free to volunteer if they want to help provide set builders this data. —Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I count 8 Jilly Cooper hooks and 21 American footballer hooks since the beginning of June. Particularly for the latter, that is a lot, but we've had much denser runs in DYK history. Courtesy pings to Lajmmoore and BeanieFan11, by the way :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what this discussion is about, but I also see lots of TV station articles. Put together four random letters, add -TV on the end and boom, you're got an article that is short but long enough and sourced enough for DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can thank @Sammi Brie: for that. That's a lot of articles that otherwise might have been left ignored for years on end; having them on the main page, variety be damned, in exchange for bringing however many up to GA status seems like a very fair tradeoff to me. Departure– (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not the first time I've been pinged into a discussion of this flavor at WT:DYK, either, usually about broadcasting (and way back when about Mexican politicians). You may enjoy the factoid that I have more than 130 basically complete GA candidates... and that I just completed a DYK-able article that is not about broadcasting (Spark by Hilton). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem isn't that people are doing a lot of work on a lot of similar articles, it is that people are not showing any restraint or judgement on what they submit for DYK. Not every article needs to be submitted. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary to that: not every submission needs to be accepted. Just once, I'd like to see this conversation:

Reviewer: Nice article, good hook, but we've run too many articles on that topic lately, so I'm going to give this a pass.
Nominator: OK, thanks anyway for your hard work to review it.

RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions:

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

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

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

Section break

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

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

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

RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the readers not supposed to be our audience at DYK, the people we are walking for? After all, if the point of DYK is to satisfy editors and not readers, we might as well throw DYKINT out of the window since that guideline pretty much tells us we have to take readers into account, regardless of our wants. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt, I've been advocating for THAT (throw DYKINT out of the window...) for years now, as the rule has never been used correctly, and is so stupidly vague and unenforceable when we consider the main page viewership is around 25 million people per any given 12 hour run. All it is doing, as shown in the last 2 weeks is creating exponential mountains of bureaucratic dung that 99% of the time boils down to 1 person not being impressed with a hook, 2-3 other people liking it, and it bogging down the noms/ques/preps for not benefit what so ever. Ive asked before and not received an answer, What is the definable detriment to letting a purported "boring or niche" hook run?--Kev min § 16:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another of DYK's goals is to encourage readers to read more about the topic and actually be interested in it. There is nothing wrong with featuring "niche" topics, I will be the first to defend the right for opera or fossil articles to be on DYK. However, if a hook is too "niche" or frankly boring, then virtually no one will be interested in reading the article and appreciating the hard work that the editor(s) put into it. As a prime example, we've already seen how "boring" hooks have hurt readership of our opera and classical music hooks; while admittedly certain topics will always be disadvantaged when it comes to readership compared to others, better hooks could have helped them get better attention. Obviously, opera/classical music hooks are far from the only topic to have this issue, but they're perhaps the most notable examples of hooks that get criticized for being "boring", hence why they're good examples of explaining the problem with "boring or niche" hooks running. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect our DYKINT requirement misses the mark. People who are into opera will click on the opera links, regardless of the wording. Likewise for people into fossils, or football, or Taylor Swift, or Frank Lloyd Wright. We probably spend more time and effort worrying about that than we should. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we want to ensure that our hooks are also read by others and not just those interested in a field. I wouldn't want my own anime or Japanese voice acting and musician articles to only be read and appreciated by those into Japanese culture, for example. Just as we should be broadening our topics and highlighting even niches ones, we also need to make them appeal not only to their respective niches. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't make people read anything they do not want. I have pointed out a number of times the purpose of the rules actual introduction was to prevent a hook like "dyk...that the sky is blue?". Already there are plenty of other failsafe's in place that prevent it, and if linked to Sky#During daytime it would likely get a large umber of hits. The fixation on click count was never part of it, and is pervasive and pernicious now, actively perverting the various levels of DYK to avoid boredom. You use the word "harm" for hooks that did not do as well as you think the project needs". Harm is actively a wrong choice of verbiage, you mean to say lower viewership, ass there is no harm at all to opera article viewership across wikipedia. They have lower readership because they are not modern mainsteam likes such as Tay Tay, but as long as a main page article gets ONE more hook then it does on an average day, we have done our job. frankly boring is very much a personal opinion that should be left at the project door, we are here to showcase new and expanded content, NOT to be the wikipedia popularity contest. The popularity contesting and boredom shaming are becoming a noxious hyperfication of the project and have dragged DYK away from its actual goals.--Kev min § 22:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really see the harm of trying to aim for broader audiences, instead of only focusing on a niche. Are you merely opposed to the entire concept of DYKINT, or are you opposed to the idea of hooks appealing to broad audiences instead of only niches? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why some people get so upset about being asked to write a hook that might interest someone from outside of their particular niche. If you like opera, wouldn't you want to attract as many outsiders as possible to articles about opera so that you can try to show them what you like about opera?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The official goals of DYK are clearly visible to all: two are about showcasing information to readers, another two are about encouraging editing, and a last is about improving the Main Page. Would you mind highlighting where you get "the point of DYK is to satisfy editors and not readers from there Narutolovehinata5? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's not what the guidelines say, but that's more or less the impression I'm getting from this discussion. The guidelines suggest we should be working for our readers and editors are not the priority, but here it seems like we are downplaying readers or at least their feelings and feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind typing logically coherent comments? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made them perfectly clear. Some of our readers made complaints, and the responses here have felt like they were downplaying these complaints instead of at least being open to those thoughts. Ideally, readers should indeed be the end-all for the project, but the reactions in this discussion to said reader feedback has largely been to dismiss those concerns rather than perhaps adjusting in some way based on that feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, you would have read what the end-all for the project actually is, as I've posted it twice now, but as you seem to be intentionally ignoring it I think we should end this discussion here. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More variety would be good. Any method I can think of to enforce more variety on the Main Page would be really, really bad. If you have an idea, please share it. If you just want to complain about the lack of variety, all we can do is acknowledge it and suggest that you write other interesting articles to help with variety. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we should run a public RFC seeking input on our hook selection process. Right now, we're a fairly small group making all the decisions. The only feedback we get is the (IMHO highly flawed) metric of click count, and the occasional brickbat tossed our way at WP:ERRORS. As the custodians of some of the most valuable real estate on the Internet (even if it is below the fold), we have a duty to better understand the needs of our audience so we can serve them better. A good first step towards doing that is asking people what they think. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, but I don't know how that would work. If it's an editor RfC, wouldn't it just mostly get fellow editors instead of readers? I'm not sure how a reader RfC would work, especially one mainly targeted towards non-editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could try to find out what people think about DYKINT, but I generally don't think we should constrain prep builders any further. If people don't like our volunteers' work, let them volunteer better. —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Kusma that it shouldn't be a binding resolution our prep builders will be forced to comply with. But I do think we should make an effort to solicit wider feedback in some public forum like WP:VP. If RFC is the wrong term, then maybe "town hall" or "listening tour", or whatever is the politically correct term these days for getting people to open up about what they like and what they don't. RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe add a link to the bottom of Template:Did you know: "Dear reader: we're soliciting feedback on how well DYK serves your needs. Click here to send us your thoughts". RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many people would give feedback on the DYK of the day (especially if it has something like a porn actress or a Gaza strip hook) instead of on the overall process. —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I hope us DYK regulars listen to the feedback rather than acting like we know better than them. We don't have to follow them entirely, of course, but we should not be dismissive of feedback either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things where we do know better, no need to act. Outsiders have no idea what the material we are working with is like. That doesn't mean we shouldn't listen, but we don't have to follow unworkable ideas at all. —Kusma (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most educational things I ever heard from a product manager was that they liked getting hate mail from customers. If there's something about the product that a customer doesn't like, much better to have them tell us, so we at least know what it is and have a chance to fix it. RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Whatever feedback we receive, we do not necessarily have to follow 100%. If they tell us to ban opera or radio hooks, we definitely won't do that. It just means we should at least know what our readers want and discuss how we can adjust to those expectations and wants. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While we're already here:

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

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

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

A per-nominator limit could potentially be feasible if suitable (semi-)automatic tools can be developed so QPQ reviewers don't waste a lot of time on this. But it would not only reduce nominations by monothematic editors, but also those by one-man variety machines like Dumelow. So I am not convinced this would be beneficial overall. —Kusma (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A per-nominator limit would do more harm than good. It would discourage readers and prevent deserving topics from getting a chance. We don't necessarily need less variety in hooks, we just need better hooks in general. Of course, too much of a single topic (like Jilly Cooper or Frank Lloyd Wright) can be a bad thing, but those are relatively rare cases that most people won't even notice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just apply common sense. If you have 13 articles in the same topic area, DON'T TURN IN ALL OF THEM FOR DYK. Find the 1 or 2 that have good hooks and turn those in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or attempt multi-article hooks. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We currently rely on people using their common sense, but Wikipedia:Common sense is not common. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to have a page listing the hooks with the most page views by topic. This will allow editors to see which hooks in their nomination's topic area have done the best in recent years, and perhaps craft similar hooks. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... if they care about views. Some editors don't. —Kusma (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think another point of DYK is to encourage readers to come back to Wikipedia every day to see what new hooks are at DYK. If the hooks are interesting, they are more likely to come back to see what interesting thing is there tomorrow. If they come back often enough, they might eventually become editors. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cf gateway drug RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a path leading from the gate to the desired destination? We have "Start a new article" (linking to Help:Your first article), but we also have the slightly misleading "Nominate an article" which probably lies behind some of the invalid nominations that occasionally pop up. Help:Your first article is useful but doesn't link back to DYK. (Nor does it have the secret DYK advice, such as "Turn an entry in Batman (disambiguation) into a GA".) CMD (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until they submit their hook and it is rejected because it won't get pageviews Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, being obsessed with pageviews is detrimental since we should just be happy that our articles get featured on DYK at all. On the other hand, if pageviews are low, it shows that there is room for improvement. It's like a balance: we should not be obsessed with pageviews and think that they are our main priority, but we should not dismiss their usefulness either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confused on DYK workflow and Gladys Cromwell

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

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

Promoted incorrectly, too; @Arconning: approved and promoted it. I say treat it as a WP:DYKTIMEOUT, and let @Xoak: nominate it for GA in his time.--Laun chba ller 21:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'm a fan of TIMEOUT, if it was the victim of a procedural error, that seems a bit much. RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Well, I think Xoak, the nominator, may not understand that the reviewer cannot promote a hook. So its not like you should reject a nomination because the nomination was unexpectedly lost in the process. It pretty much reminds me of Template:Did you know nominations/IMAX Melbourne where the nomination was lost for over a month and was promoted almost four months after nomination. And it can take several months for a GA to be picked up, unlike two months for DYK. Maybe ask if Xoak still wants to carry on with the DYK, evne though its been a year. If so, I could undo the promotion and promote it myself manually. Although Xoak hasn't edited since 23 June. JuniperChill (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, Thea Austin had to wait even longer. Alright, I withdraw my objection.--Laun chba ller 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill @Launchballer Hi everyone, so I took a cursory look into this as I'm really tied up IRL but as I understand it, yes I still want to carry on with the DYK. Re GA, I don't really have the intention/time to work on this so DYK's nice, which is already due as it seems. Thanks. X (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron I was going to fix this, but it looks like you already promoted it then backed that out, so I'm unclear of the correct status. I'm thinking this should get re-linked back into WP:DYKA, marked as approved by @Arconning, but not yet promoted. Does that make sense? RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this nom has already been approved, I'll go ahead and undo the promotion, write a comment, then promote it manually to prep 1. JuniperChill (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive header wording

Moved from Template talk:DYK archive header

– * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:DYK archive header.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · transclusion count · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

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]

No More Queues

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

@DYK admins: this requires your attention.--Laun chba ller 00:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted one, may do another later if I have time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that template editors were recently given the ability to promote preps to queues. JuniperChill (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the next queue up is still fully protected, so (somewhat perversely) if we run down to zero queues filled, it still takes an admin to fix the problem. RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Stone County Museum

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

12-hour shift for DYKbot

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

WP:DYKROTATE also requires six filled queues, which we don't have. In fact, see #No More Queues above; we actually ran down to zero today. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I was unaware of that rule, thank you for the link, although I feel then that should be included in said FAQ to avoid confusion. That being said, how come then there is still a large backlog of approved nominations that are simply sitting waiting? I feel that, if it has been cleared, then new nominations should be moved to subsequent queues and prep areas. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the FAQ". What page are you talking about? As for why these approved nominations aren't being moved to preps and queues, it's because it's a lot of work to do that and we're all volunteers here. We'd love to have you join the team and start building prep sets. RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Frequently asked questions is the page I refer to. At "Backlogged?", it fails to mention the full queue aspect of the rule. That's where my confusion stemmed from, sorry for not being specific. I understand the volunteer part, but I feel then that admins should help out a little, especially as this is a front page feature after all and therefore a major aspect of Wikipedia. I'd happily join to try to help out, the main reason why I'm here anyway due to concern that it's being neglected despite being an important function to promote articles. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't even know that FAQ existed! The official policy is at WP:DYKROTATE, so I've updated the FAQ to point people there for the details. RoySmith (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you want to lend a hand, the best way to start is to go through the nominations waiting for reviews at WP:DYKN and start reviewing them. The instructions are at WP:Did you know/Reviewer instructions. RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Mc Queen

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

Is there some particular page or DYK nomination you are referring to? RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McQueen items have featured 13 times since the start of 2024. Given that DYK has at least 7-8 hooks a day, that's not an issue at all. However, the OP may possibly be talking about WP:TFA, where McQueen items have appeared ten times in the last 18 months (which at a single story per day, IMHO is excessive) Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @TFA coordinators so they're aware of the issue. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are well aware. There was a recent discussion where my opinion was in the minority :) Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're aware, there was such a discussion, and we play the cards FAC deals us without fear or favoritism. We can only advise those who wish other topics to write them and get them through FAC, the exclusive way of qualifying an article for TFA. Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unfair favouritism, we run all of the articles that get nominated provided they meet certain criteria. We do not have any paid staff, so what gets shown is what our volunteers are interested in. More volunteers with other interests are always welcome. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok duly noted, thank you for your responses. Just voicing my concern as a wikipedia lover and hoping that some volunteers through the cracks aren't actually getting paid by an interested party for putting forward promotional content through the daily pages (this would somehow undermine wikipedia's integrity as a fair and non-profit encyclopedia). I have no means of verifying any of this being only a reader, but am simply hoping there are some kinds of safeguards in place to prevent such misuse from actually occuring. If all these Mc Queen mentions come from a simple genuin interest in his work then I don't see a problem. 2A01:CB09:D032:B483:0:16:FB83:8701 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, people write about what they're interested in. Sometimes that leads to a prolific editor creating a lot of articles on the given topic. See #There are an excessive number of features about early American football and Jilly Cooper novels above for another conversation about this. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The author of all of the McQueen articles is writing them because she is very much interested in the topic -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting too that working on one article on a topic (say McQueen) probably gets you in a great position to write other articles within the topic that may share sources or structures, so topic bunching is probably a feature for a prolific FAC run. CMD (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the McQueen articles, and I think it's great that fashion history is getting some attention. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

I would like to raise a concern about this edit: [1], made by Ganesha811. The discussion about the hook looked carefully at how not to claim anything in the hook that would go beyond what the source material would support. Putting in "purportedly" seems to me to go against MOS:ALLEGED, and really seems to me to ruin the hook. As a compromise, I would not object to changing "can change its" to "can potentially change its", which I think accomplishes the same thing without sounding like a Bronx cheer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that compromise and will implement it now - I can always change it if consensus here suggests a better alternative. The proposed language from ALT2 there ("that according to Erica Chenoweth...") would also be fine by me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! As far as I'm concerned, it's fine now. (I'll continue to watch here, in case anyone else wants other changes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switching out WugBot's task

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

As a neat effect of the transfer, the new script will also retransclude lost nominations to DYKN and DYKNA and transfer unapproved nominations back to DYKN! So if someone comes asking where their nomination went, that's a good place to check (keep in mind that AGF ticks are considered invalid), and if you pull a nomination, all you have to do is reopen it and it'll be back on the list within five minutes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, GalliumBot is removing the section for the current day (July 13) from DYKN and also moving the Current nominations second-level header from July 6 (where it belongs) to July 7 (where it doesn't), a task that is in the purview of MusikBot, which takes care of adding new dates and moving the Current nominations headers every day at midnight UTC. I'm also surprised that, after our previous discussion that AGF ticks were not supposed to be considered de facto invalid, the bot is treating them that way and will keep them on the DYKN page instead of moving them to DYKNA. I've pinged theleekycauldron (talk on her talk page, but if there isn't an announcement of a fix soon, I'd like to request one of the @DYK admins: to pblock GalliumBot and unblock WugBot so we can get the pages back to how they should be. In addition, my understanding was that this bot would not delete any empty dates in the Current nominations section, because users need to have the dates their for the current nominations! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

responded on my talk and made the easy fixes, but I'm on mobile right now so a more robust update can't come for another hour. is galliumbot removing current nomination headers? i did configure it to keep those, that functionality worked in testing... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, more robust update tested and pushed. will watch for a bit to make sure the bot doesn't do something crazy like putting a header one day off, but i think it should be good.

also, don't know how i forgot to implement the thing on AGF ticks, but i've done that now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC) update: accidentally coded it so that green ticks count as unapproved and white ticks as approved! indeffed the bot seconds before it would have put me in the village stocks, but it's fixed and unblocked now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manual update needed

@DYK admins: Fairly certain @DYKUpdateBot: hasn't fired.--Laun chba ller 00:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queues needing filling

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

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

Prep 2

Only one biography?
Curtesy pings to @SonOfYoutubers, @JuniperChill and @Launchballer. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something to be avoided when the backlog is almost at 50% biography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll move two of the non-bio hooks to a prep 3. JuniperChill (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

got into an edit conflict when trying to do that, though its now done JuniperChill (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend kicking back Ophicleide, though I'll do that myself when I'm feeling up to replacing it.--Laun chba ller 09:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumped and filled.--Laun chba ller 12:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there was probably only one due to (at the time) a lack of prep areas, but it seems it's been fixed now. There's more spaces and I'll look to promote more biographies. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glódís Perla Viggósdóttir

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

Outside the US, "graduation" is pretty much only used in the context of receiving a university award. There US is the only place where "high school graduations" are a thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some high schools in Australia have formal graduation ceremonies. I even attended a graduation ceremony for my 5 year old daughter going from kindergarten to primary school last year. I agree with BlueMoonset that the hook would be interesting if it states that she graduated from university. TarnishedPath^talk 06:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I readded 'from university'.--Laun chba ller 07:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who "graduated" from kindergarten, elementary, high school, university, and post-graduate studies, I can confirm that "graduation" being specific to universities is not the case at least where I'm from. I have heard "moving up" used as an alternative, but only for specific occasions (mostly high school to senior high school). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larries

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

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

Question about "Bésame" nomination

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

I wouldn't see it as being problematic. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (18 July 00:00)

Meg White (nom)

... that Meg White (pictured) is considered to be a key figure in the 2000s garage-rock revival?

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 [2], 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 [3] and [4]... 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.--Laun chba ller 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]