Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Prep 4 (6 July)

[edit]

Broadway Jones (performer) (nom)

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

@DYK admins: .

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

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

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

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

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

Ai Scream! (nom)

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

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

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

Can we tighten up the criteria for special occasions?

[edit]

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

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

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

Two tasks in one script!

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 5 (30 June 12:00)

[edit]

Terrorism Confinement Center

[edit]

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

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

Vladyslav Gorai

[edit]

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

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

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

I tried to broach this issue indirectly on the talk page by pointing to newer sources. It looks like the consensus in the current sources is that Gorai was on a volunteer mission to help the Armed Forces of Ukraine move materiel, and had been doing so quietly since the beginning of the war. This was revealed during his memorial. An older CNN source that was published before all of this came to light just says he was on a volunteer mission, which is still accurate.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, it sounds like the hook is incorrect then, and should be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It hinges on what "rescuing civilians" means and whether it is accurate or not. Of the many sources that do say that, it could very well be the case that his volunteer mission to deliver materiel was part of a larger mission to rescue civilians. We have older sources that say he was rescuing civilians and sources that say he was on a volunteer mission. Newer, non-English sources say he was delivering materiel and had been doing so since the beginning of the war. (All of these sources were linked in the nomination discussion.) Does this mean that all or some of these things could be true? No idea. We can say he was on a volunteer mission and leave it at that. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that all or some of these things could be true? No idea is not the kind of verification to WP:RS we want to put on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is cited to non-English sources that says Gorai was rescuing civilians. It is verified. Since that time, other sources have come out saying other things. Are those things contradictory or do they add more information? We don't know. I tried to point the nom in the direction of a volunteer mission to deliver materiel but the discussion was not followed up on by anyone. I haven't seen any English sources cover it beyond just "volunteer mission". Is that "volunteer mission" compatible with rescuing civilians? We don't know. The newest sources should be chosen over the older ones and we should go with what they say. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Abortion in Tunisia

[edit]

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

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

Aquilegia pancicii

[edit]

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

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

Giulio Basetti-Sani

[edit]

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

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

The cupboard is bare ...

[edit]

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

Is this hook interesting?

[edit]

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

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

PSHAW bug?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Wild

[edit]

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

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

Kate Nash

[edit]

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

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

Imogen (novel) and Rupert Campbell-Black

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

12-hours coming to an end

[edit]

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

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

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

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

interesting?

[edit]

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]
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 StabroTalk • 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]

Starlight (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
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".)--Launchballer 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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]

2018–19 College Football Playoff

[edit]
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

[edit]

Queue 7 (5 July 00:00)

[edit]

Lü Hung-chih

[edit]

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

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

Jeannie Rice

[edit]

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

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

Prep 1

[edit]

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

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

Older nominations needing DYK reviewer

[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 17. We have a total of 223 nominations, of which 79 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has increased by 33 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering an alternate hook

[edit]

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

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

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

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

When I initially promoted this nom with a different hook (which I think was better because it referenced the appearance of the building, linking with the picture, love a picture hook that does that), I was reluctant to use the hook you suggest now because “temple” could easily refer to a synagogue and the hook doesn’t mention otherwise. Religious owners preferring land to have religious use rather than commercial is mildly interesting, but not as much as other hooks IMO - would be better if the hook could say it was a Mormon temple. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my logic too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

KJZZ-TV

[edit]

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

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

Red Ficó

[edit]

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

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

Prep 5

[edit]

Marisa Dick

[edit]

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?--Launchballer 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]

Korean science fiction

[edit]

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]

Florida!!!

[edit]

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.--Launchballer 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]

Did we ever reach consensus on the fate of DYKSO?

[edit]

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

I read no opposition to extending it to two months (aligns with WP:DYKTIMEOUT), but no consensus to abolish the limit or abolish DYKSO altogether. CMD (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of future archive archeologists, I'll point out that the #Can we tighten up the criteria for special occasions? thread I started last week has some overlap with the thread Naruto is referring to. In any case, I think CMD's summary is reasonable; I'm not sure I can identify any real consensus, but extending it to 2 months seems like the option which drew the fewest objections. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1298788263"