Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Did You Know)
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.

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]
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 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]
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

[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]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

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

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

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

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

[edit]

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:

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

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

[edit]

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?--Kevmin § 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.--Kevmin § 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:

[edit]

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 StabroTalk • 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]

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]

Speaking of American football hooks

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Archive header wording

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

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Stone County Museum

[edit]

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]

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

Manual update needed

[edit]

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

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

Queues needing filling

[edit]

@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

[edit]

Only one biography?
Curtesy pings to @SonOfYoutubers, @JuniperChill and @Launchballer. TarnishedPathtalk 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.--Launchballer 09:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped and filled.--Launchballer 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

[edit]

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. TarnishedPathtalk 06:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I readded 'from university'.--Launchballer 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 StabroTalk • Contribs 21:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (18 July 00:00)

[edit]

Meg White (nom)

[edit]

First of all, I'm always wary of lines in articles which say is considered - generally a statement like this should be attributed per WP:INTEXT, unless the fact in question is cited as being so widely "considered" true that qualification is unnecessary. But if that's the case, why not just say it directly in WP:WIKIVOICE? And secondly, leading on from this, where is this fact cited? The line in the article giving this fact is referenced by [1], which names her as one of the "best punk drummers of the 2000s" (qualified by the assertion that quite a few people might disagree with that choice). But it doesn't explicitly say she's considered a key figure in a 2000s garage-rock revival. Other cites mentioned at the nom page include [2] and [3]... the latter does say "Meg’s minimalist, heartbeat-like drumming became a signature of the early-’00s garage-rock revival" which is the closest we've come to the hook fact. If that's the true cite, it should be next to the hook fact in the article. But in any case, it's hard to know if this is one or two people's opinion or a widely held view. Pinging @Watagwaan, Aneirinn, Lajmmoore, TarnishedPath, Launchballer, DimensionalFusion, and JuniperChill:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I saw 'I'd promote' and thought I'd already checked it. My bad.--Launchballer 22:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Considered may not be as strong as saying "Meg White (pictured) is a key figure in the 2000s garage rock revival?" which, we could always reword it as that. It is indeed a widely held view for her contributions as a member of the band the White Stripes, along with Jack White. If you look at both Meg's article and the White Stripes article, there are several citations which support the both of them as being key members (not necessarily considered, because then that leaves room for doubt). Another reason it is so is because Meg was one of the most talked about drummers of the 2000s, and recently, of this decade. Her minimalistic style sparked a HUGE discussion that still goes on even today! As for strictly the 2000s, it can be supported by media of the time (which I tried to add in Meg's article) and her inclusion on a number of listings of the best drummers, such as Rolling Stone, NME, and Consequence. The band itself is often credited with the Strokes and the Hives in numerous articles. Watagwaan (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Watagwaan, have you added all of that to the article? TarnishedPathtalk 06:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given concerns and how this is two sets away from running, I've pulled the hook for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I am open to further discussion and other ideas for hooks. There are a few others we could make from the article, such as @Narutolovehinata5's earlier idea on the topic of her not being seen in public since 2009. Being in a retirement for 16 years and not being seen in public media since then is fairly impressive — some articles even refer to her as if she's a missing person, which is kind of cool. Watagwaan (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything involving Meg, yes! Watagwaan (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Lajmmoore left a message on my talk page that she will be unavailable for a while, so I am requesting here a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

PSHAW hook puller is back online!

[edit]

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

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

Urien

[edit]
merged discussion
Moved from Talk:Urien

@Tipcake, Soulbust, Sammi Brie, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29: the hook was pulled by Nyttend (talk · contribs) at 01:31 here with the summary As far as I can tell, the article doesn't have anything about the linguistic distinctiveness of its language, and anyway, there are plenty of older texts, e.g. the Homeric corpus and much of the New Testament are in vernacular Greek, so you may want to discuss whether a better hook is needed. TSventon (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iblis re-Open

[edit]

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

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

Queue 1

[edit]

Skraban–Deardorff syndrome

[edit]

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

I'd love to help with sources, but medicine is not my subject, so I can't take the risk of error. I have corrected the date from 2025 to 2023 pending more sources being found. I'll check out the hook to see if we might need a new hook? Let's hope Strange Orange can help. Storye book (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that as of 2023 only about 150 people had been diagnosed with Skraban–Deardorff syndrome, a rare genetic condition whose individuals are often described as sociable and happy? (Sources as per ALT0). Storye book (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 ... that individuals with Skraban–Deardorff syndrome, a rare genetic condition, are often described as sociable and happy? — Strange Orange 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there are no more recent sources that quote that. I have searched but have not found any MEDRS either. We could also use ALT2? — Strange Orange 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1979 New York prison guards' strike

[edit]

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

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

Drag in France

[edit]

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

Thanks for pointing this out. I've edited to section to reduce its reliance on the non-independent source and rephrased the sentence about drag queens being attacked in the street to contextualize the source of that claim (i.e., drag artists themselves). I also renamed the section to just "Protests" because I think that better reflects its content. Can you take a look and let me know if you feel more work is needed? MidnightAlarm (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved; I've removed all the subsection headers because they felt like verging on editorialisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist) (nom)

[edit]

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

Agree. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Me (lyme & cybelle song) (nom)

[edit]

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

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

Queue 3

[edit]

Verona Marjanović (nom)

[edit]

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

Robert Baker Park

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1301311852"