Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal

{{ping|AirshipJungleman29|TheDoctorWho|Pokelego999|Sammi Brie}} The cited source doesn't say anything to support the hook fact.

RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:??? {{ping|RoySmith}} Re-checked the source, the exact quote says "{{tq|And it's been really interesting talking to people in the village because, you know, they're really excited and want to know how much prep goes into all of this. But it wasn't until I sat down the other day and realised - per block, we have an allocated budget for six-weeks, and we spent two-thirds of that budget on three nights filming here. So it just gives you an idea of quite how much we've got going on.}}" TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe we're not looking at the same source? I'm looking at [6], which is https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002bw76/doctor-who-unleashed-season-2-4-lucky-day. But, I did just notice it says at the top, {{tq|BBC iPlayer only works in the UK. Sorry, it’s due to rights issues}}, so I'm wondering if we're just getting different versions of the page? RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, wait. In the nom, you've got "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assume that quote is something that's said on the video. In the article, you're missing the "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assumed I was just supposed to find the supporting text on the page itself. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Correct, the template used on the nom page and in the article is {{tl|cite episode}}, and that's the link to view the episode. The time isn't included in the article cite, because that same source supports other claims as well, that extend outside of that time frame. I included it on the nom page for ease of verification for a reviewer. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can indicate the times for the individual citations using {{t|rp}} with "location=time index 10:44–10:53". See SoHo Weekly News for examples. RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|AirshipJungleman29|Thriley|Davide King}}

The hook is supposed to be about the subject, not about subject's predecessor. In fact, I don't see how this article passes WP:N at all, i.e. WP:1E and WP:NOTINHERITED.

RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see how 1E and NOTINHERITED are applicable at all, but if you disagree you are of course welcome to start an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Would we have an article on him if he wasn't the successor to the man who went on to become pope? The fact that the article was created the same day the 2025 papal conclave ended makes me suspect not. I'm not foolish enough to start an AfD because I know how that would end, but we still need a hook that says something about Córdova independent of his predecessor. RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Perhaps we could say something about him and just him, but the current belief in DYK is that it has to be interesting, and what's most interesting about him is that he followed big footsteps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::In other words, there's nothing interesting about him. That's exactly the point of WP:INHERITED. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I didn't say "nothing". I said that we have this interesting (leaning towards sensational) belief. Perhaps modify that, and then we can say something worth knowing about the new person on that unusual job, where "smell of sheep" is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I would probably be looking for better sources than at current if I were to vote "Keep" at an AfD. Unless I am missing something, there appears to be only one source that is actually about him in any depth (as opposed to press releases and lists which just say "Fr. Cordova has been appointed X"). He's almost certainly notable, but I'd like to see more extensive coverage. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Catholic bishops are notable from their position. There are approximately 5,600 bishops that serve a population of nearly 1.5 billion catholics. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, yes, that much is clear from WP:CLERGY. But my point still holds that if we're going to put somebody on the main page, we need to be able to say something about what they've done other than hold some position which was previously held by some more famous person. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it is hooky. The pope is one of the most well known people in the world. Taking a position that was just held by Babe Ruth, Donald Trump, Micheal Jackson etc seems hooky. Thriley (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think the hook fails the "hook must be about the subject" criterion, or at least its spirit, since the hook is arguably too attached to Leo XIV rather than actually being about him. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::A hook which states the subject and the pope held the same position as bishop of a diocese in Peru is about the subject. It connects him to the diocese he serves and to the pope. Thriley (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::You're missing the point. If the hook fact is reliant on him being Leo XIV's successor in that position, instead of it being a hook where he can stand on his own, that is an issue. A hook that is about a subject's relationship with another person isn't necessarily wrong or even disallowed (I've proposed similar hooks in the past myself), but this is a different case since it's about succession and not something like inspiration. There has to be a better option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I find interesting that here you argue for sticking to the subject, while in case of this song you brought in a fact around something only marginally related. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Those are two different cases Gerda. The original hook seemed to focus too much on Leo XIV, whereas the new proposal is still more about Cordova than the Pope even if it still mentions Leo. In the case of the song you mentioned, the hook mentions Wilhelmus, but the hook was still primarily about the hook subject. I suspect this may be more of a language barrier in your case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have pulled the hook for now; discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• : It's now back in prep, talking about smell (interesting?) but my concern is that it says "predecessor Pope Leo", and I think it needs something to not make that misleading, perhaps just commas, or "predecessor as bishop", or what? Or is it just me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|AirshipJungleman29|BeanieFan11|Lullabying}}

I don't see how this passes WP:DYKINT. It's basically, "After leaving his first job, he got another job".

RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:ALT2 is interesting to me. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Disagree. It's not necessarily the "after leaving their first job, they found a new one" that's the point, it's what that job is. Being in HR is very different from playing American football, so I thought the contrast was unusual. With that said, I wouldn't oppose a switch to ALT2 if consensus leaned that way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Anything becomes less interesting if you summarise it generically. It was interesting enough for me, see what NLH5 says above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::This quote from the Detroit Free Press is the interesting story {{blockquote|"In the 1960s in pro football, the positions up the middle – quarterback, center and middle linebacker – were reserved for white players because they were 'thinking man's' positions," Acho said by text. "It wasn't until Bill Cottrell, who was extremely smart, that it was thought that black players could play center. He was the first."}} and a hook should be built around that. I get that the first hook was pulled for lack of sufficient sourcing for the "first" statement, but the overcoming of the NFL's racism really is what we should be highlighting. WP:DYKINT says "Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more". If somebody really were intrigued by the idea of a football player going into labor relations and clicked through to find out more, they would be disappointed to find that we have exactly one sentence on this aspect of Cottrell's life. Surely if this is important enough to put on the main page, it's important enough to give greater coverage in the article. Looking at it another way, why does the {{t|Short description}} not say "American football player and labor relations supervisor (1944–2025)"? RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The thing is, are we actually sure that he was the first black center in the NFL? We've already had many issues with "first" hooks in the past, so if we are to revisit that angle, we actually have to make sure that the claim is watertight. I do think it is the most interesting fact in the article, but given how much of an exceptional claim it is, I don't know if it is the most practical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::So write a hook about his overcoming the NFL's racism with focusing on the "first" aspect. RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@BeanieFan11: @Gonzo fan2007: Could either of you try to write a hook based on RoySmith's suggestion? @RoySmith: Did you mean to say "without focusing on the 'first' aspect"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Something like, "... that it was thought that black men could not play the "thinking man's'" position of center in the NFL until the career of Bill Cottrell?" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think that's the right idea. My only concern is whether we need to have more explicit attribution, i.e. "According to Jim Acho ..." and how to do that without generating something that's excessively verbose. RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've bumped the hook to Prep 4 for now to give us more time to discuss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: {{ping|Narutolovehinata5|RoySmith}} Well...? What sort of alternative variation of that do you have in mind? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Something like ... that according to an NFL alumni attorney, it was thought that black men could not play the "thinking man's" position of center in the NFL until the career of Bill Cottrell? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Roy, this is not interesting. It should be pulled. TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also agree with Roy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I reopened the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Cottrell. I suggest closing the nomination at timed out as well. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::@SL93 @TarnishedPath @Khajidha What do you think of BeanieFan11's new proposal above? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My issue is that it doesn't say who thought such a thing. It could come across as racist without the context, and maybe even racist with the context. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That people thought only white men were smart enough to play certain positions is indeed racist. We should not shy away from that. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think we should shy away from whatever could be interpreted in a bad way by our readers on the main page. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It still comes across vaguely racist to me, in a sort of "he's a credit to his race" kind of way. I find the fact that he was an unheralded player from a high school with a poor record who became a starting lineup player professionally to be more interesting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Well we could do then ... that Bill Cottrell went from being an "unheralded" high school player for a poor team to a starter in the NFL? I don't see how the other hook is 'vaguely racist' though: I understand it as highlighting others' racism and how it was because of him that those racist ideas were proved wrong, which is something I think worth highlighting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My point is that it never needed to be proved wrong. They were only that way because of their racism. People who are targeted by racism do not need to seek validation from those who hold prejudiced views. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I like this hook. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I personaly don't see a problem with the hook above which highlights the racist attitudes of the time. Howver this latest one is good too. TarnishedPath^talk 00:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::However, the hook doesn't state the time period. Even with the time period, it could be interpreted as Wikipedia still supporting the idea. By the way, it isn't just racist attitudes of the time. There are still plenty of people who are that racist. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Anyway, why exactly would we want to highlight any racist attitudes of the time? SL93 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Because it's of interest? Anyway as I stated above he most recent hook is interesting also. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::As if it's only of the time period... Anyway, I'm glad you like the other hook. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The hook about racism also seems a bit demeaning to Mr. Cottrell to me. It seems as if we are only interested in him because people were racist towards him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: {{ping|RoySmith|Narutolovehinata5|Khajidha|SL93|TarnishedPath}} Seriously? I propose the most recent hook that everyone agrees with, I propose it at the nom, and then the response is to fail it because its there's already many football hooks and {{tq|I don't see anything special about this particular person}}??? That is very frustrating. It'd been approved for 19 days then pulled because of concerns about the "first" hook – I'll add that those concerns were incorrect (the other "claimaint" brought up to that title isn't actually the first, and there doesn't seem to be any black center prior to him). Then I say that the other two proposed hooks work. I wait 27 further days for the reviewer to return to say that they're good to go. Then they get brought up here and so I propose a different one that everyone agrees with, I wait a few more days for someone to approve it at the nom, and the response? "drop it since there's already a lot of football hooks and he's not special"... That we're denying this historic black athlete who defied racism to play in the NFL from being on the main page for this is very frustrating. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I feel your frustration mate. TarnishedPath^talk 15:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The problem is, there's always something. What about the first black athlete to play wide receiver? To be a place kicker? The first person of mixed-race? The first Albanian? The first queer? The first Jew? That's what I like about the timeout rule; we don't need to get into arguing about whether something deserved to be on the MP; the fact that it didn't get there in a certain amount of time is a dispassionate measure of whether people felt it was good enough.

:::::::::::::It's good that nominations compete for a limited number of slots. Competition selects (albeit imperfectly) the better material. Some things don't make the cut, but this is true of all things. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: If there's a hook on the first black wide receiver, I'd support it. The first Albanian NFL player? I'd support that too. I don't think the "amount of time" taken necessarily means it was not a good hook: e.g. for a 27-day period I was waiting for the reviewer to return to say it was good to go. Nearly a whole month. Does that mean it was an unworthy subject, because the reviewer took so long to return? I don't think so. And everyone agreed that the last hook was alright, so I see no reason this should have been declined. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It means that for two months, as reviewers and prep builders scanned over the list looking for hooks that caught their fancy, they kept passing it over and found something else. The NFL draft works the same way. The players get analysed every way possible: playing stats, how fast they run, [https://thebarbell.com/nfl-combine-bench-press-records how much they bench], how high they can jump, etc. But in the end, they get picked when somebody decides they're good enough to pick. Some guys don't get picked. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: {{tq|It means that for two months ... they kept passing it over and found something else.}} No, that's not what happened. It was reviewed within a few days, approved, and then soon after put into the prep before someone complained. ALT hooks were proposed, and we waited nearly a whole month with several pings before we could get the reviewer to return, who said it looked great. So that's half of the two-months just waiting for the reviewer to return. Then it was promoted after a week (a normal wait for an approved hook), and then you complained. So I proposed an ALT that everyone agreed with, and you respond by failing it because the first black center in NFL history is someone who's "not special". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::{{u|BeanieFan11}} I said this up above, "ALT2 is interesting to me." I don't know why no one seemed to see it. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: Exactly, and TarnishedPath agreed it was a good hook as well. I see no reason why that hook shouldn't be allowed to be promoted. 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK admins}} and other DYK watchers: There are seven promoted queues at WP:DYKNA and over 133 approved hooks. Does DYK want to go to 2-sets-a-day? If so, I hope editors will help us keep stay in 2-a-day for a while, as there are lots of hooks not transcribing at DYKNA. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please no. I don't understand this thought process: "there are lots of hooks not transcribing, therefore prep-builders and admins must work to the bone to solve this harmless situation." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::The backlog of hooks at WP:DYKNA delays the amount of time it takes an article to appear on the Main Page. Some editors are motivated by this, especially newer editors (I used DYK as motivation continue editing Wikipedia when I was starting out). If it takes a long time to get articles from nomination to Main Page, it might cause some editors to lose that motivation. If editors do not want to participate, they do not have to. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If anything, we should be making efforts to move away from 2-a-day. It burns out prep builders and may also invite complaints from nominators who wonder why their hooks only run for 12 hours instead of the usual 24. There's a reason why we made it so that 12-hour set runs now have a fixed timeframe instead of being indefinite. We don't want to use them too often. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ec}}I know what would cause me, if I was a new editor, to lose motivation, and it would be having the article I worked hard on run 12 hours instead of 24, maybe when I and everyone I know are mostly asleep, just because others want to get rid of a meaningless backlog. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What if we strengthened the timeout rules to cap the backlog size? There are something like 230 hooks in DYKNA; we could implement something like {{tq|When there are more than 200 approved and unpromoted nominations, promoters may, at their discretion, promote, decline, or unapprove the oldest approved nomination at DYKNA (returning it to DYKN) until the backlog has returned to under 200.}}

That'd be the main mechanism here. We could play around with a few things here: one, we might want to give nominators some kind of warning before entering a purge like this. Two, we could change the 200 number, or even separate our starting trigger and ending trigger (the way we did with the old rules on 12- and 24-hour sets). Three, we could expand the range of noms that are subject to this rule to the n-200 oldest, or to all of them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support an idea like this, but I do have a question: what if they're stuck not because of any hook issues, but simply because they haven't been promoted yet? It would seem unfair to time out nominations just because they're yet to be promoted, especially when there are no actual issues with the nomination and they're just waiting for their turn. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::If the promoter feels it's worth saving, they're allowed to promote it, so it doesn't force any noms out of rotation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm in favour; I don't know how many others would be. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely NOT, you do not get to penalize the nominators due to the selection preferences of the promoters skipping over a hook they personally may or may not have a lack of interest in. DYK should never devolve into the wikpedia equivalent a highschool year book popularity contest.--Kevmin § 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::The proposal would probably exclude hooks that are already approved and are just waiting to be promoted. It would instead focus on nominations that remain unpromoted because of outstanding issues or concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::This would be "back to the roots" for DYK, which used to be a showcase of Wikipedia's newest articles: Back in 2006 or so, nominations that had not made it to the Main Page after a week or so were routinely discarded as no longer new. I think in our system (which allows anyone to promote hooks), if some hooks do not make it to the preps after a long time, that is a good indication that nobody finds them interesting. This does not require "popularity", just one single person who finds the hook compelling enough to promote it. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Kusma}} the aspect this misses is that "Back in the day" we were churning and burning Four sets per day, not a single set per day, that how we managed to move though the nominated material so rapidly. The slowdown has been that since then we've increased the duration on the main page and added two full additional checks of every single hook that didnt exist in 2006. Penalizing the nominators for the excessive amount of work that has been fored into the process from outside sources is not how we fix the process.--Kevmin § 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kevmin, we have indeed added several layers of quality control to almost all aspects of the process, which helps us prevent nonsense or copyvios on the Main Page. The part of "quality control" that has become worse is that of interestingness: we have mostly dropped the "timeout" method that made it possible to not run hooks without explicitly rejecting them, and DYK is usually full of boring hooks. I am looking for a way to get rid of boring hooks without much discussion and without hurting people's feelings. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Wait, I thought you were opposed to this to preserve the integrity of the content-review process – but now you're saying it'd be better if we went back to promoters and admins not doing content review at all? Going back to a time when DYK churned out content that was mostly unvetted? I thought I understood where you were coming from, now I'm a little lost. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Im opposed to the triple check system that was forced into DYK by a very select number of opponents to the DKY process as a whole around 10 years ago. Those users actively weaponized MP:Errors as a venue to vilify DKY and paint the picture of the project being unvetted and lawless. What percentage of the issues that were being brought up here over the last 3 months were "interesting" based and could have just gone to main with out any commentary speeding up the whole process. I would say the quickest way to avoid "stale" nominations is to dump the "interesting" rule all together, sine a group of 7ish mostly US/UK editors are in no way representative of the global readerships interests.--Kevmin § 15:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, I think that's just not an accurate assessment of what prep building is. Most of the time a "cabal" member (never too late to start prep building, there's no barrier to entry!) spends vetting a hook has nothing to do with interestingness. And... yeah, I guess if you're opposed to rigorous vetting to make sure the content we air is actually true and policy compliant, then it'd make sense to run four sets a day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Without the triple check system, this article that we caught literally today would have gone on the Main Page. That doesn't seem like a great result to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:To kind of zoom out on why I think this is necessary (sorry for a long post): I think we're out of options. We've always been getting more nominations than we could reasonably handle, and our approaches to that have burned out the people who do this and given us a reputation for low-quality output. That's because fundamentally, our backlog isn't a "backlog" problem, not in the way that, say, maintenance categories or CCI cases are a backlog. In terms of our end product, we've virtually always had a set ready to go at the next update – that's the goal, not getting the number of approved noms down to 0.

:Fundamentally, this is a resource allocation problem – we have a limited number of spots. DYK sets are 9 hooks each, and our resting pulse is one set per day. But we receive and approve more than 9 nominations a day, and so without intervention, the backlog would just keep growing forever and ever and wait times to actually get on DYK creep up to the order of months, even years. In fact, it's already been doing this – we used to do 12-hour sets when we had 120 approved noms, but we stopped doing that, and right now we have over 230.

:We don't need the backlog to be 0, but it can't just keep growing indefinitely – articles aren't really "new" when they've been sitting in line for months, and it doesn't make nominators happy, either. So we have two choices on how to better allocate our spots: we can make more, or we can be picky. For a long time, we tried the "make more" strategy – more sets in a day, more hooks in a set. The result was that, combined with conflict-averse DYK reviewers, we burned out promoters and admins and gave DYK a reputation for hooks that are sloppy and boring. In the last few years, we've turned this around a little bit and pivoted towards being pickier – in part because we've gotten better at this and in part because the promoters have said they can't take it anymore. Any promoter can tell you that the 12-hour-set sprints are miles south of fun, and we're not getting paid. But now that DYK runs at a somewhat more sustainable pace, being picky hasn't been enough – the backlog has swelled.

:Practical considerations aside, the north star is still the readers. If we can – while staying true to our principles – build engagement, build a following, turn around DYK's reputation for hooks that are sloppy or boring or sensationalist, we'd be doing our readers a service by giving them informative content that makes them curious about the world. We'd be doing content creators a favor by giving their better works more time in front of the audience, and we'd be doing promoters a favor by not making them do work they're refusing to do anyway. The inclusionist/deletionist debate was so fierce at AfD because it took us a long time to figure out that unlimited space still doesn't mean unlimited editor-hours – but here, we also have limited space. It should be clear which way we have to go.

:So, to the regular nominators: I know competition isn't your first choice, and it's not mine either. But competition is already happening. So, would you rather wait 3 months or more for a spot that may or may not be a full day, may or may not have your image, may or may not run when you're actually awake, and may or may not embarrass you and us and the project if it turns out we didn't vet it correctly? Or would you rather roll the dice? There is no secret third "demand more labor from others" option, and so far, there hasn't been a wave of nominators volunteering to help. And at the end of the day, competition really does make our sets better for the readers. I can't stress that it enough. It should just be the primary consideration. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::I really don't see enough people agreeing with this. SL93 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, I don't really gain or lose whether or not this passes – I'm just not interested in breaking my back to keep the backlog down, or promoting hooks that I think shouldn't run. If nominators are fine with waiting increasingly long periods of time (including nominators whose hooks we do want to run) because I think we're all feeling that way to some extent, then I guess it works out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think we have to be more willing to reject bad hooks. The issue is that some nominators tend to be very unhappy when the hooks they want are not the ones that are ultimately used. One of the reasons why nominations take a while to get reviewed is because they just aren't interesting enough. Of course, "interesting" is subjective, even with our current definition of "interesting", but maybe we can have some kind of baseline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Even if we rejected 80% of all hooks that failed DYKINT – which we definitely do not – nominations with no viable hooks could, on average, get through by just throwing 5 hooks at the wall. I mean, you've seen it happen. The hook-by-hook method really hasn't been enough to keep the backlog down or make DYK sets better. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ec}} I don't agree with it. We have always handled all comers and I see no reason to change. We might just need to have dedicated drives the way we used to do, the problem is likely that the three-days-of-12-hours-then-back-to-24 is probably not sufficient to reduce the backlog. I would suggest deciding on a time to run a backlog drive, and then notifying all previous DYK admins of the drive in order to increase manpower. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyhow, we currently have a full queue so why haven't we switched to 12 hours? Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Because the people who do most of the work have voted with their feet. You're an admin, so you have the technical ability to do it. Just follow the instructions at WP:DYKROTATE. RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Gatoclass}} We've had seven filled queues for most of the last 24 hours and still have seven, as I just queued a set you've clearly already checked. Whatever the state of the Approved backlog, that's a bottleneck that needs relieving. I strongly recommend spending the next three days at 2-a-day.--Launchballer 00:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::: {{done}}, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{yo|Gatoclass}} Thank you. I rearranged some stuff to accommodate the Rosa Parks date request, but we should be fine now.--Launchballer 09:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. I think timing out nominations that not a single prep builder has found compelling enough to promote is en excellent and fair way to both deal with the backlog and improve quality at the same time. DYK used to be more selective and time out nominations after days, not months; the idea that there is a right for a DYK nomination to make it to the Main Page if it complies with all rules is something from a decade and a half ago or so and was not a good move. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::See my comment above, (As a long time contributor), DYK wasn't any more selective at all, it was way less burdened with triple to quadruple checking nominations, while having a shorter run rate. --Kevmin § 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• I can't help but agree with leeky's essay re. the problem here. How about we break down the practical options for keeping optimal output without requiring more work, and let people vote on which options they prefer. Feel free to suggest more, but I see it as: A. be more selective about hooks at any or all points in the review process, B. promote hooks in general order of approval at the rate we have now, with the same amount of checks as now, C. go to 2-a-day sets, promoting without one or both of the final checks, or D. reduce hooks per set and let the 'backlog' build. Putting it like that, I would rank A first. Kingsif (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think that giving users "the discretion" to reject as many approved noms as needed to get the number of approvals to under 200 is ... stupid (let me know if I'm reading {{tq|When there are more than 200 approved and unpromoted nominations, promoters may, at their discretion ... decline ... the oldest approved nomination until the backlog has returned to under 200}} wrong). I'd rather have my nomination wait {{tq|three months}} for a 12-hour slot than "roll the dice" and have my nomination arbitrarily rejected because it "took too long for someone to promote it". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I would also rather have 12 hours rather than no time at all. SL93 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@BeanieFan11: It would not be "arbitrary", because the more interesting hooks would arguably have been promoted before. Anyway, we either need more people to do the work required to get articles on the Main Page (prep builders and prep to queue promoters) or we need to restrict what can go on the Main Page. Appeals to get more people to share the workload have been tried regularly with only little effect, so it is not clear that we can afford to run 2/day DYKs for long. Rejecting boring nominations is better than burning out our prep builders and queue promoters. If you have a less stupid idea, please explain what it is; leeky's suggestion seems significantly less stupid than burning out people to reduce the backlog. —Kusma (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Kusma}} to be very clear you mean to say "not interesting to a group of less then 7 souls" who have a very select view of what THEY view as interesting, regardless of what the hundreds of millions of daily main page viewers will look at. DYK is NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST, AND NEVER WAS ONE. The "interesting" caveat was added originally out of fear that suddenly every nomination would be "the sky is blue" level boring, ignoring that even that level of hook will drive traffic to a new article. I will 100% take a delayed appearance over a cabal of 7 people forcing their persal view of interesting on the entire project.--Kevmin § 15:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::The cabal are the people who show up to do the work. I hereby present you with an invitation to join the cabal. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::No, I mean "interesting enough to at least one Wikipedian other than the page author that this Wikipedian promotes it to a Main Page prep". If there are only seven people who do Main Page prep work, more power to them. I don't know why you are talking about popularity contests: do you think that "one Wikipedian finds the article interesting" is too high or too low as a bar for Main Page appearances? —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::When assembling a prep area, I try to make it as interesting as possible, with the best lead hook and a snappy trailing hook. But it requires real crystal ball gazing to spot the best hook. Have a look over the DYKSTATS and see how many you would have spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The basic tension in the discussion above is whether we want to publish more hooks at the expense of quality, or if we want to press for better quality at the expense of rejecting more submissions. So, let's do an informal survey. Indicate where you stand below (sans editorializing).

Please put any extended commentary or discussion in the discussion section below. RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq|DYK is not: A smaller-scale version of either featured content or good articles, though selected good articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page, but do not have to be of very high quality. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia.}} (WP:DYKNOT) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think 'quality' here refers to the articles, but to the hooks. Kingsif (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

1. RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Per what I said above – we're here to serve the readers, simple as that. And DYK can't do more than its promoters are capable of doing, so if you want to increase output, come help out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
3. We should be more selective so we get a better overall result. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
4. I don't want my hook up only 12h and I don't want to do 2 QPQs—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Ultimately, the people that are DYK's main interest are not nominators but rather readers. Presenting them "bad" hooks provides a disservice and can cause more harm than good in some situations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
6. Quality is important. We should be more careful about actually having exceptional hooks. There are articles I've written that I don't nominate because I know they don't have good hooks. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
7. :(with leniency towards new contributors; but someone with 25+ hooks should really be good at getting a very interesting hook and not just some simple fact) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
8. I think the best way to increase quality is to be more strict on WP:DYKINT (and maybe make it more stringent) – there are a significant portion of currently approved DYK hooks that I simply do not find interesting. I think this can be seen by promoters silently choosing not to promote hooks, which means they stay in /Approved for quite a while. Of the five in /Approved that were created/expanded in April, I find 4 of them to be uninteresting – whilst this is just an anecdote, I think it does show a bit of a broader problem with "interestingness" DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

==== Discussion ====

• False equivalence. Promoting fewer hooks will do nothing to improve quality, it will just mean that reviewers will spend less time on the project. Gatoclass (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think running fewer hooks absolutely increases the quality of the average set – unless you think that our selectivity criteria are random or actively harmful, of course selecting for quality increases quality. But even if that weren't true, we still get a quality boost from actually running DYK sustainably. Being more selective means we have more time to check hooks before they run, and also fewer promoters and admins getting burned out, so they can check each other's work (it's not great when preps are only built by one or two people, for the same reason every project can't have only one CheckUser). We'd get a larger and more experienced promoter corps scrutinizing a manageable, curated output – I'd say that's for sure a quality increase. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am not totally sure what "quality" we are talking about here. In terms of scrutiny / rate of being called out at ERRORS, I am not sure that we can expect significant improvements. But if we were free to not run boring hooks or those with slightly questionable sourcing, we could easily improve the value of DYK for readers. We might also discourage people from submitting every single article they create to DYK; as leeky says that would help with managing the overall volume. —Kusma (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We just have to be more proactive with rejecting nominations and be willing to push back against uninteresting hooks. Oftentimes, we are reluctant to do so given that it will very likely hurt the nominator's feelings, plus some nominators tend to take hook and/or nomination rejection worse than others. There's a tension: on the one hand, we want to reward editors for their work and give them an incentive and something to be proud of. On the other hand, not every article is a good fit for DYK, and sunken cost nominations often result in poorly-performing and/or uninteresting hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I am not sure that our current mechanisms for rejecting boring articles are working or can be made to work, given how subjective "boring" is. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: This project is running on a 24-hour cycle most of the time these days. Have you noticed an increase in hook quality during 24-hour cycles? I can't say that I have. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That has nothing to do with the present discussion: we are rarely rejecting hooks, independent of whether we are in 12 hour or in 24 hour mode. —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree wit {{u|Gatoclass}}, this is a false equivalence, that is being based on very different historical and modern project structuring. As someone who's been participating since 2008, "interesting" was historically used to at the same rate as now, if not less to deny hooks, and in the whole of that time it has consistently been mis-used to deny hooks that are of little interest to the reviewer, rather then to call out "Sky is blue" level facts, which is explicitly what the "interesting" rule was put in place to ostensibly address. I will again note that the entire collection of editors participating in DYK in any aspect is no were near a statistically valid number of people to determine any one hooks interest to the totality of a 12 or 24 hour period (46.8 million-ish) of main page viewers. Im going to be blunt, exactly what negative effect to Wikipedia will happen if a "boring" hook is run?--Kevmin § 17:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'll agree with @Kevmin on this last point. There's some stuff we need to make sure we get right. We need to make sure we're not violating copyright, or WP:BLP, and that the fact we publish is actually true. Making sure our hooks are interesting is a "nice to have", and a far more nebulous thing to control since what's interesting to one reader is not interesting to another. RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The reviewers are hopeless at determining what is interesting and what is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::All reviewers? I highly doubt you would do any better for a concept that goes by opinions. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is a concept that goes by opinions, but we do have statistics. We can't seem to harness them to forecast likely pages views, but we can see the results. I can cite multiple cases of hooks that reviewers tried to kill as "boring" that attracted sizeable numbers of page views. On the other hand, there are also editors who will complain about hooks that are obvious click bait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::We know from statistics that certain subjects which, all other things equal, get less views compared to others. In general, non-Anglophone hooks tend to perform worse than Anglophone hooks, although there are exceptions. From my recollection, the subjects that tend to perform worse with readers include opera, classical music, radio, sports, and surprisingly pop music. Obviously we shouldn't discourage or even ban hooks about these subjects; if anything, this should serve as a challenge for editors who specialize in those topics to push for better hooks and come up with something more spectacular. One issue, however, is if editors actually propose "mundane" hooks on purpose because they do not want "sensational" or "clickbait" hooks, even if the guidelines implicitly state that the goal is for readers to click on the article, so DYK hooks are sort of "clickbait" by definition. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am reminded of the McNamara fallacy. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• (In reply to DimensionalFusion !vote above). Fewer hooks is not going to result in more interesting hooks. Quite frequently, the longer a discussion about a hook and the more participants, the worse the hook ends up getting. It is basically due to the design-by-committee problem, coupled with the fact that getting agreement on interest is difficult and that many users, quite frankly, are not great judges of hook interest to start with.

:You might get a marginal decrease in errors, but at the expense of disenfranchising a great many nominators. And even that is questionable since in my experience people just head for the exits when there is less work to do. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::It wouldn't make individual hooks more interesting, no – nothing we can do about nominator creativity. But it would make sets more interesting on average. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::: If it doesn't make individual hooks more interesting, how is overall set interest going to improve? Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Less uninteresting hooks per set equals greater set interest? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The way I see it, we're conflating two related but distinct problems. Some want us to reject more hooks. Others want us to have more interesting rules. One solution really is to just be more strict about pushing for DYKINT. For example, some editors may oppose DYKINT in principle and propose "bad" hooks on purpose: we have to be willing to reject such hooks or even nominations for not meeting the guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: "Interesting on average", according to what statistically significant percentage of the 24+ million people that will view the hooks in a 12 hour run? DKY:INT was never meant to be used as a popularity contest gateway for hook validation, only to prevent the lowest end of obvious. The current usage of the rule has massively crept away from that. 10 people are not a valid judge of what 24 million people will click.--Kevmin §

::::{{green|"10 people are not a valid judge of what 24 million people will click."}} Why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{green|A statistically significant sample size for a population of 24 million (with a 5% margin of error), is approximately 385 people.}} per google, it seems very clear that under 10 is not the same as 385, the interests of 24 million should not be decided by a less then 10 people. This becomes even more clear when the 12 hour period encompasses swaths of non-US/UK population.--Kevmin § 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::How about we take this from theory to practice? I'm fairly certain that of today's set, The Rector of Justin and Charlie Suff will receive the least attention, alongside Marine Terrace MRT station, Kedopok War, and probably Asri Rasad. Let's keep an eye on the view counter and see how my prediction turns out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Why? I will again repeat- What {{green|detrimental effect}} is there to DYK when a hook gets less attention on the main page then other hooks do? WHY is main page click counting in any way shape or form relevant to the project? (hint: its absolutely not)--Kevmin §

::::::::Why? Is it not the central purpose of an encyclopedia to be read? What is the point of what we are doing here if it is not fulfilling the purpose of an encyclopedia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Our goal is to present good content to our readers. That doesn't always correspond to what people are going to click on the most. Sometimes our job as curators is to show the readers what we think they should be reading. RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@AirshipJungleman29: Oh, I've done this on my own a couple times! The way I do it is that I take the eight non-image hooks and guess the order they'll get pageviews in; the scoring is 1 point for each pairwise matchup guessed correctly. For 8 hooks, that's a maximum of 28 points; my median is around 20. (GalliumBot is going to be down until probably tomorrow at least, though, so you'll have look up results for today manually if you want them quickly :p) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Stack ranking comes to DYK! RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::lolll! I don't think the least-viewed hook in a set is automatically bad overall or even uninteresting. comparing within a day is just an easy way to adjust for confounding variables like differences between days and timeslots – it's a mental exercise more than anything :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• If editors want more quality then a way to do that would be to restrict DYK to new GA articles. However, that would not necessarily equate to more interesting hooks and you might struggle to find enough nominations. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm not sure there is a direct correlation between quality of article and the issue of quality of hook that is often raised, although I suppose on average a Good Article will have more to pull from. I suspect this is a non-starter however, GAs being in DYK is mostly because they had no main page home elsewhere. CMD (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::It's a misconception that just because an article is a GA means it's a good fit for DYK. While in practice some of us are loathe to reject nominations of newly-promoted GAs since realistically they aren't getting another chance at DYK, that doesn't mean that such articles inherently deserve to be on DYK. They still need to have hook material, and as Chipmunkdavis said, not all GAs have hooky material. They're arguably more likely, but it's not a sure thing. A GA could still lack suitable material for DYK, and if that's the case, there is no shame in simply not nominating it at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::To agree with this, I have had articles promoted to GA and read through them and not seen anything I would find compelling enough for a hook. How we all interpret ‘interesting’ differs, but for my own hooks I prefer compelling and something can be notable without having such a USP. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Sidebar to my point on WP:DYKINT is that I feel the DYK checklist has somewhat enabled uninteresting hooks to be promoted – reviewers can just put a check next to "interesting" with no indication as to how they have decided that it is interesting, and often that check is the extent of the review that goes into the hook's interestingness DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Except that we have never at any point required a reviewer to explain themselves with regard to the "interesting"-level of a hook. I feel that the template has had no impact on how reviewers have addressed it at all, since before the template it was usually not mentioned at all or only mentioned in passing at best, and even still the template is only sporadically used (because it brakes the transclusions quicker by adding wy more templates into the unapppoved page).--Kevmin § 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Well, the point on the DYK checklist was somewhat anecodtal to my point because yes, even without the template reviewers can still address interestingness with a check. That is somewhat beneficial as it allows reviewers that flexibility but on the other hand, hooks that are not interesting do pretty reguarly pass DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• While this isn't the main reason behind the tension, another factor is that there are times when editors push back against comments about their hooks being deemed "uninteresting". Sometimes, objectively bad hooks push through because reviewers are hesitant to reject them as they don't want to hurt the nominator's feelings. Other times, nominators question reviews stating that their hooks are uninteresting. It's hard because, on the one hand, ideally we don't want people's feelings being hurt since conflicts can suck out motivation for both parties involved, but on the other hand, sometimes we do have to be blunt. Letting "bad" hooks slip by just to prevent conflict or to not hurt the nominator's feelings probably sounds good on paper, but in reality it contributes to lower hook quality. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :We don't necessarily have to be 'blunt' as it is, one way to gently handle poor hooks is to try and suggest others or focus on snappiness in encouraging a nominator to trim a hook to something better. If there's no hook options, yes that's more difficult. As are nominators who are insistent on their original hooks, though that may change ones view on rejecting them... But maybe we should be blunt, like in a codified way.
• :This is a long way to say, we can often try to improve on a hook's interesting factor or a nom having interesting hooks, but this 1. also takes more time, 2. prevents the user who recommended a better hook from reviewing it, increasing the time and number of users needed to get that nom through. While I'm sure there are users happy to do this anyway in future, and wouldn't discourage it, it's not a reasonable solution to a backlog and poor hooks - whereas being stricter across the board could likely save people's feelings if they know going in that the system is strict and ruthless (i.e. are somewhat prepared for disappointment and know it's not personal). Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :People need to learn to just suck it up and accept that getting your article accepted on DYK (or anything else) is not an inalienable right. And that the process for deciding which ones make it and which don't is not perfect. Sometimes we publish stuff that's broken. Sometimes we reject stuff that's good. In both cases, your reaction should be to thank the people who tried their best and move on. Offers to help out and make things better are always appreciated. Whining about why life is unfair, not so much; you're welcome to cancel your subscription and demand your money back. RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::It's easier said than done. We could tell nominators to be willing to accept that hook or nomination rejection is a possibility, but that would not necessarily stop them for asking for second opinions until they get the response they want, or objecting to the review. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place because there is really no easy answer to this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Making the crit stricter on rejecting hooks/noms is IMHO that easy answer (see above). Kingsif (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

One elephant in the room that I haven't seen discussed yet in this discussion is that the DYK community cannot even be in agreement over what editors actually want for their DYK hooks. There's a conflict between editors who push for more pageviews and higher readership, and editors who are just happy to have their articles featured on DYK at all and any stats are just bonus. These two goals are not really compatible, and it does not help that the current interest guidelines seem to at least implicitly encourage the former. The guidelines say that hooks should be as interesting to as broad of an audience as possible, and we can do that. However, if a hook "underperforms" despite all that, is it actually an issue? For some, it is because the viewership isn't as good as expected. For others, it doesn't really matter, because the real goal is just to have the article on the main page as a whole.

For a while now, DYK has become more and more of a dick-measuring contest, when it was never intended to be one in the first place. That's a slippery slope that's arguably contributed to much of the tension that has been plaguing us for years. I'm not saying that we should not have standards on interestingness: in fact, I'll be the first to defend our interestingness standards. But we do have to have a discussion, or at least think deeply about how to make these two seemingly incompatible goals compatible. In my case, for DYK purposes I tend to specialize in an admittedly niche topic (Japanese voice actors and anime singers), so I already expect that my hooks are already at a disadvantage. I'm just happy to see those articles out there and have those names on the Main Page, even if not everyone clicks on the articles. On the other hand, I don't think that specializing in a niche topic is an excuse to propose niche hooks either. When I propose hooks about voice actors, singers, or anime, I try to propose a hook that is not reliant on knowing about anime. That doesn't always work out in practice, but it shows that topics about niche topics do not need to only appeal to a niche.

I don't know what else to say, admittedly I may be rambling a bit, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say here about whether it is healthy for DYK to continue to chase pageviews, or if we should tone down somewhat and try to seek a compromise. Of course, hooks still need to be broadly interesting, but maybe just keeping "broadly interesting" as the minimum ceiling instead of reaching for the sky all the time could help lessen the arguments and tension? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm in the camp that doesn't care much about page views. I mean, sure, it's cool when one of my articles gets big numbers, but that's not my primary driver and I don't think DYK should obsess about it as much as we do. I'd also like to see us favor articles by new editors. I remember the first time something of mine was on the MP. It was a rush. That's the kind of positive reinforcement we need to keep new editors interested and coming back to write more. I'm less excited about giving somebody the opportunity to get their 100th (or 500th) DYK. Maybe we should have a rule that every set must have at least one hook from a DYK rookie. RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't want to give preppers yet another thing to check, but I agree that the process is more important than the exact outcome here. It's sort of an internal quality check, "hey you did good work". There are benefits to reader engagement and so on, but I view those as secondary. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::One thing that is a source of tension is that both camps have a good point. On the one hand, there's a good point that views should only be secondary and the real goal is just to be on the Main Page itself. On the other hand, there's also a good point that you want to encourage people to read your article; you don't have to actually chase numbers, but you would at least not want your work to go to waste. It's why, regardless of what happens, it's probably still a good idea to maintain the status quo of avoiding specialist hooks, as well as cracking down on hooks that only specialists would understand and appreciate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm directly in the DYK is a method to allow for main page appearance of articles that would not otherwise make it there camp. My niche topics of fossil plants, fossil insects, and NE Central Washington State history/geography as a whole are notable, but not likely to ever reach FA level due to low source volumes. I couldn't care less the number of clicks any one of my nominations get on the main-page, its about letting the world in general know the article is there and if someone clicks on the, yay. This fascination with the number of clicks something gets seems to actively be confined to very few nominators, but has been growing over the past few years in perception of being a needed aspect of the project. I reject that.--Kevmin § 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• ...neither? At least not as written. For me, DYK has a dual purpose in getting readers to read more articles, and in being a motivational tool for editors of all (most) skill levels. I don't see a purpose in getting an article to DYK just for the sake of it - I don't even nominate maybe half of articles I create/expand/get to GA, if I don't think there's a compelling hook there. But a hook doing well for me is if it has achieved the purposes behind the DYK purpose. With readers who have ended up on the DYK main page, are we enticing them to check an interesting fact for themselves (almost like a parallel to ITN but with perpetual facts - they hear/read something and go to WP to check) and then end up reading the whole article, and then click wikilinks in it, and so forth. DYK stats probably can't give the full picture on this. I don't see a problem with a hook I wrote not doing as well as another hook in the set, and I think sets should be constructed to flow so hooks help each other, encouraging reading down the line. Throwing a specific or simple hook into the right set can help it, and readers may appreciate the whole article more than any possible hook the article could produce. But DYK is not just for the editors (and I doubt it's still a motivational/aspirational achievement for the years-long regulars to just appear on MP) and if there's not something to encourage reading, and that's too regular, DYK is going to become a naval-gazing corner of the MP that readers don't engage with. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Besides the hook interestingness discussion above, which is super important, there are other ideas that DYK can consider to tackle the backlog. I'm publishing these ideas to see if there is any editor interest in implementing them:

• Have 10 hooks a set: This can be combined with shortening the character limit per hook (currently 200 characters) so that DYK doesn't get too large. OTD can always add more hooks to help with page balance.
• Permanently go to 2-sets-a-day, but decrease the number of hooks to 6: This would cause DYK to publish 12 hooks a day (an increase from 9 a day currently) and allow prep-builders and DYK template editors to build/promote sets more quickly. This might cause individual hooks to gain more attention as a hook will be one of six in a set instead of one of nine, and make it easier to build sets where each hook is from a different topic. Since DYK would be shorter, we could offer TFA more space for their blurbs to help with Main Page balance (which, as a TFA blurb writer, I would appreciate).
• Increase the length requirement from 1500 characters to 2000 characters: This will make it more likely that the article has a good hook, and decrease the number of nominations at DYK. It also means that the article will be more developed when it hits the main page.

I look forward to reading editor's thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be opposed to the third option at least. While a good idea on paper, it has the risk of limiting the variety of topics we feature. There are some topics that can't fit 2000 characters, and increasing the word could would deny them a fair chance of at least being eligible for DYK. An increase of 500 words may not seem like much, but it can lead to a greater systemic bias. The second option would be a bad idea: 2-sets-a-day is already unpopular and causes burnout among prep builders, so making sets shorter would not really help much with that issue. The first is probably the most feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, I would maybe support option three for an increase of 100 characters, but 500 is a lot. Option A does seem the best due to the negative responses to 2-a-day sets. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support increasing the length requirement, the encyclopaedia has matured to the point that we shouldn't highlight near-stubs any more (and many short articles struggle with interestingness). It is also an easy number to tweak with potentially large benefits for the backlog. I would go for 2500 characters of prose. —Kusma (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::2500 characters is way too high of a character count and would disqualify even more topics and exacerbate systemic bias. If we're going to increase the character count that high, we might as well require DYK nominees to be good articles, an idea that would, to put it mildly, not end well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure I'd support increasing length, but 2500 is not a high number of characters. It's about 3-4 paragraphs, a lead alone could be longer. CMD (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::From my own work from the last couple of years, Michael Huber (priest) has 1645 characters and Mathias Metternich has 2725. I think Huber was so embarrassingly short that I did not want to put it up for DYK. Metternich seems about the right size for an article you do not have to feel embarrassed about as a start. Do you have examples of articles that only just pass 1500 bytes and can't possibly be expanded but are DYKCOMPLETE and should be featured? —Kusma (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Although I did not nominate Hana Shimano for DYK, it is an article that is under 2000 characters but is essentially complete as it includes all the known information about her available in reliable (or at least accessible) sources. I did not nominate it not because it was short, but simply because there was nothing in the article that was hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think short articles usually correlate with few GNG sources. In-depth coverage means you can write a few more paragraphs. —Kusma (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's the theory, but in practice, in-depth coverage can be hard to find especially for more obscure or less online topics. Raising the bar so high would likely only increase systemic bias because, let's face it, Anglophone topics are more likely to have more coverage in general than non-Anglophone topics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're assuming that the only hooks affected would be non-Western ones unable to get to 2,500, but in my not inconsiderable experience promoting, I think a -1,000 byte Western stub bloated up to 1,500 is much more common. The proportions relating to systemic bias would stay about equal, IMO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Fortunately we do not ask for English language sources, so I do not see how "anglophone" is in any way relevant to the discussion. —Kusma (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of problems with the notion of reducing the backlog by taking a harder line on hook interest. The first and most obvious is of course that nobody can ever seem to agree here on what is and is not interesting, so eliminating noms by that method would be very arbitrary. The second one - and this one is of more concern to me personally - is that vetting noms by hook interest alone would potentially disqualify first-class articles that just happened to have a not-great hook in favour of near-stubs that took literally five minutes to write but that happen to have a better hook. If there is a choice to be made, it should be in favour of rewarding those who have written the best articles, not the best hooks.

Other than that, there must be a stack of ways to reduce the backlog without having to resort to arbitrary measures. Somebody mentioned higher minimum article size, it could easily be raised to 5000 chars or more. But the objection to that has always been that it would encourage article bloat. So I doubt that even a minimum of 5000 chars would do much to reduce the backlog.

Another possible method - and one that I am inclined to favour - is to start holding QPQers to account for their sloppy reviews. If, for example, there was a rule that if an error is found in an approved hook, the QPQer loses their associated nom, pretty soon there would likely be either a lot more attention paid to getting reviews right, and/or some nominators just quitting the game or perhaps finding a surrogate to do their QPQ's for them. The reason I favour a model of this kind is that the amount of time spent trying to verify messed-ups noms is exponentially greater than reviewing good noms, and is IMO the fundamental cause of the problem at hand, ie, administrator burnout. Having said that - it would take a bit of work to organize such a system and would inevitably be controversial.

So what does that leave? Well, the next most obvious method would be simply to give the flick to noms beyond a certain age. I might be favour of this, but only if safeguards were in place to ensure that decent noms weren't discarded just because nobody got around to reviewing them or a hook could not be agreed upon. Again, the emphasis should be on quality - substantial articles should get more consideration than piddling little 1500-character stubs. Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am all in favour of timing out old nominations that nobody has found compelling enough to review or promote. Some amount of bloat is encouraged by any numerical size limit, but I question your claim that a minimum of 5000 would do little. Do you really expect people will add more than 200% padding to all of their articles? —Kusma (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:As for holding QPQers to account: not a bad idea, but enforcing this and keeping track of problems is a substantial amount of administrative load in itself (ingenious ideas, anyone?). I certainly agree that sloppy reviews are top of the list of reasons why DYK admin workload is so high. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::It is certainly true that the more progress a hook makes before a problem is found, the more work it is to fix it, so it makes sense to put effort into catching problems early. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Do you really expect people will add more than 200% padding to all of their articles?

:: There aren't that many topics that couldn't be readily expanded to 5000 chars. Most of the 1500-char ones would be pretty easy to expand, the authors just don't bother. If a topic really can only be expanded to 1500, there might be a questionmark over its notability. Speaking personally, I don't think I've ever started an article that I anticipated being only 1500 chars that didn't turn out to be several times that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Just looking through my own DYKs, I think the smallest I've ever nominated is about 2500 and they tend to be significantly longer than that. We don't often get nominations that just barely meet the 1500 rule, but when we do, they always look silly to me. So, yeah, I think upping the minimum size would be reasonable. Maybe not 5000, but 2500 seems perfectly reasonable.

:::We should also switch to specifying the limit in words, which is a much more typical measure of prose length. I'm guessing the original decision to use characters made sense in the old days when it was easier to count, but these days we've got excellent tools that give word counts, so there's no good reason to keep using characters. The standard rule of thumb for English text is 1 word = 5 characters, so 1500 is 300 words, and 2500 would be 500 words, which is at the shortish end of a typical high-school writing assignment. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|If a topic really can only be expanded to 1500, there might be a questionmark over its notability.}} I think that is exactly my point. From my own noms, I think the last short one was Xie Fei (revolutionary) at 1800 bytes; I guess I could have reached 2500, but certainly not 5000. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Sue Wiles (one of your sources) wrote almost 900 words (my rough count by eye) on Xie. So, yeah, 2500 characters (500 words) doesn't seem out of reach. RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: I've had good hooks on topics with under 2,500 and have written articles over that length without good hooks. In the past few months, some good under-2,500 hooks of mine include Vlado Paradžik (8000+ views) or Andrew Hughes (14000+ views). I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that increasing the limit may increase systemic bias; personally, a decent number of my DYKs from developing countries have been under that length, e.g. Waeta Ben Tabusasi, Abdoulkader Waberi Askar or Mohamed Asswai Khalifa (which I'm still particularly proud of given how difficult it was to find sources). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Launchballer|Lajmmoore|Sammi Brie}} That's not a great image. How about we use :File:Detail from Animals in War, Park Lane, London (3538574374).jpg instead? RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Fair cop, fine by me.--Launchballer 14:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, now that I look closer, that picture is more closely associated with the Memorial, and thus only tangential to the book which is the subject of this hook. So maybe not use an image at all? And, I just realized this is another Jilly Cooper hook, to which there has been some pushback recently, so maybe not run this hook at all? RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thinking along the same lines, I had previously removed the gratuitous link to Cooper. I didn't realise though that Animals in War Memorial is a standalone article, in which case it should be linked and, as you say, should not be placed in the image slot per WP:DYKIMG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for clarifying these - I hadn't linked it as I thought the link would divert attention. I'm happy for the picture to go, as well as the author. I'd appreciate it if the hook could still run at some point - I nominated it way before the discussion above. I do appreciate the readers point of view, but equally, I disagree with it and don't think a run of hooks related to Cooper's books any different to any of the other runs of plants or network stations or 400m races we've had recently. What I do think I should do (bearing the above discussion in mind) is look at the ones reviewed and try and de-Cooper them a bit so the repetition is less obvious e.g. her name had been used in a few early ones. It's all a learning curve and I always appreciate advice! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the hook should run, there are no obvious issues with the article that require pulling/rejection, but it should probably be spread out. FWIW, this is probably not as problematic as the other hooks since at least Cooper isn't mentioned by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Had I realised that the award had an article, I wouldn't have put this in the image slot. I swapped it with Taraxacum britannicum, the only non-bio image I'm not involved in. Also, I see a consensus at the #Excessive thread that the Cooper hooks should be spread out rather than capped.--Launchballer 00:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks all! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|History6042|MallardTV|DaniloDaysOfOurLives|Hilst}} The "Iceland" part of the hook needs a source.--Launchballer 00:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:It had one, there should be a link to the Kew specs in in the original submission. @Launchballer MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 00:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I see that, but it should be in the article.--Launchballer 00:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|History6042|MallardTV|DaniloDaysOfOurLives|Hilst|Launchballer}} I am concerned about the range map, which is not only in the article but also in the DYK set. It portrays the species as occurring in Corsica. The source cited for the range says "Western Europe and Fennoscandia"; the line of thinking seems to have been: Western Europe includes France → France includes Corsica → T. britannicum is found on Corsica. I do not think this is right. Surtsicna (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Would it be worth to remove the map? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would remove the map and edit the article so that it says what the cited source says, rather than "confirmed occurrences in countries including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden". Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry about the map (I'm not the best at making range maps.) MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I see that a new map has been created for the article, but rather that swap that one in, I used :File:Taraxacum britannicum.png which I think is a better image anyway. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Although, now that I've done that, it's unclear to me if that image is properly licensed. It's tagged as CC-BY, but I'm not convinced that's correct. Could somebody who knows more about image licensing than I do please take a look? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@MallardTV I see what's going on. Most of the other images you uploaded to Commons have links to their records.data.kew.org pages, where it says the image is CC-BY. But this one links to the raw file on images.data.kew.org. Could you fix up the commons entry to link to the right place? RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’ll do that as soon as I can sit down at a computer! (Several hours) MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@MallardTV please don't forget that you need to update the commons page. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yup, that completely slipped my mind. I’ll get to it when I get home this evening. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 21:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|SL93|Jon698|BeanieFan11}} The citations in this article are very confusing. Some just read "Property" and "Construction 2025". Also, some of the text is copy-pasted from Mapcarta. That site is CC-BY-SA, but the "BY" part of that requires that we provide proper attribution, which I'm not seeing. And, ugh, it looks like I can't even give you the full URL because it's blacklisted, but check [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1290536282&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 the Earwig report]. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I forgot to mention what started this: I can't verify the hook fact because I can't figure out what the citation ("Property") means. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|RoySmith}} I misread the source which translated says, "Finally, in terms of customers, the Dutch account for 40% of the purchase of property in La Massana, Anyós and Escàs." So that would be 40% of them split between three villages which isn't interesting. The source is [https://elperiodic.ad/uncategorized/lhabitatge-a-escaldes-arriba-a-preus-maxims-de-9-000-euros-el-m2/ this]. I wouldn't mind it being pulled for a new hook. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Pulled and replaced. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|SL93|DaniloDaysOfOurLives|Boneless Pizza!}} This needs an in-line citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hey, I am confused – it has one? "Suff also praised Bright for looking out for him and supporting him when he joined the soap, adding, "I quickly felt comfortable on the show and a massive part of that is from her. There's that motherly aspect, but day-to-day we're just friends and we giggle all the time!"[21]" Sorry my mistake, I got confused on the hook promoted, but the fact does have an inline citation.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I promoted that one. SL93 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I thought it was. "The role had previously been portrayed by Sam Strike from 2013 to 2014, followed by Ted Reilly from 2016 to 2018.[14][15] EastEnders executive producer Chris Clenshaw said that he was "delighted" to welcome Suff in the role of Johnny, saying how he believed that Johnny was still linked to the soap and the "iconic" Queen Victoria pub despite not having appeared since 2018.[12]" SL93 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, OK. I found {{tq|Suff was cast as Johnny Carter on the BBC soap opera EastEnders, becoming the third actor to play the character.}} which is uncited. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|RoySmith}} Do you mean the sentence in the lead? It is uncited as it is already sourced in the article body. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, the one in the lead. You are correct that it is cited in the body, but I was just trying to explain why I didn't find it originally. Some hooks are easy to verify, some, like this one, turn into scavenger hunts. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I will also add that I didn't promote that hook and I don't know who changed it to ALT0. SL93 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like it was @Gatoclass in Special:Diff/1295876897 RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Launchballer|BeanieFan11|WikiOriginal-9}} as an opinion, the hook fact should probably be attributed ("According to ...")

RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... that according to The Citizen-Patriot, when tackling, "Jarring Jim" was "mean, very mean, very mean"? That's much weaker of a hook in my opinion. I've had hooks of this type before; given that its already in quotes (meaning it was someone's opinion) I don't see why its a necessity to specify who said it: that's a reason people would want to learn more and click. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why do we even allow hooks like this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think it's interesting, with or without the attribution. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would imagine any tackle by a pro football player would be "very mean". It's not like they come up to you and say, "Excuse me sir, might I interest you in laying down on the grass? Here, let me help" RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm putting the obligation to do just that straight into #1 on my list of suggested American football rules. But yeah, the only interesting thing about the hook is the writer's rhetorical device, in which case one should definitely attribute. Otherwise it's just "... that someone, whose name I will not reveal, said something literarily pleasing?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: I think the hook is amusing and eyecatching, and agree it doesn't need the attribution. I'd be willing to bet it gets a stack of pageviews. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: I think this hook fails to convey a meaningfully encyclopedic fact, so I don't think it should be run, with or without the attribution. (second time I've said I thought something wasn't interesting when I actually meant to say this! keep doing that...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:: How does one determine if the hook is a "meaningfully encyclopedic fact"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree with the above concerns about interest and think it's an interesting and catchy hook. However, with this opinion clearly being in the minority at this point (only one other non-nominator support versus five opposes), there is consensus against running it. I've gone ahead and pulled the hook; a new hook can be proposed on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Launchballer}} said that a new hook is needed because it isn't interesting. I feel like that's unacceptable to just go by their thoughts, so I am opening it up for discussion here. Launchballer said that it isn't interesting because something would be Bill Nelson's highest charting album in his native UK. I don't understand the complaint. To me, it's interesting that an artist's album from 44 years ago is still the highest charting when the artist is famous and still active. Also, I feel like it being from any year would still make it snag interest. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, it's good that Launchballer said that, because I was going to leave a note to that effect on the nomination. Any British artist is going to have a highest charting album in the UK; this hook would only be interesting if the artist was famous and the album not. In my case, despite having lived in the UK all my life, I have never heard of Bill Nelson. I would thus seriously question how a worldwide audience is supposed to know, not only who he is, but that he is "famous and still active". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I will just withdraw this, while we still pass uninteresting after uninteresting hooks about sports - and music when Gerda is involved. That isn't meant to be mean because I just find her hooks to be boring even after substantial workshopping. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::For what it's worth, many here would probably not hesitate to reject Gerda noms either if it wasn't for the fact that she gets very upset about her hooks/nominations being questioned. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I could have sworn Gerda had decided to stop doing DYK. And people should just let her get upset and deny her hooks. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I will start mentioning uninteresting hooks and I didn't because interestingness is usually subjective. Such as Launchballer's April Fool's Day nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song). Who is supposed to be fooled by such a hook and how? SL93 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Please do. I find that hook even more uninteresting. Unlike the Bill Nelson hook, it isn't even comprehensible by your average English speaker. Though if it's intended for April Fool's, in which case it's marginally more acceptable. Still, it's not so striking that I'd hold it for ten whole months. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Other stuff exists, although to be fair there is a lot of it. I've promoted about 20 hooks in the last couple of days; the last one came from the post-PEIS part of Approved because so little of it caught my eye. To defend my hook; as Pfeiffer's article averages 5000+ views per day, I'd say she's clearly familiar to a broad audience and thus (for the purposes of that day) almost any hook would meet the 'intriguing' part of WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 23:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I still think it should be interesting to those who don’t know of her or much about her. We also don’t know where those viewers are located. I do wonder why you didn’t say anything about those other nominations that didn’t catch your eye. Skipping over them without saying anything doesn’t help matters. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree here. I get it's an April Fool's hook, but even to me the hook is incomprehensible, and if you don't know who Michelle is, the hook makes little sense. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@SL93: I've definitely noticed that it's not a tool you take out of your toolbox very often, so I for one would love it if you started mentioning which hooks you don't think are interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:In general, I feel like we don't spend a lot of time dissecting why a given hook is intriguing. What are the reasons this hook giving readers to click on the article? What would they be looking for? I think those are basic questions we should be asking when we talk about how intriguingness that we skip over – I honestly don't think this is as subjective as everyone says it is. We have an audience, we have data, we should make hypotheses and test them and learn from our mistakes. (None of this is specifically about your hook, SL, I just think that part of what makes the interestingness debate so hard sometimes is our refusal to actually have the debate.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Like, here, take this hook on the Main Page right now:

::* ... that American football player Dominic Vairo went from being forced off the freshman team at Notre Dame to becoming captain of the varsity team?

::I think readers will like this hook at least a fair amount because it raises two questions:

::* Why was Vairo forced off the freshman team? Was there some kind of misconduct? [He couldn't cover the cost of a new jersey when he lost his.]

::* How did Vairo fix whatever kicked him off to make his way to the senior team? [The article doesn't say.]

::It's the strength of those questions – or really, the intensity with which readers want the answers – that drives them to actually look at the full article. Hooks that get a lot of views will have more things going for them than just this, but for your standard hook, this is a pretty good starting place that I think we skip over. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|theleekycauldron}} Let's see then.

:::*Template:Did you know nominations/Meg White - Boring. Essentially a drummer started drumming.

:::*Template:Did you know nominations/Glossa ordinaria (Accursius) - I wouldn't bother clicking on the link because there is no context or attribution.

:::*Template:Did you know nominations/The Acres - ALT0 is boring because anyone can recommend anything, ALT1 is essentially just people build things, and ALT3 is boring because obviously financial institutions tend to not loan money for what they consider to be a likely lost cause. AL2 is interesting because it makes me curious to know what went so wrong.

:::*Template:Did you know nominations/Maude Simmons - Probably well known enough according the reviewer, but that isn't good enough.

:::*Template:Did you know nominations/Mabel MacFerran Rockwell - The only female engineer...so what? SL93 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I would not have approved the Maude Simmons hook given the need for familiarity with the names involved (even though I do know who Poitier is). I have to disagree with The Acres though: at the very least, I think ALT1 is interesting because, yes it's "people build things", but it's the residents that build things and not just anyone, it's saying people are building their own houses. I would not approve ALT2 since Wright would turn into the Jilly Cooper of architecture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not surprised by people building their own things. It's just DIY. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Interesting is in the eye of the reader. I went to engineering school when women were rarely found in technical fields (I was fortunate to have the opportunity to take some classes with Mary Blade) so hearing about a woman having an important engineering responsibility during that era is interesting to me. Perhaps women engineers are common enough these days that it's no longer interesting to many people. If so, that's a positive statement on how the world has advanced, but I still think it's an interesting hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I understand that, but the hook lacks context. The only connection to the time period is the Hoover Dam. I feel like at least a year or time frame could be added for non-western or non-US readers. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|SL93}} If there's a way to turn Total's comments about it taking "a great deal of time to get familiar" with the music (on the album?) that would be great. This kind of habituation or acclimatization to new forms of art like music is a real phenomenon but hasn't received as much attention as it should. I'm not sure how you would put this together as a hook, but it is something that appeals to me as I've been following this for a long time. One of my early memories is hearing my father play a recording of the Brandenburg Concertos while we were driving in the car and my mind being unable to place it in any kind of category until I could acclimate to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that Bill Nelson's highest-charting album Quit Dreaming and Get on the Beam has been described as "an extremely odd record"? Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that the fact it was originally recorded while he was part of Red Noise before being released two years later as a solo album to be more interesting than any of these suggestions. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I marked the nomination as withdrawn days ago. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lots of Japanese-only text in the "Award/Publications" etc sections of this article. Is this acceptable for DYK? Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:(hook promoter) I thought it was fine as those were the names of the awards and, absent a non-OR translation, fine within the list as I believe meets the DYK criteria with that section excluded DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:For DYK? Sure. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)

::: I meant give me a hook in the nom, in case that was not clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: It's in prep, nevermind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it too early to put in a bid for November 15, 2026:

• ... that Voyager 1 is now one light-day away from Earth?

RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Considering it's already been promoted to good article status and has been a GA for a while, it wouldn't be eligible for DYK anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::How about List of man-made objects one light-day away from Earth? RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A classic of the Wikipedia-list genre. CMD (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Was hoping for a speedy review of the quadruple nom Kate Nash, as her birthday is on July 6.--Launchballer 20:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can do it later today. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Two things: DYK hasn't updated, so pinging {{DYK admins}} and {{yo|Shubinator}}. Also, as we ended yesterday on five queues and have been at 2-a-day for six days, we should revert to 1-a-day.--Launchballer 00:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:DYKUpdateBot back online, it's updating now! Deferring the frequency question to the other admins. Shubinator (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've reset things back to a 24 hour cycle. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I've returned it to 12 for now. I currently have some spare time to devote to promotions, and we need to reduce the backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Gatoclass, changing the update frequency of DYK is an admin action, which should not be reversed without ... (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I think reversing an action that was taken to comply with a guideline would count as 'likely to be objected to'. It's great that you have some extra time to work at DYK – the backlog for sure needs to come down – but I really think it'd be at least courteous to give Roy a heads-up if this comes up in the future. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::thank you, i'm sorry to be a nag :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Gatoclass the current WP:DYKROTATE system evolved because people were getting burned out scrambling to keep up with 12 hour mode. The way things work now, we only switch to 12 hours if we already have enough filled queues to last us three days and at the end of three days we reevaluate the rule to see if we still have enough to last us another three days, etc. So if you want us to stay in 12 hour mode, the way to do that is to keep promoting queues ahead of time.

::::::Also note there's supposed to be advance notice before each switch because changes in either direction have implications for hooks scheduled to run on specific days; somebody needs to check to see if any changes are needed and shuffle hooks around to keep them scheduled for the right days. RoySmith (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Jeff Baena, but he's already in the right place.--Launchballer 10:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Okay, thanks guys, since there are no SOH's currently, I will switch back to 12 hours if I can get another set done in the next 90 minutes, otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Admittedly biased given I have a hook on the main page, but doesn't DYKROTATE recommend switching after midnight?--Launchballer 10:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The important part is switching before noon UTC. —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Well, the edit doesn't need to be immediately after - just the switch. There won't be one happening today BTW - too many errors to deal with, as per usual. Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm not sure what you mean by "the edit" vs "the switch", but the important thing is that the value in User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates changes at the right time. If it changes after 12Z, the bot gets confused. Or maybe it's just the statistics processing that gets messed up? Either way, badness happens. RoySmith (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Yeah, that's what I meant. The edit to the template just has to be made so that the bot change occurs before midday (per Kusma) and not prematurely. For example, for a switch from 24 to 12, the edit can be made any time between after midnight and before 12 midday and the bot won't notice the difference. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Shubinator: Is there any specific reason we have needed some manual updates recently? If the bot is not running completely reliably, I would certainly not want to go to 12 hour mode (doing manual updates is enough of a chore if you have to do one of them per day). —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also, could we increase the bus number by having more than one person able to manage this? I don't want to get into any deep debugging of somebody else's code, but I could certainly restart a toolforge job if it gets wedged. I'm sure there's a few others here who could do the same. RoySmith (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd also be happy to get the update bot unstuck when I'm around :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That would be great. The other bot we rely upon (KrinkleBot, who deals with Commons protection for the images) can be restarted by a few people who are easily contacted via the WP:DISCORD server. —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Generally, when the bot goes down, Toolforge has killed the job. (The bot logs don't show anything, which means the bot didn't crash due to an error in its code.) If folks know of a way to get more information on why Toolforge has killed a job, I'm all ears.

::::The topic of adding more maintainers, I'm happy to revisit this down the road if/when I'm less active - currently I consistently take action within 24 hours to "bot down" messages on my talk page. Especially because the bot is an adminbot, it's designed to fail closed, and minimize potential damage to the wiki. Adding maintainers who don't understand the code increases the probability of the bot being enabled in situations where we'd rather it be offline. And the mess created April Fools 2024 shows different people have varying risk tolerances for undefined adminbot behavior. Shubinator (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Gatoclass}} SL93 fixed the COVID kit hook, are there any further obstacles to returning to 2-a-day?--Launchballer 00:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Launchballer}} and other editors: I feel uncomfortable going to 2-a-day with 0 preps ready to be promoted. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::: There are nearly four preps ready to go now so I will switch back to 12 hours after midnight. Unfortunately though, some things came up off-wiki in the last few days that are likely to substantially reduce the time I have available to work on the backlog, so it may have to be an intermittent effort from here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The whole point of the current rule is that it guarantees we have enough material already in queues to get through the three-day sprint even if nobody promotes anything else. The previous rule used to count some mix of queues and preps and didn't have a fixed endpoint for when we would revert back to 24 hours. That was a mess. RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|RoySmith}} Yes, but in the past editors have expressed frustration when we have flipped back and forth too much, as sometimes hooks have to be shifted around. By having preps ready to promote, we are less likely to flip back after 3 days. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with you that having more preps filled before we switch would be good. But it's not what people agreed to. RoySmith (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Taraxacum brachyglossum (pictured) can reproduce both sexually and asexually, depending on environmental conditions?

{{ping|MallardTV|CatchMe|SL93}} I was not able to find in the article or in the source where it states that the species can reproduce asexually. Can someone quote the prose in the article and the source where this is stated? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Ah dang I think I forgot to write it into the prose. I’ll do that… MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 02:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is a good example of how WP:JARGON (agamospermy) might get in the way of reader understanding. At least in the lead, it might be better to use language as plain as that chosen for the hook. CMD (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Gatoclass pointed out earlier that "depending on environmental conditions" isn't in the article. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::can we please add it into the DYK style guidelines that hooks about species should avoid specific epithets if at all possible? "purple-bracted dandelion" is way easier for most people to digest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sometimes the common name is far less common than the scientific name. In this case, the "common" name purple-bracted dandelion gets a grand total of [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22purple-bracted+dandelion,%22+-wikipedia&sca_esv=70c4004f48b74267&sxsrf=AE3TifMuZ7TXCNbAp_AxK3w4J4Hr7m5tYA:1750584475985&ei=m8xXaO7qO9P97_UPoMiT2Qs&start=10&sa=N&sstk=Ac65TH6qFPT4es4H23H0KjDqaKFfpQZA6QIZ01tS3u1RjR-6fjYNSMyQnyhGqK7A9GjWVXwdwItmxwZLXgrGesfRmOB6-yVT5mKoBg&ved=2ahUKEwiupNyu24SOAxXT_rsIHSDkJLsQ8tMDegQICBAE&biw=1536&bih=738&dpr=1.25 20 Google hits] Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There are also species that don't have common names at all, so requiring the use of common names would be highly impractical in practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Narutolovehinata5: I did say "if at all possible", I know not all species have common names. @Surtsicna: Point taken, but I think most readers wouldn't know "Taraxacum brachyglossum" either and I think they'll be less likely to feel lost looking at "purple-bracted dandelion". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's actually something I often wonder about, @Theleekycauldron. Per WP:CRITERIA, the article title should be something "that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". Does this translate to what we call things in the running text? Or in DYK? I am not sure. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think that for article titles in general, enough people know what specific epithets are that it's most useful to maintain consistency for AT#5. For one-off DYK hooks, though, it's nice to be more presentable and accessible wherever possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Wozal|4meter4|SL93}} I added a citation needed template to the article to a sentence that either needs to be cited or removed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Attempt (German penal code)

This looks to be sourced entirely to primary sources, no? Pinging nominator {{u|FortunateSons}}. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Gatoclass It’s not. That’s all legal commentary, which are secondary sources (see, for example, [https://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/49827945/Erstellung-von-Hausarbeiten---Leitfaden-fuer-Studierende-FB01.pdf page 14], [https://www.jura.uni-passau.de/fileadmin/dokumente/fakultaeten/jura/lehrstuehle/martens/Formalia_Seminararbeiten.pdf page 3]). But you’re not the first one with this issue, apparently the equivalent doesn’t really exist in English. See also the article talk page :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem with these sources? Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:The sources themselves seem fine to me, but the citations are incomprehensible to anyone who has not been in contact with the very specific citation practices of German law. I would suggest to @FortunateSons to add full title, full author names and ISBN, then these should be fine. (I think for example MüKo is [https://www.beck-shop.de/muenchener-kommentar-strafgesetzbuch-bd-1-1-37/product/36172042?srsltid=AfmBOopQhMmMa4QyDry41IVPQoWkZXfiCYwMH7ncH8bYDL34s9gonEcd]). —Kusma (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, I‘m happy to do that. Would you suggest replacing it with a standard citation, or adding it in addition to the one currently implemented? FortunateSons (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If you find the citations as currently implemented helpful, then I wouldn't delete them. Perhaps keep the existing text after the citation template but within the ref tag. CMD (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I’ll try that tomorrow, thank you. The benefit of this citation style is that searching within the standard e-library for German law (beck online) gets you to the exact paragraph. FortunateSons (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing I haven't seen discussed much regarding regarding multi hooks is if a hook having multiple bolded links inherently makes the hook interesting or not, especially if there are several bolded links. An extreme example of this would be the New Zealand MP hooks in the past: obviously those hooks were impressive given the sheer number of names provided, but in cases like that, are those hooks actually interesting regardless of the number of bolded links, or are they only interesting because of there being so many links?

To me at least, ideally a multi-hook should not rely on padding out bold links just to be deemed interesting, it has to be interesting in its own right even if, theoretically, it only had a single bold link. That is, if the hook's interestingness is not because the hook fact itself is interesting, but rather because of there being so many links, then that hook is in fact arguably not compliant with the guidelines.

Courtesy ping to {{u|Launchballer}}, whose Kate Nash nomination partly inspired this question, although it's been something that's on my mind for a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Multi-hooks condense the backlog and they reduce the chance that one of our regular readers (which we seem to have) will ask why we have so many hooks relating to the same topic. Going hard on them is not going to make our lives any easier. CMD (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but that the question is if these hooks still need to meet DYKHOOKSTYLE or DYKINT, or if they are de-facto exempted from it. One could argue that, if it's the latter, it would be unfair to other hooks or nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They should meet them, it's just another factor to weigh. I'm not sure how it's unfair. CMD (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have seen some hook proposals in the past where it seemed like their interestingness hinged on the number of bolded links, rather than the hook fact itself being interesting in its own right. The former could arguably be gaming the system, since it isn't the hook fact itself that is interesting. To me at least, ideally multi hooks should be the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: The DYKINT requirement has always been relaxed to a degree for multis, because they are a boon to the project given that they reduce the number of noms. Having said that, judging by the quality of some of the single-article hooks lately, multis have nothing to worry about. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:The opposite can also happen, such as at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote, where a very interesting multi-article hook has been divided into two fairly boring individual hooks with no real justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that the proposed multhook was interesting, but nobody else commented on whether it met verifiability requirements. Comments at the nomination page are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As much as I'm a space nerd, perhaps three space hooks in one prep set is too many? RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it is too many. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Idk, it would be worth experimenting with but having thematic collections of hooks might bring in attention. It happens often enough, we could have "space Sunday," "Sports Saturday," ect. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

: The Harris Schurmeier hook really needs to be replaced - only one source supports it, two others say another guy handed out the peanuts and one of them includes a quote of him taking credit for it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I booted back a bunch of American hooks per WP:DYKVAR and that's why they're in there. Why not merge Schurmeier with the Ed Stone hook? Something like "... that Ed Stone, invited by Harris Schurmeier to become Voyager's project scientist, held the role for 50 years?". Pinging {{yo|Artem.G}}.--Launchballer 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::hm, I'm ok with replacing the peanuts hook with an ALT one, but I don't think it's a good idea to merge them. Let's just move it to another queue and show it several days later. Artem.G (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I kicked it back.--Launchballer 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Would a better hook for Horace Niall be "... that Horace Niall served as both a magistrate, defence lawyer, executioner, and coroner – for the same group of men?" The hook would be sourced to [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sydney-morning-herald/173473855/]. Courtesy ping to the nominator and reviewer; @BeanieFan11, @TarnishedPath. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:That hook is good. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I made the change. Repinging @BeanieFan11 as the change has actually been made. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This DYK was submitted and ran in March earlier this year but I realized I mispelled the author's last name (It's Marukido, not Narukido). Is it possible to correct it in the archives? lullabying (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not really, the archives are a reflection of what appeared on the main page. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the song "Ol' Man River" was originally written with the intent of having it sung by Broadway Jones?

{{ping|4meter4|Chetsford|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)

::@{{u|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 [https://www.amazon.com/Who-Should-Sing-Man-River/dp/0199389187 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)

:::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)

::::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)

::::@{{u|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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

• 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)

::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)

The nominator is requesting a second opinion regarding the interestingness of the nomination's ALT0. A response is appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the monumental khachkars (pictured) at Aprank Monastery can be seen from {{convert|8|km|mi|0|spell=on}} away?

{{ping|AirshipJungleman29|Yerevantsi|Darth Stabro|Launchballer}} Why is this interesting? Lots of things can be seen from that distance. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, firstly, they are not that big - it's their location that makes them so visible. Secondly, five miles seems like a long way to me, and will probably seem that way to a lot of other people. I'd be willing to bet this one will get a decent number of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with Roysmith; parts of Cedar Point are visible up to 9 miles away and it’s on flat land with trees. ^EF⁵ 15:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hell, One World Trade Center can be seen from 45 miles away on a good day. ^EF⁵ 15:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I also don't see where that hook was approved.--Launchballer 16:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It was never a hook, it was an example. A hook on 1WTC would almost certainly be about it’s symbolic height. ^EF⁵ 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Apologies, I don't see where the current hook was approved, and have kicked it back accordingly.--Launchballer 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::: That's a skyscraper with 94 floors. These khachkars would be barely taller than a two-story building - hardly comparable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I strongly oppose this objection. I find the proposition that an ancient monastery being visible from 8km away is less interesting because a roller coaster or a modern skyscraper also is to be extremely bizarre. It's like saying that a person living 500 years wouldn't be interesting because redwood trees do it all the time. The standard of interestingness is intentionally vague and by implication low. Facts don't need to be eye-popping to appear on DYK. And the ever-increasing effort to meet that nonexistent standard is leading to a rash of bad hooks that mislead or outright misstate facts in order to appear "more interesting." -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, we can see stars trillions of miles away. Is that trillions of times more interesting? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 15. We have a total of 282 nominations, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 111 nominations that has increased by 12 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Wild
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian brainrot
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Torta caprese
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Day of Blood
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yao Yuanjun
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

Other nominations

• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Diagnostic overshadowing in autism
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Operators and Things
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Broadfield Parkinson
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Fire-eye
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/June 2025 Gaza Freedom Flotilla
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Shi Bangfan
• June 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Selim Al Deen Muktamanch
• June 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Wicks
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/European Australian Movement
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sraboner Meghgulo Joro Holo Akashe
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Baena (surname)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Kahil
• June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Undefeated (band)
• June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Diagon Alley
• June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian reserve football teams
• June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Luigia Borrelli
• June 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Freddie Parker (two articles)
• June 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Bésame (Alejandro Sanz and Shakira song)
• June 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of Preston Porter Jr.
• June 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Worrall Reed Carter
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/3.5% rule
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Rini Widyantini
• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat Midras

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders hasn't updated automatically since the 17th. Is there any estimate for when the bot will be updating it again? Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 22:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've been quite busy over the past few days, but it's on my list :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, take your time :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 23:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

... that Robby Krieger was unable to record his guitar solo for "You're Lost Little Girl" until he got stoned on hashish?

{{ping|AirshipJungleman29|Rlendog|Launchballer}} As noted in the nom discussion, I'm worried about the WP:BLP aspects of this. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see where BLP issues were brought up regarding that hook; but for the Doors, stoned on hashish is so tame it's laughable. See [https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-psychedelic-genesis-of-the-doors-a-conversation-with-robby-krieger/ e.g. this] for Krieger's public discussion of ... well, his ludicrous consumption of hard drugs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

How come Irve Tunick isn't being prepared for June 27 as was stated in the holding area? Remember (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

: Can someone help me with this? Irve Tunick was supposed to run on June 27 and I have prepared for this for over a month. Remember (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hmmm, now sure how it slipped through the cracks. I'm looking at this now. I'll probably end up swapping it into Queue 6. RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Remember OK, this is done. Sorry that it got lost and thanks for the reminder. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you!!!! Remember (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Queue 5, surely? The sprint ends on 26 June, and if we go to 1-a-day after then that set hits the main page on 28 June.--Launchballer 00:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::People seem to be really digging in on the queue promotions, so I'm guessing we'll have at least one more sprint, but if you want to move it to 5, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::And, PS, this skipped the prep review, so it wouldn't hurt for somebody to give it another look to make sure I didn't miss anything. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'll do both in the morning.--Launchballer 01:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you!!!Remember (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Looks good to me. Consider moving the quote I cut to an article where it actually constitutes due weight.--Launchballer 11:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

:er, no? Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

{{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)

: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)

The hook for Jeff Baena is in Queue 7, when it should be prep 2/3 - possibly a sets per day change accident? Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, it should be in queue 7. We're at 2-a-day until 26 June; should we go for another three day sprint afterwards, then it'll need kicking back.--Launchballer 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks :) Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia

Hook and article say that the plant has been "used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years", wikilinked to Traditional Chinese Medicine and abbreviated as TCM. The problem is, if you read the TCM article, you'll find out that that name specifically refers to an alternative medicine (aka:pseduoscientific bullshit that sometimes kills people that we should be *really careful* about promoting on the front page) was created in the 1950s/1960s as part of the cultural revolution, and while it draws on old medicine used traditionally in China, they're two very different things. Having a look at the source, and while I see how two distinct statements where synthed to support this hook ({{tqq|Aquilegia oxysepala, a part of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs)}} and {{tqq|A. oxysepala has been used as food supplement and medicine for thousands of years in China}}), and I can see that wasn't intentional, it's still problematic and needs workshopping.

Courtesy pings to @Pbritti, @Apocheir, and promoter @AirshipJungleman29. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}, is there an article that discusses "old medicine used traditionally in China" in greater detail than Traditional Chinese medicine#Ancient history? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Not to my knowledge. Looks like most stuff has just been accumulated in that section over time; haven't looked at the sourcing, but a lot of stuff there could probably be spun out. I don't actually know if we have any articles like that, however - Traditional medicine of India redirects to a psuedoscience and Traditional medicine in Tonga and Traditional medicine in Ethiopia both go to subsections of larger articles. Articles like Traditional Korean medicine and Traditional Vietnamese medicine similarly have both the history of folk medicine in the region and modern pseudoscience. Kampo is mostly historical, but is tagged for fringe issues. Some of this confusion I think comes from these types of alternative medicine common English names. For example, we don't call Humorism "traditional European medicine" (though it is still practised in parts of Asia as a traditional medicine, so maybe we do?) Also, we don't have enough editors specializing in these topic areas. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And is there any other name for "old medicine used traditionally in China" other than "traditional Chinese medicine" {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the one you supplied works rather well. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

: The article also says (unsourced) "In TCM, A. oxysepala has been used to treat diseases in women such as irregular menstruation and intermenstrual bleeding." which is suggesting without evidence that it is actually useful for those things. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|unsourced}} That's not true; it's sourced quite clearly to Yu et. al. 2009. The above statements are a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. The article is merely indicating the same thing as what reliable sources say: that this use has been been present in traditional Chinese medicine. This reaction is especially peculiar when a scholarly paper indicated that there was even a scientifically reasonable explanation for historic herbal use and this Wikipedia article makes no assertion that there is a consensus in support of modern medical applications. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|GreenLipstickLesbian}} Specifically addressing your concerns–which are entirely reasonable and appreciated–my suggested revised verbiage for the hook would be as follows:

:::* ALT: "that medicinal use of Aquilegia oxysepala (pictured), one of the approximately 130 species of columbine, has occurred for thousands of years?"

:::Additionally, I am removing linked reference to TCM in the articles. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I think that's a lot better! The Journal of Food Biochemistry I think is strong enough to support that is is used. I do think there's a worry that a certain percentage of people are going to read "is used to treat X" and will think "it perfectly treats X!", and while that's nobody's fault, there's not really a way to mitigate that I'm aware of other than doing the stereotypical Wiki-fringe thing of, after every mention of a folk medicine/alternative medical topic, adding on a sentence lambasting it. There's a small issue with the fact that the two main authors of that paper work for a research centre designed "advocate modernization, standardization and internationalization of TCM"[http://english.simm.cas.cn/org/rd/rcmtcm/#:~:text=Research%20Center%20for%20Modernization%20of%20TCM%20was%20established%20in%20January,sequencing%2C%20proteomics%20and%20systems%20biology.]. It's connected to the Chinese Academy of Sciences so it's likely not terrible, but there's a lot of social pressure not to doubt elements of TCM (whether the older folk medicine or the modern pseudoscience) in Chinese politics and academia. ([https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.319.5864.709]: {{tqq|Since the Mao Zedong era, the government has strongly supported TCM, in part because it was too expensive to offer Western medicine to the masses. It remains taboo for Chinese media to label TCM as pseudoscience. “Criticizing TCM is unthinkable to many Chinese and almost like committing a traitorous act,” says Fang}}. But a lot of western sources don't take the ideas seriously at all, so that doesn't help. Honestly I hate writing in this topic area, so hats off to you for doing it, and sorry if I'm being a bit uptight about this.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|GreenLipstickLesbian}} For reasons I will not get into here, I'm very aware of the substantial dangers and pseudoscientific promotion of the modern incarnation of TCM. I am glad that you read the article (or at least the hook!) and thought critically about it enough to make a very reasonable recommendation to alter it. While I hope the average Joe isn't getting medical advice from Wikipedia (much less anything I've written), the era of LLMs means distinguishing between TCM (pseudoscience) and TCM (mild antioxidant has a mild antioxidant effect) is important. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Reading Yu et al (the full text is available via WP:TWL (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4514.2009.00233.x), I'm convinced that Black Kite's quote is adequately supported by the source. And "traditional Chinese medicine" is exactly the phrase Yu uses, so I don't have any problem going with it. If we're using that phrase to describe some fringe/woo/bs, that's on us. RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... 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)

: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)

::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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

:::Yeah, I don’t find this remotely interesting. ^EF⁵ 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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)

• ... that an early Ukrainian science-fiction novel, written by Mykola Chaikovsky in 1918, features solar power and a radiotelephone?

{{ping|Piotrus|Viriditas|SL93}} Doesn't this hook violate WP:DYKFICTION? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:How? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I promoted “… that one of the earliest Ukrainian science fiction novels, written shortly after World War I by Mykola Chaikovsky, features solar power and a radiotelephone?” which I don’t think violates that guideline because of the mention of it being one of the earliest novels, the time period is mentioned, and the mention of two things that exist. I think that the hook is more interesting without RoySmith’s trim. Although I do think it’s still interesting this way so I won’t argue it. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with {{u|Viriditas}}, this is not phrased in universe talking about the storyline, its calling out the early use of technologies without any story elements.--Kevmin § 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think saying essentially the same thing in fewer words is always a win, but if there's consensus to put it back, I won't stand in the way. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s fine. I just would be more keen to click on the link with the extra words because they drew me in more, but that could just be me. I mostly brought it up to let NLH know that I didn’t promote that hook. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::At the very least, it seems like a borderline case. I remember there being discussions about borderline cases like this were the consensus was that just saying something happened in fiction does not make it not in-universe. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's why I proposed fixing the hook with "concepts of", to make real world connection better. There were also alt hooks that had no issues with DYKFICTON... check with admin who selected that one on their thoughts about DYKFICTION, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK admins}} just a reminder that we've got a nom on tap for July 2, which at the current 12-hour schedule should go into the next Prep 1 (i.e. after the current one gets promoted). RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|RoySmith}} Which hook is it? Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It's McMenamins Hotel Oregon UFO Festival. See WP:SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I just promoted Prep 1, so now there's room for it. Of course, as @Launchballer pointed out above, by the time we get there, who knows what schedule we'll be on. RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I just promoted both to prep 3, as that's the first set that could hit the main page that day, and will kick back as necessary. The two that were in that set are actually in prep 1 as I have a date request for July 6.--Launchballer 12:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|History6042|RandomInfinity17|S5A-0043}} There's a substantial amount of copy-paste from asn.flightsafety.org/reports/2001/20010303_B734_HS-TDC.pdf. A fair amount of it is routine phrases (i.e. "at the time of the accident"), but there's enough other duplicated text that somebody else should take a look. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've attempted to reword some of the highlighted sections that I felt needed to be reworded. It is worth noting that the source material is public domain (at least in Thailand) under PD-TH-exempt (It is an official report/part of an offical report produced by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, an official branch of the Thai government). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Even if the source is PD, it still needs some sort of attribution. I know there's some templates that say things like "This article includes material from ..." which work for US PD sources; there may be something similar for Thai. RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:When I took a lot at Earwig most of the highlighted parts are the more technical phrases (“and the load control supervisor were in the”, “at FR-HiTemp facilities in Titchfield”, “centre wing fuel tank”) which have little to no room for rephrasing, and the largest part highlighted was a quote, so I passed this on the understanding of WP:LIMITED. Though I won’t object if someone has a different understanding of the contents. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Do birthdays really not count as truly special? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::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)

::Everybody has a birthday every year. What makes them special? RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: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)

:: 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)