Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

not interesting?

[edit]
WP:STICK
I'm closing this as pointless. This is the same discussion we've had over and over again for years with no hope that either side is going to change the mind of the other. If somebody thinks Gerda's actions at DYK are that much of a problem, bring it to WP:ANI and get a WP:TBAN. Otherwise, just let it be. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hagen or who rules about what our readers may see and what not? I watch that topics get excluded from DYK, and it feels like censoring. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yah no, the "non-interesting" as a fad is getting stupid beyond belief. The use of INT in that nomination was whole outside of the scope of what INT as a rule means. A situation that has been called out before. DYK:INT needs to go, as its being hyper-abused in a scope it never was intended and way past even gross rules creep.--Kevmin § 16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it’s way too complicated for an average reader to understand (I have no idea what’s special about the hook) but I’m not sure if DYKINT applies. EF5 16:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hook being too complicated for an average reader to understand is a textbook definition of a DYKINT fail. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the shorter alternatives, EF5? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background to the present DYK:INT issues is the international rise of populism, and that in turn primarily promotes the interests of the lowest common denominator. Populism has been lowering the standard of teaching in schools since the mid-20th century in my country, when selective education (such as grammar schools) was replaced by a misplaced ideal of "equality". In the new enormous comprehensive schools with huge class sizes and few teachers, the interests of struggling kids was of necessity prioritised, and the potential of bright kids had to fall by the wayside. I was there and I was obliged to watch it happen. I cannot speak for other countries, but a quick glance at current world politics tells us a lot about populism in certain countries which have the strongest influence on en.wikipedia. But poor education does not make people unintelligent or uncurious. Intelligent people work things out for themselves, and they relish a challenge. If you only ever give them hooks aimed at people with childlike minds, and block them from chancing on a new article about e.g. opera, all those WP readers who are trying to teach themselves more than their school taught them will switch off. Storye book (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no anti-opera bias on DYK. We run articles on opera regularly just fine, and in fact there is one on the main page right now. If the two main goals are the same, which are to advertise opera performers and music on DYK, and to encourage readers to click on the article, then what is the difference to you between "Klaus König played Tannhauser" and "Klaus König was a house decorator"? If the latter hook gets more people to read about König and learn about how accomplished and successful his career was, is it still not mission accomplished even if his hook did not mention Tannhauser? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "opera guy did opera" is not an interesting hook. And definitely not the thing to use to try to interest people in learning more about opera. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, hello there Humphrey Appleby! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hehe, that's a great sketch. I mean really, this is the only topic area where someone could look at a hook like this:
and defend it on the basis that it appeals to intellectually curious people. I don't think it takes much intellectual curiosity to understand the names of works and accomplished musicians; like, it doesn't involve any complicated analysis or conceptual understanding. And also, we're not diet academia – our entire mission is to educate readers by engaging them on their terms, and writers from every other topic area are held to that standard. We would never accept a hook like this from another topic area, we even sometimes call that cruft. But for high art, we call it rising above the lowest common denominator. make it make sense. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I accidentally archived this while browsing on my phone. Gerda, I thought the hook for Klaus König turned out quite good. Do you think there is merit in changing your approach? Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
König is a thread above. (I ignored the hook today. I'll add it to the archives of projects opera and Germany tomorrow.) We talk here about Julia Hagen, and the rejection of the nom - an original hook and four ALTs - by one person, before I could even request a different reviewer. I am interested in how others feel about this. I have explained my stance here for some years, - that's really less interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, perhaps if you explain your position for the 500th time, you will find consensus. :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, to respond to the above: there are no rules against running opera/classical music hooks on DYK, so there is no censorship going on. Many articles on the field have run on DYK just fine, including König. The issue was simply this: if a hook does not give a good reason for readers to want to click a bolded link and learn more, they won't. For example, a hook about a violinist that readers have never heard about before, that is about them playing a song they have also never heard of before, is unlikely to attract readers, and experience has shown that this is indeed the case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a happy medium. The trick is in driving people to your article by getting them interested in learning something new and unusual. I'm not very good at it, but I'm trying to learn. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. For example, a hook about an opera performer that instead focuses on their side job as a licensed physician, as opposed to a hook about them playing a certain role at a prominent opera house, still accomplishes the same mission: getting people to read about them and learn about their career and accomplishments. A hook about Max Mustermann playing Siegfried at Bayreuth might not encourage readers as much a hook about Mustermann being a surgeon in addition to his opera career. However, the latter will surely make more people know about his accomplishment playing Siegfried than the former, plus encourage more readers to read his article and learn more about his career. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly illustrating what I mean by "censoring": tolerate the person's name but propose to omit what concerns their main interest. I just had an opera singer on ITN; 25k+ views. Don't tell me that readers are not interested in opera singers. The next one is on now, David Rendall. May I remind you of this being a thread about a cellist, and not discussing hooks as much as a rejection of five hooks by a single person. You can move the opera reflection to the König thread, perhaps. Today is Bach's day of death, and I remember on my user page by a collection of hooks (mostly) about his works, from the past of course. You can inspect them and see how I like to write hooks: something essential to the subject, with some indication of place and time. Example in my story. The last work is "peace". - I have work to do regarding his works, with a FAC open. I'll look here again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that people are not interested in opera singers or classical music. Interest is not the same as familiarity. The point here is that a hook about a subject does not always need to be about their main claim to fame. It just has to highlight something unusual or eye-catching about a person. The point is the same regardless if the subject is an opera singer or a cellist, or whatever their field is. It's the reason why, when DYK ran a hook about Winston Churchill, it focused on his little-known love for bricklaying. He may be the most famous British prime minister of all time, but his hook did not need to be about his political career. Same with Prince William, whose hook was about a funny anecdote about his education as opposed to his role as King Charles's heir. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You are perfectly illustrating what I mean by "censoring": tolerate the person's name but propose to omit what concerns their main interest. I just had an opera singer on ITN; 25k+ views. Don't tell me that readers are not interested in opera singers."
So, just to clarify, you're perfectly happy with a link to the person's name and a complete omission of their main interest at ITN so readers have no idea what they clicked on, but at DYK that's censorship? Or perhaps do you believe that the 25k+ people who clicked on the link knew and were interested in Ms Uria-Monzon, but would somehow forget who she was if she was mentioned (with slightly more context) at DYK? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there were 10k views before the article was even mentioned at ITN. Recent deaths tend to cause externally driven traffic. Generally I find it interesting how well OTD or ITN items do compared with DYK -- in this example, the first blue and green spikes are DYK, the later spikes are OTD. I think that DYK hooks often serve to prevent people from clicking on an article, because the hook already tells them everything (or gives them a strong hint that they will not be interested in the topic). —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers were more interested in Uria-Monzon than some others right after she died. It's a pleasure to add to an article when there is interest. When her name came up on the Main page, there was again more interest than for others. They don't click blindly, I guess. I see the beginning of an article when I hover over a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How I arrive at a hook

[edit]

Replying to several requests above: I wrote about Julia Hagen after having heard her in a fascinating concert. Following the repeated phrase "Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page", I did that, with a hook about a interesting cellist, and an interesting violinist, playing an interesting piece with an interesting orchestra (with a tradition), an interesting conductor (going to be head of the Royal Opera House after the summer break), at an interesting hall, livestreamed by an interesting organisation, - the livestreamed concert giving everybody a chance to see what fascinated me, and every link a chance to learn. Women need more room on DYK, no? But please for what they achieve and stand for. In other words: I like a hook showing something that's interesting to give context to the specific subject. - The other proposal: she began playing the cello at age four. So what? Many do that. What is supposed to be interesting there? - Regarding Churchill: he is known already when the hook starts. Most subjects are not known, and DYK is - or could be - a chance to change that. Perhaps 4,000 readers will investigate. For the vast majority of those who won't click, the hook will remain the only information about the subject. We can grant them a bit more than that she began at age four. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Propose changing "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest" to "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by Gerda". Also propose changing "Wikipedia" to "Gerdapedia". I kind of like the ring of that anyway. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some personalisation has been suggested before. - I suggest to change the wording to "Hooks should try to present something impressive and intriguing about the subject." - The perception varies, the knowledge varies, the interests are different, - to build on the "perception" of a very broad audience, being afraid of saying anything special, has lead to overly general wordings, such as "operatic tenor" (see König). Seven years ago OTD, we had a hook about a soprano, Kateryna Kasper. All we would manage these days would be saying "operatic soprano", of which there are thousands, and so different. Not long ago, we could express, by mentioning a few names of people and places: that she worked internationally, that she performed in rarely played operas, that she worked with two of the most important directors (each of their time, for the latter towards the end of his life - he was still alive when the hook ran), and we could link to the operas which many readers may not have known but might be interested to know more about. Readers who don't know the names still got the information "opera singer" and could decide to click or not. We will never achieve that facts will be equally "unusual and intriguing" to all readers, and would be broader in scope and thus more interesting if we didn't try.
    Also: the current wording says "should be likely", - two qualifiers (emphasis mine). That sounds like a recommendation, not a strict request. My first question regarding the nom for Julia Hagen was: is it a good idea to reject five suggestions, just because they may perhaps not be "perceived ..." by some, or even most? Especially if the only alternative given is clearly not interesting to anybody? - Did you see the nom for Kasper? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, Kasper ran seven years ago. DYK was not as strict with hook interest back then as it was now. If that exact hook was proposed today, it would likely be rejected or at least questioned. It also did not do all that well with readers, getting only 1,185 views during its run (for contrast, König was read over 4,000 times during his run). You need to understand that the DYK of then and the DYK of now are different, and what may have been acceptable hooks in the past may no longer be so now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • is it a good idea to reject five suggestions, just because they may perhaps not be "perceived ..." by some, or even most?
    To answer your question, the answer is yes. In fact, that is the whole point of DYKINT: if a hook is unlikely to be interesting or be understood by most readers, then such a hook should not be approved. This is not limited to opera or classical music: any hook that is too "technical" is likely to be rejected. This nomination is a recent example of a (non-opera) one whose original hook was questioned on DYKINT grounds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you read what I wrote, or would not have written: "you need to understand". i didn't say "you need to understand" but like you to understand that a guideline as careful as "should be likely" should likely not be used to reject a hook, or five, presenting only a poor alternative. Questioning is fine. - This counting of views doesn't tell us at all how deeply readers looked into an article. It should also, to be meaningful, be seen in relation to the normal interest in the subject when not DYK day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines say that hooks must be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." The hooks you proposed did not meet that: they require deep knowledge of opera or classical music to understand and appreciate, which counts as special knowledge or interest, hence their rejection. It is no different from articles being rejected for not meeting the length or newness requirements. It is also not different from rejecting a hook for failing other DYK criteria, such as sourcing, accuracy, BLP compliance, etc. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines say "The hook should be likely ..." - should be, - there is no "must". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When your hooks are often questioned by the DYK community on interest grounds, and when pageview statistics consistently show that your preferred hook wordings generally underperform with readers, those are signs that your hooks generally do not meet the guidelines. Saying that a hook "should be likely" does not mean that exceptions exist. The wording does not leave an opening for IAR exemptions for DYKINT just because the nominator wants an exemption. Yes, DYKINT is a subjective criterion and the community often argues about it, but the fact that multiple editors have raised concerns about your hooks shows that you need to adjust to the guidelines, rather than the guidelines and the community adjusting to you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That Kasper hook does not "express, by mentioning a few names of people and places: that she worked internationally, that she performed in rarely played operas, that she worked with two of the most important directors", all it says is "opera person did opera things". If someone does not know about opera, none of that hook will make any sense. And none of it will give them any reason to look at the article and try to learn something about opera. You love opera and you seem to want to teach people about it, so why do you insist on phrasing hooks in such a way as to baffle and bore people into not bothering to read the article.? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the history: when the Kasper hook was on, 345 looked at the LA opera, 667 at Dido and Aeneas, 238 at Kosky, 253 at the Frankfurt stages, 367 at the Russian opera and 286 at Kupfer. - Opera things are different. Animal does animal things. But perhaps it would be good to know if the animal is an elephant or a nightingale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a list of your favorite "top ten" most interesting music-related hooks? I don't think this would be difficult for you to do, as you've meticulously cataloged these hooks for years. The reason I ask, is because it would give people an idea of what you are talking about. So, just choose ten of your favorite, most interesting music-related hooks and add them here. I think it could help us reach closure on this. We shouldn't have to discuss this every day. Also, because you've done such a great job archiving this material, this could give the DYK community an opportunity to show you what they consider interesting and what they don't and put an end to the constant debate. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems a bit much. No need for the sarcasm here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you have to accept at this point that what you find interesting is different from what many other editors find interesting. What you find "boring" or "not interesting to anybody", such as König being a house painter, is often what the community is looking for: facts that do not need being an expert in opera or classical music to get. Meanwhile, the information that you find interesting, such as König playing Tannhauser or performing at La Scala, often baffles other editors and readers who do not understand the importance of these roles or venues. Given that our guidelines specifically focus on non-specialists, hooks need to be less of the latter and more of the former. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what this is a reply to, certainly not what I wrote above: "The perception varies, the knowledge varies, the interests are different". We have a strict rule about 200 chars max for a hook, the measurement of "interesting" would be quite different, and hardly objective. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to be a general reply rather than a response to any specific comment. However, it probably best applies to "In other words: I like a hook showing something that's interesting to give context to the specific subject." The point here is simply that what you find interesting is generally not what the community finds interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re 4,000 readers will investigate: i hope so! high aim, though- it'd be a first time that a non-image hook you've written got 4,000 views in almost a year. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for reference, the median non-image DYK this month got 247.7 views per hour, which is around 6,000 views in a normal run. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rejection of a nomination based on "hooks not perceived as interesting" a good idea?

[edit]
  • You can imagine what I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The idea is to get people interested in an article. To "hook" them in. Interestingness is the very essence of something being a hook. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We shouldn't be running uninteresting things per Khajidha. EF5 21:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Interesting" is an incredibly subjective criteria and what is interesting to one person might not be to another. DYK is about featuring pages that have been newly-expanded or created. Something like "did you know that John Smith died of old age when he was 78" is fairly boring, but beyond that there should be fairly decent latitude. A reviewer and promoter being able to sideline things they don't personally find interesting isn't great. Perhaps, if all other DYK criteria are met, such hooks should be brought here, discussed, made as interesting as possible via consensus, and then run. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same answer as a year and a half ago, and goodness knows how many times before and after because Gerda refuses to compromise whatsoever. From that discussion (it's almost like she couldn't give a fig's arse):
    "Is there are any reason why so much effort is spent on so many of Gerda Arendts hooks, while most other prolific DYK contributors don't seem to be such a drain? Just reject it and move on to the next."
    "I thought that the project had reiterated that "singer sings songs" (or other "guy does something bog standard for his job" type hooks) weren't going to be allowed going forward."
    "I am not sure what the point of polling for advice on the subject is if her criteria for "general interest" ultimately remains coterminous with "her interest", other than to eventually obtain permission through sheer attrition...Moreover, regardless of her motivations, it cannot be said that she operates in anything but total bad faith with every other person involved in the process until someone approves her hook. Frankly, I cannot see why she should be permitted to participate in DYK if this pattern of behavior, already years-long, continues."
Any other user and such comments should result in some sort of change. Dare I ask how many "did you know that an opera singer played an opera part at an opera house in a year and a reviewer said something about it" hooks she's instead proposed since then? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I answered this question and ran into an edit conflict. Feel free to move if you think it should not go here.)
I proposed 9 since:
I didn't change since 2018 when I nominated Kateryna Kasper, but DYK changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes obviously DYK changed Gerda Arendt, along with the rest of Wikipedia, or are you still having infobox arguments every other day? More likely you're trying to conceal the full extent of your wilful obstinacy:
And that's not counting the equally dull "that a composition was composed by a composer for musicians to perform", such as:
As below, "a turgid succession of repetitive dullness tendentiously pushed by one (1) editor who studiously refuses to care one whit", oh, and who also conveniently forgets the "singular" hooks that she was so proud of. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She often mentions how she wants concise reviews and discussions, but declines to do the very thing that would allow brevity in the first place (i.e. to propose or agree to broadly interesting hooks from the start). Ironically, if she only followed the advice given to her by multiple editors, her nominations would easily breeze through review and she would accomplish her goal of getting more people to read about these opera performers. If what she meant by "concise reviews" is "my preferred hooks being approved immediately without being questioned," then that is going to be difficult. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the issue is not occasional uninteresting hooks proposed by a wide variety of editors, for which cases the consensus-building process outlined by Darth Stabro above has worked very well, but instead a turgid succession of repetitive dullness tendentiously pushed by one (1) editor who studiously refuses to care one whit about the clear consensus, from many years and even more discussions, of the community. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but agree. The community tends to be gentle about interestingness enforcement because we don't like hurting people's feelings. But when someone refuses to bend and only receives pushback from one or two people consistently, we get sprawling a dozen sprawling nompages a year and poor results to show for it. (I know some people argue that success isn't based on pageviews, and I agree to some extent – but if we're citing 25k views at RD as evidence in favor and speculating about 4,000 readers, the hundreds of sub-1000-view flops we've run at DYK are also relevant.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DYKINT is a criterion, and just as we can reject hooks and nominations for not meeting the other guidelines, such as newness, length, and sourcing, hooks can and should be rejected for not meeting interest requirements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newness, length, and sourcing, are generally objective criteria. Interestingness is not and could vary widely based on cultural psychology. Gerda is, IMO, attempting to uphold a German philosophical understanding and interpretation that values what is interesting quite differently than the general DYK approach. All she has to do is compromise just a bit over to the other side and we will all be happy and can focus on other things. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One solution is simply avoiding naming specific roles in a hook unless, 1. them playing the role is central to the main hook fact, or 2. their performance of the role was unusual or intriguing by itself. A hook that goes "that Max Mustermann played the role of Siegfried in the Ring Cycle at Bayreuth?" is undoubtedly a major accomplishment and a big deal to those in the know, but the significance is lost to people who are not (and they are the majority of the readers). A hook that goes "that Max Mustermann performed as Siegfried in Bayreuth on his wedding day?" would be acceptable, since the main fact is less about the specific role and more about something unusual about it.
Gerda likes to talk about how the roles she highlights are big deals and special, but this context is often lost in her hooks. Even with her explanations, it is hard to see why these specific performances are any more special than those of the same role by others (unless they're premiere performances). As an example, how are Kateryna Kasper's performances as Belinda and Antonida any more different from those by others? Given the circumstances, mentioning specific roles is often more trouble than it's worth. However, her insistence on mentioning them is a common sticking point during reviews. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point. I would like to see her response to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My answer - in case you are interested - is: the point was to introduce a singer at the beginning of her career, - how would there be any claim that she did it better than anybody else, or different? Saying exactly where she did what with whom (great places, great pieces known too little, great directors) is a sketch of her artistry and her standing in the opera world, and for those who never heard of them a chance to explore. There was interest, as said above. Which was the intention. The fact that fascinated me was that Harry Kupfer staged that opera.
Quite generally: I feel a tendency to ban opera roles from DYK, and only speak about soprano and tenor career, and feel that it is like banning countries, only speak of continents. It's the roles that speak about singers, better than any lengthy description. example - In case she gets to GA, would a hook just say mezzo soprano? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally yes. In non-exceptional circumstances, I would recommend that reviewers give nominators (and others) at least a week or so to propose interesting hooks. In general, I wish we were more strict about INT, not less. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn't we have an RfC about this a year or two ago that resulted in consensus to strengthen that guideline? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We did, hence the change from "interesting to a broad audience" to "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." Back then, the thought was that the change would make discussions about hook interest feel less subjective while also lessening edge cases. For the most part, it's worked, but given this discussion, it's still not perfect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ambivalent. I like Darth Stabro's idea very much, but AirshipJungleman29 points out the time sink. I just generated this report which is probably completely meaningless without a rigorous human expert, but it does make me question what interestingness really is at this point. I see that Gerda has posted her selection of what she considers the most interesting hooks, and it would be great if someone could address that list. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is naive, but I don't like using an individual's subjective appraisal of what counts as interesting (Wikipedia ought to be a consensus) and only nominally objective metrics like view counts. Two and a half years ago, I nom'd Disco (Surf Curse song) and it was rejected as insufficiently catchy (note: the reviewer was leeky and I have nothing but good things to say about them). I think that's regrettable, given the second life the song took on about a year later. I think the primary goal of DYK should be incentivizing decent- to good-quality content creation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    really tragic, I just got into "Disco" a month or two ago! Absolutely a great song, and I'm also a big fan of "Freaks" (I was around for that era of TikTok). I do stand by what I said in that review (if anything, I think I've gotten more stringent since then), but (1) I should have let you know that this page is always an avenue to ask the community to reconsider a reviewer's judgment and (2) I have nothing but good things to say about you, too :) bad luck that you got me as a reviewer, maybe. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words! Glad to see another fan—Surf Curse has been a favorite band since I was in college, which is already a disconcertingly long time ago... Looking back, I think your point 2 would have been all I needed to feel a bit better about that nom. Now, back to wondering when they'll actually release another album. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes we should reject hooks for not being interesting per WP:DYKINT. As someone who is often pinged for second opinions on Gerda's hook proposals because of my background as an opera singer and music educator, I can say that I think there is an ongoing problem with Gerda's hook nominations as it relates to complying with DYKINT. The same issues repeatedly crop up in her hook proposals because she is not willing to accept the WP:CONSENSUS of her peers here at DYK as to what constitutes acceptable hook craftsmanship. Repeating problems include the insistence in naming obscure composers, operas, opera characters/plots, and theaters/opera houses which are not immediately recognizable to the generable public and require "specialized knowledge"; the cramming of too many facts into a single hook in a way that makes the hook overly burdensome/clumsy and lacking appropriate literary style for a hook; the overuse of "resume" type hooks that are of no interest to most people (ie this singer sang this part at this place); the use of critical reviews that often lack any real interest because they aren't particularly surprising or they require too much specialized knowledge; the refusal to embrace alternate hooks that do comply with DYKINT when other editors propose them; arguing repeatedly with reviewers when they take issue with proposed hooks making hook review stressful for reviewers (this gets particularly bad when editors jump in with alt hooks which often makes Gerda unhappy and argumentative); and in general a perception that DYK's purpose is to "educate" the reader about opera (a phrase Gerda uses often in defending her hooks) rather than conform to the goal expressed at WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. In my opinion it is time to consider setting some clearly communicated boundaries for Gerda specifically here at DYK because of the repeating contentious nominations across several years. It's clear she isn't learning, and reviewing her nominations is often difficult because of her combative behavior.4meter4 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I came here when I saw "Is the rejection of a nomination based on "hooks not perceived as interesting" a good idea?" as the subject. When I arrive I find it is a discussion focused on one editor. I've been "hooked". Sure others are mentioned but this is about a single editor. It may be the consensus to do this, but its not nice. But I'm here now so let me share a view. When I used to go to the shops there were interesting things in the shop windows. Some shops were about goods I had no need for, but I found them interesting (and someone was buying the stuff). Some shops were selling stuff that they wanted to sell even though there were maybe very few buyers. There were also shopping malls where all the shops were popular national chains. I liked the streets where the shops had lots of diversity. The diversity is interesting. Victuallers (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our "chain stores" here are American football, the Olympics and opera. I also welcome more diversity, but I am not sure how to get there. —Kusma (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Honestly, we don't get very many opera hooks. There aren't any in the preps and queues at the moment, and there are only two opera topics currently nominated. There are none in the approved section. We average one to two opera hooks a week which means most sets don't have an opera topic. There are multiple sports and politics hooks in a set usually. We also get a lot of popular culture (movies, music that is trending, etc.) and current events. Obviously numbers vary and it can go up or down. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing out the DYKINT criterion just because one may very occasionally get a bad call would be an absurd overreaction. If you think a nomination of yours has been unfairly rejected on DYKINT grounds, the appropriate course of action is to appeal the decision on this page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in 2006, hooks were rejected if no admin had chosen them for the Main Page after a week or two. Modern DYK has been much more forgiving of bad hooks. —Kusma (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe we should really ask the community what they think. For the purposes of DYK curation, should the hook [...] and others of a similar form be treated as "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic"? If we get a clear answer on that question, we can then move to "okay, the current guideline means [x], but what if it should say [y] instead?". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the most part, our current interest guidelines have worked well, and only a minority of nominators have been the source of issues with it. When we do get complaints about hooks, it's less to do with the hooks being boring, but rather the same set of topics being given focus (see the Jilly Cooper/American football/Olympics brouhahas as recent examples). The current wording was also approved via an RfC, and with strong support. Perhaps the solution is not necessarily to modify our guidelines again, but to find a way to bring editors in line. It seems the current issues have less to do with the guidelines being problematic and more to do with editors being reluctant to follow them. The current guidelines are already clear and usually straightforward to follow. Propose an interesting hook, and if you can't, either ask for help, or simply not nominate the article at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lordy, not another guideline RFC. Rolling the dice on critical issues is IMO something that in general should be avoided whenever possible.
The guideline as it stands is fine and probably the best thing that could come out of a prolonged debate about it is that it stay as is. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, I'm not arguing for an RfC on what the guideline should be. I'm suggesting we have a clear precedent about whether the community thinks this kind of hook meets the guidelines as currently written. I want to stop seeing this debate over and over again on every nompage, so we should ask the community whether they interpret the existing criteria to pass or fail a hook like this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we should not argue interestingness on the nom pages, but instead we should suggest to prep builders to build more attractive prep sets and then be more aggressive about timing out approved nominations that haven't been picked up by prep builders. If people think that the Main Page is showing the wrong subjects, they can fix that by starting to build their own prep sets. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, surely it is already clear that hooks which are based around completely unsurprising content (opera singer sang an operatic role in an opera venue) are DYKINT fails? If the hook facts are mundane and everyday, it's a fail right out of the box. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you'd really think so, wouldn't you? and yet. apparently the discussion hasn't been put to bed, because – at Gerda's insistence – we keep having it. You know, the guideline RfC two years ago was spawned from a hook exactly like this one. We strengthened the guideline at that RfC specifically as a rejection of that hook and hooks like it. But the hooks keep getting nominated, and when people object, and point to the guideline written specifically to exclude those hooks, it's resistance, diversion, and walls of text back and forth. It sure feels like the consensus of the community is not being respected. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. This is a conversation that has been had literally dozens of times (perhaps more) at Gerda's nominations. The same points are made over and over by reviewers, and we still are getting pushback and the same types of comments/submissions/protests etc. It's honestly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Part of it is that Gerda's approach works well for her at the German wikipedia's DYK equivalent where the types of hooks accepted aren't expected to be entertaining/surprising. She isn't willing to adjust her approach to the different demands that we have here in terms of what we expect a hook to do in regards to audience response. This is why I said we need to set boundaries here at DYK for Gerda specifically, because frankly I don't think there is a systemic problem with the guideline or the way its being interpreted/implemented. We have one editor who simply isn't willing to accept WP:CONSENSUS. If we don't have the ability to set boundaries I suppose we could take this to WP:ARBCOM and have them review the problem. I'm about at that point.4meter4 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ARBCOM would be overkill IMO. There is no reason why we should not be able to handle an issue like this in-house. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also, that'd make things a liiittle awkward for me 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ARBCOM requires that we try to address the issue beforehand. We haven't. Yes, we've made numerous attempts to reform a guideline that 95%+ of nominators pass without even trying. No, we haven't even once tried to curtail the proclivities of a single tendentious editor who is the only one who consistently fails the requirements. Why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am open to hearing solutions. At this point I've heard people talk about this as a policy problem, but that isn't what this is. It's a behavioral problem.4meter4 (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking personally, I am loathe to take a stand because I've always found Gerda to be such a thoughtful and considerate person. It's just hard to be firm when dealing with somebody like that.
Gerda is also, of course, a prolific contributor, and that is very much deserving of respect, All the same, I would like to see something done about this issue because it's been a longstanding one and because it would benefit the project and ultimately, I would like to think, Gerda herself, in that her contributions would get a more commensurate degree of attention. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - rejecting hooks based on not being 'interesting' enough becomes highly arbitrary, and should thus be applied with caution. WP:DYKINT should not be applied in a rigid way, DYK hooks cannot be expected to be earth-shattering. What I perceive is that WP:DYKINT is again and again applied to reinforce systemic bias, where any mundane local issue in the United States is passed as interesting but where narratives on non-Western issued are marginalized with reference to DYKINT. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not entirely true. We've been making efforts to lessen systemic bias on DYK and encouraging contributions from outside the Anglosphere. The upcoming Papua New Guinea DYK project is just one example of this. If we just allowed US-related topics without question, then our frequent American football hooks would not be questioned at all on interest grounds, but they sometimes are. If you believe that there is a systemic bias against non-US topics on DYK, feel free to comment on those nominations and point them out, and we will be happy to adjust accordingly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an experience of DYKINT I'd certainly validate – I do wonder if the fact that the hooks being discussed here are mainly about Western high art sometimes tips the systemic bias scales in their favor. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree bias against topics outside the American/Anglophile world is real. However, I don't think that's true in the context of this conversation when we are focused on a single editor with repeating problems in hook writing. I'd also like to point out that if we were to review Gerda's noms you'd see a ton of usable alternate hooks that were proposed by other editors, but which she rejected because they didn't feature the content she wanted. We've ended up not running some of these because Gerda withdrew the nomination; not because there wasn't a usable hook but because she didn't like the usable alternate hooks that were interesting that were written by others. Other times she has capitulated and you will see those hooks have run but only after long arduous dialogues over what makes a hook interesting. In other words, this is an issue even in her successful nominations.
I write in the same content area as Gerda and routinely submit opera related articles to DYK successfully and usually without problems (although I too sometimes get rejected at times on submissions that surprise me). The issue isn't the content area, but the ability to make the content area fit DYKINT which requires skill/work. It can be done if one is willing to accept the fact that not every fact in an article is suitable to the hook format, and that one has to choose to feature content that can be understood by those with little to no background knowledge and is simultaneously intriguing. That's true of any topic area. In general, I've found opera singer hooks work best when something interesting about the personal life of the singer gets featured that anyone can relate to rather than a "resume" hook with esoteric content that requires familiarity with the subject matter. That of course requires sources that actually discuss the person and not just what they did on stage, and that doesn't always exist for every artist. I honestly have a harder time writing on current singers (including American opera singers) and getting them approved because the sources covering personal details often aren't there whereas singers that have been around for a while (including non-Americans/Brits) often have better sources with more personal details which make creating better hooks easier. That's honestly true of any biographical hook even outside opera.4meter4 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May I reply to what was open?

[edit]

Jahrhundertring remembered today, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see. That was a strong hook, with links to FAs and GAs, no problem it seems for a unique event celebrating the anniversary of another unique event.

  • @AirshipJungleman29: interesting that you mention infoboxes. In 2013 I was regarded as an infobox warrior, and ten years later (Mozart) my stance appears to match community consensus. (I haven't "fought" about an infobox since 2016, Gustav Holst). I used this image in the discussion about Götterdämmerung - still on the talk. - You might have marked the hook about König as an ALT, because my initial suggestion was to mention the unique concert after the Fall of the Berlin Wall which introduced "Ode to Freedom", repeated more recently for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your acknowledgement that community consensus can and does change Gerda Arendt; perhaps we can now move on from the constant "look at this hook from 2013 why can't I run it now" and "[insert enigmatic statement about no-longer-active DYK contributor]". Oh no wait, you don't care, so long as you get to monologue. Want to thank another set of five people? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you misunderstood. While I accept in general that consensus can change, in case of the infoboxes I don't believe it did, only the perception of the consensus, and for a few users, not yet. - I confess that there's probably more to be thankful in the closed discussion, but I had only time to read the short entries. I'll try to get to more understanding of the other positions step by step, started below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas, thank you for the comment "Newness, length, and sourcing, are generally objective criteria. Interestingness is not and could vary widely based on cultural psychology.", - You misunderstood, however, the 9 hooks that I quoted, are not my favourites, but the few I nominated since the last discussion, only three this year, - I wrote some bios of opera singers without attempting DYK.
  • @4meter4 and all interested in the number of opera-related hooks: see here. 17 altogether in 2025 so far (35 in 2024, 29 in 2023, 68 in 2023, 100 in 2022).
  • Thanks to Darth Stabro and Pbritti. (need to interrupt, there's real life) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Magdalena Hinterdobler. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for comments by Victuallers ("The diversity is interesting") and Soman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    can i ask why you chose to publicly thank, at some length, only the people who wrote comments that more or less agree with your position in the above discussion, and did not thank anyone who didn't write a comment along those lines? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: sorry to ping on something you may have already seen, but i'm still a little curious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    waking up to the ping, before breakfast, so short: I thanked those with short comments, feeling understood. I still had no time to read the longer comments. I'm waking up, have company to feed, want to write my story (Herbert Brandl, new article, so eligible for DYK, you (all) can help: may we say something about his art or will we have to stick to what he did at age 4?)), reviews waiting: sorry, it may take a while. So: thanks everyone I didn't yet mention for good intentions which I don't doubt! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how this is interesting

[edit]

A follow-up question (and therefore here in context), trying, really, to reach more understanding of each other: can someone please explain to me how the alternative given in the rejected nom,

  • ... that Julia Hagen began playing the cello at the age of four?

would be interesting, at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that hook is interesting either, if i'm being honest. you're right, it's not really uncommon. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, but it seems like NLH5 was imagining that she would start playing a full-size cello from the get-go. If that was the case, then that would definitely be interesting, so I don't think they can be faulted for the misapprehension. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but I hope I didn't fault anyone. If I did, inadvertently, please let me know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be interesting. I see the proposer only said it would "maybe" be interesting, and I think they were coming from a place of trying to offer a constructive solution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the proposer saying that it was the only thing from the article that might be interesting, which - at least in my limited understanding of English - is not constructive but dismissing anything else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PEIS limit reached on WP:DYKN

[edit]

The DYK noms "awaiting approval" (WP:DYKN) has reached the the PEIS limit, meaning the newest noms are no longer appearing on the page (instead showing up as a link at the bottom). I went through the list and pinged editors in stalled nominations (usually when it has been over a week since the last response). Other editors have been more diligent than me in doing this, but this is only a temporary fix.

WP:DYKUBM says the community chooses when to activate a new backlog mode, as the 2021 RFC closed as inconclusive. The previous implementation of backlog mode was activated after a similar PEIS problem was posted here. The last DYKN backlog mode ended June 12.

Should we consider implementing WP:DYKUBM? If so, when should it be activated? Editors interested in avoiding the backlog mode can review some noms (which can be used as QPQs later). Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA had reached the PEIS limit earlier today, just barely for each. DYKN is back below the limit, at least at the moment, but DYKNA is now up to three days (thirteen noms) that aren't transcluding. Maybe we should hold off on backlog mode to see if the DYKN page can avoid serious PEIS limit issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be unpopular, but we could also try timing out older nominations and see if that will help clear DYKN's backlog. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
might be a good place to note that Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count does not count noms that fail to transclude because of PEIS errors; see User:GalliumBot/transfem/DYK hook count for a patched version. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, there's only three possible courses of action:
  1. Process more nominations per day via WP:DYKUBM and/or WP:DYKROTATE
  2. Start rejecting pending nominations per your choice of criteria
  3. Don't worry about it
These discussions always tend to ramble on, but it really comes down to deciding which of those three things we want to do. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally want to chip in and say that maybe we just need a more consistent cycle of moving prep areas into queues. I think the current system of filling to 6 or 7 queues, then waiting some few days till it's down to 3 or 2 and then filling it back up is just not working really well. It's great to help save time, and we're volunteers after all, but in reality, it is playing a part in these backlogs because it doesn't create a repetitive cycle. Again, I'm not entirely sure it's possible considering we're volunteers, but ideally, prep areas would be moved daily into queues to continue allowing for approved noms to be moved to prep areas, and in turn, allow for a reduction of the approved backlog and give space for pending noms to be approved, thus reducing the pending backlog too. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfYoutubers if I may be so bold, when walking into a space where people have a lot of experience and you have very little, it's rarely useful to lead with "Let me tell you folks what you're doing wrong". A better tactic would be to ask "What can I do to help?"
How things flow between the preps into the queues is sometimes a problem, but as long as we have 3-4 queues full, it's not a big deal. But, if that's an issue which concerns you, you could help there by looking over the preps, finding problems (hooks not supported by the sources, etc), and either fixing them or bringing them here for discussion. Getting problems fixed early is a big help. When I promote a queue, the ideal case is I don't find any issues at all and I'm done in 15-20 minutes. Once problems start cropping up, it can stretch out to several times that, especially if the problem is so bad that a hook needs to get pulled.
But, that's not the problem at hand. There's four different places a nomination can live as it winds its way through the system: WP:DYKN, WP:DYKNA, the prep areas, and the queues. While the flow can get disrupted at the transition points between any pair of those, that's not the problem here. You need to look at the whole DYK system as a black box. Regardless of the details inside the box, if you keep putting more stuff into the box than you take out, eventually the box will fill up. When that happens, refer to my list above of ways to deal with it. I suppose I could add "Stop accepting new submissions" to the list, but that's not going to happen. RoySmith (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I didn't say anything about yall doing anything wrong, I thought I was quite respectful actually, although I can understand if you saw otherwise, my apologies. You're not doing anything wrong, I'm just wondering if it could be more efficient. I more of said what I said because it was just a proposal I thought could potentially help solve the backlog problems that seem to develop quite a bit. While it's true that the transition points don't seem to be a problem, it is because it extends the length in which hooks have to spend in each period (awaiting, approved, prep, queue). A perfect analogy is that one experiment where they drove cars in a circle, and they demonstrated that traffic could just appear out of nowhere just because of small stops that drivers do. Think of these small stops as the transition points, and the cars as the hooks waiting to move past these points. They slowly begin to stack and create a traffic jam and then that can be representative of a backlog. TLDR, I still think a more continuous cycle could help. In fact, another perhaps crazier idea, but why can't more prep areas/queues be created? I have no clue, and I don't see how to verify, how long there's been 7 preps and 7 queues, but perhaps it's time to create at least just a few more, maybe up to 10 each. I'm well aware that this could be complicated, but it would be satisfying to see someone put the effort through to create some more. DYK has grown quite a bit, and Wikipedia in general has grown, so I think its individual components should grow proportionally to accommodate for the increase in size. I'm just giving these ideas to help, and I know they're each a little crazy, but sometimes you need crazy solutions to fix some problems. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]
  • ... that Indonesian military officer Gina Yoginda was nominated as ambassador to Afghanistan in 2021 and to Syria in 2024?

Just wondering what the broad interest is in this hook? Being nominated as an ambassador isn't in itself very remarkable, so was the interest supposed to be because Afghanistan and Syria are both recent warzones? Given that Yoginda never even took up the two posts mentioned, I'm checking whether this really passes the criteria. @Jeromi Mikhael, Moondragon21, and SonOfYoutubers: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely a little meh about it, so it's fine if it's pulled. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Does this meet DYKINT? After all, the number of songs that have been played live by artists who hadn't yet actually recorded them must be immense. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hook does not meet DYKINT and is frankly a boring hook. Pinging nominator Damian Vo for a replacement hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
... that New York City has been described as a "stupidly fun B-side"?
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20231011181609/https://www.smh.com.au/culture/music/every-kylie-minogue-song-ranked-170-1-20230906-p5e2dk.html TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite Not super familiar with the subject, so I wasn't aware that it's not rare to play a song before it being fully recorded, my fault. Is the newly proposed hook better? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more:

... that a remix of Kylie Minogue's "New York City" was made to commemorate WorldPride NYC 2019? (Source)
... that Kylie Minogue's "New York City" contains elements of Mylo's "Drop the Pressure"? (Source from the booklet of the album)

– Damian Vo (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to go with SonOfYoutuber's proposals as both require more "specialist" (for DYK purposes) knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is supposed to run on the 4th and the issue remains unresolved, I've pulled it from Queue for now. Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

[edit]

Serge de Beaurecueil (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that after spending a "wretched childhood" dreaming of journeying to a faraway land, Serge de Beaurecueil became the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan?

@M.A.Spinn, Darth Stabro, and SonOfYoutubers: This is a rather exceptional claim and thus requires exceptional sourcing. Are we sure from the source, or from sources in general, that he really was the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan during his time? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our article Catholic Church in Afghanistan indicates that he was the only Catholic priest to be actively preaching, but there were other Barnabite chaplains engaged in work for the Italian embassy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An embassy of course is an exclave of its home country; Barnabites in the Italian embassy are not "in Afghanistan" legally speaking. Serge de Beaurecueil was the only Catholic priest in the sovereign territory of Afghanistan. M.A.Spinn (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we accept this legal argument, unless the embassy priests never stepped foot outside the embassy door, that is not quite true. I don't have access to The Student's Companion to the Theologians, but I did find https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/christianity/Beaurecueil-bio.pdf which says "In the midst of a Muslim community, Serge lived his life as a Dominican friar and priest. He was the only Catholic priest in the country." so I'm inclined to accept this as suitably sourced. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of that article is also the expert and English-language biographer of De Beaurecueil; he developed his work from autobiographical sources as well as from the French-language biographical work of Jean-Jacques Perénnès who I believe belonged to the same religious community as him in Cairo (or was at least a skip and a hop away in Algeria). If we need to be more exactingly precise we can say "only Catholic priest in the Muslim community of Afghanistan." That being said his biographers insist heavily upon the only language. M.A.Spinn (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not confident about this claim. Even with Afghanistan being an almost entirely Muslim country where Islam is the official religion, I find it hard to believe that he was the only active Catholic priest there during his time. If we absolutely must run that claim, it would probably need a qualifier (like "X claimed Serge de Beaurecueil to be the only Catholic priest in Afghanistan"), but right now, given how exceptional the claim is, I'm not seeing the current sourcing meeting the exceptional standards needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the Catholic Church is prominent in many countries across the globe, that doesn't mean it is everywhere. The previously-linked Catholic Church in Afghanistan article says that in 2021, there were only 200 practicing Catholics. Until 1921, there was no Catholic presence at all and the embassy chapel built in 1921 was the only legal place of worship. It really isn't that extraordinary of a claim. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To use the countability argument I've used before, the Catholic Church keep good records. I trust them to have an exhaustive list of their priests and where they're assigned. The idea that there might have been another priest in Afghanistan that they lost track of seems implausible. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if this were an issue of documenting medieval history it would be much more contentious, but we're talking about as late as 1983. M.A.Spinn (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If consensus is that the sourcing is good enough, then let the hook run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith and M.A.Spinn: a 1989 New York Times article (accessible through WP:TWL) says "after 24 years as the only Roman Catholic priest permitted to work as such in Afghanistan, the Rev. Angelo Panigati...specifically [forbidden] to propagate his faith beyond the foreign community". I think we will need that "in the Muslim community" precision. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ALT1: ...that after spending a "wretched childhood" dreaming of journeying to a faraway land, Serge de Beaurecueil became the only Catholic priest serving the Muslim community in Afghanistan? M.A.Spinn (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really not fair, dredging up reliable sources which contradict perfectly good logical arguments :-) BTW, a more easily accessible version here RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas I was sure that going "☝️🤓 The Italian embassy isn't legally Afghanistan" would suffice but this is more encyclopedic ultimately. M.A.Spinn (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (3 August 00:00)

[edit]

Emirto de Lima

[edit]

@SonOfYoutubers, Arconning, and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: There's extensive WP:CLOP vs https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/921721. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some CLOP but it's not extremely extensive, so hopefully @Arconning or @DaniloDaysOfOurLives can make some small edits to the article (or I can, but let me know, as promoter, if I'm allowed to). Here's all the instances I see on the article:
  • "...he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father."
  • "...was the Honorary Consul in Barranquilla for Liberia and Honduras." (This one is meh because I don't know how you could reword it but I'm sure there's a way.)
  • "He then published his first music compositions in 1911. By the late 1920s, de Lima had been active on radio as a conductor."
  • "The following year, he would establish the Philharmonic Orchestra of Barranquilla and continue his work as a music critic."
  • "He later died on 14 August 1972 as a result from injuries stemming from a traffic accident."
Let me know if I missed any, and again, let me know if I'm allowed to make edits and fix these issues. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at more than just the text highlighted in red by Earwig. It's not "he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father" It's
Growing up in Curaçao, he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father. He was further educated by Felip Pedrell in Barcelona and then Vincent d'Indy at the Schola Cantorum de Paris
De Lima first studied piano and violin alongside his father in Curaçao, then with Pedrell in Barcelona and finally at the Schola Cantorum de Paris under Vincent D’Indy.
Other passages are similar. RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use earwig, I just looked manually. Also, that doesn't read like close plagiarism, because how else could you word the rest of that paragraph? Perhaps if there's more information online about this part of his life, it could be filled in-between with more information, but if not, then I think the article version is fine. The specific part,"...he had learned how to play the piano and violin alongside his father.", I highlighted because of the "alongside" specifically which makes it seems like an almost direct rip from Olympedia, so I think that part should be reworded. The rest is fine. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, essentially three out of four body paragraphs are copyright violations. I'd recommend pulling immediately, because whatever article emerges from the rewrite will not be the same as the one which was reviewed in the first place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix 'em in a day or two! :) Arconning (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As you work on this, please keep in mind what WP:CLOP says: Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. So just swapping out one word for a synonym or shuffling the order of words in sentence isn't the right stragegy. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfYoutubers I believe I'm finished... needing some help for the wording though... Arconning (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning As far as I can tell, the wording is fine. I don't see any semblance of close-close paraphrasing anymore. There are certain parts that are similar, but as I stated before but was seemingly glanced over, there is no other way to word it; How many ways can you word someone learning the piano and violin from their father and teachers?
That said, in the case that there may be still some concern of close paraphrasing from the other users, I'd say the closest phrases are the following:
  • "He had learned how to play the violin and piano from his father, and teachers Felip Pedrell and Vincent d'Indy while Emirto was located in Europe."
  • "He was the first person to publish local traditional music in Colombia; he composed music titled "Folklore Colombiano" in 1942."
  • "He later died on 14 August 1972 after succumbing to untreated injuries stemming from a traffic accident due to inadequate resources in the area needed to heal him."
These seem the most similar to me and can maybe be improved through the following rewordings:
  • "While living in Curaçao, de Lima was taught how to play the violin and piano by his father. Later while located in Barcelona and Paris, he was further educated by Felip Pedrell and Vincent d'Indy, respectively."
  • "In Colombia, de Lima became the first person to publish local traditional music, composing music under the title "Folklore Colombiano" in 1942." (IMPORTANT: I found this source, Emirto de Lima, from Banrepcultural, that provides some more information on the content of this book. You can 100% include this content within this sentence or in another sentence, I urge you to do so because it helps expand the information in the article and avoids any accusation of close plagiarism since it combines two sources to form a unique, more informative sentence or pair of sentences.)
  • "After being involved in a traffic accident, de Lima succumbed to his injuries on 14 August 1972. His injuries were left untreated due to inadequate resources in his area needed to heal him."
I hope these help make the article more lyrically unique! Additionally, please look out for any grammar errors in the article. For example, I saw a few times that "de Lima" started a sentence, which should be corrected to "De Lima" as per English grammar capitalization conventions; any other references of "de Lima" that do not begin a sentence are grammatically correct. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I only just realized, but perhaps this need not be an Olympics-related hook at all. I think being the first to publish local traditional music, supported by two reliable sources, is quite interesting in and of itself. Just a consideration, something like "... that Emirto de Lima was the first to publish local traditional Colombian music in 1942, under the title "Folklore Colombiano"? is potentially possible, with maybe minor rewordings if needed. Just a consideration! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfYoutubers I've done some more... let me know if I've done enough! Arconning (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning Everything looks fine to me, pinging @RoySmith and @Narutolovehinata5 for their feedback. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S-1 (supercomputer)

[edit]

I approved this one, so someobody else will need to review it here. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.--Launchballer 18:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly checks out, although I've never heard of the "Cray-1" and would recommend trimming.--Launchballer 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cray-1 is pretty significant and had wide name recognition in society. If you were born after 1990, then you wouldn’t have grown up with it or heard its name. But if you read about computer history, you would have certainly come across it. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Cray-1 was a very big deal in computing history and since it's linked, our readers can find out about that as well. Win-win. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Black Kite and Viriditas above. The Cray-1 was a very big deal. Prior to distributed supercomputers it was the thing. TarnishedPathtalk 23:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where else are you going to find something which is simultaneously a supercomputer, a space heater, and a neat looking piece of office seating. RoySmith (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never touched or even seen one in real life. Are they comfy? More to the point, Cray was the definition of supercomputing back in the day. —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Edness

[edit]

@Hilst, Arconning, It is a wonderful world, and WikiOriginal-9: Perhaps we don't want to have two Olympics hooks in the same set? Also, WP:CLOP vs https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/65356 and https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/65360 RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I've moved the hook to prep 6. I'm not that familiar with the articles, so I'll let the other guys check the CLOP issues. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eschiva of Bures

[edit]

@Surtsicna, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and SonOfYoutubers: I'm not seeing where in the article or source it says that the message sent to Sepphoris was a "plea for help", rather than just a message. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yeah I see what you mean. When I skimmed the article the first time, I think I picked up on the former requested help from Saladin and conflated that with Eschiva sent a messenger on horseback to Sepphoris. RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that she sent a rider to tell her husband that the enemy was about to storm the town. If it is possible to interpret such a message as just a casual FYI, we have two other hooks to choose from. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article outlines how Raymond and Eschiva had planned, should Tiberias fall, to evacuate onto boats and wait on the Sea of Galilee until the Jerusalem army returned (Braun & Razi 1992, p. 218). Unless your "interpretation" is that Eschiva immediately forgot about this careful plan when Saladin besieged and sent a message pleading for help, I'd prefer to follow the bare facts of the sources: "The messenger informed King Guy of Lusignan, Raymond III of Tripoli—the husband of Princess Eschiva—and the barons that Saladin had laid siege to Tiberias early that morning and that his men were about to storm the town." (Braun & Razi 1992, p. 217). No indication of "pleading for help". Of the other two hooks, I prefer ALT2, which focuses more on the hook subject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

[edit]

Before I wipe yesterday's Errors, I thought I bring to the attention of Guerreroast (reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (prep promoter), and Crisco 1492 (queue promoter) that apparently, you have collectively produced a "clusterfuck of a hook" with regards to Edward L. Molineux. Just in case anyone is offended by this statement; maybe it's time to straighten out Therapyisgood with some ANI therapy. Last blocked in August 2023 for personal attacks by Rosguill. Schwede66 00:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've been known to produce some clusterfucks in my time. Don't have the capacity to investigate this now; let me know who needs the trouting in twelve hours, 'kay? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't say its personal; it's directed at the hook. Also could not care if it was a personal attack. Roast (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More Jilly Cooper nominations

[edit]

Hello folks, As there fhave been a couple of instances where readers have felt there was too much Jilly Cooper in DYK, I wanted to get views on what promoters think would be OK for me to have going through the process? My proposal is to nominate five at a time, then let them run and feature, then repeat the process (twice more, I think). This would avoid there being too many noms for promoters to space out. Does this sound OK? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 1) we have more nominations in general than we can handle and 2) people have complained specifically that we're running too much Jilly Cooper, why don't we just stop running those? RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to do multi-article hooks? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why nominate in bundles and not just one by one whenever, wouldn't that naturally space them out in a better way? Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that, even if nominations are done one-by-one, if they're close enough, it could still result in a run of constant Jilly Cooper hooks. Also, with how our workflow works, spacing nominations won't mean much if they're still promoted in quick succession. Unless people are willing to run a Jilly Cooper themed set, which I doubt would ever gain consensus, perhaps the best option would be to simply hold off on the Jilly for a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to stem an editor's workflow, if that's the articles they're doing. I think we should be perhaps more comfortable rejecting noms that don't really have anything hook-worthy, if the noms are in a mass theme group, but even if they all get approved there are more workable solutions. Even just throwing them all into SOHA spaced out to however infrequently we deem sufficient (then naturally rejecting any further noms once they go past six weeks' worth). Kingsif (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to stem an editor's workflow, if that's the articles they're doing Why not? I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but my feeling is that DYK's strength is not just showing off new content but also new content creators. Getting a hook on DYK is a relatively low bar compared to most of the other main page departments, and this makes it a great way to let new editors know their contributions are appreciated. I'd rather we concentrate on that mission than run the 100th article from somebody who writes about a narrow range of topics. RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if they were just over the length minimum and copy-pastes of other similar articles, maybe, but the Jilly Cooper articles that I looked over from the OP seem to be high-B class to low-GA quality. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a balance, Roy. It'd be an interesting thing if we're getting enough nominations from newbies to sustain sets, to focus on those, and see what happened. But what I meant was, the Cooper articles ultimately improve Wikipedia and if making a DYK nom out of it is someone's motivation to get them to that standard, well, I'm not taking that encouragement away. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally try to scan WP:NPP and WP:AFC to see if there are any viable articles from non-regular contributors which could be nominated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you work on a tranche of articles in your userspace and try for one or two big hooks with a dozen articles in them. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally, I find the Jilly Cooper articles a lot more acceptable than the seemingly endless parade of very obscure sportspeople in set after set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy to see fewer obscure sportspeople :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone - I appreciate all the different views and the honesty. It seems to me from the comments above that a middle ground is for multi-article nominations where possible with maybe a couple at most running for nomination at one time? I think I might struggle to find a link for a dozen in one hook (as suggested by Guerillero, but I can certainly try to group them together. There is one as-yet-unwritten article that I think would still be a good stand alone: it is a survival guide to Christmas (which I thought might make a potential contribution to a festive set). Happy editing Lajmmoore (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYKINT feedback

[edit]

I just pinged #not interesting? above and learned by comments from User:Gatoclass and User:Theleekycauldron that the proper approach to a WP:DYKINT objection is to appeal here rather than the nomination page. I had some problems with a recent nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Matakis for DYKINT. First off, Poker players are hard to DYK because they usually don't get enough press to full flesh out a bio. Most poker player bios are focused on various championship or final table achievements and huge payouts. This bio is no different. I haven't been doing many poker bios lately, but this guy is from Minnesota where my sister lives so I decided to dig in. It is not likely to even get 2k views if it were to run.

Sorry long preamble. Bottom line is I didn't feel like fighting about running this one, but since I realize I never properly approached the DYKINT appeal, I should mention it here. This article is only 2 weeks old and was timely nominated. I think the most interesting thing is that he won a 2023 World Series of Poker championship while he was simultaneously seated at a table competing in a live tournament while competing on his phone in another tournament online. In 2024, the poker world changed the rules to discourage this type of behavior, although they did not cite him specifically. I think the fact that the poker world changed the Player of the Year formula in response to this makes it an important fact and the topic that should run on DYK. I was discouraged from pursuing that hook. If anyone could phrase that fact in a manner befitting of DYK, I imagine it is still possible that dispensation could be allowed to reopen this nom due to its youth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the first hook to be interesting, though a bit wordy. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"that Ian Matakis once won a poker tournament while competing in two simultaneously" is a fine hook, and I don't think Naruto should have marked it for closure and closed it. I'm inclined to reopen.--Launchballer 04:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer, I am happy to discuss refinements from your ALT3 if it is reopened.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I often have gotten feedback that I am trying to cram too much into hooks on DYK, but feel you have really chopped it down. Open for discussion though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has.--Launchballer 04:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree, there's a decently interesting core to that hook and Launchballer nailed it. I think NLH5 and Tony talked past each other a bit there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reopened it.--Launchballer 04:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to WP:DYKINT

[edit]

Given recent discourse and events, I propose that the following be added to WP:DYKINT: Before reviewers close a nomination due to all hooks being deemed uninteresting, they should bring the nomination to WT:DYK to seek community input and consensus, and the opportunity for new hooks to be proposed. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This encourages the mind-set that all nominations are presumed to be acceptable and that it's worth investing huge amounts of effort to salvage every one. That's the kind of mindset you adopt when you have so little material to work with that you're struggling to make your quota and enough people time to invest in routine remedial effort. We're in exactly the opposite sitation: we have more material than we can handle (see #PEIS limit reached on WP:DYKN above) and not enough people to handle the current workload. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is going to add more work to an already-overworked base. Also per RoySmith. EF5 16:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This point really needs to be emphasized more on DYK. As much as it hurts to hear: not every article is meant to be for DYK. Not all articles are good fits, not all articles have hooky material, and not all articles can even meet the guidelines. Trying to force an article into DYK when it is not a good fit is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It just frustrates nominators (and sometimes reviewers) if they don't turn out, and it diverts attention and effort away from more deserving or at least more feasible material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I would prefer INT to be removed entirely as the purely personally subjective and unobjective or definable bureaucratic time-sink it is. Short of that, this is a small step towards that. INT is NOT at any point something that should be allowed to let a single voice shut down a rules valid nomination that would otherwise pass.--Kevmin § 16:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we shouldn't make it extra hard for people to enforce the rules. If the nominator disagrees, they can always appeal here, but having the reviewer say that "Giovanni Doe is an Italian football player" is not interesting does not require community review. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current formulation. Might support instead a note, per Kusma, that the nominator is free to appeal any decision, DYKINT or otherwise, at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as its expected that if the reviewer deems the hook to not be interesting, the nom should (ideally) provide another hook; if not, to request a 2nd (or 3rd?) opinion on whether the hook is interesting, normally via using {{subst:DYK?again}} or even via dispute resolution. JuniperChill (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DS's proposed wording, although I support the right to appeal. If a hook does not meet the guidelines, it should be rejected, just like what happens when a hook fails other criteria. Nominations are rarely closed solely due to DYKINT anyway: as JuniperChill said, usually alternative hooks are first discussed, with closure being a last resort. I do agree that nominators should have the right to appeal closures for any reason, but it has to be made clear that appeals are not guaranteed to be successful, similar to how DYKSO makes it clear that exceptions to the time limit are not guaranteed. Ideally, our rules should be more straightforward, not less, and the proposed wording, while good intentioned, feels like instruction creep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's become pretty regular to face DYK submissions that are pretty terrible, yet still fit the bill to be posted and its sad. DYK hooks weren't always zingers for sure, but it's better than observations about a Canadian municipal SWAT team hiring the citys own regular police force.
Changing a some rules wording isn't really going to do much when the submissions are dire, and get through anyway. 73.217.76.59 (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate proposal, based on feedback from Kusma and AirshipJungleman29:

Nominations that are declined due to the reviewer finding the hook not to meet WP:DYKINT may be appealed at WT:DYK by the nominator up to [a week?] after the closing. If consensus is reached that an existing hook or a new hook can meet DYKINT, the nomination may be reopened.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that this is not DYKINT specific. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Nominations that are declined due to the reviewer may be appealed at WT:DYK by the nominator up to [a week?] after the closing. If consensus is reached that the nomination can be brought to standards, it may be reopened.? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about just adding, to the end of the second paragraph of the lead, "Nominations rejected by a reviewer may nevertheless be appealed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short and sweet, fine by me. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general approach, but it seems to me that "may be appealed" might suggest that appeals should be a matter of course, which would not be helpful. Suggested tweak: "Nominators have the right to appeal a rejection of their nomination at WT:DYK". Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any shortage of appealing with the current wording 😭 RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we also have to make it clear that this is talking about closures, not rejections. Editors, even DYK regulars, often mix up the two, but they're not the same. Rejection is the adding of a icon to a nomination, closure is the nomination being closed (usually after a rejection). Rejections can always be appealed by asking for a second opinion, usually with the icon. There is not necessarily a need to go to WT:DYK unless a third-party look by an uninvolved editor is explicitly requested. I also imagine that, in many cases, going to WT:DYK is not even necessary. Just bring it up with the closer, and most will be happy to re-open depending on the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People can actually appeal anything on this page anytime they like. This was basically just a suggestion that a word or two be added to the guideline for the benefit of those who don't realize they can do that. So I don't see much point in trying to limit this to closures specifically. The idea here is just to let people know that when discussion has broken down on the nomination page, they have another option. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this would not be needed if a nom wasn't closed because of INT, or wasn't closed because of INT without first requesting a second opinion, or wasn't closed because of INT without giving the nominator a chance to request a second opinion. It might also help if a reviewer wouldn't pick a nom by someone whose different standards of what "interesting" means is known, or at least not almost every nom in such case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the option of proposing a new hook that meets the guidelines, instead of insisting that a hook actually is interesting, or asking for a new reviewer to approve the hook despite pushback from one or more editors. Actually, many issues with DYKINT closures could have been resolved by doing the former. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only nominate something I find interesting which will always be something specific to the subject. On this page we see two cases that brought us here, Klaus König, a tenor who made an exceptional career to one of the few heroic tenors in the world at his time, with highlights such as a concert after the fall of the Berlin Wall that made history, which was diminished in the hook that ran to a mediocre unspecific "operatic tenor career", and Julia Hagen, a cellist whose exceptional concert was recorded by Arte, but you rejected that and closed it for lack of interest, suggesting to say that she began at age four, which is commonplace and says more about her parents than her. Can we arrive at a broader approach to what's interesting? Can we hope that we can interest our audience in facts they don't yet know? If not, could others perhaps find a compromise idea for Hagen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is König being both an accomplished operatic tenor and a house decorator not also something specific about him? I can't imagine there being that many opera performers who are also in the house decorating business. His article was also viewed over 4,000 times while he was on the Main Page (in contrast to other hooks which did 1,000-2,000 views), which suggests that readers did not agree that the fact was mediocre.
As for Hagen, what is it about her performance in particular that makes it special compared to other performances shown by Arte? Or are you suggesting that being featured on Arte is inherently special? If you really want Hagen to run and for the closure to be vacated, my suggestion is to find more information about her and expand her article. If something about her that can be found that meets the interest guidelines, then I will be happy to reopen the nomination, or otherwise support its reopening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This only applies to hooks the reviewer finds uninteresting so I don't understand the pushback. Another idea appeals to me. I agree that Wikipedia should focus on human-centered and human-focused content generation, but I also think some bot tools can help us during the process. Given that it is fairly easy to identify hooks which generate interest, we could easily have a bot add a trust metric to each nominated hook as a kind of guidepost. I don't expect this idea to gain any support, but I think it is something we could use as a tool to help the reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out here that most of us are not here to be the bleeding top of the clicks pile, which seems to be the purpose of your essay. Top performing hooks. I have asked before what the detriment to DYK is for a "low performing hook" is, and the general respose has been that it purportedly turns people away from the topic entirely. Problem with that answer is that its a fallacy predicated on the concept that if a hook doesn't get as many clicks as others the 25 million veiwers during the 12 hour run are all now scarred and will never click on that subject again. (to extend it to the full scope of the assertion). "Trust metric" is still going to be entirely a popularity contest voted on by a single person, and the metrics as laid out fully reflect that popular subjects will regularly get popular clicks, lesser known subjects get less clicks. (eg metric 1, A person has to have knowledge of a topic for there to be any assumptions to disrupt.)--Kevmin § 22:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you would rather have a "niche" fossil hook whose article is only read by 2,000 readers, than a more "broadly-appealing" fossil hook that is read by 10,000, if the former hook shows the information that you like? I get being upset about the obsession with clicks, I do think we are getting overboard with that, but I really don't see the harm in proposing a "non-niche" hook either. It has to be emphasized that just because a topic is "niche" or gets less attention in general does not mean that hooks about them are inherently also going to be more "niche". A good hook about an underappreciated topic is still very much possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: You might be surprised to find that I completely agree with you. The "essay" you refer to wasn't written by me as the header makes clear, but a two-part LLM report I generated based on the "top performing" hooks and an investigation into the differences between German and American media consumers (as I was trying to investigate Gerda's POV). The only area we disagree is in the trust metric. I was intending for a bot to use criteria like the kind found in the report (just an example, the criteria would have to be decided upon) and then flag each nominated hook with a 1-5 rating. This would be used only to help guide reviewers trying to close out a nom, indicating that the hook received a general interest rating by the bot; no human input would be used for the rating other than determining the criteria. If it receives anything less than 2 from the bot, then the bot could post a short message at the general talk page informing them of a hook needing attention for interest-related concerns. Just thinking out loud. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a bot to determine interest is even worse than human decision-making. At least humans have empathy and can understand contexts. LLMs are glorified autocompletes and, while they have useful applications, subjective situations like are not among them. The most practical solution right now just seems to be the proposal here, which is to allow nominators to appeal rejections (which we already allow, it's just not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing the two different things together. I used the LLM to generate a list of possible criteria for the purposes of illustrating an example; I did not propose anywhere that we should use an LLM to determine interest. I'm talking about a kind of script that we already use, such as checking for plagiarism, DYK eligibility, and other basic qualities. The bot would only compare the nominated hook to all other hooks that came before it based on their shared attributes. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for mixing it up, but my point stands regardless. I really don't think that something as subjective as hook interest is something that a bot, a script, or whatever should determine. Other criteria like newness and length are at least objective criteria so those are more feasible (we trialed a bot that checked such criteria around 2016, I can't remember why we never implemented it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that hook interest is subjective, but I think you also agree that we have a list of the top-performing hooks and time-sensitivity and images aside, there is a shared set of attributes that we can draw on to give it a number from 1-5. This is veering off-topic so this will be my last comment on this at the moment, but as an example: if we look at all of your comments on the nomination pages where you decry the lack of interest, surely we can codify your 100+ objections in a way that a bot would understand and then use it to give a rating to new noms? Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but it's probably for the best not to do something like this. Editors cannot even agree on what counts as an "interesting" hook, as this and other discussions have shown, so even having a fixed set of criteria will not please everyone. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree. My point is to filter out the noms that are probably uninteresting and flag them for comment. It would not be to promote the interesting ones. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose further encouraging disputes here, which flows against the vague ideas floating around to try and concentrate discussions more on nom pages rather than here. On the topic though, there is a related issue in that there is zero incentive for third-party comments on DYK. A new reviewer cannot approve their own proposed hook (necessitating two third-party interventions if a nominator does not produce alts), original reviewers do not benefit (and risk a FIXLOOP), and nominators may simply see it as parts of the bureaucracy fighting. This applies to all aspects of third-party editing, but DYKINT hooks are a good example. Trying to bring DYKINT discussions to this forum might address this to some extent by forcing it in front of faces, but such discussions can get ignored here too. CMD (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you don't like DYKINT, propose abolishing it; don't propose making it so unworkable that reviewers feel compelled to accept every nom to avoid a protracted dispute here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if you are proposing something for DYK, the entire idea is to get people to read the article. If you can't tell me something that might get me to read an article that I have no preexisting interest in, then either 1) you aren't as good of a writer as you think or 2) the article itself is not a good fit for DYK. Really, if someone is continually proposing boring hooks and refusing to compromise, the thing to do is have that person not work on DYK.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

[edit]

The thing about DYKINT closures is that they're relatively rare. In practice, they usually only happen if: 1. an article does not have any other suitable material, or 2. all possible hook options have been exhausted (this includes the nominator or reviewer(s) rejecting new proposals). Rejecting nominations solely due to DYKINT is rare, immediate rejection instead of trying to first discuss alternative options is even rarer. In cases where a hook's interest is disputed, shouldn't the solution be to first discuss new hooks? If a reviewer thinks that a hook is not interesting, why not propose a new hook instead of insisting that the hook is interesting after all? If nothing else is feasible, then maybe the original hook can be reconsidered, depending on the circumstances. In many cases, an "uninteresting" hook may have an interesting core, and it is just a matter of rewording to reach a satisfactory outcome. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They USED to be rare, this has been the spring and summer of every third topic discussion being in some way a debate as to if a hook is boring or not.--Kevmin § 22:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, maybe much of this arguing could be avoided if editors would try to propose interesting hooks first, rather than getting upset at the rules and people complaining. For example, it's not impossible to make a non-technical hook about fossils, just think of hooks as a parallel to WP:ONELEVELDOWN. I get why people are upset about people saying that their hooks are "boring", but it's possible for editors to adjust and either modify or propose hooks, rather than doubling down. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied further up. How about a trial period of letting hooks run that you find not interesting, to give us a break? Two weeks of vacation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKINT is currently one of our rules. It is not just Narutolovehinata5's personal opinion, but represents community consensus. If Narutolovehinata5 stops enforcing the rule, others will have to step up. Don't shoot the messenger. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYKINT is an established guideline, one that was implemented through consensus and an RfC. Why do you keep proposing hooks that do not follow it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I said more than once that I can only nominate what I find interesting, or would be not honest to myself. Some operatic tenor career is not, and someone beginning to play early is not, and perhaps not not only for me, but for others as well? I can stop nominating again, as I tried in 2023, but then realised that it brings down German topics and opera topics. There were other voices above questioning if enforcement of interestingness is a good idea when we can't define what's interesting. Understood as it currently is, the enforcement narrows the topics and the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping you from nominating articles about classical music and opera for DYK. The issue has mostly been about the hooks, not the articles themselves. As a comparison, 4meter4 is also an editor who specializes in classical music and opera, and generally he has been able to propose hooks about those topics just fine, because he follows the guidelines like DYKINT. It is not about being honest with yourself, it is about following the guidelines and abiding by consensus. If you followed 4meter4's example, we would not even be having this discussion, and I assure you, Hagen's nomination would have never been rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say, but that may be my problem, perhaps of language. I can't nominate that someone began playing at age four, because I have no way to find that interesting. Do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did not even have to be that exact hook. I only proposed it because the article was so sparse on personal details (it's pretty much a resume in prose), and I couldn't find anything else that was not reliant on being a classical music expert. If you could find more information about her personal life and career and add it to her article, maybe something else usable can be proposed. Consensus was against running that cello angle anyway, so regardless, a new hook angle would have been necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I grant every performer the right to not wanting their personal life exposed. I said what I found interesting, her exceptional performance of course. I asked others what they thought about you rejecting that and closing, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have too many nominations and not enough people who help building prep sets and moving them to queue, I can't find fault with closing nominations where no rules compliant (this includes "interesting") hook has been found. It is tiring to argue this again and again. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It happened to me only this one time, and I only asked what others thought. Back to the peer review of Bach where we all could do something constructive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing of facts is intentional. Narrowing of topics might happen as a side effect if nominators can't find other hooks, but I don't think it is necessarily a consequence. I would certainly like to see fewer "sportsperson played sports" hooks, just like I would like to see fewer "opera person sang opera" hooks. Overall, it is always good to resist the temptation to nominate an article for DYK if there is no good hook material in the article. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PSHAW overwriting DYKbotdo on pulls?

[edit]

@Theleekycauldron Regarding Special:Diff/1303420161, is it intentional that the {{DYKbotdo}} template got overwritten when a hook was pulled? I'm not worried about losing credit or anything like that, just wondering if this was an intentional design decision or a bug? RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, bug, my bad. will work on fixing it theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should be fixed now? ping me if there's more issues :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key question

[edit]

As I've read over the mountains of stuff people have written on this page over the past few years, I've slowly come to the realization that people here fall into one of two camps:

  • People who are here to put something into DYK
  • People who are here to get something out of DYK

Ask yourself which is you. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I’m missing something obvious, neither are particularly negative. EF5 23:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even get what it's trying to say. There is nothing to get out of DYK so everyone here is trying to improve the project. What would be an example of the kind of editor the "key question" was trying to passive aggressively complain about? — LlywelynII 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how either camp is mutually exclusive. They don't contradict, and I imagine there's overlap between the two. For example, an editor who focuses on a "niche" topic and wants it to be better known, but still working within the guidelines to create an appealing and interesting hook that gets attention beyond that niche. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the key question to ask should be "how are my contributions at DYK improving Wikipedia". And I think both the givers and takers you describe can improve WP through DYK in different ways. Kingsif (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what you're trying to say. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is that some people are here to do work for the good of the project. Other people are here to take advantage of the fist group for their own benefit. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is anybody taking advantage of anyone?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe that. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK-nomination-wizard.js

[edit]

is at least partially broken. It just threw repeated errors for correct grammar because it's coded to require a space character after the word "that". For plenty of hooks people are writing, there should be commas around an opening dependent clause and that's perfectly fine. — LlywelynII 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing yesterday. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks after set has been verified

[edit]

Hi AirshipJungleman29 I have reverted this edit as I had already checked and signed off this set, and I don't particularly think changes were needed to the links and texts and they had been agreed through the process by the nom, reviewer and checked by myself. Changes in prep are fine but once a set is signed off and ready to go, IMHO only hooks with errors should be changed, or through a clear consensus on this page. Not sure if guidelines say otherwise? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think improvements should be reverted because Process Has Not Been Followed (and I don't see a strong need for process here). If you think your version is superior, by all means revert, but in my views hooks are open to edits by all TEs until they hit cascade protection. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think Airship's edit was an improvement. And WP:OWN should apply here as just as it does everywhere else. Best practice is to ping the nominator if you alter a hook post-promotion, but failure to do that doesn't justify WP:OWNership of the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Obviously I think mine was an improvement (WP:DYKTRIM reasons, if nothing else is in the guidelines) but I also don't care enough to revert, and will try to restrict fiddling to prep sets in future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, well I wouldn't revert purely for procedural reasons if I thought the changes were an improvement, but in this case I didn't particularly believe that they were. And on the more general point, the process is set up the way it is so that admins and trusted set builders promote and sign off sets of hooks. With no disrespect to Airship, who does sterling work at DYK and obviously edited in good faith in this case, my view is that if there are constant tweaks happening then it's not really a sign-off process any more because you have to keep checking back to see if the changes introduce issues etc. I suppose the person doing the tweak could sign and take ownership of the individual hook, but for what purpose? I wouldn't generally go and make changes to someone else's signed off set because I assume they've done the due diligence and are happy with it the way it is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now Launchballer has reverted the revert which is borderline WP:WHEEL warring given that this is a protected template not editable by anyone except template editors and admins. I don't want to seem like I'm fighting over minor issues, which clearly this is, but I just think if this project is to work smoothly then we should trust each other and not be constantly treading on the toes of others. That set has my name at the top because I worked all day today going through the set making sure it was all tip-top. It's a lengthy process, and I'm also involved with POTD regularly which is also hard work. This episode just means I'll be slightly less likely to help out in future because this sort of stress isn't what I'm on this project for. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I've just noticed that that was the set which was requested above to focus on women/women's works...was that forgotten about, or what? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding articles recently 5x expanded

[edit]

It's easy to find articles that are recently created or moved to mainspace, just by searching WP:NPP and WP:AFC. Does anyone know a way of finding articles that have recently been significantly expanded? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I did a quick and dirty query for all mainspace pages that have been edited in the past 7 days and are more than 1500 bytes. It's a little under 1 million revisions to explore. But that's raw page size. We're interested in readable prose size, so you'd have to get all of those revisions and parse them to get the readable prose. That's starting to look intractable to solve in the general case.
I suppose a good heuristic would be to only compare the version that exists now with the version that existed 7 days ago, ignoring all the intermediate edits. That's going to miss a few but for the purpose of "Let's find some likely DYK candidates", it's probably good enough. I need to think on this a bit. I suppose you could also say "the ratio of raw size to readable prose size is probably more or less constant", which would let you do a first pass at the 5x filtering inside the SQL query. Again, not strictly true, but good enough for our purpose. That should help a bunch. RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]
  • that Meg White (pictured), a key figure in the 2000s garage-rock revival, has not made any public appearances since 2009?: this isn't actually stated in the source.
    We do have a reunion this November ... would require drummer Meg White to show her face in public for the first time in many years and, later, they wouldn’t appear together again as the White Stripes until February 20, 2009, when they played “We’re Going to be Friends” on the final episode of Late Night With Conan O’Brien.. However, it continues Two years later, the White Stripes announced their breakup ... In the years that followed, Jack kept the White Stripes legacy alive by playing a large amount of their songs at his solo shows, a practice that continues to this day. And Meg simply vanished. As I read it, that implies that her retreat from the public eye dates to 2011 at the earliest, and doesn't explicitly state that either date was the last time she was seen in public.
    This article in Elle affirms the 2009 date: it's from 2023, so would need a slight adjustment to the article text (which reads "as of 2025"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sampang regency election - murder or killing?

[edit]

Currently in Queue 3 as that a murder resulted in five company-sized units of police, soldiers and marines being sent to secure the 2024 Sampang regency election?.

Small issue: hook and article say "murder", currently cited sources don't seem to back that up.

[2][3][4] (source in nom) were published within a few weeks of the killing, before the actual trial took place, and so describe it as a killing or slashing. [5], published after and quoting a member of the local district attorney's office, specifically says that the defendants were convicted on (only?) two charges: of a mob attack/assault resulting in death (Article 170 paragraph 2 KUHP) and breaches of an emergency law on carrying sharp instruments/weapons. Murder looks like it is governed by articles 338 of the current KUHP, and requires intent. I haven't seen any of the sources make reference to that, and I haven't been able to find anything in an RS confirming the perpetrators were convicted of murder. (Obvious disclaimer on the "trying to find new sourcing front": don't speak Indonesian, am working through Google translate, and don't have a good sense for the reliability of online Indonesian newspapers).

Courtesy pings to author @Juxlos, reviewer @Ippantekina, promoter @SonOfYoutubers, and queue-looker-over-person @Gatoclass. Am I missing something here? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 10:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "killing", thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No issue with "killing" either. Sorry for the translation. Juxlos (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/ShipGoo001

[edit]

I'm a little concerned about the sourcing. There's a bunch of sources but they're all popular press picking up on a release from University of Minnesota Duluth. If this showed up at GA, I would definitely shoot down the sourcing. Maybe it's good enough for DYK, maybe not? Please take a look. RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping nominator Tryptofish. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern, but there is actually more going on in those press stories, than just mirroring the university press release. There has been ongoing reporting of facts not available at the time of the press release, which indicates to me that there is ongoing interest. For example, the June 27 press release makes no claim as to what the putative new species is, not even whether it is archea or bacteria. However, subsequent news reports (doubtless getting their information from the university scientists, but those are the people working on it), dated July 17 and August 1, provide the new information that there are actually two new species, one of them an archea of a new order and the other a bacterium of a new phylum, as well as providing new information about where these organisms probably came from, a lubricant applied by the previous owners of the boat. There is also content all along, about how people are reacting to the news.
I don't think this is a GA, either, but I'm not claiming that. If this were a health-related science claim, then WP:MEDRS would apply, but that's not the case. The sourcing clearly passes WP:GNG. So I guess the question is whether we should require peer-reviewed scientific journal content in this case. As noted in the article, the university scientists say that they are preparing a scientific paper. Do we need to wait for that to be published? I don't think there is anything in policies or guidelines that would make that necessary or even desirable. I've been careful in writing the page, not to claim anything unsupported, and to use sufficiently tentative language, indicating what is preliminary or just apparent, as needed. The article doesn't make any claims that are not backed up by the cited sources, and the sources cited are reliable for those claims. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thought glancing at this article was that if it's not covered by WP:NSPECIES, I could see this being considered under WP:NEVENT? It seems like the notable thing isn't the organism quite yet, but the event of discovery. (at least, i've lost an article to that interpretation of policy.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that pins it down very well. Obviously, something that the scientists are still calling "goo" isn't ready for NSPECIES, but as a discovery of something that is novel in so many ways, and that sources tell us is going to result in new species, makes this notable as, and source-able as, an event. The continuing news reports, coming out a month or more after the initial spike of news coverage, seem to me to satisfy NEVENT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that struck me is that this is apparently not just the discovery of two new species, but potentially of both a new phylum and new order of species. That sounded very interesting and made me wonder why it wasn't the focus of the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dumb answer to your question is that this information came out after the DYK nomination discussion was over. The more substantive answer is that I thought about coming back to propose that (I agree with you that this is very interesting), but I decided not to, because the sourcing still is pretty preliminary on that point. Putting that another way, to claim that in the hook, I would want to pass NSPECIES, and that would require the publication of a scientific paper with taxonomic names for the new phylum and order. In my opinion, "might contain a previously undescribed life form", which is the wording in the hook, hits the right spot. It's tentative enough to say ""might", and it doesn't claim what the new life form might be (or even that there might be two of them – but "life form" can be more than just a new species, like an order or phylum), but it's interesting and "hooky", and adequately sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" feedback

[edit]

Medievalfran and I&I22 are suggesting the hooks below and the reviewer,Surtsicna, does not think they were interesting.

  • ALT1: ... that in 2010, activist Andrea Enisuoh and Hackney residents campaigned to keep the name of their local library, honouring Trinidadian writer CLR James? Source: "Andrea Enisuoh". Women From Hackney's History. 1. The Hackney History Society (Friends of Hackney Archives): 45.

Could pagewatchers give some feedback on whether either hook is interesting and whether the sourcing is adequate as one is a "first" hook? It is Medievalfran's third nomination. TSventon (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is fine from a DYKINT perspective I think, it's probably just whether the "first" claim is well enough sourced. ALT2 is also okay for interest, though it might perhaps be phrased a little better. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 12. We have a total of 361 nominations, of which 199 have been approved, a gap of 162 nominations that has decreased by 5 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a multi-article hook

[edit]

Hello everyone, I am planning on trying to promote a hook with Michael Zimmermann, Dwight Frazer, Jim Denney (ski jumper born 1957), Pam Dreyer, and Vida Ryan. It is not ready yet, however, I would like to know the proper process for making a multi-article nomination. Would I make one main nomination page and redirect the rest or what? The planned hook is ... that Michael, Dwight, Jim, Pam, and Ryan were all Olympians? History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:DYKCNN, there is an tickbox for creating multi-article hooks. This does all the legwork for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, thank you very much. :), History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: I'd question whether a broad audience would have sufficient knowledge of The Office (American TV series) to get the reference.--Launchballer 21:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will attempt to submit it once it is ready and if it is found that it is not good enough I will figure out a different hook for each one separately. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here. A fan of The Office might get it, but the reference might be lost with the average reader (I personally would not have gotten the reference either given that I've never watched it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will just submit them each as individual hooks. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful though. There has been pushback recently against having too many Olympics hooks, so my suggestion would be to spread the nominations out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, was that a reference? Yeah, completely missed that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drygalski Glacier (Tanzania)

[edit]

Queue 2 has that it was reported that a glacier on Africa's highest peak had disappeared by 2022? That's sourced to a tour operator Tranquil Kilimanjaro[6], who seem to be the ones doing the reporting. However, looking elsewhere, and this paper published in 2024 (Hinzmann, Anne; Mölg, Thomas; Braun, Matthias; Cullen, Nicolas J; Hardy, Douglas R; Kaser, Georg; Prinz, Rainer (2024-03-01). "Tropical glacier loss in East Africa: recent areal extents on Kilimanjaro, Mount Kenya, and in the Rwenzori Range from high-resolution remote sensing data". Environmental Research: Climate. 3 (1): 011003. doi:10.1088/2752-5295/ad1fd7. ISSN 2752-5295.) is a lot more reticent, refusing to say conclusively that it's gone. It notes that the 2021 data measured Drygalski at 0.41 km^2 and also called for more observations of the Northern Ice Field to check the existence of the all of glaciers, including those thought vanished, given how small these remaining ice fragments might be if still present. I mean, I'm personally ready to believe that the glacier is well and truly gone by now, given how rapidly it has been melting, but I feel like for a hook there should be better sourcing than a commercial sight-seeing business. (My personal experience with travel companies like this does not give me a great deal of faith in their reliability; there's one in my area that apparently liked to tell tourists that I personally have been going on a sort of pilgrimage to a local glacier since the 1990s. Hilarious, but yeah take anything they say with a grain of salt)

Pings: @Amakuru as article author and @Narutolovehinata5 as alt hook writer, then courtesy pings to @Surtsicna as reviewer, and @SonOfYoutubers as promoter and @Gatoclass as queue person (sorry to bother you twice in one twenty-four hour period!) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging, @GreenLipstickLesbian. Is it not still true that "it was reported"? The source is indeed suboptimal, but it did not strike me as outright unreliable. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but a DYK hook saying "it was reported that X is true" when the actual RS-es refuse to make that claim, or even repeat the claim (because surely they googled the name of the glacier and had that blog post pop up, it's the first result in Google for me), then that's a bit problematic imo. Otherwise, we could make pretty much any hook we wanted to using sources later confirmed to be inaccurate, or contradicted by RS-es.
Also, when I go and add the part about the fact that a study published in 2024 listed it as an extant glacier and called for further observation, then the reader is going to feel very let down or confused and then yay it's happy fun times at ERRORs. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch(!), although, as Surtsicna said, the hook doesn't have any problem, just needs a better source. If one can, please do add that source to the article wherever it needs such sourcing, it will help strengthen it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1304277568"