Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205

Archive 200

←

Archive 203

Archive 204

Archive 205

Special occasion hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved

@DYK admins: two hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved so that they run on March 16 as originally planned.

I'd like to suggest that they get split up and run in different sets, since the hooks are about different countries, and the idea is to run them during a 12-hour period when it's both March 16 UTC and also in the local country featured in the hook. Here are the destination queues:

• Queue 2: please move the Queue 7 final hook about the Japanese cat who is lord of Bitchū Matsuyama Castle here (it'll run 09:00 to 21:00 in Japan); suggest swapping final hooks since both are quirky
• Queue 3: please move the Queue 7 fifth hook about the Mexican emos and anti-emos here (it'll run 06:00 to 18:00 in most of Mexico); not sure which hook it should swap with except that both sets have four bios so a bio shouldn't be involved

Whoever does the move should try to separate the two adjacent bios in Queue 7 (currently seventh and eighth hooks), while not ending up with two U.S. hooks adjacent (Jennison is U.S., as is 404 Fifth Avenue). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Damian Chong Qui is also a U.S. hook. I have made all of the fixes. SL93 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

2024 Tallahassee tornadoes

The hook on the tornadoes in Tallahassee should say that they merged over a golf course near downtown, or otherwise some variant of "after striking downtown", I wasn't fully paying attention when revising the hook. Here's the source. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hit N Fun (nom)

• ... that the lead cast of Twilight of the Warriors: Walled In reunited to star in the unrelated film Hit N Fun?

@Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry, but I don't really see how this hook meets WP:DYKINT: if the reader is unfamiliar with the former film, I don't know why they would care that the cast reunited in a later film. I see that the reviewer's preference in the nomination was ALT1: maybe we can swap with that one instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I find ALT1 far less interesting than this hook: a film cast reuniting for an entirely different film is interesting and unusual no matter the specific films. By comparison, one holiday film earning a different amount to another holiday film in one country is pretty normal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As Airship mentioned, it is common for perhaps two or three actors to star together again, but it is rare for the ensemble cast to reunite in another film. Regarding ALT1, the gist is supposed to be the significantly lower box office, as the 2025 champion film grossed only about one-third of the 2024 champion, yet it has already claimed the title. But to be honest, I struggled to come up with hooks for this film, as nothing about it seems particularly special or interesting. I initially put ALT0 as ALT0 because I found it the most interesting of all (although it is a bit technical); films typically take years to produce, and four months is even shorter than the shoot for many projects. Perhaps we can consider this option if there are divided opinions on ALT1 and 5? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I actually thought ALT0 was the most interesting option, but I guess there's not much appetite for it. I'd like to hear from Tenpop or other uninvolved editors first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

ALT0 is fine with me too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's awfully uncommon for an ensemble cast to reunite. I'm happy to compromise on ALT0. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry everyone! I actually meant to say that I thought ALT1 was the most interesting and not ALT0, I had my hooks mixed up. I understand that AJ29 objected to ALT1 though, so if others don't like it either then we can stick with ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Date request

I'd like to run Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday on 17 May, which is just over two months away, as they are scheduled to perform at that day's Eurovision Song Contest and WP:DYKSO obliges me to ask here first.--Launchballer 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Lydie Pongault (nom)

@Lajmmoore: at 1541kb, this article is barely above the prose limit for DYK. I just wanted to check that you're sure you couldn't find any more detail on the article subject? Otherwise a copyeditor who happens to stumble across the article might well be able to inadvertently make it ineligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Johann Jacob Ferber (nom)

@Yakikaki, Piotrus, and SL93: I don't think the hook is grammatically correct as it stands: the samples of mosaic are the subject of the sentence, but being non-sentient, they cannot "demonstrate" anything. Would we be fine with a rephrasing along the lines of "... that using samples provided by Johann Jacob Ferber, it was demonstrated that mosaics at Pompeii were made with glass paste, not stone?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine with me _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted. I agree. Yakikaki (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Vibe coding (nom)

@WikiOriginal-9 and Sohom Datta: just notifying you (AndyGordon has already been notified on their talk page) that the article has been nominated for deletion and will be pulled shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Ack! Sohom (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Ruothild (daughter of Charlemagne) (nom)

@Srnec, Elias Ziade, and SL93: unless I am misreading Nelson, she doesn't specifically comment on "bare breasts", just their reputed one-breast-ness. Personally, "one-breasted" seems more interesting than "bare-breasted" - could it just be changed to that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Also fine with me. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Stevenson says "bare-breasted" (here). A good image of the tapestry is here, but I am not sure if tapestries are sufficiently two-dimensional to meet Template:PD-art. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Srnec: They do fall under PD-art, per this page on Commons. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image. Srnec (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Paleobiota of the Latah Formation

The nomination page says "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material" is in the reference Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States: New Evidence from Fossil Fungi | Research, but I don't see that in the reference. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Kevmin. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Its in the Supplementary section 1:Supplementary Information 1 – Stratigraphic Columns for the Clarkia Konservat-Lagerstätte, Alum Bluff, and Bouie River sites of Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States which you can download at the bottom of the page you linked. "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material".--Kevmin § 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

SL93 here is the specific quote.--Kevmin § 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Little Current, Ontario

Pinging P199 "Ontario Highway 6 goes through Little Current." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Battle of the Bosporus

@Cplakidas and Tenpop421 The hook says that the battle happened in a narrow strait, but I only see "narrows" in the lead with no citation. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably a nitpick since the Bosporus is a strait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I see nitpicks brought up a lot on Errors. I'm just hoping to avoid that step. Wouldn't "narrow" be superfluous anyway?SL93 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some straits are wider than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 Then I don't get your point about how referencing "narrow" is nitpicking... SL93 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean I don't see why using the word "strait" in the hook is problematic even if it's not directly mentioned in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean that, nor did I mention it. The hook says, "narrow strait", but the article only mentions narrow in the lead with no reference. "Strait" is not problematic because that is referenced elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Not all straits are the same; the Strait of Malacca is several tens of kilometres wide even at its narrowest. The Bosporus is much, much narrower, and the battle happened at its narrowest part, roughly where the Bosphorus Bridge is located now, where it is less than a kilometre wide. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: I've added a citation for this fact. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I corrected the reference; the narrows are not where the original encounter took place, but where the actual battle began, namely inside the Bosporus. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Terry A. Davis

@OpalYosutebito and Chetsford The hook says, "over 120,000 lines of code", but the article says, "ultimately had over 100,000 lines of code". SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I will change the article, then. Sorry for the confusion! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

---

About the Terry A. Davis blurb, wouldn't it be useful to add a link to TempleOS, as well? Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but we like to keep the focus on the bolded articles per WP:DYKAIM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Los Angeles Rising

I promoted this so I need someone to look it over. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 13:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (22 March, 12:00)

Li Huiniang

I reviewed this so another set of eyes is needed. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Kingoflettuce. I just thought of something. Is "reportedly" actually appropriate for the article and hook? It seems like those can be removed. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

IIRC the source itself uses similar wording, and we only know of it through one of his aides, not Zhou himself (ditto Mao). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I just thought I would bring it up because there have been a few recent cases where "reportedly" needed to be removed. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

David Szymanski

I would not have signed off on this bio. There is close to zero biographical information about him (apart from having two brothers) and as such, the article is incomplete / a work in progress. Others may be more lenient, of course, but to me, it fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Schwede66 16:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: pulled it, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Will have to go against the grain in the nom and agree that the article as currently written does not pass DYKCOMPLETE. If a good faith effort to locate biographical information was made, or perhaps even basic facts like a hometown or place of birth (not necessarily a birthdate) were provided, it would not be an issue. I tend to be lenient with DYKCOMPLETE for biographies and I don't always expect long sections about someone's personal life, but at the very least, basic facts should be included. It also doesn't help that the article is relatively short as it is: it would be less of a problem had the article been longer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the 2-per-day run be paused?

It's been five days now, I thought it was supposed to end after three... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today is day six, and we review every three. We're at seven queues, so we go again for another three.--Launchballer 20:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say yes if there was no one filling queues. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought the pause was automatic, to ensure people weren't overworked... I guess I misunderstood. IMHO it really should stop after three days, the whole point is to avoid fatigue setting in among those filling the queues and errors possibly creeping in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I figured that editors can ignore filling queues if they feel overworked. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea was to pre-load the work. If people feel like doing the work, they can run the queues up to full capacity every three days and we keep going. As soon as enough people don't feel like doing the extra work, we drop back to one-per-day at the next assessment point. Nobody is obligated to do more work than they feel like doing. At some point, I'll probably write a bot to fully automate the switchover process.

The old method was that the switch was driven entirely by how many approved hooks we had. We would get into situations where we had enough approved hooks that the rule said we should keep going, but nobody wanted to do the work so all the queues were empty. This is what the control system people call open loop That was untenable. If somebody wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm willing to listen. My only requirement is that whatever process you propose has to have some kind of built-in feedback based on the number of filled queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DYK goes to one set a day with under 120 approved nominations. If so, we are almost there. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yup. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess not per below. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

One advantage of a manual switch between 1/day and 2/day is that we can easily make exceptions for special occasion date requests without having to be afraid of bot interference. —Kusma (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

Not a massive deal or anything, but I was wondering why the Marilyn Fisher Lundy hook was last since it's not particularly funny or amusing. No funny hooks left? @SL93: jolielover♥talk 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @LunaEclipse: as they moved mugging out of the quirky slot here. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I procedurally repromoted #Vibe coding (nom) above after snow keeping it and saw a quirky hook in that, so I put that there instead.--Launchballer 11:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:QUIRKY states that the last slot is not required to have a quirky hook, and there's nothing wrong with including a regular hook if no quirky hooks are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so I've created a new list of all 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 10. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that is the same size as it was 6 days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Betsy Arakawa
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/FUFN (Fuck You for Now)
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Jules Rabin
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Soséfo Makapé Papilio
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Ano (singer)
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiao Yedan
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Couldn't Wait to Tell You
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sobrevivendo no Inferno
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/El Alma al Aire
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Seraglio of Baabda
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 North Sea ship collision
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Detention of Mahmoud Khalil
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism

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) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Sock edits and DYK

User:Oddballeditor1997, recently banned as a sock, has one DYK nomination pending (waiting for a GAR to be resolved). Is there any rule against sock noms going forward on DYK? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the GA but was waiting for a second opinion as I am not sure if it meets the criteria. I am not sure whether to close it now or to await a second opinion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I rejected both.--Launchballer 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:G5 allows for edits made by socks to be speedy deleted. There's some caveats that must be met, and I'd have to dig into the edit histories of these to see if they qualify for G5, but keep it in mind for future cases like this. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (22 March 00:00)

Fabián Cháirez

@AirshipJungleman29 and Mason7512: I suggest changing "feminine" to "effeminate" in the hook; it's the word the source uses, and it's more accurate. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was debating which of the two to use, and would be okay with using either. Mason7512 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Golden Rondelle Theater

@AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, and Uriahheep228: Could the hook be rephrased to avoid the awkward "that though executives thought"? RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, would "though executives believed" work? I have very limited internet while on vacation, so I didn't see this comment till just now, my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries, we've got a few days before this goes live. How about "while executives believed"? RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, that sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (25 March 0:00)

Grand Husseini Mosque

The hook currently says ... that the Grand Husseini Mosque has served as a starting point for political demonstrations in Amman (example pictured) for nearly a century? @Makeandtoss, Hassocks5489, and SL93: Do we actually have a source that refers to it as a "starting point" for protests or political demonstrations? I'm not able to access Protesting Jordan but what little I can see refers to the "centrality of the mosque to all manner of protests" which isn't necessarily the same thing as a "starting point". (I also see that the balcony next door to the mosque is used to address crowds *during* protests...but such an address could take place in the middle or toward the end of a demonstration, not necessarily at the beginning.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Cited in the second next page of that reference in Protesting Jordan: “The area called King Faysal Plaza-really the wide King Faysal Street connecting the Grand Husseini Mosque to the east and the main municipal building to the west

-developed its own spatial routine for protests: gathering at the mosque, listening to speeches, and then marching west to assert claims outside of the government offices.” Makeandtoss (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:DYKCRIT: Articles must be neutral, reliably sourced with inline citations, and BLP- and copyright-compliant. The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in. So I have added a footnote at the end of that sentence citing Protesting Jordan, even though that footnote also appears at the end of the paragraph.

Some reviewers will squirm because that sentence actually doesn't use the word "starting" or "starting point", but it's probably "ok". If you can think of a way to make the claim in the article body align a little more closely to the language in the lead section and in the hook, that would be great, even though I understand you're trying to avoid repetition. @Makeandtoss Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: changed lede to “gathering” instead of “starting” and the hook can be changed that way too for alignment. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

(Belatedly: sorry, just logged on) I would support the change to "gathering place" as acceptable. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "gathering point" per @Makeandtoss (as "gathering place" sounds too static). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

FogCam

This looks like one of those situations where the review overindexed on matching the hook to the source provided within the nomination, but failed to verify that the claim was cited properly within the article itself. The hook says: ... that the FogCam is believed to be the world's longest-running public webcam? The lede sentence clearly asserts, "FogCam is the longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" – a much stronger statement than "believed to be" – but where is this repeated and cited within the body of the article? If it is there, could we please make it more explicit and consistent with both the source and the hook, and provide a citation? @Jolielover, B33net, and Sohom Datta: Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The reception section right ? The exact string does not exist, but the information is there? Sohom (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta No, the Reception section says it's "one of the oldest websites still operational". It doesn't say anything about "longest-running public webcam" or "longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" (which might need to be struck from the lede if there is no citation for that fact anywhere in the body of the article). @EF5: Pinging you as the GA reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It is true, although I must've missed that there wasn't a citation for that. — E_F⁵ 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @EF5. Sorry @Ca I missed off pinging you earlier but we really need you to fix the article before it can run on the main page. At minimum we need one or two sentences in the article body explaining the "longest running public webcam" and/or "oldest webcam still operational" claim(s), with appropriate citations. (I'm sure readers would love to know that the FogCam was recognized as "longest-running webcam" by Guinness World Records in 2008.) And whatever exact wording you decide upon in the article, cited appropriately, should match the wording in the hook as well. (Frankly one easy way to fix this would be to add citations directly into the lead paragraph. I know that many old-school editors don't like this, but I find it often leads to problems like this, where editors want to avoid repetition, so end up making claims in the lede that aren't re-explained in the article body with citations.) We can also choose a different hook or tweak the existing one as needed. Anyway please resolve this one way or another and if you need more time, let me know ASAP so that we can demote the hook and buy you more time to work on fixing the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the issue Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Ca. I've added the other refs from @EF5 to the end of the first sentence just to be sure, and also expanded the NPR sentence under "Reception" to make it extra explicit. (When we make "first" and "oldest" type claims like this, DYK readers often complain that the claim is sourced to "only one source" and therefore not properly vetted. But that shouldn't be an issue here.) We now have a situation where the claim in the hook hedges a bit with "believed to be" whereas the claim is made and backed up more confidently in the article as a statement of fact, but it's better this way and not vice versa. I think we're good to go here, unless anyone else takes a look and has any concerns. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Mobile Adapter GB

@RickyCourtney, Cyberlink420, NegativeMP1, and SL93: The hook says ... that the Mobile Adapter GB was an early, albeit unsuccessful, attempt at handheld online gaming for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance? Where is the source that specifically mentions the Game Boy Advance? Neither the IGN article (which you cite in the article) nor TheGamer article (which you cited in the DYK nomination only) mention the Game Boy Advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

https://kotaku.com/that-time-nintendo-took-the-game-boy-and-pokemon-onli-1836423946

https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/30/low-numbers-for-mobile-adapter-gb RickyCourtney (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @RickyCourtney. Nearly there. Could you please resolve the {{failed verification}} tag I've just left in the article? It's the IGN 2000 article currently cited there that doesn't say anything about Game Boy Advance, whereas the IGN 2001 article clearly does. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your help. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

DYKcheck bug?

Something weird is happening! I ran DYKcheck on 1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware (nom), and it says the article hasn't been expanded fivefold in the last seven days. It also says the article is 1505 characters long. But when I use the prosesize gadget, the post-expansion version is 1500 bytes exactly and the pre-expansion version is 278, so that should be a clear pass. Any idea what's going on? Pinging Shubinator. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

My experience is that DYK Check sometimes doesn't do a good job on the 5x calculation. Lookin at the history, I'd say if you start at Special:Permalink/1267240381 (302 prose) and go to the current version (1505), you're shy by a couple of characters. Either give it an IAR pass or add a word or two and then give it a pass. RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be something got to do with the fact that DYKcheck doesn't count lists or tables. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like an artifact of the binary search algorithm. See User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion. Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

DYKcheck found the "Template:ElectionsDE" redlink from the December 2024 versions of the article and counted it as 20 prose characters (plus or minus), even though it isn't prose. The thing is, said template had been renamed twice, but was deleted under its final name on March 15, five days ago: it wouldn't have been counted as text before then since the resulting template wouldn't have been text, so the current DYKcheck counts of 301 or 302 would have been around 280 prior to the template deeltion. This nomination is safely a 5x expansion, though if a minor textual change is made, it could end up back below 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I added a bit more to the page so it should be fine. Though I should scale back the amount of nominations to avoid further problems Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6

I just received a reply to an email I sent to Herzog Wine Cellars, and they agreed to release the imageFile:Herzog Wine Cellars.jpg under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Would it be possible to move it to a new prep and add this image? Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think generally with this sort of thing the emails are supposed to be verified by the Commons OTRS/VRT. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

How would I do that Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Direct the owner to WP:DONATEIMAGE. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Jeep ducking

Hi Tarlby, thanks for the hook promo. However, per WP:QUIRKY, wouldn't the Jeep hook fit better as the bottom listing than the cop hook? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In retrospect, yeah. It'd be better. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Switched Tenpop421 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Raj Salwan, Lily Mei

* ... that the first Indian American mayor of Fremont, California succeeded the first female and first Asian American mayor?

@Moon motif: Can the bold text for both links be extended to include "the first" and everything until "mayor"? The position isn't the apparent hook here and the DYK isn't about Mayor of Fremont, California, as the hook apparently suggests now. Departure– (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I should have spotted that, so I fixed it myself.--Launchballer 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you so much! Moon motif (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (23 March 00:00)

First Anglo–Ashanti War

@AirshipJungleman29, Setergh, and Hawkeye7: There's a lot of WP:CLOP from archive.org/stream/cu31924088422948/cu31924088422948_djvu.txt. There's lots of properly attributed quotes, but beyond that there's also lots of unattributed copied text which I think goes beyond what's acceptable. As an administrative matter, it looks like Hawkeye7 did both the GA and DYK reviews, which WP:DYKRR says is not allowed. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would personally reopen it for a new reviewer. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of that rule, which was added in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I apologise for not following such a rule, had no clue it existed. The source I took it from just seemed really hard to change. I understand if this removes the possibility of a DYK mention, not up to me (and there's too much for my little motivation to want to change). Setergh (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook per the above discussion. I left 8 hooks because I'm pressed for time, but if somebody else wants to back-fill a 9th, please feel free. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Church (Pomeroy, Ohio)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Maximilian775: The hook says "planted more than 1,500 fruit trees", but the article only goes so far as "estimates". RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. Am open either to changing the hook to "estimated to have planted", or going with the other one proposed on the talk page, ALT1: "... that John Albrinck one of the major advocates for the establishment of a minor seminary to serve the Catholics of Cincinnati, Saint Gregory Seminary? Source: Miller, Francis Joseph (2006). A History of the Athenaeum of Ohio: A History of the Seminaries of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. p. 115. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I updated the hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Erlitou

@SL93, Generalissima, and Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I don't see where the article states the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

See your link, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What does that mean? RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I assumed that I was missing something because Maculosae tegmine lyncis seemed pretty sure that the hook was there, and I have never come across such an issue with Generalissima's hooks. My assuming good faith took a bad turn. Looking back at the nomination, I see that the DYK nomination used a reference that isn't in the article. I'm not sure why Maculosae tegmine lyncis crossed out their original statement which said that the fact isn't in the article, and I have no idea what "See your link" means. SL93 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

"See your link" means see your link, "your" meaning my interlocutor, "link" being the link provided above by the same, and "see" meaning look at it. Erlitou contains "The earliest bronze-cast objects at Erlitou, made with the piece-mold technique, are ling bells.[34]" Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow, so weird. The link goes to Template:Did you know nominations/Erlitou which doesn't help your point. It was my understanding that it should be in both articles. I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion over the "in article" requirement for multi-article hooks here, but it didnt go anywhere, so there seems to be no consensus on how to apply it at the moment. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I put on my new pair of glasses, and I now see that the nomination also says "the hook fact is in the Erlitou article" by the reviewer. I'm sure that I realized that at the time of promotion, but I admit that the first comment here confused me along with having put on outdated glasses this morning. Although I should have checked the articles more clearly because I assumed that the fact needed to be in both articles. Either way, I don't think the rudeness was needed. I like Wikipedia because it's a collaborative effort, and I think that can hurt the effort. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The sealioning? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish by arguing? An apology? I'm fine with apologizing for doing something stupid. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

In regard to sealioning, I'm not debating you or anyone else in this discussion. From the article - "Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called 'sealioning'. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes." I just want this discussion to end which is completely different. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis please understand that when I'm promoting a queue, I need to check 9 hooks in one batch. For each one, I need to verify a bunch of things, one of which is that the hook fact is in the article. For some hooks, that's easy because there's an obvious keyword I can search for to find what I need. This hook was complicated in two different ways. First, there were two articles, so twice the work. Second, the wording in the article is different from in the hook. Instead of "oldest", I needed to be searching for "earliest". Instead of "clapper", I needed to be searching for "ling".

So the next time a reviewer asks for assistance finding what they need so they can correctly process your nomination, please just give them what they asked for. See for example #Inner Cambodia, just below this. I couldn't find what I need there either, so I asked for help. SL93 gave me exactly what I needed and the issue was resolved quickly and without fuss. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Autarky—ling wouldn't have been a wildly improbable search-term, being the name of the article and all that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis, you're being unnecessarily hostile and sarcastic. Be WP:CIVIL. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Inner Cambodia

@SL93, Paul 012, and Srnec: I can't find the hook fact in the article. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith "After a few years of diplomatic manoeuvring over Cambodia's tributary status, the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1867 was concluded in Paris, in which Siam recognized the protectorate and relinquished its claims to suzerainty over Cambodia, while France recognized Siam's territorial claims over Battambang and Siem Reap, including the monument of Angkor Wat" Siam is the historical name of Thailand. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:SL93, thanks for helping respond. Sorry I'm a bit late as the queue is now next to run, but I have another concern: I'm not sure if moving the when clause to the end was optimal, as in my reading it makes it less clear what is being modified ("the French agreed" vs "was in Thailand"). Wouldn't it be better to move it back to the beginning of the hook? Actually, since it's next to run I should probably post this at WP:ERRORS instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC), 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That wasn’t me. SL93 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

How long does someone have to expand an article fivefold?

Hi! I'm looking at Electoral history of Joe Biden (nom), and I'm noticing that while that article has been fivefold expanded (exactly fivefold, I don't think I've ever seen that), the expansion took more than a couple of weeks. Is that allowed, or do editors have to draft expansions in sandboxes so that the expansion starts within the week of nomination? I'd favor allowing that in, but I feel like I've heard differently in the past so I wanted to check up on that. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be in favour of allowing that. If it took years that would be different, but a few weeks should be fine. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t realize it was exactly five fold. But I had done some minor work on it before writing the byte count on March 4 in the description intending to 5x it from then. I then got sick so I couldn’t. The time I was considering for the expansions was March 13-March 18 Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 19:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

As of February 19, the article was 2083 prose characters according to DYKcheck; at the current moment, the article is 10410 prose characters, five short of the 10415 needed to be an exact 5x increase. (At the end of March 4, it was 1990 prose characters; if you count from there, it would be a clear 5x with only 9950 needed.) Adding a couple of words would make this unambiguously a 5x expansion starting on March 13; since the nomination was made within seven days, getting this to 5x should be easily accomplished. Please note that since the article appears to have exceeded 2083 prose characters in the more distant past (for example, 2123 on July 19, 2024), DYKcheck may not agree that a 5x expansion has been done, but it will be wrong in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added a bit more so it should be large enough Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As an informal practice we seem to allow additions during the nomination period to reach 5x if it was close. It's not uncommon for an editor to count total bytes or some other metric, and that's a good faith mistake we tend not to penalise. As to the sandbox question, that's the best way to meet DYK requirements even if it feels a bit gamey. Even with new articles, promoters are meant to check the article has not changed significantly since review, which suggests we don't expect new articles to be continuously worked on during the DYK period. CMD (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

When I was reffering to bytes I meant the bytes of prose (the first price of data listed under prose in X-tools) Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron It just seems unfair to every single 5x expansion that we have ever rejected in the past for not being completed within 7 days or thereabouts (beyond the ~2-day grace period). I would not allow this as a general rule. But I see per BlueMoonset's comment above that a 7-day window was identified that allows this particular DYK nomination to qualify. It would be helpful if this could be explained within the nomination itself by the nominator or by the reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The rules state that a 5x expansion has to be accomplished within seven days (plus the grace period) of a nomination. It doesn't matter if the expansion was initially done in a sandbox before being added to the main article later on. The only thing that matters is that a 5x expansion was accomplished within seven days. If a 5x expansion took place but it took place beyond the seven days requirement then it's not eligible. Usually in such cases we recommend to the nominator to nominate the article for GA instead, then to return to DYK once GA status has been achieved. Having said that, CMD is right: in cases where 5x expansion has not been accomplished but is feasible, in practice we allow the nominator time to meet the requirements, only rejecting if this isn't done within a reasonable timeframe. However, if it's nowhere near a 5x expansion, then the nomination is rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm saddened to read that we've gotten so hidebound that we can't AGF that the person meant to have expanded by 5x at the time the nomination was made, and give them a reasonable chance to get the article to 5x once the issue has been identified by a reviewer; that's how it used to be. I'm not talking about people who were under 2x, but those who had expanded significantly and were within shooting distance of 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That's still the case in practice. If the article is a ~4x expansion, we usually give the nominator time to bring the article up to standard. The nomination is usually only failed if either the article is so far off a 5x expansion, too much time has passed, or the nominator is unresponsive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Themed sets on good topics

If, in theory, I intended to create a themed set for a topic, but it was entirely infeasible to nominate each to DYK within the 1-week post-GA/creation/expansion window AND the same 6-week special occasion set window, would it instead be possible to nominate a themed set based on a good topic pending completion of the set? Entries already run on DYK not expanded wouldn't be put on the set but others beyond the one week eligibility window but a part of the topic and otherwise eligible for DYK would be nominated at the same time the good topic nomination is approved would be eligible again. I'm asking because the period of waiting means that themed sets currently means that for all except the most important or otherwise relevant events (i.e. Halloween, Christmas, the rare global-importance event), themed sets are not feasible to be created due to the difficulty coordinating editors to improve or create articles within the time period given - seven weeks at most. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that since April 1 has an extension for themed sets they are able to get a full set every single year, so I don't see why some sort of workaround to reasonable eligibility couldn't be made for other topics. Departure– (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Themed sets are already controversial as they are, and outside of the established ones (Halloween, Christmas, IWD, etc.), the ones that end up running tend to get a lot of criticism. Remember the DYK set about royalty for Queen Elizabeth's funeral? That wasn't without controversy and multiple editors complained when it happened. In practice, this does mean that themed sets are very rare and are reserved for very special occasions (for example, the anniversary of Apollo 11 or the anniversary of Canada Day). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

When editors complained, was it just editors being, well, editors? When we looked at page traffic from that day, did the DYKs get a decent amount, or was it lower than normal? That'd be something to take into consideration. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since it happened so I don't remember the full details, but in the case of the Queen's funeral set, IIRC there was criticism over the main page being royals-centric or something. Some editors were saying that, as big of a deal as her death and funeral were, they didn't agree that it was enough to devote all of DYK to it. Again, I can't remember the full details, it was just something like that. I think something similar was done for Charles' coronation: now that I think about it, I can't remember if the set was on the Queen's funeral, during the coronation, or those were two separate events. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe doing them more often is a way to prevent criticism. If we can run a royals set, why can't we run other sets? It'd likely get less criticism from DYK-space editors if we did this more often, as accusations of "royal-centrism" would be dispelled by the fact there are numerous themed sets. Saying DYK is XYZ-centric for having one day devoted to a set is understandable, but when it happens multiple times a year (more than April, Halloween, Christmas), then these allegations sort of fall apart. Departure– (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Understandable. I do think that themed sets are overall nice, and perhaps would be suitable to have more often (maybe just on one day of the week as a straight-up special occasion? I'm just floating ideas around.), and if we want to have more of them, then the process should be cleaned up a bit. Even one themed set per week would be plenty a year while leaving a majority of blurbs untouched. It could help foster collaboration in spaces in need of it. Perhaps themed sets as a weekly thing could be voted on or otherwise added to a backlog, and once voted on there's a period (say, a few months) to get all the GAs passed, articles created or expanded, etc. and then run for a mere 24 hours. The current problem with themed sets isn't the work, it's that for existing articles that would be lovely in said sets the time needed to wait for a GA can be extremely long and barring participation in a few GA circles near impossible for the amount of articles you'd want in a set - GAs are likely the easiest way to get an article on DYK, as expansion takes plenty of time and so does making a new article from scratch. Departure– (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

In practice, the date of the themed set would need to be sufficiently "special" to be considered. A few years ago there was a proposal to have a themed set around a rather obscure religious feast. There was some opposition to it, but ultimately it run as a one-time concession to the proposer (I think Valereee has the full story as she was involved). When it ultimately ran, the community and readership reacted poorly to it: in fact, the current rules on themed sets were due to that event. My point is that, considering DYK's past experiences with themed sets, the proposal, and indeed any proposal for a themed set outside of the usual ones, would likely face an uphill battle. I'm all for having themed sets for, for example, Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha, but I imagine a themed set about Presidents' Day or Martin Luther King Day would go down like a lead balloon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember...was it a themed set for a Catholic feast day, maybe? I feel like a lot of the submissions were from a single editor who had been exploring it in multiple categories, so it wasn't all music or art or festivals or churches...we were a bit leery of setting a precedent, because pretty much every day is a festival for someone in some religion somewhere.

A themed set needs broad buy in, like you'd want to bring it up here for discussion before you put that work in. What is the theme you're considering, @Departure–? Valereee (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: To answer your question: it was a themed set about a Catholic feast day (I can't remember which saint, but I think it had to do with Spain). It was Evrik's proposal if you can remember. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the ones I was specifically considering was Tornadoes in Chicago, which has enough to-be-created or otherwise expanded articles with interesting hooks for a themed set. Yes, the claims of America-centrism are going to naturally creep in, but there is no reason why under my more common themed sets proposal we couldn't do one for anything international - I'm sure there's plenty of non-American editors who'd love to have better representation of their locales on the front page and more common themed sets might be a great way to do so. Departure– (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I doubt anything that specific would work for most editors. Tornadoes might work, but probably not even specific tornadoes around the world. You'd need maybe one article on a specific tornado (somewhere), and one on how tornadoes form in (somewhere else), and maybe one on whatever machine first measured strength of tornadoes, etc. And even then you might have a hard time selling it. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a set specifically for any natural disasters? SL93 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a whole genre of disaster articles: tornados, hurricanes, airplane crashes, train crashes, wild fires, etc. The problem is they're all so formalistic. In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather lists as its first goal, "Standardize pages for severe weather events and people. I think a whole DYK set of these standardized articles about closely-related subjects would make exciting reading for a small fraction of our readership and boring reading for the rest. RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (26 March 00:00)

Mugging (nom)

The hook isn't sitting right with me. It currently says:

... that when the crime of mugging gained attention in the UK, one book argued that there was no such crime?

Didn't we actually mean to say:

... that when the crime of mugging gained attention in the UK, one book argued that there was no crime as such?

Waddington (and the target article) say that the book was not denying that the act of mugging was criminal, just that "There was nothing novel about 'mugging', it was simply a new label for an old crime. (p. 247). @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Arconning, and LunaEclipse: Thoughts? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree the current wording is a problem. How about:

• ALT2: ... that although the crime of mugging gained attention in the 1970s, the term covers a multitude of distinct crimes?

RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith Not sure that works either and this hook is very much tied to the UK specifically in the 1970s. Maybe we just replace it with ALT1? But that one isn't great either – it's broadening a stereotype beyond what the source actually in terms of verb tense ("has been" suggesting that it continues today) and by not specifying where (suggesting that it's universal). If we don't get some viable ALT hooks soon, maybe we just demote this one to allow more time to fix them? (And then can we just run 8 in the set or do I need to find a replacement?) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

How about:

* ALT2a: ... that although the crime of mugging gained attention in the 1970s UK, the term covers a multitude of distinct crimes?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This hook actually won't work either. The article mentions multiple opinions, including someone who argues there is a specific crime in London that's equivalent to mugging. So the phrase "one book argues" is needed to maintain neutrality. I think the "no crime as such" phrasing works fine.
As for ALT1, I would argue that the hook is fine even without being specific. It's a hook to get people interested; people will click through to the article to get more details.
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Changed hook wording from "no such crime" to "no crime as such". @Vigilantcosmicpenguin Cielquiparle (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has hit WP:ERRORS with an IP reading it in reverse but suggesting a pretty literal alternative "not distinct from existing crimes" which would be my preference. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Fadel al-Utol (nom)

No showstopper here. Just wanted to answer the question raised by Lajmmoore that yes, it is OK to source hooks to primary sources. (I have raised the exact same question in the past.) Also wanted to document for anyone who wonders later that the source, "Gaza Stories", isn't just a random YouTube channel. It is a Palestinian multimedia project in French and English led by documentary filmmaker Iyad Alasttal. @Richard Nevell: In fact, it is probably worth calling out Gaza Stories within the footnotes. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Cielquiparle - that's really good to know Lajmmoore (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I've added something along those lines to the reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2025

In the DYK nominator wizard: add a line by the QPQ field that explains that QPQs must be provided at the time of nomination, and nominations with no QPQ may be closed without warning. Also, not an edit request, but can someone link me to the discussion that precipitated this change? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made, and to which page. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Jonesey95, this request refers to User:SD0001/DYK-helper. The suggested edit would be made on line 268 (i.e. the tooltip) at User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js. Schwede66 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK-helper is already supposed to have a check warning or blocking (I can't remember which) nominations if a QPQ is not provided. However, that check is very easy to bypass: just adding something like "Pending" after "Template:Did you know nominations/" would cause the check to be bypassed. It would probably be useful to modify the check to also block/warn nominations if the QPQ link that would be generated would be a red link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe User talk:SD0001/DYK-helper is the right place to ask for this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

The End of the World With You (nom)

• ... that Maki Narukido worked on the manga The End of the World With You during the COVID-19 pandemic?

@Lullabying, OlifanofmrTennant, and Tarlby: Arguably, this hook does not meet WP:DYKINT. Manga being worked on during the pandemic is not at all unusual. There are countless examples of manga that were serialized, or even began, during the pandemic, so The End of the World With You being such a case is not unusual. Given how significant the pandemic was worldwide when it happened, simply relating something to Covid is no longer inherently interesting. Please suggest a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Promoter here. I think I managed to misclick the wrong hook using PSHAW and never noticed. Do you think ALT1 from the nom page good? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't find ALT1 particularly interesting either I'm afraid. Personality tweaks strike me as a bog-standard aspect of character development.--Launchballer 23:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Maki Narukido researched the characters' travel times in the manga The End of the World With You using Google Maps? SL93 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I like that one a lot better. Can we go with that instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I like that one. Thanks for helping out! lullabying (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging on hook changes

@DYK admins: please note that if you change a hook in a prep or queue, you should ping the nominator per WP:DYKTRIMPING. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Possibly worth modifying User:RoySmith/dyk-pingifier.js to ping users with square brackets rather than curly, as those pings work in edit summaries?--Launchballer 16:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe. BTW, I'm working on getting a new version of that out, but I'm blocked on figuring out how javascript bundling works, other other deployment issues. If anybody here knows that stuff and is willing to help, please ping me. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Back to 1 set a day

We are now at 117 approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We're currently on day two of a three-day burst. Before they were instituted, we flicked back and forth at 60 and 120 noms. I think we should keep going.--Launchballer 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I have pinged some stalled nominations. I think we should wait until the end of the three-day cycle before making a decision to switch: if we are above 120 and the queues are filled, we should keep going. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what WP:DYKROTATE says. Go for 3 days following the initial trigger, then at the end of those 3 days, IIF both 1) six queues are filled, and 2) there are over 120 approved nominations, then it can keep going. CMD (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because we drop below 120 in the middle of the three days is not a reason to stop; the full three days should be completed. Back in the old days we'd keep going until we dropped below 60, so dropping to 117 (now 118) is nothing, especially when we have another 122 hooks promoted to the thirteen and a half full sets in line for a turn on the main page. I'm frankly hoping we burn through a bit more of that backlog before going back to one a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not like we're lacking in supply either. I say we keep going while we can keep at seven queues.--Launchballer 14:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I just filled the 7th queue. And while we are indeed under the 120 trigger point (114 at the moment), I agree that we should WP:IAR and stay on 12 hour updates for another 3 days.

We've got April 1 coming up in a week (full disclosure: I've got a hook in there). I see 10 verified hooks there (plus another that's not yet verified). I'm guessing what we want to do is winnow that down to 9 and plan to be back to a 24 hour cycle by then. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

We're on day three at seven queues and 114 approved. I say we keep going.--Launchballer 15:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely time to go back to 1 set a day (after today)

@DYK admins: we have just completed another three days at 2 sets a day (March 19 through 21), it's after midnight on March 22, and there are only four queues filled; there were also only 117 approved hooks at midnight. Please reset us to one hook a day before noon UTC. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought this was day three.--Launchballer 03:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Just checked the history of User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates; we went to 2-a-day on 11 March, meaning we're about three hours into day twelve.--Launchballer 03:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done, back to once per day. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You just changed it to 84600 rather than 86400 and I think we should go for one more at two-per-day anyway.--Launchballer 03:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for catching the typo. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Ganesha811, it looks like I miscounted, and Launchballer is right: I was a day early, and we should continue today at two-a-day, switching back to one-a-day after midnight on the 23rd. My apologies. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Reversed, it's back at 43200. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

On the topic of 84600 instead of 86400, what I do when switching is just undo the previous edit. That way, I never have to actually type any numbers, guarding against this type of error. On the broader question, yeah, we seem to have run out of energy to fill queues, so this evening does indeed seem like a good time to switch back to a 24 hour cycle. RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If you do it by hand, you can check that you have done it correctly by looking for the "manual revert" tag. —Kusma (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Okay, now we need to go back to one per day.--Launchballer 01:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Sorry to ping again but this needs putting back in the next 40-45 minutes.--Launchballer 11:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: done, thank you for the reminder! —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4 is the April Fools' Day. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 11:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And prep 3 is 31 March, which I have a couple of date requests for, but I'm hoping we down another three days at two-per-day before then. (Preferably from tomorrow, as I have the lead hook in the seventh set.)--Launchballer 12:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 1

List of cities in Oregon

The hook as currently worded violates WP:EASTEREGG, imo. I clicked on the boldlink expecting to go to the city, but went to a list of cities I had to scroll through to find the one being referenced. Perhaps ALT1: ... that Oregon's cities vary in population from over 650,000 to three? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ping: SounderBruce, Arconning, SL93 ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro Much better. Arconning (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. SounderBruce 20:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to promoter; the rest of us seem agreed on this User:SL93, but I defer the change to you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fine. SL93 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Apurbalal Majumdar

i'm wondering what happened to Template:Did you know nominations/Apurbalal Majumdar? The article was added in a prep queue, but then deleted and the nomination did not reappear in WP:DYKNA. -- Soman (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Soman according to the edit comment here, it was pulled from the prep because the set had too many hooks about elections. I'm sure it'll find its way into another set at some point. RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't in Approved but has clearly been reviewed for promotion, so I put it in Prep 3.--Launchballer 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Museum Music

@Tarlby, CarbonLollipop, and Narutolovehinata5: I see WP:CLOP that needs to be resolved.--Launchballer 16:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Tell Ruqeish

@Richard Nevell and Tenpop421: This needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 16:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Done by duplicating the reference later in the paragraph. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Raymond C. and Mildred Kramer House

@SL93, Epicgenius, and PixDeVl: I see WP:CLOP that needs rectifying.--Launchballer 16:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, it would help if you could point out which parts of the article you think are closely paraphrased. There were some close matches in Earwig due to common noun phrases, e.g. "government of Madagascar" and "mission to the United Nations". – Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I saw "interested in buying the house" in a few sources, but managed not to realise they had nothing to do with this.--Launchballer 19:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Baggu

@Thriley, Heartleafphilodendron, Coooohen, Viriditas, and Tenpop421: As written, this would deserve {{lead too short}} and I think this should be expanded. Also, what makes WP:MASHABLE reliable?--Launchballer 16:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The Mashable article titled "Collina Strada's Baggu collab is under fire for using AI-generated prints" is a decent overview of the company's use of AI. Thriley (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That page says, "In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. " Due to the fact that it fits the niche and isn't sponsored, the source is fine. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This really has to be emphasized again: many editors, including those on DYK, think that a source being yellow on WP:RSP means it should be treated similarly as a red source, when in reality it instead generally means "case-by-case". That is, whether to use the source or not depends entirely on context. In this case, WP:MASHABLE outright says that it is one of those "case-by-case" cases, and this is also a case where it seems perfectly suitable and meets the given context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

List of cities in Oregon

@SounderBruce and Arconning: Three issues; I'd expect "least-populous city" to go that city and so this violates MOS:EGG; the hook is cited to the 2020 census and could have changed by now so this needs to attribute; much of the Former cities section appears unsourced.--Launchballer 16:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No idea what I was thinking with that first part.--Launchballer 20:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7

Durrr Burger (nom)

@Johnson524, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and Tarlby: Durrr Burger has been nominated for deletion, so it should probably be pulled. (It doesn't seem likely to be kept, but if it is, it can always be promoted again.) jlwoodwa (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your Computer is On Fire (nom)

• ... that "The Cloud is a Factory", "Your AI is Human", and Your Computer is On Fire?

@LEvalyn, Tenpop421, and Tarlby: I'm sorry, but I don't see how this hook meets the guidelines. Technically, this arguably doesn't meet the guidelines regarding having a definite hook fact: where's the fact here? It's just giving random quotes without context. I understand that the reviewer preferred this and liked the wording, but arguably a reader may be more baffled by this than interested. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Promoter here. Reading the hook, I personally was intrigued by the unusual format of the hook much more than the proposed ALT1 and read the article, so it's not like it baffled me personally. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Both of the quoted chapter titles are also specific claims from the book. They argue quite seriously that the cloud is a factory and AI is human, as facts. Fully understanding those fact claims requires more context, but in my opinion that’s what made the hook hooky. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Then it should be worded that way. Then again, both ways are essentially just plot even though the book is non-fiction. "Book claims something" hooks bore me. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We've run hooks which have ignored this specific guideline before IIRC. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not just a non-definite fact; it is also not even a fact. It's quotes from the book and the title of the book. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If we can't at the very least get a fact by tomorrow evening, I plan on pulling the hook if someone else doesn't. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Your Computer is On Fire was said to be crafted to induce an "existential crisis"?
• ... that the title Your Computer is On Fire comes from a 2018 symposium held at Stanford?
• ... that Your Computer is On Fire was summarized as "techno-utopianism should die because it’s too dangerous to be allowed to continue"? SL93 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I like the first the best but I want to hear from @LEvalyn, Tenpop421, and Tarlby: regarding the three new proposals. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, I think these are less hooky but they are all fine. Whichever you prefer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  First one is best for me. Tenpop421 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. I actually think the "existential crisis" one is excellent. Well done @SL93. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've swapped the hook for now, but I wonder if further changes could be done. I checked The Register, and it doesn't specifically say that the story is "crafted" to cause an existential crisis, but rather that a reader may face one after reading. Maybe the wording for the article/hook could be changed to more closely match the source, or is this just a nitpick? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, but maybe ... that Your Computer is On Fire was said to possibly cause an "existential crisis"? SL93 (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel like that weakens it a lot, whereas attributing the source and giving more context could make it stronger:

... that The Register said Your Computer is On Fire might inspire an "existential crisis" in readers who were planning a career in the tech industry?

Source: "By the conclusion, the reader is faced with an existential crisis, apparently, a "call to face and embrace one's own death." … It's at this point that the imagined STEM student of the intro might be justified in putting the 400-page tome back in the library and wondering about their first professional pay check and Bay Area condo." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I reworded it in the article for now to say "confronts readers with an existential crisis" (I googled "confronted with an existential crisis" and it is an expression that is used), so might suggest:

... that Your Computer is On Fire is said to confront readers with an "existential crisis"?

Cielquiparle (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I like this option. SL93 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

First one sounds the best. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this one is finally all sorted out now; Launchballer updated the hook. Thanks, everyone, for rather a lot of effort on this little hook. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

P3 hook that should be held as date-specific

In P3 I see:

* ... that no other month starts with the same day as June?"

from a recently promoted GA.

It's currently slated to run on the 26th/27th, in four days.

But it occurs to me that this would be a wonderful hook to put into SOHA and run instead on June 1. It's not too late to do this and put another hook in (as I type the P3 set is not even complete) So, pinging @LunaEatsTuna: (nominator), @Launchballer: (hook was their idea), @OlifanofmrTennant: (reviewer) and @Tarlby:. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree and have reopened this. Even if we decide more than three months is far too long to wait, I see no harm in giving more time to decide. I'll leave it to you to put it back at T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 17:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a clever idea, actually! I would support that. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 17:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Then let's do it! (Don't think 10 weeks is too long to wait ... I was OK with holding my "We Work the Black Seam" hook for about the same time in order that we run it on the 40th anniversary of the British coal miners' strike that inspired the song. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Unique identifiers for queues?

I've taken to generating L2 headers of the format Queue 6 (27 March 00:00) to address the problem of having multiple discussions titled just "Queue 6" and links to these would go to the wrong one (this was actually complained about on WP:ERRORS). Now I see that created another problem, as shown by Special:Diff/1281942353, where Cielquiparle fixed the headers to account for the shift back to 24 hour mode. Not only was this extra work, but it means existing links to those sections are now broken.

So, I'm trying to figure out a better way to generate unique L2 headers, but which will be stable across mode changes. They also need to be easy to calculate. The best I've come up with so far is to look at the number of revisions to Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, which is currently 11,832. Or possibly divide that by 7 to come up with a cycle count. Anybody have any better ideas? RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Apology for breakage. Perhaps this is an infrequent enough occurrence, such that it's not worth engineering a workaround. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No apology needed. Having the wrong dates was broken, you just let me see that. RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Another perhaps simpler way to fix the issue would be to archive this page slightly more aggressively. I try to 1-click archive any previous "Queue 6" posts before starting a new Queue 6 post. —Kusma (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's good to be able to quickly see the go-live date and time, as it serves as a reminder of the impending deadline. Discussions have sometimes trailed off without action being taken in time to avoid a scramble at WP:ERRORS. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's just making work for people in a different way. My philosophy is that computers should do work so humans don't have to. RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Could each topic added to the Talk page be given a unique identifier, such that any link would still work regardless of titling or retitling? Cielquiparle (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And then the unique identifiers could also persist even after the discussion thread is archived. Maybe this is what you were saying in the first place. I just wanted to make sure that we don't lose the ability to display the go-live date and time. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking something like Special:Permalink/1281961781 might work, with the "currently scheduled" bit being driven by some javascript that pulls the right data out of Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes on the fly. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

If we tell the archiver bot to archive after 2-3 days instead of 5 we should be able to reduce the frequency of this happening. —Kusma (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought that too but then saw that it was useful to be able to see the "old" Prep set discussion corresponding to the later Queue set discussion within the same Talk page (i.e., when a problematic hook/article gets discussed when it's at Queue but it's easy to look back and see the prior discussion history on the Talk page when it was at Prep). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a completely different model is possible, where there are designated "Topic" sections for each Prep and Queue, which remain fixed, and then they get archived/overwritten with new hook/article discussions as and when. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you want to explore the possibilities, I've long thought that our process of discussing hooks directly on WT:DYK to be sub-optimal because you end up with the discussion about a given hook being split between the nomination and this page. I'd rather see all discussion about a hook happen in one place, i.e. the nom page. If there's problems post-promotion, the nom page could be transcluded to here, with some <noinclude> magic only showing the post-promotion part of the page. The end result would be that everything having to do with the history of a nomination would end up in one place instead of scattered about. RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

While the idea makes sense, I think it would do more harm in the long term. For one thing, one of the reasons hook discussions take place here instead of on the nomination page is because WT:DYK simply has more eyes and thus any concerns raised are more likely to be seen compared to if they were just mentioned on the nomination page. Perhaps having a dedicated DYK errors or concerns page might work, but it might be more work since regulars would have to migrate there. WT:DYK's use is not optimal, but it's practical enough that the alternatives may not be worth the effort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea is the discussion would be transcluded here, so people would see it just like they do now. But rather than old discussions rolling off into the WT:DYK archives, they would be captured on the nom page so there would be one place where everything about the nom was collected. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

While transcluding the discussion gives relevant context (at least the hook under discussion is necessary), it does not lead to watchlist entries for watchers of this page. That could easily reduce the number of eyeballs we get. Your point about archiving is excellent, though. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Marshall Islands at the 2024 Summer Olympics

@Tarlby, Arconning, and Gonzo fan2007: Not seeing three nationality changes; I see Sasser going from Marshallese to US and then back to Marshallese. Also, that's not a full QPQ, but I'll let it slide.--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I guess it'd be twice! I read the source wrong, that's on me. Arconning (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I adjusted the hook.--Launchballer 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Lengkong (1826)

@Juxlos and Awkwafaba: Significant content in the infobox without a source.--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Neighbours - The 40th Anniversary Tour

@Raintheone and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: This shouldn't be using WP:METRO as a source.--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: - No worries. I have now removed them.Rain the 1 16:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

René Mouterde

@Tarlby, Elias Ziade, and Tenpop421: This needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer, there are inline citations at the end of every sentence used in the hook. Can you please tell me what I am missing? el.ziade (talkallam) 16:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Greek and Latin.--Launchballer 19:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Your Computer is On Fire

@LEvalyn: I don't think this quite corresponds with the source. I suggest "... that readers of Your Computer is On Fire would be "faced with an existential crisis", according to The Register?".--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think mine is what the source meant, but this is fine too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I updated the set.--Launchballer 20:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate how much effort everyone has put in on this little hook. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

KHDC

@Sammi Brie: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer Done. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Wangerooge Frisian

@ThaesOfereode and B33net: Not seeing where this is in the article.--Launchballer 20:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Under Wangerooge Frisian#Vocabulary and syntax, the sentence The term onlidder ('to invite'), for example, originally meant 'to load' (as a ship or a gun), but semantic contamination from German laden ('to invite') appears to have shifted the meaning is seen with a PDF citation to back it up 🐝 B33net 🐝 20:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The hook says "invitation to a birthday party". I don't see where that is in the article.--Launchballer 20:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ll ping @ThaesOfereode: for his opinion 🐝 B33net 🐝 21:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the premise of the source, but I can see how that would be unclear to the casual reader. I've added to a sentence clarifying that this semantic shift is attested in the Louwine Luths corpus, but let me know if you need me to be more specific or change something further. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

As a German speaker I am slightly confused by this. laden means "to load" in modern German. The meaning "to invite" is antiquated; people typically use einladen (or vorladen for a court summons). When did this shift of meaning happen in this version of Frisian? —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the language died in 1950 and this corpus is from the interwar period; this piece in particular is from 1934 and the only other attestation (Ehrentraut's) is from the first half of the 1800s, so we're not talking about a language spoken today. See Gregersen's entry:

Apparently a conflation of two historical etyma under the influence of German laden 'invite' or 'load'; [Ehrentraut] gives the verb láthî for 'invite' whereas ốnlithe is said to mean 'load' a ship or gun [...] The 1sg form onlidder used by Louwine Luths in the sense 'invite' appears to be a variant of ốnlithe 'load' with word-final r-insertion [...] and fortition of [ð] to [d].

Basically, the conflation of 'load' and 'invite' in German probably led to a conflation in Wangerooge Frisian as well. The original form meaning 'to load' as a gun or a ship gained the prefix ốn- (compare ein- in German, perhaps related?) in the sense 'invite' (whereas the older form did not contain this prefix) due to contamination from German. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (27 March 00:00)

Jimena Sánchez (queen)

@SL93, Mychele Trempetich, Srnec, and Departure–: Shouldn't this be "Spanish chroniclers OF the 13th century..."? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Someone tweaked a hook yet again. I promoted … that by the 13th century, Spanish chroniclers knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037? SL93 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff looks like this was you. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I rearranged some words to produce a slightly more comprehensible phrasing. Perhaps it could be slightly better to surround "by the 13th century" with commas:

• that Spanish chroniclers, by the 13th century, knew neither the correct name nor parentage of Jimena Sánchez, the queen of León from 1035 to 1037?

— RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff @RoySmith I prefer the one that one that @SL93 promoted as it's actually easier for me to understand. Not everyone is looking for a noun or a "who" first. I actually find if every hook starts with a noun or person, the set gets boring, and for history hooks it often helps to orient the "when". The goal is to sustain the reader's attention and compel them to read through the entire hook...if they don't like the first word (like Spanish chroniclers or Emmanuel Macron, who cares?) they will stop reading. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• My impression is that the latest hook is not stated clearly in the article anywhere. The article is difficult to make sense of because the facts of the matter don't seem clear or well-established. And modern Spain was not established until the 15th century so it's not clear who these chroniclers were. Perhaps "Hispanic" or "Iberian" rather than "Spanish" would be less anachronistic? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  @RoySmith @SL93 @Srnec @Departure– @Mychele Trempetich @Ravenpuff I think we need to demote this hook to allow more time to fix both the hook and the article itself. Aside from the whole "Spain did not exist as such in the 13th century" problem (which would definitely have resulted in embarrassment if it ran on the main page), @Andrew Davidson is correct in pointing out that the article in its current state is actually very unclear about what is going on here. It seems the basic facts about Jimena including her name, her parents, and whether she had an infant who died have been debated by historians who don't all agree, and somehow it's not convincing the way the article is written now that this matter is truly "settled" or can ever be known with certainty. (From working on Wikipedia I have also learned that you can have two pieces of information that appear to be conflicting which both turn out to be true (what if her name was actually Theresa Jimena, for example); not saying that's necessarily what's going on here, but in order for this article to run on the main page of Wikipedia, we need to be more confident about the facts we are presenting and be explicit about any disagreements and uncertainty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I pulled it and will backfill it in the morning.--Launchballer 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I replaced it with Sal Maida; there's no way it should have got the image slot per WP:DYKDIVERT (but the original hook would have made an excellent April Fool's hook). Courtesy pings to @Tarlby, Thriley, Darth Stabro, and Cielquiparle:.--Launchballer 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd still be down to WP:IAR and get it in for April Fool's... ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd want to hear from Cielquiparle first. I'm thinking a bald "... that Sal Maida may not have a Wikipedia page?".--Launchballer 14:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be opposed to that. That hook would entail running without the image, which is a loss to the front page in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer Personally I just don't get it. I sort of get it, in that I remember thinking it was funny once when I found out that a person I wrote about made a joke about "their" Wikipedia article (it was actually their "name twin"). And then I started noticing everywhere how pervasive it is for people to comment on what Wikipedia says about XYZ – critically, humorously, with wonderment. So now when I see hooks like this, I think "So what?" It could also backfire and irk people. Some people think DYK is run by automotons who uncritically approve hooks if they can find a single reliable-looking that source that makes a claim (OK I am still upset about the fiasco that was Battis Khamba, a quirky sounding hook which I promoted that even the DYK nominator admitted was probably wrong *after* it was pulled from the main page on the big day and still hasn't been fixed properly, which I and others should have questioned earlier). (See Talk:Battis Khamba.) But humor is hard and very subjective and somehow it seems we don't have enough strong contenders for April Fool's hooks. If lots of other people think it's funny, go for it. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That Battis Khamba nomination probably should be reopened, I think. As for the Sal Maida hook, which I just moved into the April Fool's set and will backfill later, my thinking was that people would wonder 'where does the link go then'. I think the The United States of America and my hooks for Bliss and Batman work but can't approve/promote them. (I started User:Launchballer/Saiyuud Diwong but probably won't be done in time for this year and was probably going quirky with it anyway.)--Launchballer 10:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

No. No second chances on hooks that run on the main page and then get pulled down mid-way through the run because they fail verification. Otherwise there is no incentive for DYK nominators, reviewers, and promoters to take the review process seriously.

(Except in extenuating circumstances, such as another editor making substantive changes to the hook without additional notification and review, outside of the normal review process.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s a shame to lose the image for the Maida hook. It’s stunning. Images lately have had far too many contemporary pop stars, social media personalities etc. Might be nice to break it up with what fame looked like in 1973. Thriley (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

About which I predominantly write, so am not exactly complaining about! For now, I swapped this with Apurbalal Majumdar to give this a little longer - courtesy ping to @Soman, BeanieFan11, and AirshipJungleman29:.--Launchballer 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no problem with the word "Spanish" in the hook. modern Spain was not established until the 15th century but we are not talking about modern Spain. it's not clear who these chroniclers were They are named in the article: "The 13th-century historians Lucas de Tuy and Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada..."

We know with certainty the name of Vermudo III's queen. Modern scholarship is also confident—in Wikipedia lingo, there is consensus—that she was the daughter of Sancho the Great. Later medieval sources, i.e., sources written about 100–200 years after her time, however, give her the wrong parentage and the wrong name. This is not terribly surprising given that (a) she was an ephemeral queen widowed in her youth and (b) her name and her father's were both quite common. I can understand that the article is hard to parse and will try to fix it. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Srnec for clarifying. What you're describing sounds very interesting. Yes, just a bit more sign-posting within the article would go a long way. Perhaps you could add it to the lead section, which is only one sentence wrong and thus too short regardless. It would be great if you could fix that too. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK didn't update

@DYK admins: Either something is wrong on my end, or the next set didn't update. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Starting up both bots, DYKUpdateBot is updating now. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

@DYK admins: With this, we now have seven queues again, so we'll need to go to two-per-day.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No way, this is ridiculous. We've just had 12 straight days of 2-per-day and finally get a breather and you're trying to push it back again? At least give if a few days for people have a break. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We are only barely above 120 and there are lots of empty preps. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm against it, and we have many empty preps. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not be moving back to two-sets a day so soon after the last switch. Apart from the empty preps, it would be deeply unfair to other nominations and nominators, plus our workload is pretty high right now and doing two-sets-a-day already contributes to burnout. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I also think that at least some nominators might prefer to have their hooks up for an entire day. Two a day should only be used with a huge backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed: I'm one of those editors. Last time I requested for a delay to a hook to allow it to run on a one-set day it wasn't granted, which honestly was disappointing. I get the concerns about gaming, but it might be less of a problem for editors who are regular nominators anyway as opposed to those who only nominate once in a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Demi Sims

I wrote this, so must ask for more eyes. (I did consider kicking it back a couple of days so it could be 'on air' the same day as a boxing match she's in, but it got postponed...)--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Annel Silungwe

@Tarlby, BeanieFan11, Tenpop421, and Cbl62: This needs an end-of-sentence citation for Namibia.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Added. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Gianni Benvenuti

@ERcheck and B33net: Not DYK issues per se, but the article would deserve {{lead too short}} and the sentence "These works were translated into numerous languages." would deserve {{clump}} and you may wish to resolve these before primetime.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer - I made edits to address {{lead to short}} and {{clump}}. Thanks for the suggestions. Please let me know if you feel the lead needs additional info. — ERcheck (talk) — ERcheck (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

2009 NFC Wild Card playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona)

@Gonzo fan2007 and BeanieFan11: I think this should be trimmed to ... that the Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals set multiple NFL playoff records in their 2009 NFC Wild Card playoff game? Thoughts?--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It was notable for its high score, so I feel like that needs to be mentioned at least. Otherwise for all the reader knows, the records could be minor or insignificant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

For one thing, many non-sports fans may not understand all those terms (remember that American football is not as widely followed as other sports worldwide, and even association football hooks often get pushback here). From experience, terms too reliant on sports terms (including those for basketball and even soccer) tend to underperform with readers. One argument could also be that not specifying which records were set could encourage more readers to find out what those records were, hence boosting readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Highest score isnt a complicated record to understand in any sport. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and gone with Launchballer's wording. I was originally planning to add "including for highest combined score," but it seemed to make the hook more awkward while also negating the trimming. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Points and touchdowns are probably the two 'records' that would be most widely understood. Changing it to just that "records were set" makes it weaker I think; one could make that sort of hook for tons of games which set minor records like "most touchdowns by two players combined on a Thursday", whereas for this it was significant records that were set. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe:

• ... that the Green Bay Packers and the Arizona Cardinals set the NFL record for highest combined score in their 2009 NFC Wild Card playoff game?

Specifying all the records would probably just confuse non-sports fans, so if the desire is to highlight that fact, we could focus solely on that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Daniel A. Gilbert

@Jon698 and Raintheone: "Cop" is unencyclopedic and should either be attributed or changed to policeman, and I reckon everything after that word qualifies for WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: Made the changes. Jon698 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I updated the hook.--Launchballer 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Jeep ducking

@Darth Stabro, Legoktm, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and Soulbust: Not a DYK issue, but the sentence "The post went viral, which then popularized the action." would deserve {{clump}} and you may wish to resolve this before primetime.--Launchballer 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Preparation area 1

As nominator I would like to make a small linking edit to the hook about Amman Hejaz Railway Station.

From: * ... that the opening of a Hejaz Railway station in Amman in 1904 helped to transform the city from a small village into a major commercial hub in the region?

To: * ... that the opening of a Hejaz Railway station in Amman in 1904 helped to transform the city from a small village into a major commercial hub in the region? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Edited it Tenpop421 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Willie Williams

Willie Williams

• ... that retired United States Marine Corps three-star general Willie Williams (pictured) originally planned to enlist in the Air Force after high school instead of going to college?

This hook seems remarkably uninteresting. And the article doesn't explain why he joined the USMC instead. The article reads like a CV as it's mostly a catalogue of positions and decorations. It doesn't explain what any of these decorations were awarded for and doesn't say whether this lifelong soldier ever saw action or not. It comes across as the sort of DEI item which the current administration is now purging. Is that the real subtext here or what? It also reminds me of the Major-General's Song...

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It's always good for everyone to hear feedback directly from DYK readers, because otherwise they think the DYK reviewers who are sticklers for interesting hooks are just being difficult.

In this case, at least the hook fact appears in the article with a citation. We just came off a grueling 2-set-a-day run, which leaves little time to workshop and bulletproof individual hooks; it was somewhat miraculous that no DYKs were completely pulled from the main page in the past week (to my knowledge).

No harm was done and perhaps there is a teenager somewhere who will read this and decide to go to college and become a general in the United States military. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I checked out the citation but found that my access was blocked, "This request was blocked by our security service". I then checked out the site which is the Alabama News Center. This turns out to be a churnalism PR operation of Alabama Power − see ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news. Now that is interesting ...! Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Just found the Wikipedia article on pink-slime journalism which seems on topic. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret (song)

Some time ago I pulled this hook owing to WP:DYKINT concerns. It's currently back in the unapproved pile and will time out in 10 days. Alternative hooks were suggested; however, I'm concerned that the possible options proposed during the relevant WT:DYK discussion (listed as ALT3 and ALT4 in the nomination page) may violate DYKHOOKBLP. Asking for second opinions on whether or not those hooks violate the guideline, as I'd really want to approve those two if they aren't considered problematic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

SZA hook (Queue 3)

@Launchballer: is there any valid reason why the "stopped wearing the hijab after 9/11" part was removed? WP:DYKTRIM was cited, but I am having a hard time why the trimming was needed; as the hook writer, I think removing that bit made the hook lost its shine. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging other people associated with the nom B33net, 750h+, Tarlby .. | Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I felt it was extraneous and that the hook was punchier without it.--Launchballer 14:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree; what about it is punchier? I don't think an unfamiliar person will care if a musician was a hijabi as a kid --- maybe they still are one, this person might ask. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the hook is punchier with the last clause. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I reinstated it.--Launchballer 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a day and a half ago, so I've created a new list of all 12 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 18. We have a total of 195 nominations, of which 119 have been approved, a gap of 76 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/St. George Utah Temple

Other nominations

• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiao Yedan
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Maharani (song)
• March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Found manuscript
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Waeta Ben Tabusasi
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Table for Six 2
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Morgpie
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbeque Nation 2
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Men's T20 World Cup
• March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Mah-jong Yakuman
• March 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of Joe Biden

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) 05:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Gianni Benvenuti (Queue 2)

−

[[children's literature|children's book]] [[illustrator|illustrations]]

+

[[children's book illustration]]s

@Launchballer: We should fix the MOS:SOB problem. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

i don't really see a reason that the hook should include a link at all? people know what children's book illustrations are, it's not really necessary to help them understand the hook... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

And, I'm not going to make a huge fuss arguing for a pull or anything, but I don't think a hook along the lines of "career visual artist also did other forms of visual art" is the most surprising. just my opinion, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

General discussion: Is MOS:SOB important?

@ERcheck, B33net, and Tarlby: The above linking looks intentional. Let's assume the article children's book illustration didn't exist. Would it still be preferable for one of those links to be removed? It think it would be controversial so I didn't enable the detection by my module yet. However, WP:DYKMOS says any two non-boldlinks or two boldlinks must be kept separate. Should we change that guideline from "must" to "should"? 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (31 March 0:00)

QuizKnock (nom)

@Miminity, Tenpop421, and Tarlby: The sentence in the article, "They collaborated with the Tokyo Imperial Palace..." is not technically correct according to the cited source, which repeats over and over again that the collaboration was with the Imperial Household Agency, which is not the same thing. I think the sentence in the article needs to be fixed and that depending on how it's fixed, we may need to adjust the hook as well (or not). Please advise. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What about ... that QuizKnock created puzzle in the Imperial Palace East Garden?

Original Text: このイベントでは、皇居東御苑を散策しながら苑内の謎解きパネルを探し出し、スマートフォンで問題を読み取って解き進めていくゲーム企画で

Translated: This event is a game plan in which participants stroll through the East Gardens of the Imperial Palace, find mystery-solving panels in the gardens, and solve the questions by reading them on their smartphones

Anyhow, I probably mistranslate or misunderstood the part I was looking at. Thanks for point out Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 23:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyway  Fixed Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging: @Cielquiparle: for reply Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Miminity Unfortunately I don't think the ALT hook really works either but I'm not sure how to make it more precise without making it less interesting. By now the event has been running for over a week. Has there been more coverage of the event, which could help more detail to be added to the article, so that we could make an interesting hook? (Right now the article only has 2 sentences with very little information about it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: This is the only english reliable source I found [1], JP sources --> [2] [3]

That here is a more bits of info

"... that QuizKnock collaborated with the Imperial Household Agency to create puzzles in the Imperial Palace East Garden?"

I'll try to expand in a bit Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Changed the hook to ... that QuizKnock created puzzle games for the Imperial Palace East Garden? (Swapped in "Imperial Palace East Garden" to replace "Tokyo Imperial Palace" in the existing hook.) Thanks Miminity for adding to that section in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the definition of "background views"?

I see the footnotes at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders & am struggling to find a definition of background views.

Would someone explain what they are/how they are calculated, or point me to where they are defined? = paul2520 💬 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"Background views" means the normal amount of views that the article would have gotten if it had not been for DYK. It is calculated by User:GalliumBot/vandyke/vandyke.py, and is basically the opposite of Wikipedia:Million Award § Qualifying articles. We basically take the views during the DYK spike, then exclude the background views by subtracting the average views of the days around it. 209.227.161.66 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

👀 Thanks! = paul2520 💬 14:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Chtonobdella limbata

Roy Bateman keeps on adding the unsourced content of "The genus name Chtonobdella is derrived from Greek and means 'land leech' and the specific term limbata is from the feminine form of the Latin adjective meaning 'edged' or 'bordered'." to the article per their edit summary of "restore content: standard Latin - no ref. needed." It is my understanding that even without DYK, it should be referenced. What would stop someone from making up Latin translations considering not everyone knows Latin? I do know that an article can't run on DYK, or on the main page in general, with something not being cited. SL93 (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I found [4] and [5], but only separately. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I will add those later. SL93 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

SL93 Refs applied: content should mostly refer to the species C. limbata, with information about the genus better placed in Chtonobdella. If you want to improve this article I would also suggest reducing repetition e.g. explanations of anhydrobiosis. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (2 April 00:00)

Somuk

@SL93 and ITBF: The article says "is said to depict the origins of trees and plants", which got turned into a more definitive statement in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith A Google translation of the relevant quote on the DYK nomination page is "Drawing by Somuk, from Buka in the Solomon Islands, depicting the origin of trees and plants and their relationship to human geneologies." I will change the article now. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Migration background

@SL93, Moondragon21, and MtBotany: Earwig calls out lots of duplication. Most of it looks like direct quotes and multiple uses of the phrase "people with a migration background" which can't reasonably be reworded. Still, it's worth having another set of eyes look at it. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I could almost swear that when I ran earwig the last time it said something like 32% instead of the 55.1% it is showing right now.

Looking over more carefully it is lots of short phrases, as you say. Not just "persons with a migration background" but also "concept of migration background", "Germans with a migration background", "Federal Republic of Germany after 1949", "of the Federal Statistical Office", "of the population in Germany". The very longest I can find is "In 2007, the German Federal Statistical Office started publishing data regarding "the population with a migration background"." I'm not sure why this is getting counted as 55% as there are no other complete sentences that are identical. Is this an error? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What fact should I feature?

I just knocked off a new article on T. D. Bancroft after randomly coming across a brief obituary on him in Billboard magazine from 1917 which mentioned him as an eyewitness of Abraham Lincoln's assassination. He turned out to be far more interesting than that tiny obituary let on, and now I'm having trouble deciding which fact would be most appealing to a wide audience. I could go with the the Lincoln assassination angle, but he had a history with Lincoln going back to helping with Lincoln's first campaign for the presidency. He was also a philanthropist who built many public libraries, and randomly was the first person to write on Lincoln's relationship with his dog Fido. He was also a temperance activist on the national stage, and in young adulthood was an anti-slavery Jayhawker who fought in wars associated with Bleeding Kansas. Normally I know which one or two facts would work, but this time I have too many choices and wouldn't mind some input as to what would be most hooky. Thanks in advance for any assistance.4meter4 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the Fido angle is probably the best one to focus on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest proposing all of them as hooks. A reviewer can always take their pick.--Launchballer 10:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree that multiple hooks would be best. Even though it's a little extra work up front for both the nominator and the reviewer, it can be valuable to have backup hooks later if it turns out that there is a quibble with the hook wording or some other nuance. Sometimes you just have to try writing them out as well to work out what lands as "most hooky" to the largest number of readers. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Trans Day of Visibility hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2 - put this up 2 weeks ago asking if it could be featured for TDOV, it's been stalled waiting for a new reviewer so putting it here in the hopes it can be sorted by tomorrow. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history beyond what I can see by skimming the nom, but it looks like this still needs to get an additional review. As a practical matter, the March 31st set goes up in about an hour, so there's essentially no chance this will make it. Sorry about that; special day requests are handled on an "as able" basis. RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, bit of a stretch but if at all possible I'd deeply appreciate it if you reviewed it - the proposed hook that relies on an academic RS and not the Endocrine Society's press release (Viriditas didn't want to cite a press release, even from a MEDORG, hence asking for a 2nd reviewer) is ... that due to transgender health care misinformation, over 20 states in the United States have banned gender-affirming care for transgender minors since 2021?[6]

For some additional context, I put this article up for DYK 2.5 months ago[7], a drive-by GAR was started so it was rejected as that pended, and when the GAR closed via a GA3 I had to resubmit so this article's been waiting it's turn for a while now.

It's been very stressful having the DYK and GA punted around like this, and I was glass-half-full thinking "at least this DYK is in time for TDOV". So if you can't, no worries, but it would mean a lot if you could. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there is a reason why we discourage special occasion requests, especially here on WT:DYK, if the request is less than a week away. The time needed is too short and any review/promotion may not make it in time. As RoySmith it's more of a practical matter, and as much as we want to honor requests whenever it's possible and appropriate, in practice this cannot always happen. Ideally, if you wanted this to run on the date, you should have made a request here at WT:DYK on the day of the nomination to encourage a quicker review and to allow plenty of time for issues to be addressed in time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I would approve this hook if I could. The new legal source is a good one, but trying to convince others that the source supports the hook is a tough one because the source is based on the opinion of a group of legal scholars, and you would have to tweak the hook considerably with hedges and attribution for others to agree to run it. I don't think this is going to help all that much, but I do wish to lodge a support for Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and fast-tracking their hook for the Trans Day of Visibility. I think the hook will require some alterations for this to happen. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, when I said "there's essentially no chance this will make it" I was just being polite. I see now that I inadvertently got your hopes up, so I'll be more clear: This isn't going to happen, for so many reasons. I know you're disappointed, but I figure it's better to give you a firm "no" then to keep dragging this out. RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

And with the set now prompted, it's now official. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it not be done. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A Garden Flora

How is the fact "that the 1918 book A Garden Flora was published posthumously" even remotely interesting? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Why bring it up now? I have no reason to answer at this point. SL93 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought it was unusual enough for primetime.--Launchballer 16:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be lying if I said it didn’t make me mad when my hooks are brought up as not interesting when it’s already on the main page after a long process. Bringing it up at that point is petty to me. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

How is your hook … that Zhou Enlai reportedly enjoyed watching the play Li Huiniang, while Mao Zedong did not? interesting to those who don’t know the names? It’s also only “reportedly”. I promoted that one because I didn’t feel like starting something and no one else raised an issue. SL93 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, that means it's interesting to those who know the names at least... It's nothing personal and I had no idea who was behind the article or hook. It simply caught my attention when I saw it on the Main Page. Granted what's "interesting" or not might be contentious at times, but I really don't know what to make of this. Surely there have been hundreds if not thousands of works released posthumously and I hope this doesn't inspire a wave of "DYK x was released posthumously" hooks... Fair enough if something was released a hundred years after the author's passing, without their consent, discovered in a secret vault, etc. etc. but the circumstances behind the release of A Garden Flora seem way more pedestrian. Anyway as Cielquiparle says this does motivate me to look at WP:DYKNA now. @SL93 Once again I hope you don't take it too personally, nothing to be "mad" about if you ask me. If you sincerely still feel that this hook is interesting then I rest my case. Peace! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If I really wanted to quibble with the article, it should also be pointed out that it doesn't even meet the 1500-character requirement if you take out the quotes!!! Oh well 🤷‍♂️ KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Quotes do count as part of the length. At least my hook is an actual fact and not reportedly. It makes me mad because no one can fix something that isn’t a factual error once it reaches the main page. My hook was that the book was published shortly after the author’s death to focus on the tragedy of her dying so young. Launchballer changed the hook. SL93 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, quotes do not count—I'm surprised you didn't know. "Articles featured at DYK must exceed 1500 characters of prose. Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles." KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I have never had that happen with quotes, and that does not mention quotes. Pinging BlueMoonset and Theleekycauldron for clarification. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Standard practice is generally that quotes in running prose (like, those offset by quotation marks) do count, but blockquotes and excerpts don't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. And the DYKcheck tool doesn’t exclude them. Kingoflettuce, I’m surprised you didn’t know. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Theleekycauldron: how is that "original"?! So I could just convert blockquotes to "quotes in running prose" to pad up an article? It would be nitpicking if it were just a handful of words, but quotes make up close to half of the article in question!!! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Start a discussion then for consensus since it has always been this way. I have participated on DYK for over 12 years. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

If an article is way too reliant on quotes, the other guidelines like WP:CLOP already come into play. There's no need to modify the rules to exclude quotes from character counts, if the idea is to disqualify affected articles from DYK, when existing rules already cover such cases. Besides, such inline quotes are usually very short anyway, like just a sentence or two at most. If an inline quote takes up too much space then that's already a problem onto itself independently of whether or not it counts towards the character count. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough @Narutolovehinata5: I can accept that. Now would you please tell me if this specific article is an example of one that's too reliant on quotes so I can have a better understanding of what's acceptable? Something about the fact that almost half of the article is made up of quotes just doesn't seem proper or "original" to me. Thanks, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The primary reason why it seems to be "too reliant" on quotes is because the article itself is relatively short; it would be less of a problem if the rest of the article was longer. Having said that, the quotes themselves are all short (just short excerpts of about a sentence each) rather than block quotes, so in this case I'd be inclined to say that we can probably let this case slide. Had the article been longer, we wouldn't even be talking about if those inline quotes were "padding up" or not.

For what it's worth, the article saw over 3,200 views during its run on the Main Page. Not spectacular, of course, but a lot more than what some of what our other hooks have done within a 12-hour run (I've seen hooks that have had less than 2,000 or even less than 1,000 views). It suggests that, at least to our readers, that saying the hook was published posthumously without context may not have been an issue. This isn't an opinion in favor or against the hook, it's just something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce What DYK could always use more of is more re-reviewers at WP:DYKNA – in other words, more eyes on hooks and articles that have already been approved once...but really should be looked at again for bulletproofing. (And then if the hook or article isn't actually ready they can be questioned/downgraded or sent back to "Unapproved" to give nominators more time to fix their hooks and articles.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No, DYK doesn't need "bulletproofing". If we look at this case, we find that the nomination went through without a stir. The hook which was approved was:

• ... that the author of the 1918 book A Garden Flora died shortly before its publication?

That hook was not very exciting but it is accurate and straightforward. The subsequent tweaking doesn't seem to have made a significant difference but the article got several thousand views regardless and that's reasonably respectable.

The number of views is the actual measure of the effectiveness of such hooks. DYK doesn't need more second-guessing of this in advance because it generates a toxic atmosphere of "too many cooks" engaging in one-upmanship. The nominator's choice should be respected so long as it's accurate and verified. If it does poorly with the readers then this feedback should be communicated to the nominator so that they know to try harder next time.

What I find interesting in this case is that the author died in the influenza pandemic. I'm now inclined to visit the garden to find out more and see for myself. It's only an hour's drive...

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

New style check module for prep builders

Did you know ...

Stuff

• ... that prep builders new to DYK no longer need to be stressed about the stylistic and formatting rules unique to DYK, including all the {{'s}}, {{`s}}, {{-?}}, and (pictured) stuff?
• ... that I created a module to show an error atop the queue and prep area pages if any are found?
• ... that it ignores subjective things like {{lang}}, extra parentheses, and temporarily MOS:SOB?
• ... that this module should prevent many reports from ending up at WP:ERRORS?

Extended content
... that you can disable it by replacing your hook's * ... with *...? ... that it is mostly disabled on lines with nowiki's presence?

216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Awesome. As a #visualeditor I was reflecting that I have completely ignored the under-the-hood DYK formatting rules and that I had been relying on everyone else to clean them up. (Thanks everyone.) Is this just running automatically so I don't need to do anything? This is huge. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you don't need to do anything. You can just keep promoting hooks using PSHAW, open the prep area page, and look at the error message if there is one. Some recent examples can be seen at permalinks of prep area 1 and prep area 5. It's an "error" but if the rules are still confusing, I'd say fixing it can be still be left to whoever rakes it to the queue as before.

Checking the article itself still needs DYKCheck, spelling/grammar should be mostly underlined in red by browsers, and WP:DYKINT is what humans do well. That leaves extra parentheses and {{lang}}, which are too subjective for machines. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Great work! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

... that you can disable it by replacing your hook's * ... with *...?

No, please, please, do not do this. Lots of existing software knows how hooks are formatted. Do not tell people to change how they format hooks to signal your script to do something. This sounds like a very useful bit of automation, but find some other way to turn it on and off other than changing how the hooks are formatted. RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that this has apparently been turned on for everybody, with no previous discussion here. And by an IP editor, which means there's no way to contact them (i.e no talk page, no email, no way to ping them) if something goes wrong. RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The *... came from an inability to detect hooks missing the space. Then I left it in as useful for others to selectively disable the check for a hook when claiming exceptions to the guideline. What should the script check for? Nowiki tags, hidden comments, or {{nobots}} could be options.

The previous (minimal) discussion was at WP:MP/E and linked pages. Like DYKcheck, my module is not "the law." and it tries to reflect consensus and does not prescribe it, which is another reason I discussed below instead of enabling MOS:SOB detection. You can still promote and rake hooks while ignoring whatever it says.

I took extra care to make sure there are no false positives. If something still "goes wrong", anyone can set disableAll = true. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of issues here, but for now, I'm going to concentrate on the "*..." part. WP:DYKMOS is as close to an official specification as we've got. It says Every hook that appears at DYK follows the same basic format: an asterisk for the bullet point list, followed by a space, followed by three dots, followed by another space, followed by a hook that ends in a question mark. You are telling people to deliberately break that. Don't do that. RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I've also just noticed the "nowiki" thing. Again, don't do that. You're telling people to put stuff in their hooks, contrary to the established format, for the benefit of your script. That's just wrong. What other effects will putting nowiki into a hook have on other software which processes hooks? I don't know. Do you? What testing have you done on its effects? Have you asked other people who write hook-processing software if it'll be a problem for them? RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Removed the nowiki opt-out.

There are a few ideas left: 1. A special word in a hidden comment (hidden comments are already used successfully by special occasions) 2. Do nothing and give up with the "selectively disable" thing and let them do disableAll if the unlikely happens 3. What should I do?

I thought it would be uncontroversial, when the module detects that DYKMOS is already broken, that there's no difference if people break it further in a minor non reader visible way. The *... thing was designed to reduce controversy, by showing there's a Lua-free shutoff even if unlikely problems occur. I was wrong. 216.58.24.27 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I would do nothing. If it comes up with false positives, people can just ignore them. There's a long history of linters. Most of them use pattern-matching heuristics (as does your script) and will occasionally call out problems that aren't really problems. People often invent ways to mark up their code (usually by imbedding magic words in comments) to tell the linter to ignore certain things. While well-intended, the fix can be worse than the disease. RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Bit harsh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it was in response to somebody who is obviously not a new user choosing to remain anonymous while making changes to core parts of the DYK machinery without discussing it here first. If you do strange things like that, you invite harsh responses. RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You can contact me on my non-IP talk page.

After reading people can just ignore them and seeing no opposition to MOS:SOB below, I was planning to wait a week then enable the detection. Then I saw strange things like that, so should I start a RfC?

BTW, I'm a former exopedian who only discovered RfCs this year and didn't know about projectspace half a year ago. I may appear experienced but I only learned what colons do in Lua 10 hours after the module was created, yet the module recently had tens of true positives and less than 3 false positives. If we should discuss here first, should {{Did you know/Clear/header}} be protected to remind people to stop being bold with core parts of the DYK machinery? VectorWorld (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the account, that does make things easier. This is the kind of thing that people generally expect to enable for themselves if they want it, so my suggestion is to turn it into something that people can add to their common.js, or switch on some checkbox in Special:Preferences or something like that.

I'm actually quite surprised Template:Did you know/Clear/header has no protection on it. I think it should be template protected. RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 21 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 24. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 152 have been approved, a gap of 79 nominations that has increased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Ich komme
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/St. George Utah Temple
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe at the 2014 Winter Olympics

Other nominations

• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Men's T20 World Cup
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Monument (Philadelphia)
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Kiribati at the 2024 Summer Paralympics
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Admirável Chip Novo
• March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Verity
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tolarian Community College
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Byzantine churches in Amman
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. O'Brien
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wyatt Hendrickson
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs Opening Day starting pitchers
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Soumen Mitra
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Gymnastics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Vincenti
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Joint Operations Command (Japan)
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play)

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) 05:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Greenfield tornado

I nominated this with the intent of getting this as an April 1 hook, but I don't know the specific process. Departure– (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You should add it to WP:DYKAPRIL. I'm actually populating Prep 4 for that day.--Launchballer 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as a good April Fools' hook. What's so funny about it? It's not quirky, and the mention of volunteers does not make sense in the context of April Fools' Day. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Its second interpretation is that a tornado volunteered to plant crops alongside people. It has a double meaning that getting both interpretations of immediately sort of ruins the joke; most people won't see "volunteers" and think of the crops, they'll think of people helping out doing agricultural work and farming, which goes strongly against the idea of a highly destructive tornado, in this case potentially one of the most violent of all time. Departure– (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced this meets what would be a typical April Fools' hook. I see no issue with it running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKAPRIL - April Fools Did You Know items should present some trivia that can be presented in a manner that is possibly unbelievable to the reader. This can be done through words or names that mean two different things, shortened names, unbelievable facts, unrelated facts, etc. This ticks enough of those boxes, clear as day in my eyes. I don't see why this couldn't, or indeed shouldn't, run as an April 1 hook. Departure– (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Compare some of the approved or discussed April Fools Day hooks so far:

• ... that Barack Obama was a horse and Kamala was an elephant?
• ... that the United States of America falls short of being really satisfying?
• ... that the United States of America met a mixed reception?

And the other examples. They are straight to the point and catchy, sometimes even misleading.

By contrast:

• ... that a tornado estimated to be one of the strongest on record helped out volunteers by planting maize crops in a green field?

The hook is longer and the point is lost. I get it's also somewhat misleading, but the way it's written is not the kind of hook we usually run on April Fools Day, at least not our usual styles. I can see this running as a regular quirky, but not as an April Fools hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the hook is too long, but as somebody who has a garden, I thought the "volunteer" aspect was kind of funny. Maybe:

... that the 2024 Greenfield tornado helped organize volunteers?

for a shorter version? RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a lot better and would actually work better for DYKAPRIL. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if "organize" is a good substitute for "planting", "sowing", etc or the more general "helping". If we're going to shorten this, how about some variant of

... that a violent tornado helped volunteers by planting corn in a green field / Iowa field?

There's a lot to be done with the fact that the corn was planted in a city named Greenfield, in Iowa, a state known for its corn. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed- this is a great bottom hook, but I don't really see it as an April Fool's hook, in comparison to everything else in the holding area. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I really thought this would be perfect for April 1. Is there any way I can connect all of these dots to get it there? Departure– (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you open to the hook not running on April 1 but instead as part of a standard set? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have done the GA so soon if I didn't want it to run there, so I'm trying my damnedest to clean it up to DYKA standards. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: I think it could be workable, maybe something like "... that a violent tornado helped volunteers?" — but as I was looking into the sourcing, I'm not even sure if the hook can be run as is at the moment; neither of the sources refer to the term "volunteer". You have linked this as a source in the nomination but it doesn't appear in the article. Also paging @Lullabying and RoySmith:. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to link it in the article, as I didn't notice use of the term "volunteer" was unsourced. Is there a way I can link the "planting corn in a field" bit plausibly in a workable April 1 hook? Departure– (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest I feel a bit baffled as to why running the article for April Fools Day seems to be non-negotiable for you, instead of being at least open to the hook running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Because I nominated it for the holiday because it has a cool hook that likely wouldn't fly any other time of year, that in my opinion is very interesting and in the spirit of DYKAPRIL. The "one of the strongest on record" by itself has worn out its welcome in my eyes. Departure– (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If ultimately AFD passes without it running, would you be okay with it running as a regular hook, or would you rather withdraw the nomination?

To answer your other question: I don't think the cornfield angle works for AFD either regardless of working. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's going to run as a regular hook, then I'll ask for it to be on hold temporarily as I'm going to be out of town for a while, and then it can be sorted out down the line. As for the hook itself and this running on DYKAPRIL (I'm guessing AFD is a typo), I'm fine dropping a lot of it and boiling it down to "... that a violent tornado helped volunteers?" If we're going for maximum fool-ishness then we can add "corny" before volunteers or something because surprise surprise Maize was the crop that was grown. "... that a violent tornado helped out corny volunteers?" Departure– (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I get the desire to want a funny hook for AFD, but that's becoming dangerously close to violating WP:QUIRKY: Note that quirky hooks still need to meet the regular guidelines on sourcing and accuracy: quality and truthfulness should not be sacrificed for the sake of being quirky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Then drop the additional word; the fact is the tornado assisted volunteer crops, specifically corn, a fact that has been reported in reliable sources, as has the word "volunteer". Departure– (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking back on this, I can't help but feel that my last-minute addition of this hook may have been less controversial than many of the hooks that did appear on this year's April 1 DYK set; yes, "volunteers" was sourced, yes, "violent tornado" was certainly sourced, yes, "maize" was the crop planted. I don't mean to hold disdain against those against this hook, but I want to ask: is "not being in the style of April 1 hooks" a reason to keep a hook from April 1's set? In my view, it was written as one of those hooks. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Is the April Fools set going to be done sometime soon so we can promote more hooks? SL93 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I filled the rest and moved the set to a queue. SL93 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Page title change

The page name for Beringia (sled dog race) was updated per MOS:ENGVAR. There's a pending DYK, I'd like to update the hook for consistency. Is there anything else I need to do? Annwfwn (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Even with a page move, the actual nomination should remain at its original title. This is to prevent things messing up or breaking. You just have to update the piped link in the hook but otherwise no other action is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (6 April 00:00)

Varsen Aghabekian

@SL93, Yue, and BeanieFan11: There's excessive copying from milhilard.org/varsen-agabkian-the-first-armenian-in-a-palestinian-government/, particularly in Early life and education. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I'm not sure how that stuff can be reworded. There is "Aghabekian was born in Jordan in 1958", "in 1983 and a doctorate", and "from the University of Pittsburgh". There are also long titles such as "dean of the faculty of health professions from 1995 to 1998 and dean of graduate studies from 1998 to 2000". All that can be done is switch the words around. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a way to further reword those parts without losing the meaning of the sentences or making the wording awkward. For example, I could reword "was a founding member" to "helped found", but to keep the original meaning it'd have to be something like "helped found and was an inaugural member of".

If those passages are that problematic, they could be removed and the article would still barely be the required size for a DYK, but that seems a bit counterproductive because it's basic information about her and her experiences. I was aware of the high-ish ~38% return on Earwig, but I attribute that to the long titles, and you can't reword those. Yue🌙 02:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This might be a WP:LIMITED case, so if there really is no way to fix the CLOP issues then we can let it slide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think @Narutolovehinata5 is probably right about WP:LIMITED. RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

April Fool's set

Alan MacMasters hoax (withdrawing proposal)

Since this year's April Fool's set is so short, would we possibly have room to fit in Alan MacMasters hoax (nom)? (Just read it and it seems like a good fit.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC) The article extensively cites Wikipediocracy and Inverse? are we sure those are RSes? Plus it's an event article relying on sources that are all from the same year... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC) If I've done the math right, the April 1 set is Queue 4 which already has 10 hooks in it. That doesn't seem short to me. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC) I have no opinion of whether this should be an April Fool's hook, though the hooks in queue 4 are much shorter than usual (in terms of characters, it's actually less than half the size of prep 1) and we ran 10 last year.--Launchballer 21:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Honestly, your question seems far more important than the DYK one, theleekycauldron. Why the heck is a four source article, with one of the sources that is used most extensively being an unreliable reference to Wikipediocracy, listed as a Good level article? The sourcing is bad enough as it is that I would argue the article is borderline non-notable. I would hope more source coverage exists out there on the subject or this seems like a prime AfD candidate. SilverserenC 03:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC) @Silver seren I just restored the version with more reliable sources (FT.com, BBC, Telegraph, MIT Technology Review, etc.) which was undone by an editor who probably has access to Wikipedia Library but maybe isn't logging in to ProQuest the right way. I can probably go through and replace many of the PQ links later after doing a pass through and adding all the other sources, but I'm pretty sure we can remove Wikipediocracy as a source. This hoax continues to be discusssed in the debate over whether ChatGPT is will ruin Wikipedia, as representative of the citogenesis problem Cielquiparle (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC) GA reviewer here. I also pointed out Wikipediocracy's general unreliability in the review, but B33net argued that it was necessary and I decided to let it pass as an acceptable primary source. I apologize if this decision was improper. It was my first time reviewing a GA and I may very well have misinterpreted the instructions and the passing criteria. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I don't see what those three other sources really bring to the article. The MIT Technology Review has a single sentence right at the end mentioning it. The Financial Times one has a couple sentences in a sort of lineup of statements by different editors and even that is just discussing the BBC article on the topic. The Telegraph piece similarly has a couple sentences just mentioning the topic in an article otherwise about ChatGPT. I don't see what notability improvement any of these three brings to the article. Is there really no other significant coverage other than a single BBC article, an IFLS article just re-stating the info from the BBC article, and then the article from the marginally reliable Input magazine? This doesn't even pass WP:THREE standards. SilverserenC 04:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC) @Silver seren I was still in the middle of trying to fix it. It takes some time but I keep getting reverted. So I will stop now and withdraw my request to run this on April Fool's since it's obviously not a stable article. I leave others to work out nominating the article for GAR and AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC) But I will unpromote it from the Prep set for now to allow more time to work out all the issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC) The reverting was only really being done by one editor (@Chrisahn) who didn't seem to be in the loop here. I have no issue with the edits that Cielquiparle has made, nor with the article being improved or deleted if it can't be improved. Again, I'm sorry for the trouble my GA promotion of the article may have caused. I'll be sure to keep the lessons learned here on board if ever I review a GA again. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax#Sourcing for article. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Looping in @SL93 as the original hook promoter and @BeanieFan11 as the DYK approver. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC) OK the artile is looking much better now thanks to B33net, SilviaASH, and Chrisahn. In all seriousness, can we re-open the discussion for possibly adding this hook to the April Fool's DYK set? It's an important article with interesting and relevant content that seems timely for April Fool's Day, in a year when we don't seem to have a very strong set of April Fool's hooks – perhaps overrelying on short quirky statements for "jokes". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC) On second thought, I withdraw this request for consideration. I guess it would likely massively backfire and trigger more hoaxes. Well, at least the article is a lot better now. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC) I don't think it would be a big deal, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC) It may be for the best for it to not run on AFD, but that doesn't mean it can't run as a regular hook later on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Squid King

Just spotted on Approved: Squid King. Possibly an April Fool's hook in that (e.g. that a giant pink squid didn't return to the sea). Also, @Gerda Arendt: suggested on my talk page that the promoted Mirella Freni hook could work (I promoted it, so can't queue it)?--Launchballer 10:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see Freni working as an April Fools' hook since it doesn't sound misleading or strange unlike our usual AFD hooks. It should probably run on a regular set. No opinion on it having the picture or not, the decision should be left to prepbuilders. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Support inclusion of Squid King for multiple reasons: There is an multifaceted story there of national and international interest, it helps to round out a set of very short April Fool's one-liner hooks, and it is non-US centric. Would propose making room for it as an 11th hook. (And/or possibly going for picture hook.) Anyway I've proposed a few more ALT hook variations, also based on your suggestion. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think Freni for could work for April Fool's with 'wet nurse' unlinked; I have never heard the phrase before, so wondered why they didn't dry off before administering care. Squid King's ALT1a is ready for promotion (the image would give the game away in my opinion) but I'd rather it go straight to queue.--Launchballer 13:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle and Narutolovehinata5: I promoted the Squid King hook to prep 4.--Launchballer 18:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Now that the April Fool's Day hooks are up, would it be a terrible imposition if Squid King was removed from prep and allowed to be put back under something closer to its original hooks? No worries if not - without the context of today's festivities, I worry that the new hook could be a little confusing. No pressure either way though! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: I pulled the hook, will leave it to you to put back on T:TDYK.--Launchballer 01:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Bit late, but the Barack Obama/Kamala hook appears to have been stripped of everything that makes them "April Fools-y"—now it's just saying politicians have animals named after them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Another comment - Kamala is a relatively common name and since I'm guessing this is referring to Kamala Harris, I'd definitely be in favor of the "...that Barack Obama was euthanized?" hook previously proposed. "Kamala" isn't an unusual name at all - "Kamala Harris" would be. Departure– (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

yeah, the euthanized hook was great. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The "Barack Obama was euthanized" hook would have been a bombshell in terms of clicks but seemed in really bad taste, and for sure the WP:BLP complaints would have surfaced at WP:ERRORS, where there actually were quite a few complaints about multiple hooks this year (which were the same concerns discussed all along at WT:DYK and in the reviews themselves). Overall I would rate this April Fool's set as a bust, but not tne end of the world. Humo(u)r is hard. There is always next year. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The interesting take-away for me was that people seem to be into April Fools in general; the least popular hook that ran all day still got 13k clicks. I was all excited to see that mine got almost 15k until I discovered that put it second from the bottom :-( RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be the fact that readers prefer short hooks given that none of them exceeded 71 characters.--Launchballer 12:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Danielle Sellers in two different queues?

@Tarlby, Meena, Launchballer, Pbritti, SL93, Theleekycauldron, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: Queue 1 and Queue 3 both contain hooks from Template:Did you know nominations/Danielle Sellers. I see there's some discussion about "splitting" the hooks, but I'm not following the logic here. How did one nomination end up getting in two queues? RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

When I reopened the nom, I added three more articles and proposed one quadruple 200-character hook. Airship then suggested splitting that in two.--Launchballer 15:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There's so many weird things here, it's hard to know where to start, but I guess reopening your own nomination after it's been pulled sure seems out of process. I can't find anything that explicitly forbids it, but I think WP:DYKRR can be generalized to "You're not allowed to administratively process your own hook or article". If you wanted to create a new submission, you should have nominated it and let it go through the normal approval process. If you wanted the pulled nomination to be re-opened, you should have made that request here. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I asked at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Danielle Sellers, but I guess asking one person isn't quite the same as opening it to the floor, so point taken. I suggest rewording that part of DYKRR to clarify.--Launchballer 15:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that breaking the 1-to-1 correspondence between published hooks and nominations seems likely to cause trouble for all sorts of software that processes these things, which is how I noticed it. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Something similar happened at Lucy Tun and didn't cause any problems (other than Airship having to manually promote two of them).--Launchballer 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That nobody objected at the time doesn't mean it was a good idea. Another issue is that hook publication slots are one of our limiting resources, and people's nominations sometimes wait months to get published. Having a single nomination consume multiple slots seems unfair to those people waiting their turn. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I initially proposed one long hook. I'm fine with them being merged again, e.g. "that the OnlyFans creators to have filmed for OFTV include Demi Sims (pictured), Danielle Sellers, and Jessie Wynter?".--Launchballer 16:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I've pulled the OFTV hook from Queue 3. I'm not going to replace the one in Queue 1 with this proposed combined one because that was never approved. I'll also remind everybody that it's important that the folks who keep DYK running to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of using their positions to their own advantage. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

DYKmake vs DYKnom?

What's the difference between {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}? More specifically, I'm looking at Prep 3. It's got three bolded links (OFTV, Danielle Sellers, and Jessie Wynter), and two nominators (@Launchballer and @Meena). This resulted in a total of four credit templates:

* {{DYKmake|Danielle Sellers|Meena|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|Danielle Sellers|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|OFTV|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}
* {{DYKmake|Jessie Wynter|Launchballer|subpage=Danielle Sellers}}

all of them {{DYKmake}}. Is that what it's supposed to be? RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. As I understand it, DYKnom is for those who driveby nominate but haven't actually worked on the article.--Launchballer 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Quite true. DYKmake is for editors who have worked on the article, and DYKnom is for people who are nominating articles they haven't made a significant contribution to. In this case, as it's a two-article nomination, and both editors have worked on both articles, four DYKmakes is correct. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, there are three articles there and I worked on all three, though the above is rather moot given the below. I will try GA (and probably GARC) when I'm in a better mood. (I was planning on bringing Shannon Singh here via that route anyway.)--Launchballer 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Prince Louis of Wales date request

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Louis of Wales has requested it run on 23 April. Thriley (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I put it in SOHA.--Launchballer 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Bot down?

Something's messed up unless I'm totally off base here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot both back up and running! Toolserver's been less stable lately. Shubinator (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

New bot ready for testing!

Been working on User:GalliumBot#retro, which finds open untranscluded nominations and puts them back where they go. The nice thing about this is that if it gets approved, it'll be much easier for me to finish the PSHAW hook-pulling script, since it can rely on the bot to retransclude instead of doing the work itself. Does this sound like something people want- concerns, objections? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds useful, thanks for your work on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you chatted with User:BlueMoonset about this? Every so often we sweep for untranscluded nominations and BlueMoonset flips through them. My understanding is that a large chunk of these nominations are rejected / deleted as part of this housekeeping. My concern is that if such nominations are retranscluded instead, it may create more work for either the nominator or DYK regulars. Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If it puts open untranscluded noms that people never transcluded in the first place (so not put back), then we could end up with nominations that people decided not to go through with, or where people just disappeared, which is why they weren't transcluded. It would be nice, however, to have noms put back that have previously been transcluded, were promoted, and were subsequently removed from prep or queue and reopened without having been retranscluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I'm not sure I agree that there's a good use case for leaving a nomination untranscluded? Full disclosure, my main motivation is that checking whether a nomination has previously been transcluded is quite expensive, but I also think that the vast majority of these noms are just malformed and need to be dealt with, which can more easily happen if they're returned to the main pages. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Y'know, theleekycauldron, I'm not sure I care enough about this to worry either way. It's one less thing to keep track of if the bot becomes active. The phrase if they're returned to the main pages isn't accurate if they've never been on the main pages to begin with, as is definitely the case sometimes, but you're right in that they'll get attention, even if it's to get them deleted—some of these have no hook and/or no clear article, or are badly malformed, perhaps to the point of messing up the Nominations page, which I suppose could be an argument against. Given the number of people who pull hooks from prep or queue and forget to retransclude them, it's probably best to have an automated process to clean up after such sloppiness. Would there be confusion caused by the interaction between this bot and Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot, which warns editors when their noms aren't transcluded, if it a warning became no longer true ten minutes later when your bot ran? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed update to WP:DYKRR

DYKRR now says You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article. I'd like to change that to the more general statement You're not allowed to take any administrative action (approve, promote, close, reopen, alter after promotion, etc) related to your own hook or article. Is that OK? RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd support this except for "alter after promotion"; there may be edge cases where altering a hook after promotion might be allowed in limited circumstances (for example, minor edits such as linking or fixing typos). It might be good to instead to change it to "significantly alter". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You're definitely not supposed to modify your hook after promotion. But I do think people should be allowed to reopen their own noms if they were pulled with no prejudice against reopening? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that people should be allowed to reopen their own pulled nominations in that circumstance.--Launchballer 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Standard practice is that even altering typos is something we've put a hard 'no' on after promotion, because promoters need to make a cohesive set and nominators each wanting their own way for their hooks can get in the way of that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Taking Naruto's suggestion into account:

You're not allowed to take any administrative action (approve, promote, close, reopen, make non-trivial post-promotion alterations, etc) related to your own hook or article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

Approval of own hook is an obvious thing to prevent. Altering post-promotion probably as well, as Theleekycauldron notes. However, the rest seem rarer events that might have a few different causes. CMD (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Unilaterally pulling your own hook shouldn't be allowed. It has to be by request here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I will certainly ignore that rule if one of my hooks comes up at WP:ERRORS. Getting it right is more important than not touching my own hooks. —Kusma (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

agreed! letting people pull their own hooks is something i think we definitely have done for a while. their name is fairly to the hook, so i think that's a decent measure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (3 April 00:00)

Aliko Dangote (nom)

• ... that Aliko Dangote (pictured) was the first non-government official to be appointed Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger, Nigeria's second-highest honour?

@SafariScribe, Toadboy123, Cielquiparle, Rjjiii, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: I'm just checking whether this article meets the qualification criteria for DYK? The nom (which was opened on 28 January) says it is a 5x expansion, but when I look at the last version 7 days before the nom (7791 B / 1262 words) compared with the version at the time of the nom (4516 B / 729 words) and the current version (11 kB / 1785 words), I don't at any point see a 5x expansion.

It looks like the article is at GAN currently so if it's deemed ineligible then we could always pause this nom now and then if that GA passes we could put it back in at that point... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

But the GAN could hold or be withdrawn right away? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The GAN isn't the issue, just that I'm not sure how this is eligible right now. There are three routes to DYK - new creation, 5x expansion and passing GA, currently I'm not sure it satisfies any of those but in a few days or weeks or might become GA eligible.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would close it and then start a new nomination if it becomes a GA. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing this from the queue and replacing it with a nom from prep. (Of the three portraits, two were mine and I think the Jesus Guy should be kept for Easter.)--Launchballer 20:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Launchballer, I was going to do this myself shortly. Now I just need to run a check on the new hook  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have rejected Aliko Dangote since it doesn't qualify as new enough or long enough per the 5x expansion rules. Re-reading the review now it seems so obvious that the reviewer didn't even mention the article newness or length criteria, so it was an obvious flag. @SafariScribe and Toadboy123: It's worth having a read of the DYK rules and instructions at WP:DYKRI and strongly recommend you install the WP:DYKCHECK tool, especially if you plan to participate in or review 5x expansions in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It should be worth pointing out that SafariScribe already has multiple failed nominations prior to this. As such, I think it would be a good idea if one of the DYK regulars could serve as a "tutor" for them and help them with the process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Grace Beyer (nom)

• ... that four-time NAIA scoring champion Grace Beyer has scored more career points than any female basketball player at a four-year college or university?

A few points here - firstly, I'm not sure how the "four-year" part fits in here. The two sources seem to be [8] (which establishes her breaking the record) and [9] (which gives her final tally of 3,961 although the article's figure 3,961 actually uses the first source which doesn't say 3,961 - I've tagged as such). Neither of those sources mention four-year university tenures as far as I can see. And the obvious elephant in the room with that is that (according to the article) she in fact was at the college for five years. Do we even need to qualify it as four years? And finally, maybe this is a minor quibble, but the sources saying she was the all-time top scorer were a year ago, so theoretically someone could have surpassed the record since then. If we can somehow cite that she still holds the record that would be optimal. Pinging @TonyTheTiger, Lazman321, Narutolovehinata5, and Tarlby:  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, Lazman321, Narutolovehinata5, and Tarlby: - I've moved this out to Prep 1 now, to give time for more discussion on this issue, since there hasn't been a response so far. If more time for discussion is needed, I could reopen the nom page too, but hopefully it can be resolved easily enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, my main concern with the hook is actually interest: I'm not confident it would interest non-basketball fans. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Lace tells (nom)

• ... that workers in European lace workshops and schools chanted catchy, often gruesome rhymes?

Just wondering what supports the use of the word gruesome here? The word only appears in an image caption within the linked article, and no particular context is given for the use of that term in Wikipedia's voice, or explanation as to what was gruesome about the rhymes. I suppose lines like "lace tells "often concerned punishments, domestic violence, sexual murder and premature death induced by work"" could be construed as "gruesome", but - perhaps it's just me - I feel like if we're to use a term like that it should be rather more directly clear what it refers to. @Zanahary, Tenpop421, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty neutral and plain description. Sources use the words gruesome, violent, morbid, etc. In what way do you feel “gruesome” does not have a “directly clear” referent? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, well I've added the word "gruesome" into the body against Hopkin's quote, so think that's fine now, thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Raj Salwan / Lily Mei (nom)

• ... that the first Indian-American mayor of Fremont, California, succeeded its first female and first Asian-American mayor?

I think the rules for multi-article hooks was discussed quite recently, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Anyway, my concern here would be that the overall hook fact - first Indian-American mayor succeeds first female/Asian-American mayor - is not directly mentioned in either article, and hence we may be giving this succession more prominence than the actual pages or the linked sources do. Are there any sources out there that note the succession of these two minority candidates as being remarkable? To be clear, the three constituent parts of the hook are all cited and mentioned, but the tying together of those three motifs may be borderline WP:SYNTH. @Moon motif, Tenpop421, Launchballer, and Tarlby:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION applies.--Launchballer 20:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but DYK isn't the regular encyclopedia... if placed in an article, the above line would be completely unobjectionable. But our hooks are more than that, they are chosen because they meet the guidelines for hooks, one of which is that the whole hook fact must be verifiable to reliable sources and in the article. And for this case, the hookiness relies on the "juxtaposition", as you put it, of the two firsts. Put a different way, if we rephrased this as:

• ... that Raj Salwan succeeded Lily Mei as mayor of Fremont, California?

then this clearly wouldn't be an interesting hook. I would expect that the two successive firsts has has been noted somewhere in sources, in the same way that if Hillary Clinton has succeeded Barack Obama to the presidency that would be two successive firsts and probably widely remarked upon. But if it hasn't been noted then I wonder why we are noting it, that's all.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that the hook was set to run on the 3rd I've bumped it off to prep for now to give it more time. That does mean that the set now has an open slot that needs filling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I backfilled the slot.--Launchballer 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru! Would it be possible to only nominate either Lily Mei or Raj Salwan instead? (I have a preference for Mei) I think I might have bitten off more than I can chew here with the double article nomination. I can't find a source specifically noting the hook. Moon motif (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We can also have separate hooks for both if you don't mind working on both articles. In such a case, they will run on different days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I'm backpedalling on this one a little bit, it's probably not such a big deal given that both facts are true and we're not really implying anything outlandish or genuinely WP:SYNTH by this. If nobody else objects then maybe we just run with it as is. Otherwise, the separate hooks route may be the way to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the double hook is fine.--Launchballer 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm good either way. I'd still prefer the original hook since I wrote them together but separating the hooks is perfectly fine by me. Moon motif (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Antennacanthopodia (nom)

• ... that velvet worms had an ancient relative with two pairs of antennae?

Velvet worms are mentioned a few times in the article, but I don't see it directly mentioning explicitly that it is a relative of the Antennacanthopodia. Have I missed that, or can it be added? @RenaMoonn, Soulbust, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably. It’s at the beginning of the Classification section where it says “So far, Antennacanthopodia is the only widely accepted stem-onychophoran lobopodian from the Cambrian period.”

Stem groups are early diverging relatives to a usually larger crown group like onychophorans (velvet worms). Thanks for pointing this out though. I’ll add a link to the word “stem” so people can redirect to another article if they don’t understand the concept RenaMoonn (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@RenaMoonn: thanks... I think part of my confusion stemmed from the fact that I didn't know that onychophorans and velvet worms are the same thing, and the article doesn't clarify this - in fact it has links to onychophora and velvet worm in separate places, which both end up in the same place. I think clarifying that they are the same thing and probably using consistent terminology throughout would help with this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, why does this say they "had" this ancient relative? Velvet worms still have this ancient relative. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"Have" would suggest that the ancient relative is still alive. SL93 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree. Homo habilis IS our ancient relative. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

And if there can be no present tense “having” of relation when one party is not alive, then it makes no sense to say that velvet worms ever “had” this relative, because they never coexisted. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Anne Woods (gurner) (nom)

• ... that "the world's ugliest woman" won the women's world gurning title 28 times?

Sorry, this has turned into rather a busy set but I have a couple of points here. Firstly, is it really appropriate to be calling her the world's ugliest woman? Yes, it's in quotes, but that's really rather a derogatory epithet for her. I guess if she herself identified with that title and embraced it that might be fine... and I suppose she's not covered by BLP, having died ten years ago, but still. And that brings me on to the second point - what exactly is the origin of this sobriquet? As a quotation the article should say who called her this, per WP:INTEXT. @Edwardx, NegativeMP1, Cielquiparle, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru This source says, "Woods wore the 'Ugliest Woman in the World' badge with pride and helped put Egremont on the map." SL93 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I've tweaked the article text a bit to satisfy the WP:INTEXT concerns, and good to go I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A DYKN undergoing good article reassessment; still eligible?

Template:Did you know nominations/Wii U GamePad (by User:TzarN64) was created after Wii U GamePad passed a GAN review three days prior. However, there is a current GA reassessment for the article. Is the DYKN still eligible? Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I consider GARs to be no different from an AfD for DYK nominations; the article should go on hold.--Launchballer 05:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree RoySmith (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree if the nom is based on it being GA. If it's long enough for a 5*expansion, it should be eligible right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Just so people are aware, this seems to have spun out of control. See my talk page RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised this is even a question. Putting noms on hold if the article is undergoing a GAR has been standard practice for as long as I can remember. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Manual update needed

@DYK admins: The bot doesn't seem to have run.--Launchballer 00:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Shubinator. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot back up & running, it's updating now! Shubinator (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this wasn't the only bot to drop that day. @GalliumBot: didn't update Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders either.--Launchballer 13:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @Shubinator: I just noticed that the next set is due to publish at 02:23 UTC. I think this should be reset to 00:00.--Launchballer 20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It will fix itself automatically over the next few days. No need for manual edits. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, except all of the sets are scheduled to run at 2:23 according to Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times.--Launchballer 20:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The bot is giving each set slightly less than 24 hours until it returns to 24 hours per set. As I said, it will fix itself automatically. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The controls for this are at User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift (admin only). —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I should have linked to the history of Template:Did you know/Next update/Time where you can see how the bot deals with this kind of situations. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a nice feature; I'm impressed. RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (8 April 00:00)

J. C. Walter, Jr.

@SL93, ERcheck, and Tenpop421: The hook makes an extraordinary claim, which is not backed up by the cited source. RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I see "On April 1, 1981 he underwent heart surgery. Nine days later, Joe concluded a merger with Tenneco and retired to his ranch in Brownwood, Texas, a retirement that lasted all of three weeks." I think the only thing that isn't really verified is "then founded Walter Oil & Gas three weeks later?". The source says his retirement lasted three weeks, and that he organized Walter Oil & Gas in 1981. It doesn't say that he organized the company exactly three weeks later. I support removing "then founded Walter Oil & Gas three weeks later". SL93 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at 9 days after his transplant, Walter completed a merger between Houston Oil & Minerals and Tenneco, a major American multinational corporation which is cited to https://www.pge.utexas.edu/alumnus/joe-walter/. I don't see where that supports the claim. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I edited the article to make it clearer that it is referenced between the source that I linked and the one that you linked. This verifies that he had a heart transplant - "After a heart transplant at Methodist Hospital". The other source verifies everything else - "On April 1, 1981 he underwent heart surgery. Nine days later, Joe concluded a merger with Tenneco and retired to his ranch in Brownwood, Texas, a retirement that lasted all of three weeks." under the Houston Oil & Minerals part. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you support just removing "three weeks later" from the hook. I don't see it verified that he founded a company exactly three weeks later. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 I've made the change you suggest, but the more I look at this, the more I wonder if we should just pull this and let it get reworked without any time pressure. Besides the problems we've discussed here, both of these sources are marginal. I strongly suspect both are based on biographies supplied by Walter himself (because that's how these things work). It's not that I flat-out don't trust them, but I'd really prefer to have more solid independent sources. RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I pulled this and replaced it with Izawa Takushi - courtesy pings to @SL93, Miminity, Cielquiparle, and Juxlos:.--Launchballer 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer and RoySmith: - ALT hooks? — ERcheck (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ten Arches Bridge (Amman)

@SL93, Makeandtoss, and ThaesOfereode: There's a lot of text duplication from gpsarab.com/shop11/en/content/248-capital-governorate-amman (permalink. I think they copied from us, but another set of eyes looking at this would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the article myself; they copied from WP and not the other way around. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (10 April 00:00)

Cinema Toast

@SL93, Kingsif, and Elias Ziade: Somebody's going to have to walk me through the sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The only part of this hook that would survive a WP:DYKTRIM (the poker factoid) needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 22:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's too complicated to follow the sourcing, the hook is probably too complicated! Feel free to (as Launchballer nods at) trim or tweak or whatever. Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 30. We have a total of 236 nominations, of which 142 have been approved, a gap of 94 nominations that has increased by 15 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Ich komme
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/The Ethereal Rock
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe at the 2014 Winter Olympics
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Three (World War II)
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sophie Rain
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Kirisuto no Haka
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Inchnabobart

Other nominations

• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Monument (Philadelphia)
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tolarian Community College
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Byzantine churches in Amman
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Vincenti
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Joint Operations Command (Japan)
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play)
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/United States government group chat leak
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Marguerite McDonald
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Timoteo, "El Charro Negro"
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 2 (Brian)
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The Alchemist Code
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization (two articles)
• March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Tandon v. Newsom
• March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/William Baxter (American politician)
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eileen Quinn
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album)
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Desert musk shrew

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) 03:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Interwiki to Chinese for WP:DYK

Why there is no zh wiki interwiki (zh) for Wikipedia:Did you know - Wikidata? There are even interwikis for the three niche Chinese dialects for this project, but not the main zh. And DYKs exist on zh wiki; their T:TDYK is connected to [10], but their higher level, 维基百科:新条目推荐 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书, links to our Wikipedia:Recent additions - Wikipedia. If someone here is active on zh wiki, maybe you can try to fix this problem, or inform someone who may be interested? At minimum, there should be a redirect on zh wiki that we could piple to the main Wikidata property... _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The zh.wiki system seems to be structured differently: zh:维基百科:新条目推荐 appears to be their archive, so the current link to Wikipedia:Recent additions seems correct. CMD (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

But what is their main "Did You Know" page, with instructions or such, that one (I...) can refer people to, if they ask me how to nominate their article for a DYK in zh wiki? Usually the answer is 'look at interlanguage links for WP:DYK", but that doesn't work for zh wiki :( _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have instructions on their nomination page zh:维基百科:新条目推荐/候选 (equivalent and interlinked to Template talk:Did you know). CMD (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK didn’t update

These are still yesterday’s hooks. Posted both here and at ERRORS, not sure which place gets noticed faster. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed this exists, seeing if it pings the right people. @DYK admins: . Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, didn’t realize it pings 16 people. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is updating now. Shubinator (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (9 April 0:00)

2025 Sino-Metals Leach Zambia dam disaster (nom)

@Noble Attempt @Pbritti @SL93 Each and every claim made in the hook must be verified by a sentence within the article that has a footnote at the end of it. It doesn't matter if you "prefer" a citation style where footnotes appear at the end of each paragraph; these are DYK rules. Please fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Noble Attempt You have been editing, and this needs to be fixed before it reaches the main page. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I swapped it with Andrew Hughes (political staffer) - courtesy pings to @Cielquiparle, BeanieFan11, and WikiOriginal-9:.--Launchballer 00:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Shubinator: Bot seems to have fallen over.--Launchballer 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Noble Attempt Thanks for fixing. @SL93 Thanks for pinging Noble Attempt. @Launchballer Thanks for moving; I have moved this hook back up one set to Prep 3 which still has gaps. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Margaret (song) (nom)

I wrote this hook as a drive-by because the nomination discussion was going on and on. But as we all know, drive-by hook-writing is often a source of errors. Could someone else please double-check this? (Even though I think it's quite straightforward?) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The article says 'said she cried' yet the hook puts it in wikivoice. I'd drop 'said she' from the article.--Launchballer 10:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I've actually fixed the hook so that it matches (and isn't wikivoice anymore) rather than the other way around. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Mirella Freni

I was travelling when Mirella Freni was discussed, and the fact to support ALT2c (which was approved) was not in the article. I have added it now. You can replace the hook currently in Prep 4:

ALT2c: ... that Mirella Freni (pictured) and Luciano Pavarotti, who shared the same wet-nurse, appeared as lovers Mimi and Rodolfo?

Looking at her importance [11][12], I'd prefer to have her pictured on a later date. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the ALT2c hook was approved in the DYK nom, and the additional fact about them appearing together as the lovers is cited within the article, I've taken the liberty of switching what's in Prep 4 to that version. I get that the last fact may not be recognizable to all readers, but when juxtaposed with the earlier thing about them sharing a wet nurse I personally agree with the reviewer that this adds to the hook with extra colour about her relationship with Pavarotti and is a compromise between Gerda's preference for focusing on her operatic accomplishments vs another reviewer's contention that there was no broad interest in that and to focus solely on the wet nurse story. Regarding the other points - switching it to be a picture hook or moving it to a later set - that's beyond my pay grade so will leave to others to discuss. I think picture hook requests are rarely granted, but perhaps there's a case for it here, who knows.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ALT2c was approved after Gerda messaged an editor known to be partial to her hooks and nominations, after an earlier talk page discussion where she expressed her objections to the existing review.

As for ALT2c, I'm not a fan largely for multiple reasons. My original primary objection (that it was not mentioned/cited in the article) is resolved, so that's taken care of at least. However, I still think that mentioning the names that readers may not know is suboptimal, especially when all they have to go with is a link without context. I would be more open to ALT2c if La bohème is mentioned by name rather than just a link (so "appeared as the lovers... in La bohème"). My second concern with ALT2c, although admittedly this is more of a nitpick than anything, is that they've actually performed together multiple times, and the hook gives no context as to that, just that they co-starred. There's a difference between playing Mimi and Rodolfo together just once and them doing the same role multiple times.

As such, I'm opposed to ALT2c as currently written; however, I'm open to a revised version that addresses the above concerns. I still think the mention of Mimi and Rodolfo is sub-ideal per WP:DYKTRIM, but given how Gerda would not accept a hook that doesn't mention Mimi, a compromise that satisfies the concerns I raised would be the best option here. @Amakuru: If you don't mind, could you suggest a new version of ALT2c that satisfies the concerns? Adding "in La bohème" should be easy enough, but that doesn't address the "multiple co-starring times" issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

All these extra things were omitted to please your taste for brevity. You could also miss that they were lovers also in other operas. I'd like to see Mimi mentioned because several sources agree that she was the best Mimi (which is a different fact from just saying that she played Mimi). Mimi is a modest character, "starring multiple times" is not in (her) style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

ALT: ... that Mirella Freni (pictured) and Luciano Pavarotti, who co-starred as lovers Mimi and Rodolfo in La bohème at La Scala in 1968, shared the same wet nurse?

The hook puts Mimi and Rodolfo earlier in the hook so that should bring them more attention at least. Re-reading the article, they don't actually specify how many times they've co-starred as Mimi and Rodolfo, so I've only specified one specific performance (their La Scala one). If they actually did co-star multiple times, that would probably add interest and thus could go in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Narutolovehinata5: Please kindly do not attempt to create nuisance by accusing me of corruption. Please see the whole conversation here: [13]. The article and its DYK template were already on my watchlist, and I did not need to respond to requests for comment. I am not a puppet, and I have as much a right to opinions about hooks as you do. Thank you.

Please look again at the layout of the nom page. It is set out as if you created ALT2c, Narutolovehinata5, and I supported it in attempt to accept a compromise from you. (Looking again at my talk page, and at your comments here, I am still not sure which of you wrote it). So please do not try to characterise me as one of "us and them" in the tedious DYK battle between you and Gerda. My intentions on DYK nom plates is always to get the job done as correctly and as quickly as possible - and in the case of you two, in the hope of a compromise on hooks where necessary. So please do not cause trouble where there is none. As I write, I have just looked at Prep 4, and the hook looks OK. I have just seen the above ALT, and I am happy with that. Storye book (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC).

The ALT is acceptable. Strange chronology though ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. @Storye book and Amakuru: Would either of you mind subbing the hook with the new ALT? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have never edited the preps page, and I am not sure whether I would be allowed to move the existing hook to a picture slot. So please ask Amakuru to do that? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's allowed to specifically request for a hook to run in an image slot or not, so it might be a good idea to leave the decision to an editor like Amakuru or perhaps one of our regular prep builders like Launchballer and RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be a bit of a groundswell of consensus here to move this to an image slot, I've gone ahead and moved it to prep 7. I know generally such requests are frowned-upon turned down and the allocation is supposed to be outside of anyone's personal preferences, but I trust nobody will be making a habit of this so in the spirit of the compromising that seems to have gone on here I've WP:IARd it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I realize it is probably already too late for this, but in hindsight, I think it would have been a better idea for an uninvolved user (i.e. someone who had not commented at any point of the article's DYK journey) to have decided if the image slot request should have been granted or not. It's water under the bridge now, this is more for next time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope each time that there won't be a next time. (For the record: I requested the image for the hook we had when the thread started. I hoped for a later slot because I had different plans for today when it would have appeared. - Having said that: I believe that the image does justice to her position in cultural history.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Promoting hooks with PSHAW in prep 3

This happens after every hook promotion. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: Almost certainly caused by the | in the caption.--Launchballer 01:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that it can't be used in the caption. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I re-added it after escaping it using {{!}}.

@Theleekycauldron: Are piped links not allowed in captions or should PSHAW stop splitting by |? VectorWorld (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

iiiit should probably stop doing that! hm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The magic word also doesn't work. (I did consider linking it in the hook, but it would almost certainly violate WP:DYKDIVERT.)--Launchballer 01:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. My {{!}} made it worse because I missed how right in the same regex, PSHAW also splits by }. VectorWorld (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The bottom line is that trying to parse this stuff using regexes is a losing game. Unfortunately, the alternative is using mw:Parsoid and that's painful enough that people don't do if they can avoid going there. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: for a moment there, I did forget that it's usually a bad idea to have links in hooks the first place! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination: Abrego_Garcia

Hi folks, I'm new to this process. I read the FAQ and chased on the links there when looking for this. The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Abrego Garcia doesn't seem to be in the prep area, the queue, or anywhere else I can see. Given the title of the article has changed a few times, I'm wondering if that's an issue. Plus the QPQ has a ? instead of a check even though I think that part is okay? Again, sorry to be asking--I'm new to the process and am probably missing something obvious. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's at Approved, it'll be promoted in due course.--Launchballer 21:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's in the "Articles created/expanded on April 1" section of approved, but it's not expanded, presumably because there are too many approved articles. TSventon (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks folks! Hobit (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Porn hook

The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620 (nom)

I have dropped the controversial porn hook to Prep 1 (bottom set) for now in case that's what is putting people off from promoting more hooks. Isn't it WP:GRATUITOUS?

Or, is there a consensus to defend this hook all the way to WP:ERRORS on the day, or can we demote and reject it? I would expect complaints and requests to take it down immediately from the main page. @Launchballer @Tarlby @Sammi Brie Personally I would reject; in any case I'm not promoting or defending it. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about similar topic matter in November 2024 (search Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203 for "cock destroyers") and the consensus was that it came under WP:NOTCENSORED.--Launchballer 03:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't beg the question, what do you find WP:GRATUITOUS about it? We can't read your mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Think it's the set up of the hook. Maybe it's more jarring if all you're doing is fact-checking for DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the set up is gratuitous in your opinion? You actually need to explain your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I would personally not want it to run because of the likely complaints it will bring, but Launchballer is right about DYK not being censored. SL93 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging WP:ERRORS admins who come to mind for their views so we can short-circuit either way – run it with their support or pull. @Fram @Black Kite @Amakuru @Schwede66 (Anyone else?) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also @Kusma Cielquiparle (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

And @RoySmith Cielquiparle (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about Lily Phillips in January which also involved @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Secretlondon, and Gatoclass:.--Launchballer 05:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah so based on the feedback there, I'd say "keep working on the hook" Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, it's a shame people use WP:NOTCENSORED for this, when our ability to have False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is a much better reason for citing it. Secondly, the hook doesn't seem at all interesting. Why does this event have a wider cultural significance that a worldwide readership would be interesting. I can't see that in the hooks here, so I'd suggest pulling it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Pulled RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there topics which by very nature would fail WP:DYKGRAT?

This has been a recurring issue on DYK for quite some time where there is pushback against running articles on NSFW topics (for example, pornography) largely on DYKGRAT grounds. In some instances, editors have opposed running such articles seemingly because of their very nature, and not necessarily just because of the hooks (i.e. they find it difficult if not impossible to have a non-gratuitous hook about the topic). WP:NOTCENSORED and DYKGRAT, on the surface at least, may sound contradictory (even if not really). Given the disputes and confusion, do we need more clarity or guidelines regarding how to balance NOTCENSORED and DYKGRAT? Like, should we really just ban NSFW topics from DYK wholesale? Probably not, but you get what I mean. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If a hook goes beyond simple titillation it should be allowed. And yes, sometimes the name of an article contributes to the titillation factor. Otherwise, see WP:OM: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." In the case of DYK, we have huge numbers of equally suitable alternative hooks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Some articles or topics won't make sense for a main page hook, beyond NSFW concerns. When the open-source license article was promoted to GA, I chose not to nominate it for DYK because any hook about the topic could be plausibly read as some kind of meta-commentary on Wikipedia's licensing. In another case, an article was pulled about a recent suicide where the deceased man's girlfriend was being sued in court and harassed online for allegedly taking advantage of him. There are reasons other than NSFW to reject an article, and there are NSFW articles that are clearly encyclopedic (like sexuality after spinal cord injury or clitoris). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, I never nominated Bollocks to Brexit for DYK because of the immediate backlash it might have caused. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

So you're engaging in self censorship because you fear bad actors? Its very hard to see how that backlash could be appropriate or good faith. Can we just block the jerks and move on? If someone believes in censorship like that they're WP:NOTHERE, its not compatible with our core values. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that WP:NOTCENSORED is not particularly relevant here, because it talks about content, rather than placement of content (Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content). If we choose not to run this hook, we are not censoring its content, merely making a decision of whether placement on the Main Page is suitable. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. No problem with the existence of the content itself. The question is whether the hook was appropriate on the main page. Lots of hooks are deemed unsuitable for all sorts of reasons. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• My take on this is that it's fine to have material on the main page despite it being offensive to some people. But what I see here (and in a number of other hooks over the past year or so) is putting these hooks on the main page because they will be offensive. It's a subtle difference, and I understand each of us will legitimately draw the line in different places. Those of us who have been around for more than a couple of years will remember the C of E debacle [14] [15] [16] [17] which was an extreme case of this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting we're anywhere near the C of E level, but having once been burned, people become more cautious about playing with fire. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

My line in the sand is based roughly on harm. This hook and others of mine comprise women doing things they enjoy with consenting adults and making a lot of money from it - exactly the sort of thing we should be running in my opinion (though I'm sure others will argue WP:RGW). I would have run Bollocks to Brexit all day long. (I suspect @Rjjiii: is referring to suicide of Fat Cat.)--Launchballer 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that one. I had (mis?)remembered the author moving it to draft when they withdrew the DYK nomination. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"But what I see here (and in a number of other hooks over the past year or so) is putting these hooks on the main page because they will be offensive." that is a big statement about the intent of your fellow editors, I expect you to follow that up with specifics and diffs or retract it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the potentially offensive nature what makes these types of hooks exciting though? Also to debate? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• To answer the question asked no, there are no topic which by their nature fail WP:DYKGRAT. I would also note that most seem to be acting as if DYKGRAT bans sensational or gratuitous hooks but it doesn't, it actually explicitly allows them because it tells us to reject "excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks" meaning that their is an appropriate amount of sensationalism and gratuity we are expected to accept. Anyone saying that we aren't allowed to run sensational or gratuitous hooks is lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think any topics should be barred by virtue of their topic being disturbing, sensational, or pornographic. The human world is all of that and more, and anyone writing about the humanities would likely encounter topics that might upset others due to their subject matter. In the case of The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620, as a pornographic film, most hooks are by nature going to be related to sex and sexuality. Personally, "seven rules" makes sense to run, and the requiring of a labioplasty after the fact in Launchballer's new hook suggestions is certainly hooky. These may be out of line in an article on Houston herself, but within the context of the film they meet DYK criteria.

As for WP:NOTCENSORED: When the name itself is potentially offensive, like the above-mentioned Cock Destroyers (and, reaching into my own history, Frank's Cock and Run, Nigger, Run) NOTCENSORED definitely applies. We shouldn't be changing the title of the work to minimize its impact. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes don't change the title of works. And in this particular case I would say – if the consensus is to run a hook that is potentially offensive, be up front about it (i.e., explicit in the hook itself). Don't "bait" people into clicking on something they might not realize is going to be a list of sex acts. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• What is gratuitous about that hook exactly? The entirety of the hook outside of the article title is essentially "were asked to follow seven rules". What is gratuitous there? Unless you're claiming the very title of the article is, which is a ridiculous stance to be taken and definitely runs afoul of NOTCENSORED. Silverseren^C 03:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not the hook itself. The answer. Which has now been removed from the article by another editor. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (12 April 00:00)

Lope Martín

@SL93, Kimikel, and OlifanofmrTennant: I'm very confused by this hook. Was it Martin who was executed, or Mosquera? And completing the west-east voyage was the crime for which this execution was the punishment? I'm just not following this at all. And the hook that's currently in the queue isn't what was approved in the nomination. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but the source supplied in the nomination is a print source. Maybe pull for now since the nominator hasn't edited all month? SL93 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I pulled the hook, and I replaced it with Waeta Ben Tabusasi from prep 2. SL93 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Alamo: The Price of Freedom

@SL93, Jon698, and Juxlos: The hook per-se is fine, but a statement like "is still being shown at the Rivercenter IMAX theater" in the article needs to be qualified with {{as of}} RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Done. Jon698 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Carl James Joseph

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Tenpop421: Possibly worth saving this one for Easter?--Launchballer 11:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me, especially given that he lives at the Church of Holy Sepulchre. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I put it back into SOHA.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Philadelphia (Amman)

@Cielquiparle: Any chance we can move this hook somewhere else to have it with the picture included? The article is well and thoroughly written, already attracting lots of traffic; I think it deserves a spotlight. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

We generally don't encourage article nominators to lobby for picture slots. It is a good article so I promoted it. The hook packs a lot of ideas in, so having a picture there in addition to that seems overwhelming. (Also, if your goal is to have more people read the article, it's often better not to have a picture; otherwise you "lose" clicks to the image.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of lobbying for picture slots, but if we were to run an image, I think File:Temple of Hercules (Amman) at sunset.jpg would be a much better visual. RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve previously lobbied for picture slots and it was successful. And you’re right, something realistic can be more eye catching. I hope this suggestion is taken into consideration. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Have we thought of making it the quirky, that slot or another? (I - reviewer - had my reservations regarding the image.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the image RoySmith suggested? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

A lovely image that could be anyplace during that era. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Need more queues filled

@DYK admins: We have one filled queue, and six filled preps. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

ASU — disclosed paid editing

As of earlier this year, I'm also a disclosed paid editor for Arizona State University (ASU) as User:Melted Brie. I have been engaged in an absolutely massive update of ASU's alumni list and in the process spotted two projects I wanted to work on, both of which I have brought to DYK:

• Graham Rossini became our athletic director last year, and as he is an alum, I learned he did not have an article (most Power 5 conference athletic directors are notable and have articles). I completed an article for him at the direction of the team I work with at ASU. I have also nominated that article for DYK (not because I was asked but simply because it otherwise meets DYK).
• I learned about Joe Matesic and, on my own, 5x-expanded his article. This article is not part of my paid editing work for ASU, but because of its topic, I am making a note of it here.

For purposes of DYK, I am crediting my main account as the creator and nominating from it to streamline credit. I do intend to claim Matesic for WikiCup credit like I would any non-COI DYK contribution, but I might not do that with Rossini.

Of course, projects relating to TV stations (except if I ever do KAET or KBAQ) or any topic unrelated to ASU are not affected by my disclosed paid editing projects. I do not anticipate many DYKs because there are not many articles needing creation from whole cloth, and any other projects would likely have gone through GAN.

Thank you to Narutolovehinata5 for encouraging me to disclose this here out of an abundance of caution. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting there is also a disclosure at Template:Did you know nominations/Graham Rossini and a note at Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Matesic. CMD (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we have guidelines or rules regarding nominators requesting a picture slot?

Past practice has shown that it's generally discouraged (but not necessarily prohibited) for nominators to request for an image slot and that the decision should be left to promoters. Should we have an official guideline regarding picture slot requests, or is the status quo sufficient? If it's the latter, should that be mentioned somewhere in WP:DYKG, or would that be unnecessary? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We do not have "official guidelines" for anything at DYK. Nominators request image slots by adding an image to their nominations. Simple maths says that not every nomination with an image can run in the image slot. Enforcing good manners should not be within DYK's purview. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This also applies to quirky slots and specific date requests. It's fine for people to request these kinds of special handing, but ultimately the decision will be up to whoever promotes the hook because they have a more global view of things and nominators should just accept that. The smooth running of the project is more important than the personal desires of any one nominator. RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It could be nice to have a DYK Etiquette page about such requests. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 1. We have a total of 247 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 100 nominations that has increased by 6 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Zimbabwe at the 2014 Winter Olympics
• February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Louisiana Mayor's Courts
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Three (World War II)
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sophie Rain
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Inchnabobart
• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday

Other nominations

• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Monument (Philadelphia)
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tolarian Community College
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Byzantine churches in Amman
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Joint Operations Command (Japan)
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play)
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/United States government group chat leak
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Marguerite McDonald
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 2 (Brian)
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The Alchemist Code
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization (two articles)
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Maendeleo horseshoe bat
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eileen Quinn
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album)
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Desert musk shrew
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Reinaldo Herrera
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdan Taha
• March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Tao Asian Bistro
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cory Booker's marathon speech
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on Tybee Island
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Sterne's correspondence with Elizabeth Draper

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Prep 1 (19 April 00:00)

Couldn't Wait to Tell You

@SL93, Krimzonmania7078, and Tenpop421: The source says "Liv.e wrote the album while ... working in Urban Outfitters". This got turned into "recorded" in the article and "wrote and recorded" in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @RoySmith, I didn't catch this. I've edited the article so it corresponds to the source. I don't know what the etiquette/rules are around editing the hooks once they've been promoted (especially since I was the one who 5x expanded the articlea and nominated it for DYK) but I'd be happy for someone to change the hook to just say 'wrote', or do it myself if that's permitted. Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Krimzonmania7078 I've fixed the hook. I'll leave it to you to update the wording in the article. RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith Done - hope that’s okay now. Thanks for your help on this! Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Alejandro Finisterre (nom)

• ... that Alejandro Finisterre (pictured), the inventor of table football, threatened to blow up a plane with a bar of soap?

@Grnrchst, BeanieFan11, and LunaEclipse: Our article on table football says that it was patented in the UK in 1921, fifteen years before Finisterre invented his version. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa: There isn't any chance that Finisterre knew about Thornton's version, which didn't achieve wider success until decades later, so I don't think it's inaccurate to say Finisterre invented the game independently. Perhaps it would be better to describe him as "an inventor of table football", "one of the inventors of table football", or "the inventor of the Spanish version of table football"? --Grnrchst (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think any of those three would be correct. As a stylistic choice I think the third is best, but I have no objection to the other two. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of reviews use the 'DYK checklist' template?

Hi all

Just out of interest, is there any way to know what percentage of DYK reviews use the 'DYK checklist' template? As an ocassional reviewer I find it extremely useful and wonder if it should be included in the nomination template as standard if its used in a high proportion of reviews. This would make it easier for new and less technically competent reviewers (like me) to deal with the technical parts of the process. It could always be replaced with another process if people prefer another option.

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

We already have almost permanent WP:PEIS issues, including a subtemplate as standard may break this further. CMD (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As a very rough guess, we've been running an average of 8 hooks a day for 20 years, so 350-ish x 20 x 8 is O(60,000) nominations. {{DYK checklist}} has a little under 20,000 transclusions, so maybe a third of all noms use it? But, I agree with @Chipmunkdavis, let's not tickle the PEIS tiger. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Something is broken in a template on a nomination page

Hi all

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/St Peter's Cathedral, Likoma and when I tried to close it by adding 'yes' to the template at the top of the page its messed something up and I can see the raw wikitext on the page. I don't know how I could have done it differently, sorry if I'm not the one supposed to do that bit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You're not supposed to mess with the DYK top template unless you're a promoter. Simply adding a tick should count as an approval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, this is not clear from the hidden wikitext on the page, or the instructions for reviewers. Please could a little extra bit of text be added to it, something like, "not for reviewers, only for promoters". Thanks :) John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think "Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion." is trying to tell you @John Cummings:?--Launchballer 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Launchballer, I assumed that because I'm the one approving the DYK I was the one 'closing' the nomination. No where on the reviewer instructions Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewer_instructions does it say there is an additional person who approved the approval, the instructions led me to beleive that I was the one closing the discussion by approving it. John Cummings (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

At the bottom, it says "Once a reviewer has conducted a thorough review of the nomination and given their approval by placing the requisite symbol on the discussion page along with a statement indicating which hooks are ready, and if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment, an uninvolved editor will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article." This could probably be made less verbose.--Launchballer 15:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer, this is also confusing in a new way I didn't notice before, there isn't a discussion page, unless it means the discussion page of the article, which I assume it doesn't, I assume it means the nomination page. I think the confusing thing for me in the instructions is both the roles include the task of reviewing but its different tasks. Maybe just a line at the end saying something like "thank you for taking the time to review an article, once you have reviewed it and approved the DYK another uninvolved person can promote the article to a DYK publishing queue". I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I hope you get where I'm coming from :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7 (18 April 00:00)

Ano (singer) (nom)

• ... that Japanese idol Ano inspired a trend where her fashion, hairstyles, and even member color, rose to popularity?

Two smallish points on this one - firstly, it is not directly stated in the article that she is a "Japanese idol", and that link which appears in the hook isn't in the article at all. The word "idol" appears a few times in the page, but I'd like to see this more directly stated and cited if we're to refer to her as that in the hook. Secondly, it's not really clear what the term member color refers to. Maybe I just have a rude mind, but initially that sounded like it was talking about penises . Even the article doesn't really give much hint as to what it refers to. Perhaps this is obvious to fans of Japanese culture, but some clarity would be good. @Miraclepine, Tenpop421, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Even as someone who does know what "member colour" is (basically, in idol groups often the members have a specific colour assigned to them so that fans can show their preference for them by wearing or showing their colour), I don't think this hook is particularly interesting - it's basically saying that the subject's fashion/hair etc. became popular with fans, which you could say about literally hundreds if not thousands of musical acts, not just in J-pop. The "idol" link, btw, should really be Alternative idol. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"Japanese idol" is referring to her membership in the idol group You'll Melt More!. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say she's a Japanese idol, the article needs to say she's a Japanese idol. Those are the rules of DYK, we don't use implied facts and it isn't' necessarily even obvious to me (as someone not familiar with this concept) that being in a "Japansese idol" band automatically makes someone a Japanese idol in their own right....  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Even that article says, "Japanese alternative idol girl group". SL93 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's still a subset of Japanese idol, and people tend to be more familiar with the latter. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about whether or not the hook is interesting, but ALT1 at the nomination page might work. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That may work too. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, could work. Would still need the "Japanese idol" issue resolving, and probably needs a comma after interview, but it's just about interesting enough that I wouldn't personally quibble it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Miraclepine Please update the article to make it clear that she's a Japanese idol or this will be pulled. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: Or we can just use ALT1B with "Japanese idol" replaced by "singer". ミラP@Miraclepine 23:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

ALT1B: ... that singer Ano joined You'll Melt More! without an interview at the invitation of the group's producer?

ミラP@Miraclepine 23:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That works. I will change it now. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

And? "Producer hires singer" is a rather bland fact.---User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the teeth hook?--Launchballer 15:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Late entrant for Easter season

Sorry it's so late, but the Montalto Reliquary, with a large dead Christ in enamel, is ideal for Good Friday to Easter Sunday, where we seem to lack special occasion hooks. Template:Did you know nominations/Montalto Reliquary. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Now passed at review (many thanks Pbritti), awaiting promotion. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a couple of holes in prep for this and @Gerda Arendt:'s nomination above, will assess for promotion when I'm less tired.--Launchballer 00:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the holes and a suggestion for the oratorio! - The Reliquary would be better on Good Friday than for Easter, and better pictured than not. The present pic in the Good Friday queue - white flowers - would make a good image for Easter, not religious so good for all readers. Brainstorming for the Easter music is going on in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen categorisation

Hi

Can I check if this DYK nomination is in the right category? Its currently in 'Pending DYK biographies' and while it is about someone's arrest and the events around it, its not really a 'biography'. I don't care what its categorised as, I just don't want something to break or it never to get reviewed because its in the wrong category.

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone want a QPQ?

I'm trying to empty out my stock of QPQs, because I'm not gonna use most of them for a long time and I'd rather put them to some good use! So, I've made a reward board item where you can take one of my QPQs by doing some newspapers.com citation fixing! 15 fixed newspapers.com cites = 1 QPQ, see the post for more information. Happy hunting! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The task involves making clippings, so citation fixers will need a newspapers.com account and subscription, available through WP:The Wikipedia Library. TSventon (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Encouraging editors to sign up there is just another potential benefit of this plan. It's a few steps and waiting for the emails to go through, but very much worth it. Two notes: If your "free trial" account doesn't seem to be working as a Wikipedia account try clipping and saving content to force a confirmation email. Also, you can edit the privacy settings to hide everything but a pseudonym for the newspapers.com account. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

ObMeme RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Garfin

This nomination has been on hold because of Badbluebus tagging the article twice, while also saying that the IP nominator is a sockpuppet who has a close connection to the subject. Also pinging Schwede66 who created the nomination for the IP. I see no further issues if this can be resolved. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Just saying that I have nothing to contribute towards resolving this. Schwede66 01:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I removed both tags, see my edit summary for details.--Launchballer 17:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I have approved it. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The IP credit was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I tagged it for closure. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We had a hook of this IP (Gil Hovav) on the mainpage as the lead; the IP had all their work nominated through me. It's the first time that I've been on a laptop since the socking got confirmed. I've pulled the hook and replaced it with the lead hook of Q7, which will thus get an additional 2.5 hours on the main page. Credits will be issued by the bot at the normal changeover at midnight. Schwede66 21:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

And I've checked; unless I've overlooked something, there's nothing by this IP still in the DYK process anywhere. Schwede66 21:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio

Template:Did you know nominations/Easter Oratorio was nominated in time to appear for Easter, but had some delays and still needs a hook, and by now a position in Prep 2. Help welcome. Problem in wording is that the music was first for Easter 1725, but not yet under the snappy title. The unusual work - compared to other Bach church pieces - was the result of clever collaboration - their first - of text author (of two compositions with basically the same music), and Bach. Word that, please, it sounds interesting enough to me. --- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have filled the spot that was reserved for it. The DYK isn't getting anywhere, and we will soon only have one filled queue. The Sunday prep is the next one to be moved to queue. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

One filled queue

@DYK admins: Prep to queue promotions are needed. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why can't PSHAW promote this hook?

→ Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Gregory Seminary

When I click the tools link to "Promote (PSHAW)":

• A "#" is added to the address bar, and
• This error message appears in the console:

Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: content.match(...) is null File index.php:19 loadFiles index.php:128 create index.php:32 promote index.php:25 jQuery 2 index.php:19:25

The popup to promote doesn't appear? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing it got thrown by the extra "File:".--Launchballer 23:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, oh, that fixed it! Would you swap hooks to the picture hook? If you check out the discussion on the nomination page, there is a level of ambiguity in that hook that can't be resolved from the sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the image would violate WP:DYKDIVERT, but I have swapped in the other hook.--Launchballer 01:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks works, thanks! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hello, a bit late but if possible Template:Did you know nominations/Collection for the Holy Places, which is approved, would be great for Queue 7 on Good Friday. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I would personally say no considering how close it is. It's annoying to have to update a filled prep or queue on such short notice. I saw this when it was first posted, but this is my reasoning for not saying anything. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I now see that Good Friday was mentioned in the nomination. I wonder why it was never moved to special occasions. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I also wonder why. Same for the one below. What did I do wrong? - At least we have the picture of the day, showing "a serene Jesus" under pressure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes-Passion (Gubaidulina) was approved and indicated as for Good Friday. Sorry, I missed that it was missing in prep and queue over the discussion about the Easter Oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing new? Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Good Friday set has already been promoted, so both hooks will have to run as regular hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (19 April 00:00)

Church of St Thomas, the Apostle and Howard-Flaget House

@SL93, Maximilian775, and Elias Ziade: We need a better source for this "first" claim. The cited source is the Archdiocese of Indianapolis's website, writing about their own history, so basically WP:SPS. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith I will take a look at other sources. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• This one describes the Dioceses of Bardstown as the first inland diocese in America.

  On April 8, 1808, Pope Pius VII subdivided the primal see of Baltimore by constituting the Dioceses of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Bardstown. To head the latter see, the first in inland America, the Holy See named Benedict Joseph Flaget, who, like Badin, was an exile from the turmoil of the French Revolution.

• This one seems to confirm both. It says that it's the first inland diocese, and mentions the seminar.

  The oldest inland American Catholic diocese was underway.So much was distinctive about these Kentucky Catholics. Their first parish, Holy Cross, was gathered together by lay leadership who urgently sought a priest from Bishop Carroll in Baltimore. Their first seminary, St. Thomas, began literally on a flatboat floating down the Ohio River

  el.ziade (talkallam) 15:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. FWIW, I like the bit about the seminary originally being on a flatboat; if you could build something around that, I think it would be a stronger hook. Even better, if you could work in the bit about the college being founded in an old whiskey distillery (from Patriarch of the American Frontier) I think that would be a big winner. RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• • • Big thaks to el.ziade for finding a new source -- it's been integrated into the article. How does

ALT1: ... that the Church of St Thomas, the Apostle and Howard-Flaget House was the site of the first Roman Catholic seminary on the American frontier, which had been founded on a flatboat? * Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Patriarch_of_the_American_Frontier/VCN0vtEt9DsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA54&printsec=frontcover&dq=seminary work? Alternately,

ALT2:... that the Church of St Thomas, the Apostle and Howard-Flaget House was the site of the first Roman Catholic seminary in the state of Kentucky, which had been founded on a flatboat? * Source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Patriarch_of_the_American_Frontier/VCN0vtEt9DsC?

As to the St. Mary's whiskey distillery bit, it seems too parenthetical to the St. Thomas subject matter to be integrated. The current St. Mary's article is a bit of a stub that I'll keep in mind for future expansion. Maximilian775 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a fan of either hook. They seem too complicated and long. I don't also see how the flatboat aspect is important to the main hook fact, unless you want to make a hook solely about that part (meaning to remove the "first" claim). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Since the hook is now in the next Queue to be promoted and thus can no longer be edited by us template editors, could the hook please be moved to a Prep while the discussion is ongoing? Of course, if it appears that the "first" issue is resolved and no new action is needed, then the hook could be left as is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The Durbin book that was added satisfies the need for a better source for the "first" claim, so I think we're good as is. RoySmith (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hooks that I can't promote

• March 9 - Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Garfin
• March 14 - Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey Hattenbach
• March 16 - Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Men's T20 World Cup
• March 22 - Template:Did you know nominations/The Dark Domain
• March 31 - Template:Did you know nominations/Wyatt Hendrickson SL93 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

My nomination of Godfrey Hattenbach was promoted, but the not the ones I reviewed. Please help. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@SL93, regarding Hattenbach, how do you mean? I see "... that Godfrey Hattenbach is said to be the father of Sioux City's Jewish community? promoted to prep 3. On the nomination page, I see that hook suggested and followed by "That's fine." I feel like I am missing something, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

He means the other four noms in this section.--Launchballer 04:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You know, I think, if I had been less medicated when I read that, I may have understood the words. Also, SL93, I checked the others out, some had been promoted, I promoted one, and March 22 - Template:Did you know nominations/The Dark Domain didn't match up with the sources in the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (21 April 00:00)

Tolarian Community College

@SL93, John Cummings, and Lajmmoore: The article doesn't say anything about suicide prevention. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a the word “suicidal” to make it “Beginning in 2020 the Tolarian Community College runs an annual fundraiser for the charity Trans Lifeline which offers phone support to suicidal transgender people.” SL93 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this and fixing it, I'm not sure how I managed to miss that out of the article. John Cummings (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

April Fool's article idea

I have just stumbled across a Punch photograph, which I've redirected to this quick description. I suspect that it could be turned into a separate article, if someone took the time to look through older sources. I think it could be turned into a decent entry for Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know, as it's not a photograph in any sense that we'd use that word in now. (It was a way of marking rail tickets with descriptions of passengers.) The book I cited is available through the Internet Archive. I am unlikely to develop this idea any further, so if it interests you, please take the idea and run with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 7. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 154 have been approved, a gap of 109 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Lope Martín
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2

Other nominations

• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play)
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/United States government group chat leak
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Marguerite McDonald
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The Alchemist Code
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization (two articles)
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eileen Quinn
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album)
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cory Booker's marathon speech
• April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Sterne's correspondence with Elizabeth Draper
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Dexcom CGM
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Hedonism
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Four (cycling)
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Rule of inference
• April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Dying for Sex
• April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Friedrich Riedel
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/1955 Pakistani Constituent Assembly election
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Little House (EP)
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/The Perfect Prince Loves Me, His Rival?!
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/África Brasil
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Cave Johnson Couts
• April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Aldred

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) 02:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7

Hey @SL93! I noticed you promoted one of my nominated hooks (Template:Did you know nominations/Oval Office Swedish ivy) to Prep 7 without the image I nominated, even though the image is approved. If it's all the same I'd rather save the hook for when it can be used with the image? Apologies if there's some kind of policy in place for this right now if we are overloaded with image hooks at DYK or something, I glanced around but didn't see anything so my bad if I'm missing something. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's the job of the prep builder to decide what image to use. There's almost always more images than we have space to run. Looking at File:Obama 2012 56.jpg, it's really not a great image; the main subject (the ivy) is barely recognizable in small size. On the other hand, the image that was used (File:S. Hripsime Church Southwest.jpg is excellent, so I'd say @SL93 made a good call. RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Not asking to replace the image used in prep 7. But if the consensus is not to run the image, that's fine, just disappointing is all. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a tough problem, as certain images aren't conducive to that spot. It would be nice to have some additional guidance when it comes to plant images, for example. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (14 April 00:00)

Manhattan Project feed materials program (nom)

• ... that the Manhattan Project feed materials program used uranium ore (pictured) from a mine in Canada near the Arctic Circle?

No accuracy issues with this one that I can see, but I'm just curious whether this meets the "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers" requirement? Is there something significant about mining uranium in Canada or near the Arctic Circle? It has to be mined somewhere, and Canada is traditionally an allied nation with the US so doesn't seem particularly out of the ordinary... @Hawkeye7, Tenpop421, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

No, the hook doesn't seem to be particularly unusual or interesting. The article is pretty long so I'm sure a better hook can be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

While it is obvious that the uranium had to be mined somewhere, most accounts of the Manhattan Project skip over this detail, giving the mining only a brief mention. The article was developed from questions on the talk page about the subject. Today, most uranium is mined in Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia and Australia; but only Canada featured before World War II. Mining in the Arctic is routine today, but was unusual in the 1920s and 1930s (and uranium mining is no longer carried out in the Northwest Territories). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but that is specialist information that most readers are unaware of. If the hook is reliant on deep knowledge that requires being a Manhattan Project buff or familiarity with the nuclear industry, that's less appealing than something that relies on broader knowledge. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Should this be swapped out? I have no strong opinion either way. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I swapped it with Haniwa horse from Kamichūjō - courtesy pings to @SL93, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, and Tenpop421:. Not a DYK issue, but you may wish to resolve the {{incomprehensible inline}} tag before this runs.--Launchballer 22:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I took a crack at the tag. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: No specialist knowledge is assumed! That the Manhattan Project made bombs and uranium was involved is probably the extent of most people's knowledge. Even after reading the main article on the subject, only a short section is devoted to the acquisition of uranium. Readers who have not read the main article would likely assume that the uranium was mined in the United States. In fact, most of it came from Canada and the Belgian Congo. I think most readers' response to the hook would be that they did not know that! If you have a better hook, go ahead and propose one, but I found the story of the prospector in the Arctic to be a compelling one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe something based on Black oxide was mainly used by ceramics industry:

• ... that the availability of red dinner plates was impacted by building the first atomic bomb?

although it would take a little rewriting to get the right source material into the article, probably pulling from Fiesta (dinnerware)#Radioactive glazes. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith What are your thoughts on reopening the nomination? SL93 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverted. No good reason for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It is currently in a prep that will need to be promoted soon. There is no consensus to run the hook as is so I will take it out of the prep whether or not the nomination has been reopened. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the hook! It was approved by two editors! If you want to delete the article, take it to AfD! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I obviously stepped into something more complicated than I realized. I'll just bow out and let you two sort it out. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I will just let the thing run as is. If someone else finds it to be too specialized, they can deal with it. I’m fine if everyone who doesn’t like the hook backs off. I just don’t want any delays with preps. -SL93 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Well the hook has run, although given it's still on DYK and won't be out of it for another hour, we'll have to wait a bit if the hook did well or not. For what it's worth, I still think the dinner plates hook was a better option and I don't understand why Hawkeye7 was seemingly against it. I'm also confused as to why Hawkeye7 thinks that there were objections to the article and thus it should be brought to AFD, when in fact the issue was with the hook. I had been busy over the last few days so I wasn't able to see this discussion play out, but had I seen this earlier I would have just swapped the hook with the red dinner plates one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I found the hook interesting and informative; I don't understand the objections. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the dinner plates hook was that it was not in the article and supported by any of the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It received 17,205 views. SL93 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950 (nom)

• ... that the Gannon Golden Knights football team was abolished due to fan "apathy" despite going undefeated and shutting out six of eight opponents in its first year?

I'm a bit confused by what's going on here. Firstly, the hook should be more clear about what it is discussing; the "football" should be clarified as American football, for international audiences, and if this article only pertains to the period 1949–1950 then that should be made clear in the hook (and I think for the article title the disambiguation should be in parentheses rather than with a comma).

Also, on that note, Gannon clearly has a football program now, and our main Gannon Golden Knights football redirect points to the Athletics section of the university's page. I think the structure needs to be harmonised a bit. Either there should be a clear hatnote to this subtopic within the overall Gannon football topic or perhaps even better it should be expanded to include the modern team and then the "1949–1950" bit dropped altogether. @Cbl62, Sammi Brie, and Cielquiparle:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Let me reply to each of your areas of confusion:

• Our naming structure for "American football" teams is to refer to them simply as 19XX XXX football team", not as "19XX XX American football team." Moreover, the first sentence of the actual article clearly states that it is an American football team for anyone who chooses to click the link. That said, I've proposed an alt 1 below that addresses your concern. It seems unnecessarily clunky to me, so I've also proposed alt 2 that disregards this element of your concern.
• Yes, the article "only pertains to the period 1949–1950" which is stated in the article title. The proposed alt 1 hook below clarifies it in the hook as well.
• Yes, the years could be in parenthesis, but this article follows an established naming system for multi-season articles, which uses a comma. See Category:College football multi-season team articles.
• Gannon began its football program in 1949 and then discontinued the program after the 1950 season, despite having tremendous success on the field (but not at the ticket booth). That is the iteration of Gannon football covered by this article. Several decades later (c. 1989), the school began a new football program, though the new program competes at a low level of competition (and without any extraordinary success), and nobody has cared to create any articles on this later iteration.
• alt 1 ... that the early Gannon Golden Knights American football program was discontinued after only two years (1949 and 1950) due to fan "apathy" and despite going undefeated and shutting out six of eight opponents in its first year?
• alt 2 ... that the early Gannon Golden Knights football program was discontinued after only two years (1949 and 1950) due to fan "apathy" and despite going undefeated and shutting out six of eight opponents in its first year?

I hope that answers your questions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with not having to specify "gridiron" or "American". The whole point is not to overexplain in the hook. Putting all the facts in the hook spoils the mystery. Appreciate the thought and effort on all sides, but personally I still prefer ALT0. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I also prefer alt0 but want to be flexible, if needed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Going against the grain here and I agree that "football" needs either "college" or "American" here (ideally the former since "college football" almost always refers to gridiron rather than soccer). Not specifying what kind of football it is and leaving the ambiguity isn't not "spoiling the mystery", it's a show of US-centrism. In addition, from experience, hooks that are reliant on specialist sports terminology (and yes, this includes soccer) tend to underperform among readers, so I'd actually consider stopping the hook at "going undefeated". Most non-sports fans may not necessarily know what "shutting out" means. I have no opinion on whether or not the article/hooks need to use the years or the "early" phrasing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Shutout is a common term used across most major sports (and even outside sports), including association football, rugby, baseball, and hockey. And the fact that Gannon shut out six of eight opponents is the most remarkable aspect of the hook. Also, the terms "shutout" or "shut out" have been used in 25 prior hooks without any concerns about confusion. We could wikilink "shutting out if that allays the concern. Cbl62 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Copying in DYK resident gridiron expert @BeanieFan11 please to weigh in and provide context. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most of those 25 other hooks probably came before the recent greater scrutiny on sports hooks. Just because they were accepted in the past does not necessarily mean they would be accepted now; consensus can change. Personally I understand the hook, but based on experience we may be overestimating the general non-sports fan's familiarity with sports terminology. As for the above mention of "shoutout", I've never heard that term used in association football, probably because shutouts are very common due to the nature of the game (you're more likely to hear about clean sheets instead). Maybe it's more of a North American terminology? Having said that, I don't have an issue with the specific fact, but maybe we can use less specialist terminology to describe the same thing (i.e. preventing multiple opponenrs from scoring). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the hooks using "shutout" or "shut out" run the gamut of time frame including this User:Wizardman hook from less than a year ago: "that John 'Tacks' Neuer is the only person to pitch a shutout in both his Major League Baseball debut and his final game?" Cbl62 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I could have sworn we have used the term "shut out" in at least one American soccer goalkeeper DYK. I would argue that unlike other sports terminology, "shut out" at least has an intuitive meaning that a reader can kind of guess. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think "shutout" is all that "specialist" of terminology, and I think most readers would understand it. Perhaps just link it in the hook? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll be honest: while I do know the term shutout, I'm a bit confused as to why there seems to be an apparent insistence on using the term, instead of compromising and using less specialist terminology. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I added the suggested wikilink of shutout to the alt 0 hook. Trying to explain within the hook what a shutout is makes the hook unnecessarily clunky IMO. Doesn't linking the term, as suggested by Beanie, solve your concern? It also allows a curious reader to click the shutout link and learn more about the concept. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean why is there an apprent attachment to the term "shut out". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

As for the above question, normally I'd be inclined to agree that linking to shut out might help address the concerns, we've recently had concerns raised about these sports hooks, especially with how they tend to underperform with our readership. Given how "shut out" seems to be a primarily North American term too and is seemingly uncommon elsewhere (I'm not sure if it's commonly used in, for example, cricket, so please let me know), it might be better to compromise and appeal to the non-sports fan. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that the hook is supposed to be running in a few days, I've swapped the hook with Paul Shorten from Prep 1 to give this more time for discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this Narutolovehinata5, it might be worth reopening the nom page eventually since there seem to be quite a few unanswered questions. I think the proposed alt hooks satisfy some of my concerns, but I'd still like to see a more coherent structure to the page layouts given that Gannon Golden Knights football has no link to the page under discussion at all. And I think clarifying that it's American football and not relying on confusing terminology such as "shut out" is a good call.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru I reopened it. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: I created an overall structure at Gannon University#Football. After thinking about it, I think that's what you were seeking. Yes? Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• The only attachment to "shutout" is not emotional, but derives from a preference for clear and concise writing -- and some frustration given that it's a common term in numerous sports, including global sports such as baseball, rugby and association football -- that, according to our own article on the term -- and that it's been used in 25 prior DYK hooks including two last year. In any event, I offer the following to try to put this to bed:

• * alt 3 ... that the early Gannon Golden Knights American football program lasted only two years due to fan "apathy" despite going undefeated and holding scoreless six of eight opponents in its first year? Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

By coincidence, I was reading a The Guardian article today about a soccer match and it did use "shut out", although they do have a large US readership so I don't know if it actually is that common at least in the UK or if it's just The Guardian being The Guardian. Having said that, I think ALT3 is a reasonable compromise since it makes the point of the hook a lot clearer (non-sports fans may still find "shut out" confusing, "hold scoreless" is more obvious). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5, Amakuru, Cielquiparle, and Sammi Brie: So is alt 3 good to go? Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think the nomination was reopened, so discussion should continue there. Personally, ALT3 is my preference. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is there something more I need to do? Cbl62 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

(now at Queue 5)

@RoySmith: regarding Prince Louis of Wales, @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: suggested using File:Trooping the Colour 2023 (GovPM 41) crop 3.jpg instead of what's currently on the article. I have no opinions either way, but what do you think?--Launchballer 11:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That's another low-quality image. Specifically, the face is in deep shadow against a distracting high-contrast background. In general, deep crops from larger photos rarely make good images. RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, this has been on DYK already. Why are we running it again? RoySmith (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 197#Discussing the DYK guideline of one DYK per article maximum.--Launchballer 12:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah. That was one of the dumber decisions DYK has made. Recycling old content is the kind of thing you do when you can't scrape up enough new material to keep your pipeline full. We have more than we can handle.

I could see the value of a rerun if the article had undergone some major improvements, but it's barely longer than it was when it ran the first time, and even at the minimal size it is, it manages to tell us three times that he's fourth in line of succession, and twice the names of his brother and sister. Not to mention such exciting facts as he attended various official functions with his parents and he was enrolled in nursery school. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we should have an official guideline that, if an article is to run on DYK again, it must run with a substantially different hook from the first time. Does anyone here have any other ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• @RoySmith, Launchballer, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: I was about to move the hook to a later prep, but I see it was reserved for April 23. Should the hook be replaced with a different hook? We can invite MSincccc or another editor to give new suggestions.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the hook is entirely different from the 2018 hook.--Launchballer 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It is indeed, but RoySmith objected to it, so maybe we need a different angle. For what it's worth, I thought the hook itself is just fine and is still interesting, so I'm not sure why he was against it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, his objection was to the article running twice. He didn't say anything about the hook.--Launchballer 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that the discussion resulted in a strong consensus in favor of allowing former DYK articles to run again, I don't think there's much he can do on that part; I doubt consensus would change even if he started a new RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, @Narutolovehinata5 and @Launchballer I included an additional comment requesting that the hook (preferably with an image) appear on the DYK main page on 23 April, to coincide with Louis’s seventh birthday. MSincccc (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I (grudgingly) accept that policy allows this to run a second time. However, the prime consideration for what goes in the first slot should be image quality and the image that was supplied was terrible, as was the suggested alternative. RoySmith (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith I understand your concerns. By the way, what are your thoughts on this image—File:Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee 2022 - Platinum Pageant (52124830349) (cropped3).jpg? MSincccc (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, "deep crops from larger photos rarely make good images" and this is a prime example of that. It's really time to move on. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I will be more careful with DYK nominations including images in future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Saint Hripsime Church

@Bunnypranav, Yerevantsi, and Zanahary: I added a {{cn}} that should be remedied before primetime.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced sentence for now. Will try to find a proper reference later. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Blood on the Silver Screen

@Voorts, Piotrus, SL93, and TarnishedPath: Just noting that I swapped this with my Sophie Rain hook as I don't like delegating.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer What do you mean by delegating? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

See my response at #Indian Packing Company.--Launchballer 01:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Errr, I still don't get it, but keep up the good job, I guess :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Rita (chimpanzee)

Just noting that I swapped Joint Operations Command (Japan) with Rita to avoid having two earthquake hooks in the same set, courtesy pings to @GreenLipstickLesbian, Morgan695, Ominae, and Flibirigit:.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

David Griffin (athlete)

@Yeshivish613: The hook strikes me as improper WP:SYNTHesis. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please explain the claim of synthesis. There were five hooks proposed on the nomination. Are all of them unsuitable? Flibirigit (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The hook implies that his death was related to his nickname, and the other hooks in the nomination have only had one check when they need two (they weren't promoted).--Launchballer 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm baffled. There is no such implication in ALT1. If there is question is about promotion, then @SL93: should be contacted. Flibirigit (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The hook does not imply that his death was related to his nickname. It's fine. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think the word "despite"... fine. For the record, I did ping SL93 above, I don't like sending lots of pings to one person.--Launchballer 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know what "despite" can imply, but I also think that you're nitpicking. The hook is just showing the irony of the subject's nickname and what happened - just like the reference. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "although" is a less implicating word? Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

How about "that a journalist known as "lucky" by colleagues died in an airplane crash"?--Launchballer 22:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Flibirigit (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

My impression was that it combines two facts to make an interesting hook, without implying anything more than the facts, though the proposed hook is also okay by me. Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Accomplishment of Fudanshi Bartender

@Lullabying, Tenpop421, P199, and Narutolovehinata5: Does this meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE? I can't see anything about background or production.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say that, currently, yes, it does fail DYKCOMPLETE. However, Lullabying suggested on the nomination page that there simply wasn't much information about the series available online, which I think means that coverage about that kind of information simply doesn't exist. From experience, it's actually quite common for TV series in Japan (including anime, though this isn't one) to simply not have any coverage about production online, even in Japanese sites. So I don't think it's Lullabying or the article's fault in this case. This has always been a gray area with DYKCOMPLETE that needs to be discussed at some point: how to deal with cases where the article is incomplete simply because coverage for that part does not exist at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of trimming an obvious duplication error from your comment for readability, feel free to revert if you object. For now, I'll pass it, but we should have that conversation.--Launchballer 22:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at #WP:DYKCOMPLETE and cases where the relevant information simply doesn't exist in sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware

@OlifanofmrTennant and Theleekycauldron: Hook violates MOS:EGG (I'd expect it to go an article about McDowell's defeats rather than one of them). ALT1 should probably be substituted in.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

didn't we pretty much agree that this hook fails DYKINT? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

oh, i guess the consensus is more that it's a borderline pass. hmm. i think the current hook reads better than ALT1, so if there's a way we could make something in the middle... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I just pulled it, we can discuss it at the nom.--Launchballer 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Gymnastics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around

@Riley1012, 7kk, and JJonahJackalope: Not happy with this hook on WP:DYKHOOKBLP grounds. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Nominator here, I should mention that I haven't been engaged in DYK for very long at all so sorry if I seem awkward. I'm not entirely sure if the hook goes against WP:DYKHOOKBLP. The hook is neutral to what occurred, albeit negative to an extent I feel like the fact that Andreea Răducan took the medication to treat her cold shows she had no truly bad intentions and I feel as though this is repeated in the hook. The subject article of the hook also isn't Răducan, it's the all-around. 7kk (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Carole Gibbons

@PrinceTortoise and Suntooooth: I'm not convinced 'person I've never heard of says something about someone else I haven't heard of' meets WP:DYKINT. What else have you got?--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine. John Bellany is a notable painter. Relevance about John Bellany can also be added to the hook. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I do like ALT1 more. ALT2 - "... that cats are painted by Gibbons?" is a total bore. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, "that gibbons painted cats" would have made an excellent April Fool's hook. I don't think that's a good enough reason to pull though.--Launchballer 22:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

ALT1 wasn't approved because not all of it was in the article. I will gladly add the sourced info if others like that hook. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I also like that hook.--Launchballer 22:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added the information to the article. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Indian Packing Company

@Kung Fu Man, 7kk, Pokelego999, Juxlos, Gonzo fan2007, and BeanieFan11: Just noting that I swapped this with Pinsir as I proposed its hook and I don't like delegating. I also trimmed this per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer, this isn't a "trim", you completely changed the hook and the interesting part of it, which was duly approved by BeanieFan11. Please change it back or provide more clarity on why this is necessary. The idea that "Packers" was named after a "packing company" is hardly that interesting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Gonzo fan 2007. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly no less interesting that 'firm known for animal welfare gets on high horse about animal welfare', but I added it back.--Launchballer 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer which part of WP:DYKTRIM were you citing here? The hook isn't pushing 200 characters, isn't overly confusing, etc. Your commentary is somewhat confusing, as PETA asking a 100 year old team to change its name because an association can be made with animal mistreatment is a bizarre and intriguing request for PETA to make. Stating that the Chicago Bears were named after bears, as a comparable example, would be a comparably straightforward, obvious, and uninteresting factoid (similar to saying the Packers were named after packing). If you had issue with WP:DYKINT, then maybe a discussion about that would have been more appropriate instead of a unilateral change? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I felt it was extraneous, and bold post-promotion edits by promoters are specifically allowed by that policy.--Launchballer 22:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The intent of WP:DYKTRIM is not to completely rewrite the hook. If that's the case, then we might as well just skip the review process and let a small subset of users decide every hook. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I note you've been using the comment "don't like delegating" a lot. What does that mean? RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've had it before when I've reviewed 8/9 of a set, called for another reviewer, no-one commented, and it got raised at errors. Forgive my paranoia, but I'd much rather take responsibility for a whole set.--Launchballer 16:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Rita (chimpanzee)

@SL93, GreenLipstickLesbian, and Morgan695: I seem to be on an image thing lately. I suggest we not run File:リタ１９３８年.png on the main page. Between the low contrast and busy background, its not even recognizable at main page scaling as a chimpanzee. I tried playing with the exposure and such and couldn't get any substantial improvement. Looking at the exposure histogram, I can see that it's not continuous, which is typical of images which have been upconverted, so the poor quality is not surprising. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree; as it was the only hook in the prep and there were some in prep 3 including an image, I moved those into prep 2 and knocked this into slot 2.--Launchballer 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Big Three

...except that the article says 'Truman and [...] Attlee are also sometimes counted as the members, as "five individual members of the Big Three"', and the hook puts it in wikivoice that there definitely were five. Apologies to @SL93, Piotrus, and Jeromi Mikhael: for pinging them twice, I thought I'd checked it already but forgot I found this.--Launchballer 01:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is ALT3 acceptable? SL93 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Since Launchballer proposed it themselves, one would think so - although I, for one, find it rather bland. There is also ALT0a which should address the wiki voice issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I changed the hook to ALT0a. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

The Alchemist Code (nom)

@Miminity, SnowFire, and SL93: The hook fact isn't actually discussed in the article text, just listed under Collaborations. In any case, reading the source, I don't understand what "collaboration" means in this context, or how the source supports it. This was discussed in the nom but passed anyway with an "oh well" comment. I'm also not convinced that Pocket Gamer is a WP:RS. And there's a fair amount of copying from Anime News Network. I suggest pulling this. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Oh Yeah, I forgot to make the collaboration into prose.I'll do it in just a bit. Pocket Gamer is RS see WP:GAMESOURCES#Platform-specific. Also I think the copyvio report is a False positive as The Rising of the Shield Hero and That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime happens to be caught due to being on the sidebar. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't consider these issues blockers. As noted in the nom, I agree that "collaboration" in this context won't be clear to all readers, but we have far more obscure items as hooks that we foist on readers anyway (which I think is often not great, but it's not been a blocker). I checked the ANN links in the nom and this isn't copyvio. And this claim isn't really something that is so controversial we need a gold-star source for it - it'd be a weird thing to lie about. So the Pocket Gamer source is fine by me. SnowFire (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2025

Please add <!--HooksEnd--> to Queue 7, as shown in the following diff. The bot cannot update the main page set if it's not present.

Line 16:	Line 16:
* ... that the Scottish painter '''[[Carole Gibbons]]''' had her first US exhibition in her eighties?	* ... that the Scottish painter '''[[Carole Gibbons]]''' had her first US exhibition in her eighties?
* ... that because the [[Green Bay Packers]] were named after '''[[Indian Packing Company|a canned meat company]]''', [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]] called on the the team to change their name?	* ... that because the [[Green Bay Packers]] were named after '''[[Indian Packing Company|a canned meat company]]''', [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]] called on the the team to change their name?
	<!--HooksEnd-->
{{flatlist|class=dyk-footer noprint|style=margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: right;}}	{{flatlist|class=dyk-footer noprint|style=margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: right;}}
* '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Archive]]'''	* '''[[Wikipedia:Recent additions|Archive]]'''

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's an epic fail from me on two counts ('the the team' should probably be 'the team') and I am mortified. I can only apologise. @DYK admins: ?--Launchballer 22:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKCOMPLETE and cases where the relevant information simply doesn't exist in sources.

DYKCOMPLETE currently reads this:

Therefore, articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a biography of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive.

However, it's been a recurring issue at DYK that articles that lack this information often do so not because editors forgot to include them, but simply because the information is not covered at all in any available sources. So for example, an article about a person might lack a section about their early life because there aren't any sources that discuss it.

In such cases, what should be done here? On the one hand, such articles could be seen as failing DYKCOMPLETE. On the other hand, the situation means that meeting DYKCOMPLETE as currently written (both the article and the guideline) is virtually impossible. Should such cases be treated on a case-by-case basis where the nominator explains the situation, or do we need to change, or even drop, the guideline to accommodate such cases? It's a regular enough occurrence that it could mean the difference between a nomination passing or failing, and it's been a concern for years, so we probably need to talk about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:, do you have some examples of nominations which were rejected for failing DYKCOMPLETE, which you think shouldn't have been? I would expect nominators to dispute rejections which they feel are unreasonable. Without examples it is hard to judge whether there is a significant problem. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

While not a rejection, Accomplishment of Fudanshi Bartender received an objection in an earlier discussion due to DYKCOMPLETE concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Running Donato Ogliari on Monday April 28 or before the end of the papal conclave

Donato Ogliari is scheduled to address the assembled cardinals of the Catholic Church before the upcoming conclave. The DYK I wrote for his article has been approved -- Just writing here to see if it's possible for it to be run either on the day he is speaking -- Monday April 28 -- or at least before the end of the conclave. TYIA! Maximilian775 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maximilian775: I promoted it, but you should probably spell out at the QPQ what criteria you've assessed.--Launchballer 13:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to what you mean here. The QPQ used a deprecated source as its hook citation, which is immediately disqualifying. I didn't see it nessecary to assess any other criteria because of that. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKRR says only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ so I get where @Launchballer is coming from. The intent of that rule was to prevent pencil-whipping approvals. We used to get reviews that just said, "Looks good to me, tick" with no indication that the various requirements had actually been checked (and as often as not, when you dug a bit it turned out they weren't). The review is basically "[except for this one thing it] seems fine". Which means if the one thing could be fixed, everything else would be good to go. So we really should be able to count on the review having checked those things. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 7. We have a total of 320 nominations, of which 194 have been approved, a gap of 126 nominations that has increased by 17 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/The World's Biggest Gang Bang III – The Houston 620
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Lope Martín
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huning
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play)
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/United States government group chat leak

Other nominations

• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump Administration
• March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eileen Quinn
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album)
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Dexcom CGM
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Hedonism
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Four (cycling)
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Rule of inference
• April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Dying for Sex (three articles)
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/1955 Pakistani Constituent Assembly election
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Little House (EP)
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/The Perfect Prince Loves Me, His Rival?!
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Cave Johnson Couts
• April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Easter Oratorio
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Music of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sabahudin Delalić (five articles)
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Marva Nabili
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Manasse Malo
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Thelma Adams (farmer)
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Epistola prudenti viro

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) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

Statistics House

@SL93, Panamitsu, and 7kk: I think the article should probably explain what "earthquake-prone" is.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Vin Burnham, Maendeleo horseshoe bat

@FilmCostumes, Darth Stabro, Rusalkii, and Kevmin: Probably not a DYK issue, but these deserve {{lead too short}} and should probably be expanded.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@FilmCostumes @Darth Stabro @SL93 There is one resolved {{citation needed}} tag in Vin Burnham. Technically this needs to be resolved today if the hook is running on DYK ~16 hours from now. (I split your lede into two sentences so that it's not a one-sentence lede). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

OK thanks for flagging this - I've found the flag and added citations. FilmCostumes (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have extended the lead paragraphs, using information from the rest of the article. thanks for flagging. FilmCostumes (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bard (The Twilight Zone), Jon Haukeland, EastEnders 40th Anniversary Week

@LunaEclipse, Jon698, HouseBlaster, Flibirigit, Moondragon21, FishLoveHam, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Courtesy pings to say I moved these into this set.--Launchballer 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I should not have two of my hockey hooks on the same day. Flibirigit (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, WP:DYKVAR explicitly allows up to two on the same topic, but I did just check Official White House portraits of Hillary and Bill Clinton in Prep 4 and it can be swapped. I did just notice that I forgot to put "1=" in front of my signature in the queue, so @DYK admins: - please add this.--Launchballer 00:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Timing

Is there a way to know roughly when my nomination will be on the main page, it has been reviewed and accepted. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Once its in a prep area, it's on the clock and TM:DYKQ#Local update times will tell you when it's scheduled for. Keep in mind that this is not a promise. Hooks sometimes get shuffled around to fill holes, or get pulled to work on problems. And once in a while we flip back and forth between 24 hour updates and 12 hour updates, which obviously plays havok with the schedule. RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however the nomination is not yet in a prep or queue os there any way to find out then. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah. There's really no way to know. It's entirely up to the folks building preps who are looking for hooks that strike their fancy. RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

OKay, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A reminder about reviewing GA nominations

There is a tendency for people reviewing DYK nominations which came here by way of GA to not do full reviews, instead relying on the GA review to have checked things. Unfortunately, GA review quality is sometimes not as good as it should be and things get missed, so it's important that our DYK reviews of these articles be done to the same standards as all our other reviews. RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a line to WP:DYKRR.--Launchballer 23:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith Might be worth rewording this line at WP:DYKRR then: No one is required to check that the article's citations generally back up its content, with the exception of the hook fact. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (29 April 00:00)

Solfrid Koanda

@Darth Stabro, Arconning, and Prince of Erebor: I can't verify the hook fact. The end-of-sentence citation is missing, but assuming the two citations at the end of the next sentence should cover it, I still can't because of a combination of non-English sources and paywalls. I see Prince of Erebor wrote in the nom, "Since this is a GA, I will skip the source spotchecks". You really can't do that. We need to check this stuff ourselves. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is the current version of the olympics.com source, which is RS. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for that, but I still don't see where it verifies the hook. RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  @RoySmith I've put it now, the hook about the qualification. Arconning (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, Roy, what I meant by "spotchecks" refers specifically to spotchecks, not verifying the hooks. I usually do a few additional random spotchecks on sources to ensure they verify the content, similar to a GA nomination, in addition to checking the citations for the hooks. (Something like this: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbeque Nation 2) I do not think it is necessary to repeat such process at all when an article has just passed GA. I have verified the sources supporting the hooks in both this article and the Hume MRT station below and did not find any issues. The problem was that the sentences in the article lacked end-of-sentence citations, which are required by DYK but I completely forgot about that. That is on me and I apologize. I will remind myself to check this too from now on. You can see the hook facts supported by Olympics.com in the Solfrid Koanda article, which is cited before that sentence, and by The Straits Times in the Hume MRT station article, which is in the next sentence. I noticed that other editors have added back the end-of-line citations. Many thanks for raising this issue and all the help! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 04:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  OK, cool, thanks for looking at this. RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hume MRT station

@Cielquiparle, ZKang123, and Prince of Erebor: I don't see where the cited source verifies the hook fact. And, again, the nom says "Since it is a GA, I will skip the source spotchecks". You can't just skip that; checking that the hook fact is verified an essential part of the DYK process.

• It's also not a particularly hooky hook; infill stations are common, both overground and underground. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The hook has been replaced with something else by another editor. Does that satisfy the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 The hook I promoted (ALT1) is still there. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite You are looking at the wrong hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith The cited sources do verify the hook fact. The first cited source is The Strait Times which verifies part of it. The second cited source is the "Art in Transit" page on the Singapore Land Transit Authority website. Scroll to the "Gallery" section at the bottom of the page. Click on the drop-down bar for "Downtown Line" and you'll see that one of the sub-headings is for "DT4: Hume". The section begins, Continuity by André Wee...'Continuity' depicts the Former Ford Factory through a stylised cross-sectional view. Located a stone's throw from Hume station, the site bore witness to... Unfortunately there is no way to directly link to that section of the page. Please note for future that pings don't work unless the ping and your signature occur on the same line or paragraph. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Ugh, web sites like that are a pain. What I would suggest is using the at parameter of {{Cite web}} to describe how to find the information, i.e. "at=Gallery/Downtown Line/DT4:Hume". My apologies for the broken ping. RoySmith (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done FWIW, today I learned that "At" is a parameter available through the visual editor citation tool too. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

So I am. As you were :) Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)