Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

(Redirected from Template talk:DYK admins)
Latest comment: 15 hours ago by Surtsicna in topic Queue 2
Learn more about this page
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Papua New Guinea 50th anniversary set

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
16 September 2025 potential nominations

Per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 206#Papua New Guinea special set request for 16 September 2025 which followed up on various discussions on WP:Systemic bias and dyk sets/special occasions, there is some consensus for a themed set (sets?) on 16 September 2025 for the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinean independence. I've collected what look to be already existing eligible hooks to the right. Some of these are already at WP:SOHA, others are not reviewed yet.

Additions up to ~two weeks before (3 September) should add little burden to preps. After that date swapping things out is possible but becomes slightly more trouble each day. I suspect that ideally I suspect we want it pretty firm when the prep(s?) enters the queue. Also ideally we should be able to get good topical diversity within the set(s), despite the geographical focus. (courtesy ping Miraclepine) CMD (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What were you intending on putting in the image slot?--Launchballer 18:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I haven't planned a set, and can't promote most of these myself per DYK rules. There is an image in the Garamut nom, and the Papua New Guinea nom could include a language map for the currently proposed nom or likely for many other potential noms. There are still a couple of weeks for more articles to be submitted with image options as well. CMD (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 7 (25 August 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago39 comments12 people in discussion

5 Calls

edit

@AirshipJungleman29, Opm581, and Cwmhiraeth: Do we have an independent source for the number of calls? The statement in the article is sourced to WaPo, which is certainly a WP:RS, but in this case they're just repeating what the company said about their own product. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see how anyone could figure out the number of calls without in some way relying on the company. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then perhaps we need a different hook, or at least qualify this with "according to the company ..." RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"...that 5 Calls reported that its users placed over 700,000 calls to members of the US Congress in one week?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prahran railway station

edit

@AirshipJungleman29 and ThatPB95 Fan: The hook (wisely) says "one of the first", but the article still says "was the first" in wiki-voice. RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

DYK's requirement for "sourcing that discusses the set in detail" for first-related claims has not yet found its way into Wikipedia policy, and so the article is free to say that while citing what is generally regarded as a reliable source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a problem here. Yes the article still says "first" but that's because sourcing states that. I don't think we're really making that big a claim given that the "first" is stated to be within a jurisdiction with a population of approx 6.83 million (would have been much, much smaller in 1915). TarnishedPathtalk 16:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pope Leo XIV childhood home

edit

@AirshipJungleman29, Darth Stabro, Willthacheerleader18, and History6042: Can we please stop with the pope trivia? Last week we had a school he didn't go to. Now we've got the house he grew up in? Perhaps next week we'll have the supermarket he bought fruit in or sports team he rooted for? RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I'm enjoying the pope trivia way more than the "did you know a totally-not-PR-fact about episodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of [insert TV show]?" (As for sports team he rooted for—there was enough coverage that you could probably build an article out of that. Wasn't he spotted in archive footage of one 2005 game?) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In addition to AirshipJungleman29's remarks, there have been two hooks about TV stations in August, six in July, eight in June. By my reckoning, there have been five Pope Leo hooks since his election three months ago: Family of Pope Leo XIV, St. Augustine Seminary High School, Papal inauguration of Pope Leo XIV, Tolentine College, and now this one. Two in May, one in July, and now two in August. That really doesn't seem disproportionate to me at all. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If someone decided to promote 2005 World Series to GA and nominate the pope's presence as a hook, there should be no problem running it if that's the most interesting thing about the series. Is this a DYKINT problem? A article notability problem? Or does DYK not exist to showcase new and improved pages with interesting hooks about them? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well if you want to see other things on the DYK section of the main page, how about you set aside a couple hours on your weekends to content expansion/creation/GA? Coordinate some collaboration on another topic you'd like to see get more airtime? I honestly don't see why you are complaining about the prolific output and dedications of a certain specialty group of editors—maybe their dedication to their subject should inspire you to work on expanding the encyclopedia elsewhere? BarntToust 16:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Complaining about there being too many hooks about X is a time-honored sport at WT:DYK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
WT:DYK is to Hockey, as "complaining about there being too many hooks about [topic]" is to Hockey fighting. BarntToust 16:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
RoySmith contributes to DYK by doing admin checks, so I am glad they are willing to do that, rather than find more interesting work elsewhere.
Having said that, I found this an interesting article about a very ordinary suburban house suddenly becoming Wikipedia notable. Dolton, Illinois is also an interesting microcosm. TSventon (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Although I myself am Roman Catholic, I have to agree here that we may be having too many hooks about Leo lately. We've had complaints about Jilly Cooper and Taylor Swift hooks in the past for similar reasons. I don't necessarily think that the occasional hook about him is a bad thing, but we have had a run of him lately, which may seem excessive. Arguably, these things are worse than our usual complaints about topic hooks, because at least topic hooks are more general and aren't specifically about an individual person (or an individual series in the case of Eastenders or Hollyoaks hooks). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Get ready for an Orange-stravaganza of showgirl-based DYK hooks coming up with this new "Era" of TS. Maybe a plan can be put into place—for insanely popular public figures, "hooks regarding overexposed public figures may not appear more than once every two months in DYK, anything excessive submitted to DYK may be placed on hold/backlogged to comply"?
They're saying this is the greatest Plan to combat DYK Fatigue in the History of the Wikipedia Project. BarntToust 23:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That would be instruction creep, and having bans on topics is an unpopular idea for a good reason. It would discourage contributors who want to help out. Still, the status quo is not ideal: we don't want to punish editors for being dedicated, but it is also clear that at least some people (both editors and readers) are unhappy about certain topics getting overexposure. Some have suggested themed sets to cut down on backlogs, but themed sets are controversial themselves. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yep, I totally agree with your perspective Naruto, my words were said if only to play Devil's advocate (as it were), hence why I framed my pittance in that particular idiosyncratic style. Guess DYK will be damned to scrutiny if they do address overexposure, and damned to scrutiny if never they end up addressing overexposure. No good way to handle this sort of stuff.
That being said, the hypothetical I put forth didn't really posit to ban overexposed subjects, simply to regulate them. Is it really a punishment to dedicated editors if the critics who are trying to be mindful, are only wanting keep everyone who pays attention to DYK from being inundated by a particular subject? In that vein, will the proliferation of DYK content cause people to become weary of a subject as opposed to becoming a bit more educated on the subject? After all, either way the work of dedicated users will pay off, if perhaps not all in the span of one month's worth of content grind? BarntToust 00:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do we have people regularly complaining over here about overexposed topics? I haven't seen any. We're also running a themed set soon, which there is documentation of the general Wikipedia population not being a fan of when done in the past. And as I said above, there have been five Leo hooks in three months. That's really not that many at all. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 00:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As the primary author of one such regularly complained about topic, yes, I can say we do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
He is the new pope, elected this year. As the first North American pope, he is interesting to a lot of people, on Wikipedia and off. I don't think we should listen to complaints about pope fatigue after not even half a dozen hooks. We haven't even banned hooks mentioning Donald Trump yet. —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My take from an American perspective is that Catholicism has always been seen as somewhat exotic and unusual given the Protestant majority in the states. I grew up in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural community where it was encouraged to experience the culture of your neighbors. With that said, I attended Catholic church several times with my school friends at a time when only Latin was spoken. It reinforced my opinion that this was an exotic religion compared to the bland vanilla of US religion. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RoySmith, is your objection that we're running too many pope hooks or that this is trivia/insubstantial? I think you've maybe been misinterpreted on that front.
As for the "too many of one topic" debate: we should just handle it on a case-by-case basis. If someone comes and says "hey, I'm tired of seeing Taylor Swift hooks", instead of having a big philosophical debate or trying to find a universal rule, we could just break out a calendar and schedule out the next ones. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
is your objection that we're running too many pope hooks or that this is trivia/insubstantial? A little of both, but people seem to want to run it, so I'm not going to be a roadblock. RoySmith (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To echo what AirshipJungleman29 up above, there is something about Pope trivia that people find endlessly fascinating. It never gets old. I'm currently working on a topic related to Opus Dei offline and it's just chockablock with fascinating trivia. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
See MOS:TRIVIA RoySmith (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
At some point, trivial things become so much written about that they become notable. Sports statistics or celebrities or "royalty" just fascinate people, so they write about them and the trivia ends up in encyclopaedias. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm an atheist, so personally I don't find pope stuff interesting. However, I'm sure a lot of others do. It's certainly more interesting than the approx. dozen Olympic "first" hooks currently sitting in WP:DYKNA. TarnishedPathtalk 08:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Given how we've mostly moved away from "first" hooks and how big the backlog is these days, we may need to start rejecting those "first" hooks too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I should correct what I wrote above. I could only find one hook of the type X was the "first" from Y country at the Olympics when I just search just now. They must have reduced somewhat. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps next week we'll have the supermarket he bought fruit in or sports team he rooted for? I think the only house he ever lived in with his family is more significant than a grocery store. But that's just me. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Saidur Rahman Dawn

edit

@AirshipJungleman29, Arconning, Ominae, TarnishedPath, and Theleekycauldron: This seems like one of those "first" hooks that's just begging for somebody to find an earlier example. RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems difficult, as Bangladesh had no synthetic tracks back then, and so his first running not on grass would almost certainly have taken place on a rare and date-able trip to India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think I've already said what I think. There's still a bunch of Olympic hooks sitting in the approved list that I don't think are interesting, regardless of whether the claim to "first" is justified or not. TarnishedPathtalk 16:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)

edit

@AirshipJungleman29 and BarntToust: WP:CLOP vs ew.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-3-shadow-origin-story-2-jim-carreys-everything-pumped-up-exclusive-8740769 RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What? I have no clue what I am being prompted for/to do? BarntToust 15:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh shoot sorry did some more digging looks like my DYK passed and this is a queue. lol my bad just woke up and was groggy/clueless 😅 BarntToust 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have fixed two areas of what seems to be a bit of CLOP egregiousness. Anything else needs fixed? Let me know. BarntToust 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:DYKN is backlogged again

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a reminder that DYKN is currently backlogged and multiple nominations are not transcluding. We will need to either review or reject nominations to bring the backlog down. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can help out later tonight or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In case anyone wants a trick to expand the nominations that aren't currently expanded, without going to each nomination page one by one: try editing the section of the nomination page for a single day and use the preview window. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 1 (26 August 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Danan: The Jungle Fighter (nom)

edit
  • ... that the video game Danan: The Jungle Fighter allows the player to summon either an armadillo, an eagle, or a chimpanzee for help?

Quick query about this, it seems like it probably doesn't comply with WP:DYKFICTION. The stated reason why we have that guidline is because "Creative works are bounded only by human imagination, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real – but if everything is special, nothing is", and that seems to apply here too. In the same way that I can write a book about an armadillo and an eagle with only my imagination limiting the possibilities, I can also write a video game where players summon those things. This doesn't relate to the real World. I'd also argue this fact isn't particularly interesting per WP:DYKINT, there are plenty of games with animals as characters and it's not unusual. Pinging @CooperCool23, Leafy46, Launchballer, and Earth605: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of its interest concerns, the hook is written in such a way that it's talking about gameplay mechanics, rather than something plot-related. In practice, the line between the two can be blurry, but from previous discussions, gameplay mechanics are not considered to be under the purview of DYKFICTION. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, the article is now on the main page, so I'm not sure if it's now moot or not, but the issues remain unaddressed and none of the pinged editors responded to the discussion. @DYK admins: Should this be pulled from the main page for further discussion, or should it be kept as is? I'm also not sure if this should be brought up at ERRORS or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My general feeling is we should pull things that are just plain wrong, or violate some core policy (WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc). If something violates one of our internal style rules (i.e. WP:DYKINT, that's our problem and not a reason to pull something once it hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Completely forgot about this, but gameplay mechanics are indeed a DYKFICTION carveout and I'd leave it up.--Launchballer 00:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I didn't pursue this further because Naruto's response suggested there wouldn't be consensus to drop the hook, but FWIW this argument makes no sense to me. DYKFICTION doesn't exist just because we want to put an arbitrary restriction on hooks or as a box ticking exercise... It exists for the reason I quoted above - because it is "bounded only by human imagination, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real". This business of calling an armadillo or a chimp for help is clearly the same, it has no real world basis and it exists purely because of someone's imagination. If fictional hooks are inherently uninteresting then so is this, "carve-out" or otherwise. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, my comment was only referring to the DYKFICTION argument and not the concerns about hook interest. It is water under the bridge now, but had I realized that there were also concerns about interest, I would have bumped this to a later prep. As for the DYKFICTION concern, there was actually a discussion about that before but there was no consensus as to whether or not gameplay mechanics count as in-universe or not. Maybe we will need another RfC on the matter as the last discussion did not have much discussion, and this scenario is common enough that it may need to be clarified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Leaving the question of whether game play mechanics count as fiction or real world, I wouldn't even describe that as a statement of game play mechanics.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stephen of La Ferté (nom)

edit
  • ... that, when the allegedly poisoned Patriarch Stephen was asked by his king how he was, he replied: "Sire, I am faring as you desire"?

As a newcomer to this topic, I inferred from this that the king probably did poison La Ferte, and that the response to the question may have been alluding to that. But the article says the poisoning charge was unlikely to have been true. Given that the balance of opinion now is that he was not poisoned, I think the "allegedly poisoned" line should be softened to something much less sure-sounding... @Surtsicna, Launchballer, and TarnishedPath:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let's replace "the allegedly poisoned" with "the dying". Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I concur with this. TarnishedPathtalk 01:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lost nominations, 2024

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago16 comments7 people in discussion

These were all of the nominations I could find that are marked as promoted but never made it to the Main Page. Usually as a result of some turbulence, they are:

  1. Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (pulled after a staggering number of WT:DYK discussions, most recently this one)
  2. Durkee Fire (pulled after WT:DYK discussion)
  3. Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (pulled after WT:DYK discussion)
  4. Margaret Coe (pulled because of WT:DYK discussion)
  5. Leontius of Autun (pulled because of ERRORS report)

Some of these might be viable for a rerun, others should probably be reclosed as rejected. Thoughts welcome! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Durkee Fire's still got a tag on it, Autun's nominator's banned, Glennda needs an AfD, but Coe was only pulled over its image. The Gaza hook was pulled for NPOV violations and has since survived a GAR, so I'll listen to arguments either way.--Launchballer 22:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
wait, evrik is banned? what? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
He was blocked for a month last year. He did not return to DYK after the block expired, and a message on his user page says he is focusing on Commons now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That message has been there for almost sixteen years. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
he only made a few edits since he was unblocked JuniperChill (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looking into the removal of Glennda and Camille Do Downtown, the hook was flawed from the beginning and should never have been approved. I've been following Paglia since Sexual Personae (1990), and I've always suspected there's a bit of shenanigans going on in the background that hasn't yet come to light. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I reopened Coe; its only fault was the image and it is unfair to spike the whole nom over it. I also BLARed Camille, let's see if the nominator bites. None of the others deserve reopening in my opinion.--Launchballer 12:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for looking into this, it's a kind use of your time. Generally agree with Launchballer on the analysis, if the articles had problems noted in WT:DYK discussions that were not resolved then they can be closed. CMD (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Whoops, forgot to mention Pioneer Fire, also falls here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reclosed Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as not run, per this discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
ditto for Glennda and Camille Do Downtown. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
DYK nominations of 1, 3 and 4 were closed as rejected (4 by me, the other two by leek). JuniperChill (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
reclosed 5 as rejected, what about Durkee and Pioneer fires? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
reclosed 2 as rejected as well, which just leaves Pioneer Fire as a possible reopen target. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have boldly added instructions on what to do if the nomination never made it to MP after two weeks. I'm surprised no one brought this up to WT:DYK wondering why the nomination never made it to MP. This is why its recommended to add the relevant prep and queue to your watchlist in case anything goes wrong. JuniperChill (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Untagged DYKs, 2024–2025

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This is a list of hooks that have appeared at DYK without any credits being placed on article or user talk pages. I'm hoping to find a programmatic way to deal with this, but for now I'm just going to list them out:

  1. Ernesius (nom)
  2. Maluseu Doris Tulifau (nom)
  3. NBC Montana (nom)
  4. Olde Raleigh Distillery (nom)
  5. Taur Ikhbeineh (nom)
  6. Tesseropora rosea (nom)
  7. Tomoko Aran (nom)
  8. UFO belief and mental illness (nom)
  9. Flag of La Guaira (nom)
  10. 1988–89 Barcelona Atlétic femenino season (nom)
  11. Center squeeze (nom)
  12. Infant school (nom)
  13. Cultybraggan Camp (nom)
  14. Tupou VI (nom)
  15. Barron Trump (nom)
  16. List of historic places in Kaikōura District (nom)
  17. Boroline (nom)
  18. Canadian League for Peace and Democracy (nom)
  19. Society (nom)
  20. Maria Trubnikova (nom)
  21. Roar-o-Saurus (nom)

If people are willing to chip in and redo a couple of these each, that'd be incredible – thanks! I'll try to do a few myself; same rules as BlueMoonset's older DYK noms list, strike when done, don't remove entirely. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

sweetening the deal a bit: I'll give a QPQ credit to anyone who handles 5 of these, redeemable more than once. Please, I need an excuse to get rid of them :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Of the last 5 on the list, 4 already had credits at the article talk page and user talk page. Maybe something weird is going on, theleekycauldron? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Must have made a mistake somewhere in my process, sorry about that! Still, thank you for processing five of them, here's a QPQ for Conceited (song) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep it! I prefer reviewing to nominating anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That happened to me at 2024 Talerddig train collision, but I guess you didn't include it because I added it manually. JuniperChill (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Theleekycauldron, it looks like none of the hooks that ran on February 2 received talk page tags, nor did their nominators receive credit on their talk page. I can address the talkpage tagging tomorrow if no one else has done it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Theleekycauldron, the talk page tagging should be all done now. I have not notified the nominators - unless there is a good reason I should do so, it would be awkward for me to ping them this long after the DYK appearance - but I can do so if there is a need for them to have the notification. Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prep 6 (August 31)

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion

42 (film) (nom)

edit

@Yovt, Sock, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29: Is saying that a film about Jackie Robinson being released around Jackie Robinson Day really the best possible hook for the article? It's a good article too so there is probably more possible material available; a quick check of the article shows multiple possible options, including records for a baseball film, it being Chadwick Boseman's breakout film, or other production-related material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it seems as if there could be a number of better hooks here. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 01:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The set will run on the 31st, so a new hook will probably be needed then. I will pull this if there isn't a new hook within the next few days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would go with a hook about the jersey number remaining retired accross all MLB teams, however it's not referenced in the article as far as I can tell. Please point out to me if it is. TarnishedPathtalk 01:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That would be more a hook about Jackie Robinson himself or Jackie Robinson Day, rather than about the film. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes and no. For example
... that the title for 42 is a reference to Jackie Robinson's jersey number, which was universally retired across all MLB teams in 1997? TarnishedPathtalk 06:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again though, there is a distinct lack of sourcing supporting this in the article. At least that appears to be the case for me. TarnishedPathtalk 06:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would probably be a better option to have a hook that is actually about the film itself rather than Robinson's jersey number, although as you said, given that the referencing for that claim is inadequate, this is essentially mood. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks all for the feedback. Since the consensus is that the original "released three days before Jackie Robinson Day" hook may not be the strongest, I have some alternative options directly from the article:
ALT1: … that the Jackie Robinson biopic 42 set the record for the highest-grossing opening weekend of any baseball film?
ALT2: … that playing Jackie Robinson in 42 was Chadwick Boseman's breakout role before he starred in Black Panther?
ALT3: … that Jackie Robinson's widow Rachel watched his 2013 biopic, screened at the White House?

Some other potential hooks, like "a minor-league ballpark in Tennessee stood in for several long-demolished Major League parks", or "that Harrison Ford's role in 42 was one of his rare portrayals of a real person?", might work. I hope we can do this before Prep 6 is finalized. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 23:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rather than risk this ending up on the Main Page without further consensus or discussion, I've gone ahead and pulled it for more work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've plugged the hook with Ann Perkins (historian); however, I'd just like to inquire about something, although it shouldn't affect the hook itself or its run. @Miraclepine: The article states that she was not allowed to teach undergraduate students as a woman, but the article does not elaborate on why. Was there a policy at Yale at the time that men were not allowed to teach undergraduate classes? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can't see the source, but this primary source says that the first woman appointed to teach undergraduates (all male of course) at Yale was in 1943, six years before Perkins arrived there. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Except that was in art history. The restriction apparently still applied to the classics department. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, makes sense. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm surprised that the wikilink has been re-added to the DYK caption. Is there a reason for this? I thought that this matter had been settled. (Please also see discussion here which says we will not link to that article from the main page – which, on top of my surprise, leaves me confused.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved
-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the record, the issue is not resolved or settled.
For substantive technical reasons—which I think should override "inhouse DYK style"—introducing the phrase without a link confuses readers into believing that "warming" is a mere adjective that confusingly modifies the noun "stripes". In fact Warming stripes is a noun phrase invented in 2018 that describes a class of graphics, like pie chart, that should be linked to avoid confusion. I have repeatedly explained this substantive fact, but Cl3phact0 continues to play coy for promotional reasons. After dealing with thousands of bytes of their verbiage on my Talk Page and elsewhere, I'm exhausted. Little time remains anyway, so, at this point, don't waste your time. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's off the main page, now that the new set has dropped. Rjjiii (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: Pure (2002 film)

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – DYK passed.

Everything seems to check out, however, as far as I can tell, the nominator missed the seven day deadline for 5x expansion by several days,[1] as they submitted the nom on August 9th.[2] 5x expansion began on 19 July 2025. Even if I'm charitable and try to game the expansion, they still miss the deadline. Could someone else check to make sure I'm not seeing things? I would like to give them an exemption from the seven day rule, but I want to run this by the community first. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No exemption necessary. 5x expansion began 29 July, was finished 4 August, and nomination was made on 9 August. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but the final character count was 9738 characters. 5x expansion would have to begin on the 28th at 1809 characters to meet the 5x window. If you start it on the 29, then the baseline is 2355 characters, with a total 5x of 11,775, which was not achieved. Am I interpreting this wrong? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Last below 1809 just before 19:05, 29 July, nominated 9:44, 9 August. That's just over 10.6 days to write pretty much a GA. I'd give it to them.--Launchballer 22:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No worries. Passing now. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Grey tick

edit
Latest comment: 21 hours ago30 comments9 people in discussion

Should the "grey tick" ( ) be removed from Template:DYKSymbols2 (and therefore from Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions)? I missed the conversation in question, but my understanding from this recent nomination is that it no longer marks the nomination as approved, and that we can no longer accept a source without seeing it. Posting here rather than on the template talk as I imagine this gets more visitors. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Links

TSventon (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why does it no longer mark the nom as approved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There was a whole discussion about it at the first link TSventon provided. The gist of it is that AGF approvals of nominations dependent on offline or non-English sources are to be deprecated, but there was no consensus as to whether or not to retire the gray tick. The compromise reached following that was that the gray tick would still be allowed for special cases where AGF approvals are allowed on a case-to-case basis, but they would no longer automatically let the nomination be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
We can accept a source without seeing it if we see a relevant quote. I'm not sure why that means the symbol itself was deprecated, it seems intuitive that the quote is what is taken on good faith. CMD (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To directly answer the original question, the grey tick is still a valid symbol, and thus shouldn't be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then why was it removed from the instructions? Looking back at the discussion it seems to be discussing several issues including whether a quote provided by the nom is the same as a screenshot, or providing that actual source, and separately what to do about cases where even the nom can't access the hook any more. And there was a rough consensus to tighten up on it. But I'm not sure why any of that translated to a decision to remove the AGF tick, and presumably treat all hooks as green even where the reviewer hasn't seen the source. As CMD says, a nom-provided quote is still AGF: you're relying on the honesty of the nominator, while a screenshot or photo is a bit more solid.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Part of my confusion is that the tick has been removed from the table, but not the note below -- looking more closely, I see that RoySmith made that change here. It seems odd to say that the grey tick can be used but not to give any situation in which it applies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
We were at a point where people were routinely applying AGF because they didn't want to bother checking sources and the fact that a source was not easily available to them was a convenient excuse. Let's not go back there. RoySmith (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
But they're still not checking sources, they're applying AGF that the provided quote is legitimate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you provide me with a direct quote from a source, I'm willing to accept that you're not just making it up. But I still get to check that you're interpreting it correctly. AGF has no place in the editorial process of a quality encyclopedia. RoySmith (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are specific cases where AGF is theoretically acceptable, but they are exceptional cases. For example, a user used a source from a book or other material that they no longer have access to and may have difficulties gaining access to again. Another possibility is an editor translating an article from a foreign Wikipedia, and the original article cited offline foreign language sources that may not be available online. An example would be a translation of a Japanese Wikipedia article that cited an interview that was only published in a print magazine. In such cases, while it is possible to use resource exchanges or to seek help, such scenarios prove that AGF approvals or checks may be acceptable in certain circumstances. It's not a black and white thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"I'm willing to accept that you're not just making it up" is AGF. CMD (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It seems we're in one of the following places:
  • Nothing has actually changed, the consensus in the last discussion was not to remove the symbol or to add additional guidance (or that consensus has since changed), and therefore the edits to the instructions need to be reverted.
  • The "grey tick" no longer exists as a symbol and AGF no longer exists as a concept -- reviewers have to physically see the source in question, and mark it with a green tick, or the nomination can't proceed. In which case, the template and instructions need to be re-edited to remove the grey tick where it is still present.
  • The "grey tick" still exists and AGF still exists as a concept, but has a tighter definition (e.g. "the nominator has transcribed a source and I'm taking on good faith that it's legit") -- in which case, instructions should be (re-)added to the table as to when the symbol can and can't be used.
  • The rules are as they always were, but the "grey tick" has now become a kind of secret menu item that can only be used by people who already know what it is and understand the (new, uncodified) norms around its use. That doesn't seem like a very good place to be.
All of these bar the last require some sort of action, as I see it, and I'd be surprised if we really want to be going with that one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The last one doesn't actually work now, because the bot's interaction AGFtick has been disabled. CMD (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Given that, I've just taken the grey tick off the instructions page -- it seems that having it as an option which does nothing, and which has no associated instructions, will cause more confusion than anything else. It can always be added back in if the consensus is that it can be used, instructions can be drawn up, and the bot informed accordingly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's two simultaneous issues at play here. One is "how much confidence are we now requiring for approval": is it fine to completely AGF on a source you can't access or should you demand a quote? The other is "is it useful to have a separate tick for when a reviewer can't independently access the source". My personal take is that the reviewer should always see a copy of the supporting quote somehow, preferably with good context, and that we don't need a separate tick for it. I think that's the way we've been operating. If we were in a situation where reviewers were allowed to go "what the hell, can't find the text anyway", it'd be useful having a separate tick, but I don't think it'd be useful here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There might be instances though where neither the reviewer nor the nominator and contributors have access to the source. It doesn't happen often, but I mentioned earlier possible scenarios when it could happen (and from experience I can attest that it has happened to me a few times). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
wait, i really feel like you shouldn't propose a hook if you can't verify it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
What Leeky said. I can see if you're bringing an old article up to standard, there might be some old sources which you don't have access to but just aren't that critical so you just don't worry about. But to write a hook based on a fact you can't verify is just nuts. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
What if you’re nominating a hook from an article improved by someone else, as I frequently do? E.g. Sanok Construction Company? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you're nominating it, you're responsible for making sure it meets the requirements. RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Alright, seems an exercise in enforcing WP:FUTON, but sure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No more than WP:CITE does -- if you can verify the source by going to a library, or by requesting a scan (maybe even by asking the person who wrote it), all's well. If you can't find a single thing in the article that is interesting and which you can verify is true, are you really the best person to nominate it (and take the DYK credit)? Surely the thing to do there would be to pop the person who improved the article a message suggesting that they nominate it, and maybe offering to help? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In practice, it may be difficult to do depending on how the article was created or improved. For example, if you are creating or expanding an article about a Japanese person, and you are basing the information on a translation of the person's Japanese Wikipedia article, and you do not have access to the sources the JA wiki used, verifying the information in question is not exactly the easiest thing in the world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then don't nominate it. It's not like we're hurting for enough nominations. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why would I take the credit? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You said that you would nominate it, which puts your (user)name on the nomination and the associated credits. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Antwerp prison. If you look at the source text, the credit is there, commented out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't care who gets the credit. We're here to provide the best possible content for our readers. Our readers don't care who gets the credit for a DYK nomination, so neither should we. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 2 (next up)

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/KTAB-TV

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: We Wanna Party

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think WWP is pretty close to passing but I'm not happy with the way the article is written, as I found it confusing. A second set of eyes could help it pass quicker. As for the hooks, they are pretty good IMO, but may have BLP issues. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made a couple of NPOV edits to the article, and I think you're wise to be wary of BLP concerns with the ALT1 hook(s). Even though it's based around a misunderstanding, it still focuses on a negative aspect (the source article is titled in part "Did Tyla Flop?") and should probably be avoided. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

interesting?

edit
Latest comment: 17 hours ago20 comments6 people in discussion
  • ... that the voice actress for Marin Kitagawa said that she would get very hungry after recording lines for the role?

Sorry, I find nothing interesting in that sentence on the main page, please explain. The actress getting hungry tells me nothing about the role, it seems quite normal to get hungry when you work, and I couldn't care less whether she gets hungry or not. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found it interesting, because voice actors usually don't do much beyond speak into a microphone, so one wonders why she got hungry. The answer—that she moved around a lot because she was very physically energetic even when recording—is explained in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Airship -- it seems an odd connection, because recording lines wouldn't normally make a person hungry, and so drives the reader to click on the link to make sense of it. But given ongoing discussions, I can't help but wonder whether you're trying to make a point here, especially as WP:DYKINT's standard is The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest, not "every reader must find every hook interesting". UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we should actually impose an IBAN between Gersa and NLH5 at this point? It's actually hindering DYK at this point; we have a 50kb nomination sitting at DYKNA, taking up space to view other nominations, because they are unable to compromise with each other. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think that's definitely one part of a good solution, but I worry that it'd just be treating the symptoms. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
also, the source says she gets hungry "at the end of a long recording day", which is a little different. I also get queasy about pulling quotes from interviews for articles/hooks because it's so easy to cherry-pick, but that's a story for another time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
While we're here @UndercoverClassicist and Theleekycauldron: do either of you mind promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Canto General (Theodorakis)? It would clear up a lot of space at WP:DYKNA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Promoted to Prep 2. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Next day: I am surprised how much response this got, but still don't see how the hook was interesting, unusual, intriguing. It didn't make me click, I don't care who wrote it, I didn't check how it faired. I am still interested how this sentence which seems so irrelevant to me (some no-name woman got hungry after some work, so what?? do I care? no. do I want to find out why? no. does it tell me anything about the work which is supposed to be the subject? no.), can be understood as interesting. - I'll be back when Rodion Shchedrin will be a better article (started with two tags on top.) Would a (theoretical) DYK about him say he composed some impressive number of "musical works"? Or that a hall was named after him? Or what he did at age four? Less theoretical: Salvador Chuliá Hernández. I tried that he composed a lament for percussion (in other words). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, it got 12,063 views yesterday; its average views beforehand were around 400 per day. Julia Hagen, as a representative example of the hooks we were talking about in the other discussion(s), got 5,897 on the day it ran, from a previous average of around 30 per day. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It might be interesting to calculate the ratio of peek to previous. You can't expect niche topics to "perform" similarly to popular topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, Hagen's hook succeeded because it ultimately ran a kind of hook that was different from your usual ones, one that is likely to appeal to all readers and not just classical music specialists. She probably would not have gotten anywhere near 5,000 views had she ran with your original proposal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I really enjoyed the Marin Kitagawa hook written by NLH5. I don't think you are intentionally going after them, but I do think there is a disconnect when it comes to writing hooks and the bad blood between the two of you is frankly boring. Here's an idea: instead of working against them, work with them. It might help the both of you understand each other better. You can learn something from them and they can learn something from you. How does that sound? Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I try, I really do. What have they learned from me if they propose three hooks for Chuliá of which only one is possible for me, and that one was rejected by another player. The subject is a person who recently died. I just returned from a funeral service. I am not ready to accept that Ch. wrote a high number of unspecified musical works, and that's all. That not only doesn't justice to him but is boring. Better no DYK than such a thing. Looking forward: please go to the nom and give me a hook of which you don't know upfront that I can't live with it. I added some on which you (all) can work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, you often say in your nominations that you are open to suggestions, but when editors do make that, you tend get upset because they do not focus on your preferred hook facts. If you are truly open to hook suggestions, you should be open to alternative hook facts or wordings, even if they may not necessarily highlight the facts you like. Ultimately, we are all trying to help you, and being open to compromise instead of declining suggestions will go a long way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Please, as invited, give an acceptable ALT in the nom. For an accomplished person, saying he produced a lot but not saying of what sounds like almost insulting (the subject) to me. Do you understand my problem with that kind of hook? Please say something about what he accomplished, or look at my attempts to do so. I tried to raise attention for him and was successful, 10k+ views. DYK would be the chance to be more personal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Gerda, my advice for you is simply this: you need to be less rigid about what hooks and facts you are willing to run. Oftentimes, the facts that you do want will simply not interest our readers or the community. Following what the community wants will help avoid long discussions and also generally result in more successful hooks.
We understand where you're coming from and why you dislike those kinds of hooks. However, the hooks and facts you do want often come into conflict with our guidelines. I know it hurts for you, but a willingness to drop the hooks and facts you want, in favor of proposing or accepting ideas closer to what the community is looking for, would greatly help avoid conflicts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am asking you - as calmly as I can - the third time to exercise for a specific subject. I am never upset, - sorry if it comes across like that. I just repeat calmly that no hook is better than "he produced a lot of I don't tell you what". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry, but if you want a hook about him composing Tríptico elegíaco, or that it is for percussion and orchestra, then that simply will not meet our guidelines. As UndercoverClassicist said, such a hook will simply read as "a composer composed a song" to most readers. It is also not clear why Tríptico elegíaco being for percussion and orchestra is a big deal as it does not seem to be an unusual combination: don't orchestras already have percussion instruments, and what makes this song anymore special or unusual compared to other compositions for orchestra?
There are probably other options than "he composed 400 works" if you do not like it, but the Tríptico elegíaco angle will probably go nowhere. My suggestion is to follow UndercoverClassicist's advice regarding expanding the article with personal information outside of his career; maybe that could result in more options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I kindly ask you to continue in the nomination, fourth time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prep 7 (September 1)

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Alejo Igoa (nom)

edit
  • ... that Alejo Igoa (pictured) has the most subscriptions of any Spanish-speaking YouTuber?

@Sahaib, Bluerasberry, and AirshipJungleman29: The hook may need to be revised or clarified, because as currently written, "Spanish-speaking" is vague, and the hook itself is also an exceptional claim. The hook as currently written does not exclude the possibility of YouTubers with more subscribers who are nevertheless fluent in or can speak Spanish, even if Spanish is not their first language. The hook fact is interesting, but it might not be airtight and it would likely be scrutinized by WP:ERRORS if they ever found out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would "Spanish-language YouTube channel" work? That's more straightforward to verify (and seems fairly clearly true). UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please do the bare minimum of checks before stating that something is an exceptional claim. List of most-subscribed YouTube channels shows that Mr Igoa is number 20. Why don’t you scrutinise that and verify that to your heart’s content? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As written, we'd also need to demonstrate that Mr. Pie (and a few others) don't speak Spanish. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Spanish-language YouTube channel" is easier to prove, "Spanish-speaking YouTuber" is harder to prove in practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the present hook communicates the information with sufficient accuracy but perhaps we can be better. Here are some alternatives -
Bluerasberry (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Either works, but maybe the first is the most accurate one? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Narutolovehinata5: you mentioned Pewdiepie who from what I understand speaks English, Swedish and Japanese. The next most subscribed to Spanish speaking YouTuber would technically be Cristiano Ronaldo at #30 as he speaks various languages according to Google (the channel's primary language is listed as Portuguese, English). Justin Bieber at #31 definitely doesn't speak Spanish (as can be seen in this funny video), so the next ones would be El Reino Infantil at #38, Fede Vigevani at #40, YOLO AVENTURAS at #49, PANDA BOI at #57 (according to his Wikipedia page he also speaks Spanish), Mikecrack at #66, Ariana Grande at #69 (according to Google she speaks Spanish), Alfredo Larin at #73, JuegaGerman at #74, Juan de Dios Pantoja at #80, Bad Bunny at #87, Fernanfloo at #93, Shakira at #95, Badabun at #99. Sahaib (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a bit of a weird case in that ALT5/ALT6 is not directly supported by the sources, which do outright say that he is the most-subscribed Spanish-speaking YouTuber, but we also are not sure if the sources themselves are wrong. We've seen this happen multiple times where the sources seemingly confirmed a hook fact, but the claim ended up being inaccurate anyway. Given that this is close to running, I've gone ahead and switched the old hook with ALT5 as it seems to be a safer option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok cool. Sahaib (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Max-Emmanuel Mader

edit

@Dumelow: Very minor issue, but right now the hook is not WP:DYKHFC compliant as the deaf/mute reference is found in the next sentence instead of the relevant one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have duplicated the ref onto the previous sentence - Dumelow (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No queues

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@DYK admins: hi, apologies for the ping, but there are currently no queues with 11 hours to go before the next main page refresh. Any assistance in promoting preps would be appreciated. TSventon (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've done one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prep 6 (August 31)

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Vyanktesh Vishnu Dravid and Indore City B Assembly constituency (nom)

edit

@Soman, Toadboy123, and AirshipJungleman29: I have reservations if the hook as currently written meets DYKINT. Someone moving to another place and then running in an election years later sounds mundane; it might have been more unusual if the timeframe was shorter, not longer. I understand the hook was written this way to allow for a double hook, but the current wording does not seem to work. Either a new wording is needed, or we will need to have separate hooks for the two articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, I don't have reservations and don't "need" either a new wording or two new separate hooks. Moving to a city intending to do one thing, and then going on to win political elections in a decade, is unusual and intriguing. It begs the question "why did he change careers so drastically", which is fully answered by the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there should be an issue as long as the article has explained the drastic career change. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
How about:
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was originally considering to just swap out with Leeky's wording and bumping off to a later prep, but given how time is limited and I would still like to see individual hook options first, I've pulled this for now for further discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 5 (30 August 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 22 hours ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Bernard Vacher and Baldwin

edit
  • ... that church chancellor Baldwin and knight Bernard Vacher were sent to tell Pisa and Genoa to stop feuding and fight Muslims together instead, but the Italians would have none of that?

I know this is the quirky hook, but personally I'm not keen the unencyclopedic tone at the end of this hook. Would prefer it if it just said "the mission was unsuccessful" as the article does, or similar. But obviously if I'm' overruled then so be it. Just noting here anyway. @Epicgenius, Surtsicna, and TarnishedPath: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a change is warranted, there are many ways to go about it without making the hook bland and not interesting, e.g. "but the Italians were not keen on that". Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
What, so the only thing in this hook likely to intrigue "readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic" is the specific phrasing "the Italians would have none of that"? Should we make it even more intriguing and write the entirety of every hook in informal speech: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

"... that the church dude Baldwin and the knight Bernard were supposed to go tell Pisa and Genoa to, like, stop their drama and team up against the Muslims, but the Italians were like, nah, not gonna happen?"

That rewritten hook made me laugh, thanks for that 😂 But yeah, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make here...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
We should, like, totally do that. Maybe it'll attract readers if every hook sounded like a California valley girl from the 2000s was narrating it...   – Epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
New prep 5 Epicgenius Amakuru: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

yo, did u kno dat the lit church spot at Devenish Island (peep da pic) was one of the OG protected sites in the UK?

OMG did u hear that wrestler Vladimir Popov thought getting a bronze at the Olympics was a total fail at first?

did u hear that germany sent six warships to nicaragua bc of a fight over a wedding that ended in gun violence and their consul getting arrested?? crazy stuff tbh

yo did u hear about that Japanese racehorse gettin' named the tourism ambassador for a city in Hokkaido? #wild

Did Prez Paul Kagame really just free over 500 peeps arrested for gettin' abortions in Rwanda?

Wait, Frank W. Lehan made this sick search-and-rescue system for the Space Shuttle Challenger situation, but didn't even make bank off it? That's rough.

did u kno the devkit for Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy had 2 b sneaked into the US cuz of export rules?

did the Kediri mayor hook up the city's football club players with some sick jobs in 2003?

The Little Valley Fire caused a $25 million lawsuit n made 101 horses and a parrot peace out?🐴🔥 #wildfires #evacuation #lawsuit

Well, that is one way to go viral on social media. LOL Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@AirshipJungleman29: I read your "alternative" set to my daughter just now and she loves it... she reckons we should have an alternative DYK page with all the hooks in Gen Z language, or do the whole set like that on April Fools or something 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did not insist on that specific phrasing and the original hook is not nearly as informal as what you suggested, but at least it made @Amakuru laugh. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Surtsicna, that if the bit after the but is to be replaced, it should be something more interesting than 'the mission was unsuccessful'. I wouldn't complain if it were Surtsicna's suggestion. TarnishedPathtalk 10:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you mean here... using informal language doesn't magically make the thing interesting, it just makes Wikipedia look a bit unprofessional. I think the interest in this hook is that the two sides would rather fight each other than go and unite against a perceived common enemy, so we can easily say that without implying the Italians were going around stamping their feet and putting their fingers in their ears.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not aware of such a meaning of "to have none of (something)" and neither are online dictionaries, e.g. The Free Dictionary. Exaggeration is not making this discussion productive. Shall we go with "but the Italians were not keen on that"? Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • ... that church chancellor Baldwin and knight Bernard Vacher were sent to tell Pisa and Genoa to stop feuding and fight Muslims together instead, but the Italians refused?
I suppose this can work? – Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
works for me TarnishedPathtalk 15:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Done. This went live with the original version but I have changed it per the discussion here. Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 6 (31 August 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 20 hours ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Tusker (Vanuatu beer)

edit
  • ... that the Vanuatu beer Tusker is named after the tusks of a pig, a traditional symbol of wealth?

This fact appears to be sourced to a travel blog page - [3]. Not necessarily an issue itself it it were professionally written, but according to Travelmag's mission, they aren't hugely picky in terms of who they select to write articles and they also admit that they "don’t, in general, edit features" with the articles being solely the viewpoints of the authors.

Presumably this fact about the pig being the symbol of wealth is something the author heard on the grapevine while she was travelling in the country, so while I don't doubt that the fact may be correct, I think we probably need some stronger sourcing.

As an aside, an issue was raised on the article talk page regarding text-to-source integrity, and the article was seemingly written using AI assistance. I have pinged the editor who raised those queries to check if they are resolved or not.

Pinging @Surtsicna, AirshipJungleman29, and Asamboi: who were involved with the nom. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

As the hook was scheduled to run in two days, and tomorrow will go into the sysop-only Queue, I've bumped it off to the last Prep to give this more time to cook in the oven. I've also moved Meier-Gorlin syndrome to fill in the gap, meaning a hole in Prep 1 needs to be filled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Main author here. I did indeed attempt to write the first draft of the article with AI, but on closer inspection this was an unmitigated disaster and the article has been effectively entirely rewritten since.
There's little doubt that tusks are a traditional symbol of wealth and prosperity in Vanuatu: there's one on the flag of Vanuatu, for starters. What's trickier is finding a single source that connects the dots between that fact and this particular beer. Asamboi (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've found an article from The Age newspaper which discusses is specifically for the beer, and mentions it as a symbol of strength. Also added that tusks were used at one time as a currency, from a BBC article. I've inserted all that into the article, so probably just need to edit the hook a bit to maybe say "strength" instead of "wealth" or similar, to reflect the better source on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That would be almost perfect, if not for the fact that nowhere else have I seen tusks described as a symbol of "strength", so I'm a little hesitant to alter the hook on the basis of this one outlier source. Surely it's not a leap too far to use this source for the "named after pig tusks" bit, and another for the "tusks represent wealth" bit? Asamboi (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a source other than the travel blog saying they represent wealth (as opposed to currency, as suggested by the other article)? There's a book source here - [4] which also says that tusks are a "sign of the leader", suggesting the strength motif as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"The circular pig tusk symbolises unity, wealth and prosperity" [5] "a tusk appears on the national flag of Vanuatu (previously known as the New Hebrides), where it represents prosperity" [6] Asamboi (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Matt Koehl

edit
  • ... that Matt Koehl stated that Adolf Hitler was "a gift of Almighty Providence"?

I don’t like the description that he "stated" it. I understand that some think it’s more accurate than that he "believed" it, by "stated" gives it an aura of objectivity. There is no objectivity to the claim that Hitler was a gift from God. I think "claimed", "wrote" or even "said" would be better. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The hook is already in the next set to run on the Main Page so only admins can edit it at this point, but for what it's worth, MOS:SAID considers "stated" an acceptable synonym for "said" in most cases. The guideline does not consider "stated" as being objective; ironically, the guideline advices against "claimed". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retracting my suggestion, then. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a couple of 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 August 3. We have a total of 380 nominations, of which 204 have been approved, a gap of 176 nominations that is unchanged over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 1 (2 August 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 17 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arch of the Philaeni

edit
  • ... that the Arch of the Philaeni (pictured) drew parallels between the dictator Benito Mussolini and the Roman emperor Augustus?

I'm a little uncertain what exactly this hook means when it says the arch "drew parallels". The only place where the word parallel appears in the article is where it says "The ceremony was meant to parallel the richness of Roman Libya and emphasize Fascism's mission to transform and civilize the desert of the colony". But this is about the ceremony rather than the arch itself, and doesn't directly mention Mussolini or Augustus.

There are two mentions of Augustus directly, in the passage which reads "Inscribed in Latin on the east-facing side of the three-tiered attic was a quote popular during the Fascist era, taken from the Roman poet Horace's Carmen Saeculare and originally written in praise of Emperor Augustus ... Augustus, as the founder of the Roman Empire and inaugurator of the Pax Romana, was an inspiration for Mussolini, keen to emulate Roman empire-building and bring about his own "Pax Fascista" in Libya and the Mediterranean". I suppose this is the passage that is referred to in the hook, but it's still hard to see this as "parallels". More an inspiration or something like that, along with the text on the arch being about Augustus?

Anyway, I think while there's probably something interesting here, we should reword the hook so it is more obvious what it means and so that it directly pertains to what is written in the article. Pinging @Meluiel, Mariamnei, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the second section you mention (as well as the second sentence, which you haven't quoted but reads The bimillennium of Augustus' birth was widely celebrated in Fascist Italy throughout 1937; alongside the Arch of the Philaeni, other projects to co-opt his image included the restoration of the Ara Pacis and the removal of the Obelisk of Axum to Rome) is the relevant one for the DYK nom.
I'll quote the full passages from the citations:
Agbamu, "The Arco dei Fileni: The Realization of Romanità in Africa", p. 221:

The inscription further served to explicitly anchor Italy’s imperial project in Africa in Roman antiquity. By appropriating lines from a poem written in 17 BCE in praise of Augustus, the links made between Mussolini and the first Roman emperor were strengthened, given additional resonance with the celebration of Augustus’ bimillenary. Mussolini, like Augustus, claimed to have initiated a new era, necessitating a new calendar, in the history of Italy. Like Augustus, he had supposedly inaugurated an age of peace under the auspices of a new Roman empire. And, like Augustus, who had had his most stunning victory against Egypt at Actium, Mussolini had ushered in a new era for Fascist Italy with his victory in Ethiopia, which he was now celebrating in Libya.

Wilkins, "Augustus, Mussolini, and the Parallel Imagery of Empire", p. 54:

In the '30s Mussolini refocused his appropriation of antiquity by making Augustan Rome and Augustus himself his primary models. Mussolini emulated Augustus in a variety of ways, including the achievement and maintenance of an imperial position; the use of effective propaganda, public display, and public addresses; and the development of urban projects that enhanced Rome, recalled its imperial heritage, and glorified the man who had been the catalyst for the empire. [...] Mussolini's published words and public speeches illustrate his intent to model himself on his imperial predecessor. These suggest that Mussolini positioned himself as Augustus’s continuator, both politically and militarily [...] Mussolini's articulation of his desire for peace is reminiscent of that of Augustus. Furthermore, Mussolini drew bold, public parallels between the Rome he was planning and the city that had been the center of the empire for his famed predecessor.

I think that the use of "parallel" is justified by the citations, especially given Wilkins' use of it in their chapter title, but I can see why its use isn't perfectly clear from the article alone. I'm not super familiar with the DYK process, but would it be easier to make an edit to the article text instead? Meluiel (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 2

edit
Latest comment: 15 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Gazan Christians

edit

@Evaporation123, AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Darth Stabro: I added two "citation needed" tags to the article, which should be resolved before this hits the main page. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also @Surtsicna:, who did the review. (All I did was point out that ALT0 remained approved.)--Launchballer 15:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The citation was lost when the paragraph was split into two. Restored. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Queue 3 (4 September 00:00)

edit
Latest comment: 18 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Morris Park Aerodrome

edit

This is my own nom, so somebody else will need to review it. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I take.--Launchballer 17:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. There were a couple of unattributed quotes, but I couldn't think of another way of wording them, so just removed the quote marks.--Launchballer 17:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1308663464"