Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 177

in memory of Yoninah
Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 115, article and hook wording were made in memory of Yoninah, best on Earth Day, 22 April. It was approved on 13 April, and sits now in prep 5, sometime later. While I believe that pictured later is better than not pictured on the right day, I wonder what our readers will say if we proclaim Earth Day the wrong day. Yoninah would have found a solution. Anybody for IAR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did the promotion here. 22 April is in Queues 3 and 4, which are pretty locked at this point; I could conceivably imagine it being switched, but I at least can't technically perform such a switch. I considered whether my best option was to promote to P5 or bring up a switch at the talk page, and concluded it was the promotion. If the hook proclaimed that it was specifically about, say, "today's Earth Day", I would have done differently, but I don't think it was so associated that it couldn't run a few days later, and as the hook is really a memorial to Yoninah first and foremost I thought it more important that it run at all than that it run a specific day. I don't per se oppose a switch if someone with the technical ability wishes to do one, though. Vaticidalprophet 11:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Today is Earth Day. Earth is the featured article, excellent scheduling. DYK will mention it in four days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few days ago. The list below includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 10. We currently have a total of 260 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 135, down 35 from twelve days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old: Over one month old: Other old nominations:
 * February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Schuke
 * March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Shaheen Bagh protest
 * March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/John Neal bibliography
 * March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Wu Jianmin (democracy activist)
 * March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Alec Sutherland
 * March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu
 * March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/The Palestine Oriental Society
 * March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Rashid Mahdi
 * March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Drought in Turkey
 * March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/British Forces Rugby League (four articles)
 * March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron Nola
 * April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Sitara (textile)
 * April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Orgill (company)
 * April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba
 * April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Scribner's Sons Building (two articles)
 * April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Mullin
 * April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve (four articles)
 * April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa von Milde
 * April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Coatesville mansion, Nick Mowbray (three articles)
 * April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Black soup
 * April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Zettel - Only the alt hooks need to be approved
 * April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Cehennemağzı Caves
 * April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Arn Gill (North Yorkshire)
 * April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sister (2021 film)
 * April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Do Not Disturb (book)
 * April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/1914 Greek deportations
 * April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tetrasomy X
 * April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Hoffman's Course of Legal Study
 * April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Helmut Branny
 * April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Albert F. Yeager
 * April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Lovely Summer Chan
 * April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Hossein Ali Mirza
 * April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/488 Madison Avenue
 * April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Pirjo Ala-Kapee-Hakulinen
 * April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoom town
 * April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/compressed instruction set
 * April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Kirk
 * April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4
there's a duplicate "the" in the 7th hook, start of the wikilink. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

P7 April27b
Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Sudan


 * ... that during the Sudanese Revolution, young urban musicians used the subversive power of the music of Sudan to call for freedom of expression and democratic unity?

This assertion doesn't have a source in the article. I've marked the article sentence as needing both a citation and probably direct attribution, because this is kind of an exceptional claim. Who is saying the musicians are using the "subversive power" of their music? —valereee (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, - you are right about this statement missing a source. (It was one of the few sentences I found in the earlier version of this article, that hat been written by somebody else.) - I just changed it to read: "young urban musicians have used their musical talents and creativity to express the revolt of protesters against President Al Bashir and his regime." and gave the source and the name of the journalist, Ola Diab.
 * But anyway, I think the reviewer of my hooks, Drmies (talk) chose the first hook about the hakamat singers for the DYK page, and I agree with this preference. Munfarid1 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've switched to the other hook. I didn't see anything in the article about hate speech, so I've removed that part of the hook. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 6

 * ... that the Guldner House on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Sedgwick County, Kansas, is Radford Design #7082 in William A. Radford 1908 Radford's Artistic Homes?
 * Virtually NONE of the facts in this hook appear in the article. Yoninah would be shocked that it has made it to the queue! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why haven't you pulled it then? Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Two reasons; I wanted to draw wide attention to this problem, without pointing the finger of blame at any particular editors, with the aim of improving reviewing in the future; secondly, I could see that the issue could be readily resolved by adding text from the Guldner House page and there was plenty of time to do this before the hook appeared on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . I will not comment on the second sentence of the post, nor the edit summary. Vaticidalprophet 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, my consistent experience is both editors are reasonable and dedicated on matters of content, and I have no reason to think they would not have happily either verified the hook in the article or provided an alternative if they had been respectfully asked to do so. I indeed suspect they will remain gracious enough to do so after being accused of insulting Yoninah's memory and trouted. I would hope further disputes can be resolved through such an easier mannner. Vaticidalprophet 06:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are overreacting. Nobody is being accused of "insulting Yoninah's memory" and a trout is nothing more than a friendly rebuke. The core issue here is that the problem, assuming 's assessment is correct, has to be rectified quickly or the hook should be pulled, so please let's keep the focus on that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A search reveals that the information appears with a citation at Guldner House instead. — Goszei (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the hook fact is supposed to be in the nominated article, so that should be rectified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What a strange conversation. A link to the DYK template would have been helpful, but virtually nothing in this thread is helpful. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My bigger issue is that the hook (for anyone who manages to parse it in the first place) is (a) pretty uninteresting and (b) not really about the person. I'd be far more likely, for example, to click on a hook that says he created a 1700-page Encyclopedia about cement... Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the hook (I'm merely a messenger), but the edit is made. Or does the basic fact of the listing need to be verified also? Drmies (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we just pull the hook for now and try to come up with a replacement hook about the cement encyclopedia? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably! How do you fill 1700 pages on concrete in the early 20th century, and why isn't this public domain monstrosity easily accessible online? CMD (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving it a shot: ALT ... that William A. Radford wrote a 1700-page encyclopedia on concrete? Although given the subsequent sentence, I'm not actually sure if he wrote the encyclopedia or merely edited it (and the mentioned team was the actual writer). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "... that William A. Radford assisted in producing a 1700-page encyclopedia about concrete titled Radford Cyclopedia of Cement Construction?"  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if the mention of the title is necessary when the main hook fact is merely the concrete encyclopedia fact. Sometimes more concise is better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the title somewhat humorous, however I would not be opposed to "... that William A. Radford assisted in producing a 1700-page encyclopedia about concrete?"  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's fun stuff--thanks Anarchyte. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the encyclopedia about concrete or cement? They're not the same thing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about construction using cement, which would of course include concrete. The book is subtitled "A General Reference Work on Up-to-date Practice in the Manufacture and Testing of Cements; the Selection of Concreting Materials, Tools, and Machinery; the Proportioning, Mixing, and Depositing of Concrete, and Its Application to All Types and Details of Construction, Plain, Ornamental, and Reinforced; Together with Analysis of the Principles of Constructive Design, Cost Estimating, and the Allied Branches of Stone and Brick Masonry and Steel Construction; Based on the Practical Experience of a Large Staff of Experts in Actual Construction Work". I would go with Anarchyte's hook, with cement instead of concrete, especially as Radford is better known for cement (i.e. ). Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the hook in Queue 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I actually thought that Drmies was going to do a double, since Guldner House was a fresh creation, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

fivefold expansion?
I came across Jack Mitchell (photographer) this morning and saw that it was in very sad shape -- just a single sentence for this important photographer -- after being nearly completely deleted in 2017 due to serious copyvio. I've rewritten it. However it's not as long as it was before the copyvio removal. Does it qualify per our RfC last year for DYK? —valereee (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the rule specifically lists copyvios as an exception (rule A4 of Did you know/Supplementary guidelines: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception)". Once the copyvios were removed, it was 190 characters, and it's now way over 5x that. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, @Joseph2302, thank you! I wasn't even thinking about that -- I'd forgotten about the copyvio exception! I was thinking more about the 'someone else guts it before you come along' exception!  —valereee (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on building preps
I was taught to work from the back of the approved list while also building balanced sets. Now I'm seeing articles that were nominated within the past few days making it into preps such as in the current prep 7. I'm not sure if how I do it is just a preference or a rule, but I personally believe that it should be a rule if it isn't. Promoting recent nominations is not a good way to clear a backlog. SL93 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I finish building a prep and come here... I have a significant preference myself to working from the back. This doesn't mean it's my sole consideration. If I'm promoting more recent hooks, it's because my other considerations are outweighing it. Other prep builders will weigh that promoting from the back is the highest consideration that trumps things I find to trump it, and that's just as valid. I can't picture a way to legislate 'work from the back' as 'the back' is so subjective and dependent on how large the backlog is at any given time. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SL93, I always tell prep builders to move from the top down, but when they're new, I'm sure the top of the pile can seem a little daunting. There are often long discussions, arguments over issues, etc., so it's possible they get down to the middle of the list before they start finding hooks they're confident enough to promote. But yes, as much as possible we should be trying to promote those older noms. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking at other's opinions per how I was taught by Yoninah and saw others complete it until just recently. It's actually not subjective when nominations from even the past 24 hours are being promoted. SL93 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish it was at least the middle then. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe they should go back in the pile, put them back in the pile. I can note I've had hooks that I made or reviewed promoted on that timescale, so I don't think this is some unprecedented sin solely I'm committing. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you being so defensive? I didn't name you or say that you were committing a sin. I didn't even say that it was only you. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I'm being unusually defensive. This has been a tough day and it is conceivably possible I am overreacting to wording other people would have more muted reactions to, but I am perfectly happy for you to reverse my promotions if you believe they were as inappropriate as you are saying, and as far as I can tell you're definitely saying they were inappropriate. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of reversing the nominations because that could make multiple people angry. I believe that it shouldn't be acceptable which is why I'm trying to gain consensus. I'm not going to do something that some editors might be against. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be possible to have "Promote from the back, always, this is the highest virtue, there is absolutely no excuse not to do so" until and unless the following happen:
 * We get much, much stricter about striking uninteresting hooks and actively rejecting nominations that have not produced interesting hooks
 * We get much, much stricter about article quality
 * We get much, much stricter about not having huge and terrifying discussions take up thousands of characters
 * I don't think these will happen, and I'm not even convinced they would work. (Hook interestingness is a tough one in particular -- it's both so grotesquely subjective, and something where if you get it wrong people will want to shut down DYK.) I think #1 will never happen, #2 might if the "widen the range from seven days" stuff happens, and #3 is really unenforcable (I suppose we could move stuff to talk pages?). <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * VP, re: concern #1: I think you seem to be saying that you skip a hook because you don't find it interesting enough? If that's true, rather than simply skipping it, you should post something like, "Came to promote, but I don't find either of these hooks interesting."
 * Re: concern #2: you actually shouldn't be skipping hooks because the articles aren't high-quality. That isn't a requirement here. One of the things we're doing is bringing new articles to the attention of other editors so they'll help improve them.
 * Re: concern #3: this is something that many newer promoters feel. As you become more experienced, you'll learn to get to the heart of most of these, but there are the occasional discussions that eventually simply get failed because we can't come to consensus on solving the issues. —valereee (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * VP, I don't think SL93 is trying to say any single given promotion was inappropriate. What I'm hearing is "Do people at DYK think we should be encouraging promoters to start from the top so as to get the oldest nominations schedule on a timely basis, or do we not take that into account?" Sometimes it's inevitable that a very recently nominated hook will be scheduled, but it's IMO a kindness to those nominators who've been waiting a while if we do our best to pick as many promotions off the top of the pile rather than the bottom.  —valereee (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Vadicalprophet, I'm not sure who you think you're quoting because there are always possible exceptions per IAR. Now I'm starting to get angry myself and I just started my day recently. SL93 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I do my best to do that! Tons of my sets are built primarily from old hooks. This one was not. I've had a freakishly godawful day onwiki today, I head to DYK because it's fun and de-stresses me, I do what de-stresses me, and I get called to the talk page to have the third consecutive set of people today yelling at me that I fucked up and they don't want me around. I do not understand why "building a prep where one consideration was weighed below others" is something that needs to get me castigated at DYKTALK. When I see preps built with different considerations to how I'd build them, I shrug and leave the prep be, because it means hooks I wouldn't have promoted got promoted = a good thing for everyone. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet, I didn't say that you fucked up or that I didn't want you around. I saw other editors do it also and I didn't even name you. I mentioned prep 7 so that others wouldn't be confused about I meant. God fucking damn it - per this and the queue 6 discussion above, you really can't deal with much can you? SL93 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can recognize that I am reacting differently to how I would if it wasn't for the current background. I can also recognize that you would likely not have written the last of those sentences if you weren't frustrated yourself. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're both having a bad day. Let's just take a break from this and maybe we can restart the discussion tomorrow. —valereee (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will just leave it completely. I was calm up until the over-reactions. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with MeegsC about a hook that they commented on and I was going to bring it here for further discussion, but I guess someone else might deal with that important issue. I don't feel like making more editors angry today. SL93 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure (given that a note was left on my talk page several days ago) that I'm one of the people SL93 is talking about here. And I'll respond as I did there. Guilty as charged. And occasionally, I'll continue to do exactly that. When I build sets, I start at the top of the list and find a picture that I think will work for the picture hook. Sometimes, that's well down the list. Yes, I could just pick the first "good" picture I come to. But sometimes it's too similar to one that ran within the last two or three days. Or it would be the second (or third or fourth) person picture in a row. Or some other reason that makes me skip it – for now. Yes, I could choose it for a non-picture spot, but if it's a good picture, I'd rather wait a few days and choose it then! Once I've found a picture I like for the picture hook, I pick and choose among the hooks to build the rest of my list. Yes, I always start looking – each time – at the top of the list. But I don't always choose from the top of the list, for a variety of reasons (some already enumerated above). I want hooks that are varied in length, varied in structure, and about a wide range of topics. I don't think we should be requiring people to pick only from the top of the list; otherwise, we might as well get one of our computer boffins to create an algorithm that does the choosing for us. To me, building an interesting, varied set is the most important thing we do. If that means I occasionally choose a hook that was only created 2 or 3 days ago, so be it! I don't think we should be chastising set builders for doing that periodically. If someone is consistently choosing only hooks from the bottom of the list, that would obviously be a different story, and we should address that issue with that set builder. As someone who's had to wait more than a month more than once for my hooks to be run, I know it can be frustrating to have to wait. But our readers are the most important thing here, and enticing them into reading – and perhaps then writing – some new articles is what we should be focused on. My two cents. MeegsC (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm focused on interesting varied sets and our readers also, but I have been able to get varied topics in each prep set without promoting hooks from a few days ago or less. Doing such a thing is nothing new. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Good for you. We have different ways of doing things. Let's leave it at that! MeegsC (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Boy did I miss something. I think all prep-builders agree on a balance of promoting older hooks and creating a varied set, and this discussion has at least devolved into fighting over, it seems to me, personal views on where that balance lies. I'm not sure it's very productive. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, good for me then, but I'm just trying to make myself clear. If editors wouldn't assume the worst in people, especially in a case where I didn't name any names and didn't notice who promoted hooks to prep 7, everything should have went fine. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1
I have commented in support of closing this reassessment as passing GA. Given the small number of participants, I'd like a neutral participant to evaluate consensus for closure and whether the tags can be removed from the article based on that consensus. The outcome will impact the DYK status of the Steve Cherry nomination for DYK. I've reached the limit of what I personally can do to help move this article along. Best,4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Two filled queues
The are only two filled queues and all 7 preps are filled. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

QPQ question
What are the rules about QPQ and multiple writer/nominators? If two people collaborated on an article, and one has well over 5 DYKs while the other has under 5, does a QPQ need to be done? I've assumed yes, but want to make sure I'm right. MeegsC (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If Template:Did you know nominations/Safe listening does need a QPQ, I will donate one of my own and undo the promotion. I review more than I nominate anyway. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that you weren't referring to the safe listening nomination, but I'm just trying to state that I'm interested in knowing the answer myself. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * QPQ has nothing to do with who collaborated on the article itself. It's about clearing out the nominations backlog, and is relevant only to the nominator.  One QPQ per one nomination, if the nominator's prior DYK count warrants it.  If there is more than one nominator, it's still only one QPQ if any of the nominators has passed the 5 prior nominations mark.— Maile  (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my understanding as well. If there's multiple nominators, the QPQ applies to the one who created the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are two editors who worked on the article, and two who are listed as nominators (though obviously, only one person could actually start the nomination template). One has scores of DYKs. The other less than 5. Does a QPQ need to be done for Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Fagliano? MeegsC (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is only ever a single nominator for a hook, and that's the person who filled in the nomination form. Theoretically you could have dozens of DYKs but avoid having to do QPQs entirely by getting all your friends/acquaintances to nominate them on your behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The rules state it as, "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination ... ", which is that whoever creates the nomination template is liable for the QPQ. — Maile (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alec Sutherland
Hi editors, can I get a second opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Alec Sutherland regarding paraphrasing concerns at Alec Sutherland? More info is at the template link. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I did a ce to remove some close paraphrasing. —valereee (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Q2 May2a
Template:Did you know nominations/Mikoto Misaka

@Link20XX @Narutolovehinata5 @Kingsif

There are multiple unsourced paragraphs in the Characteristics and appearances section...Are we counting these paragraphs as plot? Should we change the section head to Plot to make that clear? —valereee (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, it is being considered plot. Though I don't feel calling it "plot" would be an appropriate section name since it is focusing on the character rather than an overall work. Link20XX (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Appearances" is common on character articles for Plot, but I don't know if characteristics, which may be open to interpretation, should be sourced. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll go with consensus if both of you think this is plot and therefore sources aren't required...to me it seems like a lot of sections/section heads to have zero citations. You don't think it looks excessive to have three section heads and none of them have a single source cited? Is no one discussing any of these things anywhere? —valereee (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would rather, I could merge them into one section, however, the series she comes from is notorious for its weird timeline, so I felt it was best to make it multiple subsection. Link20XX (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth this kind of sectioning isn't uncommon in anime character articles, including GAs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's all unreferenced? It's not the sectioning that bothers me, it's the multiple unreferenced sections. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, all the three sections are short enough that it can be argued that they do not need sourcing. Plus our rules already state that the "every paragraph needs a source" rule doesn't apply to plot-related sections provided that it can be assumed that they're sourced to the relevant media. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll leave it as plot/reasonable, as no one else is having a problem with it! :) —valereee (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2
- fifth hook is missing one dot of the ellipsis. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Kingsif, got it, thanks! —valereee (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Approved nom not moving
, can you see why Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist) isn't moving properly to the approved noms page? approved it on 25 April, but it's still showing in the pending list. MeegsC (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The page transcluded on WP:DYKN was Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist), which redirects to Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist). I switched the transclusion to the unredirected page, and I expect the bot to move it on its next pass.  M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. The bot did move it. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . You're a star! MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Q5 May3b
Template:Did you know nominations/Kiss Me More


 * ... that "Kiss Me More" interpolates the melody from "Physical" by Olivia Newton-John, for which songwriters Steve Kipner and Terry Shaddick are also credited as co-writers?

, we generally don't name people without articles in a hook, would


 * ... that "Kiss Me More" interpolates the melody from "Physical" by Olivia Newton-John?

work for you? —valereee (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes that works great! HeyitsBen talk 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —valereee (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Backlog
,, , , : The queues are down to three, and the prep areas are full. MeegsC (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging all of us. It's better now. — Maile  (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

On the main page: Montero
How did that hook get through checks, when it just mentions something that happened in the video? Does the rule about PLOT not apply to music videos? Kingsif (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the past hooks about what happens in music videos have been approved and it can be argued that music videos aren't really fiction, although the hooks have not escaped controversy either. Maybe we need an RFC to clarify things once and for all? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, because I do think it goes against the spirit because the hook reveals nothing that merely watching the video doesn't tell you, the same as reading a book (and I know there's been controversy with non-fiction books) or looking at a work of art (we also haven't accepted art descriptions). Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Gives Satan a lapdance" is fiction, as it was actually someone portraying Satan. Whether you believe Satan exists or not, the individual in the video certainly wasn't him. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can 'repeal PLOT' be an option in such an RfC? My views on PLOT are "it's the reason I'll never take another hook about a work of fiction to DYK again", and virtually every good fiction hook I've seen has just IARed it. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I would say that you have seen virtually no good DYK fiction hooks. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We actually did have an RfC on this very subject last year, and consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rule. Even though I'm personally against it being used all the time, it just isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed I haven't. I wonder why. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The golden rule is that hooks should be interesting. This one was definitely interesting, so I really don't see what the fuss is about here. FWIW it also references the real world, because it is about an actual music video. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness. 2) That is not what "reference to the real world" means. We wouldn't allow something like "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" and this is the same sort of thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a reference to the real world. If the hook just said "... that Lil Nas X gave Satan a lap dance?" then it would be factually incorrect, and a violation of rule C6. But the context is laid up front, and the hook is a description of something real-life, i.e. the music video for the linked song. If anyone thinks readers will misinterpret and think the actual real-life Satan is in the video, then some degree of WP:COMMONSENSE has gone missing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, describing the events in a music video is not a "reference to the real world". It's the equivalent of a plot summary. As I said, "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" is not a reference to the real world, even though it explicitly mentions the movie. This is the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to extend the rule to mean that no reference to any plot elements whatsoever is permitted, then go ahead and propose it. The rule currently merely says "the hook must involve the real world in some way", however, so does not prohibit references to plot elements. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have to "extend" the rule to do that. That is what the rule means. A reference to a plot element is obviously not a reference to the real world. Unless you are doing something like comparing uses of similar plot elements in multiple works. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness -- there are much, much bigger issues on this project to worry about, including actual factual errors, than claiming it's "lying" to readers to describe the plot of a fictional work (something any healthy person past mid-childhood can distinguish from reality). <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's a simple plot description, then it fails to involve the real world. There's a lot that could be said about this video's reception in the real world that would have been much more interesting than "work of fiction shows fictional event". --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that music videos aren't really fiction since they're tied to songs which are real things, plus when that rule was thought up I imagine what people had in mind were stuff like literature, film and television, not stuff like songs or music videos. What about scripted stuff like online videos then, do they count as fiction? The lines are admittedly rather blurry. Perhaps we really do need an RFC to clarify things? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you mentioned above that there was an RFC about this last year. Please could you link to it? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 156. And my apologies, the discussion happened in 2019 not last year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. What a depressing discussion. Not one person seems to have conme up with what I'd regard as a good reason for the existence of rule C6. Everyone worries about misleading or boring hooks, but that's already covered in the rules by criterion 3a. And then when a good fictional hook does come along, everyone says it's fine to IAR. So the rule C6 basically serves no purpose, other than to chew up our time in threads like this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The songs are works of fiction, too. Just quoting lyrics would also run afoul of this. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of the real-world link hook requirement
Do certain kinds of works, such as music videos, song lyrics, documentaries, or certain kinds of online videos fall under "works of fiction" and thus require a real-world link in hooks about them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging previous commentors: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, in significant part because the "real-world link" seriously limits the range of "hooks a reader might actually want to click on" available to a nominator and so forcing ever-greater expanses of art into the aspects of DYK that make so many people mock it does everyone a disservice, but also because they aren't. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - descriptions of the events in these sorts of things is not a "real-world link". Real-world links are things about inspiration, production, reception, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - this seems to be inspired by the discussion above, but is a red herring in connection with that discussion as the hook in question did discuss the real world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. That's the point. "This fictional event happened in a work of fiction" is not a reference to the real world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * comment I was not familiar with the rule, but on the main page, the text says "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." This is a bit surprising and I suppose it came from some discussion, but I do not understand it. What is the context of that rule? Is there discussion to read somewhere?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fictionalized short video dramas set to music are still works of fiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment  Here is the diff where this first showed up in the rules in August 2010.  first inserted a version of this in the rules, but I don't know if a discussion preceded that or not.  The wording was edited by  who has not edited since 2014. I was not a participant in this project until 2011, so have no first-hand knowledge to offer. — Maile  (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes you're going to have two kinds of music video, performance and narrative. If it's a performance, the most you could say is "... that in Video, Singer dances and lip-syncs?" which is boring as hell (unless it's the hell Lil Nas is pole-dancing into). If it's a narrative, it is not meaningfully different to a short film at all, and the same rule applies. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... I can see why the rule exists, and it's mainly to prevent the types of hooks to which 99.9% of readers would react "so what?" (like the example just above this one) but I can see a minority of situations in which a genuinely interesting hook can exist without referencing the real world. And let's face it, many real-world hooks also suffer from the "so what?" problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comment above, my experience is real-world hooks trigger the "so what" problem more often. And considering that "so what" is DYK's death knell and the reason a sizable subset of the project would happily kick it off the Main Page, I've no enthusiasm to broaden that scope. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hooks are supposed to highlight an interesting fact. Facts that are obvious, banal or everyday are by definition uninteresting, or to put it another way, a hook has to highlight some exceptional, surprising or unusual fact. But how does one judge what counts as exceptionally unusual in the world of fiction, where strange and outlandish events are commonplace? One expects to encounter unusual or surprising events in a fictional work, so it's not at all surprising to encounter them there, meaning that hooks which highlight such facts commonly fail DYK's "interest" requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * that's as may be, and reviewers should be rejecting hooks that aren't interesting to a broad audience as a matter of course. But sometimes one of these comes along that is interesting - and I'd contend the Satan lap-dancing hook is one such. Rule C6 just creates a rod for our own back in that situation, and the de facto situation is that we end up IARing it. Which means that in the ultimate analysis C6 adds nothing beyond what 3a already says. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , what C6 does is prevent an avalanche of hooks like "did you know that in video game X, the munchkins battle a three-headed cyclops to rescue the princess?" Without C6, there is no obvious reason for vetoing such hooks, and since many reviewers struggle with the concept of hook interest anyway, hooks of this type end up getting approved and going to the main page. It's much better IMO to accept the occasional such hook per IAR than to be constantly having to try to explain to nominators why their hook about heroic munchkins isn't interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, but per, one might occasionally exercise a little flexibility in the application of the rule in exceptional circumstances. In the case of the Lil Nas hook above, for example, the given scene from the video attracted quite a lot of media attention, so clearly it was widely considered to be remarkable and therefore the kind of occasion IMO where the rule can be justifiably suspended. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then make the hook about that reaction. There's your "real-world link". --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What Khajidha said, it would have been much better to have something like "a scene in the music video of Montero where Lil Nas X gives Satan a lap dance attracted wide media attention [condemning/celebrating] the message". The PLOT of Montero is more inherently interesting than other music videos, but it's nothing you won't know if you've watched the video, which I think is the point. It's little more than "this exists", and we turn down general knowledge about not-fiction articles for the same kind of reason - what is information you might only find in the WP article, because a hook about the video content will get someone to watch the video, while a hook about its place in the world will get someone to read the article. Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply saying that we can maintain a little flexibility with this rule. Yes it's a good thing in general to avoid hooks based on fictional elements, but there may be occasions where they work. Gatoclass (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes promotes fact (or why it matters) over fantasy (or that it exists), and helps avoid advert -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Album release as a special occasion hook
This Delta Kream hook is requested for May 14, the scheduled date of the album's release. Is it right for DYK to list it then, it's like a free advert? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall previously that we deemed it wasn't suitable to run an article on an album being released on the same day. I do agree, it would probably be WP:SOAP if we did.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Although I recall such requests being approved in the past, WP:DYK seems to disallow this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK has not updated
The DYK template has not updated. . SL93 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , SL93 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I just updated the DYK template on MainPage. Can someone be so kind as to give out the credits, please? I have to go offline. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we've had some conflicting edits since you posted.
 * User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, which I guess we all missed, tells us what went wrong: "Unmatched left ("") curly braces in Queue 5" here.
 * After your posting above, I corrected it. here. Clearing the error would have normally done the main page posting, postings on the editor and article pages, and moved the empty Queue 5 to the bottom.  However, as I was doing that,  manually posted the set, so it did not go through the process.
 * The end result, is that we have the set on the main page.
 * The bot cleared Queue 5, but didn't move it to the bottom. (I just took care of this one) — Maile  (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The same error was in Prep 5. I've fixed it, so we won't have to go through this again in a few days. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  04:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Maile, I had no idea that my edits would get in the way of your fix. --PFHLai (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. You did exactly what you knew needed to be done.  We all raced to the rescue at once, and I'm glad DYK has any admin so willing to quickly jump in and help. — Maile  (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And I guess the DYK notices on the article and nominator's pages needed to be updated. Anybody care to do that?  I'm a little busy at the moment. — Maile  (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can work on the credits. DanCherek (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Credits and article talk notices posted, assuming I haven't messed anything up. DanCherek (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DanCherek. --PFHLai (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And BTW, I recommend that all DYK admins put User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors on their watchlist. If an error occurs, the bot will tell you exactly what is wrong, and it's often a small correction somewhere in the template. — Maile  (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've added a link on Main Page toolbox, too. I hope the easy access would help. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of investigative work and I found that the error had been introduced several days earlier when Prep 5 was cleared, after moving its contents into the queue, and a small part of the text at the end was lost. The best way to highlight the complete text when copying the contents of Template:Did you know/Clear back into the prep area is with the use of "ctr A". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Exception for first DYK?
Template:Did you know nominations/Berliner Journal was created on April 5 and nominated on May 2. It was approved despite that. I was wondering if this could be a case where an exception is made for an editor's first DYK. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for the nomination date requirement to be waived for new nominators per IAR, provided that they're made aware of the requirement for next time and that all other criteria are met. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I could go along with IAR on this one. It's been up for GA since April 20.  First glance - looks like a really interesting, incredibly well-sourced, article. — Maile  (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored the approval per IAR. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that new DYK participants should be given reasonable leeway in missing the 7 day mark. I would define a new participant as one who has not in the past nominated a DYK, and who hasn't participated in the DYK process at all. I would say reasonable leeway would be either within three months or so, and within a week of anytime they are suggested to nominate to DYK or come across this project. Perhaps it's best not to try and codify this and just leave it as an IAR thing - with the understanding that only blatantly outside the rules applications by reviewers be brought here, or a requirement that reviewers applying a non-trivial (i.e. not a few hours after 7 days) IAR to the timeframe explain such in the review? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This is definitely a gray area, to be employed in exceptional cases.  And I agree ... as much as we like to get every dot and squiggle of the rules in writing, one size does not fit all for IAR.  We could leave it open-ended and take each situation as it comes. — Maile  (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Five Pianos
There is a concern about if the pianos or pianists are humming (or both) at this older nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/Five Pianos. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can explain this concern better. The hook and article use the term "humming pianos" without explaining what it means. Gerda has said it's "obviously" the pianists who hum, though it doesn't seem obvious at all, and while this could make someone click the hook link to find out what a humming piano is, the article doesn't clarify, and it seems Gerda doesn't want to make changes to the article to clear it up. That's the issue. Kingsif (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I felt that there was no reason to explain the concern better when I linked to the discussion and that is where further discussion should take place. Gerda didn't state that they didn't want to make changes in her statement of "Sorry, I don't understand. It says that the pianists are required to hum. How could a piano even hum. - I don't know any other composition for FIVE pianos." I don't even see how there can even be an assumption of it seeming like she is talking down to you or it seeming that she doesn't want to make it clearer. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I too found this hook unclear. I assumed it meant that Morton Feldman was someone who hummed while he played anything, and that there were five such concert pianists in the world. The article talks about "humming pianists" before it ever explains that they're meant to hum, and that it's actually part of the composition. To me, the article was a bit confusing to read, and could use some clarification. I realise it makes perfect sense to Gerda, who is familiar with the topic, but it's less straightforward to some of the rest of us. MeegsC (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in. I do want this to be constructive, but I feel that assumptions shouldn't be made as well based off of three sentences that don't confirm such assumptions - in reference to the above earlier. SL93 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this discussion to others. I'm not sure what is with this week and unfair assumptions. This is the third time that I have been a part of such a thing that involves myself and/or other editors. It makes my head hurt and it is frustrating. I admit that I have did such a thing before in the heat of the moment, but I then quickly realized that my assumptions were wrong. Maybe give Gerda more of a chance as someone who contributes much to DYK? SL93 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where does the hook say "humming pianos". The hook I see says "humming pianists". I have been reverted a lot today, so who knows if at some time it said "pianos". How could I say that better than "Sorry, I don't understand."? The source also says "humming pianists". - Also, I'm only the nominator, - for article concerns, please include the author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * for article concerns, please include the author -? that's like nominating an article for GA and refusing to respond to comments on parts you didn't write. It's my understanding that it is on the nominator to make sure an article is MP, DYK, ready. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that when concerns are raised, if you want the DYK to pass you should address them, not brush them off. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't know where anybody read "humming pianos", sorry. I also thought the discussion should be in the nomination, and supplied an ALT there, a while ago. Sorry, I don't understand "brush them off" either. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More specifically: Kinsif, you say "problems", but they seem to be mostly your problems, and you have not been successful in telling me what they are. The reviewer who approved seemed to have no problems. - When I suggest I make nothing "sure" but make a proposal. It's not that I want it to pass. This proposal was passed, by CeeGee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have explained the problems about three times now, with varying levels of simplicity. I couldn't have been more explicit. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Whats going on with the "Musical Scores are temporarily disabled" notice near the bottom of the article? Has  parameter. DanCherek (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I tried all sorts of thinkgs.... Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3 Prep 7 Prep 2 - several concerns
Pinging, who built this prep.

1. ... that the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) went from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles's head?
 * My first concern was that this doesn't seem to meet Supplementary rule C6, which requires that "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." I see from your  that you seemed to consider that concern and assumed some exception applied. I can maybe see the real world involvement when I read the article, which indicates that the author changed the nature of the character's mental illness at the urging of someone who read a draft of the article and provided negative feedback about it, however the hook doesn't make that clear.  I would probably let it go if it was in the quirky slot, but it isn't - and from what I can tell the image hook always goes in the first slot, and it's a good image, so I'm not sure what to do with it.
 * Am I overthinking the real-world requirement in regards to this hook?
 * I cannot find where it's written anywhere that the image hook must be in the lead slot, but I also cannot find any time that it wasn't. Could this be moved to the quirky slot and keep the image?
 * Pinging article expander and reviewer
 * , this isn't an "in universe" hook. Dickens changed his mind about the fixation the character would have. His first draft had Mr. Dick fixating on a bull in a china shop. However, he changed his mind, and the published version had him fixating on King Charles's head instead. It's pretty clear in the article. I know, because I went to the article expecting to make the same complaint myself. ;) MeegsC (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The explanation here makes sense, but it is a paragraph long. I still see an issue with the hook, though, in that one needs to know that the Mr. Dick being referred to is fictional and that the hook relates to a story he features in, otherwise it is absolute gibberish. Adding "in Book" before or after "the delusion", and changing "went" to "was changed" would fix that. Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just use Kingsif's suggestion. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not add Dickens himself to the hook (and get rid of that odd hyphen in "china shop"): ... that Dickens changed the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) from a bull in a china shop to King Charles's head? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to a combination of Kingsif and BlueMoonset's suggestions, to "... that Dickens changed the delusion of David Copperfields Mr. Dick' (pictured) from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles's head?" If anyone thinks that's too wordy, feel free to change it. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 03:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's too wordy so I've trimmed it back closer to the original. BlueMoonset's point about the hyphen is fine – I've checked the lyrics of the Grimaldi song and it didn't have one. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted Andrew Davidson's own reversion, which went against the discussion here (and really shouldn't have been done by the original nominator). I thought the inclusion of David Copperfield stretched the hook out too much, so I subsequently removed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

2. ... that ancient Spartans ate black soup, which was made using pork blood, meat, salt, and vinegar?
 * Speaking of the quirky slot... Wouldn't this be more "hooky" and "quirky" if we omitted the list of ingredients? I mean - I know (and tend to think it's pretty common knowledge, but maybe not everyone watches as many cooking shows as I do) that a lot of foods called "black" black sausage and black pudding contain blood, so that's not that surprising for people who know that, and for people who don't know that, the fact that we then tell them what it is eliminates the need for them to click through and read the article.
 * Pinging reviewer and WikiEd instructor  - what would you think of truncating the hook to "... that ancient Spartans ate black soup?"
 * I'm definitely okay with truncating the hook, I think that's much more intriguing - thanks! Gardneca (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with using the hook proposed above. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed this one. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the hook is better without the ingredients, making it more mysterious and so encouraging click-throughs. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

3. ... that avant-garde artist Hu Zhiying master's degree was denied after his thesis was labeled as being "not in line with Marxist principles"?
 * I'm not sure how unusual, unexpected, or surprising it is for this to happen in Mainland China. Much more interesting I think is what the next sentence indicates, that other members of the university community "jointly expressed their opinion to the Academy and higher-level authorities that academic freedom should be respected".  Could we craft a hook out of this that is short enough?
 * If we go ahead with the original hook, the hook fact needs a citation in the article. I've added a citation needed tag.  I assume the citation at the end of the next sentence is supposed to apply to both, but the rules indicate it should be immediately after the sentence the hook is drawn from.  I'd put it there myself but it's an off-line source that I don't have access to and it's in Chinese anyway, so I can't verify it, and would prefer to have someone who can verify it put it there (so, the article expander).
 * Pinging expander and reviewer

I hope this isn't too picky. But I just wasn't comfortable promoting this prep. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 05:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I promoted the Mr. Dick hook out of good faith per the contributors and the activity at the nomination. I personally think that the next two hooks were fine, while the non-direct citation is an issue. SL93 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the Hu Zhiying article should be pulled. I saw that there are two online references for the hook on the nomination page, but my translator can't find even a tidbit of the hook. I then did a little research by picking a random sentence. I looked at the sentence "Hu Zhiying teaches modern art and traditional Chinese calligraphy and painting at the College of Fine Arts of South China Normal University. In the 1990s, he was invited to exhibit his work in Europe.[18][1]". Neither the English reference or the translated reference verified the sentence. I guess assuming good faith blindly on non-English sources can go too far. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the first reference says "华南师范大学美术学院教授", which I read as "professor at the fine arts college of South China Normal University". It doesn't say what he teaches. The second reference is an exhibition catalogue that verifies that his work was exhibited in Munich in 1996. But I couldn't find any reference to "Marxism" (马克思主义) in online works referring to Hu Zhiying either. —Kusma (t·c) 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to look into the article more. The teaching issue was found by me picking a sentence at random. I will look more thoroughly. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found more issues and I posted them at the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked on the nominator's talk page and saw an articles for creation denial on October 9, 2020 with the beginning statement - "Probably notable but the draft has significant problems. Several sections are unsourced, but the particular problem is large sections are sources to the subjects own book or related sources. In these sections the tone the wrong, being vaguely promotional, using peacock terms and the references don't support the statements in some cases." SL93 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , they also haven't edited since the 15th. Perhaps you're right and we should send it back for more work and swap in a different hook. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 03:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I boldly pulled the hook and I moved a hook from prep 4 to replace it. The set should now be ready to promote. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Because of the need to promote sets in a timely manner, I have swapped Prep 3 with Prep 7, the first set without a special occasion hook, to give time for these points to be addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Prep 7 was suddenly the next prep to promote, with Queue 7 waiting to receive it, I have done a further swap, and the former Prep 3 is now in Prep 2, from which it cannot be promoted for at least 24 hours. I hope that the issues can be settled by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was only notified of the discussion here not long ago today. Thank you for your comments. I have added references to this question. The overall reference material for this article is also quite a lot and rigorous. Hope to restore the homepage to promote this article. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other issues to fix. I posted them at the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone can approve the nomination now. The issues were fixed. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3: date request hook to be added
Template:Did you know nominations/Sing (Travis song), which I've just approved, has a date request for 28 May. Would someone be able to promote it to the correct prep for 28 May (which I believe is Prep 3, but please do double check)? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens
If anyone wants to try mining this for a DYK, they are very welcome. 80 dragons / £5M restoration / multiple awards / "the most important surviving chinoiserie building in Europe" - there's got to be a vaguely interesting hook in there somewhere. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great topic. I would support a chinoiserie-related hook. Is Bertram 2017 a typo for Bertram 2013? CMD (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good spot! Now corrected. Feel free to nominate/craft hook. I’ve little experience of DYK, but I’d agree the chinoiserie quotes are the most notable elements. Although the restoration was pretty fantastic, and I do like the 3D nylon dragons. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd go with the now-repaired holes for the smoke bombs. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chinoiserie would be a nice educational angle to go with though. I myself didn't know what it was until clicking on the link. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Educational, shmeducational. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Up at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens, whether it will be educational or schmeducational now in the hands of the reviewer gods. CMD (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Odd closing error
I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Gao Jiamin, but for some reason two comments didn't get enclosed correctly and are even showing below the May 4 nomination section on the Approved list. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. If you look at the source code of the nomination before it was promoted (Special:Permalink/1023902259), the last two comments had been accidentally inserted after the closing braces of the DYKsubpage template. DanCherek (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will keep this in mind. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SL93, I find it helpful to use "Show preview" to look at a nomination I'm closing, to make sure there aren't any issues such as comments appearing below the colored closed section. If it looks good, then I click on "Publish changes"; if not, I figure out what the issue is, fix it, and then close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So that's what that "Show Preview" button is for! I've been wondering! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get the impression that SL93 didn't use the preview button. I think he used it and then wasn't sure how to fix the fact that several of the comments weren't inside the box. Unless you know to check for comments beyond the template boundaries, there isn't much you can do to correct that! Now he knows. And so do others who might not have already come across this problem (which happens pretty regularly, by the way). MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MeegsC is right. I submitted it to complete the promotion and then I posted here to learn how to fix it myself.SL93 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Template problem
There is some sort of template problem with the DYK nomination for Engraved glass and the review page is blank, see here. Expert help needed! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean Template:Did you know nominations/Glass engraving? User:Johnbod moved the article to the new title a day or so ago, but I don't think the DYK nomination is required to match. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it up with this edit, try again. Shubinator (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I should have moved it before nominating! Seems ok now. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a top-class article . Nice work! MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 6 date request
Please can someone add Template:Did you know nominations/O komm, du Geist der Wahrheit to prep 6 (for 23rd May)? It will require moving on of the other hooks. It's a special occasion request hook for that date, but I forgot (until just now) to put it in the Special occasion holding area. Thanks in advance. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ MeegsC (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of points: Joseph2302, it's Prep 5 rather than Prep 6 that hits the main page at 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC), so I've moved the hook to Prep 5. MeegsC, please include a comment that mentions that it's a special occasion for a specific date with any special occasion hook that you promote to prep, so people know that it is a special occasion hook; I've done that for this hook. (You don't want it moved to some other date because someone needs to replace a hook removed from a queue or to rebalance another prep set.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do . Thanks for fixing it, and for showing me how it's done. MeegsC (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks I must have been looking at the wrong timezone on the dates table. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a second review
I had reviewed a hook recently (Template:Did you know nominations/Culture of Ladakh), but there were concerns raised about Conflict of Interest, as I had also edited the article, but only after I started reviewing, to add some content and remove content that was directly copied from sources and other Wikipedia articles causing copyright violation. The changes were also notified to the nominator. If any other user not associated with the article can again review the hook, it would be most appropriate.

Thanks!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should be fine to review if your edits were just that. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kavyansh.Singh, you also want to discuss removals for copyvio on the editor's user talk to make sure they understand our policy.
 * In this case, from the article history I see that they copied quite a few chunks of text from Ladakh -- which is fine -- and since Ladakh was created nearly 20 years ago, it's very possible those apparent copyvios were actually on websites that were copying Wikipedia (which is also fine) so it may not even be a copyvio. Definitely worth discussing with that editor, either way. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

all preps full
I've moved one, can someone move another so prep builders will have space to work? Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski —valereee (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - but it really makes little difference, as the queues are also full. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good that's done because Prep 4 (set to run on 5 June) has 2 special occasion hooks (one of which is a pic hook) in the holding area that needs to be put in there.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * moved your hooks in; feel free to check them. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also if we can keep the approved noms down we can maybe avoid 2-a-days for a couple more weeks lol... —valereee (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"First person to do X" hooks
Continuing my broken record about the problem we have with boring hooks, I've been seeing a lot of hooks lately that derive 100% of their supposed interest from noting that someone was the first person to do something. These should almost always be failing the interestingness criterion, since everything was accomplished first by someone, and thus there is no intrinsic draw for readers to check out a page based on that alone. I think reviewers are often too polite to tell nominators this, but it'd be nice if they or someone else did. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also often a spurious claim, relying on limited knowledge by a local source claimed to apply to a wider area, or with various qualifiers omitted in the article, or the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with the everything was accomplished first by someone argument, at least as a flat generality, because the interest for the reader isn't imagined to be that someone did X first, but rather how and under what circumstances X was done first, by what kind of person – that's why they might click. I'm not saying that as a free pass for all "first" hooks -- "first to offer free pony rides for kids in Kalamazoo" still isn't interesting.Anyway, the more serious problem is, as mentioned, that these claims are so often spurious. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the first to do something is more interesting than being one of many to do it. Whether that makes a hook interesting does depend on how interesting the thing itself is, though. I don't see how to formulate any criterion around this but I do tend to agree that the requirement that a hook be interesting isn't often given much weight and perhaps it should be. I haven't noticed any particular problem with "first to" hooks. Perhaps there are other areas where we repeat ourselves a lot or could ask for more. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 23:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Everything is accomplished first by someone, back in your box Neil Armstrong!" Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine if FAs ever become eligible for DYK, "Did you know that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon?" wouldn't cut it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neil Armstrong accomplished much more than the moon landing, before and after the event. He got chosen for the moon landing because of the other stuff in his career. My objection to the "first person to do X" hooks, is that it overlooks everything else in the article. If they are notable enough to have an article, they have accomplished other things in their lives.  Build the hook on the other stuff.  — Maile  (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a non-reason. You could say the same thing about any other one thing they have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aw, man, these hooks. The problem is the alternatives for them are generally much worse. "First X" at least has some inherent baseline amount of interest. A lot of the time rejecting such a hook would have to translate to rejecting the article completely, and while I'd be happy for DYK norms to change to "routinely reject articles unable to produce interesting hooks", even putting aside the matter of subjectivity it's...questionable...if anyone actually wants to be the people to lead that change. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think "first person to do X" hooks are inherently wrong and in fact can be interesting a lot of the time. It's not as if we get a ton of them either. With that said, possible compromise options could include having hooks that go "that X, the first person to Y, is Z?" Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in most such cases the Z is something much less interesting that only serves to make the hooks drag, and that long hooks tend to be unpopular. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that a distinction can and should be drawn between "the first person to" for "persons" in general, and "the first woman to" or similar firsts that represent the first person from an historically disadvantaged group. If, for example, we were just now having Jackie Robinson come up at DYK, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that the best hook would be that he was the first Black person to play in the major baseball leagues, and to replace that with a hook about him having hit a certain number of home runs would be just plain silly. I see nothing wrong with requiring that there be nothing dubious or inadequately sourced about the "firstness", and nothing wrong with examining critically whether or not being first is really the most interesting characteristic of the page subject, but I strongly oppose making this a broad requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are biographies where being the first person to overcome a certain disadvantage is worth stressing, and others where it isn't necessarily a great idea. See also WP:FIRSTWOMAN and Finkbeiner test for one point of view. Generally I'm ok with "first person to do X" hooks, as long as X is interesting. (Disclaimer: I've recently written an article about the first Nazi concentration camp that is currently at WP:DYKNA, and my motivation to choose this particular camp wasn't that it is the most interesting camp, but that it was the first. I feel with people who care about who or what was first). —Kusma (t·c) 18:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As a few above have said, it does depend on what the thing is - if you were the first woman to win a men's wrestling championship, that would probably be incredibly interesting. If it's the first European player to play in the US national team, that would be interesting (if confusing). But generally these are things that would also be interesting if you omit the "first person to" bit. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:RS seem broadly interested in "first to", so a blanket claim that "first to" is "intrinsically" uninteresting, seems eccentric. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll add that it's worth considering how sources (perhaps other than sources that are "making a point") treat the "firstness". If sources tend to regard this as something that is WP:DEFINING for the page subject, then I agree that it's rather eccentric to regard that as uninteresting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you know ... that Did you know that Thutmose I was the first Pharaoh to be buried in the Valley of the Kings? was the first personal Did You Know "first"? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WOW - DYK sure was a different process then. The hook appeared on the main page on March 2, but the article on Thutmose I wasn't created until March 5.  I wasn't around then, but those must have been Wikipedia's salad days of trying to figure out how it should proceed. — Maile  (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you know ... Who's on First? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is that I remember that Yoninah was very much against "first woman" hooks whenever possible. I'm not sure if the other regulars have similar feelings. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do, because like it or not, double standards exist in some subtle ways . We need to state what a woman achieved either on her way to becoming the first of something, or after she achieved. Takes a lot of hard work  to become the first of something. — Maile  (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "first person to..." hooks are far from the biggest problem in DYK hooks today. Just looking at the current set, I see yet another "did you know that a musician played a piece of music" snoozefest, for instance, along with "did you know that an athlete got an award for being an athlete", for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would hope that a takeaway from this discussion is that it would be a mistake to conclude that there should be hard and fast rules about this. I find it interesting that some editors feel that it diminishes a "first woman to" to be described in that way. I can see a perfectly reasonable argument that this actually emphasizes, in some cases, an extraordinary achievement, and one that is well worth celebrating, because it represented the overcoming of difficult odds and was seen by reliable sources as having been worthy of note. My point is not that one of these views is correct and the other is incorrect, but rather that it does not reduce to a simple formula to which all reasonable people would agree. I also think that it's questionable whether being first is inherently uninteresting because there is always somebody who was the first. Sometimes, it can, inherently, be very interesting, but it depends on what "it" is, and how significant the difference is between having been first and having been second. Similarly, I don't think that it's always true that having been first at an accomplishment is less important than the total accomplishments of a person, or that the fact that the "firstness" derived from those accomplishments means that citing the "firstness" implies disrespect of the accomplishments. Does highlighting the fact that the Wright Brothers were the first at what they did diminish their mechanical design skills? Is it less interesting than those skills? Of course not.
 * I think part of the real problem here is that we don't want too much repetition – of anything – in hooks as they appear. There's nothing wrong with limiting only one "first to" hook in any given set of hooks that appear together. But I also think that readers – remember them? – generally don't pay that much attention to whether the appearance of one "first to" hook today follows another one yesterday. I think that's something that some editors will notice, and some of them may begin to find that they can't help but to keep noticing it, but that matters much less to most readers. In contrast, having a concise and catchy hook is much better for readers than having a verbose and committee-written one, because editors were determined not to say "first to". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my cue to repeat my annual hopeless suggestion that we should run only 1/2 of the articles nominated, and select which 1/2 to run by straight ILIKEIT voting on which ones are interesting vs. not. Heartless, no-reason-given voting. Done. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 08:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 —valereee (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be the first person to say: heartless, without reason: that's the en-wiki way! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose Its not a popularity contest, and never was. So nope-- Kev  min  § 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin, I'll argue this just a bit from the other way of looking at it...in a way, "generally interesting" does need to be a sort of "popularity contest" (and always has been), although I kind of hate to term it that way. Our hooks need to be generally interesting -- that is, interesting to a lot of readers -- so if the average editor doesn't find them interesting, what would make us think the average reader would? —valereee (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Define "average reader" though. Lets be honest, its a mythical construct that doesn't actually exist, and is used as a proxy to avoid outright saying "regular DYN editors".-- Kev  min  § 20:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin, I'm sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but I don't know what you mean by avoid outright saying "regular DYN editors". If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually exactly what I mean: if DYK regulars who think a hook is boring > DYK regulars who think it's interesting, we cull the hook. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thats NOT what the rule as it stands not says though, it specifically makes it about an "average reader", which per the main page, would be an "average reader as defined by the 6 million views the main page gets in 24 hours" NOT by the >20 regular DYK contributors.-- Kev min  § 22:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin, again, sorry if I'm being obtuse. If we can't use our average regular as a proxy for our average reader, what proxy should we be using? —valereee (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What IS the "average reader" for a page that has 6.004 million views daily, given that every hook will be interesting (with a few very obvious exceptions) to a subset that 6.004 million.-- Kev min  § 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To insert myself on this question: surely you know what mentioning "average reader" means. It's not referring to any one person or even any potential person, it's a reminder that our hooks are meant for readers. (Or, our hooks are not meant for the nominators who already know all about them.) We must assume that the average reader is capable of understanding Wikipedia, i.e. English, comprehension, standard general knowledge, but very little else; no specific interests, no specialist knowledge. If any pop culture or history knowledge is average, it is that which is international: Oscars, WW2. Thus, something generally interesting to an average reader both does not rely on specialist knowledge, and is interesting without that - typically by being generally unusual. For example, we must assume someone reading Wikipedia knows what the internet is, and by all accounts what a cow is, so if we had a hook about a specific cow, it would be interesting to say it could use the internet. It wouldn't be interesting to detail the species of cow, unless we mention that species was wiped out in the Cold War, as general audiences know that was a long time ago and can deduce this cow must be much older than one expects a cow to live. Or, we cannot quiz every MP reader (of whom only a tiny amount even see DYK, it is at the bottom and not most readers' purpose for visiting) on the hooks they want to see beforehand, which would be a pointless exercise anyway, so we ask friendly volunteers who are not subject experts to weigh in if they, as a representative poll of humanity, like any polling situation, understand and are interested. DYK editors are average readers as much as anyone else. Kingsif (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From the kneejerk opposition you'll see why I introduced this as my annual hopeless suggestion. Until next year, then, adios! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I look forward to whatever next year's debate may bring... Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion, . That'd solve our problem of boring hooks quite well. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are a lot of editors who take a kind of Special Olympics everyone-gets-a-trophy attitude i.e. that it would be unfair and judgy to actually discuss whether a hook is interesting (or, by extension, whether there aren't a lot of articles that just don't have interesting hooks within them) and therefore we have to run everything; I have never ever seen a nom rejected because no sufficiently interesting hook could be formulated. We once had a guy who (apparently working from some government inventory) nominated every river, creek, and stream in the state of Pennsylvania for DYK and we ran every one of them. 300 unbelievably boring hooks, day after day, week after week, month after month FOR YEARS. Actually, I don't think he was nearly done; he retired because of some argument over something completely unrelated. For all I know there are 5000 more little creeks to be honored with a DYK, and we'd still be working our way through them even today.
 * Highlights:
 * ... that Mile Run is really almost two miles long? (Get it?)
 * ... that in 1965 a USGS employee found everyone he met in Freeburg, Pennsylvania, knew a nearby stream as "Susquehecka Creek", but only two knew how to spell it?
 * ... that uses of Trout Run include a hatchery and a water supply for a city and a prison?
 * ... that the Espy Bog is the only site in Columbia County, Pennsylvania where organic soils have been observed?
 *  ... that the mouths of Rough Run and Peterman Run are only 0.06 miles (0.1 km) from each other?
 * (That last one was a double nom -- how exciting!) Want more? See . Imagine how stupid we looked featuring, pretty much every day or two, at least one such piece of nonsense.
 * In an abundance of transparency, I rush to point out that I found a way to cynically exploit the situation. Turns out these noms could be reviewed in about two minutes each, and made it my business to detect each new nom by this particular editor. As a result, I have hoard of about 50 QPQs going back years, and I'll never have to review another DYK for as long as I live (or possibly even longer). <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that series of hooks - the earlier ones anyway - and some of them were truly awful. As I recall I did challenge some of them and the user in question did not take kindly to it. However, IIRC his hook writing did improve over time. The above selection of hooks really aren't all that bad, except for the last one.
 * We have to remember that DYK isn't solely about featuring interesting facts. It's also about presenting a selection of new articles being added to the project on a daily basis, to remind readers of the scope of topics being written about and the fact that new articles are being added constantly. To that end, I think it was a big mistake to remove the spiel the DYK section used to include which said something along the lines of "from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content". Readers need to understand that this is a selection of content presented on the basis that it is new, it's not a collection of the most interesting facts we could find, which is what is implied by the lack of explanation. I've been meaning to propose for years that the explanatory text be restored, perhaps in a different place (which as I recall was the substance of the original objection to it) and/or with slightly different wording, but like many of the things I plan to do on Wikipedia, just haven't managed to find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter what the intro is ("from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content" or whatever), DYK as it stands doesn't remind readers of the scope of our content or that new stuff's always being added. It by design directs readers to our most slap-dash, incomplete articles, by inexperienced editors, that have receivied only superficial review by (typically) other inexperienced editors. 20 years ago it might have been a way of motivating article creation; now it's just a longstanding embarrassment.We should dump the pointless newness criterion and instead run only GAs. Imagine if all this effort was redirected at bringing articles to GA! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other reason for DYK which I did not previously mention is to reward users for adding new content, and encourage them to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. Restricting DYK to GAs only would reduce that purpose. And let's face it, a lot of GAs really are not worthy of the accolade anyway. Apart from which, your analysis strikes me as outdated - I rarely see the kind of basic stubby nominations we used to get in spades, most DYKs these days are quite substantial and well developed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If they're so substantial and well developed, then taking them to GA isn't that big a step. That might be 70% of them, which will then be eligible to be featured on the main page (if there's a sufficiently interesting hook -- see above). The other 30% we won't feature, sorry. GA is admittedly a middling achievement but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the dreck that passes DYK currently. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you enjoyed your annual gripe. See you again next year! Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, so, do you mean that you complain about "boring hooks", and say they should be rejected, but were happy to promote "truly awful" hooks because they let you build up a store of QPQs? Huh. How strongly do you really feel about boring hooks? [Insert side-eye emoji here.] MeegsC (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I put some effort into trying to end the flood of stupid Pennsylvania waterway hooks, but there were too many editors who believe in everyone-gets-a-trophy (see above) so I gave up. After that, I figured someone was going to review them anyway, so it might as well be me. After all, I'm universally acknowledged to be DYK's all-time greatest hooker (see User:EEng), so accumulating all those QPQs let me concentrate my creative energies on my true calling – hooking. Think of it as DYK's version of a Macarthur genius award. So it was for the greater good, you see. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yep. Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that we adopt some sort of rule here, just that we hold ourselves more generally to higher interestingness standards, with this being something I see as one of example of where we falter. I also agree with that there are plenty of other ways we falter on interestingness, too. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I use the "ice breaker" test: if I were to read the DYK aloud to someone in a bar, would I expect them to engage? It accounts for a few things, like general interesting-ness; being comprehensible to a wide audience; not giving too much away so people want to ask more; and attention-grabbing enough to put down a drink. Lots of "did you know X was the first woman to Y" can pass this test, depending on the Y. If Y is "cross the road" or something, your bar-mate's response will probably be "that's nice" and back to what they were doing before. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this test a lot! Let's keep in mind that what we're competing against with DYK is every other list of fun facts on the internet, since readers aren't confined to Wikipedia. There are a million fun facts that could pass the ice breaker test, so if ours aren't meeting at least that same standard, readers will stop paying attention. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What said. "First to" generally makes for a pretty good hook IMO, so long as the "first" isn't too trivial - but we should strive to avoid more than one per set.  also has a valid point however that "firsts" are sometimes not well enough sourced, so that is a factor nominators, reviewers and promoters should bear in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hasten to clarify that the chronic sourcing problems were originally 's point. I know it's easy to think that everything worthwhile originates with me, but sometimes an editor here or there comes up with something I didn't think of first. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you know ... that  was not the first person to think of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"First person" section break
As a result of the discussion here, I agreed at Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols to change:
 * ... that Ora Nichols was the first woman to run a radio sound effects unit?
 * to:
 * ... that Ora Nichols pioneered the use of radio sound effects?
 * Unfortunately, as I've said in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 177, below, it got changed and full-protected to:
 * ... that Ora Nichols was a pioneer in the use of radio sound effects?
 * Just look at how that progressively watered down both the "hookiness", and the fidelity to source material, of the hook. At this point, I'm very, very sorry that I ever agreed to the original change. This is a clear example of something that I, and other editors, warned about earlier in this discussion: that the fear of saying "the first person to" can lead to wishy-washy hooks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So this is a case where it would be better to pull entirely? If you can't think of anything interesting to say that isn't "first to [do something mundane]" (and the secondary change was clearly POV-guarding, a general improvement), maybe there just isn't anything interesting to say. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's just silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I too think this would be silly. pioneer in the use of radio sound effects is quite interesting; the issue is only what species of pioneer. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A pioneer species would probably be a transgenic one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tryptofish here; this is exactly what I was thinking about. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Ora Nichols the first person to head a radio sound effects unit, or just the first woman to head such a unit? In the first case, she might be described as "the pioneer" of radio sound effects, while in the second she is better described as "a pioneer". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, she was definitely the first woman, and probably the first person. The issue one gets into with "first person" here is that there were male radio sound effects people who worked alone before her, so there is a question of terminology: one might regard someone working alone as being the de facto head, or not. However, the people before her were minor players, and it is Nichols (and Ora, rather than her husband) who is repeatedly described, both by primary sources from the time, and from secondary sources subsequently, as being, uniquely, the person who put radio sound effects on the map. She created a huge number of them, that did not yet exist in the fledgling practice before her, and she is repeatedly singled out as having had a major influence on the sound and style of radio broadcasting as a whole. Also, I had a reason, perhaps not apparent in the discussion here, for distinguishing between "pioneer", the noun, and "to pioneer", the verb. My use of the verb form "pioneering" (or is that an adjective? in any case, not a noun) does not distinguish between "one of a group of pioneers" and "the one and only pioneer", and that is as it should be. In contrast, when one has to decide between "a pioneer" and "the pioneer", it starts to veer into original research. In any case, the change to ALT0 has rendered that distinction moot, and is unquestionably well-sourced, so thank you for agreeing to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In obsessing over the correct use of the word, I looked to see how various dictionaries define the word "pioneer": . If you go through a selection of the returns on that search, it becomes apparent that the word, as a noun, refers to someone who is "among the first" and not necessarily "the first", and that "to pioneer" something is to play a formative role in developing something, and not necessarily be the first person to play such a role. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Why can't it just be that we don't have a hard rule against "first" hooks and instead judge them on a case-by-case basis? It would make a lot more sense and I really doubt our readers would even notice if they were common, as long as their interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that.
 * I've been thinking about how better to decide when, and when not, to use "first person" in a hook. As noted repeatedly before, it's a good idea to avoid excessive repetition, and it's important to make sure that there is solid reliable sourcing for factual accuracy. But I can add to that, that there should also be reliable sourcing for, essentially, WP:DUE weight for highlighting the first-ness. If independent secondary sources indicate that being the first is something important, then such a hook can be justified, but if it is not highlighted in the source material, then not.
 * And the more I think about it, the more I have a problem with a reflexive opposition to saying "the first". To argue that being "a pioneer" in sound effects is interesting, but being "the first woman" loses the interest, is nonsensical, farcical, and indefensible. I've mentioned Jackie Robinson and the Wright brothers earlier, as examples of interesting "firsts". And just recently, when Joe Biden gave his first Address to Congress, he began by drawing attention to the two people standing behind him. Independent sources widely emphasized the "first person to" aspects of the first time that two women were the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. And to argue that being described as first somehow diminishes the long records of achievements by Harris and Pelosi is wrong, even though in this particular example, each of them has done other things that were more important than their roles at the speech. There is a very real glass ceiling phenomenon, and it's an error to make some kind of rule to treat firsts as being something uninteresting. I'm not arguing that we should WP:RGW, but we should not arbitrarily disregard the sources, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I followed along on this thread as it was going, in part because I proposed a "first X" hook for George Mogridge that was posted to the main page for May 20. The hook fact may not be interesting to people outside of baseball, but it's certainly interesting enough to be valid. I didn't find anything else for Mogridge that I thought was hook-worthy. So, what's the harm in running the hook that he was the first Yankee pitcher to throw a no-hitter? Funnily enough, Corey Kluber just now completed the 12th no-hitter in Yankees history, so Mogridge's name is back in the news a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Statistics
We have a standard metric at DYK — the number of readers which a hook attracts. This then provides a simple test for the hypothesis that "firsts are boring". Here's an example from the most recent set:


 * 00:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 5,139 hits ... that the University of Oulu renamed an institute after Finnish politician Kerttu Saalasti (pictured) in 2017, six decades after she introduced the bill that established the university?
 * 12,750 hits ... that the Golden Age short story "The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years" includes the first use of a generational starship in fiction?
 * 1,929 hits ... that Kidsgrove Athletic F.C. became the first football club in England to have father and son goalkeepers when they signed Steve Cherry in 2003?
 * 2,018 hits ... that "O komm, du Geist der Wahrheit" is an 1833 German-language hymn for Pentecost in which the "Spirit of Truth" is called to come and restore the attitude of early Christianity?
 * 11,044 hits ... that because of her striking beauty and sense of high fashion, soprano Annamary Dickey was dubbed the "Glamour Girl of the Met" in 1949?
 * 9,097 hits ... that the statue of Billie Holiday in Upton, Baltimore, also depicts a crow eating a gardenia?
 * 9,689 hits ... that the Nakba – the destruction of Palestinian society, their homeland, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people – has been described as an ongoing catastrophe?
 * 5,473 hits ... that the design of Suffolk Downs station was inspired by medieval fortified churches?

There are two "firsts" in this set – The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years and Steve Cherry. The former had the most popular hook in the set, even beating the picture hook, while the latter was the least popular, doing even worse than the German hymn. So, we see from this that the word "first" is not especially significant in determining the success of a hook. The hypothesis is thus refuted. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)