Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Philippines set post-mortem

[edit]

With the set now running, now would be the time to analyze how the set did. Regardless of its performance, we can take the data into account on how to do next month's July 4th USA set, or the proposed Indonesia set in August. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article Date Image views vph DYK hook
Gwen (singer) 2026-06-12 36,783 1,532.6 ... that Gwen (pictured) went viral in 2025 due to the way she ate one of her country's most beloved street foods?
Tom Pritchard (restaurateur) 2026-06-12 18,020 750.9 ... that fried chicken was popularized in the Philippines by a Filipino born in Grenada who sometimes pretended to be African-American?
Josefino Comiso 2026-06-12 10,045 418.5 ... that Joey Comiso first became interested in science after his village mistook an airplane contrail for the end of the world?
Contracting Colonialism 2026-06-12 8,257 344.0 ... that the title of a book on colonial history was first inspired by a housemate's seminar paper on Sigmund Freud?
2025 Eastern Samar local elections 2026-06-12 6,473 269.7 ... that a 2025 gubernatorial election in Eastern Samar was won by a 25-year-old?
Tomomi Jiena Sumi 2026-06-12 5,988 249.5 ... that Tomomi Jiena Sumi was inspired to take up voice acting after noticing the differences between Disney Channel's Japanese and English broadcasts?
Kulay 2026-06-12 3,092 128.8 ... that Kulay named their debut album 100,000 Pesos Worth of Karma after the cost of settling a dispute with their former manager?
Philippine Independent Catholic Church 2026-06-12 2,808 117.0 ... that the Philippine Independent Church sued the Philippine Independent Catholic Church over its name?
Tropical Storm Sibyl (1995) 2026-06-12 2,750 114.6 ... that Tropical Storm Sibyl caused mudflows up to 5.5 metres (18 ft) deep from the flanks of Mount Pinatubo in 1995?

Notes

Not a bad set, although the ones that flopped flopped hard (and I'm annoyed at myself for not fighting harder for Kulay's death hook).--Launchballer 03:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, i didn't expect Gwen is the most viewed. I remember the fans vandalizing Bini (group) because Gwen page got deleted. In solidarity, ROY is WAR Talk! 03:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did. High-quality pictures of women always do very well.--Launchballer 04:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a bit surprised by what hooks did well and what did not. I did not expect my Tomomi Jiena Sumi hook to do that well (almost 6k) given that Japanese voice actor hooks tend not to do too well on DYK. I also did not expect the PICC hook not to do well since I thought the name contrast angle was actually one of the better ones. I suppose this did better than the W&M set, at least? Maybe this will also give us ideas on what kind of hooks to feature for the Indonesia set, since maybe some hooks or topics to better than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary link to the Philippine Independent Church diverted about 2,000 views there. When will I learn to stop including additional links? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just did! :) Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no, I "learned this lesson" back in February and I guess I needed to learn it all over. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did it divert 2,000 views or did 2,000 people who clicked on the bolded link also click on the secondary link? Do we have a way of knowing that? TarnishedPathtalk 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters. The idea is that the people who click on the first link likely don't click on the second, hence the diversion. If you only link the hook, you generally get double the views. This is why we are encouraged not to link before the main hook link. There is a larger principle at work here rooted in overchoice but specifically having to do with choice architecture and UX design. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing/reducing links. I was wondering if anyone had any way to quantify the effects of not doing so though. TarnishedPathtalk 01:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As LB states above Gwen was obvious to me as being the one that would get the most views regardless of what the hook was as long as they got the image spot. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy with what Pritchard got. I was a bit worried that the relative lack of copyedits during the day meant it was doing poorly. I think what happened was even worse: I learned how to write competently (the horror!). It's a bit worrying that, if he had stayed in the picture slot, it would've almost certainly been the only hook to be a best-performer and one of three to measurably outperform the median. I am also surprised that PICC didn't do well (perhaps because it was in the penultimate [and so I've heard most undesirable] spot). 1brianm7 (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty happy with what Contracting Colonialism got, especially for an article that's ~80% JSTOR citations by volume. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bastille Day spinoff discussion

[edit]

It is probably a bit late, but I'd like to see a Bastille Day set on the front page at some point. I suggested the same last year. Thriley (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that discussion. What was the outcome? Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, some interest and disinterest. Thriley (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How quickly can you put together a set @Thriley:? Last year's TDOR set took less than three weeks to compile.--Launchballer 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have at least two potential articles. I could do as many as four if needed. Thriley (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My Fétiche hook could go at the top, and I'm sure some others will turn up on User:AlexNewArtBot/FranceSearchResult.--Launchballer 22:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might have an image hook as well. Thriley (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a few actually! Thriley (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, I have 3 potential candidates for Bastille Day:
  1. Best candidate, in my opinion: Template:Did you know nominations/Reine_Audu - she wasn't at the Bastille, as far as I know, but she collaborated with someone who was (Stanislas-Marie Maillard) to instigate the women's march on Versailles several months later.
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre-Amable de Soubrany - French revolutionary (NOTE! currently in prep 5)
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre Noël Lecauchois - French lawyer who exonerated people who were sentenced under harsh criminal code of the ancien régime
— Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 06:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to do a Bastille Day set, I don't think it is a good idea to focus exclusively on the French Revolution. Maybe a France-related set in general would work better. Previous special occasion sets have shown that the best-received ones are the ones with more variety. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That make sense... in that case I really think Template:Did you know nominations/Reine_Audu would be a good addition to the set as a DYK that covers the French Revolution. The hook has been approved but not promoted to a prep area yet. Also, by the way, I didn't include an image in the nomination, but the Reine Audu article uses this image of the march on Versailles (File:Marche_des_femmes_sur_Versailles_5_et_6_oct_1789.jpg), which thematically has the same energy as a "storming the Bastille" -type visual, if you need an image. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A France set with a few hooks related to the revolution would be perfectly fine in my opinion. They'll be balanced out by the other six hooks. Thriley (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even three hooks sounds too many about the French Revolution. WP:DYKVAR ideally still applies even with special sets. Two would be the best maximum. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it helps, but I pulled de Soubrany. I'm fine with those three hooks about the revolution but no more.--Launchballer 04:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: Would you prefer a maximum of two or three? The issue I see is that if there are too many French Revolution hooks in a set, readers might tune out. A more varied set about France as a whole is more likely to be better received. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Three revolution hooks would be fine as long as they seem interesting, which Chao Garden's definitely are. It all depends on how many other nominations are made. Let's see what others propose as the days go on. Thriley (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if anybody would like, I've got Template:Did you know nominations/Kʼëgit pole (an article about a totem pole that's been in France, somewhat controversially, for the better part of the last century). I can't think that will have any thematic overlap with any other possible France- or revolution themed hooks. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also have Villiers-le-Bel series 85% complete, if anyone thinks it is relevant. The artist is American, but the entire series was painted in France. No big whoop if it isn't relevant to this set. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to mainspace: Villiers-le-Bel series. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 10. We have a total of 366 nominations, of which 173 have been approved, a gap of 193 nominations that has decreased in size by 22 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding Template:Did you know nominations/Petal (album) from April 29, just in case if anyone else disagrees with my review and wants to review it. M. Billoo 04:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extending this set by another five days; including the one above, there are twenty nominations still needing to be reviewed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I got Daz Black and struck it on your list. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've responded to feedback about Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre Noël Lecauchois & revised the hook. Anything else needed? Thank you — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 06:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion needed for a May 24 nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Aima Baig. Ty. M. Billoo 01:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia set for August 17?

[edit]

Narutolovehinata5 suggested on my talk page an Indonesia set for August 17, which will be the 81st anniversary of the proclamation of independence (we missed the 80th, unfortunately). I wanted to reach out to the broader DYK community to see if there is a consensus for a special occasion set. Myself, Juxlos, and Jeromi Mikhael have already discussed the possibility of handling a range of Indonesia-related subjects. Juxlos has already prepared Raijua (island) and Mandai (food), and I should be good for an art-related topic and a film-related topic at the very least. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but the issue is that Raijua and Mandai would probably miss unless a special exemption is granted, since both were created and nominated outside the two month mark (meaning the earliest date they should have been created or expanded was on June 17). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's what "expired" meant. I suppose I can make more if needed, but I think it would be great if those 2 can get a couple extra days (since, well, they would be promoted sometime before Aug 17, likely something like Aug 13/14) Juxlos (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the guidelines allow for two-months holding for most special occasion hooks. I personally think holding them would make sense, as a) It's only a couple days, and b) it was a good faith error. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support a special set for the occasion, along with a TIMEOUT extension for Raijua and Mandai if they are needed for the set. (We seem to have no shortage of Indonesia hooks at DYK.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support with extension for Raijua and Mandai. TarnishedPathtalk 10:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ the extension; looking forward to reading this one! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

[edit]

Date stamp for anti-archiving purposes — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The History of Java is in the pipeline, but a bit old as it was expanded on May 11. I am not the nominator. TSventon (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 (June 19)

[edit]

Jacob Huesman (nom)

[edit]

@WikiOriginal-9 and Rlendog: Bumped this out of queue. This article cites the New York Post, which is considered generally unreliable, particularly in a BLP. There's a lot of reliance on seemingly primary sources from the Universities of Tennessee and Richmond. I'm also unsure whether FootballDB.com is a reliable source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NY Post is marginally reliable for entertainment. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I don't see how this article counts as entertainment. This is a sportsperson biography. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe NY Post's sports coverage is generally felt to be part of its "entertainment" exception (example) —Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, that's not what that comment says; that editor simply shares their opinion of the sports section. I don't think that overrides the consensus that the Post is, according to RSP, "generally unreliable for factual reporting" with "examples of outright fabrication". Even the entertainment carve-out has a note about avoiding BLPs. And again, entertainment to me is stuff like film reviews or celebrity interviews, not a feature story for a sportsperson. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel its use here falls under "controversial statements related to living persons" —Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming we fall under the entertainment exception in the first place, and I have yet to see how that applies in this case at all. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is sports not "entertainment"? The Post is probably most reliable for its sports coverage. Rlendog (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinction without a difference. My opinion is that if there is an issue with a source, find another. There's no reason why we have to use the Post here. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(←) The only statement attributed to NY Post is In 2017, he competed with undrafted rookie Shane Smith for the Giants' fullback position, which seems rather uncontroversial but also has two other citations backing it up. So I have magically resolved the problem by the simple expedient of removing the NYP reference entirely. Asamboi (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Asamboi; there is one more Post reference, which I didn't feel comfortable removing myself as it's the only supporting source for a couple of sentences. That source is also cited after the sentence you quoted, so if it's removed, that leaves only the Pro Football Reference source, which I'm not sure supports this claim? Ctrl+F-ing for "Shane Smith" got me no results, anyway. WikiOriginal-9, any thoughts? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped to Prep 2 to allow more time for resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The removed source was the best source for "In 2017, he competed with undrafted rookie Shane Smith for the Giants' fullback position". The removed source (dated Sept 3, 2017; after the preseason) said "Smith not only had to compete with another undrafted rookie, Jacob Huesman, all spring and summer". Now the only source in the article says "Huesman is listed ahead of another rookie, Shane Smith of San Jose State, at fullback on the unofficial depth chart" That source (dated Aug. 7, 2017; during the preseason) doesn't say he competed with anyone. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the "competed" verbiage remains, that is the source that was supporting it. I've restored it. —Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asamboi, @Bagumba, @Dclemens1971, @Rlendog, @TechnoSquirrel69, @Viriditas and @WikiOriginal-9 are the issues with this nomination resolved? TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. In addition to the concerns about the Post, I also haven't heard anything about the other sources I questioned. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aside for seemingly one editor, the rough consensus here appears to be that sports is considered entertainment, and falls under the NY Post exception that its entertainment pages are

... marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons

Nobody has stated that the hook is contentious or somehow slanderous if it happens to turn out that he did play fullback before. —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference whose reliability one editor questioned, although I am not sure what the basis for the question was. Aside from that, while there are primary sources in the article, no one is questioning that they are reliable and so they should not be problematic. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped this back to Prep 3 given that the NY Post is still being used as a reference in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:EASTEREGG to hooks considered harmful

[edit]

A zealous editor has recently taken it on themselves to strictly apply WP:EASTEREGG to hooks: as a specific example, the piped link first astronaut born in Hong Kong is apparently impermissible.

This flies in the face of DYK convention, which has long used creative pipe links, and indeed the annals of Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/All-time DYK pageview leaders feature countless "easter eggs" like [[infant swimming|babies will instinctively hold their breath underwater]] (this in the #1 DYK of all time, no less), [[Canadian Comedy Awards|the Beaver]], [[SPiN|a chain of table tennis bars]] and [[Śmigus-Dyngus|getting wet and spanked today]].

The only rationale laid out by the how-to guide (it's not even a policy) is that the destination of piped links is not visible when printing content, but a) it's 2026 and b) the only place DYK hooks show up is the front page. Is there any other reason we would want to ban piped links? Asamboi (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best to ping the editor so they can offer their rationale (courtesy ping TechnoSquirrel69). For my part I think the piped link to Anders was appropriate. Piped links that would not be suitable in articles are appropriate at DYK to help keep hooks tight and, well, hooky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs help: [1]. Technically "first astronaut born in Hong Kong" is an EASTEREGG vio (it should be "the first astronaut born in Hong Kong"), but it's a moot point since that link would divert views anyway.--Launchballer 12:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here. Why does the "the" matter? What do you mean by "divert views"? Asamboi (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By "divert views", that means people clicking on other links in a hook instead of the bolded look. While some editors are supportive of this, the general sentiment is that this is seen as unideal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am in violent disagreement with that sentiment (we want people to click on all links in hooks, that's why they're there) and more to the point, WP:HOOK does not mention the concept, so it's not policy. Asamboi (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of WP:HOOK is policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines and policies are effectively the same thing. Asamboi (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you disagree with that sentiment, if consensus is in favor of prevailing practice, editors should generally follow it (except for limited circumstances). If you disagree with that sentiment and believe we shouldn't do it, feel free to start a discussion about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope: it's my very own tiny little piece of anonymous Wikipedia glory. I wrote the hook, I submitted it, it passed independent review and it doesn't go against any written DYK policy or guidelines, and there is a truckload of precedent for having multiple links in DYKs. If you have a problem with this, then you can start a discussion about changing the guidelines to ban the practice. Asamboi (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the goals of DYK is have your articles have its widest possible reach and readership. It's part of why WP:DYKINT exists. While clicks aren't everything, of course, there is a reason why it is disappointing if a hook underperforms. You have to understand that these practices didn't come out of nowhere, but came from experience.
There is nothing in the rules against additional links, but they aren't encouraged either; we tend to only use them if necessary. For example, does not linking to William Anders make the hook less understandable?
By contrast, take a look at the Jacob Huesman hook that is currently in prep: it has links to both New York Giants and Fullback (gridiron football) because understanding the context of the hook requires knowing who or what those are. Meanwhile, you don't necessarily need to namedrop Anders to know Lai is the first Hongkonger in space. If anything, if there has to be an extra link, it would need to be to Hongkonger rather than Anders, to give context about the confusion, and even then that is probably not necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that there was an astronaut who was born in Hong Kong long before Lai (that's why it's a hook), people will be curious about who this person was, and that's why it should link to them. If this causes a few less people to click on Lai, I'm totally cool with that, but I'm pretty sure in the aggregate Wikipedia will get more eyeballs with two links than one. Asamboi (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, Asamboi requested for me (as the queue promoter I guess) to reinsert the link to William Anders, and I have just done so (although I've done it as [[William Anders|the first astronaut born in Hong Kong]] as it is our usual style to include definite articles in such links). Given that the nominator requested for this, and it isn't explicitly forbidden by the rules, my opinion is we should just allow this, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and plenty of hooks have side links anyway. If you guys feel very strongly about it and there's consensus here that it definitely shouldn't run with the link, then I will of course self-revert. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is ultimately a matter of queue mover discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given how Asamboi's attitude in this discussion has been unnecessarily combative, I don't think we should be rewarding that. It might have been different if he had requested kindly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of WP:HOOK is a guideline anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I'm aware that we can sometimes be flexible with EASTEREGG to support interesting hooks, but I didn't think that applied in this case. Launchballer said it best. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there doesn't seem to be consensus either way in running with the link, I've gone ahead and removed it again. While the hook was pulled on EASTEREGG grounds, it seems the actual real issue here is the hook diversion aspect. It remains debatable if linking to Anders is actually necessary to understand the hook or is otherwise essential. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I object in the strongest possible terms. As demonstrated by Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/All-time DYK pageview leaders, there is tons of historical precedent for multiple links in hooks, and you yourself have admitted that There is nothing in the rules against additional links, much less a requirement that such links are somehow "essential" (by what standard?). As I have respectfully pointed our earlier, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that the winds of consensus have shifted, and it is clear that you have not done so. Asamboi (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This could have been avoided if you had just kindly asked before to request that the hook be restored, instead of calling TechnoSquirrel69 "zealous" and having that tone. A kinder tone likely would have resulted in a quicker restoration too. We've had cases in the past of editors essentially complaining about changes until they got what they wanted (as opposed to more respectful requests), and it doesn't seem to be a good precedent to continue rewarding that behavior.
Regardless of the tone issue, TechnoSquirrel69 and Launchballer both objected to the linking (albeit for different reasons), and never lifted their objections. Given how numerically the views on whether or not to keep the link were, at best split, it seemed reasonable to stick to the original status quo (i.e. without the link). Having said that, I'm open to putting back the link, it's just that I don't think what happened here is setting a good precedent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I don't think it's fair to characterise Asamboi as "unnecessarily combative" here. As far as I can see, they are making a straightforward request that a link be included in a DYK hook, and disagreeing strongly with an editorial position is not, by itself, combative conduct. In any event, questions about editor conduct should not play a role in determining content outcomes. If there are genuine concerns about an editor's behaviour, there are established venues for addressing those concerns separately; they should not be resolved through editorial decisions in a content dispute.
As for the matter at hand, the link was present on the approved nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Lai Ka-ying and the nomination passed review in that form. When I agreed to Asamboi's request to reinsert the link, I mentioned that I would revert myself if a clear consensus emerged against it, but I don't think any such clear consensus has emerged, and I believe the default position should be to retain the approved wording rather than alter it. Certainly there is no policy or guideline against having the link, as we've previously established and as the promoter of this queue I strongly believe the hook should run with the link. Please can you self-revert your removal and allow the hook to run with the link included. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) After giving this some thought, I've put back the link as I honestly do not believe that the link is doing any harm, it's just not ideal. However, my stance that editors should generally not be rewarded for that kind of tone stands (note to Amakuru: I had already reinserted the link just before you posted your comment).
To answer Asamboi's question about the rules, there are indeed no rules requiring or prohibiting extra links in hooks. However, in recent years, it has become common practice for reviewers and nominators to avoid putting too many links in a hook due to the aforementioned "diversion" issue. You may agree or disagree with that position, but it is a widespread enough stance that it is essentially common practice these days. Non-bolded links are not prohibited, but they are now intended to be more "strategic", only being added if required for additional context, rather than to attract views themselves. There are also WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns if there are too many blue links close to each other. So I wasn't actually opposing extra links, but rather documenting common practice on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I think it's quite fair to describe "I am in violent disagreement" as "unnecessarily combative". Bazza 7 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that's a forceful comment, but at least it's a comment on the process, presumably with a sense of frustration thrown in... If they were levelling attacks against other editors, or making their objections in an ad hominem fashion, then I would certainly view it in a different light. Anyway, it seems like this saga has now concluded relatively amicably, with thanks to Naruto for their compromise, and I think we can move on from it. @Asamboi: I think there's a lesson here to tread more gently with the tone in future, people are more likely to be sympathetic! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 (19 June)

[edit]

Samseonggak

[edit]

@KimYubin, Crisco 1492, and RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: While I was building out the rest of this prep, I was curious about the construction "some buildings... also worship indigenous mountain gods", which struck me as an error since presumably the buildings do not worship gods and it should say "some buildings (example pictured) in Korean Buddhist temples are used for worshiping indigenous mountain gods?" But I didn't see that clearly stated in the article so I wanted to be sure before making that change. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went based off "Chilseong is usually placed at the center with Sansin and Dokseong next to it.", though I agree that the article should state it more explicitly. KimYubin has previously indicated that English is not their first language, so that may be part of the issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my reading as well. Happy with the suggested change Dclemens made if that's clearer. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if my change is made to the hook, the article needs to reflect the hook more clearly. I'll see if KimYubin responds here and if we don't hear will likely bump the hook back a bit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with Dclemens' suggestion too. Another rewording could be "some buildings (example pictured) in Korean Buddhist temples also enshrine indigenous mountain gods?" KimYubin (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "enshrine" is good. @KimYubin can you add that language to the article? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two sentences "Samseonggak is a type of building typically found in Korean Buddhist temples. Such buildings enshrine the gods Sansin, Chilseong, and Dokseong." state that fact. Should I rewrite it? KimYubin (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would specify "Such buildings enshrine the traditional Korean mountain gods Sansin, Chilseong, and Dokseong", assuming that's accurate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Sansin is an indigenous mountain god. Chilseong is a Taoist god and Dokseong is a Buddhist god, as written in the "three god belief" section. I will reword the hook to "some buildings (example pictured) in Korean Buddhist temples also enshrine an indigenous mountain god?" to avoid confusion.
    I will also rewrite the article if it needs further clarification. I am busy right now, so I will get back after 8AM 16 June (UTC). KimYubin (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for rewriting -- I think this does indeed need clarification in both the article and the hook. I'll bump the hook to allow more time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, I have rewrote the "top" section of the article. KimYubin (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Chilseongsin? I tried explaining to KimYubin that the hook doesn't match the source. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, Chris Woodrich, RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, can you see if the "under discussion" template could be removed? Thanks. KimYubin (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, @Dclemens1971, @KimYubin, @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember and @SL93, is this resolved? Can I remove the "under discussion" tag? TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of the article I think it's okay. Other editors' opinions would be needed though. KimYubin (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes, I believe my concerns have been addressed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. I'm going to remove the tag. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clop DYK

[edit]

Do we really want to have a clop DYK? Wikipedia is not censored, yes, but that doesn't mean we can just post furry porn on the main page. WP:COMMONSENSE applies.

Context: Talk:Clop_(erotic_fan_art)#Did_you_know_nomination_2. Xacaranda (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image is a bit too much. There's also the fact that an MLP-style pony is way more animal-like in anatomy than a typical furry, and this feels uncomfortably close to zoophilic art. For context, the image is currently in prep area 6. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other file that was proposed seems better as it is the lead image. There doesn't necessarily seem to be any copyright issues Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png - Wikimedia Logos and Visual Identity Guidelines. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I think it's really insensitive for the hook to frame this kind of thing in a queer way. LGBTQ people are already heavily stereotyped as "sexual degenerates" and wrongly associated with rape, pedophilia, etc by bigoted groups. We really don't need a hook to straight up say that zoophilia is a form of queer culture. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I 100% agree. Beastiality is a topic considered taboo by virtually everyone. Grouping in queer people with this is a horrible association. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Awful hook. The original proposed hook ... has been studied by scholars? is fine, but we don't need the picture, and we definitely don't need to suggest this is primarily a "queer thing" (it's not, it's really not). There's only one short paragraph in the article citing one source to justify the queer association, and it says very little about the alleged queerness of clop and never even uses the word "transgression." Let's maybe not make a hook out of the worst part of the article. Full disclosure, I don't normally post at DYKs and I got here because I saw a screenshot of the proposed hook offwiki and thought it was insane, but there was not a canvassing effort and my opinions are my own.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable opinion. That would make the hook more neutral Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "transgressive", but it is a very single-source section, one from over ten years ago at that. I'd have to read the source to say more, but I think a newer source on the subject (and how the community has changed since then) is definitely needed to substantiate. Though unfortunately most of the opposition so far seems to just be "it's innapropriate".
It doesn't need a picture but I think the lead image is fine for use, though it seems someone swapped it at the last second of the nomination? Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition isn't just that "it's inappropriate", that reduces and dismisses the serious concerns. It's not just inappropriate, it associates a marginalized community with a deeply taboo form of sexual deviance. When LGBTQ people face an unprecedented level of violence and existential threats from the highest level of government, which is justified to the public by propaganda that they're sexual deviants, this kind of thing is actively harmful. It's not inappropriate because it's lewd or gross or whatever, it's inappropriate because it plays into harmful stereotypes and makes an extremely negative statement about a minority group that is already actively persecuted. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. qcne (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree also. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


As @Crisco 1492, points out in the nomination, File:Sarah Goodridge Beauty Revealed The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg was on the main page Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful for Sarah Goodridge, but irrelevant to the conversation. qcne (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely different. There is nothing sexual about the human body on its own. Actually, it's quite offensive to take a woman's breasts as anything close to what the image in this discussion is about. The difference here is that the image is obviously suggestive in nature, and is also about an animal. jolielover♥talk 17:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not judging a suggestive image of a cartoon horse. I will speak on the lead, File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png, and this file, illustrate a type of art style. Objectively a NSFW one. However, both images are not necessarily explicit or over the top in what they illustrate. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It really strains WP:COMMONSENSE to imply that someone painting a self-portrait is equivalent to someone drawing a cartoon character with visible, imagined genitalia posed in a suggestive way with explicit pornographic context. There is plenty of room for NSFW content, but there are certain steps beyond like excessive gore or pornography or extreme bigotry that a) deserve to exist on Wikipedia in some forms, but b) do not do best by being shared on the Main Page. This is one such example.
Consider also the "Bad Image" list which was primarily developed as an anti-vandalism defense, but has the same basic principle. Sometimes people will abuse controversial and/or pornographic images, inserting them beyond their specific contexts. That's bad. It doesn't mean restricting their usage is censorship. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was about File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png not the explicit file that is being discussed at the clop talk page Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair, my bad. I do think that the pornographic context still remains with a blushing cartoon pony with its legs up, drawn for a pornographic subculture. Perfectly valid in its context and in its place on the website, but bringing the image to the mainpage is iffy imo. People might feel that way with the self-portrait cited above, but there's a difference between, for example, a bunch of nude people at a nude beach or a protest and nude people or suggestive posing on a pornography set.
People interested in (or curious about) pony porn can click through to see all of the images they'd like to. But putting a pornographic image (even the less sexually explicit version) on the mainpage would be unnecessarily alienating to mainpage users.Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all contributors to that discussion: @TarnishedPath, Issac I Navarro, GregariousMadness, Kepler-1229b, and Crisco 1492:. My take is that this is allowed by NOTCENSORED.--Launchballer 17:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If goatse were freely licensed, would that be an acceptable image to have on the front page? If your answer is yes, I do want you to explain why that is. Xacaranda (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png? I have expressed in Talk: Clop (erotic fan art)#Should an actual NSFW image be used as the primary image of the article, similar to Yiff?. That image should definitely not be in the lead of the article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is allowed. That does not meet it is a good idea qcne (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that WP:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, while admittedly just an essay, is applicable in this situation. I'm fine with running a hook (though as others have pointed out, there are potential issues with the current iteration), but I'm opposed to running an associated image. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific policy reason that I am not seeing to exclude the image? To be clear, I also don't believe that the image is nessary Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually able to wield our own discretion on matters without being slaved to policy documents. qcne (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GRATUITOUS is a guideline. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Lead images must be selected with extra caution and should not shock readers. The image makes sense to include in the article, but including it in the hook isn't necessary and only provides shock value. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The third image in the article definitely, but the first one/lead doesn't seem too bad. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have more alternatives to choose from than just the pictures in the article, there's also the option of just doing an image for one of the many other hooks that'll run the same day as this one & leaving this one without an image. Lead images must be selected with extra caution and whatever image gets posted to the main page will serve as one of the lead images for all of Wikipedia, we should really pause and ask ourselves "is this a good idea?"  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by the assumption that an image would be used for Clop specifically; obviously none of it would apply if another DYK got an image used instead. I agree with the rest and that's why I think the page lead is preferable to the others. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here to offer support. So many people insist on WP:NOTCENSORED and then forget WP:GRATUITOUS. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I laid out all my arguments for allowing an image at the nomination page: we have allowed soft-core pornography on the main page in the past, we are not censored, and the currently queued image is not in violation of any copyrights or trademarks. That being said, I also explicitly said this would attract negative remarks, and have no issue with a non-image slot. To completely deny the article would be egregious self-censorship and counterproductive to our efforts to cover a range of subjects, including those related to sexuality (for comparison, Frank's Cock ran without an image, and Hermaphrodite (Nadar) ran with the photographer's image... both contain imagery of genitalia). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that sentiment, I am not opposed to not having a image. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


The promoted hook for Clop (erotic fan art) is ... that pony porn (example pictured) has been interpreted by scholars as a form of queer transgression?

Sexually suggestive fan art of a blank-flank blue transgender male pony
Sexually suggestive fan art of a blank-flank blue transgender male pony

Please consider pulling this hook, running it without an image, or replacing it with less lurid wording. I don't object to the article or the underlying scholarship, but the sexual framing is obvious and this is poor editorial judgement. NOTCENSORED protects encyclopaedic coverage of topics, it doesn't mean we throw discretion out of the window.

The Main Page is our front door and should be curated carefully. The DYK has unnecessary reputational risks for the project. qcne (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this. If you look up something like this it’s on you if you see it. This is on full display for anyone—including places like schools— to see pretty easily. MallardTV Talk to me! 17:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to running with without an image. @TarnishedPath added this file as an alternative to the one in the lead. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that while the image is questionable, the biggest issue here is that the hook associates it with queer culture. As I said above, queer people are already wrongly associated with sexual deviance and pedophilia. We really should not have the front page of Wikipedia associate a marginalized community with zoophilia. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you removed the image when there was consensus on Talk: Clop (erotic fan art)#Should an actual NSFW image be used as the primary image of the article, similar to Yiff?. On a different note, I somewhat agree about the hook. Though, I have already expressed an alternate in the nomination. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling this suggested ALT from the talk page, where it does not appear to have landed on the nomination:

... that clop (My Little Pony pornography) has been interpreted by scholars as an indication of the rising popularity and legitimization of fictosexuality among Western audiences?

Credit to GregariousMadness. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "has been interpreted by scholars" hook will do. Un-illustrated. Because, seriously: disrepute. DS (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Better sounding, though per @Vanilla Wizard:'s objection, while the fictosexuality section of the article is longer, it does also appear to just use one source. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the simpler "has been studied by scholars?" hook. Skyshiftertalk 19:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Finding myself leaning towards agreeing with this. Simpler and would get people more curious as to what about it was studied. Ringtail Raider (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the image and replaced it with "studied by scholars". I happen to disagree with the consensi (our WP:DYKAIMs include showcasing the range of content Wikipedia covers and "interpreted by scholars as" does not mean "is"), but consensi there are.--Launchballer 20:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this is enough. pony porn is still ridiculous, and the very real concerns expressed above from editors where this hook potentially associates queer folks with sexual degeneracy. In the current political climate, too.
qcne (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion to completely get away from that connection, what about:DYK... that pony porn, is distinguished from zoophilia and bestiality? Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. qcne (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated previously that I am not dying on this hill, that this even needs a DYK. I completely agree about the wording and the negative associating that it may have with lgbtq and removing the image as a whole. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the current hook "that pony porn has been studied by scholars?" associates queer folks with sexual degeneracy, potentially or otherwise.--Launchballer 21:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Launchballer, the current hook that pony porn has been studied by scholars? is better. It was not clear from your comment you had also removed the as a form of queer transgression? bit. qcne (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Thumbs up icon Thank you, that seems like less problematic wording Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've moved beyond the pony porn/queer transgression hook. The hook in prep hasn't mentioned the LGBTQ community for several hours. As for the pony porn / zoophilia debate, it seems to be generating more heat than light (while also being off topic). Hence why I hatted the other two tangents. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the latter discussion started here is now spilling back into the original article and other related articles. At this point I'd be fine with withdrawing the DYK based on the amount of conflict it seems to have generated. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted. We're not withdrawing a DYK because some people can't read.--Launchballer 23:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I was already aware that the DYK had been changed. I agree that the zoophilia debate is off-topic, that was my point. Skyshiftertalk 23:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current hook reads '... that pony porn has been studied by scholars?' I don't see how anyone could possible object to that. Although the original promoted hook was more interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 00:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The new hook is probably the best compromise possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I'm a little late to this discussion, but do you think "My Little Pony pornography" would be better than "pony porn" for the purpose of the DYK? i.e. "... that My Little Pony pornography has been studied by scholars?" Maybe this would make it more clear that the topic isn't about porn of actual ponies. I'm unsure if I'm allowed to amend the DYK itself so close to the deadline. –GM 01:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some sources that directly refer to clop as "My Little Pony porn" and included them in the article. Also pinging the most recent participants in this discussion. @TarnishedPath @Ringtail Raider @Chris Woodrich @Skyshifter @Narutolovehinata5 @Issac I Navarro –GM 01:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that's a fair point. Technically, what's there now could work as a WP:DYKAPRIL hook but I'd quite like this one over with, so I'll let someone else decide.--Launchballer 01:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: If I could, I would be bold and edit the DYK myself, but I don't think I'm able to do so since I don't have the required permissions. I strongly endorse the "My Little Pony pornography" wording and I doubt anyone would object to that. –GM 01:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised it's in the next queue to go out, so I can't do it myself. You can wait to see if Crisco responds or you can post at WP:ERRORS.--Launchballer 02:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think porn's snappier.--Launchballer 03:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I retract the above request, then. –GM 03:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the hook is soon to go out, I request it be pushed back a little, just because there's an active RFC on the article's talk page about potentially offensive content on the page. I think it'd be wiser to run the hook after the RFC has concluded. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like snowing to me.--Launchballer 04:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the file, for the time being. As the RFC, could (but probably won't) possibly take a while. This way the DYK, could proceed, while it can still be discussed. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Your Own Quiz (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971, Miminity, and Juxlos: Bunshun.jp must not be used for BLP claims per WP:BUNSHUN.--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an WP:INTERVIEW. I think it is kinda appropriate as a primary source. I think the inappropriate one are the Bunshun.jp articles that is NOT an interview as they are often unverified gossip and rumors but an interview is not controversial and not rumors. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be ideal for a different source to be used here, a single WikiProject's advice on reliable sourcing is not the same as an RSN consensus, and the two prior RSN discussions on Bunshun are not conclusive (1, 2). That's not enough for me to insist upon removal, and I think Miminity has a reasonable rationale for its use here, although the queue mover may exercise their own discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm satisfied.--Launchballer 22:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Elizabeth II (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971, AndrewPeterT, and IngeniousPachyderm: Several things here. Firstly, there's a non-DYK critical yellow banner on the top of the article which I recommend resolving before primetime. The source is offline, and I don't see where a quote was ever provided (and I'm not sure how interesting it is - they're all going to go somewhere, right?). I'm also not happy with WP:USWEEKLY being used for a BLP's date of birth, and this needs replacing.--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.
  1. That yellow banner accounts for my being a native American English speaker and possibly using dialectal features not present in British English, in which the article is written. As I am not bidialectal, I do not know when it would appropriate to remove the banner.
  2. I am unsure what your concern is regarding the quote. This is the information I used, from Crofton 2011 p. 242: For the three boys [Charles, Andrew and Edward], their training began with attendance at Gordonstoun School, a public (fee-paying) school in the Scottish Highlands ... Philip had himself been at the school. However, I have added this quotation into the article. Regarding the significance, it is meant to highlight an example of continuity, which was a major theme of Elizabeth II's reign.
  3. I do not currently have access to Tatler. However, once I do so, I will replace the Us Weekly source with a citation from the former for Mike Tindall's birth.
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the banner. All varieties of standard English are acceptable on Wikipedia, and while this article has close ties to British English and should thus be edited with that in mind, it's no obstacle to its presentability if it starts with some non-English-isms. I replaced the US Weekly citation; Tindall's birth date seems to be a widely reported and uncontested fact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dclemens1971. @Launchballer: Could you please let me know if anything else should be resolved? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're fine.--Launchballer 22:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

44 West 77th Street (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971, Epicgenius, and Usernameunique: I'm having trouble accessing the source, any chance of a quote?--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A "Brobdingnagian cathedral," said Architects' & Builders' Magazine the same year. And Andrew Alpern, the architecture historian, said that the elaborate terra-cotta decoration "appears to have been squeezed out of a pastry tube." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 19:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kino-Eye (film) (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971, Grnrchst, RabidTuberculosis, and SL93: Not seeing a quote from the source.--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer Here is a translation. "Thus, in the video “Kino-Eye about the Chinese magician,” it again turns time back “at the pioneer’s request” (literally, “Kino-Eye continues the pioneer’s thought”). Bread “reverses” into dough, then into flour, grain, and rye. Again we see a return to naturalness (back from the city to the village and the field) and the actualization of the demiurgic character of the “natural subject." and "The cooperative itself, as a localization of the “new world,” turns into a place truly sacred, since it is precisely there that “resurrection” takes place and time is turned back (the plot with the bull coming back to life and its return to the pasture tended by the pioneer Latyshev). At this moment, for the first time in the film, it declares about itself (presents itself) the “strange” subject–the very “Kino-Eye.” This is not a visualized instance of the gaze, which, mainly and explicitly through titles, and implicitly as the only possible optic, establishes the rules and boundaries of representation. The phrase “Kino-Eye moves time back” reveals its functionality. “Kino-Eye” rules over time (time reversed) and life (the animal’s resurrection). But it also creates a “new world,” itself being a “natural” subject-representation, since it “returns” (the animal to its natural environment) and “re-creates/breathes life back” (time goes backward, but also makes a “jump” into the future, symbolized by the pioneer Latyshev)." SL93 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 20:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not necessary to add to this, but if you need further verification, you can see in the film itself the bread sequence from 32:00 to 38:30 and the cow sequence from 09:30 to 15:20. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon House (Amherstburg) (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971, Crisco 1492, Daniel Case, and Miraclepine: Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where "1813" is in the source.--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do it.--Launchballer 18:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Baranshchikov (nom)

[edit]

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, PlatypeanArchcow, GRuban, and Dclemens1971: Many of the sources are in Russian, could you provide me with quotes?--Launchballer 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could for the ones you need; please don't say "all of them". ----GRuban (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the quotes for "The Unfortunate Adventures were an 18th-century bestseller for a few years, as they provided a glimpse of exotic places and fit into a popular genre of "misfortune" literature, although a review from the time describes them as sloppily written and the author as an ungrateful whiner."--Launchballer 22:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus8/Baransikov/pred.phtml?id=76
”Нещастные приключения...”, впервые изданные в 1787 г., очевидно, пользовались успехом, так как переиздания следовали одно за другим (1787, 1788, 1793 гг.). Первая публикация была отмечена рецензией в журнале ”Зеркало света” [4, с. 7291, а имя автора, Василия Баранщикова, вошло в некоторые ”Словари русских писателей”. Внимание читателей, видимо, привлекал сюжет, связанный с экзотическими странами – от островов Центральной Америки до Восточного Средиземноморья. К тому же описания всякого рода ”нещастий” были популярны в литературе ХVIII в.
"The Unfortunate Adventures...", first published in 1787, evidently enjoyed success, as reprints followed in quick succession (1787, 1788, and 1793). The initial publication was reviewed in the journal Zerkalo Sveta(Mirror of the World) [4, p. 729], and the author’s name, Vasily Baranshchikov, was included in several dictionaries of Russian writers. Readers were evidently drawn to the narrative involving exotic lands—ranging from the islands of Central America to the Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, accounts of various "misfortunes" were popular in 18th-century literature.
I think that backs the bestseller bit; now "bestseller" is a modern term that wasn't really used at the time, but reprinted several times and "evidently enjoyed success" is pretty close.
https://kp.rusneb.ru/item/reader/zerkalo-sveta-ch6-i-poslednyaya-no-97-5-noyab-1787-goda
This is evidently the Zerkalo Sveta(Mirror of the World) review referred to above, pages 729-730. It's a scan or photo, so I can't copy and paste the Russian, but I can translate freestyle. I leave out a few sentences where ... is.
News about Books The Unfortunate Adventures of Burgher Baranshchikov in Europe, Asia and America. Here is presented a person wandering in various parts of the world not by choice but by compulsion. .... He endures suffering, abandons his faith, and, after experiencing various misfortunes, returns to his homeland, where, he believes, as the reflections added at the conclusion of the narrative suggest, that he ought to find a reward for his wanderings and aimless drifting, and grumbles that society compels him to be a useful member rather than a parasite living at the expense of others. It is a pity that the person responsible for its publication, for the arrangement makes it evident that the text was not written by the traveler himself, employed a clumsy and unpleasant style that betrays carelessness; furthermore, the reflections added at the end reveal a man with a meager understanding of virtue and the bonds of society. To malign an entire civic community and call it inhospitable, ignoble, and uncharitable without cause - - is the mark of a malicious nature.
I think that backs the "sloppily written/ungrateful whiner" bit. Not sure if I'd have said so, being kidnapped for several years is justification for quite a bit of whining, IMHO. I get the impression that the Zerkalo reviewer had a favorable impression of Turkish society, and their feelings were hurt by the book saying bad things about it; but that's what it says. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Amen on both counts.--Launchballer 23:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of running In re Neely (nom) during pride month?

[edit]

I didn't think to make the spec. occ. request when I made the nom – only posted after approval – but now that we're less than two weeks out from June ending, I was hoping someone would be able to slot it in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look in the next half-hour or so.--Launchballer 20:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig picks up quite a lot, but I believe they're all WP:LIMITED, so I've promoted.--Launchballer 21:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 (28 June)

[edit]

Tom Scutt

[edit]

After looking at this hook when part of the whole set, it seems a bit overly long. Therefore I propose removing the indicated section below. I think this also makes the hook more hooky and will pique the reader's interest more, encouraging them to click on the article, where they can find out "why". (it also avoids the repetition of the word "cabaret")

"... that, in the Tony Award–winning set design by Tom Scutt (pictured) for Cabaret, the audience enters the theatre through a special side entrance, symbolising the "descent into the cabaret"?

Thanks, Max263 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

 Done. I also noticed how long this was while promoting, but didn't want to accidentally mangle the hook. This seems much better! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like this has removed the interesting part though. Who's going to care where the entrance is if they don't understand that it means something to begin with? What about something like "... that the audience makes a "descent into" Tom Scutt's (pictured) set for Cabaret through a side entrance?" ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I propose that the first fact in today's DYK be amended to include links to the two Londons Hadley Scott traveled to over his lifetime, like so:

... that doctor Hadley Williams (pictured) left London for London, then returned to London?

This may be helpful for clarifying which cities Scott traveled to and fro. In solidarity, t sunrise 00:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would defeat the object, no? Pinging @Darth Stabro, Holden1677, Crisco 1492, BeanieFan11, Miraclepine, and Amakuru: for their takes.--Launchballer 00:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for this, and it'd just draw viewers away from Williams's article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think having the actual links would take away from the main article. It's the curiosity about what London's are being referred to that will bring people to click on the article. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 00:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of eyes would be appreciated...

[edit]

I don't think I've reviewed a DYK nomination since Obama was in office. Can someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Hinds (American football) and tell me if this is ok? I appreciate it. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Outline articles

[edit]

I have an issue with Template:Did you know nominations/Outline of artificial satellites in that it is not fully referenced. This is a special type of list called an Outline article. I gave a pass to the {{anl}} templates, but each section of this article has an introductory paragraph or two if text (which makes up the 17K word size) and only the first one is referenced. I am seeking a second opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an article, it is mostly unreferenced and should not be on DYK. In particular, there should be sources defining the scope and explaining why the listed items are there. If it is a navigational aid, it should not be on DYK. Whatever it is, the {{anl}} leads for me to a bunch of "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." near the end of the page. —Kusma (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United States UAP files

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/United States UAP files still needs a review. I looked it at, and I asked for others to look at it. Additionally, two other users looked at it. The way I see it, if this is going to continue, the nom will have to make some changes. Would be nice to have some other eyes on this. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (24 June)

[edit]

Taste (Haechan album) (nom)

[edit]

@Poirot09, Piotrus, and Crisco 1492: Can one of you provide the English translation of the quote from the Youtube video used to confirm the hook fact? Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"What's really wild is after we finished the final recording day, I came back the next day for some minor touch-up adjustments, and at that time my voice was completely gone. [...] That's how difficult it was" – this is not my translation, but the official one provided by the channel. Poirot09 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tingyun (nom)

[edit]

@Gommeh, GoldenBootWizard276, and Crisco 1492: I don't see the hook as remotely intriguing to someone who is not deeply invested in this subject matter. "Did you know that people posted comments on the internet about X" does not pass the test of WP:DYKINT; people post comments on the internet about everything. I'd recommend a new hook be developed. That said, DYKINT is subjective so I won't object if another queue mover wants to queue this one; it just won't be by me. (It also seems like the "Creation and background" section employs some in-universe language, and the whole article is written in a tone that's rather impenetrable to those unfamiliar with this game.) I bumped it to Prep 7 to facilitate further discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it's fair that people do post comments about everything - I know I've seen a lot of Fallout remake rumours started by trademark registrations and figure reveals - I felt that speculation about a character's fate based on the release of a figure is unusual. "Whoa, they made a fig! Is Tingyun dead?" seems like a far leap. No comment on in-universe language. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I know interestingness is subjective, so if someone else wants to move this in, no worries. It just didn't strike me as the slightest bit intriguing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Chris Woodrich here, speculation about her fate is unusual and in my view makes it interesting. Readers may want to know what the connection between the figure and the character's fate is, prompting them to click on the article to read it. I personally can't think of a better hook right now, but if someone else were to suggest one I wouldn't object. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 13:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notharctus (nom)

[edit]

@Multituberculate15, Kevmin, and Crisco 1492: I don't see where the source provides support for the full claim that this species "was one of the first discovered fossil primates from North America." Can you point me to a passage or page number? Given the short time before this queue hits the homepage, I bumped this to Prep 1 to facilitate time for discussion/response. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh certainly! On pages 55 into 56, the author mentions how Omomys was the first discovered fossil primate in North America, and then says the next year Notharctus was named. Multituberculate15 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I forgot to mention. The source you linked is only linked for the claim of pachyderm affinities. There is another source which mentions the first discovery. My apologies, these 2 sources are both written by the same author and have almost the same name! Multituberculate15 (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the page number @Multituberculate15? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page number is the same as I shared above, 55-56! Apologies for any confusion, a lot of this early history of the genus is sifting through books and articles that aren’t well archived Multituberculate15 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It says "In America, the first discovered fossil primate..." on page 55; does this mean North America, the United States, or the Americas? Unclear from the source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This source states, on page 4, that Notharctus is the second known fossil primate from the entire western hemisphere, after Omomys. Multituberculate15 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, editing to say "The Americas". Should be good to go from here, thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Happy to clear it up. Multituberculate15 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1360837615"