Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)


"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS


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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Suggestions for DYK articles

  • Did you know one of Dave McKigney's "wrestling bears" killed his girlfriend in the 1970s?
  • Did you know Dave McKigney was killed in a car accident after trying to avoid a moose?
  • Did you know African-American wrestler Kasavubu was a star in Stampede Wrestling during the 1970s?
  • Did you know Kasavubu's wrestling career was cut short due to diabeties?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.205.193 (talkcontribs) 22:08 28 July 2017 (UTC)

None of the linked articles were created or expanded in the last week. Pppery 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Dave McKigney was created on July 19 and Kasavubu on July 20. I suggested them here on July 28 although I'm not sure how strict the 7-day limit is. 72.74.197.93 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pak Song, like Tom Stone (wrestler), is too short to qualify for DYK. The seven-day rule can sometimes be stretched for a new contributor making their own nomination. I would like to suggest that if you really want these articles to appear at DYK, you create a user account and nominate them yourself. It's the only sure way for them to appear, and signing up for an account is easy. Wikipedia is very much about people doing what they think needs to be done; it's all up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Interesting to a Broad audience"

I think this parameter should be examined and removed from the DYK criteria. Its not supported by any WP inclusion guidelines at all, nd there is no way at all to ever make a balanced assertion something is to boring to a broad audience. It will always boil down to "WP:IDONTLIKEIT".--Kevmin § 19:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is precisely against the point of a DYK section, and precisely against the point of trying to encourage interest in Wikipedia and editing it. The actual problem is really with QPQ reviews simply accepting the technicalties of a DYK nomination and not really giving any due consideration to whether or not the hook is really of any interest at all. The sooner we learn to "fail" DYK nominations because they're boring, or repetitive, or inaccessible, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Creating a fail system based on the undefinable is not in anyway going to help the project, and the amount of times hooks are brought here simply because someone thinks a hook is "too dull" shows its not viable at all.--Kevmin § 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually it demonstrates that it works well. When dull hooks are brought here, there's invariably interest from a wider perspective which inevitably improves the hooks in question. The system works, it's just the ownership issues from nominators that needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. We should aim to have a mix of hooks from specialist and generalist areas and not play to some least common denominator of "broad audience". As long as we have a mix of hooks, audiences should find something within to draw their attention. I find The Rambling Man's repeated haranguing of other editors on this point to be particularly annoying and hypocritical. His mix of obscure cricket and boat race hooks could not be less interesting to someone without an interest in cricket and/or boating (and the hits for said articles while on the main page certainly bear this out). Have I complained about them? No, because I recognize that someone with an interest in cricket/boating would probably find them quite interesting, just like someone with an interest in insects would probably find the clubbed hairs of ants to be interesting too. Don't get me wrong, I think hooks should be interesting, and suggestions towards improvement (including to a wider interest) are always welcome, but this "disinterested individual veto" is frustrating. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    If anyone had an issue with any hook I submitted I would work with them rather than just bitch about their being "no issue". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "interest to a broad audience" parameter is one of the foundations of DYK, encouraging editors to create/expand articles worthy of a page in the encyclopedia. If anything, editors need to learn to mark hooks for failure on this issue because we are far too lenient in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Articles are already bound by the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, the "interesting" parameter here is not relevent at all to whether they are meet the notability guidelines.--Kevmin § 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Per my nomination and per my comments about the disinterested veto in the past.--Kevmin § 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't it presumed that you would support your own nomination?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue of inclusion guidelines is a red herring, as the question of whether an article should exist and whether it should be "featured" at DYK are different; not all articles created must be highlighted, and if there's truly nothing interesting to say about a particular topic then don't. That's not to say that we can't have specialist articles, as there have been some good hooks that even non-subject experts would find interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Since you added it back in 2012, no accepted definition of "broad audience" has emerged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's had "wide audience" since at least 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: There is no way to ever define something as being interesting to a broad audience, especially with varying Main page duration for hooks meaning that whole sections of the world population are likely to totally miss hooks. Its NOT objective at all to assert that interesting is a MP criteria.--Kevmin § 05:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course it's subjective. I simply disagree that that is a problem. And I think by now we all understand your point of view. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • When assembling the prep areas, I would always bear this in mind. So baseball hooks would be scheduled while the US is awake, and cricket ones when the UK, India and Australia can see them. What would be truly useful to know is what time of day the readers look at the main page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I oppose "failing" DYK nominations if the subject matter is not "interesting to a broad audience" (which obviously is a bit subjective). Doing so de-inecntivizes article creation and for lack of a better phrase, I believe in an even playing field in that every notable subject matter can theoretically appear on did you know. With that said, I feel that the primary problem I have with DYK in general is rather than complaining about how DYK hooks don't appeal to a broad audience, the subject matters don't appeal to a broad audience. Most articles on non-specialist topics have been created by now, so I'd suggest we'd every once and a while, featured a few existing subject matters that don't normally meet the DYK criteria in an effort to appeal to a broader audience. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think the requirement for the hook to be interesting to a broad audience is very subjective and should be removed. It is in the interests of the nominator to choose an interesting hook so as to get as many people as possible to click on the link, but it should not be a requirement. (I created an article on a worm last week but couldn't think of an interesting hook so I didn't nominate it.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The phrase is too vague and debatable to be useful. It is redundant to what is said elsewhere on that page, "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." Per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR, we should trim these rules of such excess baggage. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lest people start complaining about the home page being too boring. I don't think "debatable" or "subjective" are issues, we can live with things that need discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is a vague surplusage that often hinders DYK. As I have always said; what may be uninteresting to some, could be very interesting to others. If we remove this, we rightly get rid of an excuse for people to try and block DYKs just because they personally don't like it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting is a purely subjective thing. While you might find something really interesting, others may say "So what?". However, we should not be promoting really boring hooks. Things like ... that this film was released in 2017? or ... that this video has 100,000 views on YouTube? have no place on the Main Page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose How do you define "interesting" to a range of people? You can't. You can easily define "dull" or "trivial" though. We get far too many of them, and that's what this parameter is designed to - if not prevent, at least stem the tide. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem with this criterion is that it is so subjective that it leads to endless debate. The problem with removing it is that there are hooks that are dull and uninteresting to the overwhelming majority of people with a pulse. Did you know "... that water is wet?"; "... that sand is found at the beach?"; and, "... that corn is the major ingredient in corn chips?" – hopefully, we'd all agree that the criteria should prevent hooks like these. As an editor of scientific content, there are articles with facts I find interesting but which are not easy to make clear for a broad audience, let alone interesting without a depth of knowledge related to the topic. For example, from the article on (E)-stilbene which I am presently expanding, I could have "... that bromination of (E)-stilbene yields the meso product, but the meso epoxide arises from its diastereomer (Z)-stilbene?" It could even be a double hook (the (Z)-stilbene article could be expanded), but to a reader with no experience with stereochemistry and meso compounds, I can't see this as interesting. I could have "... that the first articles on the Heck reaction demonstrated the synthesis of (E)-stilbene?" which is interesting to me as Heck is a Nobel Laureate for the reaction and the discovery was made independently with both groups preparing (E)-stilbene, yet my interest here depends on knowing what the Heck reaction is. I could go with "... that Nobel prize-winner Richard F. Heck's first paper on the Heck reaction demonstrated the synthesis of (E)-stilbene?" but that is much more about Heck than it is about (E)-stilbene. Though the expansion is still several thousand characters short, I still don't know for sure whether I can add a suitable DYK hook. After doing the expansion, if I choose not to nominate, that is my decision... but I would find it discouraging / disappointing to turn a 1700 character article into a 9000+ character article and then be "failed" for it being so "uninteresting" as to have no suitable hook. I rarely write articles that just barely make the 1500 character minimum, the articles I nominate tend to be substantive (in my view), and I find 1501 character articles which touch on the most obvious content and scream for expansion to be more gaming of DYK rules than a significant article on a narrow topic with a level of technical complexity that may have no natural / obvious "interesting to a broad audience" hook. I think the criterion in question would benefit from redrafting but not wholesale removal. EdChem (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment rather like EdChem, I think we're setting ourselves up for failure here. Whichever way this goes (and it's close, at the moment) we're going to end up with a lot of annoyed editors. The criterion is not, at the moment, easy to apply. Therefore, it should be made easy to apply. If we throw it out altogether, we are immediately going to be flooded with the most meaningless hooks, and we will have no reasonable grounds on which to require they be rephrased. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment one thing worth noting here is the relative infrequency with which a hook does get adjusted because it's dull. I haven't done the mining yet but I strongly suspect it to be below 1% of all hooks, I.e. More than 99% of hooks manage to meet this rule. So it really isn't a big problem, more like making a mountain from a molehill. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think TRM is underestimating and it is more like 4%, but we want EdChem's article, whether or not the hook is broadly interesting, because it is the sort of article we should be showcasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
1 in 25? One hook every three sets is being discussed for having a dull hook? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Quick check, three or so on this page, but nothing in the previous archive which goes back to late June, which would encompass hundreds of hooks. Cwmhiraeth, what are you basing your 4% on please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Its an estimate. Some dull hooks get picked up on the nominations page too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at which point the nominators etc can discuss. I think Kevmin's primary issue is with hooks that are all the way to the bank and then get ditched, adjusted etc because they're dull. My estimate of 1% is ultra-cautious, and therefore I believe this is a non-issue. If nominators are regularly finding their own hooks to be called out, it speaks more of the subject matter and hook construction, than the rest of the community's efforts to provide interesting material in the only section of the main page which is about providing "interesting material" to the readers.
  • Comment We have to distinguish between a dull hook and an article that is not of interest to a broad audience. Looking over the last few months, it seems clear that page views tend to correlate with interest in the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this not be advertised somewhere to attract some input from editors not heavily invested in the project? Some neutral perspective from outside the utterly entrenched DYK crowd would perhaps help? Certainly only seem to be the usual faces, if one can say that in this case, that have butted heads over and over again commenting. I realise that my input counts for nothing, and that is totally fine but this process/vote as is now with the small group of regulars, whose opinions were made up from the start pretty much, seems rather flawed. Just my view as a lurker anyway, feel free to disregard. 91.49.78.71 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good idea, people are less vested in credits and WikiCup may have a different view on what they would expect to see in a "Did you know...?" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    Again with that? Last time I checked, the majority of people are out of the WikiCup and in later stages DYK points are not worth the same effort in order to keep track. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    So what? This problem hasn't just arisen. The rush to create bogus content forks and get dull hooks promoted for points has driven quality here too low, ao it would be great to get an outside view, perhaps to reset the regulars perspective on what the project should be striving for. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    My point was not about who is right or wrong, who gets what out of it, to nudge the process one way or the other or even to judge the motives of individual votes. It was to give people who do not have a predetermined notion of what the "correct" way of handling it is a chance to evaluate the idea and speak up about it. While i of course do have an oppinion on the matter, it is not my place to state that. In the end everyone here is just too convinced each of them is right and the other wrong, which certainly goes both ways. But then again that is just a drive-by opinion of a random person so i obviously understand that it has little to no worth. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    To add, while i definitely see The Rambling Mans point, thinking about articles like "fucking(sign)", about that town in austria, which got a pointles article split to have something to nomiate here (shame on me for lurking, i know). But i can also see the point of making it hard on nominations of very specialised articles in, for example, the sciences. In the end there probably just is no ultimate correct solution to deal with the problems that may arise either way, as with all things in life. But at least give neutral people a say in what the least bad way of dealing with this problem may be. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    One last note, how about making one "boring" slot above the quirky one, or rotate those day to day or whatever, and have it be eligible only for articles in the sciences or some other categories. That could keep blubs like "X was a singer for Y" of the mainpage while allowing specialised articles of certain categories to be able to still have their spot in the limelight. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    This is a great idea, a deliberate "boring hook" inclusion, which is "kind of" quirky yet allows those extinct club-haired ants to get their day, time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    My thinking was to have some sort of compromise anyway. So even if that "boring slot" had some kind of "stigma" attached to it or be disliked, it may be a good incentive to still come up with something interesting to get a regular spot yet still have the option to appear regardles. And as it would appear that the actual number of those boring hooks is quite low, a dedicated spot could probably quite easily work and of course wouldn't HAVE to be filled each day or however often it would run. I would obviously concede that "boring slot" would be a bad name though, call it the science slot, specialised slot or what have you. Just to give a neutral non judgmental name. Compromise, to me at least, is always better than proving one is right in a dispute. Just makes life easier than arguing endlessly over small things while still having everyone be a little content or equaly unhappy at the very least. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – It it stays, an idea is to reword the passage to read as, "...likely to be interesting to a broad audience." North America1000 20:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Personally I'd prefer to see DYK completely revamped to showcase good articles, with a link and a short summary of the topic e.g. Henry VIII, King of England (1509-1547). But I can't see that happening any time soon. WRT to the discussion at hand, one person's interesting can easily be another person's dull, so remove the criterion. In any case, the dullness issue is so rare it won't make much difference anyway. Aiken D 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    If it's so rare, why not leave it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal: since the hope is to attract readers to new/recent/newly "good" articles, if an article is not capable of generating anything beyond a profoundly uninteresting or "X is Y"-style hook, then why would we want to highlight it on the main page? DYK has always had a tension between those who want to feature any article that's 1500 prose characters regardless of interest or quality, and to feature articles that have a certain level of quality and interest, and the various rules have reflected the consensus that the level should not be minimal. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That possibility (which is small) is already dealt with with the guideline to make the hook "hooky" so there is no reason to keep the broad audience portion. Also is it likely that such mundane hooks would ever flood the project in the first place?--Kevmin § 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, not at all. The main page of Wikipedia is a place to appeal to allcomers, not to scientists who are really into the rarity (or otherwise) of clubbed hairs on extinct ants. It's been brought up a dozen times by now, but some of the more academic articles simply aren't suitable for the main page DYK section which is intended to encourage new editors to update or create articles of their own. Recently they'd just be thinking "so Wikipedia is all about extinct ants, Ghanaian politicians and standard food items from an American diner menu". It must be better than this, and keeping the "broad audience" in mind is to serve our readers appropriately. In fact, to remove it is somewhat insidious as it then reflects the fact that this is becoming more about the editors than the readers. As I have noted, hooks are pulled from sets on a rare basis for pure dullness, this isn't a major issue apart from for those individuals whose hooks commonly fall into this situation. We deal with perhaps one dull hook in a hundred, or more, so to remove the "broad audience" is likely to cause a lot more damage than good to Wikipedia as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suggested above that we should instead be trying to fix the problem that was raised; that the criterion is subjective. Nobody seems interested in doing that, and so I oppose trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so should this become an RFC? I think so, allowing the community to weigh in on whether a section of the main page should have an "interesting to a broad audience" criterion. It's clear that there are many vested interests in the "locals" so it's much wiser to open it up to the community. After all, this is on the main page. So I suggest that Kevmin makes this an RFC for all to see and comment upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal
  • My idea of "interesting" is flexible. Anything intriguing, novel, or unexpected is fair game – I've never heard of a clubbed hair, so I click to find out more. What's not interesting is ringing the changes week after week with clubbed hair after clubbed hair, ant after ant, Pennsylvania water way after ...
  • While the interestingness requirement is seldom invoked, it saves us now and then. It should remain, though I wouldn't mind seeing the "to a broad audience" bit dropped.
  • I'll just repeat for the 100th time that the right way to choose hooks is by straight voting.
EEng 00:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience"

This RfC is about the current DYK rule 3. a) Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. (See more information under The hook, below.) Facts should have an inline citation. The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.

This text was added in Feb 2012 with no discussion on the talkpage about the addition. The addition is arguably extraneous to the guideline "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content"

There is no neutral way to enforce the rule, and it runs counter to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are based on verifiability and neutrality, not on potential audience interest levels. This RfC proposes the removal of the text "and interesting to a broad audience" from the rule. See current discussion in the DYK talk page for background leading to this RfC. --Kevmin § 02:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support per nom.--Kevmin § 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; see comment in discussion below. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Interesting" hooks are a facet of DYK too central for me to let go. If the specific rule is poorly phrased, we should rephrase it. The second statement in the guidelines is not redundant, it is an elaboration of the first, which is the rule Kevmin wishes to remove. The statement about notability is again a non-sequitur. Notability is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is a rule for featuring something on the main page. Any article featured must meet the notability threshold, but we as a project are free to set any other threshold that it must also meet. I would be far more interested in reformulating the rule in a manner which preserves the meaning but makes it easier to apply. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers and is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks, directly against the spirit of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course the hook should be as interesting as possible, but the corollary of retaining this rule would result in the exclusion from DYK of articles with no broad-based interest such as many of those on maths, chemistry, astronomy, fossil ants and other topics. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removal, but make it clear the hook has to be interesting, but the article or fact don't have to interest a broad audience. I expect 99% of articles here are not of interest to a broad audience. Only the hook has to be interesting enough to hook the reader. Checking that criterion is very subjective, although I have rejected DYKs because the hook was too boring. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth and Graeme Bartlett: Since I respect both your opinions, may I ask a clarifying question? How do you read the rule as it currently stands, as requiring the article to be interesting to a broad audience? I've read it over many times, and all it says is that the hook must be interesting to a broad audience. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The rule applies to the hook, but it is difficult to craft a broadly interesting hook for a very technical article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Difficult but seldom impossible. Removing this rule would just allow people to tell us that "Extinct ant A had six clubbed hairs" week after week after week, because removing the rule would prevent anyone complaining about the sheer banality of it all. Sometimes it's about not being able to see the wood for the trees, collaboration with other (non-expert) editors in such cases may frequently lead to hooks that would be of interest to many more people (EdChem often suggests two or three or more alt hooks when these situations arise, why can't we just keep using his approach as a good example of what to do? Is it because of ownership issues perhaps?). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment, TRM, I'm glad to hear my ALT suggestions are seen as a good example. On articles I've nominated where I've not been sure how interesting a hook might be, I've also proposed ALTs in the nomination. Technically, a reviewer should consider all ALTs that are policy compliant, but they may also favour use of a particular one, which is one reason for proposing them – to allow a reviewer to add an outside view on this criterion. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moar or less per The Rambling Man. We can at least try to make stuff interesting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as an unnecessary surplusage. I've always said that what may uninteresting to one, could be very interesting to another. It is all a matter of subjectivity and as Cwmhiraeth said it is hard to write an "interesting" hook on a technical article or one that has limited information. We should not try to block articles from running just because one may not find it interesting in their opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    As noted already, interesting may be subjective, but once a hook has been called out as dull and more than one or two individuals agree, it should be fixed. I realise the WikiCup doesn't care for quality, just numbers, hence all the content forks you create, but that's not what DYK was ever about. It's lost its way in the rush to mediocrity to facilitate a factory-line of "pass, pass, pass". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    I do not create content forks and I'm no longer in the WikiCup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    You did, several times, and you were. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not true. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    So "Fucking sign", about a town in austria(or rather about its sign), is not a content fork you created? Certainly looks like it was created by you and very much defended after. Then it got merged after some discussion with very clear comments about the standalone content fork. Just a single example i can think of from earlier this year. 91.49.70.132 (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    Another of your content forks would be Wrigley Field Ivy by the way. Cannot see any discussion but it is a mere redirect to Wrigley Field now anyway. As to the wiki cup, you are clearly listed as a participant in round one of 2017. So remind me, which of TRM's statements above were "not true"? 91.49.86.44 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - hooks should be interesting, although we need to interpret "interesting" in a broad manner. Dull hooks should not disqualify the nomination, but instead the DYK community should propose alternate, more "interesting" hooks, which is what I see happen most of the time. I suppose "interesting in a broad manner" is ambiguous, and what I'm trying to say is that if I wrote a hook that said "Did you know that Grey Gull Records used the 4000 matrix series twice?", this would be fascinating to me as a discographer, but would probably mean absolutely nothing to the general reader. We also don't need to try aim our hooks at the average 10-year-old with ADD, either. We should make our hooks understandable to the average reader, and there should be a reasonable chance that any given reader will find it interesting. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussion, and per 78. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal but would support a redrafting of the criterion. I am a scientist and so find many scientific topics / facts / observations interesting. I find many sporting topics / facts uninteresting or even boring. Many people would have differing views from mine on what is personally interesting, and anyone claiming to know that a randomly chosen hook is objectively interesting to a "broad audience" is going to have a very difficult mounting an evidence-based argument in most cases. There are hooks, though, that a consensus here can conclude that a hook is sufficiently uninteresting to this community to be not worth running (imagine "... that water is wet?"). Perhaps we might consider an alternative like "interesting within its topic" or "interesting to readers of its topic"? EdChem (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Kind-of support, as written it seems categorical (as if there really is a known category of things interesting, in which things either are or are not) and is misleading, as it's not and probably can never be treated as categorical, it is more treated as quite vague advice, so perhaps change to "generally aim". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but add weaker version to supplementary rules. It's reasonable for a reviewer to ask the nominator to suggest a more interesting hook during the initial review, but having discussions about interestingness after the hook has moved to the prep/queue takes our resources away from dealing with hooks that have factual problems. It would be good to have a supplementary rule to this effect. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 14:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The requirement is too subjective, and in the end, unnecessary. The majority of articles are of interest only to subsets of the readership. I see no reason why the hooks should have top appeal to a broad audience. I seems that this is just being used as a tool to enforce US-centric hooks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CREEP. That whole section about eligibility criteria is absurdly bloated and should be rewritten. For example, it starts by saying that there are four criteria and then lists five numbered items ("the number of the counting shall be three ... five is right out"). The eligibility criteria should stick to the essential points – that the article should be new, expanded or a GA that hasn't been on the main page before. Hook quality is not an eligibility criterion at all because hooks are often developed or changed during the DYK process. There's an entire separate section about the hook, following the eligibility criteria, and so any observations about the hook should be confined to that section. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is vitally important that the "interesting" criterion be retained at DYK. I know from experience that even with this criterion, some nominators will argue that the most crushingly banal hooks should be promoted because interest is "subjective", while in spite of the criterion, uninteresting hooks still have a tendency to slip by. Quality controllers at DYK need to reference this criterion when removing uninteresting hooks because the other reference in the rules pertaining to this issue, which states that a hook be "catchy", is indeed subjective, as well as being unacceptably vague. Hook interest is a vital component of DYK and while the project sometimes fails the criterion, removing it altogether will make the situation much worse.
Having said that, it's undeniable that some topics are inevitably unlikely to appeal "to a broad audience" but that is still the gold standard the project should be striving for. If the argument is that the criterion should be scrapped because some hooks - on arcane or specialist subjects for example - cannot meet it, the appropriate solution would be simply to add a qualifier to the phrase such as "preferably" so that it reads "interesting, preferably to a broad audience", not to scrap it altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The argument that the broadness rule runs counter to wikipedia notability guidelines, which are based on verifiability and neutrality, not on potential audience interest levels is a non-sequitur. Verifiability and neutrality are part of the DYK criteria, but so are—as Kevmin notes—that a hook must be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers into wanting to read the article", which also has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In addition to being notable, an article must have something interesting about it that can be conveyed in a hook. The rule in question seems to me to be saying that the hook cannot simply be catchy to a specialized group, say entomologists or football fans, but pique the interest of a spectrum of readers. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

But why does it need to be in the rule set in the first place (given it was added without discussion and is already covered by the guideline you just quoted. Also there still is no way it can be neutrally applied and assessed in any situation.--Kevmin § 03:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I've tried to do a copyedit of the original proposal text on both pages to address this concern. Alex ShihTalk 09:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Point of information, the selection of an article "interesting to a wide audience" has been in the rules since 2007. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The rule is very subjective. I would not object to changing it to "as interesting as possible", with the requirement that anyone challenging a hook on these grounds should suggest a more interesting hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Non-boring is already amply covered in the nomination guidelines and there is no need for the wording of Rule 3A as it stands, what do you see as the harm of reverting 3a to the pre 2012 version?-Kevmin § 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    Where is it covered? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the instructions directly after the rules set, specifically in the recommendation for short concise hooky nominations--Kevmin § 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Please provide direct evidence of the purposeful bad faith you are asserting in your statement. Otherwise please retract the purposeful assertion of bad faith against me.--Kevmin § 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    You'll need to clarify that request, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The request was very clear. You have very specifically asserted bad faith on my part in creating the RFC. Provide the specific evidence and examples of my bad faith in this matter or retract your statement made in your vote.--Kevmin § 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The request may have been "clear" but not precise. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I don't recall assuming any "bad faith", perhaps you're referring to the issue that some users have when their "hooks" are continually berated for not being hooky? If so, I don't need to providence evidence of that, because that's already clear. Was it something else I said? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hang on, I said this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers and is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks, directly against the spirit of DYK.. So, breaking it down, this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers, well that's true, why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting? is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks this is a natural conclusion from people who are actively working to remove the "interesting" criterion. This isn't bad faith, a personal attack, or anything else, just a statement of fact. Why would anyone nominate a hook at DYK that wouldn't be interesting to the world at large? What would be the point? directly against the spirit of DYK yes, 100%. "Did you know" are the opening three words of a sentence that is intended to provide something interesting afterwards. The spirit of DYK has been destroyed by the reluctance of reviewers to simply kick dull hooks to the curb. It's a shame because actually, as I noted above, with a little bit of consideration, usually an actually interesting hook can be teased out, but due to ownership issues, this is seldom an easy or rewarding task. The over-riding issue is a complete lack of understanding of our readers. And that's really preoblmatic. And this RFC underlines the idea that our editors and their preferences are more important than our audience. Which is plain wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But again, the readership is not a monolithic whole that will only ever like certain things, that is false, thus your statement "why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting" is never going to anything but based on gut feelings of the people who nominate and promote hooks, there is no way to define something as "boring". It is also NOT and i will repeat NOT a natural conclusion that is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks from people who are actively working to remove the "interesting" criterion. That is a bad faith assertion on your part, unless you are going to claim being privy to personal thought processes. You do NOT know what my thoughts are regarding the matter, and asserting motive on my behalf is not acceptable. The rest of your statement boils down to trying to guess what at least 470 million people (minimum estimate of world English speakers) will all think is interesting.--Kevmin § 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • TRM, the part where you say "designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks" is an example of what is being argued at ARCA. You are commenting on the motivation of others as if what you think is their motivation not only is their motivation, but is the only possible motivation. As Kevmin's comments indicate, this can upset other editors. Further, your own comments above show why this specific comment was unnecessary. Lifting from your own words (in blue), you could have written:
Oppose this clearly serves no benefit at all to, and reflects a complete lack of understanding of, our readers, which is directly against the spirit of DYK. Removing this rule would just allow people to tell us that "Extinct ant A had six clubbed hairs" week after week after week, because removing the rule would prevent anyone complaining about the sheer banality of it all. Sometimes it's about not being able to see the wood for the trees, collaboration with other (non-expert) editors in such cases may frequently lead to hooks that would be of interest to many more people. I believe that once a hook has been called out as dull and more than one or two individuals agree, it should be fixed as why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting? The spirit of DYK is being destroyed by ownership issues, in my opinion, and the reluctance of reviewers to simply kick dull hooks to the curb. It's a shame because usually an actually interesting hook can be teased out, but ownership issues mean that this is seldom an easy or rewarding task. Our editors and their preferences should not be more important than our audience.
I think this comment expresses your view accurately (please disagree if I have distorted your view). It expresses what I see as your view that the source of the problem is ownership issues and a focus on editors rather than readers, without attributing motivation to !voters in this RfC. It avoids the distraction of alleged bad faith taking away from the change to DY guidelines. And, it prevents anyone putting you through another round of pointless AE debate. I am not suggesting that you alter your view or limit your expression on what are WP issues, but please avoid guessing about other's motivations as it just provides an opportunity to move focus from the issues and onto you. EdChem (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Entirely the wrong venue and completely derailing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Derailing the discussion was certainly not my intent. Sorry. EdChem (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @EdChem: In response to your suggestion above: I'd made a similar proposal a few months ago (can't be bothered to dig it up) but it received next to no support. Since then, though, I've reconsidered. We shouldn't require a hook to be interesting "within the field"; because you can always find smaller and smaller populations of people who are acquainted with a certain subject, and therefore find a hook interesting. I now think we should require the reverse. The hook fact should be interesting to at least some individuals outside the field in question. If we have a chemistry hook, at least some non-chemists should find it interesting. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I've always tried for something with broader interest, yes. I didn't so much mean a chemistry hook needs to be interesting to chemists as mean a chemistry hook should be (at least) interesting to WP readers of chemistry content. EdChem (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty unbelievable

I was updating the DYK stats for August and came across this record-shattering hook:

It logged over 600,000 hits! Congratulations to Linguist111! Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to detract from Linguist's achievement, my real admiration is for the brother. EEng 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea I broke a record! Thanks! It's seems that wasn't all though - somebody posted about it on Reddit and the discussion made its "Today I Learned" front page with 4,600 replies ([1]). Wow. Linguist111 01:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Without question such external exposure is the reason for the huge traffic. EEng 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Remarkable indeed. Congratulation Linguist111! Alex ShihTalk 03:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
From one former record holder, congratulations to @Linguist111:. Reddit is a powerful independent traffic director when it comes to people visiting Wikipedia, it's what helped me earn the record a few years ago with Silver Cross Tavern. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Truly awesome achievement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. It was the most read article on Wikipedia on that day, beating articles like Glen Campbell (518K) and Guam (436K). The FA was 29th with about 50K. Andrew D. (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't find that out until yesterday (or the day before, I can't remember). Thanks, Andrew! Thanks all for the kind comments and the congratulations. This has motivated me towards getting this article to GA. It still needs a bit more improvement before it can reach that but we're on the right track. Linguist111 05:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK check

Can an admin check the approved hook for the Jordanian local elections, 2017, its urgent?

Can someone also patrol the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The hook doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand how 68 women might win seats, but how can a local council win a seat? The article suggests that it means that the seats for those local councils have been won by acclamation, and so the elections are cancelled, but the hook doesn't say that - so it's really unclear. Also, it should be "have already won seats" (and "slated" should probably be "due to be held on" or similar). Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: could this be discussed on the template? 66 women won seats, 21 local councils won seats, there are obviously more posts to fill so elections are not canceled (slated for, is also an indication). Anyway the hook is doomed, the elections started. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

QPQ credits

Our QPQ procedure provides an exemption for newcomers: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ. A problem occurs if a newcomer creates several DYK nominations. This can be over a considerable period of time; we all know that it can take a while before a nomination is reviewed, and that they can then wait some time before being moved to a prep area. Nor are nominations reviewed or promoted in the order that they are nominated. Read literally, the procedure would require nominations to be pulled at the last minute, even though the nominator may have carried out QPQ reviews for all but the first five nominations. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of these situations where an ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation. I think you'll find that formulating this precisely is very complicated. In practice there hasn't been a problemhave rarely been problems, and they're easily sorted out. EEng 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course there's been a problem. Why do you think I am bringing it up? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I've modified my statement. Again, I think you'll find that trying to lay the requirement out with mathematical precision is a difficult exercise. EEng 04:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate The Jewish Confederates for DYK? Please ping me if interested. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Any reason you aren't nominating it yourself? You have DYK credits in the past, so the process isn't new to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
They were gifted to me as a co-nominator. Basically I am not sure how to assess articles for DYK nomination. Is it really as complicated as it seems?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I have created it for you but I don't think you should have any doubts about it. The nomination process is much easier than you think. All you have to do is put your article name in the box on the template talk page then fill out the template. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Dranga Campbell - reliability of source

I would like to start a discussion here - Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Dranga Campbell - on the reliability of a source. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew it. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First computer game in 1914

Hi,

I've been expanding the article about El Ajedrecista, which is claimed to be the first game played automatically by a (electro-mechanical) computer, and was built by the designer of the Niagara aero car. While the article is not new, it has been expanded, cleaned-up and includes new references. Would these changes be enough for including it in a Did you know... snippet? Diego (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't qualify under the "newly expanded" criterion, but don't panic, there's still hope: bring it to WP:GA. It will takes some work, but I think you'll find it a rewarding exercise. It's indeed a wonderful topic. EEng 23:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the previous list having vanished into the archive less than an hour ago, a new one is needed—here is an updated list of 38 old nominations, which goes through August 3. Right now we have a total of 190 nominations, of which 61 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left from June.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Maria Marte

... that María Marte is the only female chef in Madrid with two Michelin stars? 97198, Hameltion, Elisa.rolle

Now, that's interesting to a degree, but is a pretty tight intersection (female chef/Madrid/Michelin stars), but reading the article, it is absolutely astonishing to me that she was awarded her first Michelin star just four years after starting work as a part-time dish-washer in a kitchen! Just a thought that maybe others would find that more interesting than the current hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha, well perhaps the original hook is somewhat misleading. The restaurant she happened to work at received two Michelin stars, the first being when Marte seems to have been working as an odd-job chef, doing this and that. So is it even actually reasonable to claim that she herself has two Michelin stars, particuarly when it was actually the restaurant itself that was awarded them? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an unfortunate result of the common usage of 'Michelin starred chefs'. Commonly both the industry and society in general talk about the Chef-in-charge (not always the owner) being a Michelin chef, however technically it is the restaurant that wins the prize. Accurately if she wasn't a head chef in charge of the menu at the point it was awarded, she would be entitled to say she contributed towards the stars - they are awarded on more than just food - but would not be classed as a Michelin starred chef. When she was in charge of the menu/food, that's the point where her significant contribution would entitle her under the common usage to be called a Michelin-starred chef. If she was in both circumstances over a length of time, then really she is only a 1-star chef working in a 2-time starred restaurant. From looking at the article and sources in more detail, she was a sous-chef for the award of both stars originally, and these were confirmed subsequently when the restaurant was re-scored the following year after the change in Chefs (as is common in these situations - a change in head chefs can often lead to a change in quality - so a Michelin starred restaurant will be rescored at the next opportunity to make sure the new head chef is keeping up the standards). So she is entitled to call herself a 2-star Michelin chef. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well now that's established, my first point remains, it's amazing for me that she "earned her first Michelin star four years after washing the dishes in the restaurant". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why its drilled down that much, I guess there are other female chefs in Spain who have 2? Its not uncommon for some major cities to have zero or 1 restaurants. Although its less uncommon than you think about KP's moving up the ranks. It depends on the size of the kitchen and the competition amongst the fellow employees. Its more interesting than being female and in Madrid however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging the nominator Hameltion to join this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I already had. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
So, I'm the nominator. Here's a clarification: while she worked at the restaurant, but not as head chef, she can't be said to have been awarded the Michelin star. However, she does currently hold two Michelin stars, because she is the head chef, and the restaurant was re-reviewed after her promotion and kept its two stars.
While the current hook is true, if it seems a little iffy, or if the intersection seems too "tight", we could use the other hook I nominated:
ALT1: ... that chef María Marte has a tattoo of her first original dish, a caramelized hibiscus flower?
Either one works for me. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I like ALT1, and it's verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Syllis ramosa

  • ... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa lives inside a deepwater sponge?

Seems a massive shame not to have used the fact it was the first such worm discovered with one mouth and multiple anuses. That would definitely be interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Indeed. The worm is quite bizarre in other ways too. How about
  • ALT1 ... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa lives inside a deepwater sponge and has a single mouth and many anuses? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think banging my "broad audience" drum, us non-specialists would definitely find the latter fact more interesting than the former, so combining is a good compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This hook is currently in Prep 1, and the thread given above is copied from my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done ALT1 hook ref is AGF and cited inline. I substituted it in Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I also shortened it for more impact. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm ... now I am unhappy. You have changed it to "... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa has a single mouth and many anuses?" This unique worm didn't choose to have lots of anuses, but evolved to live in a sponge, its body branching to adopt the shape of the many channels in its host, and thus having many tips to its branches. Here is an article about it in the New Scientist. Your changes to the hook has removed all that context - it could be an earthworm or a gut parasite! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Like someone said, at DYK you have to deal with a lot of assholes. EEng 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: the multi-fact hook just seemed to go on and on. Would this be ok?:
  • ALT2: ... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa, which lives inside a deepwater sponge, has a single mouth and many anuses? Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ce ALT2 to shorten?

Thoughts, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, The Rambling Man? EdChem (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • ALT2a is good grammatically, but we do try to put the bold-link article as early in the hook as possible. Yoninah (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@MX: @Groupuscule: @Cwmhiraeth: Why is this hooky? And we're not talking about a 1500-character article either. Surely there's something more eye-catching to say about him. Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the hook was pretty interesting. But I guess we could add an alternate hook for his entrepreneurship (though I hope it doesn't come off as promotional). MX () 12:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=796071907"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA