The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Krakkos: OK. No problem. Just curious, is there a guidance on this topic? The closest I can think of is that recent NZ legislative DYK which had links for all legislators. Either way, proceed as you deem fit. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: Each of those names was a bolded link. These are just names in a hook. There are two streams of thought about this. One is just to bold the subject and leave everything else unlinked; you'll find out about everything once you click on the bolded article. The other is to link unfamiliar names/things in order to encourage viewership of other Wikipedia articles. But a hook that has blue every other word is a bit hard to read. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: sounds good. Let's go with ALT1. I did not know that we could bold links in the hook that were not part of the DYK process (i.e. non DYK article). TIL. Cheers. ALT1 looks clean. Ktin (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: please read my edited comment. I meant "link", not "bold". Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Perfect. This makes more sense. Thanks for the edited comment, the earlier one had bold, and hence my question. Cheers. Good to go with ALT1. Ktin (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Everything looks good here. Krakkos (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)