Talk:Bop House

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MisawaSakura talk 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Bop House comprises eight OnlyFans creators?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Istana Park
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

Created by Mooonswimmer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 317 past nominations.

Launchballer 21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ?

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I had to do a few edits to fix some very minor copyvio, but it's now looking good to me. I don't find the hook very interesting as-is, but would be happy with:

ALT1: ... that the eight OnlyFans creators at the Bop House produce rage bait but not pornography?

ALT2: ... that the OnlyFans creators at the Bop House have acknowledged faking personal conflicts?

ALT3: ... that the Bop House has been called "a modern-day, TikTokified Playboy Mansion"?

Source for ALT1 and ALT2: "none of the Bop House girls do actual porn"; "A lot of what gets clip-farmed happens to be rage bait or just straight-up lies. Araújo, for instance, tells me that, despite claiming to, she never actually shit in a jar for $50,000. ... Filippo never actually broke into Araújo’s house and stole her dogs, which they sheepishly admitted on Clock It. “Everything was fake. Everything,” she says. ... Recently, there was a rumor one of the Bop House girls is pregnant. “I was just making up things,” says Araújo, laughing."

Source for ALT3: "The Bop House, a modern-day, TikTokified Playboy Mansion full of OnlyFans models, not only exists but is apparently extremely successful"

Someone else should review those hooks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We've run five hooks with the word "OnlyFans" in the hook and WP:DYKSTATS says they've been the 11th, 36th, 34th, 5th, and 2nd most viewed hooks of the month. ALT0 is interesting to our audience.--Launchballer 05:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I think it's more interesting to also say something more specific about the group than just that there are eight of them. Would you be ok with any of the hooks I suggested? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think they bury the lede, but I'm happy to let someone else adjudicate.--Launchballer 12:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the original hook was too vague to meet DYKINT, as its reliance on just the OnlyFans mention makes it meeting the interesting guidelines tenuous. ALT1 is probably the safest option among the three. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It just does not - five out of five OnlyFans hooks going top 40 out of 269+ clearly indicates that a broad audience are likely to find the hook interesting - but fine, reviewer needed for ALT1. I'd end it at 'bait' though, as in ALT1a: ... that the eight OnlyFans creators of Bop House produce rage bait?. (It should be obvious enough what rage bait is that a link shouldn't be necessary.)--Launchballer 02:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Although saying that, where in the article is ALT1?--Launchballer 05:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I saw it in the source but didn't add it to the article; the term "rage bait" is there now. Personally in ALT1 I think it's interesting for OnlyFans creators not to produce porn but I have no objections to ALT1a. The high-ranking examples you cite have an additional element besides "there are people on OnlyFans", and I don't think "there are eight people on OnlyFans" is nearly as unexpected as eg "there is a squirrel on OnlyFans" was. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

(Actually, porn/sex hooks do notoriously well at DYKSTATS; about half the 'highs' at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly summary statistics/2025/Non-imaged are that. I spend way too much time looking at those numbers.) Not convinced 'rage bait' needs attributing, so I reworded the article to that effect, and suggest ALT1b: ... that members of the OnlyFans collective Bop House have produced rage bait?, as that can more easily be edited to attribute if it does.--Launchballer 16:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the "but not porn" point still needs to be emphasized. For one thing, the public's association with OnlyFans, rightly or wrongly, is with porn, and there's in theory nothing in the hook that would make readers assume that the group does not do porn. Rage bait and porn are not necessarily mutually exclusive: without context, theoretically, they could have done both, hence the need for further clarity. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The 'not porn' bit is attributed in the article to one creator, and the article currently says in wikivoice "the collective focuses on intimacy positioned between explicit adult content and a girlfriend experience". Therefore, ALT4: ... that the Bop House OnlyFans collective focuses on intimacy positioned between explicit adult content and a girlfriend experience?--Launchballer 13:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Review needed for ALT4.--Launchballer 04:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I verified that ALT0, ALT1, ALT1a, ALT1b, ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4 are in the article, cited, and supported by the sources. I will leave to the hook promoter to choose a hook they find to be interesting.
As Launchballer noted, ALT1 was not supported because the "not porn" bit was not in the Wikipedia article. ALT1 is supported by the source, which says, "In DMs and extra paid-for posts, where many OnlyFans models make the majority of their income, spicier content gets teased, but none of the Bop House girls do actual porn." The Wikipedia article attributed this statement to a creator, "According to Camilla Araújo, members do not create explicit pornography for OnlyFans." I modified that sentence to remove the attribution so that it now says "Members do not create explicit pornography for OnlyFans", so it is verified now too. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. (I've said my piece as to which I prefer, but it's obviously the promoter's choice.) I wonder why Mooonswimmer attributed?--Launchballer 07:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

To Prep 4