Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Boy Scout nomination

A discussion is currently taking place regarding how to treat articles created with a COI on DYK. That RfC was procedually closed, so I've started a new one below as this is the appropriate place to discuss it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Should articles created under a conflict of interest be allowed to run on Did you know? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The previous RfC, which was started by {{u|Thriley}}, came in the wake of two nominations by {{u|Sammi Brie}}, who recently took up a paid editing position at Arizona State University. She nominated one of the articles which she created under the ASU's auspices, although she made it clear that the nomination was made independently and was not directed by the ASU.

Pinging participants in that closed RfC to give their thoughts here: {{ping|Tryptofish|Launchballer|Justiyaya}}, as well as commenters {{ping|Firefangledfeathers|Flibirigit}}. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think a page that is seen by a larger segment of the community than this one would be the best location for this. The implications of allowing paid articles on the front page are serious. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am the editor who closed the previous discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini - I felt myself that it was in the wrong venue and multiple editors had already said as much. To an extent, I also agree with Thriley but I think this is probably the best venue for an initial discussion. If necessary, it could be advertised at and/or moved to WT:Main page and WP:Village pump but I do think discussion about what should be allowable in WP:DYK should be held here. As other editors said in the previous discussion, where a paid edit has been clearly disclosed and is in line with both the English language Wikipedia's policies and the Wikipedia Foundation's terms, I see no issue with a DYK nomination from a non-paid editor based on a paid editors contributions. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Quick questtion- original RfC said "articles created for payment", while this version expands that to "conflict of interest". Before this gets underway, is there a reason this RfC went for a much broader scope? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don’t appreciate that the wording was changed. This is about paid editing. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's odd to see this as an RfC. The issue was pre-emptively raised by Sammi Brie at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#ASU — disclosed paid editing, which received no objections, so the WP:RFCBEFORE showed no objections. If there is an RfC, there should be another discussion first to get a better understanding of editors' thoughts on the matter. CMD (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:There was some discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini prior to the opening of the original RFC at that page which I closed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I should have also mentioned, there was some objection in that discussion. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. It seems that the objection came only from Thriley. The closed RfC found support in the limited time it was open, which is in line with the lack of objections when this was previously discussed here. I think there is merit to further discussion, which could shift perspectives, but as it stands the existing discussions do already indicate some consensus on this matter. CMD (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree, further discussion might have merit. I don't think it would have been all that useful in the initial venue, though. As I said above, I don't really see any issue, but paid editing on Wikipedia can be a very touchy subject so if anyone has legitimate concerns they want to voice here that I haven't considered I am happy to be convinced. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:My view remains the same as it was a day or two ago, when I posted it at the previous discussion, so I'm linking to it, rather than repeating it here. (Since editors here are taking specific note of the issue of paid editing, I'll add that what I said still applies the same way to WP:PAID.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Mine as well.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For what it's worth, I agree that cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis. What Sammi is doing should be fine, but we have had questionable cases in the past like TonyTheTiger and his sister. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to discuss this, just to avoid anything like the Gibraltarpedia story. Certainly we should not have ASU stories every day (but I trust Sammi to not do something like that). —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:A specific note from me here... Most of my work for ASU is going to involve improvements to existing pages. Graham Rossini is kind of a "right place at the right time" one. I identified him during an extremely large project that nearly quadrupled the size of ASU's alumni list (and resulted in 13 new sublists). Rossini didn't meet the GNG until he became ASU's athletic director, because it's precisely that job that gave him his SIGCOV. And further, athletic directors of major universities tend to be notable. ASU has a navbox of past ADs. Ten of the fifteen other Big 12 ADs have articles per List of NCAA Division I athletic directors, as do 16 of 18 in the ACC and all of the SEC and Big Ten. That doesn't mean I don't see gaps or ASU-adjacent projects that I'd like to fill on my own time, of course (Charles S. Harris, for instance, is the only permanent ASU AD to not have an article going back to the 1950s). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to the view that it's permissible, provided the COI is clearly disclosed on the nominations page. One could perhaps require an additional safeguard such as a second reviewer, but so long as it is independently reviewed and meets all the criteria there shouldn't be an issue. If in future it shows signs of becoming an issue, one could always revisit the matter, but a blanket disqualification at this point would seem premature. Gatoclass (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think that Tony did all of those things when writing an article on a family member, and almost nobody was okay with it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::The issue with Tony's case was not the COI itself, it was the circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, editors interpreted his nomination as a way to promote his sister, not helped by the fact that he wanted it to run on her birthday (which at the time was not in the article). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that it's important to be clear whether this is about paid editing, or COI editing. They are different things. I, for one, don't do the former. I am currently writing an article where I have a COI (in draft, conflict declared, and the article is going to be peer reviewed before it goes into main space). Hence, I'd say be clear what the RfC is asking about. Schwede66 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe it should be permissible in the case of COI editing, with the caveat that the COI should clearly be stated in the nomination, and that the reviewer should apply extra scrutiny. For paid editing, it shouldn't be allowed at all. My reasoning behind this is that content on the Main Page is intended to set an example for the rest of the encyclopedia. For COI editing, a transparency requirement and a stricter DYK review can be good arguments for it setting an example for future COI editors. Meanwhile, paid editing isn't an ideal we should strive for at all – especially not paying for content that will end up on the Main Page, without readers knowing that the article was paid for. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• I hate to be that guy, but this is a bad RfC. Most participants can't even agree on what the RfC is about (paid or COI) and are directly contradicting the RfC statement. The responses are all over the place, proposing several different solutions at once but in such vague terms that most aren't actionable. This is much closer to an RFCBEFORE than an actual RfC and I don't think a closer could reasonably read any specific consensus out of it – in fact, I don't think it needs closing at all. I encourage participants to let the discussion get archived and then, if they wish, refine the suggestions here into a new RfC on several specific proposals. Toadspike [Talk] 10:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I have three articles I've requested to be held for July 2, which is apparently World UFO Day. They are:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Disclosure movement
• Template:Did you know nominations/David Wilcock
• Template:Did you know nominations/McMenamins Hotel Oregon UFO Festival

Thank you, and I hope that's okay. Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC); edited 04:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC); edited 05:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:DYKSO applies here: it seems you are proposing a novel special occasion set, which would need consensus here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for calling that out, for some reason I was thinking there was a four hook threshold, but obviously I was incorrect. Given that, I'll strike the holding request for the first two. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Given that there's no consensus to have a World UFO Day set, you will have to only pick one out of the three; the others will have to run as regular hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::DYKSO does not require a special occasion set to be approved. Chetsford did what DYKSO says, which is request them to be held for a specific date, and from what I can see, they are being requested within the timeframe allotted (between 1-6 weeks before the date). It's up to the prep-builders and admins if they want to accept the hold requests or not. This isn't a request for a {{tq|novel thematic set}} that would need approval here. It's simply a request to hold hooks for a specific date. A novel thematic set would be a set that runs every year, and/or that is a full set of hooks. There is no defined barrier between what qualifies just as holding hooks for a thematic date and what would be classified as a "thematic set", but it's certainly much more than half the set (i.e. 3 hooks, that Chetsford is asking to be held).{{pb}}Furthermore, even if there is some unwritten "limit", the hooks proposed are not so related to UFOs as for me to oppose such a same-date run. Only two of them directly reference UFOs in the hook, for example, and from my look, the first one (Disclosure movement) could likely have a last slot hook that doesn't say UFO in the hook be prepared. For example: "that the TV show Ancient Aliens speculated the CIA caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to prevent the disclosure of purported information about aliens".{{pb}}Ultimately all three of these topics are relevant to the date proposed, and if the preppers can fit them in in a way that works with the set, I don't see this as a DYKSO problem - since this isn't going to be something that there is likely to be a full set to run every year. I would encourage Chetsford to maybe look at whether other hooks can be proposed for them that may not focus so much on their UFO-ness - that way there's less of a "special occasion" concern. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The relevant part is here (emphasis mine): {{tq|Occasionally, DYK will run thematic sets; these cannot be put together on a whim, and novel thematic sets must be approved at WT:DYK.}} Technically it's not a full set, but I think the spirit stands. Another issue is WP:DYKVAR: guidelines recommend no more than two hooks of a similar topic or nature running per set. Occasionally that could be broken, but that would require consensus at WT:DYK and an explicit IAR exemption. I can see one or at most two hooks being allowed to run, but all three and/or a full set would be a tall order. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::My understanding of two hooks of a similar topic or "nature" running in a set is based on the hook, not based on the subject of the article. Hence why I recommended to Chetsford to try and make the hooks different. Even so, there's one article on a conspiracy theory (the first), one on a person (the second), and one on an event (the third) - so I think with the right hooks any concerns about topic/nature could be resolved. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I don't necessarily agree with there being a hard limit of 2 hooks on a topic without some pre-approval. If you think it's necessary, then consider me as a support for these articles running on the date proposed (and I'm fine with current hooks too) - since this is the proper place to discuss/seek support anyway. There's more than a month to get support for the date request before it comes by - so if someone feels it's necessary, I'd find it more respectful to just start the discussion over them rather than saying "you didn't comply with some unwritten rules so you're screwed" basically. Even if that discussion ultimately ends in a SNOW closure against. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::For what it's worth, the two-article limit is explicitly stated at DYKVAR rather than it being an unwritten rule: "No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update." Now, what exactly counts as a "topic" here is subjective, but if using the broad interpretation, especially with the idea that they are being requested for a special occasion, then yes, having more than two articles about the same general idea (UFOs) would violate DYKVAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Chetsford, I would support Template:Did you know nominations/McMenamins Hotel Oregon UFO Festival running on either World UFO Day date.{{pb}}

:I have reservations about running the other two on a day meant [https://web.archive.org/web/20220629124042/https://www.worldufoday.com/about-world-ufo-day/whatwherewhywhen/ to raise awareness about the undoubted existence of UFO’s and with that intelligent beings from outer space.] We obviously should not imply that there is evidence for a crashed alien spaceship, but running these hooks on a day where UFO believers are celebrating feels a bit off. I think a kind of sideways comparison would be running stuff like blood libel and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre on August 24. In the same way a Catholic reader might find that disrespectful, we do have readers who will have UFO beliefs that are [http://archive.today/2025.02.05-192057/https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26535293-100-why-an-increasing-belief-in-alien-visitations-is-a-real-world-problem/ political] or [https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/11/22/ufo-religion-movement/ religious]. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Our of respect for our Raëlian readers, or just general prep building convenience, I am fine abandoning this altogether. I just had three articles and noticed a degree of synchronicity but I think that generally this seems like more trouble than it's worth. Chetsford (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would not mind one of the three running on the day, but having all three never seemed appropriate. Rjjiii's suggestion seems like a good compromise if you're still willing to go with that route. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please consider John C. Raaen Jr. for Main Page DYK on June 6, 2025. June 6 will be the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy, France. Retired MajGen Raaen, still living at age 103, was awarded a Silver Star for his role in the D-Day landings. I think it would be most appropriate to have his DYK posted on June 6, 2025. Thanks for the consideration. ({{ping|Hawkeye7}} Pinging DYK reviewer) — ERcheck (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Replied there.--Launchballer 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've made the update as suggested. — ERcheck (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I promoted this.--Launchballer 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Cielquiparle|WikiOriginal-9|History6042|Narutolovehinata5|SL93}}

I was going to bump this back by a set to entertain the above date request, but I'm concerned that this is a WP:DYKBLP violation.--Launchballer 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Either way the hook needs to change, because [https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/172284564/ this source] actually doesn't say it's a "juvenile detention center". It says it's a school for juveniles who have run into problems with the law, which sounds like it is probably something different. (Maybe there's another source somewhere that used the "detention center" terminology?)

:What if we changed the hook to say:

:::"... that Ralph Jarvis first played football at a juvenile reform school before being drafted by the Chicago Bears?

:Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Slightly better, but I think mainpaging the fact that he's had trouble with the law is unduly negative.--Launchballer 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But we are including the positive outcome, so it's actually inspirational to our readership - it is possible to pivot when you are down. There is actually quite a lot of coverage about it, beyond the Chicago Bears article, like [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-journal-valdosta-vs-school/173200260/ this one] specifically about Glen Mills. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The article about the Chicago Bears drafting him quotes Jarvis himself saying, "I'd like to find that judge and thank him for the way things turned out...I wasn't going to classes before I got sent to Glen Mills and the school brought me to manhood. It made me see the big picture." Cielquiparle (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough.--Launchballer 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I already included in the pro career section "After being drafted by the Bears, Jarvis stated that he wanted to find the judge who sent him to Glen Mills schools and thank him". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Glen Mills Schools calls it a juvenile detention center. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I saw that but that claim is not sourced convincingly. I will fix it it in the other article. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

... that NFL player Ralph Jarvis played football at a juvenile reform school before being drafted by the Chicago Bears? I'm concerned this violates WP:DYKBLP because it focuses unduly on a negative aspect of a living person. Ie the context that he later wanted to "thank the judge that sent him there" is necessarily missing due to the hook's length. Thoughts? Therapyisgood (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging {{ping|Tamzin}}, who had an erudite discussion on racist NFL hooks earlier to see if this hook is, in fact, racist. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Racist? Well, it alludes to something that is a function of systematic racism (i.e., Jarvis would have been less likely to be in that position if he were white); I wouldn't say it's racist in the same way as the hook I complained about a few years ago that compared a Black athlete to a sports car someone wants to buy. I think the real question is, as you say, DYKBLP, and that can be resolved by bringing in the gratitude toward the judge, which focuses on a positive and shows he accepts the role that his incarceration has played in his life, making it neither undue nor negative. I don't think length should be an obstacle. ALT1 ... that upon being drafted by the NFL's Chicago Bears, Ralph Jarvis wanted to thank the judge who sent him to the reform school where he first played football? is 156 characters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::ALT1 sounds fine (although "football" either needs to be linked to American football, or to be specified, due to that issue discussed above). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Cielquiparle}} I've gone ahead and swapped the hook with {{u|Tamzin}}'s wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nice. It is also a more accurate hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• A bit of an aside, but {{ping|Cielquiparle}} is there anything known about his post-playing career? The article feels slightly incomplete otherwise; maybe a single sentence or two about what he was up to later would work. If nothing can be found then it's okay. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Ask @WikiOriginal-9 as the article expander and nominator. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I couldn't find anything. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Tyla became the second female African artist to score multiple solo entries on the Billboard Hot 100 with "Push 2 Start"?

{{ping|Dxneo|Pbritti|Cielquiparle}}

Is there a different hook that can be used here? Being a "second" is not really as interesting as being a "first", and per the discussion regarding "first" hooks, something can be the "first" or "second" at anything with enough qualifiers. I see that there were other proposals mentioned in the nomination, but they all have issues of their own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• I expressed that the selected hook was not my preference during my review. I think ALT0 is preferable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Pbritti @Dxneo @Narutolovehinata5 I just find ALT0 extremely hard to parse. But if other people like it, by all means switch it out. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm okay with ALT0. Is ALT2 axed out or…? dxneo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I also find ALT0 a little dry. ALT2 is interesting, but raises some DYKBLP concerns? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I also find it interesting, what are the issues? dxneo (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::ALT0 isn't very interesting to readers unfamiliar with Tyla. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Narutolovehinata5, I meant ALT2. dxneo (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'll go against the grain and say that I don't think it raises BLP concerns by itself, although I see where the concerns are coming from. Maybe a reworded version of ALT2 might address the BLP concerns, for example focusing more on the song itself than Tyla. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Any suggestions please? dxneo (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Maybe instead of focusing on Kyla, say that it was the song's music video that got backlash for coinciding with the US election? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Great! So, do I suggest this on the DYK nom or here? dxneo (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::The hook hasn't been pulled (yet), so here works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|10}}

ALT3… that the announcement of Tyla's "Push 2 Start" music video received backlash for coinciding with the 2024 U.S. presidential election?

I tried reviewing First Jewish–Roman War's DYK but reviewers pointed issues with it and recommended me to check other stuff. If the article has problems to pass the review, should I abandon it and move to another article? I was gonna abandon it but another user proposed a hook for a certain nomination and thus was called to do the QPQ. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Tintor2}} I recommend completing that one.--Launchballer 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Launchballer}} I see that {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has tidied up the formatting of the review, but I don't think {{u|Tintor2}} has given a clear explanation of what the problem is. I would suggest that a fresh review from another editor is needed. Also pinging {{ping|grapesurgeon|Narutolovehinata5}}. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll reply there.--Launchballer 13:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I came up with the idea for the initial hook of this article, which will be featured tomorrow. Where was it decided to change the hook (originally "that Hal Hanson 'made brave men wince'") to "that while picking his Minnesota 'team of the century', Dick Cullum said that Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"?" -- IMO the latter is much less interesting: reading it I first think "Dick Cullum - who?" and I suspect many will wonder what the "Minnesota team of the century" is as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some discussion was had at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 206#Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905) (nom), but most of the lengthening [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1&diff=next&oldid=1291978469 was done] by {{u|History6042}}, apparently because of DYKINT concerns. Personally I agree with {{u|BeanieFan11}} that the successive changes have replaced any sort of intriguing energy with a bland befuddlement. Any chance that an admin is willing to revert the last change at least? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't see an issue with the original hook, but I think at least "that Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'" would be better than this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's becoming divergent when a particular detail is essential vs. trivial (e.g. here), especially when it come to a related sport. —Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ironic. On the one hand there's an uproar over "but what sport?", then we place a writer's name who doesn't have a WP page (but does seem potentially notable), when "Minneapolis Tribune writer" would have provided better context, if mention of the writer was even necessary to begin with. —Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:for what it's worth, I stand by my feeling that the original hook doesn't really pass DYKINT, and despite valiant efforts, I don't think the workshopping does either. As for what qualifiers to include in terms of names of sports and publications, space is precious. The goal of hooks is to hook, and standard practice has always been to use as much detail as you need to accomplish that goal and no more. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|... and standard practice has always been to use as much detail as you need to accomplish that goal and no more}}: It seems that some also attempt to use less words to hook (some might say clickbait) readers. Perhaps formally decide this one way or another. It's frustrating for all when "their" nomination get tweaked but "another's" doesn't. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::For example, in the same set, {{tqq|* ... that in one year, 166,000 people visited a three-bedroom house with a garage that stood amid New York City's skyscrapers?}} gives no indication that this wasn't a run-of-the-mill house. —Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think 166K people would "visit" a random residential house. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sure, but my point is why isnt anyone similarly insistent that "basic" information like "temporary demonstration home" be made readily available in the hook? They actually shouldn't, but it's being inconsistently raised at other hooks. —Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Lots of people have a hand in DYK. We don't all agree on the best way to do things, so it is inevitable that rules will be applied inconsistently. We could elect a hook czar who would rigidly enforce a single consistent way of doing things, but I don't think anybody would be happy with that, so we put up with inconsistency. Such is life on a collaborative project. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I get that we're crowdsourced, but it's "basic" information that we're disagreeing on. Or is this just involving (American) sports? —Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with Beanie. The original hook that he suggested was excellent ... minimalist and intriguing. Adding "was said to" was also fine because it left the uncertainty and intrigue that leads a reader to want to learn more. The hook that resulted from the "workshopping" (or from one person randomly tinkering) lays out too much detail and removes the intrigue. Oh well, at least Hal Hanson gets a moment in the sun. Cbl62 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm with Beanie on this one. The original hook left enough unsaid to arouse the reader's curiosity without drifting into easter egg or clickbait territory. The associated image supports the hook with additional context. The version that we ultimately ran is overly verbose. RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Since it's still running, can we fix it? Cbl62 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: The original hook was clickbait and not really appropriate IMO. As leeky said, the substitute hook could've used some more workshopping, but at least it isn't clickbait. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::for sure; to revise my answer a little bit, I can definitely see some contingent of readers looking at the original Hal Hanson hook and wondering "well, how did he make brave men wince?", leading them to click on the article. but I don't think that hook really conveyed any encyclopedic information, and there'll be a contingent of readers who are put off by that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: How does adding that "Dick Cullum said in picking the 'Minnesota all-century team'..." help in understanding the hook at all? No reader knows who Dick Cullum is and probably the vast majority have no idea what the 'Minnesota all-century team' is as well – all it has done is drive away more readers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I mean, I think that there was an honorable attempt in the revision to try and convey some kind of encyclopedic information, but yeah, the execution left the hook a little confusing and overshadowed its original charm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I would have been happy to go with either " ... that football guard Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"?" or " ... that football guard Hal Hanson (pictured) is said to have "made brave men wince"?", ie the addition of the words "football guard" so that readers aren't clickbaited into having to open the article to find out who the heck Hal Hanson was. Having said that, yes, the hook that ended up running was pretty clunky, and maybe the original would have been better - it's just that in principle, I don't like clickbaity hooks as I think they do a disservice to the readership. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, as I said, the accompanying photo showed a football player, or at least some kind of big muscular athlete. So people should have had some idea who he was before clicking. RoySmith (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{re|Theleekycauldron|Gatoclass}}: I'm trying to form more descriptive guidance for your respective concerns of "encyclopedic information" and "clickbait". Was the worry that the original hook, {{tq|that Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"}}, did not make an explicit connection with his notability e.g. mention of him being a football player?—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

: It's not about notability, I just think it's discourteous to readers to omit basic information about a person simply in order to encourage clicks. There are many people, for example, who have no interest whatever in football but might have been encouraged to click on the Hanson article just to find out what sort of person "made brave men wince" – only to find themselves looking at an article on a topic they couldn't care less about. Which means those people have been disappointed and irritated by their interaction with DYK, and that is obviously not good either for the reader or the project.

: Having said that, I wouldn't go so far as to say that omission of basic info should be avoided in every case, because sometimes it's just plain impractical to do otherwise, and sometimes for a variety of reasons a hook (or a set) might read better without it. Generally speaking though, the point here is that anything likely to irritate readers should be avoided. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::yeah, what he said :) taking basic information out of the hook changes what readers take away from it. When someone reads {{tq|DYK that American football guard Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'?"}}, they understand that Hal Hanson played American football and probably did so well enough to intimidate other players, both encyclopedic facts. If they instead read {{tq|DYK that Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'?"}}, they're wondering who on earth Hal Hanson is and why he intimidates people. Now, wonder is a hookier emotion to inspire in the reader than understanding – fundamentally, the more you can get someone to wonder, the hookier your hook is – but DYK is still an organ of an encyclopedia, and our of our basic requirements as a project is that encyclopedic text should convey encyclopedic information. (We get loose on this requirement with quirky and April Fools' day hooks, but those are special cases.) And, as Gatoclass says, we it hurts our ability to build up an audience in the long run if we promise a good story and and don't quite deliver. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This was clearly a contentious hook and all of this discussion should have taken place prior to running on the main page. In the spirit of improving future process:

:::* @Theleekycauldron As already agreed elsewhere, when "bumping" a problematic hook, please bump to the bottom empty Prep set to allow more time to fix, or go ahead and demote and re-open discussion, so that your concern is clearly captured within the nomination template itself (and the discussion can continue in one place there, rather than scattered across multiple threads here).

:::* @History6042 Appreciate your being WP:BOLD and fixing the hook directly at Prep, but when you make such a big change, it really needs to be flagged at WT:DYK. Please also ping in the article creator (@Cbl62), the original reviewer (@Bagumba), and the promoter (@Plifal), so they aren't taken by surprise later. (Then if they miss your ping, at least you tried.)

:::* @Cielquiparle (That's me.) I shouldn't haven't promoted the set containing this picture hook without questioning the re-wording of this particular hook. I actually remember thinking it wasn't the best wording, but incorrectly assumed it was the agreed upon outcome of the prior DYK Talk discussion, and thought it wasn't worth beating a dead horse. In hindsight, I should have gone back and read the past DYK Talk thread more carefully, and flagged my concern at WT:DYK and/or demoted/re-opened the nomination and flagged it there. (And then even if they miss your ping, at least you tried.)

:::Re-reading this I clearly see that I could have prevented all of this blowing up the way it did before and on the day, so I take responsibility for that. I was also just getting back into set promotion during a period when DYK seemed particularly short-staffed and misunderstood the context. @Theleekycauldron @History6042 Appreciate you were jumping in as well while we were short-staffed. And appreciate you both in general. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think another reason we were all caught off-guard was timing: it happened to run earlier than expected due to coming shortly after a three-day sprint of two sets a day, so the apparent running date stated on the header became obsolete. Had that been updated, or at least the hook been bumped or pulled, perhaps this would not have happened. Anyway, what happened isn't ideal, but it is a learning experience that we can learn from so that it won't happen again. We can't always expect to 1-100% avoid questionable hooks slipping through the cracks once in a while, but we can at least try to prevent things from getting to that point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Appreciate the accountability, but there's many other parts to the DYK chain, and anyone can volunteer too. I think the root cause is a divide in what is "basic" and required in a hook. More objective guidance on this point is needed at WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can you just propose whatever wording change it is that you are proposing? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm still trying to understand the different perspectives. —Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, @Cielquiparle, and I will start flagging it at DYK and pinging when I make a change. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Good autopsy, Cielquiparle :) For what it's worth, when I bumped the hook, I'm fairly sure I did move it to the bottom – I moved prep 1 to queue 1, emptying prep 1 and sending it to the bottom, and then bumped the hooks from queue 1 to prep 1 five minutes later, which means prep 1 was almost certainly still at the bottom at the time.

::::So, this was an interesting result in my ongoing experiment. I've been trying to figure out how to do quality control that I can feel good about without spawning huge discussions about subjective criteria, particularly because I tend to take stricter views of DYK guidelines than most. Those discussions are a russian roulette of which one ends up burning you out for a week or more. My thought was that I'm not obligated to sign off a hook I'm uncomfortable with, so if there's something I don't want to run, I can bump it and note my concerns but make it clear that I'm not throwing up a procedural roadblock – any other admin can still promote the hook as normal if they disagree with me.

::::A couple of things went wonky here. For one, I wasn't able to clearly put my finger on why I wasn't comfortable with the hook. I thought it was a DYKINT concern, but it was more of a concern about whether the hook had substance. That created some confusion and led to the hook being workshopped in a way that caused consternation. For another, I'm still here participating in the autopsy. I'm involved in quite a few follow-up discussions (mostly dealing with re-approving pulled hooks) as a result of promoting two queues, and those are really draining. So my effort to try and keep it lightweight isn't panning out super well.

::::But hey! The hook scored some 1,500 raw views above the median average for this month's lead hooks, which is way more than the ERRORS Streisand effect could have accounted for :) I think because of that fantastic image. so, not too much to mourn here. onwards and upwards! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Theleekycauldron {{tqq|... but DYK is still an organ of an encyclopedia, and our of our basic requirements as a project is that encyclopedic text should convey encyclopedic information. (We get loose on this requirement with quirky and April Fools' day hooks, but those are special cases.)}}: Thanks for your response. I've had quite a few noms posted, but never paid attention much to how sets are composed. It's also possible that requirements have changed over time, but I thought there was more leeway with hooks that rely almost solely on catchy quotes. Is that (now?) limited to the quirky slot? —Bagumba (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::DYK mores do indeed evolve over time, and even at any given moment, getting all the people involved in DYK to uniformly hew to the rules is like herding cats. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. If FA is the stodgy headmaster of the main page, DYK is the wild child. I think there's room for both. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Gatoclass|Theleekycauldron}} DYK specializing admins, I'm seeing all the nominations on WP:DYKN starting May 23 not being transcluded, but just appearing as a link to each template. I think the issue has to do with the last entry on May 22,

Template:Did you know nominations/2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay - when I edit the page, and preview removing that, the others start showing up. I'm guessing that's either too long a title, or has too many special characters, or both. --GRuban (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:known bug, see WP:PEIS – only so much text can be transcluded onto the page at once :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Today I learned... --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Editing T:TDYK to remove that nom and showing preview shows a couple of extra noms, not all of them. Backlog mode should take care of them. (Is there a way of sorting nominations by bytesize? I tested Easter Oratorio and that would unveil about a third on its own.)--Launchballer 00:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::For the love of Opera, someone approve that DYK! {{smiley}} --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Launchballer}} If you don't mind, is it okay if you take a look at the Easter Oratorio nom and approve one of the open suggestions? I'm personally okay with ALT4 and ALT5, but I'd like a second opinion on whether or not they're broadly interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I thought one of them more than the other, so ticked that one.--Launchballer 02:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The hook needs to be directly cited. There is also what appears to be an editing dispute per the edit history. Pinging {{u|GGOTCC}}. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SL93 Citation for used hook: "The wrecks were first found intact by amateur divers in 2002. But a new expedition to mark next year’s 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Java Sea discovered the ships were missing...While sonar shows the imprints of the wrecks on the ocean floor, the ships themselves are no longer there." From [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/three-dutch-second-world-war-shipwrecks-vanish-java-sea-indonesia this Guardian article]

:May I request the hook to be pulled from the queue so that the edit dispute can be put to rest (and with some other users chiming in?) GGOTCC 02:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|GGOTCC}} I added the citation directly after the hook fact per DYK rules. I can pull the hook. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! I see what what you meant about a direct citation. GGOTCC 02:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I reopened the nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This reference appears to be self-published, and not by a known expert in the field - [https://lebialem.info/colonial-period-in-bangwa-area-cameroon/notes-on-gustav-conrau/ Lebialem]. Pinging {{u|Munfarid1}}. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Munfarid1 @WatkynBassett Would it be possible to cite a more reliable source or two for that particular paragraph? I have tagged it within the article as {{more reliable source needed}}. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, I have just replaced the former source by ref. 4, which is by Bettina von Lintig, a known expert in the field. Munfarid1 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The hook needs to be directly cited. Pinging {{u|Sammi Brie}}. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Citation is on {{tq|In response, Suburban Broadcasting filed a $15 million lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against Kitman and Newsday in November 1974, claiming a "willful and malicious effort to mortally injure" WSNL-TV's chances as a "viable advertising medium".}} Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry for missing that. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 You chose exactly the same hook I wanted to choose. But part of the hook is sourced to an offline bachelor's thesis, with no other source given. Not sure that's a reliable source. @GregariousMadness @BuySomeApples Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can't remember the relevant guideline, but my recollection is that bachelor or master's theses are almost never reliable. I can't remember if things change if the writer is a subject matter, but generally they're avoided unless, for example, these studies are cited by others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." SL93 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! Sorry, I'm not sure why this citation wasn't used next to that statement. This reference {{cite news | url = http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/music-brony-friendship-is-magic-my-little-pony/ | title = For brony musicians, 'Friendship Is Magic' serves as muse | work = The Daily Dot | first = Lauren Rae | last = Orsini | date = 2012-04-21 | access-date = 2012-04-21 }} has been added to that hook. {{re|Cielquiparle}} {{re|SL93}} {{re|Narutolovehinata5}} GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The hook says, "... that Teuku Karimoeddin was arrested by the Imperial Japanese military police for resisting mandatory head shaving?" The article makes it seem like he was arrested not just for resisting mandatory head shaving, but other things as well. The article says, "Karimoeddin, along with other students, resisted Japanese-imposed regulations, such as the mandatory shaving of heads, an act of defiance that was reported by Radio Australia." The hook information also needs to be directly cited in the article. I went to the [https://repositori.kemdikbud.go.id/13574/ source] to try to verify the information, but it is a broken link. Pinging {{u|Jeromi Mikhael}}. SL93 (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|SL93}} Sorry for the broken link, apparently there have been some changes to the ministry's website in the past days and it also affected the ministry's repository. I've fixed the link in the article. This is the full quote, feel free to translate it: "Tetapi pada saat Pemerintah Jepang mengeluarkan peraturan yang mewajibkan pelajar-pelajar dan mahasiswa untuk mencukur gundul kepalanya, maka para mahasiswa menyatakan penolakannya akan melaksanakan perintah tersebut. Berita tentang penolakan itu terdengar sampai keluar negeri sehingga Radio Australia memberitakan bahwa telah terjadi pemberontakan mahasiswa Indonesia di Jakarta. Kebocoran akan berita tersebut membuat Pemerintah Jepang menganggap bahwa terdapat mata-mata musuh di antara mahasiswa. Akibatnya banyak mahasiswa yang dikeluarkan atau diskors. Karimoeddin termasuk salah seorang yang pimpinan mahasiswa Ika Daigaku yang ditahan oleh Kempetai dan diskors selama tiga bulan karena ia dianggap subversi. Kemudian ia mendapat pengampunan dan boleh melanjutkan pendidikannya hingga tamat." 14:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Jeromi Mikhael}} How does this hook sound? ... that Teuku Karimoeddin was arrested by the Imperial Japanese military police for resisting mandatory head shaving and other regulations? SL93 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Personally this is better and more factually accurate. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The 17th reference appears to be [http://www.6juin1944.com/index.php self-published]. Pinging {{u|ERcheck}}. SL93 (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, the reference is from Raaen himself. Raaen kept extensive records of the Normandy landing, as he was officially tasked with writing the after-action report for the invasion month and writing up the recommendations for medals for the invasion; he was also the contact for the War Department Historian. Thus, his notes were the basis for the official record. See {{cite news|accessdate=30 May 2025|url=https://www.orangeobserver.com/news/2012/jul/03/winter-parker-publishes-d-day-eyewitness-book/?utm_source=chatgpt.com|title=Winter Parker publishes D-Day eyewitness book|first=Brittni |last=Larson|work=West Orange Times Observer|date=July 3, 2012}}

:Raaen had done numerous interviews about his experiences, for example with History Net. — ERcheck (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

: I would like to leave in the footnote. However, I did add two secondary sources to back it up. One from BBC, and one from the Army (which verifies his climbing ot Pointe du Hoc.) — ERcheck (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{ping|SL93}} Does the above answer your concerns? I'd like to make sure that all issues are addressed before the planned posting to the Main page on June 6. — ERcheck (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It does. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The hook's reference isn't [https://www.daltonoldpumphouse.com/the-boiler-room/ independent of the subject]. I feel like a hook should not reference an advertisement for requesting a viewing. Pinging {{u|Barabbas1312}}. SL93 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I suppose the home website of any commercial venue could be described as 'an advertisement for requesting a viewing', but I don't know that that necessarily invalidates it as a reference. The detail caught my eye as something unusual and intriguing and I thought it might work as a 'hook' to draw people's attention to an article about a significant but little-known building of historic engineering interest. Barabbas1312 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I won’t continue to argue my point and just let it run, but it could make it seem to our readers that DYK is advertising the place. SL93 (talk) SL93 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see how the current hook can be interpreted as advertising the place. I also don't think it's an issue that the source is primary or non-independent as the hook fact is non-controversial and non-contentious. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The hook itself does not feel like advertising. However, the citation for the hook goes to the venue's website and to a walkthrough of the Boiler Room, which is promotional/advertising.

::::Suggested ALT: The fact that an old water pumping station is now a wedding venue is, in itself, intriguing. An alternative hook might be: "DYK...that the Dalton Old Pump House, a former water pumping station built in the 1870s, is now a wedding venue?" — ERcheck (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Barabbas1312}} Are you okay with the new proposal? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You could also further economise and say:

::::::* ... that a 19th-century water pumping station is now a wedding venue?

::::::Cielquiparle (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@SL93 I promoted another picture hook to Prep set 1 if you want to replace Dalton Old Pump House as too promotional and/or re-open the nomination for further discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Back in 2018, I ran:

• ... that an angry artist walked into the SoHo Weekly News offices and chopped off two of his fingers as a "protest"?

Now it looks like I might end up writing Henry Benvenuti, who is the angry artist referred to above. How smarmy would it be if I recycled that as:

• ... that an angry artist walked into the SoHo Weekly News offices and chopped off two of his fingers as a "protest"?

RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::The thing with reusing hooks is that we know how they did; this one was 244th out of 432 that month. I'd want to see an article, but I'd suggest reconfiguring somehow.--Launchballer 22:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The first hook was arguably a violation of WP:DYKINT; the second has no such problem, as it was clearly a significant event in the artist's life, as well as making for a pretty compelling hook. So, no problem with running that hook from this quarter. Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we get this as a special occasion for June 16? That's going to be one month following the tornado. I'm going to be doing some pretty serious expansion to the article until then. I'd also appreciate if it could get the image slot for that day per my reasons at the nom. Departure– (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we really need to discourage requesting the image slot at DYK for reasons I gave above at #Queue 6 (25 May 12:00) regarding the Chill Guy nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Just promoted Sounder commuter rail to Prep set 1. Simplified ALT2 a bit ("in the winter of 2012–13" to "in a single winter"). Pinging @SounderBruce, @Juxlos, @RoySmith, @Kingsif. Used image from the article proposed by RoySmith due to complaints that the original image, while illustrative, is too small for people to make out properly as a thumbnail on the main page. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Barabbas1312|Moondragon21|Cielquiparle}} There are uncited statements that I marked with "citation needed" in the article. I am also concerned that the DYK fact is cited to the venue of the article topic, and might be promotional. I'd like to read editor thoughts about this. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• The article makes no mention of which country the house is located. There are many places at Durham County (disambiguation) around the world. Flibirigit (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Added England. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Z1720 Per the discussion with @SL93 above, my !vote is to pull the hook and demote/reopen for further rework/discussion. In other news, I found [https://www.bellebridalmagazine.com/2024/04/11/iconic-uk-wedding-venues/ a secondary source] referencing the number of chandeliers at the Dalton Old Pump House – doesn't specify "boiler room", but the number of chandeliers they count is "thirty" and thus conflicts with our hook that says "fifty". I agree that at the moment there isn't much more to say than "this 19th century pumping station was converted into a wedding venue" which by definition is promotional and hence contentious (as multiple editors have raised). (To me, this is the zone of "probably survives AfD but maybe we don't need to put it on the main page". I just thought it was a rather striking photo but that's not really a good enough reason to give it the picture hook slot. We generally prefer picture hook articles to have more substance.) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:*I have pulled the hook. I will promote another image hook momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Isn't the solution to just run the hook without an image? It doesn't have to run with the picture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No because of the source issue that has already been discussed. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was referring to Cielquiparle's comment about the "striking photo" aspect, not the sourcing aspect. I mean that, if the sourcing aspect wasn't an issue, then if the article could run (either with the original hook or a new one) without an image. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Z1720|Moondragon21|Cielquiparle}}Thanks everyone. I've added those citations as requested. My interest in the location is merely historical and industrial-archaeological - I have no interest in promoting the business (albeit I am impressed that they have restored this previously derelict grade II*-listed building and industrial monument in an unusual and imaginative way - that's what made me think of the DYK angle). Naturally, many places (including many with DYK hooks) will be in the business of attracting visitors (albeit this one can be visited free of charge); the fact that a building has been restored (and now functions as a going concern) should not invalidate its notability. NB this is my first venture into DYK territory - I am very happy to be guided!

::My issue was never about notability. None of those other hooks would point to an advertisement and that is the key difference. The place also happens to [https://www.daltonoldpumphouse.com/packages/ sell the building's use]. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional opinions at this discussion. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 14. We have a total of 315 nominations, of which 176 have been approved, a gap of 139 nominations that has decreased by 17 over the past 5 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization (new reviewer requested)

More than one month old

• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Visit Myanmar Year
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Tribalistas (2002 album)
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Wild
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Seitaro Hattori
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote (two articles)
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Nun will der Lenz uns grüßen
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Octavia (novel)
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian brainrot

Other nominations

• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/James Bunbury White
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Smashing Frank
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Black dandyism
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/George Attla
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Day One (The Last of Us)
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Elegies (film)
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Folding Ideas
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Poop emoji(2nd nomination)
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Singapore Rail Test Centre
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mykola Chaikovsky
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Dalton Old Pump House
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Huda al-Daghfaq
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Death Race 2 (2nd nomination)
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Georgian Philharmonic Orchestra
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Shakuyaku-kanzo-to
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Index, Washington
• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/The Oceanic Languages

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) 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed we have {{tl|Dykn}} and {{tl|DYKN}} which are different templates. This might be worth addressing at some point. I'm also finding myself wishing there was a Dykn2 for use during backlog mode to link two DYK nominations from one template. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure I was able to add multiple QPQs to a nomination by adding closing and opening square brackets, in that order, e.g. (from KRCW-TV) "{{tq|Template:Did you know nominations/1958 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres]] and Launchballer 20:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Would be nice to get a second opinion (and review) about Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography. I wasn't sure the original hooks were all that interesting and proposed one of my own. However, revisiting it now, I see the best fit for DYK is a short hook about Kriging. {{ping|GeogSage}} Any chance you can add a short hook about how technical geography applies Kriging in terms of spatial analysis? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a new reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization, which is in danger of timing out. This doesn't need a full review, just a third opinion. I'm happy to offer an additional QPQ (including building a set) in return for the additional effort. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can do it in 10 hours from now if someone doesn’t get to it before me. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Second opinion added.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2F2025_U.S._Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services_reorganization&diff=1293624518&oldid=1293559448] Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon is starting in a couple of weeks. The main rule is you need to take a stub and expand it to be greater than 1500 characters of readable prose which, surprise, surprise, is also one of DYK's main requirements. I suspect many destubbed articles will qualify for DYK under the 5x criterion, so I expect we'll have a flood of nominations, probably more than we typically do with GA drives. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Ben Roberts-Smith (pictured) was awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia, was named Father of the Year, and was found in a civil defamation trial to have committed at least four murders?

Given that the subject has indicated his intention to appeal the latest verdict to the High Court, it seems to me unwise to run a hook of this kind at this time. Pinging {{reply to|TarnishedPath|DragonflySixtyseven|AirshipJungleman29}} Gatoclass (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I thought that running hooks based on bad things about living people were not allowed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, if you've been found guilty of something in the courts, the rule generally does not apply - at least, not in the same way. The problem here as I see it is that this is still an appealable judgement, and there is still a possibility, albeit perhaps slim, that the judgement could be reversed. Given that, I have my doubts this will survive on the main page once the wider community sees it. Gatoclass (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:If the High Court overrules the defamation court, the hook will remain true, although it will then be a violation of WP:DYKBLP. For the moment, it is true and not a violation of WP:DYKBLP. There is no undue weight on negative aspects—I, living in the UK, heard of the subject before the verdict [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65717684 because of this article on the trial]. A hook on the subject which does not mention the ruling would be far more non-neutral. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, why not just wait until the High Court has ruled before running it? We could IAR on the nom time limit in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That means a hold of [https://www.mklawfirm.com.au/appeal-lawyers/appeals-to-the-high-court-of-australia/#:~:text=Each%20case%20is%20carefully%20evaluated,to%20the%20Court's%20heavy%20caseload. over a year] and possibly two, considering the subject hasn't actually appealed yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is it not possible to just avoid mentioning the case at all? I know this was discussed multiple times before, but I really don't want another Andrew Tate fiasco to happen to us. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I said, not mentioning the thing that makes him a figure of worldwide notability is more non-neutral than including it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then we should just reject the nom and move on. There's no rule that says we need to run everything that lands on our doorstep. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)