Wikipedia talk:Did you know#QPQ freebies

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)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748487669}}

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)

This has been proposed in the past, but I wonder if it might be worth discussing again. Lately we've had multiple "first" hooks that have been challenged on accuracy grounds, and it seems like proving that these firsts were actual first is becoming more trouble than it's worth. I'm opposed to banning them outright (especially for cases where the "first" claim is either actually exceptionally interesting or is an airtight claim), but I wonder if it would be a good idea to trial a temporary moratorium on such hooks, if only to prevent WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS discussions about whether or not such firsts are actual firsts. It could also encourage different hook angles.

If we do have such a moratorium, it might be a good idea to not make it a strict one: a "first" hook could be allowed, but in the interest of scrutiny, permission has to be granted here at WT:DYK first. The idea of the moratorium is simply to reduce our errors-checking workload and to prevent rushed cases where there's not enough time or resources to prevent an inaccurate hook from being on the Main Page. Of course, a "soft" moratorium could also defeat the purpose of having a moratorium in the first place, since such exemption-asking would result in the kind of checking we're trying to prevent, so a "hard" moratorium could also work best in practice. What does the community think? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. Deal with each hook case-by-case. Flibirigit (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Flibirigit. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Moratorium's don't really work with DYK's very time-limited system. However, some sort of guideline to bring all first hooks here for checking might allow for the to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as suggested above, before they end up at ERRORS. CMD (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Add some guidance along the lines of "hooks about 'firsts' are generally not a good idea as true, unambiguous firsts are hard to prove. If your hook claims a first, it will be examined from all conceivable angles to ensure that it truly is a first." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also don't like "first" hooks. Partly because they're so hard to verify. But also partly because they can get insipid; if you add enough qualifiers, anybody can qualify ("first Peruvian-American to win a gold medal in curling during a solar eclipse"). On the verifiability issue, I wrote User:RoySmith/essays/First is worst. I had that in mind as I checked Anja Margetić (see #Queue 6 above) and figured "the first woman to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics" fell into that category of "there's so few of these, we can enumerate all of them, and it's the kind of thing people keep excellent records of" bucket so I was pretty confident it checked out. And we still ended up with questions. We're never going to ban them completely (cue "first Pope from the United States") but yeah, I'd like to see us try harder to discourage them. RoySmith (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::If they're too insipid then they would fail the interestingness requirement anyway. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You eould think that. But I've seen lots of insipid DYKs.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I would support this. It's well-attested from experience that newspapers and even more serious sources are prone to make claims about things being the "first" without really checking them properly, and this is a time drain for people checking hooks. Having the option to bring them here for scrutiny means we can still include the really good ones, but make it a bit more of an exception rather than just having loads of them and requiring queue checkers to be constantly trawling around for counterexamples. The people saying "absolutely not" should propose some other solution to the problem, because it is a problem and I'm sure some of these are already inaccurate and slipping through the net.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::There should be a ban on firsts that we can't enumerate. Looking at RoySmith's essay, that would knock out all bar Neil Armstrong and the Olympic bobsled team.--Launchballer 19:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Superlatives like firsts need extra good sourcing (not newspapers or popular science books). Perhaps bringing them here for extra scrutiny is a good idea. I can offer my own recent nom Template:Did you know nominations/Mandenga Diek: the classic "first" for this person would be "the first Black citizen of Germany" but given my lack of knowledge on what the civil status of Anton Wilhelm Amo was and the fact that my best HQRS does not state this "first" plainly (while many newspaper sources do) I have only a hedged version of that hook. Anyway, while the "first" was the reason I wrote the article, but it might not actually be the most interesting fact from the article. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Basically treat this as WP:EXCEPTIONAL: {{tq2|Any exceptional claim requires {{em|multiple}} high-quality sources.}} At a bare minimum, this would mean one source is insufficient for these types of claims. Left guide (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::We already have WP:DYKHOOK which says {{tq|Note that hooks with exceptional claims, such as 'the first X to do Y' hooks, require exceptional sourcing}}. All we need to do is enforce it. RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::One issue with this, of course, is that what counts as "exceptional" sourcing is subjective and depends on the claim in question. Some "first" hooks are easier to verify than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:My impression is that hooks that essentially claim something is the first in the world are more contested than claims in a more limited domain e.g. within a country, in a sports league, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Another dubious "first" claim at Jim Coffeen today, which I've pulled from the main page... According to the actual source used in the article, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/green-bay-press-gazette-packers-first-ga/20110391/] as well as [https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2022/08/17/packers-first-touchdown-1919-started-familys-true-love-team/10176243002/], it was Dutch Dwyer who started the first Packers game as QB. Just reinforces the need that these need to be more thoroughly checked than the present process seems to allow for.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That case simply looks like conflicting sources, whether or not it involves a first. We could require at least two unique sources for "first" claims, but there's always a chance for erroneous sources for any hook, "first" or not. —Bagumba (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think a useful way to look at "first" hooks is that it's hard to prove a negative. If we have a WP:RS that says "A thing happened", it's reasonable to believe that that thing did indeed happen. But, statements like "This was the first time a thing happened", not only assert that the thing happened, they also assert that other things didn't happen. And that's the part that's hard to prove. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::In my view, when we consider "first" claims, we should only use sources that have studied the things that could prove the negative. To make up an example, the source for "Poughkeepsie resident Jane Dee was the first woman to pilot a zeppelin" should not be her obituary from the Poughkeepsie Evening News, but a book about all early pilots of zeppelins worldwide. Obituaries and newspapers (especially local ones) tend to repeat hearsay or omit important context (perhaps she was indeed the first woman to pilot a zeppelin in Ohio, but there are others preceding her in Russia and France). —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Kusma makes an important point here. A source may be reliable for some things but not others. The example he gave is a perfect example. A similar issue came up recently in Template:Did you know nominations/List of Byzantine churches in Amman where a source which specialized in art was used to support an archeology fact mentioned in passing in a review of a painting. RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::While looking at the next prep set, I was pleased to see that the "first" hook for Carl Jorgensen (American football) (first Danish NFL player) and Gust Zarnas (first Greek NFL player) is sourced to a [https://www.pro-football-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi?country=Denmark&state= List of all NFL players born in Denmark] and a [https://www.pro-football-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.cgi?country=Greece List of all NFL players born in Greece]. Assuming the website is reliable for sports statistics (I think it is; the main discussion I could find that said yes is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley) this looks like a good positive example how to source a "first" hook. —Kusma (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Kusma: On the other hand, I find hooks sourced solely to primary source databases to be a sort of WP:OR. Mention in secondary sources should be the barometer for "why does this hook matter", effectively a filter for database mining for trivia. It's also potentially unclear how far back in history such databases go, i.e. is the "first" based on complete data for the league's history since day 1, or is work still ongoing? —Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I agree that the example I gave only shows a good way how to prove the "first", but it does not show that anybody cares about the "first"; that can usually be demonstrated from weaker sources like obituaries or newspaper reports though. —Kusma (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Combing more through the details, that database openly lists a slew of "Unknown" birthplaces for players.[https://www.pro-football-reference.com/friv/birthplaces.htm] So a human in a secondary source might (hopefully) preface a statement with "believed to be the first", accounting for the known incompleteness, and that's not even accounting for whether all players from the NFL's start are even in the database yet. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Going to be honest, I'd support this moratorium. As someone who's had a few DYK hooks approved, if all you can find for a hook is "first X".. then bluntly, you haven't tried hard enough. In other words, there is virtually nobody and nothing which is only notable for being the first "whatever". And given the concerns presented by others as to the sourcing that would be needed, there is no reason not to have a moratorium on "first" hooks. Obviously IAR would still apply - for example, a hook of "Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize" would still be acceptable even given the moratorium - because it's true, it's a big point in her life, and it's extremely well sourced. But failing an IAR instance similar to that, "first" hooks are not ideal for DYK. People don't care about who was the "first" to do X - and they won't remember it. Let's bring DYK back to interesting facts that people won't know and will care about. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Except WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE doesn't mention "{{xt!|it's a big point in their life}}", it encourages "{{xt|unusual or intriguing}}". On the other hand, DYK sometimes encourages trivial non-encyclopedic bits or quotes onto a page, solely to promote a DYK hook. —Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Another one at ERRORS today. I'd object to a blanket ban on them as I'm planning on bringing Magnetic (Illit song) here via GA at some point, but we really should require queuers to open these to the gallery at minimum (see #HSwMS Gefle, Singapore Rail Test Centre).--Launchballer 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think this one (Hazel Vincent Wallace) would have been caught by my suggestion to use other types of sources (that could prove the negative...) and to never consider obituaries (even in high-quality newspapers) as a source for "first" claims. I just don't have a good snappy way to turn this into a rule. —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::How about 'hooks with exceptional claims such as firsts require in-depth sourcing of the set'.--Launchballer 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: As I've said previously, I think probably the best way to reduce the error rate would be to require nominators and/or reviewers to do a google search on the claim to see if there are any other claimants. Same for "onlys".

:::::: There are certain firsts, though, that don't need extra scrutiny - well defined ones, like sporting records, for example. But a lot of them clearly do. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, you would think so, right? But just a few days ago we had:

:::::::* ... that Anja Margetić was the first woman to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics?

:::::::which turned out not to be true. RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Well, that's not exactly a sporting record though, is it? It's really just another typical "first" that happens to relate to a sportsperson. When I said "sporting record" I meant performances that go into official records - there is rarely any dispute about those. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As there appears to be consensus to do something, but not a consensus for a blanket ban, I have boldly expanded WP:DYKHOOK. Feel free to refine.--Launchballer 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think what you wrote is pretty reasonable. Let's run with that and see if results in an improvement. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm still convinced that the bulk of the issues are "first in the world hooks", e.g. a US source writing about a "first Asian" feat being taken to mean the first Asian in the world, either sloppily by the source's author, or WP:OR by the hook's writer that's not caught by the approver. It's not even just "first" hooks; many errors are where the nomination has issues like:

:# The supporting statement from the source is not even quoted (and anyways the source doesn't support the hook)

:# The approver doesn't catch the WP:OR, quoted or not

:I fear there might be a confirmation bias on "firsts" when there are inherent DYK problems with all hooks. And sometimes, sources are just plain wrong, "firsts" or not, even if WP followed process. —Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

In hooks that are about a particular kind of football, which in practice is usually either association football or American football, how should the word "football" be treated in a hook? Should it be omitted if possible, should the kind of football be explicitly specified, or can the wording be left as just "football" depending on the context? A current unreviewed example of this is Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Wunsch (courtesy ping to the nominator {{u|BeanieFan11}}, who has proposed multiple such hooks recently), which specifies that the subject played "football" for the University of Notre Dame. To an American, the context is very obviously American football, the question is if the context is clear enough for international readers. A similar thing can be said about hooks about soccer players, which sometimes just say they're "footballers" without specifying exactly which kind of football.

The original WP:DYKSG wording said that hooks should not assume that "everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about." The current wording says "don't assume everyone worldwide is familiar with your subject." How can these be reconciled with football hooks? Also courtesy ping to {{u|Theleekycauldron}} who wrote much of the current guidelines, as well as to our resident soccer expert {{u|SounderBruce}} and our other American football contributor {{u|Gonzo fan2007}} for input. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't write the "Don't assume" clause – if I recall correctly, it's from {{u|Art LaPella}}'s original writings – but I don't think it's meant to be a hard rule to always give a rigorous specification of place and sport names. It's just gently letting hook writers know that they're writing for a general audience and should assume that readers know only what a curious generalist would know – give as much context as that reader needs to understand the hook, but no more. Take that BeanieFan11 hook you've cited:

:* ... that while playing football for the University of Notre Dame, Harry Wunsch was the only local player on the team?

:Does the reader need to know whether "football" is American football or association football or something else in order to get what's interesting about this hook? I don't think so. I think specifying that it's American football would be a waste of space.

:We always say that guidelines are just guidelines, not hard rules, and this is a good reminder of why we have that mantra. "Don't assume" is generally useful guidance, but a hook writer with the instinct and knowledge to write an engaging, pithy hook knows that guidelines have their limits and how to balance different principles of design (giving context vs. saving space) against each other. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I wrote that, back when they were called the Unwritten Rules because previously outsiders had no way of knowing their hook and article would be rejected for reasons known only to insiders. At that time, around 2010, I often saw hooks criticized because only someone interested in the sport would know that scoring a turkey with a Brooklyn strike has to be bowling. I think that unfamiliarity problem is left unfixed more often now than it was then. Art LaPella (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::In this particular hook, all the reader needs to know is that football is a team sport, which is true for American, Aussie rules and Association football. So I think this hook is fine. —Kusma (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:This seems similar to Freddie Lish's nom, where {{u|Amakuru}} wrote {{tqq|I know opinions vary on how much detail is required in a DYK hook ...}} (disclosure: I was the nominator there) I argue that a hook doesn't require any more info than is needed to understand the hook, as written. More details, like the exact sport, are always a click away. —Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

: I disagree in this case, I think it needs explaining - the example is particularly vague unless people know that the University of Notre Dame is in the USA - after all, it sounds French - is it in France or Canada perhaps? And, of course, both association and American football are played in the USA. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::But you don't need to know any of that to understand the hook. Compare the bad example

::... that football player Diego Maradona once used his hand to score?

::a hook that requires you to know that Diego Maradona plays a version of football where you are not supposed to use your hands. The Wunsch hook would work equally well for volleyball, Quidditch or Ultimate, so identifying the type of football is not needed. —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::: OK, but if just using "football" makes it unclear what the sport is, then the hook should either (a) not mention the sport at all, or (b) specify the sport exactly. In this case, we could either remove the word "football" or add the word "American". Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you remove "football", you make it less clear what the sport is (or even that it is a sport at all). Adding "American" makes the wording less natural for Americans. What harm does the ambiguity cause, other than someone potentially clicking on an American football hook although they do not care about American football? —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::One argument is that it would be a case of systemic bias and/or US-centrism. If you make the hook specifically appeal only to Americans (or to a specific nationality in general), then that's going against the spirit of aiming for the broadest possible audience. Systemic bias is something Wikipedia should aim to avoid rather than enshrine. Plus, "someone potentially clicking on an American football hook although they do not care about American football" is arguably exactly the point of DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: If we are required to choose between "making the topic clear" and "making the wording less natural for Americans" then we should be choosing the first option every time. That complaint is just US-centricism. As someone from outside the US, I would not be worried about the addition of "association football" in a hook if the sport would otherwise be unclear. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why is it even necessary to mention the sport? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's necessary because one of the criteria for DYK is that the hook should be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". If readers unfamiliar with the "University of Notre Dame" or American football generally can't even figure out what the subject matter of hook is, it stands no chance of fulfilling that criterion. Although that said, I have to admit I'm struggling a little with the Harry Wunsch hook even if it was fully clarified. Are college football players generally "local"? From my very limited knowledge I would imagine students travel from far and wide and go to play football at the college which offers them the best deal, e.g. Tom Brady was from California but he went to study in Michigan. Maybe I'm wrong though, and you would expect lots of "local" players on a college team such that this is exceptional. And what even is "local" in this context? From the same city? Same metro area? Same state? Who knows. I doubt the majority of our readers know these details either...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know what "local" means, but I do know that educational institutions playing sport is a common concept all over the world. How about we take out all the small details which we endlessly argue is too much/little detail, and instead have "... that Harry Wunsch was the only local player on his university sports team?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment responding to the ping, my personal preference if "football" has to be mentioned is to still just say "football" but link to American football (i.e. {{tq|football}}). This is what is often done in the opening sentence of football bios to avoid the duplication of "American" as both a nationality and type of football (i.e. Jordan Love is an American American football player). That said, I think a lot of this is coming not from a general feeling of confusion, but by the increased scrutiny often placed on American football bios (right of wrong). As an example, right now on DYK I don't know what Pinoy pop is, I don't know if the "Mediterranean Games" are sports or some other competition, I imagine "Little League baseball" isn't very common in many countries, the hook about Jason Kwan sounds like "did you know that two friends worked together", I have never watched the show Supernatural, so I don't understand what's interesting about that hook at all, and I am sure there is a fairly large population who doesn't know exactly what a "gang bang" is and thus why crashing a server is interesting. My point is that being interesting to a broad audience doesn't mean everyone has to fully grasp every single part of the hook for it to meet guidelines. Separately, and I am not trying to restart any past arguments, but I think we are to the point that American football is an international sport and generally known to a wide audience. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :For what it's worth, it isn't just American football that is being given increased scrutiny these days, but all sports hooks in general. Recently there were a number of minor league baseball nominations whose hooks were questioned on interest grounds (they were ultimately rejected as the lists were deemed non-notable at AFD and were deleted). Even soccer hooks have also been questioned in the past, so it isn't really an anti-American football bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tqq|... the increased scrutiny often placed on American football bios (right of wrong)}}: Yes, whatever is decided, I hope the community will also be consistent with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=%22Footballer%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3ARecent+additions&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=8dzw37szjgnhvudgir6rjf5ge hooks using footballer], when "association football player" is more accessible to AmE readers. —Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The way I see it, there are actually multiple ways to satisfy the issue that could apply to both American football and association football. The safest would probably to avoid using the words "football" or "footballer" entirely. For example, instead of saying "Did you know that footballer John Doe did such-and-such?", we could instead say something like "that John Doe did such-and-such while playing for the NFL's Dallas Cowboys?" or "that John Doe did so-and-so while playing for Foobar F.C.?" In such cases, often just saying what league the player played in at the time of the hook fact would be enough to add enough context without needing to use the vague term "football". If the hook is about a non-football or non-sports related fact, an example could be something like "that former NFL player" or "that future Premier League player", where it's clear from context what kind of sport the subject played without the need to mention it by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The league name only provides context if one already has a casual understanding of global sports, as the code or country is not always readily obvious by their names, whether it be association/soccer (e.g. Premier League or UEFA Champions League) or American football (e.g. National Football League or United Football League). —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Please never say "association football player" because it's simply never used anywhere. Use "association football" for the sport by all means, but that construction reads horribly for everyone. As mentioned above in the context of AmEng, it would be far better to link the sport to simply "footballer". Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::My "player" example was just to point out that "footballer" is not a term in AmE. Using "footballer" can be fine, if we all understand the quirks of BrE vs AmE, and realize there might not be one "common" acceptable wording here for both variants. But if we opt to use plain footballer for association football, we should then also accept "football player" as a matter of consistency for American football hooks, favoring MOS:TIES in both cases. —Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, apart from Wunsch, the following currently open nominations could be affected by the result of discussion, whatever that result may be:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Boyd Jones
• Template:Did you know nominations/David Viaene
• Template:Did you know nominations/Earl Ohlgren
• Template:Did you know nominations/Warren Kilbourne
• Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Basinger

Note that some of the above articles have hooks that do not mention the word "football" or "footballer", so in those specific cases maybe going with the hooks without the words in question would work. As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure why "football" gets special treatment in that there is a preference for not being more specific about what kind of football is being discussed, but we don't see something similar with ice hockey and field hockey. I don't think I've ever seen an ice hockey or field hockey hook refer to either sport as just "hockey". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tqq|... but we don't see something similar with ice hockey and field hockey}}: FWIW, the Los Angeles Times and Associated Press have sections titled plain "Hockey".[https://www.latimes.com/sports/hockey][https://apnews.com/hub/hockey] —Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I was obviously referring to just Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, hence I prefaced with "FWIW". Best. —Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If a hook says somebody is playing football for Notre Dame, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out that the football code in question is going to be American football. So specifying the latter is not necessary and doing so as a matter of course would only lead to more clunky and intelligence-insulting hooks. Nor would it be a good idea to eliminate the word "football" altogether because that would just lead to further obfuscation.

As a general rule, I am in favour of greater exposition in hooks as I see many hooks making it to the main page which in my view should probably contain more information. But it isn't something I insist on because to some extent it's a matter of personal preference, and I understand that many nominators prefer less exposition because it often makes for a more intriguing hook. The bottom line is that too much exposition is the greater sin, so in this case, provided a hook about football contains some indication of the nation it's being played in, that should usually be sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The problem in this case is that not everyone worldwide knows that Notre Dame is an American university. As Black Kite mentioned, someone unfamiliar with American universities might even assume it is a French university. It's not even the only university named Notre Dame, there are several others around the world. The same can be said for other universities.

:As for the above concern about omitting "football" leading to obfuscation, it might not be the case for all hooks. Depending on how a hook is written, the term "footballer" (regardless of what kind) may be extraneous. For example, a hook that goes, "... that John Doe served as an altar boy while playing for the Foo League's Foo Bars?", what sport is less relevant than the main hook fact of him being an altar boy. Of course, there are instances when such cases are simply not feasible, such as a hook that goes, "... that footballer John Doe has a degree in nuclear science?" So the question really is how to handle the use of "football". Linking to the specific kind of football (for example footballer or footballer) might work as a compromise, but I'm not sure if that is a perfect solution either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|As for the above concern about omitting 'football' leading to obfuscation, it might not be the case for all hooks}}: There doesn't seem to be consensus on even that point. I had mentioned {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_205#Freddie_Lish_(nom)}} above, where it didn't seem the specific sport was relevant to understand the gist of the hook, but it was modified anyways for lacking "basic information". —Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|Linking to the specific kind of football (for example footballer or footballer) ...}}: Repeating a point from above, it should be "football player" (for American football) or "footballer" (for association football), as footballer is not an AmE term. —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I'm not keen on the idea of linking the word "football" to particular codes, because not only is it easter-eggish, but also potentially misleading as it would imply that "football" refers to only one code or that one particular code is paramount. With regard to Naruto's comments about Notre Dame University - I personally know nothing about American football and care even less, yet even I have known since forever that Notre Dame is associated with American football. The point being that we don't need to bend over backwards to ensure that every last reader understands every detail of a hook - it's sufficient if an overwhelming majority will recognize the reference - in the same way, for example, that we refer to certain well-known cities like Boston simply by their names and not as Boston, Massachusetts, even though a small number of readers may not know where Boston is. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Narutolovehinata5}}, I honestly think some of this is coming from a disagreement on where the line in the sand is in regards to "how much of a hook needs to be fully understood by most users of EngWikipedia" for it to be "interesting to a general audience". I think some of us draw the line as "is it grammatically correct English with fairly straightforward language?" If so, then its good. Others lean more towards a fuller exposition of the hook before deeming it appropriate for Wikipedia. My comment on increased scrutiny comes from comments from reviewers, approvers, and DYK regulars where sports terms need to be more explained, while other subjects are fine with terminology that is most assuredly not well-known to the general audience, with this all getting wrapped into the idea that "if people don't fully understand the hook, then it is also not interesting to a general audience". I have had comments about "scoring a touchdown" stating that touchdown is not a well-known term, yet somehow "scoring a goal" or something similar is fine. I understand that football (soccer) is more widely followed, but most English speakers can infer that "scoring a touchdown" means gaining points during some type of game, even if they don't fully understand the concept of a touchdown. With that basic grasp of knowledge, a hook that says teams combined for a record number of touchdowns in an NFL game becomes interesting to a general audience, because we can safely assume that English Wikipedia readers have a basic grasp of English. This becomes especially true when nominators provide additional links to terms in the "gray area" of well-known knowledge in the English speaking world. I very much believe, having read DYK almost daily for 20 years, that the acceptability of complex terminology, hooks that aren't easily understood outside of specific fields of study, or "confusing hooks that are written that way to drive clicks" is quite high across the board, excluding AmerFoot (or maybe all sports) hooks (there is obviously the possibility of my own bias here, because I write almost exclusively in AmerFoot). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree on touchdowns/goals; these things (means to score) are easy to transfer from one sport to the other, and not fundamentally different from many other team sports like basketball or hockey. Other concepts can be quite different, like whether there is a designated attacking and defending team. From a European perspective, the most alien things about American sports are that there is no promotion/relegation between leagues and that player careers often involve universities. But American culture has been exported so successfully that even those strange things may be widely enough known to be safe to assume. —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Its not even safe to assume that an American knows the basics of American sports... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• My view is always clarify the "football" code. We shouldn't assume people know that University of Notre Dame is in US and so is college football, similarly for hooks about European association football teams, we shouldn't assume people know the teams are European and thus talking about association football. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :But why do we need to clarify when it does not matter for understanding the hook? —Kusma (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::If thats the standard why don't we just say sports? IMO if its worth specifying its worth getting right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• I would lean towards clarifying it in general, the exception would be when we really are talking about Football as in the family of sports. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the above discussion reached any sort of consensus, with editors having different opinions and not really reaching any sort of agreement. Should the status quo remain, or should a change of some kind be done based on the above? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

== Prep 1 ==

• ... that the first animated feature film is lost?

Unfortunately, our own List of animated feature films before 1940 cites a different film. Pinging the nominator User:Lazman321. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sigh, another "first" hook that fails to meet scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry about this, I was the reviewer of this, I just checked the sources given and it seemed good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::: With "firsts", unless the source is rock solid, it's almost essential to do a google search on the claim to see what else it turns up. Maybe something along those lines could be added to the guideline? Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe a strong wording that any superlative should be carefully double-checked. CMD (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::We already have "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" in the guidelines, which I think is supposed to cover that. What we really need is stricter enforcement because right now it's still too lax and too many of these errors slip through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Creation{{'s}} claim to being the first seems to be unverifiable,[https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/quick-history-animation/] and far more high-quality sources seem willing to go to bat with El Apostol than Creation. However, if you guys prefer, I'd be willing to go with less strong wording such as "one of the first" or "is claimed to be lost". Lazman321 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::How does this wording sound?

::*ALT1: ... that the only copy of El Apóstol, widely considered to be the first animated feature film, was lost in a fire?

::It makes the claim less definite and also includes attribution. The only issue is that the Vulture source (the only one I can access) does not say it's historians that claim it is the first but instead outright says that it is the first. Maybe the other source says that instead? Is it also possible that there were other animated films before El Apóstol that we don't know about, so maybe it should be "the first known animated film"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::: There are plenty of quality sources that name El Apóstol as the first animated feature, and I've found only one that names Creation, so I think ALT1 should be acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Theleekycauldron @Gatoclass I guess the current hook at Prep 1 can be swapped out for ALT1 then? As the proposer, I can't do it myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Narutolovehinata5, @Chipmunkdavis, @Gatoclass, @Lazman321, I did add the alt hook 1. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK admins}} We're currently on six queues. I don't plan on checking Prep 5 because it's got two of mine in, but if someone can queue it in the next nine hours we can go to two-a-day for three days.--Launchballer 15:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{DYK admins}} If someone could flick the switch for 2-a-day.--Launchballer 00:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|History6042|Hurstbergn|Toadboy123|Darth Stabro}}

Significant WP:CLOP which will need resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Frankly I don't see an issue. The source text states:

:{{tq|Some of the recognizable imagery implied by the lines are a sunrise, the state capitol building, and an aerial view of the traditional center of town (the star located at 13th and O Street).}}

:...while the DYK nomination states:

:{{tq|...uses lines to represent both the state capitol building and the center of town?}}

:(Bolded are statements that I believe are similar)

:The DYK nomination is substantially more vague compared to the source text; and above all, the DYK is nothing more than a short description of the symbolism of the flag and how it encompasses several parts of Lincoln's urban geography. IMO I think this is just copyright paranoia.

:- Hurstbergn (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You don't see an issue with both the article and the source saying (for example, and with one solitary differing phrase elided) "The winning flag, entitled All Roads Lead to Lincoln, was created by Ed Mejia, a local creative director, art director, and graphic designer. His design was selected by [...] committee from a pool of over 190 submissions from the public."?--Launchballer 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Hurstbergn & Launchballer: I have added a cleanup tag to the article and placed quotes from the sources into HTML comments. The current version of the article is likely a derivative work of the cited sources. If the body text is fixed, then the comments should be removed and the older versions of the article revision deleted. In many places the article text is almost identical to the source's text:

::::;Source

:::::"{{tq|The deep blue represents groundwater aquifers, an abundant and valuable natural resource significant to our region.}}"

::::;Wikipedia article

:::::"The deep blue represents groundwater aquifers, a natural resource significant to the region."

::::Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Pulled.--Launchballer 17:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Perfect4th|AirshipJungleman29}}

I'm fairly certain that WP:DYKCOMPLETE demands that the {{tl|incomplete list}} tag requires resolving.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure why I was pinged {{u|Launchballer}} but does the absence of a few non-notable priests mean that the article "fails to deal adequately with the topic"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Pretty much because I hit 'ping all' instead of 'ping default', but my concern is that a tag that says 'this list is incomplete' falls foul of "reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress". (Of course, if none of them are notable, why have the list in the first place?)--Launchballer 15:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Because they can be verified. Please note the "reasonably". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Rjjiii|Chipmunkdavis|Epicgenius}}

I don't see how this meets WP:DYKINT. Aside from the fact that I have never heard of Jeju Island and would question whether a broad audience would, walls being destroyed strikes me as an everyday occurrence. What else have you got?--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:If we call it a 13th century wall and call the roads 20th century does that make it read as less of an everyday occurrence? Perhaps one missing element is that this was a >100km structure, but given the exact length isn't known I find that hard to fit into a hook in readable yet an ERRORS-avoiding manner. CMD (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm thinking along the lines of "that much of a very long wall in present-day South Korea survived for 700 years".--Launchballer 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not seeing how that holds interest in a way the original doesn't. Surely things hanging around is a bit more everyday than ancient monuments being destroyed as an afterthought? You get those lovely spots in France where the Roman wall lies on either side of a roundabout, but it doesn't come to mind as an everyday thing. CMD (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe the age could be worked into the original hook? Something like:{{pb}}

:::"... that a 700-year-old fortification on Jeju Island was mostly destroyed during the construction of a coastal road?"{{pb}}

:::Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't see how the original hook did not meet DYKINT, but the new proposal sounds fine to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the meat of what made me glaze over was Jeju Island. I recommend trimming that bit or changing it to "modern-day South Korea" or somesuch.--Launchballer 08:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{reply to|Launchballer|Chipmunkdavis|Epicgenius}} Something like: "... that a 700-year-old fortification in present-day South Korea was mostly destroyed during the construction of a coastal road?" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Fine by me, would prefer to hear from {{yo|Chipmunkdavis}} before substituting.--Launchballer 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No objections to adding temporal or geographical context. 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC) CMD (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I swapped in the hook.--Launchballer 17:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Plifal|John Cummings|Bremps|Sock-the-guy|Tbhotch|Trystan|Lajmmoore}}

Even after removing some large quotes per WP:SUMMARY, I still see close paraphrasing, and this needs resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Launchballer}}, thanks, I will work on the text using earwig. I don't see any rules in WP:SUMMARY that prohibit the use of quotations, the only thing I see that mentions quotations is that they should be referenced. Is there some specific restriction on quotations in articles for DYK I'm not aware of? John Cummings (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just reread WP:SUMMARY and you're right, although WP:OVERQUOTING says "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both."--Launchballer 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:hi, took a look at the article history, and changed the text that was highlighted as a concern due to summary. also found no reference of jon harris maurer in the source cited. feel free to revert if inaccurate. was there anything else specifically? :) --Plifal (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Launchballer}} are we good to go? Hi {{u|Plifal}}, thanks for your help :) John Cummings (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think "They had initially told Rheintgen they planned to issue a notice to appear in front of a judge, but then arrested her for not meeting the criteria for a notice to appear." is still a bit too close to "Police initially told Rheintgen they’d issue a notice to appear in front of a judge to avoid sending her to jail — but they ultimately arrested her instead because she didn’t meet the criteria for a notice to appear.".--Launchballer 09:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi {{u|Launchballer}}, thanks, I've done some more on it, an issue is that 'notice to appear' is a legal term so there's limited ways you can talk about it. Thanks :) John Cummings (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi {{u|Launchballer}} is it too late to request the mugshot image is added? I think having an image is important in this story. John Cummings (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::One step ahead of you; I'd already pulled #Flag of Lincoln, Nebraska and put this in its place.--Launchballer 19:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Sohom Datta|Reconrabbit|BeanieFan11}}

I see WP:CLOP that wants resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Launchballer I did see that as well, but it seemed like a case of WP:LIMITED to me. (How many other ways are you going to describe the characteristics of a rabbit without misinterpreting the sources). Sohom (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::If it's from Animal Diversity Web, I can try my hand at reworking those parts further, but there's only so many ways to describe the specific description and some of its features. Are there egregious examples that I missed? I didn't completely rewrite the article and the way it was expanded in 2017 added a lot of the close paraphrasing. -- Reconrabbit 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Mostly LIMITED, but there probably shouldn't be two adjacent sentences from the source even if they are both individually covered by that. I broke them up.--Launchballer 09:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Sebbirrrr}}

Just noting that I plan on moving this into a quirky slot, though haven't decided which set.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Moved into the previous set.--Launchballer 23:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that the banner at the top of WP:DYKN says, {{xt|This means that editors who have made at least 20 DYK nominations must review two other DYK nominations (also known as two QPQs) per nomination. }}

Did we recently change the rules to require that people review two separate nominations? Or is it sufficient to review a single nomination with two articles (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad Farhan (Indonesian politician))? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:reviewing a double nom should be fine, I don't know of any reason we'd require two separate nominations? Unless I missed something... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Theleekycauldron, sounds good. I'm asking because the banner could be interpreted to mean "nomination subpages", not "articles that have been nominated". – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it's just an oversight. Perhaps the one who wrote the banner's text forgot that multi-article nominations are a thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I updated it to 'an extra article'.--Launchballer 09:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks @Launchballer. To make it more clear, I'd suggest "an extra article for each page nominated" rather than "an extra article per nomination", because people might interpret "nomination" to mean "subpage" and not "nominated article". (WP:DYKUBM has the same ambiguous word choice, as well.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:DYKUBM says "editors who have nominated twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ for every new nomination until the backlog mode ends". If I recall the discussions when it was implemented correctly, that does mean per nomination, not per article. TSventon (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I see. It would be great if we can find the discussions where the backlog mode was implemented, but to have the requirement be to provide 2 "subpage" reviews and not 2 reviews of "nominated articles" seems rather counter-intuitive, as it would seemingly discourage reviews of multi-article nominations. That's why I'm suggesting that WP:DYKUBM be rephrased, as currently, it could be interpreted either way. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Epicgenius, My recollection is that you queried this when backlog mode was first introduced and the consensus was that a two article nomination in backlog mode would need two plus one (three) QPQs, rather than two plus two (four) QPQs. Obviously the latter interpretation would discourage multi-article nominations. TSventon (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, okay @TSventon. I misunderstood what you meant; sorry about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Does reviewing a nomination with two articles count as two QPQs? As in :Template:Did you know nominations/Modulightor Building. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, see theleekycauldron's answer at the beginning of the thread. TSventon (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Rjjiii|MallardTV}} Per #I've had enough of this, I did a bit of searching to verify the "first" aspect. I couldn't find any earlier mentions in https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/, which combined with the cited source is good enough for me. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! I searched and was unable to find anything earlier than the hook's date, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|History6042|Shenaall|Grapesurgeon}} Another "first" hook. I'm inclined to accept Billboard as a solid source for Billboard-related firsts. RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@RoySmith: If you mean other sources besides the billboard sources, there are also [https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/stray-kids-hop-number-one-chart-record-1235215336/ Rolling Stone] {{small|"...,making the K-pop group the first act to debut at Number One with their first six charting albums, the publication reports."}} and [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeetendrsehdev/2024/12/22/stray-kids-billboard-no-1-building-a-chart-topping-brand/ Forbes] {{small|"...,becoming the first act in the nearly 69-year history of the Billboard 200 to debut at No. 1 with their first six albums."}}— Shenaall (t ♣ c) 02:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I posted this above, but issue is still standing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for noticing that. I had seen two of them, but missed the third. I've swapped one out with another queue. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If at all possible, can the image paired with the hook for the article Chill Guy (now in Queue 6) be used as the day's DYK image? Of all the DYK noms I've ever made, I don't believe I've ever had an image paired with my hook. It's kind of selfish, but I'm really happy with the image for this nom, and if there's any way it can be used at a different time in a different queue that would be amazing as well. If that's not possible or inconvenient, however, I completely understand, but I wanted to at least mention it. Cheers! Johnson524 03:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:While I understand the sentiment, requesting for an image slot is generally discouraged at WT:DYK, partly because doing so would add additional work for editors, and partly because granting requests can be seen as unfair for other editors who don't make such requests. Plus, we only have a limited number of image slots, so not all such requests can be granted anyway, just like not all nominations with a picture are assured of running with an image. After all, if editors request for an image slot all the time, it could lead to concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Narutolovehinata5: Ahh I figured as much, thank you at least for the reply, cheers! 🙂 Johnson524 04:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, is there anything wrong with the photo that makes it unusable? If not, would it be possible to move this nomination to another set for use? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:As always {{u|Prince of Erebor}}, DYK receives more nominations with images than we can actually run. Some image nominations are thus selected to run without an image. Absent specific reasons to prioritise certain images, we normally turn down requests such as this simply because some nominations has to not go in the image slot. I hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} Got it! I was just uncertain whether a portrait like that is suitable for DYK noms as I have almost never submitted an image hook before (I think I only submitted one with my fourth or fifth nom), so I wanted to make sure it is not a problem on my end, and I was also eager to see how an image hook would play out. Perhaps next time! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Having doubts as to whether [https://www.cookist.it/la-storia-della-torta-caprese/ Cookist] and [https://food52.com/blog/18227-the-crazy-good-flourless-chocolate-cake-with-an-even-crazier-backstory Food 52] really are reliable enough sources for this "Italian-American mafia" picture hook. {{yo|Vacant0|BeanieFan11|History6042|Chiswick Chap}} Hoping you have a strong reassuring argument here as I wasn't able to easily find an alternate source for this hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unsure why we would doubt the reliablity of those two articles, considering that they were written by acclaimed food authors. If that's not enough, Freundin also mentions that according to one story the cake was made for a mafia boss [https://www.freundin.de/kochen-rezept-ohne-mehl-torta-caprese-saftiger-schokokuchen] while The Daily Meal also mentions that the cake was made for the American mafia [https://www.thedailymeal.com/1371995/torta-caprese-italian-cake-name/]. PBS also mentioned it on their show [https://www.pbs.org/video/savory-and-sweet-italian-SUabwd/]. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification and additional sources, @Vacant0. Could you please add the most reliable sources among the ones you just listed to the article? And/or, all of them? The issue is that Cookist and Food 52 are written in that breezy lifestyle blog style, which doesn't particularly inspire confidence in their accuracy, and I wasn't able to find an editorial policy on either blog stating that they fact check submissions or that they have an editorial commitment to accuracy. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Upon further reflection, I think this hook doesn't fly. I've demoted the hook and reopened for discussion but I think both the article and the hook need more work. Anyway the discussion can continue there. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Dark Domain. This was reviewed, then after a random passing busy-body meandering 3O comment, this was stalled. The busybody commenter never bothered to engage in discussion. The original nom double checked and reapproved this within 24h after the notice that this will time out within a week, but this was still ignored. It should've never been stalled in the first place, and it should not have been allowed to lapse after the re-approval. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:The nomination is at WP:DYKNA; its promotion is at the discretion of promoters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, then someone can be courteous to give a reason. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Rjjiii}} ... that The Dark Domain, widely considered to be its author's non-self published debut in English six decades after his death, has been praised as evidence placing him "within the canon of supernatural greats"? That should take care of when it was self-published. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"{{tq|a random passing busy-body meandering 3O comment}}" Oof. I commented after deciding not to promote it because I did not belive that the hook met WP:V. Regarding "non-self published debut", the source says that Miroslaw Lipinski translated Grabiński's storied and published them in "The Grabiński Reader and in small press anthologies", the Reader being "home-printed". I think the most direct reading of that hook is that Grabiński self-published stories, not that his translator Lapinksi did so. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::People can read the article to see that was the case, and it was the first time the work was published in English without self-publishing. Hooks do not have to give all of the information as long as the article does. I have no idea how to add in that it was initially self-published by his translator without being too wordy, but I don't think that is necessary. I also think that ALT0 is fine, as I described at the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@SL93, gotcha, if you think it's clear enough (especially with the context in the article), then I won't object to that, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but that's how I took your comment and the subsequent lack of engagement. No biggie, but I still consider both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, for reasons explained in the discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not bothered by it. A lot gets lost communicating only in text; that's why I explained above. From my perspective, it seems more respectful to say a hook "{{tq|doesn't meet WP:V.}}" at the nomination where it can be resolved than at WP:ERRORS where there is often nothing to do but pull the hook, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Rjjiii Fair enough. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::@AirshipJungleman29 I didn't notice. My bad, than. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Piotrus|Rjjiii}} Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines#Quality control says {{tq|Concerns about approved hooks can be brought to WT:DYK at any point in the process by any editor. Doing so as early as possible in the process is valuable to detecting and addressing potential concerns.}} I think starting a discussion here when Rjjiii raised some issues would have been helpful as it would have given other editors a chance to comment earlier. TSventon (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@TSventon Yes, but usually pinging people at the discussion works. I was expected them to comment them back, and then time kept on passing. Anyway, yes, pings can be missed, stuff happens. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm requesting a second opinion this, particularly regarding how to handle the lede. For context, the subject has a known date of birth but not a known date of death, although sources confirm that she is deceased. How should the lack of a known date of death be treated in the lede? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We got dragged to WP:ERRORS about Marcy Rheintgen today. Please, everybody, be extra careful about checking facts on WP:BLPs, and double extra careful when it's a controversial topic. RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope it's okay if I invite folks to check out:

☛ Template:Did you know nominations/Pholidoteuthis adami

This is an article/hook from a newer participant. I don't think the original hook could be supported by the cited source, but there are likely viable alternatives for the squid, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the state of queues and preps, we should end our sprint and go back to 1/day (86400 seconds at User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates). This needs to be done by an admin between midnight UTC (a little over an hour from now) and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. I'll check back tomorrow morning and flip the switch if nobody else managed to get around to it. Does this affect any special occasions? —Kusma (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kusma, I think switching to 2 days messed up a special occasion for June 1. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I kicked that back by three days at the start of the spurt, so it should be where it's supposed to be.--Launchballer 23:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Done RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, doing another one! Like last time, I'm going to be bumping hooks out of this queue if I'm not comfortable putting my signature on them for subjective reasons like borderline DYKINT fails. If another admin wants to endorse those bumped hooks, altered or unaltered, I have no issue with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Theleekycauldron I didn't see any discussion so I demoted and re-opened two of the hooks you bumped. Maybe the discussion can continue there, so it's all in one place. Suggest that if you're going to bump hooks but aren't going to demote them, maybe bump them to the very last Prep set so they don't "spoil" the next Prep set that could be eligible for promotion to Queue. (I should add that I added one hook to Queue 2 which Launchballer bumped to Prep 3, as Prep 3 already had too many US and sports hooks.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Cielquiparle: Will keep in mind, thanks :) I wanted to keep them close by so that the nominators didn't feel too slighted by my more subjective choices, but the bottom prep is where bumped hooks are supposed to go and i don't mind using it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that the TV station at the University of Arizona broadcast from a studio that had once been a gymnasium and auditorium?

I'm bumping this one on WP:DYKINT grounds – I think that hooks should entice readers into clicking through to the article, which doesn't happen much if there's nothing for the reader to follow up on after seeing the hook. When someone reads this hook, what questions are they going to have, what further things are they going to want to know that inspires them to click? (Those are just the general questions I ask myself when I assess whether a hook is intriguing, I'm not harping on this hook specifically.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Theleekycauldron, I put forward an ALT1 on this one. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Jilly Cooper first wrote a sex scene where a character wears a condom in the 2006 novel Wicked!?

I'm bumping this one on some mix of DYKFICTION, DYKINT, and DYKGRAT grounds – to the extent that this hook is interesting because it's about an in-universe sex scene with a condom, that doesn't pass DYKFICTION. to the extent this hook is interesting because it mentions a sex scene and a condom, I think that wouldn't pass DYKGRAT. There's an angle somewhere in here for the fact that it took this romance novelist some 30 years to write a sex scene with a condom, but neither the hook or the article really talks about that – and I don't think many readers are going to know who this author is, much less how long she's been writing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that this totally fails on WP:DYKGRAT. I searched for book reviews and read the first few in the search results:

:* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838130.Wicked_

:* https://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Tale-Schools-Jilly-Cooper/dp/0593052994

:* https://www.abebooks.com/9780593052990/Wicked-Tale-Two-Schools-Cooper-0593052994/plp

:* https://www.francisgilbert.co.uk/2006/05/a-class-struggle-for-jilly-francis-gilberts-review-of-wicked-a-tale-of-two-schools/

:* https://www.shakespeareandcompany.com/books/wicked-5?srsltid=AfmBOoo0dKY02xZMW2YJ_26XXTtUez6Reh_W33GIv_63_jhmusYCRWvC

:* https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wicked-jilly-cooper-obe/1112126814

:Not a single one even mentions this, so clearly mainsteam book reviewers don't consider it important. Yet we want to put it on the main page as the single most interesting thing we could find to say about the book? RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:On your last sentence, Jilly Cooper is an incredibly famous author, and probably the best-known international British female author until the TERF came along. I think readers will know and be interested. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Also, given that Cooper is basically known for writing "bonkbusters", it might seem a little odd to ignore the central appeal of her writing.

:: The article also discusses the difference in tone from her previous books, which are much more raunchy, and the condom use is an example of that. So this does not strike me merely as a tangential fact highlighted because of its sexual content - rather, it represents a change in style from the author's earlier novels. It might help, however, if the article expanded a little on the "changes in sexual mores" hinted at in one of the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Could I invite someone to re-review now that new hooks are proposed? @Gatoclass or @Kingsif, perhaps? I think some version of ALT3 should work, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Jacques Drollet said he would have Marlon Brando arrested if he ever returned to Tahiti?

{{yo|DragonflySixtyseven|Sammi Brie|AirshipJungleman29}} A few things here; first, the source for the hook says something slightly different:

{{tq2|The media frenzy that followed shattered Marlon Brando’s bubble of isolation, with reporters and paparazzi stationed outside his house 24/7. Christian was sentenced to 10 years for voluntary manslaughter; he served six. Dag’s heartbroken father, Jacques-Denis Drollet, threatened to have Brando arrested if he ever set foot in Tahiti again. He never did.}}

To me, that last "Brando" refers to Christian, not Marlon, although it is a little ambiguous. The other things I'm iffy about are the citations to Tahiti Air and a city's website – Tahiti Air is being cited for a claim it could probably support, although I don't love it, but the city website is making a "first" claim and it's not even an editorially controlled source, which would be the bare minimum for a claim like that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Throughout that Maxim article, several members of the Brando family are mentioned by full name or first name, but the bare surname "Brando" is used only when referring to Marlon Brando. The paragraph from which the hook is sourced refers to "Marlon Brando" and "Christian". Also, note a few paragraphs earlier: "But he never returned to the island after 1990, when a series of events—beginning with the conviction of his son Christian".

:I also found several sources where Drollet, e.g., rejected Marlon Brando's public apologies (something like "he is an actor. He lies and cries like a horse runs") and otherwise blamed him for what had happened, but I didn't consider them relevant to an article about Drollet.

:As for the city website, I'll see if I can do better, but I don't have much time today. DS (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, that could also be right. Is there a contemporaneous source that has a more definitive answer? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Given that the crux of that segment of the article is "why Marlon Brando did not return to Tahiti even though he had hoped to die there", how insistent are you that I find one? DS (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@DragonflySixtyseven: It'd make me feel better, but you're probably right, so I won't insist :) I'm still going to pull this for now because of the unresolved sourcing issues in the article – those shouldn't be too difficult to deal with, but there's not a whole lot of time left until air and I want to make sure this queue fully checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Confirm that your sole issue is now the statement about the school? DS (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Crystal Drawers|Soman}} The article sources substantial amounts of texts to DVD extras (i.e. about the same as a press release), a [https://web.archive.org/web/20110604010723/http://the-op.com/view/article.php?sect=2900&a=37 fansite interview] (at best, as reliable as a blog post from the interviewee), and an early-2000s review from a website called DVD talk. I don't think those sources are really reliable, and they definitely shouldn't be used as heavily as they are. Could the sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:DVD extras are generally allowed in television articles, and I see a lot of television episode articles do tend to use them (ex. Weight Gain 4000 uses the episode's commentary track for a substantial amount of the production section, as does You Only Move Twice, Lisa the Skeptic, and many others). I think the blog post is realiable, given it’s an interview with a major crew member on the series. The DVD talk source could probably be replaced, as it's used to just show off the release date of the set rather than using as a review; but finding other sources might be hard, I’ll search, however. Crystal Drawers (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::I’ve replaced the DVDTalk source with one of TVShowsOnDVD.com, which is used in a few pieces of television featured content (The Simpsons season 1 for example) Crystal Drawers (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Crystal Drawers}} I'll admit to not knowing the standard practice of TV article writers more broadly – despite having written many TV episode articles myself – but articles need to be based on independent sources, and I don't think that DVD extras count as independent. I also don't think tvshowsondvd.com [https://web.archive.org/web/20040625192524/http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/faq/history.cfm is a reputable TV criticism site], it mostly looks like a website that was active at around the time the pilot was released. I can't speak to the contents of other articles, but I will say that all of them passed FA in 2010 or earlier, when standards were much lower. Self-published sources are really only reliable to make claims about their authors, and only sometimes, and definitely can't be used for claims about other living people. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the comments :)

::::I have gone through some manual of style guides for writing Television articles, and found this, which states that DVD commentaries and behind the scenes documentaries (both categories which all the DVD extras used fall under) seem to be considered okay. I don’t know if this guide is supposed to be used for fact or was just written by a user a long time ago but I still think that all the TV episode articles that use DVD bonus features prove they are reliable sources. I have yet to find something that contradictes that or says that DVD sources shouldn’t be used. I’m not too sure about the TvShowsOnDVD thing, but since a lot of other articles (older articles, albeit) use it and have never been complained about in that manner, I also think it’s okay. I think that the previously used DVDTalk was a better site (given it has been around for years and has offered reviews and facts on thousands of DVD releases throughout the years), but you also found it to not be reliable. I don’t know if this makes it more notable or not, but the website does have its own page here, so take that as you will. If you have any more concerns, please let me know (as I am trying to fix up the article), but for now I am not too sure on how to fix the situation Crystal Drawers (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for the research you've put into this so far! I think we're gonna need a fair amount of time to resolve this and there's only a couple of days left before air, so I'm going to pull the hook out of queue for now. We can talk further on the nompage :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|theleekycauldron}} No prob!

::::::ive actually gone back and reduced the use of primary sources, and added much more secondary sources, just letting you know Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::sounds great! I'll take a look when I'm done with this queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that linguists often confused the Nizaa language with a similarly named local language, delaying its proper classification until comprehensive documentation began in the 1990s?

{{yo|PharyngealImplosive7}} I feel like there's a much better hook to be made here from the fact that "Nyamnyam", the other name for the language, is actually a pejorative meaning "cannibal" in Nizaa? I'm not sure exactly how it would be structured, though... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|theleekycauldron}} I'm totally fine with changing the hook to something along the lines of did you know "that one of the alternate names of the Nizaa language was {{lang|ff|nyam-nyam}} or cannibal in the Fula language, despite there being no evidence that the Nizaa were cannibals"? I am a bit new to this process, so if a hook was changed now, would it have to go back for review or would it just go back to the queue/prep area? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm, I think the most interesting part about the "nyam-nyam" fact is that it, almost certainly, comes from other people talking about the population in such a negative way and this is part of a pattern of anthropological mishandling if not worse. How would we get that into a hook? As it is, the current hook is actually pretty strong so unless an alternative can be written in a really good way is it worth it. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::The sources don't actually mention why the word 'cannibal' was ever used in the first place, and I can't really talk about the anthropological implications withiut WP:OR concerns beyond the Nizaa being labeled as cannibals but not actually being ones. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I mean, racist or offensive exonyms aren't exactly uncommon, are they? The classic example is that Berber comes from barbarian and many Native American group names come from some form of word meaning "enemy", but to reach for an example from Africa, I'd go for the fact that Hausa may come from a exonym implying that the people are uncultured bushman.[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1157217?seq=4] That's admittedly a subjective concern, but, @Theleekycauldron, given the lack of follow-up in the article/sources about how the name came to be, I'd be a little uncomfortable putting "hey, this group of people are cannibals!" on the front page. Yes, okay, technically the hook says "is known by", but we know a certain percentage of readers are gong to do a little "there's no smoke without fire"-style reading and arrive at the conclusion that they are cannibals. I know this won't be a view shared by everybody, but I'd much rather be excessively cautious when it comes to describing ethnic conflicts (or repeating (dis?)information that likely originates from such a dispute!) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|theleekycauldron}} Given the concerns raised about a hypothetical 'nyam-nyam' hook, would you still be comfortable using it, or would you rather use the hook in the queue right now? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I need some more time to think about/workshop this one, so I've bumped it back to prep 2 for now. Sorry about that, but I wasn't comfortable signing off on the hook as-is. Will get this worked out once I've finished verifying the rest of the queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No problem. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that a viral hoax claimed 42 people committed suicide after their homoerotic fan art was included in the film Crazy About One Direction{{-?}}

{{yo|Jolielover|BuySomeApples|AirshipJungleman29}} While none of the sources claim that it's real, none of them say it's a hoax, either: The Atlantic and Sky News both say it probably didn't happen, although they are contemporaneous, and Asquith 2016 (who is the documentarian, although it's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal) describes it as only a rumor, but not necessarily a hoax. This seems like a simple rewording, but I just wanted to get y'all's input on how best to do it. Is it just changing "hoax" to "rumor"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also worth noting that the news sources don't talk about the homoerotic fan art, but I do still give Asquith 2016 more weight as a peer-reviewed source from after the fact. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::yeah the asquith source mentions the homoerotic fan art; sure, don't mind changing it to "rumour" (british english preferably, since the documentary is british) jolielover♥talk 07:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Seconding since rumour seems more well-supported than hoax. We might want to specify that it was a false rumor though? BuySomeApples (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|BeanieFan11}} I'm probably just being paranoid, but it's a little weird to me that the Hall of Fame entry is the only source for what would be an incredibly impressive feat (no pun intended)? The HOF isn't the most reliable source, it's not editorially controlled, and there's also a typo in the sentence that's supposed to verify the hook, which doesn't fill me with confidence. On the other hand, I can't see a reason this would be wrong unless Harvey made it up out of whole cloth, so, eh? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:For your information leeky, I just promoted two sports hooks to prep 4 that had requests for this set and swapped out this set's quirky hook. As there is a hole in this set, I suggest filling it with one of them.--Launchballer 09:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Launchballer Really not sure if this is a good idea. I know this was requested, but this would mean two sports hooks in a set, which is something that we tend to avoid (yes, I know they're from different sports). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We tend to avoid two sports hooks in a set? Why, and since when? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There already were two sports hooks in the set (I bumped Leander Wiegand, an American football hook), and two is expressly allowed per WP:DYKVAR. I'd even say let all three in.--Launchballer 10:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If this is the Hall of Fame special occasion request, it was discussed a while back. I felt like having all three was a bit of an overkill (the original plan was for a triple hook). If there's consensus for two then so be it, just having all three seemed like too much given DYKVAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Per #Question / date request, the original was six separate hooks. We've run two triple hooks this week and they're two of the three most viewed hooks this month.--Launchballer 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: There's already an American football hook of mine in that set – What's wrong with swapping it with a different sportsperson hook like Howell or Miranda? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I plan on swapping it with Howell when prep 4's queued.--Launchballer 19:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's done.--Launchballer 12:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Launchballer Your constant swapping of hooks between Queues and Prep sets is dizzying. At minimum you should notify the set promoter @Z1720 that they are now short by one hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{re|Launchballer}} If hooks are being pulled, I kindly ask that a hook be promoted from the preps, instead of moving around queue hooks. This makes it easier for other editors without template rights to fill in the gaps that are left over. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{+1}} ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Apologies, it hadn't occurred to me to do that as I'd planned on filling the hole myself, which I have now done.--Launchballer 13:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

: I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the HOF writes the profiles in part based on the nomination for that person they received, and they require all nominations to have newspapers etc. to verify what is stated. Thus, presumably whoever originally nominated Adair for the HOF provided newspaper or school records for the detail, or else I don't think they would've included it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept that level of sourcing elsewhere ("this organisation was given the information by someone using sources which we are told are reliable but that we can't verify, therefore this organisation is a reliable source for that information" ... doesn't work does it?), an actual contemporary (or otherwise reliable) source needs to be provided really. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Why would we not accept a top Delaware sports organization verifying information and then writing about that verified information on their website? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, I guess it would depend on how exactly it collects and verifies its information. I don't think it being a top state sports organization is, on its own, a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" – we'd need to know at a minimum where their information comes from and how rigorous the editorial process is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The [https://desports.org/overview/ review and selection process] is detailed here. Arguably it seems there are more eyes on each award submission from different members of the community, such that if anyone had any reason to doubt the claim, they would have raised it. I do think an injury like a broken foot could be considered protected health information and for this reason, organizations such as the team itself (Salisbury University) would not publish information about the injury on their pages about the athlete like [https://suseagulls.com/honors/salisbury-athletics-hall-of-fame/robin-adair/62 here] and [https://suseagulls.com/sports/2022/7/12/x-vavky.aspx here]. (Also it is quite possible, even likely, that Adair (Harvey) was not aware of the severity of the injury until well after the event in question, such that even if a hockey game at this level was covered by the media, it wouldn't be mentioned.) In this particular case, Adair (Harvey) must have approved that information to be released to the awards organization (and that is why it is ok to mention it in this biography of a living person). This is a physical injury we are talking about and the only people who would know about it for sure either way are Adair's doctor and insurance companies and coaches (who would not discuss this information publicly unnecessarily), the player herself, and her family. I can see how maybe everyone would feel more comfortable if she gave a big interview where she discussed the injury...but even then the journalist would be taking her at her word. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The other thing is that "broken foot" is quite a broad term and could mean anything from a relatively minor fracture of part of the foot to something more major. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think it'd be too hard for a journalist to verify the information if it were true – there's teammates, coaches, friends in the school, other people who could verify. Given that this is an impressive story in a place where you'd generally expect to find impressive stories, I'd be surprised if this were true without a local journalist ever having written about it. Stranger things have happened, I guess! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Whether or not her foot was broken in the moment that she scored the game-winning goal is something only the player herself can know, and even then, she may never be sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I have looked at everything now including all the coverage about Adair's performance in the match in question at the time. The main reason to reject this hook just comes down to the fact that it's a "one-sentence wonder" – you make a DYK hook about something, you go to the article and the original source, there is no additional depth provided about the claim in either. There is not enough information available to publish a hook like that on the main page, because we're promising more detail about the fact in question that simply isn't available. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Black Kite|Theleekycauldron|Cielquiparle}} This is running tomorrow, so to clarify: is this good to run, or does it need to be bumped/pulled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: I'm just a bit surprised that there isn't a contemporary source for it, if it's that much of a big deal. Having said that, the article depends almost entirely on local press sources since the subject has never really done anything notable outside local sports, so perhaps that's not entirely surprising. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This is actually due to run on 29 May (we're on 26 May).--Launchballer 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Just pull it. Even if it we had more sources for it, maybe we don't want to glofify athletes who play through severe injuries, nor celebrate their coaches who encourage them to do so. The subject deserves a better hook anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I don't get how this is a valid reason to pull. It's sourced to a source we have no reason to distrust, and is an interesting fact. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: What's wrong with highlighting athletes making impressive accomplishments like this? What "coaches who encourage them" are we celebrating? I thought what matters is that the hook is interesting... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Given how the issue seems unresolved, I've bumped off the hook to Prep area 4 for now until we can get some clarity on the hook issue. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the source is problematic and I think the hook is fine as is, but the other issues raised by Cielquiparle, Theleekycauldron, and Black Kite do raise concerns and unfortunately it doesn't seem like they will be resolved in time for the planned special occasion run. I do disagree with Cielquiparle that "one-sentence wonder" hooks are an issue (I've done several of them in the past myself), but again, with the concerns raised, it's clear that this does need a bit more time in the oven. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I filled the hole.--Launchballer 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::::::::}} I see that Narutolovehinata5 bumped this, and that's about what I would've done too. I don't love one-sentence wonder hooks (great name, by the way), but we don't have a rule against them; I'm also not worried about glorifying playing through injury. I am still a little unconvinced by the sourcing issue, but hopefully that's something we'll have time to work out :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{yo|Onceinawhile|ERcheck}} Hook seems to verify to Hopkins, but the article makes a lot of use out of Tobin 2011, which doesn't seem to be from an academic press or an otherwise reputable publisher, and Franco 2015, which is iffy because it's a master's thesis that doesn't appear to be widely cited. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Franco was only used for descriptive elements, because her work is the most detailed. It wasn’t used for anything remotely debatable. The two scholars that Franco worked under are both reputable and relevant to the topic: [https://www.college-de-france.fr/media/edhem-eldem/UPL5902910219602979924_He__le__ne_Le_Meaux.pdf][https://alter.univ-pau.fr/fr/organisation/membres/cv_-sforero-fr-2.html] The work has also been cited by another publication.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=franco+%E2%80%9Cocto+mundi%E2%80%9D&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1748243864451&u=%23p%3DUUesuc7JPMQJ] Onceinawhile (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tobin’s work is a lecture series. She has excellent credentials.[https://clasmed.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/304/2018/07/jtobin-cv.pdf]

:She published on this topic in BAR two decades ago:[https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/department/classical-corner-the-seven-world-wonders/?_gl=1*al78zr*_gcl_au*NDQxNDI5NjguMTc0ODI0Mzk5OA..*_ga*MTI1NTA5MDY3MC4xNzQ4MjQzOTk4*_ga_7MSGCYKLB3*czE3NDgyNDM5OTgkbzEkZzAkdDE3NDgyNDM5OTgkajYwJGwwJGgxMTYzNzQ3Nzg0JGQ0OUFxRk03V0hWeFF6d1V3Y194N1hpRmRwRUZuYzQ4UlB3]

:Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Onceinawhile}} Okay, seems like Tobin is a subject-matter expert, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that {{tq|Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.}}, which I don't think is true of Franco. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "descriptive elements", but pretty much all of the body prose is sourced to Franco and it does contain some analysis, so it's not like the use of the thesis is for limited background details. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::“Significant scholarly influence” is a relative judgement. In a super-niche topic like this one, one citation is undoubtedly significant.

:::I can resource those citations, as all of them I have read elsewhere. But it does seem an unnecessarily painful exercise.

:::Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, sorry to be a nag – just bad luck that I was the reviewing admin, I think. Since re-citing is tedious, I'm going to pull the hook to give you as much time as you need. Ping me when you're done and I'll happily put it back in prep :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|theleekycauldron}} please could you put it back? I will make the time to fix the citations now. Otherwise you are hitting me twice. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, I haven't actually taken the hook out yet, so sure, if you can do it in the next day or two :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::OK. Doing it now. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Theleekycauldron}} all done. Poor Ms. Franco has been exorcized from our article. You will note that one of the sources I have added is also a thesis. But this time a PhD thesis. I don’t believe there is any other choice if we are going to note the detailed diffusion of the work through later artists, as no other 500-page monographs exist on the topic.

::::::::Per the guidance, the PhD thesis has been used with the utmost care. The supervizing professors have good credentials, and the author published three years later in a journal on a related topic. The excerpt used (and quoted in the footnote) is from the English-language abstract of the article - by definition the abstract is the most robust part of any thesis. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Onceinawhile - Ms Franco could be included in External links. — ERcheck (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks. I have demoted her to that section. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Oh, and you've even added more content to the body, too, which assuages a backburner worry I had. Perfect, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Pulling this one because of substantial problems with the hook and article; see nompage for further discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 26 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)

• ... that the White House forensic investigation of Signalgate has determined the way in which a journalist was included in the group chat about Operation Rough Rider?

{{ping|Cielquiparle|Noble Attempt|Surtsicna|Andrew Davidson|Valereee|Launchballer|Narutolovehinata5}} Multiple problems here. First, I don't see anywhere in the article where "Rough Rider" is mentioned. Second, the article says the investigation was run by the Pentagon, not the White House. RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's in the section "White House internal investigation" which cites [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/06/signal-group-chat-leak-how-it-happened this article in The Guardian]. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::OK, I see where it talks about the White House, but I still don't see where "Rough Rider" is mentioned. RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@RoySmith I've added it in now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I said at the nom that "I see multiple paragraphs that require {{tl|cn}} and these should be attended to." They still require {{tl|cn}}. Not sure why this was approved anyway.--Launchballer 20:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Launchballer It was a misunderstanding. Because you keep referring to it as {{cn}}, more than one editor including myself interpreted that to mean that there were "citation needed" tags within the article that needed to be resolved. One editor hunted for "cn" tags and only found one and resolved it, and thought they were done. Anyway I've now gone through and added a couple more footnotes so that every paragraph has one at the end of it. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that two Vietnam under-23 footballers refused to earn their money from match fixing because they felt ashamed of their actions?

{{ping|History6042|KhoaNguyen1|Sammi Brie}} I'm concerned about WP:DYKBLP problems. RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's fair. I thought the hook reflected somewhat positively on them, but I could also see an angle relating to DYKBLP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree I saw it as positive and don’t think there is an issue. They are also not named. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with the above DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{+1}} ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I also do not see how the hook violates DYKBLP, especially how it shows that they feel regret about their actions and the hook is intended to be positive, not negative. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

... that the conservation of a goat might endanger the survival of Aquilegia paui?

{{ping|Pbritti|awkwafaba|Cielquiparle}} While I found the prose stating that the goat eats this species, I could not find in the article where it says that A. paui's survival might be endangered because of this. Can the prose stating this information be posted below, or if not in the article yet, can it be added? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Z1720: "{{tq|The vulnerability of this species is high, with extremely low levels of genetic diversity and low recruitment rates (Blanché et al., Reference Blanché, Molero, Rovira, Simon, Bosch and Sàez2005). A. paui appears to reproduce well by rhizomes (not by seed) in situ although it is not easily cultivated ex situ. The conservation of the endemic wild goat Capra pyrenaica subsp. hispanica, which may be overgrazing subpopulations AP2 and AP3, in Parc Natural dels Ports may be in conflict with the conservation of A. paui, as in other mountain areas in which plant conservation programmes and hunting reserves coexist (Simon et al., Reference Simon, Bosch, Molero and Blanché2001).}}" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Rjjiii}} Thank you for citing the source. I still cannot find the reference to the goats threatening the survival of A. paui in the Wikipedia article. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Z1720: Oh, you know, sometimes I just cannot read. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquilegia_paui&diff=1292260193&oldid=1291079950 added it here using the DYK text]. I didn't add any context comparing it to other situations where game reserves and plant conservation overlap, but the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320700001695 cited source] about that is open access if anybody wants to expand further. {{u|Pbritti}}, feel free to revise, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That works for me! Issue resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 26 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)

The previous list was archived a day and a half ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 4. We have a total of 290 nominations, of which 134 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has decreased by 18 over the past 7 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 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Future Days (The Last of Us)
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (song) 2
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Destiel
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lacrateides Relief
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Trichy assault rifle
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Tribalistas (2002 album)
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Naulahka: A Story of West and East
• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Miles Caton
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Kercher
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Sculpture Space (Utica)
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Lankas
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Earl Ohlgren
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Edgar Matobato
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Wild
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate crinkle
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Everyone Hates Elon
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Seitaro Hattori
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote

Other nominations

• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Nun will der Lenz uns grüßen
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Lonnie Donegan Showcase
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Octavia (novel)
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Italian brainrot
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Franklin Sonn
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/James Bunbury White
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Smashing Frank
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Civilization (magazine)
• 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/Opiki Toll Bridge

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) 03:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Irve Tunick requests that the hook be released on 27 June, which is a month away and thus within the required time, and so I am putting a request here so it does not get missed. I have approved the hook :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The date is just within the six-week requirement so it's technically feasible (the nomination was on May 17 and six weeks after that is June 28). The date is Tunick's birthday so I have no issue with the request being fulfilled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you both! Remember (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The nom page for this article notes that it was rewritten after concerns about close paraphrasing, but I noticed that the hook fact still seems to be uncomfortably close to the source. It is one of those sentences that's so specific it's a bit hard to rephrase without sounding stupid, so rather than pull it, I thought I'd bring it here.

• Article: In Philadelphia, Morris got a job at Lit Brothers, where he led his first employee strike, winning the employees a raise through his tactics which included putting live pigeons into fur coats sleeves during a sale.
• Source: The couple moved to Philadelphia, where Mr. Morris was a shipping clerk at Lit Brothers department store. There he organized his first strike, winning a raise after stuffing live pigeons into the sleeves of fur coats during a sale.

Courtesy ping to @Roastedbeanz1 (nom), @Remember (reviewer), @HouseBlaster, and @Rjjiii (commenters). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:A rephrase could be

:"…that John P. Morris won a strike by putting pigeons into fur coats"

:Changes:

:removing ‘first’; it’s still interesting no matter which strike it it

:removing ‘live’; it’s still interesting—if not more—if they aren’t

:Sorry for bad formatting, I’m trying to get to sleep. Roasted (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::That all works for me. Remember (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is probably a better hook tbh. Another thought: "hiding" might be a stronger verb, like below.

:::* "…that John P. Morris won a strike by hiding pigeons in fur coats?"

:::Also, someone should likely go back over the article's text. This is borderline, and it's cited, but it would definitely not hurt to clearly rephrase it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah hiding is better. And when you say to rephrase, are you saying to retype the sentence on the article proper? Roasted (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I meant in the article proper, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Swapped with RJJ's suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that due to a snowstorm, Mickey Volcan and Garry Howatt became the first active players to officiate a National Hockey League game?

{{ping|HickoryOughtShirt?4|BeanieFan11|Cielquiparle}}

This is more of a double-check, just to be sure, taking into account the new rules regarding bringing "first" or exceptional hooks under scrutiny. This is a request to make sure that the hook sourcing and the fact is watertight. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• The NHL itself wrote a story on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 27 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)

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)

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)

• 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)