Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for final resolution

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}}

{{Rfc|policy|rfcid=8970775}}

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'm a bit close for time with a special occasion hook: Knox Mountain Hillclimb, a new article about a motorsport event in British Columbia, Canada. For anyone inclined to review, I'd like to draw attention to the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Knox Mountain Hillclimb. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also have a date request for 17 May: Remember Monday, which is a triple nom and needs Holly-Anne Hull reviewed.--Launchballer 20:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Reidgreg (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Kingsif @Launchballer I see that the hook was already promoted, but for the record I would have opposed this running on the requested date, if only out of a technicality. The only reason it ended up being able to run on May 17 anyway was because the nomination took so long to be reviewed that it fell close to May 17. The original request was made outside of six weeks and the initial WT:DYK special occasion request was archived without a consensus. While arguably this could be an IAR case, there have already been multiple cases of this happening where an article had a special occasion request that was far outside the six-week requirement and did not gain consensus towards a special occasion run, but through circumstances like a delayed review was able to run on the requested date.

::At the very least, such cases (I am not speaking about the Remember Monday nomination specifically but in general) appear like an unintentional gaming of the system (the keyword here is "unintentional"). Maybe that particular guideline has to be tightened up? It does seem like a loophole and goes against the spirit of the six-week limit. As in, there could be cases where a nomination is requested to run on a special occasion that is outside the six-week limit, then no review is done (whether intentionally or unintentionally) until the requested date is near, after which the special occasion run becomes feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, as you say, it was probably getting promoted this week because of the lack of good image hooks otherwise available and timing has worked out for it. But there was the option, I think, to promote a different hook earlier and then perhaps nominate the Hull article separately later. I don't know how we could actually update guidelines on this without probably excluding more than a few noms that get reviewed quickly or late or have hooks changed or something else. Might be more effort than it's worth. Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I can't think of a specific wording myself, but the idea I had was something like, "Do not hold reviewing a hook with a special occasion request outside the six-week limit just so it can feasibly run on the requested date." I think it's a bit hard to express the idea myself but you get the idea. Even though it's admittedly some effort, I do think it's still worth addressing that loophole since it exists and it's happened multiple times before. Largely unintentionally, but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I'd yeet the six-week rule altogether.--Launchballer 15:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There was a discussion about nixing the limit in the past but it failed to gain consensus. I'm personally against the limit myself, but it's a rule we currently have and consensus is to keep it. Whether we like it or not, we have to abide by it or at least its spirit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I also think the six-week rule is silly, but I'd like to hear from people who were around DYK before the rule was put in place. Was there a problem with so many noms asking for special dates that it became unwieldy to manage? RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I wasn't around during those times, but one argument I've seen in favor of keeping the limit is that DYK is intended to promote new or newly-improved articles. Nominating an article, then requesting a special occasion that's a long time away (like several months away) was seen as going against the spirit of what counts as "new". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::OK, that makes sense. The downside of the rule is that somebody might hold back a new article in their userspace until the right six-week window rolls around. But, I guess whatever rule you make, somebody will find a way to game it if they want to. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's not really a downside so much as the obvious outcome of the rule. I've always assumed that's what people do. Tendentiously banging my usual drum to extend it to 8 weeks/2 months at least. CMD (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I wouldn't mind a more relaxed timeframe. We do need to get the interaction with WP:DYKTIMEOUT right though. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::TIMEOUT is currently at two months. Any special occasion hook added under an 8weeks/2month timeframe will have already missed its requested date if it times out. CMD (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2 has a request for this date, too, and needs looking at. Kingsif (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I'm ruining a good thing here as it's kind of funny and sad at the same time. This discussion has likely come up many times before, but I can't keep track of everything so I'm probably asking a question that has been answered many times already. I will try to keep it very brief: regarding this nomination, it says the nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations, but I see ~21 listed on their user page, and I've been able to confirm several. Has the user found a hack that allows them to skip the QPQ requirement? Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:DYK is significantly older than the QPQ requirement (and older than proper vetting of hooks and articles). I explicitly asked to be exempted from QPQ for my eighth self-nomination, not even counting noms for others. (They looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=80780230 this]). If the non-QPQ DYKs are over 10-15 years old, don't worry about them. I think we should perhaps be asking for QPQs but not for the first nomination under the new system. —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::That makes perfect sense. It looks like one more nom will kick them over the 10 year threshold, as I count five within the last five years, but 6-21 from 2010 and before. I was unaware the bot could figure that out. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Viriditas I think the bot counts nomination pages created by the editor: they have created four so far, so they have one more free nomination and then will have to start doing QPQs. It appears that the nominations from before 2011 were made before the introduction of nomination pages. TSventon (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been requested that High and Low (1963 film) run on 22 August as that is the release date of a remake of the film by Spike Lee. Is this ok? Thriley (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I say no bueno. 22 August is almost four months away and WP:DYKSO recommends "not put[ting] emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject".--Launchballer 13:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, that's kinda marketing, not what special date requests are for. Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

In Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, the third hook mentioned that "... that Johann Voldemar Jannsen was rejected by the Estonian nationalist movement he helped found, only for a song he wrote to become Estonia's national anthem?" I visited the boldlinked article and didn't find the fact. The hook is so interesting. But I wonder if the nominator forgot to add the fact on the article or something else? I don't have access to the source and find the fact and then add that to the article with inline citation is time-consuming. Can anyone look into this? Mehedi Abedin 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm guessing penultimate sentence of "...Tarfu" and the last sentence of "Death...", although a) I'm not entirely sure 'rebuked' means the same as 'rejected' and b) this probably needs an end-of-sentence citation in any event. Pinging {{ping|RoySmith|Thebiguglyalien|GreenLipstickLesbian}} for their input.--Launchballer 14:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Mehedi Abedin thanks for noting this. I remember this being one of those where I had to piece together the backup from bits and pieces of the article, but eventually convinced myself there was enough to support the hook. Now that I look at it again, yeah, I do remember deciding that "rebuked" and "rejected" were basically the same thing, but I could be wrong on that. If people think this needs more work, it could certainly be pulled for now to give us more time to get it right. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@RoySmith Well the thing is the article mentions, "He remained cordial and cooperated with the Baltic Germans that held control over Estonia, leading to accusations that he was corrupt or that he had betrayed the movement. The nationalist movement rebuked him as he advised caution, and Jakobson founded a more popular nationalist newspaper, Sakala." When I read that part, it gave me the understanding that he was rebuked as he warned nationalists. My question is if they reject him then why they accept his song as their national anthem? It doesn’t make any sense. It is possible that he wasn't rejected but he was kinda isolated from their political environment. Mehedi Abedin 14:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::OK, this is the next prep up so I'll just pull it and folks can sort it out back on the nom page without any time pressure. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Nothing here says that the nationalist movement chose the song to be Estonia's national anthem. The national awakening was in the late-19th century and the song was selected as a national anthem in 1920. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Thebiguglyalien Then it was not the case. Is it possible that the source used "rebuke" to mean almost same as the word "reject"? Can his post-rebuke life clarify that? (I know this is becoming complex, but if others can clarify then it would be better and even I could learn from this). Mehedi Abedin 15:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::At this point, the hook has been pulled. I suggest people continue this discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Voldemar Jannsen RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, respectfully requesting quick eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/St. Augustine Seminary High School, being the newly-elected Pope Leo XIV's alma mater. It would be good to get it on the front page ASAP to capitalize on the news. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Darth Stabro}} commented there. Perfect4th (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK admins}} All queues are empty.--Launchballer 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder if any DYK fans will start building preps. It's annoying. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::oh we are running very low. oh no. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm honestly not sure how many people care enough. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::At some point you just get burnt out. Maybe try dropping the number of hooks/set? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is currently a NPP backlog drive, a GAN backlog drive, and a core contest. It's a rough time to find people to help out, hopefully things will come back over the northern summer. CMD (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That, or if that fails perhaps even go to 36 hours/set or 48 hours/set. —Kusma (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::FWIW, I've recently moved away from promoting queues and back into prep building. If there's a GAN drive going on, that usually means a lot of new DYK nominations, so I'd have to see us move to a longer update interval; that would just be setting us up for a lot more pain in the future as the pile of unprocessed noms grows. Of course, we can address that problem by being more aggressive about declining lower-quality noms, but people never seem to want to do that. RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It’s not burnout because the majority of DYK contributors have not built preps. SL93 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Very true! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The problem with prep building is not just that it requires a lot of time, it also requires a lot of responsibility. It involves a lot of checking and rechecking, as well as trying to juggle all sorts of topics, interests, and guidelines. It's easy for people to get burned out and I imagine many (including myself) are hesitant to jump in because it's not only trivial to make a mistake, but such mistakes could also lead to criticism. Maybe we need to move away from a culture where preps are generally the work of one editor, and instead encourage prep building to be collaborative with editors promoting articles one at a time and sharing workload/responsibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I definitely think building a full prep by yourself is too much work. I like the idea that I can do one or two hooks when I have the time and inclination and then move on with the satisfaction that I've done something useful. RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought that we already encouraged that, but editors just didn't care. SL93 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Pesky editors. Why do we need those anyway? RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't get what you're trying to say. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::See Humour RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't get the joke. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Totally in favour. Looking forward to the incoming wave of DYK contributors eager to change the culture. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{od}}I know I'm personally still burned out from Wiki, and then working two jobs, but there's also the whole thing where you try to be responsible for a prep but a) you miss something and end up the bad guy or b) you are waiting on an issue to be resolved and someone else promotes in your stead. That definitely contributed to the burn out for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that American-born Freddie Lish won a gold medal with the Thai national team and called playing for the country "my dream ever since I found out my mom was born in Thailand"?

I know opinions vary on how much detail is required in a DYK hook, but this seems to lack basic information on (a) what sport he plays, and (b) what sort of gold medal he won. Arguably it's even somewhat misleading, because I would assume Olympic by default, but it wasn't that. {{ping|Bagumba|BeanieFan11|RoySmith}}  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe this wording is better?

:* ... that Freddie Lish called playing for the Thai national basketball team, "my dream ever since I found out my mom was born in Thailand"?

:It does omit the mention of the gold medal, but I guess the hook is concise enough to still be hooky despite only having one main hook fact now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm good with that. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't believe most people think gold medals only come from the Olympics. But I think playing for a country different than your home country is a bit more uncommon. Please reinsert "American-born". My intention was more of a Mother's Day (11 May in many countries, incl US) vibe, which made the specific sport seem immaterial. So if we must change, either:

:* ... that American-born Freddie Lish called playing for the Thai national team, "my dream ever since I found out my mom was born in Thailand"?

:* ... that American-born Freddie Lish called playing for the Thai national basketball team, "my dream ever since I found out my mom was born in Thailand"?—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:{{done}} the latter. Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Pakistani prime minister Mohammad Ali Bogra opposed 1955 election to protect his political position?

Is this supposed to say he opposed the 1955 election? I can't quite parse it at the moment... {{ping|Mehedi Abedin|Munfarid1|SL93}}  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Amakuru}} yes, notice the source says "The United Front, an alliance of anti-Muslim League parties in East Pakistan, after its victory in provincial Legislature’s elections of 1954, asserted that the East Pakistan members of the Constituent Assembly had become completely unrepresentative. The alliance demanded the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the holding of new elections.... Bogra announced on 6 April that Constituent Assembly will proceed without interruption from 5th April with the task of framing the Constitution, so that direct elections to the Central Legislature could be held under the new Constitution next year... Prime Minister Bogra took a stand to save the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in face of demand for its dissolution because his position after the election of East Pakistan Legislative Assembly had shaken. To consolidate his position he got the support of the members of the Constituent Assembly...". At the time direct election was impossible and others proposed to include new members through election. Mehedi Abedin 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, I've added in the, hopefully this is OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that 9 days after his heart transplant, J. C. Walter Jr. merged his company Houston Oil & Minerals with Tenneco, then retired to his ranch, and less than 2 months later founded Walter Oil & Gas?

The article says his retirement lasted less than one month, while the hook says two... which is it? (I know technically less than one month is also less than two months, but if it was really less than one month then we should just say so; otherwise, we should amend the article)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC) Ping {{ping|ERcheck|Hawkeye7|Bremps|Launchballer|Tenpop421|SL93}}  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see these two statements at odds with each other. It could be that he came out of retirement after a month to start working on plans for a new company. After another month, he actually got the company founded. RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:What RoySmith said, though the numbers should probably be spelled per MOS:NUM.--Launchballer 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it could be really features in the WP:DYKHOOK play books, guys... We're supposed to follow "hooks should be definite facts that are verified by citations in the article". One or other of these needs to change so they're in sync with each other. (I've tweaked the numbers to be nine and two, I was going to do that later anyway but thought I'd get the other issue out of the way first). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe just say "and shortly after founded Walter Oil & Gas". SL93 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that a Japanese governor wore a pregnancy vest to encourage men to help out their wives at home?

Is a pregnancy vest a well-known concept? We don't have an article on it, anyway and I had to look it up to see what it meant (Google returns some results that are just clothing for women during pregnancy). I'd suggest amending to something clearer like pregnancy simulation suit or similar. {{ping|Miminity|BeanieFan11|RoySmith}}  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given time sensitivity and the fact that this is a special occasion hook, I've done the change. The article still needs to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Done changing the article. I just copy what is said on the source Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do we have {{t|DYKtickAGF}} ("Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith"). Whoever it was that wrote the hook certainly has the source. All they need do is take a screenshot, or scan it, or even just take a picture of it with their phone, and stick that somewhere (google doc, pastebin, email a PDF, etc) where reviewers can see it. For foreign-language sources, they should also provide a translation. GA now does spot checks on sources. Anything I can't find myself on-line or from my library, I just ask the author and they send me a scan. The system works fine. No reason we can't or shouldn't be doing that here. It would help avoid things like today's WP:ERRORS debacle. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=1289658347 Today's WP:ERRORS debacle].{{pb}}I use DYKtickAGF if I am assuming good faith for a translation given, or for the quote provided of a source. I haven't thought of pictures. I'd still like some different tick for foreign language sources, but we could be more explicit about needing some form of verification. CMD (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe we can add some kind of note to the guidelines encouraging providing quotes? Something along the lines of, "If the hook's source is offline and/or is in a foreign language, it is encouraged but not required to include the relevant quote in the article or the nomination page." I'm sure the wording could be worked out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Encouragement of quotes would be good, I usually include them if the source is a book or long paper. CMD (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen cases before where even the nominator does not have access to the sources. From experience, I think offline sources are usually tricker to verify (and thus assume good faith on) than foreign language sources. In those cases, you can still look for the actual relevant part even if it's not in English, and if necessary, the nominator can provide the relevant quote for confirmation purposes. Google Translate is far from perfect, but it usually works as a spot check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, this is enough of a major change that we may need an RfC on it. After all, there may be reasons why the nominator cannot provide the actual source or quote on-demand, such as relying on a library book or having a source that's currently not accessible to them. I'd be opposed to a blanket ban on "unavailable" sources due to there being legitimate reasons for them, but we probably should be encouraging providing quotes or excerpts when requested, or even at the time of the nomination. In my case, I specialize in Japanese media, so when I nominate articles for DYK and the source is in Japanese, I provide at the nomination the actual (Japanese) text used to cite the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::If we make providing the source a requirement for the DYK nom, then it's up to the nominator to have the forethought to have it available for that purpose if they were planning to make the nomination in the first place. It's not like an article has to be featured on DYK, they're making that choice. Silverseren^C 23:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't follow. If I have a source available to me when I write an article, the odds are I can also have it available to me some time later when the article comes up for review. Maybe I own the book and it's still on my bookshelf. Maybe I got it from a library, in which case all I need do is go back to the library and borrow it again. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but they will be the exceptions and we'll deal with them when they come up; IAR is a powerful tool when wielded with care. RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I never understood AGF on reviewer's part when they didn't at least ask for the relevant quote first. And if the nominator doesnt have access to the source, who is vouching for the integrity of the hook relative to the actual source? —Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would personally ban all translations where the translator has not seen the sources, but I am aware that this is a fairly radical position. For DYK, I would be happy to reduce the AGF a bit: we should believe the nominator that the quote they present from the source is really in the source, but we should not AGF on the statement "this is sourced in this obscure book in Mongolian" without at least a quote or screenshot that can be checked. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think disallowing articles where no-one involved has seen the sources is radical, I would support that. CMD (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do have a question though. What about, for example, articles that are translations from other languages? For example, many Japanese Wikipedia articles about entertainers base their biographies on offline sources like magazines or books, most of which will never be accessible to us English Wikipedia users. If, for example, we translate based on foreign language articles, and we cannot access the sources and there's virtually no way that we ever will, what should we do? I've encountered this issue in the past when creating or expanding articles about Japanese voice actors, which sometimes would include information that was only reported on print-only Japanese magazines. Edge cases like this are why I'm still against a blanket ban even though I'm open towards greater encouragement of the practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If anyone translates based on foreign language articles and cannot access the sources, they should keep such articles well away from DYK. If the actual source of your article is the Japanese Wikipedia (not considered a reliable source), standard practice per WP:SAYWHERE should be to state clearly that your source is the Japanese Wikipedia and that you have not read the citations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. A lot of people who translate articles make dishonest citations. If we can't get that practice to stop across the 'pedia, we should at least not highlight any such articles on DYK. —Kusma (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I mean, in this case, the citations were copied from the Japanese Wikipedia, not that the Japanese Wikipedia was used as the source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::So you think we should allow citations which have not been verified to meet en.wp's sourcing standards in any way whatsoever just because someone on ja.wp added it sometime ago? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Cross-wiki translation is, broadly speaking, a good thing. But if we're going to put something on our from page, we really need better sourcing than "I've never seen the source, somebody else claims they did, so that's good enough". RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I do not understand what you mean. Your actual source is what you use to write the article. If you translate a piece of text from the Japanese Wikipedia that cites some Japanese magazine, then your source is the Japanese Wikipedia. The Japanese Wikipedia's source is the magazine. If you say the content you translated is sourced to the magazine, then you are being somewhat dishonest, because you have not verified that the content is indeed in the magazine. That is what WP:SAYWHERE is about. In the old times, before we had proper sourcing standards, I have myself made translations, but I usually added notes like here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanssouci_Picture_Gallery&oldid=42007095]. Help:Translation says {{tq|Content that cannot be verified must not be imported into English Wikipedia}} but does not state clearly enough (imho) that the translator should actually go and verify the content. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive337#Fake_referencing is interesting reading in this context. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Kusma}} How do you expect me to send you a screenshot? I cannot upload it to Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There are various image sharing sites out there, but I would expect to use the way we typically share sources -- per email. In most cases, just quoting the content that supports the hook should be sufficient, though. —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In my own experience, people have either mailed me a PDF via Special:EmailUser/RoySmith, or dropped it into Google Drive and sent me a link. There's lots of alternatives such as Dropbox or any of a number of pastebin-type services. I suppose an attachment to a DM on Discord would work too. It's really not that hard a problem. RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Apropos: Template:Did you know nominations/The Robot Revolution RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Many editors would regard such a request as a demand to provide personal information and refuse point blank. I also note comments like User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog#Why I no longer have email enabled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So post it somewhere in your user space. Or in my user space for that matter. Or on the nomination page. If you make me fend for myself, my library is pretty good about getting stuff on inter-library loan. If that's the only way I can see the source to verify it, I'll do that and put your nom on hold until it comes in. Sometimes it takes a few weeks. RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"DYK is only for online sources", which is what fully deprecating {{t|DYKtickAGF}} means in practice, is a huge change from the standards of sourcing everywhere else on the encyclopedia. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:If your source is offline, just quote the relevant snippets supporting the claim, in their original language. We can AGF that you quote them correctly. I see nothing wrong with having higher standards for content directly on the Main Page (that is what hook sourcing is all about) than for any random statement. —Kusma (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I note also that at FAC, it does happen that you are asked to send copies of offline sources for spot checking, see my first modern-era FAC. —Kusma (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::At GAN as well. RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If they are in the selected 1-10% of citations, but not otherwise Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not clear what your point is. A FAC/GAN reviewer can ask for backup on whatever sources they feel are appropriate. Neither process specifies exactly what constitutes a spot check, but I'd be very surprised if checking as few as 1% of the citations qualified. I think most people are doing more like 10-20%, and I'd expect most reviewers would make sure to include the citations for any particularly contentious or sensitive statement. In the context of DYK, a statement that's going to be featured on the main page would certainly fall into the "sensitive" bucket. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::When I have done FAC spotchecks it has always been a percentage of the citations, no more than 20ish, drawn completely randomly. Sometimes I would ask for scans of the dead tree sources that were not online, but if it were a 1 or 2 off source I would draw another random citation in its place. So, no. I never went looking for "sensitive" statements. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Be surprised. See Sample size determination for details. I normally only selected four references at random. It is a lot of work, and fortunately is not required at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with this proposal. In most cases it should be relatively straightforward for the nominator to provide the necessary evidence. And if the nominator themselves doesn't have access to the source, as suggested is sometimes the case above, then I'm not sure we should be running that hook anyway. That implies that we're not assuming good faith in the nominator as such, but in some other unspecified party, perhaps an article author who isn't part of the DYK process. I think if nobody involved is willing to stump up the source in some form or another (as indeed is done at FAC and GAN) then there's no reason we should be obliged to run it.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

I don't know that any of these improvements require a policy change? Take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, on an excellent if depressing film. Each hook has a full citation, a link if possible, and a quote short enough to be fair use. I try to do the same, but to avoid coming off as self-important, I hope it is okay to shoutout {{u|Namelessposter}} for going above and beyond there. Like the reviewer, I would probably go with ALT1 for that nomination, and it makes things much easier to have the quoted text and page number. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps this would come under IAR, but the first thing I thought of is when Venezuela-based web sources go dead for either a while or forever - I've seen the sources, could vouch for them, but the website's not available at the time of review. A very specific issue, though which could happen to presumably any domain at any time and just is more frequent, but if I would AGF of a user handling those sources, well, that's why we AGF. Of course, I already try to include a cite template "quote" parameter when a source is paywalled or inaccessible, in all articles, so that would resolve it. But I do think there could be legitimate uses for this AGF sources template. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• In article-space, if material from a paywalled, offline, or otherwise hard-to-access source is challenged on verification grounds, the standard practice is for the challenger to ask for a quote, and for the content-adder to provide it. DYK noms should be treated the same way. Left guide (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :See Template:Did you know nominations/The Robot Revolution for a good example of how this works. RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's very kind of you, @Rjjiii - I appreciate it. I can't say I'm familiar enough with the DYK process to know how often a cite-check fails or whether policy should change. My only note is that the Fire Walk with Me DYK nomination might not reflect the mine run of nominations, as it was the result of a GA promotion. I would be quite surprised if a GA-based DYK couldn't reference a hook, and I think it's entirely reasonable to expect a GA promoter to cite sources accurately and precisely. Different practical considerations might apply to a creation or expansion - or they might not. Namelessposter (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|BeanieFan11}} I'm curious about your AGF on the source for Template:Did you know nominations/William Arthur Ganfield. There was a link to Internet Archive with the full source available. I didn't take me long to flip to the right page (page number noted in the nom) and verify the fact. Why was it necessary to fall back to AGF? RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:: It wouldn't let me view any of the pages without starting an account and 'borrowing'. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::OK, so why didn't you start an account and borrow the book? RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Even without an account, just searching for "black" in the book quickly brings up a snippet and a relevant page. (That kind of things also works for some of the books on the Internet Archive that can't be borrowed). —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Sammi Brie}} I'll ask you a similar question. I reviewed another one of {{u|TheDoctorWho}}'s noms and ran into the same UK-only video block you did. But, I queried TDW who quickly pointed me to a non-paywalled copy of the video from which I was able to verify the facts. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a positive process. It should be the responsibility of nominators to provide the relevant supporting sources, and there seems to be agreement above that a quote to even an offline source can be AGFed. Reviewers should not be expected to carry out their own search and/or create new accounts to check. CMD (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|RoySmith}} Out of pure curiosity: most BBC television series aren't available on YouTube. The way that I was able to provide an alternative here is a very rare exception. Although sharing the video itself may fall under fair use for research purposes (as noted on the DYKN), many streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc.) block screen recordings for DMCA reasons.

:Even if that wasn't the case, most of them prohibit this type of sharing in their terms of use (from Netflix: "{{tq|The Netflix service and any content accessed through our service are for your personal and non-commercial use only and may not be shared with individuals beyond your household unless otherwise allowed by your subscription plan.}}"; from Hulu: "{{tq|You may not either directly or through the use of any device, software, internet site, web-based service, or other means copy, record, download, stream capture, reproduce, duplicate, archive, distribute, upload, publish, modify, translate, broadcast, perform, display, sell, or transmit or retransmit the Content unless expressly permitted by the terms of your subscription or otherwise by Hulu in writing.}}"). These are separate from the copyright notices on both T&C pages, so from my understanding would violate the terms of a subscription, whether it was classified as fair use or not.

:Would this have been a case in which being able to provide a direct quote would have sufficed instead? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, had you transcribed the appropriate passages into text, that would have been fine. The goal here is to verify that the source really does say what the citation claims it does. Any way that happens is fine with me. I'm not worried about outright fabrications; I suppose that's possible, but the real question is whether something was interpreted correctly, and having a direct quote from the source is almost always enough to verify that.

::And, yes, you are correct that sometimes (perhaps even often), content providers layer on terms-of-use restrictions above and beyond copyright. We even do that ourselves; the CC-BY-SA license that covers what I'm typing now imposes on anybody who reuses this the requirement to provide attribution. And then we go on to deny you the right to impose any additional restrictions :-) RoySmith (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Hideaki Kobayashi (pictured) cosplays as a schoolgirl despite being in his 60s?

It might be just me, but I feel like the despite being in his 60s clause here is something we've inserted in the hook that isn't really present in the article or sources. Is there a particular age bracket where it's normal to cosplay as schoolgirls and another where it's not? I think the hook may need some workshopping here or some other aspect of his activities highlighted. {{ping|Miminity|Thriley|RoySmith}} Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:The CNN headline "A 51-year-old male schoolgirl? Meet Tokyo’s inspirational cross-dresser" kind of implies that his age as well as his gender is surprising. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz accused the play Downstate of celebrating pedophilia?

This seems to be incorrect. According to the source [https://playbill.com/article/washington-post-theatre-critic-peter-marks-goes-private-on-twitter-after-conservative-criticism-of-downstate-review] it's a review of the play by Peter Marks that Cruz was criticising, not necessarily the play itself. And indeed, the quote attributed to Cruz on this is "So now the corporate media is praising pedophilia", which confused me initially because I didn't think the play was corporate media, but it seems in fact that while he no doubt has similar feelings about the play, that's not what he was talking about here.

As a minor aside, a WP:PLOTCITE issue was brought up during the review, and the nom provided a link and ISBN for where the script can be purchased. Would it not be a good idea without downsides to include a citation to that in the article at the end of that paragraph, so that (in the admittedly unlikely event) any readers who aren't aware of the script and want to verify the plot summary can do so? Unlike a film or book, it's not immediately obvious how to verify the plot in this instance... {{ping|Sdkb|Launchballer|SL93}}  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Apologies, I purposefully didn't check the hook because I felt it failed DYKINT, and then promptly forgot I'd done that. This should probably be changed.--Launchballer 17:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I read "So now the corporate media is praising pedophilia" to mean that "corporate media" is the review, but "pedophilia" refers to the play itself. I don't think there's a logical way to interpret the quote that doesn't have Cruz describing the play as celebrating pedophilia. If we needed to change "accused the play" to "accused a review of the play" we could, but I don't think that's necessary.

::And I'm fine with that citation being added — as you imply, there's not really a downside, although I maintain that it's not needed because MOS:PLOTSOURCE applies to all works. Sdkb ^talk 22:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Amakuru}} I first promoted " ... that the theatre which premiered a play about sex offenders had to hire additional security for its run?", but I received a complaint. Will that hook work? SL93 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see why that hook was objected to in the first place. It seems accurate as it is and it's not a sensational or gratuitous fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@RoySmith @Amakuru Given that this is to run tomorrow and the set is already under transclusion protection, could the current hook please be swapped with the hook SL93 originally promoted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm open to views on which option is the more interesting choice (per above, I don't think there's any need to modify the current hook, but if others do all we need to add is "a review of"). But my inclination was that the current hook is stronger than the alternate option, and I'd rather it be delayed than have an inferior hook run.

::::I present alternate options, even when I think there's a clear most interesting choice (that I indicate), since I think it's useful for the system to have a backup and my sense about what's most interesting may be wrong. But I too often perceive a "let's get this out the door" attitude rather than a "let's see if we can make the most interesting option work" attitude, and if that continues I'll have to stop offering backups. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::(The discussion after the initial promotion was here, just in case it's useful for anyone.) Sdkb ^talk 05:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For what it's worth, I do have to agree with the original sentiment that the current hook is reliant on knowing who Ted Cruz is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Sdkb}} Are you suggesting you are not open to the original hook running? After all, the current hook has been objected to, both before the initial promotion and now with this discussion. Personally I thought the original hook was more interesting and I was confused as to why it got changed. While I do find the current hook still interesting, it could be because I know who Cruz is and am rather familiar with American politics. If there were no other alternative solutions I think the current hook would be just fine: the problem is that there was already a better alternative, and that was the one which was initially promoted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Now that this has been pulled, please continue the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Downstate (play) RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead says, "Its smooth cylindrical shape, with one end being wider than the other, suggests that it was a member of the clade Ecdysozoa (a group containing arthropods, nematodes and crustaceans, amongst others). This makes it the oldest ecdysozoan known so far, as well as one of the oldest known bilaterians." It isn't sourced though. Pinging {{u|ZKevinTheCat}}, {{u|PrimalMustelid}}, and {{u|Rjjiii}}. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SL93 I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncus_dzaugisi&diff=1289797920&oldid=1287540902 added a reference] to the lead section. That line in the lead is summarizing the detailed discussion under Uncus_dzaugisi#Affinity, so I don't know if the reference is necessary forever, but it should probably stay at least until the article has run on the main page, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I tried searching for keywords that were in the hook and lead, but I had no luck. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You are quite welcome, and if you ran into that issue, other readers would likely have the same concern, and so it's a good catch, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:I want you.jpg

Right now, we have 4 open queues and no complete prep sets. If you have considered doing a prep set before, now is a fantastic time to step up and try it out. It's a bit complicated, so feel free to post here with questions, comments, and concerns. I asked for feedback on my first set and had like six or so OGs pop out and explain how to do things better.

The instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions sound hard, but just install the script from WP:PSHAW and it is pretty straightforward. Even if you never go through with building out a prep set, you can install the script and just peek around at how it works. If something goes awry, it's no big deal. The first step to knowing how to do something is not knowing how to do that thing, and there are loads of OGs watching this page and the preps/queues.

You can feel free to ask questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think I can finish up all the sets, but I've got at least image hooks into all of them, which should be a good starting point for budding prep builders with other hooks to match up. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This is for a specific situation, but has general application. For the DYK nomination for Robert Allen Norris(RAN), I was looking through noms to review and looked over the RAN nom. Did some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Allen_Norris&action=history editing] to address similar wording to a source. Am I permitted to do the DYK review of the article as I have made these edits? — ERcheck (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:As long as a reviewer or potential reviewer only makes minor edits to an article, that's allowed. However, if a potential or current reviewer makes substantial changes or contributions to an article, they become involved and thus cannot give approval anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. As the edits were just rewording to make less similar to the sources, without adding information, I deem the edits as "minor". I've done the DYK review and made disclosure of my edits. — ERcheck (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado - Per the nomination, me and the creator of the article agreed on a different hook not in the original proposal - the "weather enthusiasts" one - due to problems with the initial proposed hooks, including the one that's currently on the template. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Eh, I understand that the "war zone" hook was objected to on interest grounds (since tornadoes causing much damage is kind of obvious), but I don't really see the "weather enthusiasts" angle as much better, if at all. Is there anything else in the article that could work as a hook? Both the current hook and your preferred option are not exactly the hookiest hooks out there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Narutolovehinata5, I don't see what's not interesting about the enthusiasts hook. Could you clarify on the {{tq|not exactly the hookiest hooks out there}}, if you don't mind? — ^EF⁵ 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} It seems easy to miss in my case? As in the "weather enthusiasts" point. If a hook needs multiple reads to get the point or to become interesting then there's room for improvement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's also the fact that the "weather enthusiasts" hook does not have all of its information in the article even after the nominator was encouraged to add it (a passing mention of the incident is in the article, but not with all the details of the hook). There didn't appear to be any 'forward movement' with the nom - to propose better hooks or add complete information to the article - and IMHO the "war zone" hook is more interesting anyway. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The war-zone hook was put down for me because it's an incredibly common description that I found at least four descriptions for - in the past 5 years alone. "Weather enthusiasts" in this context just implies non-professional subject area fanatics. Pinging also @7kk the original nominator for their input. Departure– (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To clarify, it's not the term "weather enthusiasts" that doesn't interest, it's that damage surveying is a hard subject to make sound interesting no matter who does it. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} This might be one of those cases where a hook seems more interesting or unusual to a general audience than it is to a specialist. The apparent lack of interest here is because the specialists are already familiar with it, but to someone less familiar with tornadoes that particular context does not apply. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Departure– @EF5 Given that neither the promoted hook nor the nominator and creator's preferred hook are suitable, can a different hook be proposed here? We may need a new direction here. If a new hook can't be proposed soon then the hook will be pulled. Pinging @Kingsif @RoySmith @Theleekycauldron @SL93 @Launchballer for input as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Since you pinged me: In general, I find disaster articles (tornados, hurricanes, plane crashes, train crashes, etc) boring and formulistic and this one is no exception. So I'm probably not going to be of much help here. RoySmith (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::The "weather enthusiasts" hook is likely the most unique hook that isn't "formulistic", unless @EF5 wants to do something with the photo of extreme ground scouring I sent them in the nomination (yes, not too uncommon, but they seemed awfully impressed by it and there is some potential for a hook there if nothing else works). Departure– (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Departure–, the problem is that someone is bound to have an issue with the hook and I'll have to spend more time than I want coming up with a bound-to-fail hook (it isn't my fault nobody finds apparent interest in anything weather-related!). We really need to redo WP:DYKINT, it's like every-other-day interest problems are brought up here and at ERRORS. Might as well just pull, huh? — ^EF⁵ 12:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I mean, the "weather enthusiasts" hook is about as interesting as a lot of the other hooks on DYK, like describing people's unusual career. Departure– (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yet someone has found issue with it. Nothing will work here. ^EF⁵ 12:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} The way I see it, the fundamental issue here is a conflict of what counts as interesting, and the conflict cannot easily be reconciled. The option the specialists see as interesting, non-specialists find uninteresting. The option the non-specialists see as eye-catching, the specialists see as mundane. There has to be a compromise that will satisfy both camps, but it does not seem like either option so far will be that compromise. Because of this, and the fact that the set is now in Queue, I've gone ahead and pulled the hook for further workshopping. Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Without passing comment on any particular ALT, hooks are supposed to be interesting to a broad audience and I suggest that specialists are sufficiently rare that we shouldn't be writing hooks for them.--Launchballer 12:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I personally did not see any issue with the "war zone" hook and we probably should have left it as is. However, the main article contributors feel strongly about it. The article is a GA so there's probably something better that could be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Best practice for each hook you suggest is to format it as:

• ALTn: ... that whatever?

this makes it easier to see and plays better with various scripts that parse nominations (although, I do note that PSHAW is clever enough to find at least some that are not formatted that way). Also, if you want to make some minor modification to an existing hook, rather than editing it in-place, lay it out as a new hook labeled "ALT1a", "ALT1b", etc. That makes it easier to keep track of changes. It also eliminates confusion when you read a comment like "I don't like ALT1 because ..." which doesn't seem to apply to ALT1 at all because somebody changed it in-place. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it intentional to have an Olympics / Paralympics special set? Three of the hooks fall into that category, and two of them cover Bosnia. I can't spot any discussion that suggests that this is deliberate. It would seem prudent to spread these out a bit. Schwede66 08:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Queue 4 also has a Bosnia Olympics hook. It might be a good idea to spread all three hooks across multiple days even though the practical requirement is "no more than two hooks per country per set unless it's the US and the UK." {{ping|RoySmith}} Maybe you can help out? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Good catch, I missed that. I've swaped one out to a different queue. RoySmith (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all

Is it allowed to use two references for a hook? I'm working on a DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen and the hook is good, but the only source which covers all the points might possibly be WP:RSSELF. The simplest solution would be to suppliment the source I've suggested with another source available eg NY Times, Seattle Times etc. Is this allowed?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, a hook can be based on multiple references if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Narutolovehinata5}} thanks very much :) John Cummings (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @John Cummings, @Narutolovehinata5 its for this nom Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen, am I being over cautious about the source Erin in the Morning (newsletter), which is (as john says) WP:RSSELF. I'm cautious because the topic is so topical - the last thing I would want is a nom to pulled on account of this source. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 20. We have a total of 331 nominations, of which 166 have been approved, a gap of 165 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation 2
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/United States government group chat leak
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reorganization (new reviewer requested)
• March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album)
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Rule of inference
• April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Dying for Sex (three articles)
• April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Cave Johnson Couts
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Music of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Marva Nabili
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography

Other nominations

• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Future Days (The Last of Us)
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (song) 2
• April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Frink
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Destiel
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Brave Bunnies
• 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 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Tiulana
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/The Fuck Tree
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Voltaire Molesworth
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Lily Vorperian
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Octo Mundi Miracula
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Joy Laking
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Naulahka: A Story of West and East

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) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Could the Proceratosaurus hook combine the proposed hook and alt1 into something like "that despite its name, the dinosaur Proceratosaurus is only distantly related to Ceratosaurus, and is actually one of the oldest tyrannosaurs?" Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't recommend it. Shorter hooks tend to do better at WP:DYKSTATS.--Launchballer 19:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Fair enough. {{Ping|Launchballer}} Do you have an opinion on whether the current hook or alt 1 is better? The reviewer told me alt 1 is better than the current hook, so I wanted a second opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Another "first" claim which doesn't appear to check out on further inspection. According to Bosnia and Herzegovina at the 1992 Summer Olympics, there were four women on the team - two athletes, who competed later; Margetić, who was in events on 29 July and on 31 July; and then Mirjana Jovović-Horvat who was in the shooting. Apparently Horvat was competing on the 27 July - [https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-gleaner/172235740/] - so earlier than Margetić. {{ping|BeanieFan11|Soman|RoySmith}}  — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hmmm. I remember checking this one. https://www.olympedia.org/lists/99/manual says "Anja Margetić ... First woman to compete for Bosnia and Herzegovina". And then I wondered if we should accept Olympedia as a WP:RS so I dug a bit and found https://www.olympedia.org/static/about which convinced me that we should. OTOH, Amakuru's logic makes sense to me, so IDK. Maybe it's best to hold this back until we can nail it down? RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Lebanese and Mexican singer Blu Fiefer defied a karaoke age restriction at the age of eight to sing a Shakira song?

Maybe it's just me, and not to be a party-pooper, but I feel like this is a bit of a non-notable or borderline dubious "fact" for us to be highlighting. What sort of karaoke bar was this? Where exactly? I'm imagining some sort of resort hotel where the guests assemble in the evening for a few informal activities such as karaoke and amateur shows. If so, her "defying the age restriction" doesn't seem like that big a deal. Presumably it can't have been that much of a hard-and-fast rule, otherwise the bar wouldn't have allowed it. {{ping|Elias Ziade|Arconning|Kingsif}}  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Right now, WP:DYKSO says the following:

{{tq|... but not more than six weeks in advance... Exceptions to the six-week limit can be implemented by way of a local consensus at WT:DYK.}}

Basically, unless explicitly gaining consensus at WT:DYK, a special occasion run cannot be requested more than six weeks in advance. However, there's a bit of a loophole here, and one that also interacts with WP:DYKTIMEOUT: as long as a nomination has yet to time out, if a hook is not reviewed until close to the intended date, it suddenly becomes feasible for the hook to run on the requested date, despite being nominated outside the six-week limit. This can happen even when there was originally no consensus at WT:DYK to grant an exemption to begin with. Remember Monday above is a recent example of this, although there have been several other similar examples in the past.

Should this loophole be closed? When it does happen it tends to be unintentional rather than deliberately gaming the system, but it might be worth closing that particular loophole since such cases seem to violate the spirit of DYKSO's six-week limit. Alternatively, we could just modify or drop the limit entirely, but that should be the subject of another, separate discussion.

Courtesy pings to everyone involved in the Remember Monday nomination and discussion: {{ping|Launchballer|Kingsif|Reidgreg|RoySmith|SL93|Chipmunkdavis}} Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I said my piece above; the rule should be dropped.--Launchballer 23:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that's an interaction between DYSO and TIMEOUT, that's just DYKSO being a bit weird. That said, we should extend the limit to a longer 2 months given the long review times mentioned, which would be 3 days out from fixing the Remember Monday nomination. CMD (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a huge problem with the rules as written. Addressing an outlier circumstance like this to close a loophole may not be the best use of everyone's time. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

One alt suggested cites F Newsmagazine, a student newspaper, to back up a claim about the Chicago tornado siren's description as "creepier" than an actual tornado in the city. Is this a good enough source for DYK purposes? Departure– (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:The specific article is [https://fnewsmagazine.com/2022/10/that-is-what-an-ice-cream-truck-from-hell-sounds-like-investigating-chicagos-tornado-siren/ Investigating Chicago’s Tornado Siren — “That is What an Ice Cream Truck from Hell Sounds Like” - October 5, 2022, Gordon Fung]. Departure– (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)