Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Requesting guidance

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 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'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)
• :Bumping this as the deadline is approaching. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:35, 14 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)

::::::::Hmm. The checking can take time but is rote when you know what you’re looking for. The hardest part is getting the right level of variety within sets and between adjacent sets, while still having a through line to encourage reading all the hooks. It’s curation on top of it all and I can understand people not wanting to commit to a full set, but also understand people not wanting to do a few hooks mixed in with a few another user promoted if they think it’ll be a ‘weaker’ overall set. Maybe some ‘training days’ to get users promoting their first few hooks to set will make doing a few here and there feel more approachable? Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 13 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)

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)

::::I refuse to create accounts that I don't want. I would just tell the nominators to quote it which should be good enough. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that working from a nom-supplied quote is good enough. As for not wanting to create an account on a service like IA, I guess that's up to you but in that case, I think it makes more sense to just pick other noms to review. There's certainly no shortage of them. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 14 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)

Requiring the supply of a direct quote from an offline source used to verify a hook does not seem like too onerous a requirement to me. It would certainly help ensure that misinterpretations of source do not slip through onto the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 16 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)

:i'd like to to do this!!! if only to help carry the load. i thought you had to be admin to do it though. i also have a dyk pending so presumably that would be conflict of interest?--Plifal (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::You shouldn't promote any hooks you are either the nominator or reviewer of, but otherwise there are no issues. No need to be an admin at all! CMD (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Plifal, as CMD says, all of the other hooks are fair game, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::thank you! i've tried promoting a few, but i don't want to do more in case i've made a number of mistakes. i've also added comments on some approved nominations regarding possible issues so i would appreciate it if you would let me know if my actions were correct, and if they were not i apologise!!!--Plifal (talk) 04:53, 17 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)

:::::::16px Withdrawn and thus rejected per discussion there. I haven't heard back at all from 7kk since they first nominated the article, so I doubt they'd voice an objection now. Departure– (talk) 19:35, 13 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)

: If the 'first' hook doesn't work, perhaps we could go with an alternative like one of the following that came to mind: ... that swimmer Anja Margetić refused to participate at the Mediterranean Games after learning she would not be able to compete under the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina? / ... that after being a member of the first Bosnian Olympic team, swimmer Anja Margetić became the deputy mayor of the country's capital? / ... that swimmer Anja Margetić made her Olympic debut on her birthday? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Amakuru|RoySmith}} Thoughts? Hopefully we can get this sorted out before it is featured tomorrow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|BeanieFan11}} I'd be OK with your ALT1 here - {{xt|"... that swimmer Anja Margetić refused to participate at the Mediterranean Games after learning she would not be able to compete under the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina?"}} that seems fine. I've amended the article so it says she was one of the first four women rather than the absolute first, per the above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Done}}. Since the set is going live in a few hours, I've taken the liberty of swapping in this hook as suggested by BeanieFan11.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 14 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)

:There didn’t appear to be more details on this hook fact. There are other hook options, I picked this for the tone within the specific set, but I am sure others would work if it seems non up to scratch for MP. Kingsif (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Amakuru @RoySmith Since this is expected to run tomorrow and we're running out of time, would it be okay to bump or pull this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Narutolovehinata5}} what do you think about the issue? Is there cause for concern with the hook? If not, and I'm just a minority of one, we can just let it run it's not like it's an egregious error or anything...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Amakuru The article seems to be clearer: it was during a vacation, and I think "karaoke age restriction" means she wasn't supposed to sing karaoke in that place in Greece since she was too young.

::::I think the safest option here would be to bump the hook to a later set, maybe just a few days, to give time for possibly alternate suggestions, since the article is unclear as to where the restriction was other than being in Greece. If after this bump nothing better can be proposed then the hook can probably run as is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Done}} OK. It's now in prep 3. We can continue discussing at our leisure. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::As the nominator hasn't responded to this discussion, how the karaoke age restriction vagueness hasn't been addressed, and this is scheduled to run in two days, I've gone ahead and pulled the nomination for further workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 17 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)

:I don't know what the spirit of DYKSO's six-week limit is (I expect it comes from a time when six weeks looked like a long time between nominating an article and it appearing on the Main Page) and I do not think we need to change the rules at the moment. We can revisit this when DYK starts to regularly feature new or recently promoted articles again. From a practical point of view, I think special occasion requests coming late is more of a problem than special requests coming early. —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 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)

:It’s a subjective description, no matter who writes about it, and honestly this local interest level of detail is something I’d trust the local college kids on (with first hand experience and time to write about more personal details) more than I necessarily would a national news organisation (who weren’t there and can be expected to add hyperbole as scene-setting filler). Give it an in-line attribution at the article and it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Done. I prefer that hook more than the other ones I proposed. Pinging @Rjjiii as they brought this hook's DYKINT up a bit. Departure– (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Departure– Sorry for dragging my feet here, but it looks like you've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornadoes_in_Chicago&diff=1290248086&oldid=1290229673 got it handled]. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think it's probably fine in the article, but don't consider it a great option for a hook to simply be telling us what a college student thought about something. Is that really interesting? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Eddie891}} Well, the college student didn't directly describe it as such, they're quoting News Center Maine who did the description. [https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/now/chicagos-tornado-sirens-will-haunt-your-dreams/97-420570149 "Chicago's Tornado Sirens Will Haunt Your Dreams"] from 2017. I can have both sources cited instead if that's preferable. Departure– (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hm, that's better then. Thanks for the clarification- I'm still a bit hesitant about "X said Y about Z" hooks on the whole. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

=== Nothofagus menziesii (Nom) ===

In the Nothofagus menziesii hook, the word "birds" is a bit jarring as it's tautological. Yes, kākā are birds, but the term is wikilinked and those who don't know that we are talking about birds can look up what a kākā is. Pings to fellow Kiwi editors {{u|Alexeyevitch}} and {{u|Panamitsu}} as nominator and reviewer, respectively. Schwede66 10:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Feel free to remove the term 'birds'. I'm fine with whichever works best. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Personally I like including "birds" more because most people will have not heard of kākā before and won't know. Yes, it is linked, but adding one word doesn't hurt. It's more in accordance with the MOS:LINK "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." There are worse tautological names out there such as "ladybird beetle". ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• "... that Beyoncé's "Formation" video topped Rolling Stone{{'s}} list of the "100 Greatest Music Videos of All Time" in 2021?

The hook is mentioned in the lead paragraph (where it isn't sourced) and then doesn't appear to be mentioned again. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the 5x expansion criteria include content merges from non-eligible pages? I'm guessing they don't but I don't think it's explicitly written anywhere. I know splits aren't. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably not, but let's see an example.--Launchballer 17:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't have an example on-hand, but imagine if an AfD at Foo closes with consensus to merge into Bar; Foo has, say, 30,000 bytes and Bar only has 6,000. After the merge is complete, Bar now has 36,000 bytes of article size, over five times as much as before, but the new prose was taken from Foo. Would Bar then be eligible to be on DYK? Departure– (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Probably not if the content was already at Foo, though if there was that much valid content there I can't see why it would be deleted.--Launchballer 18:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not interested in the AFD itself here, only the merge. But, the "probably" tells me this would be tackled on a case-by-case basis - should a bit about merges be explicitly put into WP:DYKSPLIT? There's one bit saying that text copied from other articles isn't viable for DYK but since merges themselves aren't mentioned and it's only mentioned in one sentence there's still some room for misinterpretation. Departure– (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::DYKSPLIT says {{tq|Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles}}, which seems pretty clear. TSventon (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Still, I think a short clause explicitly targeting merges should be somewhere in there for people not familiar with the guideline. Splits themselves are also covered by the copied text clause, but the section is dedicated to splits anyway. Departure– (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if there are limits to how many special occasion hooks one can have for one day? For context, the new members of the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame are being inducted on May 29, and I'm writing articles for most of them. I'd like to get a few on DYK for the day of their induction. There's three I already nominated (Kurt Howell, Willy Miranda, Robin Adair Harvey), and maybe two or three others that I might nominate once I'm done working on them. Would it be alright if the six or so were to be featured on that day, or no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:DYKVAR would discourage it, is there a multihook that could be proposed?--Launchballer 22:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, FWIW, I did that last year and this happened... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There aren't really any good options here. You either have to go with a multihook, which is likely to be controversial (especially with last year's brouhaha), or you have to pick only one of the nominees (since there will likely be complaints if the set has two Delaware sports-related hooks). My guess is that the latter is more likely to be palatable to both readership and the community, however. The others could always run on different dates, they don't have to be special occasion hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I feel like there's been times in the past where I've had multiple very similar hooks featured on the same day. Maybe we could do like, three of the inductees on the date of induction? Or maybe three on May 29 and three on May 30 (given that it'd be May 30 in UTC when the induction is finished). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Consensus can change, and what was acceptable in the past may not necessarily be acceptable now. Now that I think about it, I have the feeling that if we had another New Zealand election multiarticle hook, it might not be allowed today (the last time it happened, there already had to be multiple concessions for it to run). The accessibility concerns do make sense and we tend to underestimate WP:ERRORS, especially comments from non-regulars. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{tq|Consensus can change, and what was acceptable in the past may not necessarily be acceptable now.}} – I mean, it was as recent as last month that I had e.g. multiple 1920s Green Bay Packers player hooks featured on the same day, whereas these inductees are each in different sports. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think it would be dependent on what hook what you had in mind. Separate hooks would be unlikely to be allowed (and WP:DYKVAR discourages that anyway), while the multihook would depend on the actual hook. To be honest, I'm kind of skeptical about most multihooks because oftentimes it just leads to nominators creating multihooks and adding too many articles just for the sake of having a multihook and getting into the Hall of Fame, rather than having an actually good hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I'm more leaning towards having independent hooks than a multi-hook. As I said above, there's been times where I've had multiple very similar subjects featured as separate hooks on the same day (e.g. multiple 1920s Green Bay Packers players), whereas these are at least all different sports. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I mean, the issue here is that WP:DYKVAR discourages this. It suggests that no more than two hooks of a similar topic can run per set, unless said topic is being a US or UK subject. Three Delaware hooks might be seen as overkill: they might be okay as US hooks but probably not as Delaware hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Then maybe two on May 29 and two on May 30? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Normally I'd say it would probably be okay, but we've had reader complaints about similar cases in the past, so it might be safer to just drop the idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Complaints about two in a day? Who's seriously going to complain "oh no, there's a Negro league baseball player and a field hockey coach on the main page, and both happen to be from nearby cities!" BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Not about sports specifically, but we have received complaints in the past for running too many of a similar topic close to each other. Remember the complaints about all the Taylor Swift hooks we used to run? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: I think there's a difference between e.g. lots of Taylor Swift songs (when, based on reading them and the mention of 'Taylor Swift' over and over again, you know they're similar), and two people in a set from completely different sports and completely unrelated hooks. For the Delaware sportspeople, one would have to read deep down into each article to find that they're related at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh yeah. (I prepped much of that set and forgot how pleased I was with myself for finding that many short hooks that we still had nine.) Possibly showing my biases, but I'll still hear a multihook if there's one going.--Launchballer 22:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's less a special occasion request than a thematic set, which requires explicit approval at this page. Personally, I don't think the subject is worthy of a thematic set. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Not worthy of even having just two on the day of induction? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you open to the idea of just one article running instead of multiple? They don't all have to run on the same day, they can run on separate days if needed, possibly spread out. There's no harm in doing that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I could live with that, but I think it'd be nice to have at least a second one featured on the date. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: There is no reason I can see why you could not have a multi with at least five bolded links. We have done this since forever, and indeed run many more than five in a hook. I haven't seen the original hook of yours that drew so much negative attention but it may have been an issue with that particular hook. Multis have a big advantage for the project in that they reduce the total number of hooks, so as a general rule they should be encouraged, not the reverse. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: The complaints were that there were a lot of links in the hook, which would be the same with this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Would you mind posting the original hook that drew so much complaint and the one you are proposing currently? It's pretty hard to make a judgement without the relevant info. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: ALT7 at Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond. I don't have one that I've proposed currently, and there's two inductees this year that are ineligible for the MP so I don't know how I'd fit them in as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Ineligible how?

::::::::: As for the above linked hook - yes it's a bit excessive, but I've seen worse. I probably would have promoted it - as I said, much better for the project to run multis, and there are actually some interesting facts in that one.

::::::::: As for the objections it drew - sometimes there is just a pile-on about something that wouldn't normally cause a problem - certainly as I've said I have seen much worse multis than that one. Although I guess it's always possible, as I haven't been very active on this project lately, that consensus is changing. In any case, as I said earlier, there shouldn't be any problem with at least a five-article multi - if you'd cut down the above hook to the five best it probably would have sailed through without comment. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2 has six biographies (eight if you count the individual animals) and four of the biographies are in a row. It also has two first in NFL hooks by each other. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Annwfwn}} please take note of the above, in connection with WP:DYKVAR. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not sure how to fix this but I would be happy to if someone could link instructions. Annwfwn (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I fixed it by kicking back the two bios you promoted to prep 5 - courtesy pings to {{ping|BeanieFan11|BuySomeApples|Flibirigit|Jeromi Mikhael}}. (I did consider merging the two 'first NFL player' hooks into one, but would like to hear from the nominator first.) I can live with there being four bios and two animals in this set.--Launchballer 11:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No problem! I'm all for order in the DYK Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: If you want, I wouldn't mind a merger of the NFL hooks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I merged them into prep 2.--Launchballer 19:12, 14 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)

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)

Looks like we have too many nominations again as nominations from May 13 onwards are not appearing properly. We may need to start working on the backlog again to address that, or to start rejecting nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:We should activate WP:DYKUBM at 00:00 UTC. This will likely cause even more of a pileup at WP:DYKNA, exacerbated by the current lack of preppers/queuers and the consequent inability to go to 12-hour-sets, but that can't be helped. The rejection percentage will have to increase instead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I might also boldly drop the number of hooks/set from nine to seven or six, as I suggested above, if no one minds. If those numbers were in operation, I'd personally be much more willing to promote/queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Or you could just do what I do these days, which is to verify hooks individually rather than trying to do entire sets at one go. Then even if you can't manage to review the entire set, you have at least lessened the workload for the next promoter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You don't need to fill an entire set or sets at a time. Is this thought process what got us in this mess? SL93 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Of course you don't need to fill an entire set at a time—you can promote one hook per day if it suits you. But if you want to start, say, 12-hour-backlog-mode to clear WP:DYKNA, someone needs to promote over 60 hooks into preps. Preferably within four hours, otherwise that number goes up to 70, and so on at 00:00 the following day. And if that someone only promotes half a set per day, you'll need fifteen promoters, again within a few hours, if you don't mind. And if you think that a fifteen-strong team is going to appear out of the ether—well, I think I'll sell a proverbial bridge to you.{{pb}}Without the blinkers, it's quite clear that the process will keep chugging along, until someone decides to get it back on track by promoting sets at a time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No fucking duh, but that mindset keeps us away from having plenty of prep builders. I say let it crash and burn if we can't get a team to care. It's not like you're really helping anyway. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I'm on the crash-and-burn mindset too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I stepped back to see if it would happen. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::As you should. You were the highest-workload promoter by far between January and April—four whole months! Before that, I was in that position between October and December. Turns out that when you the people doing the donkey work with no reward except constant criticism decide to step away, the process goes to shit. Who'd-a-thunk it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Maybe we need a meta-QPQ system. For every prep area you fill or queue you promote, you get one vote in the next DYK process RFC. RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:We should normalise partial sets..--Launchballer 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I toggled backlog mode on, by the way. Ctrl+F counts 174 nominations at T:TDYK (well, 174 uses of "{{template:" at any rate) and I suggest we go back at 100.--Launchballer 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If someone could point me to a tutorial or something I can help when filled preps/sets are low. I will only do this if it is actually helpful though. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::You want WP:DYKPBI, but if you can complete a QPQ and install/use WP:PSHAW, you should be fine. (There are a few intricacies of putting sets together such as 'no more than half American or bios', 'don't put two bios/same countries next to each other' and 'sets should end with a quirky hook', but hooks can always be rearranged, so don't worry about that at this stage.)--Launchballer 02:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like what is needed ATM is not queue promoters but set builders. Any takers? Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:What are set builders? History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Somewhat confusingly, the DYK queues are divided into "prep areas" and "queues". The basic flow is that a set of hooks are first assembled into a prep area, and then that set is promoted to the similarly numbered queue. The queues are protected so you need to be a template editor to do that step, but the prep areas can be edited by anybody. That's what we mean by set building.

::Getting into set building is a great way for people to contribute to keeping DYK running. It's not that hard to learn the basics, which are described at WP:DYKPROMO. There's a pile of nuanced (and ever-evolving) guidelines that you need to eventually get up to speed on, but it is assumed that new people will mess up on that. It's all part of the learning process and nobody will get upset when you do. RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, good, this is the thing I am helping with. Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Nice work {{u|History6042}}! Just a couple of notes: we try not to have consecutive biography-focused hooks in a set, and no more than four per set in total. So you can see that Template:Did you know/Queue/5 will a bit of adjusting. But that's a minor detail honestly; just something to keep in mind in the future. Thanks for getting involved! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will keep this in mind, and you're welcome. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Kingsif|History6042|Tbhotch}} Fails WP:DYKINT. For every single country, you can write a "xxxx was the first year (country) sent a woman to the winter olympics", and another hook for "xxxx was the first year (country) sent a woman to the summer olympics". This is not unusual or intriguing. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Would it be more interesting if we added that the first female athletes were twins? History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Forgot to ping @RoySmith. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@History6042 That would indeed be more interesting. Can you propose a replacement hook? RoySmith (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Would this involve a whole new process of could use just be changed in the prep? History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is scheduled to be on the main page tomorrow. Please post a new proposed hook here.; if we can get things sorted quickly, the hook can be updated in-place. RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@History6042 @RoySmith How does this sound?

::::* ... that the two women athletes that Liechtenstein sent to the Summer Olympics in 1976 were twins?

::::I could change "woman" to "female" if there's a desire to do so, although IIRC there are suggestions to move away from using "first female" hooks, plus I wanted to be as close as possible to the original wording. I wanted to include the "first" aspect there but I found it difficult to include, so this is the best I could come up with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I support this new hook. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Done (with some minor tweaks). Thank you both. RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Rjjiii|Soman|Onceinawhile}} Between the sub-optimal machine translations and the infuriating pop-up ads blocking me from seeing anything, I can't verify this. Somebody will have to walk me through the details. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:"ఇల్లెందు" is "Yellandu" in the Telugu language on [https://image.ntnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/11-30_V_jpg--340x200-4g.webp?sw=1344&dsz=340x200&iw=292&p=false&r=1 this chart]. That's as far I went with verification as I don't speak the language, and so will let {{u|Soman}} offer any additional context, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Juxlos|Hemiauchenia|LittleLazyLass}} The article says "tyrannosauroid", the hook says "tyrannosaur". Are those interchangible? RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Lullabying|Locust member|Kingsif}} according to the machine translation, the source says {{green|"When it comes to fantasy games (especially RPGs), leveling up and learning skills and magic are important! This story is set in a novel, so there is no concept of leveling up, but I like games, so I came up with the story while imagining how Roniel would grow if he combined the erotic scenes unique to boys' love with the magic learning that is unique to Roniel."}} That is very different from the hook, which states that the author {{green|"used the concept of leveling up in role-playing video games to show that a character was improving in magic"}}. Unless there is some reconciliation between the two I'm missing, I think this will need to be pulled and workshopped. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's the translation I got, and my guess is that you're reading it differently around "concept of leveling up" - in the source, as I read it, it's saying a novel doesn't have leveling-up mechanics but because the author likes games (which do have such mechanics) they wrote Roniel's growth through the story and magic learning with the style of a game's level-up system. The hook may not be exact to that, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it myself so accepted it. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW, when I first looked at this, I got the automated translation and while I had some of the same concerns that Airship does, I eventually convinced myself that it was close enough, considering that the translation was probably not great. I think for this one, we should rely on a native Japanese speaker to make the call. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hm, probably. Machine translations are generally worse for languages with dissimilar writing systems. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can't see how one could be interpreted as the other. Using a video game system as inspiration ({{Green|"I came up with the story while imagining"}}) is very different to the actual story having the style of a game's level-up system. I also can't see where the source says anything like {{Green|"to show that a character was improving in magic"}}. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

== Queue 5 ==

{{tq|... that Arthur Loveless never married?}}

Can we please not write hooks that make sport of people's names? RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:you're right, i promoted the hook without thinking, apologies. i'll bear this in mind next time.--Plifal (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that John P. Metras held all-night recruitment parties including a bathtub full of ice and beer?

- this one has an unsourced footnote - pinging nominator Flibirigit.

{{reply to|Flibirigit}} Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that European broadcasters waived their rights to Brave Bunnies so that the children's series could be streamed ad-free in Ukrainian for refugees?

- it's a nice hook, but the source doesn't state the hook fact with a sufficient degree of clarity IMO, and the alt hook isn't as good - a new hook might be best. Pinging nominator User:SounderBruce. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reply to|SounderBruce}}. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

hang on a second, queue 3 is missing a hook...--Plifal (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was the removed karaoke hook. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, {{u|Narutolovehinata5}} removed it. Someone will likely soon replace it with a promoted hook from one of the prep sets. I think this is the norm for when problems are found with a promoted hook that cannot be easily fixed, but will invite N5 to correct me if I'm wrong, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::understood! thank you both for explaining!--Plifal (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just saw this, and I moved in Hester Leggatt.--Launchballer 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Plifal|Annwfwn|BeanieFan11}} The hook fact is cited to a WP:SPS. We need better sourcing for that. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|RoySmith}}, this was brought up during the original review. more sources were provided from different independent outlets to verify the claim visible in the nom subpage, do you see any issues with those?--Plifal (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you're going to use one of those sources to verify the hook fact, it needs to be in the article. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::as promoter, would it contravene policy for me to add this to the article? otherwise i think this is quite an easy fix but thank you for flagging.--Plifal (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::One of the sources is written in the first person ("Our veterinarian is from Italy..."). The other two contain an identical paragraph ("The longest distance of the race is 650 kilometers. The race is among the longest sled dog races in the world. It is the world's only mainland dog race that is never south of the 70th parallel. That is, far north of the Bering Strait and Nome, Alaska.") so I assume they both are just reprinting a press release from the organizers. I'd say none of these qualify as independent reliable sources. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 17 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)

: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)

I was reviewing older nominations that had not yet been reviewed. Template:Did you know nominations/Octo Mundi Miracula caught my interest. It was nominated on April 21, 2025. I completed the review just now.

Question: Will this article still be eligible for promotion?

— ERcheck (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably, what makes you think otherwise?--Launchballer 00:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, misunderstanding on my part about older nominations. — ERcheck (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)