Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 206

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 200←Archive 204Archive 205Archive 206Archive 207

Queue 3 (19 May 00:00)

Liechtenstein at the 1976 Summer Olympics

@Kingsif, History6042, and 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?
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)

2023 Singareni Collieries Company Limited union representative election

@Rjjiii, Soman, and 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 this chart. That's as far I went with verification as I don't speak the language, and so will let Soman offer any additional context, Rjjiii (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Proceratosaurus

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

The Perfect Prince Loves Me, His Rival?!

@Lullabying, Locust member, and Kingsif: according to the machine translation, the source says "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 "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 ("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 "to show that a character was improving in magic". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

queue 3

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, 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)

Question about reviewing older, ready to strike noms

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)

Prep 2 (25 May)

Resolved

@MallardTV: Where is this fact stated in the article? Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass I see now that the fact wasn't too clear in the article. The "Hamlet" section should have it. MallardTV Talk to me! 12:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@MallardTV:, I think the hook as it is overstates the case, particularly given that it is a minority view. Might I suggest the following tweak:
* ... that some critics do not consider Hamlet's iconic "To be, or not to be" speech a true soliloquy, but rather a calculated act meant to deceive? Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass I second this. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7 (23 May 00:00)

Bergebyløpet N70

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

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)
How about just removing the "only" claim then? Gatoclass (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and done that. The sourcing is still kind of dubious, but at least now we're not making as strong a claim based on it. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Zero queues

@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)
  • 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)
    @Crisco 1492: I've been lingering on this message for a while, it really resonated. Being the gatekeeper is... really exhausting. I burned out for a lot of personal reasons, too, but DYK's process doesn't make queue promoting as easy as it could be. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly, theleekycauldron. We have some fantastic tools that make the process smoother than it's ever been, technically... but the burden on individual admins or template editors is also higher. In the end, I found the process a lot easier ten years ago. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (20 May)

HNLMS Java (1921)

The image used in this hook, File:Java cruiser SLV H91.325 284.jpg has an Australian licence tag, but it lacks a United States licence. Both are required for Commons, and if I recall correctly it's the US one that is needed for Wikipedia. Presume this will be trivial given it's age, but please do add. @GGOTCC, Xwejnusgozo, and RoySmith:  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria you know more about image licensing than I do; could I impose on you to take a look at this? RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I applied Template:PD-1996 as the photo, taken c. 1925 would have been in Australian public domain prior to 1995. GGOTCC 17:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@GGOTCC: thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
PD-1996 relies not only on it being PD in its home country, but also it having been published by a certain point - is that known here? The Australian tag also requires that the description include info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
The photographer died before 1955 and the image is prior 1930. Would date of publication matter in this case? GGOTCC 23:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
With the current tagging, yes - are you anticipating changing it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmm - I'll explore other options. I do not have the original publication and will explore other tags. Are there others that can work in this case? GGOTCC 23:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria I checked the original source, and the publisher, the State Library of Victoria, released the image collection into the public domain after receiving the images in 1940. I updated the image description, but is there anything else I would need to change? GGOTCC 01:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The link under Permission seems to be dead - where are you seeing the release? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot to update the links. Information and the public domain release is listed here GGOTCC 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay. That page doesn't (as far as I can see?) say that the library released it, it says that it's out of copyright - which it definitely is in Australia. But what needs sorting is US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Would Template:PD-1996 apply here as it was published without copyright prior to 1996? GGOTCC 03:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Where was it published and when? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the definition at Commons:Publication, the images were published in Australia when ownership was transferred in 1940, and the public library would then have published the material on account of its inventory being public. GGOTCC 03:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (nom)

I think there's an issue with the seemingly "the worst movie ever made" part of this hook. First of all, being outside the quotes, the seemingly sounds like it refers to the quote itself, i.e. the NYT seemed to describe it as the worse movie ever made, but we're not quite sure. That certainly isn't what was intended, since the actual quote from the article it "It's not the worst movie ever made; it just seems to be. So in theory we could put the seemingly inside the quote with square brackets to indicate it's not the exact word used - "[seemingly] the worst movie ever made"... but I think even this is problematic. Canby clearly says in the full quote that it's not the worst movie ever made, so using only the latter half of the quote makes it seem like he possibly was giving it that label. I think we'd either need to remodel this hook to put that into context, or simply omit it.

On another note, is it really correct to say it was the New York Times which had these opinions? I'd have thought the individual writers don't necessarily speak for the paper as a whole, and it wasn't an op-ed or anything... Might be a case for adding "writers for the NYT" or similar. @Namelessposter, Daniel Case, Jon698, and Sophisticatedevening: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

What about modifying to something like ...that 33 years after critics for The New York Times called David Lynch's film Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me "brain-dead" and "the worst movie ever made", they conceded that the film was now "revered"? with the "they" referring to the present critics. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 21:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I think that the use of "critics for the NYT ... they" implies it was still the same critics 33 years later, which it wasn't. If we're inclined to attribute to critics instead of the paper, we might try "33 years after critics for the NYT ... their successor conceded that the film was now "revered"." Namelessposter (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Successor works, although I think there were more than one critics. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 22:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it was one specific critic who wrote the Fire Walk with Me blurb containing "revered", as well as the article in general. Namelessposter (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
To your first point, I think your construction "[seemingly] the worst movie ever made" is an appropriate summary of the Canby review. I understand your concern about that revision, but at least to me, "seemingly" normally implies "not actually".
To your second point, I think it's fairly common to use the reviewer's institution without specifically mentioning the reviewer's name, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Obviously, in a vacuum, different writers for the same outlet may disagree, that's sort of the point of Siskel and Ebert, but people generally understand that salaried employees for an outlet still have to supply interpretations on behalf of the paper, a principle that extends beyond film reviews. If a New York Times news writer wrote that "the Senator's press release was materially false," would we insist on qualifying that statement in every instance by saying "New York Times news writer [XYZ] called the Senator's press release materially false"? It's not like these are op-eds where the writer is clearly not speaking on behalf of the paper. Namelessposter (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I had the same problem with this hook. To be honest, I have always thought we should steer nominators of hooks about fictional works away from hooks built around some critic's outrageous or extreme statement in a review. I mean, critics will say anything; there's nothing too eyebrow-raising about that, unless what makes it unusual is the critic (i.e., one known to hate, say, all the Marvel movies saying "But I love this one and I think it is one of the greatest films ever made!").
In this case I do not see anything unusual in not just the Times, but any major outlet for that matter, changing its mind. Critical opinions of fictional works are known to have changed over time as tastes and sensibilities do. Consider that many of the first reactions to The Great Gatsby saw it as yet another desperate flailing by an author thitherto seen as a one-hit wonder after his first novel. Only a quarter-century later, after Fitzgerald's death and a world-changing war, did it come to be seen as a prime candidate for The Great American Novel. I don't think we'd accept a hook based around that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't wish to belabor the point, as I see no reason to fight against the world if everyone decides they'd prefer the hernia hook (ALT1), but interestingness is in part a matter of degree. Gatsby's article notes that Fitzgerald still received generally favorable reviews from literary critics. By contrast, Fire Walk with Me was overwhelmingly hammered by American critics, and the NYT critics are fairly representative of the consensus even if their quotes are more lurid than average. It's one thing for a work's reputation to ascend from "pretty good" to "outstanding"; it's considerably rarer to go from "absolute disaster" to "one of the best of the era". Namelessposter (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Margono Soekarjo (nom)

Ooh, this one misled me - I thought it was saying the two twins who were separated both went on to be deans of the university... suggest it needs some wording tweaks to clarify that it's the surgeons who became the deans. On a minor note, the Djamaloeddin article doesn't have a talk page yet; it probably doesn't need one by the rules or for DYK, but it might be useful to just stick a page in with some WikiProjects etc. on it. @Jeromi Mikhael, Launchballer, BeanieFan11, and Juxlos: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought, but assumed I was just reading it weird. But if Amakuru also read it that way, it's probably real and we should tweak the wording. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This is also how I interpreted it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
How about ... that the first surgery on conjoined twins in Indonesia was conducted two future deans of the University of Indonesia, Margono Soekarjo and Djamaloeddin? This would be less misleading, although it's a slight misinterpretation of the fact that there's two less notable surgeons that were also involved. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Would probably be less ambiguous if reversed?
Juxlos (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This is much better. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Loveless

... 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)

John P. Metras

Resolved
  • ... 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.

@Flibirigit: Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Brave Bunnies

  • ... 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)

@SounderBruce:. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not the nominator, that would be Reidgreg. Currently traveling, so I will probably not be able to respond to things quickly. SounderBruce 07:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
For ALT0 (above, scheduled) McHugh/Broadcast has a list of twenty companies, including production and distribution companies and European broadcasters from whom "the project ... received ... backing". Later it states "Everyone involved has given up their time and rights to their content for nothing". The broadcasters (presumably) had exclusive broadcast rights in their respective territories, but waived these rights as applicable to and to enable the Ukrainian-language YouTube channel across Europe. Perhaps that does not pass the verification standard for interpretation without specialized knowledge.
I wasn't expecting this to be promoted so quickly; I'll think about ALTs and maybe deal with a visual-IP editor's dirty footprints on the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ugh, I just bumped this up to a queue. Did I jump the gun on that? RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@SounderBruce @Gatoclass @Reidgreg where do things stand here? Did I mess up by repromoting the hook? RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
That's up to Gatoclass, I guess? I haven't found any other sources for the hook fact. Trying to rephrase closer to the source but it might be a bit wordy: "... that producers, distributors and broadcasters of Brave Bunnies worked together so that the children's series could be streamed free in Ukrainian for refugees across Europe? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reidgreg, on re-reading the two sources given for the hook, it's talking about a whole bunch of British and other nations' TV programs being dubbed into Ukrainian for the new channel, Sunflower TV, so I don't think it can be assumed, and indeed it doesn't make any sense, that these organizations would be waiving their rights to a Ukrainian TV program over which they likely wouldn't have any rights to start with - presumably they are waiving their rights to their own TV shows that are going to be broadcast in Ukrainian on the channel.

Having said that though, isn't there an opportunity for you to make this a DYK double nom with an article about Sunflower TV itself? It certainly seems like a worthy topic and we don't appear to have an article on it yet, and it would dovetail very nicely with the Brave Bunnies nom. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The source is talking about the Sunflower TV YouTube channel, which was created to stream ad-free Ukrainian-language children's programming across Europe, with the intent of making life a little easier for displaced Ukrainian refugee children. There were several shows on the channel including Ukrainian dubs of UK programs and original Ukrainian programming (such as Brave Bunnies). Brave Bunnies had, by that time, been sold to over 80 countries, dubbed into various languages. The broadcasters/distributors for European territories which (presumably) had the exclusive broadcast/streaming rights in their territories, waived those rights for the original Ukrainian-language version so that it could be streamed on Sunflower TV.
I guess I could try to put 1500 characters together for Sunflower TV. But if you're not happy with this hook fact, I don't see how the fact is improved with another bold link. I'm confused. Better pull this from the queue. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I pulled this.--Launchballer 17:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Question / date request

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)
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)
I do think there has been a sentiment if not a consensus to move away from multi-hooks unless they're actually interesting and the hook doesn't work otherwise without being a multi-hook. Two-article hooks are usually okay, but three or more can be considered overkill these days depending on the hook. Some of the main concerns were already raised above, but to recap they largely boil down to the idea that a hook automatically being hooky because it has multiple bolded links is a bad idea in practice. There's also the concern that a hook having too many links would divert readership towards just one of the articles rather than to all of them. There's still a place for multi-hooks if done right but they'd probably need to be exceptional to work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Could we at least get one Delaware sports hook on there for the date? Perhaps Robin Adair Harvey, since that one's been approved? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a single-article hook, but two or more might be a bit of an overkill unfortunately.
As an aside, there's something I want to bring up, but it's a general comment rather than specifically about this particular nomination. I do think that we as DYK regulars have to be more open about special occasion requests being rejected. It can hurt, but ultimately as long as an article runs that's what matters. I'm bringing this up because, in the past, I have seen editors (and, in the interest of transparency, I am one of them) getting disappointed or even upset if a special occasion request was passed over. Either that, or requests keep being repeated as if giving the impression that the editor is begging for the special occasion and is not open to the hook running on a different date. Special occasions are good and all, but it's not the end of the world if such requests are not granted, and we have to be more open and accepting of the fact that not all special occasion requests will be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I still think that having two otherwise entirely unrelated subjects (e.g. an old Negro league baseball player and modern field hockey coach, with their sole connection being induction to the HOF this year, something most readers probably would never even recognize unless they read deep into both articles) featured isn't at all an "overkill", but yes, I would prefer having one featured than none. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a day and a half ago, so I've created a new list of 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 23. We have a total of 310 nominations, of which 136 have been approved, a gap of 174 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6 (29 May)

Taraxacum mongolicum (nom)

@MallardTV, Daniel Cavallari, and Rjjiii: I'm sorry, but I don't really see how the hook as currently written meets DYKINT. Are there any other possible options? I see that there was an ALT proposed in the nomination; it might not be safe to use that one however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I don't see what isn't interesting about it, that is a really old text. MallardTV Talk to me! 11:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure there's probably a better option out there than "a plant was mentioned in a medicinal book." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 here are some alts
... that Taraxacum mongolicum (pictured) can reduce the effectiveness of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin by 73% when taken together?
... that extracts of Taraxacum mongolicum (pictured) can kill triple-negative breast cancer cells by triggering endoplasmic reticulum stress and apoptosis?
... that Taraxacum mongolicum (pictured) contains high levels of luteolin, a potent antioxidant also found in celery and green peppers?
  1. Effects of taraxacum mongolicum on the bioavailability and disposition of ciprofloxacin in rats
  2. Characteristics of the Cytotoxicity of Taraxacum mongolicum and Taraxacum formosanum in Human Breast Cancer Cells and Taraxacum mongolicum extract induced endoplasmic reticulum stress associated-apoptosis in triple-negative breast cancer cells
  3. Comparison of Bioactive Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activities of Different Parts of Taraxacum mongolicum
MallardTV Talk to me! 12:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Medical-related hooks are outside of my expertise so perhaps another editor could chime in here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 If you think it's more interesting, my third alt here is one that I like a lot. Plus, it really isn't all that medical. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I also don't see what isn't interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I may be the wrong person to judge alt hooks then because I quite like this one. The various dandelions (Taraxacum) are considered weeds by most people now, so it's interesting to see their range of historical usage. I also think it's fascinating to see how far back people were recognizing and documenting the medicinal aspects of plants without any of our modern knowledge of biology or medicine. I'll cede to consensus if others find the hook boring, though, Rjjiii (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Well now it’s 3 that find it interesting to 1, so I’m intrigued to see what happens. MallardTV Talk to me! 10:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that the hook is the best option, but if consensus is to run as is then I will no longer be in the way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hana Meličková (nom)

@Newklear007, SL93, TarnishedPath, and Bremps: I understand this was discussed in the nomination page, but this might be one of those cases where having slightly more context might make the hook more interesting. Just saying she secretly enrolled in acting classes isn't exactly that appealing or eyecatching of a hook in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, how about:
Is that the sort of extra context you were thinking? TarnishedPathtalk 11:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
As a "first" hook, we have to make sure that said claim is extra tight. I don't think a single source will suffice, it has to be multiple high-quality sources. In addition, the article itself lacks context on why she secretly enrolled. Although, when I brought up "additional context", I was thinking more of possibly adding an extra detail such as her piano studies. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: supporting the claim of "first" we have:
Although I'm not Slovakian so I can't attest to the quality of the sources.
If you were thinking of a hook that touched on her piano studies, then parhaps:
  • ... that after Slovak actress Hana Meličková moved to Prague to study piano, she secretly enrolled in acting classes?
TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I guess that works. Would like to hear from the nominator if they're fine with that angle, or if they would prefer the "first professional actress" angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Also supporting "first" is https://snd.sk/predstavenie/16263/hommage-a-hana-melickova/2025-01-29/17-30, although it uses "one of the first". So I guess we could also go with:
Just a thought. TarnishedPathtalk 11:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I like this new hook. I don’t want another first hook. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
The hook is more than fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There are three Korea-related hooks in this batch, two of them are by me (my previous username was seefooddiet, I'm now grapesurgeon). Isn't this too much? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There are: generally the limit is two per set except if it's the US or the UK. One or more of the hooks will need to be bumped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (22 May)

Hazel Vincent Wallace (nom)

@EEHalli, BuySomeApples, and History6042: As a "first" hook, I'm bringing this up mostly out of an abundance of caution. I do not have access to the British Newspaper Library sources, so can it be confirmed if they indeed say she was the first woman to open a theatre in Britain? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I checked source 4 in the article because it was a non paywalled alternative. It was fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Ref 3 (The Stage) calls the Thorndike "the first theatre to have been built by a woman - its managing director Hazel Vincent Wallace" and Ref 4 (The Times) says that Wallace "with the backing of Dame Sybil Thorndike became the first woman to build a new theatre in Britain". BuySomeApples (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2: Soliloquy (nom)

@MallardTV, ViperSnake151, and History6042: Getting a vital-5 article, especially on a topic as academically dense as the soliloquy, takes a huge amount of work, and my hat goes off to MallardTV for putting that work in. I don't want to let you down hard here, but I think the article and hook have more than a few kinks that need to be worked out before going on the air, and I don't think those can happen without the hook being pulled out of the queue for now.

To be clear, the prose is well-written, the article is well-structured, I think the resulting text isn't half-bad at all. The main problem is the sourcing. The hook, for example, is sourced to this seemingly-academic article published by noveltyjournals.com, which... I'll let the website speak for itself, it is not a well-reputed academic institution. Most of the article, though, isn't sourced to academia at all, reputable or not – I see a lot of references to sources that I wouldn't use for an important broad-concept article with, I would think, lots of reliable academic coverage available. There are references to homework-help sites like SparkNotes and LitCharts; direct, original interpretations of source material; and plenty of other websites without rigorous editorial control like WordPress, MasterClass, Theater Haus, and storygrid.com. The article does, to be clear, cite lots of reputable academic sources, but there are also lots of references here that are questionably reliable at best. I don't want to pull this unilaterally, so I'm bringing it here, but I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that a pull is needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, it does make me feel slightly better to note that this was a drive-by GA nomination, which the current GA instructions seem to be against. This article could have been vetted better, but the quality of the work itself is mostly not Mallard's doing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This was most definitely not a drive-by nomination, theleekycauldron. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
ah, my mistake, i didn't catch the edit where they replaced the existing article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm in favour of a pull, and probably sending it to GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This is a shame, but probably for the best. MallardTV Talk to me! 10:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I took a quick squiz at this nom the other day and wasn't entirely happy with what I saw, but thought it was probably solid enough for promotion (although I didn't take a close look at the sources as it seemed well sourced at a glance). But certainly, I would be more than happy for an article as important as this to get some more attention before it is featured, so a pull is fine by me too. Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I pulled this. For your information @MallardTV:, I strongly recommend against attempting a GA nomination in the middle of a DYK; should the latter fail, a GA would allow a renomination (see Talk:David Fishwick).--Launchballer 22:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah I see, thank you! @Launchballer MallardTV Talk to me! 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2 (25 May)

All the refs are from 7-10 years ago. Is this still a current scam?

Pinging @Thriley: as nominator. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's not a current practice, or unknown if it is, a simple fix could be to change "scam" to "have scammed". Left guide (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I remember some people dressed in saffron robes and shaved heads "encouraging" me to part with some of my money in the Port Authority Bus Terminal. Must have been around 1978, so it's been going on for a while. And here's a source from earlier this year, so apparently still a thing. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (25 May 00:00)

Hurricane Larry

@History6042, Chicdat, and Mz7: Extensive WP:CLOP from nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL122021_Larry.pdf RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Hmm, I did not notice that. That particular PDF is likely PD per {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}, so a potential solution is to add {{source-attribution|nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL122021_Larry.pdf}} to the references section. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I see we also have {{Include-NOAA}}, which is a more specific attribution template. Mz7 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
NOAA is a public domain government source EF5 22:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
It's very difficult to write original prose regarding tropical cyclones. Earwig says it's fine; I would estimate many tropical cyclone articles, including many GAs or FAs, have at least that much so-called "close paraphrasing". I would not be opposed to including that template. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 23:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
 Done. Added the template: [1]. Mz7 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chicdat I've seen this argument before and to be honest, I don't buy it. What about tropical cyclones makes it "very difficult to write original prose"? Being able to read the source material, understand what it is saying, and express that in your own words is a fundamental skill for writing encyclopedia articles. RoySmith (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Here's an example of some text that is identical to the source text: The Mary Queen of Peace Elementary School in St. John's, of Little Bay on the Burin Peninsula, Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CATIQ), approached the southeastern coast of Newfoundland, etc, etc. When most of the section depends on one source, you're bound to have some coinciding passages. For instance, Cyclone Chido, a much longer article currently at GAN, has a 49% similarity according to Earwig. But you probably do have a point, a thesaurus could probably bring the percentage down some (like my most recent edit to the page). Point taken. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
You should read WP:PARAPHRASE, especially where it talks about superficial modification of material. Using a thesaurus to swap out one word for a synonym is exactly what superficial modification of material means. While doing so may fool Earwig's simplistic algorithm, it doesn't change that what you're doing is a problem. Also note that WP:DYKLEN says Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain. So if you're basically copying the NOAA statement, doing just enough shuffling of words to evade the Earwig checks and slapping a {{Include-NOAA}} tag on it to satisfy Attribution is always required, you're still not meeting WP:DYKLEN. RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I have read WP:PARAPHRASE and now better understand what "own words" means. Thank you for providing that link; I had previously been operating on the high school "just paraphrase, and it isn't copying". In that narrow case, it's allowed, but when I'm compiling material from one source in a place other than the meteorological history of tropical cyclones, I'll make sure to go to greater lengths to ensure it's in my own words. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Copyright law is complicated (and evolving), and we're operating on some weird mix of what's legally required and what we want to enforce as a matter of style, so it's not surprising this is a common point of confusion. I'm glad I was able to provide some insight. RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Pope Donus II

I reworded the hook sentence as it was slightly too close to the source. I think what's there comes under WP:LIMITED, but would not reject further eyes.--Launchballer 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Topsy the Camel

@Gb321, History6042, and BuySomeApples: Just noting that I trimmed this hook. (Personally, I don't see why this isn't "that Topsy the Camel was known for her misshapen humps", but this is fine.) Also, I don't think the issues regarding first hooks apply to last hooks, but raising this here anyway.--Launchballer 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer personally, I think what you trimmed it to is kinda boring. I agree that "Topsy the Camel was known for her misshapen humps" is more interesting than the trimmed version, but the fact that one single camel was a major part of the camel corps, and was in ringling brothers circus, and was in early films, that one camel was part of all three of those things, that's what is most interesting to me Gb321 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I also don't like "Topsy the Camel was known for her misshapen humps" as a DYK because we don't have a picture of the misshapen humps in the article Gb321 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Misato Haga

@History6042, Road Atlanta Turn 5, and GGOTCC: I have never heard the term 'race queen' before and would question whether a broad audience would. I think this should be reworded. Also, as written, this would deserve {{lead too short}}, though this isn't a DYK issue.--Launchballer 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You've brought up a fair point. I think the term "Grid Girl" is more likely to be understood by a broad audience compared to "Race Queen" (which is Japan's version of it). It's better explained in race queen, which is linked to in the hook I made. Though, I would also suggest adding quotation marks around this term if it's a better solution, whilst I could also work on the lead soon to further expand it. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 15:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
The link 'race queen' redirects a section called 'motorsports model'. I suggest changing it to that.--Launchballer 16:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Since I am apparently not allowed to change the DYK nomination, where should I modify it? Asking as it's the first time for me doing anything like this. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
It's in queue (see this section's header), meaning only template editors and admins can change it; I changed it.--Launchballer 19:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Noted, thank you! Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 19:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
No one in the history of ever has used the term "motorsports model"; changed it back to something actually part of the English language. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Huh, okay. I am not a racist race enthusiast, but I have heard the term before. Might be a regional thing? Thanks for bringing this up! GGOTCC 21:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

HSwMS Gefle, Singapore Rail Test Centre

These are firsts, so opening them to the floor.--Launchballer 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  • The Rail Test Centre one is fine; there are very few such dedicated centres in the world, and this is definitely the first one in SE Asia. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
    The two sources cited[2][3] are almost certainly just reprinting a press release (based on the tone of the writing, the extensive use of quotes, and the fact that they're dated on consecutive days). If we're going to go with this, we need better sourcing.
    RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@History6042, Yakikaki, HouseBlaster, ZKang123, and Mariamnei: This requires attention.--Launchballer 09:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Those are both about the rail centre. Is there a problem with the hook regarding HSwMS Gefle? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Didn't see one, but given the problems we have with first hooks, I bring them here anyway and I should have pinged the first time.--Launchballer 08:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

In honesty I believe International Railway Journal to be most reliable and they would certainly have double checked since they are an authority on rail developments around the world. As for Korean Herald, while certainly reliable, it's certainly quoting from the contractor's claims (since the contractor is also Korean so there might certainly be some conflict of interest or bias). While I dont think at this time there are other better sources to really clarify the "first" in Southeast Asia since the testing centre just recently opened, I'm quite confident that there's no other such site in Southeast Asia, or they would have certainly been reported. Otherwise, there's also the alt hook to cover what the testing centre does.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is currently at FAC, where I took a closer look. I'm afraid the problem with the sourcing is worse than I had originally noticed; it is overwhelmingly based on press releases (either directly or indirectly via newspaper coverage) and other non-independent and/or primary sources. To be honest, I'm unsure if the GA review on which this DYK nom is based would stand up to review. I suggest we pull this. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
This is the next set so I can't, but I agree.--Launchballer 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: This needs pulling.--Launchballer 20:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Sima de los Huesos hominins

@History6042 and Dunkleosteus77: Both me and @Bremps: said this was best kept for April Fool's day. Not sure why this was ignored.--Launchballer 13:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, this can't run as is per MOS:EGG.--Launchballer 19:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unaware that hooks could be held for that long. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
They can be held that long for that specific purpose only. I'm probably going to pull this but I want to hear from the nominator first.--Launchballer 19:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I have no opinion Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about the misunderstanding. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I put this in WP:DYKAPRIL.--Launchballer 23:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (28 May)

Kajaani Castle (nom)

... that the Kajaani Castle (pictured) was the northernmost stone castle in Europe upon its completion? Well, "northernmost" is of course as problematic as "first", so I wondered whether it's even true. I wrote myself a Wikidata query and sure enough, it's not true. Oulu Castle is further north, older and was finally destroyed in 1793, and that was after Kajaani Castle had been built. Referencing could also be better. For example, what does this mean? Kiehtovat Linnat, Kimmo Taskinen & Vesa Sisättö, Tammi 2019, page 33 Schwede66 22:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Plifal, JIP, GGOTCC, and Amakuru:.--Launchballer 00:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
It means this book: [4], ISBN 978-952-04-0380-5. JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
The article Oulu Castle and the Finnish article fi:Oulun linna say the Oulu Castle was made of wood and earth, not stone like the Kajaani Castle. JIP | Talk 06:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Schwede66, @Launchballer, i concur with @JIP, also worth noting the Oulu Castle page has citations that seem more unverifiable. if it's still a matter of concern maybe an alternate hook could look like this: "that the Kajaani Castle (pictured) was the northernmost stone castle in Europe at its commission but not upon its completion?"--Plifal (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok then. Missed the "stone" bit. The other "castle" that's further north is seasonal and made of snow. Schwede66 09:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I see a couple of problems here. First, according to https://quartzmountain.org/article/things-to-do-in-oulu (no clue how reliable that is), "Oulu Castle ... was initially a wooden fortification, but in the 17th century, it was reconstructed using stone". No specific year stated, so no way to know if that was before or after 1619 when Kajaani was completed. Also, Kajaani Castle says "At first, the castle only consisted of a stone wall, two round towers, and wooden buildings in the yard inside the castle. All buildings inside the castle walls were made of wood" so it's not even clear if it makes sense to call it a "stone castle". Surely we can find a better hook? RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I would say find a new hook. The Yle source in the nomination here says Euroopan pohjoisin kivilinna. [The northernmost stone castle in Europe. - via Google translate] It doesn't mention "upon its completion". I suspect that Kajaani is promoted as the northernmost stone castle in Europe is because the publicists for Kajaani have decided that Oulu Castle doesn't count as a stone castle. TSventon (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Some ideas:
  • ... that Kajaana Castle was used as a prison before it was completed?
  • ... that Kajaana Castle was built in Sweden but is now in Finland?
RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Could this be used as a source for the hook about the Kajaani castle being used as a prison?

The castle had still been left unfinished, and during its first years it functioned as an administrative centrum, prison, and military strongpoint.[1][2]: 60  The castle was seen as a good place to deport prisoners to as it was located in a far-away wasteland.[2]: 66 [3][4]: 131 

References

  1. ^ Kajaanin linna, Linnasta linnaan. Accessed on 16 September 2013.
  2. ^ a b Heikkinen, Reijo: Kajaanin linna – Västinki vuosisatojen virrassa, Gummerus 2004. ISBN 951-800-290-8
  3. ^ Piirainen, Veikko: Kajaanin linnan kaivaukset ja tämän 1600-luvun rajavarustuksen entisöinti, Hakkapeliitta magazine issue #39/1937, pp. 1197 – 1198.
  4. ^ Gardberg, C.J.; Welin, Per-Olof: Suomen keskiaikaiset linnat. Translated into Finnish by Irma Savolainen. Helsinki: Otava 1993. ISBN 951-1-11992-3.
I don't think the second proposed hook is that interesting. Everything that was built in the 17th and 18th centuries in what is now Finland was actually built in Sweden as there wasn't actually a "Finland" back then. The hook gives the impression the Kajaani Castle moved from Sweden to Finland when actually nothing happened to it, the area around it changed from Sweden to Finland (via Russia in between). JIP | Talk 08:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I see that the hook is now on the Main Page (even though it was supposed to run on May 28 according to the section title). What happened? Was it bumped up? There didn't seem to be consensus to run the hook as written (I wasn't able to pull the hook in time as I assumed it wasn't running yet). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
We ran three days of 2-a-day after Schwede's original post.--Launchballer 11:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
It should have been clarified here because I guess people missed that it was going to run earlier than expected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Well I'm happy either way, with the hook that got used or the proposed one about the castle being used as a prison. As I wrote above, the proposed hook about the castle being built in Sweden but now being in Finland isn't interesting as it's kind of obvious. The entire territory of Finland was in Sweden during the 17th and 18th centuries. JIP | Talk 14:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron if you're looking for PSHAW ideas, it would be cool if it could check the SOHO area and alert the user if there are any hooks there whose requested dates fall into any of the currently open preps or queues. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
That's a good idea! Since the headers in the holding area are user-generated, there's not a consistent style, which makes it pretty hard to parse, but I'd go for it if there were an easier way to make it happen. Maybe a template? Also, I can't believe I abbreviated it as "SOHA" when "SoHo area" was right there – but then again, you've got much more of an interest in New York than I do! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

prep area 2

the june hook in prep area 2 was held as a special occasion for the 1 june but the timing of the hooks' appearances on the main page changing has led to a mismatch in the here, just notifying admins.--Plifal (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

On it.--Launchballer 10:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Kicked it back by three preps, as we're running 2-a-day for three days.--Launchballer 10:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
ta!--Plifal (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Two DYKs are listed at WP:ERRORS

@DYK admins: , two DYKs are listed at WP:ERRORS. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (May 24)

Brief note: I haven't promoted a queue in quite a while, because I've been a bit burned out – I'm trying to find a way back, so I'm experimenting with something new here. This might not be particularly popular, but I'm trying to keep myself from burning out or running a set I'm not proud of, so here goes: Wikipedia isn't mandatory, and my signature goes on every hook in a set I promote. So, if I'm not comfortable putting my signature on a hook for any reason, I'm bumping it and leaving a note. That's all – I won't contest another admin running it, I won't even protest another admin putting it back in the same queue I'm working on as long as they're willing to vouch for it (although that gets logistically confusing). I'm just going to bump it, leave a note on the hook that I did, and link it to an explanation that I'll leave here at WT:DYK. If your hook gets bumped, you don't need to do anything specific – it'll probably be promoted when another admin gets to it.

If something serious comes up, like a source–text issue, I might pull it and make sure the issues are worked out before re-approval, but if it's something subjective, I don't want to get involved in walls of text. If people really don't like this system and think admins shouldn't be doing it, I'm happy to go back on hiatus from queue moving and do prep sets. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for dropping in two hooks to fill some of the gaps I've been leaving :) just to clarify, have you done the queue-level vetting on them, or should I do that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I vetted. Always happy to have them re-vetted, though :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Just saw this. A belated welcome back, @leeky Cielquiparle (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
thanks! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905) (nom)

  • ... that Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"?

@Cbl62, Bagumba, and Plifal: I've bumped this one for wikivoice reasons. The WP:DYKINT call is borderline for me, but before we even get there, I don't like that this hook has Wikipedia voice endorsing someone else's opinion. I was going to try and make a hook out of Cullum called Hanson "the most merciless and destructive guard" ever known, but it turns out that's not quite verified, Cullum circumspectly says that Hanson's "mates and opponents" say that about him. So, I've bumped this one for now, and like I said above, I have no objection to this hook being run with another admin's signature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I noted in the nom that I'm also not a fan of quotes that are not WP:INTEXT-attributed, but these are frequently posted at DYK too. Is there a new guideline on this? —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bagumba: It's not DYK guideline, but I interpret it to be a requirement of broader policy – I've written up some of my thoughts on that at User:Theleekycauldron/Essays/DYK and attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
If I'm reading that correctly, is ... that Hal Hanson' (pictured) was said to have "made brave men wince" then acceptable? Considering we just ran ... that Paddy Higson was known as the "mother of Scottish film"? (and there's many others), I worry about indiscriminate application, even as someone who prefers INTEXT. —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I thought about adding a "said to have", but at that point, I think "guy from football player's home state effusively praises football player" doesn't meet DYKINT for me. I don't know why that would intrigue most readers enough to click on the article, other than the very good photo. As for uneven enforcement, I can't really speak to that – I can only control which hooks I give my signature to and which I don't. But you're right that a lot of admins wouldn't mind a hook like this, so it will probably run in some form, at some point soon. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "was said to" formulation. Let me know if anything further is needed from me. (I improved this from a substub, and the photo is so striking, I think this could be a really successful hook.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Not necessary IMO. If the statement wasn't in quote marks, that would be in Wikipedia's voice, but the fact that it is in quote marks makes it clear that it's just somebody opinion, so "said to have" is redundant.
What bothers me a tad more about the hook is that it is lacking in context, ie saying nothing about who or what the individual in question was. But perhaps that's a little peccadillo of mine. Apart from that though, I'm not seeing a problem with it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. If it says "did you know that Hal made brave men wince", that's Wikivoice whether or not the quoted bit has quotes around it. To make something not in our voice we have to label it as being something that was said or described etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru, with respect, I strongly disagree but don't have the time to make a case now. I expect that I will be having more to say about this (as a general principle) in future however. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Respect noted and reciprocated 🙂 Let's discuss anon.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru, @Bagumba, @Cbl62, @Gatoclass, @Left guide, and @Theleekycauldron, I substituted it for an alt hook because it is going to be the next prep promoted and seems to be blocking any further promotions to queues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

El Apóstol (nom)

@Lazman321, Miminity, and History6042: I've bumped this one because it's still under discussion above. It being a 'first' hook made me nervous, and the fact that there's a possible counterexample even more nervous, so I'm giving this one more time to sort itself out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Tan Jin Sing (nom)

  • ... that Tan Jin Sing was "no longer a Chinese, not yet a Dutchman, a half-baked Javanese"?

@Juxlos, Jeromi Mikhael, and History6042: I've bumped this because I'm not really sure what this hook is trying to say? There's a fine line between withholding information in an intriguing way and just being confusing, and I think this one falls on the wrong side of that line for me. Again, if another admin wants it, I'm perfectly fine with that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I took it to mean that Java (don’t know what that is) is partly Dutch and partly Chinese, ur he was not fully either, meaning he was not fully Javanese. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Java is an island in Indonesia, which was colonized by the Dutch. The "no longer" / "not yet" setup hints at it being something clever, but also anchored to an unspecified time, and I just overall don't know what's going on in this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I will propose an alt hook: DYK that a nobleman of the Yogyakarta Sultanate was later forced to sell his lands to pay off his debt. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone with more than a passing familiarity with the ethnic contestations in Indonesia in the past couple centuries... this was definitely a case of hybrid identity wherein Tan was becoming seen as less Chinese through his close associations with the Javanese aristocracy (Javanese people, not people of Java) while also not quite being accepted as Javanese (the article implies due to his close relationship with the European [predominantly Dutch] ruling class). I don't know if there was a process through which one could gain legal recognition as equivalent to a Dutchman (as depicted in Salah Asuhan a century later), but the quote certainly implies he was trying to gain the same rights and opportunities as a Dutchman.
That being said, I think for a lay reader History's ALT will be more interesting. I may be intrigued by the possibility of comparing how Tan Jin Sing and Oen Boen Ing were received by the Javanese nobility in their respective eras and areas, but that's a very niche area of interest. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The context for it (written in the article, I believe) was that Yogyakartans were seeing him negatively as someone too un-Javanese for the aristocracy, too ingrained in the government for his original Chinese identity, and too native for the colonial administration. Stuck in the middle, essentially. The term is a direct quotation from the source, though. Juxlos (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I really like the quote and would like to see it retained, but I agree with leeky that the original hook needs more context. Gatoclass (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the usage of "a Chinese" or "a Javanese" come off as racist to anyone else? I've always been taught to avoid such usages of Chinese (and the like) as nouns. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a quote that seems to have been said by other Javanese nobles. So I think it’s fine. Also I am not sure about the noun = racism thing, here is an example that I don’t think is a problem; “A Russian and an American talked to each other.” This example uses demonyms but is acceptable I think. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not talking about demonyms in general. I am specifically referring to the "-ese" demonyms. In my dialect calling someone "a Chinese" or "a Japanese" or "a Vietnamese" is considered racist. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I did not realize that you specifically meant the -ese- ones, in that case I was also taught that and agree. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Was it racist? Probably, yeah, even in the 19th-century context, the whole saying was essentialy said as an insult to the man specifically. I don't think it's offensive to modern audiences, though. Juxlos (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I still think the ALT would probably work better. Or we could contextualize the quote, like we did when quoting Fakih Usman's opponents decrying him as "the Dutchman with the black asshole" (a literal translation of silit ireng) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How about:

Chris? Gatoclass (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
That would work too, yes. Juxlos (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Substituted, thanks guys. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio (nom)

@Gerda Arendt, Thriley, and Launchballer: This one isn't bumped, it's still in queue, but am I correct in saying that the "has been described" refers to a foreword from a person selling a copy of the score? I think that falls well short of what we expect vis-a-vis source independence, but given the foreign-language aspect I'm not sure if I'm right on that characterization. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it refers to this part: The autograph score of the Easter Oratorio from 1738 is extant. It features unusually detailed markings for articulation and dynamics; the editor Ulrich Leisinger called it one of Bach's most beautiful scores. There is an issue with this sentence though: it is not clear from the context what "editor" means. Leisinger is the editor of what? He's mentioned earlier in the article, but mentioning it here again for clarity purposes may be appropriate. I'm also not sure if the current wording will suffice, or if it has to be attributed to Leisinger in the hook, given how we've been treating other quote hooks on WT:DYK right now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I'm sorry, I think I phrased my comment unclearly. Is Ulrich Leisinger the editor of this for-profit repertoire book that was cited as the source for "one of his most beautiful scores"? I understand that he's an academic, but I'm still not comfortable citing him as a source when he has a clear financial conflict of interest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay, i didn't scroll down far enough, the Leisinger passage is translated in the source. The full text is This fair copy, one of Bach's most beautiful musical manuscripts, will be published for the first time in facsimile by Carus, edited by Martin Petzoldt. In an otherwise rigorous academic treatment of the Easter Oratorio, I do not think this statement is reliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how this is an issue? Does it really matter who said it was described as one of his most beautiful scores, when the point is that it was a beautiful score? To me at least it doesn't matter if the one who said it has a personal affiliation with Bach's works, and it wasn't as if he did it as a form of advertising or promotion. Honestly I do not see the sourcing here as problematic: if anything, the main issue is a lack of in-hook attribution, but that's a different concern from yours.
If you do have an issue with this particular angle and do not see this issue as resolvable, well there's still ALT1a from the nomination, which could be used. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
It does matter if someone is financially connected to the thing they're writing about and they describe it as a "fair copy" of one of Bach's "most beautiful scores", especially if their work is not fact-checked or peer-reviewed. The only way this source is reliable in the first place is that it comes from a subject-matter expert, and that doesn't apply to something they have potentially been paid to say. ALT1a doesn't strike me as particularly interesting, so unless Gerda comes along to tell me that I've misinterpreted something, I'm probably going to pull this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
pulled, discussion can continue at the nompage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, no harm no foul because this was promoted to GA status on April 13, but it wasn't created or 5x expanded anywhere near when it was nominated on April 7. I see that Gerda hinted at this in her initial comment – nominating an article early to try and get it squared away for a special occasion is... unorthodox, I'd never thought of that :) not something I'd recommend, but we're well past Easter anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't recommend it but ignored a few rulez when heading for a 300th anniversary. When I nominated a reviewer had agreed to look, but then took a long time to actually do it. - Everybody: there are now ALTs in the nom, and we still have Eastertide - but only until Wednesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Miss Behave's Mavericks (nom)

@Cunard and 4meter4: Earwig is throwing a yellow flag on the green quotebox in the "Performers" section; it obviously isn't a copyright problem, or even an MOS:PQ problem, but I think it's a neutrality problem. Putting 100 words of effusive praise in a quote box, especially in a section that's not supposed to contain outside opinion, is dicey for me. Picking quotes for quoteboxes draws us towards quotes that pop, quotes that grab the reader's attention, but I think that sometimes runs us into the trap of selecting for an interesting-but-not-consensus viewpoint and giving it too many words. If it were me, I'd just cut it, but if you find some way to break it up and put some of it into the running prose that'd be okay with me too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

other than that, by the way, the article and the hook look great :) once this gets cleared up, we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for flagging this, Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs). I included the quote as I like how it gives readers a vivid description of what the show is like, but you raise good points about how it gives a too prominent view to this source. I've modified the article to remove the quote after incorporating the material into the article text. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
perfect, good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Robert Allen Norris (nom)

@Hawkeye7 and ERcheck: Everything looks good, I love the hook, except I'm not sure if this is a reliable source? It doesn't appear to have any kind of fact-checking or editorial control, it seems mostly like a memo being circulated within a small society. Could it be replaced with other sources? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, JSTOR says that Southeastern Naturalist "is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scientific journal with a regional focus on the southeastern United States." [5] But since it was not actually used for anything, I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
that... definitely doesn't seem like an official SENA publication to me, but we're good to go in any case :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Selby rail crash (nom)

  • This is a UK article and so should be "car", not "automobile", which the article uses. It appears that the prep builder claimed that "car" could be confused with "train car", but those are called carriages in the UK anyway. If it's that much of an issue you could change the hook to "... that the Selby rail crash occurred when a train hit a car that had crashed onto the tracks after its driver fell asleep?". Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Actually, having looked at the nom, isn't "... that a car driver's insurers paid out £30m after the Selby rail crash" more hooky? I think it is, your mileage may vary. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    I do like that second hook better, but I'm curious about where The Guardian got that 30m number from? It's a passing mention in an article that's mostly about another settlement, so I'm not convinced it's spot-on if there's not contemporaneous coverage of the number. How much was it, exactly? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • As for the ENGVAR issue, I think this needs more workshopping, because I still think "car" is going to be ambiguous to a significant portion of the readership (even outside N. Am.) and the proposed rewording is very wordy and not all-the-way clarified either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Divide this talk page?

Currently, this talkpage is serving two dual roles. Both are important, but they don't mesh well. Firstly, the more meta discussions around DYK: discussing guidelines, expectations, encouraging new users, old nom reminders, alerting admins for few queues, etc. Secondly, there are the specific discussions surrounding fixes to hooks already in preps and queues. The first one is inviting broad community input, and often has discussions that might benefit from visibility and being kept around for awhile to gather wide input. The second seeks to quickly fix problems, with a quick resolution being beneficial and resolution often needed in a matter of days and needing a small number of editors. I have a feeling that this second purpose has become more common as we have sought to reduce appearance at ERRORS, which is a good thing, but has led to much more activity. Both of these purposes get diluted by combination into one talkpage, as well as the overall length of this talkpage (this page currently has 11 "meta" discussions, and 18 "prep/queue" discussions, plus this meta section). I would suggest opening up Template talk:Did you know/Queue for the prep/queue discussions. The risk is that this new page suffers from low visibility, but I'm confident the regulars here would be essentially as likely to get involved there as they are here, and a dedicated page makes it clear where issues can be raised. CMD (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but as you said, any splits would likely result in any new pages getting much less visibility. For better or worse, this is a visible talk page and it's good to get more eyes on stuff. Besides, it does not seem like WT:DYK having these dual roles has been much of a problem anyway and I don't recall any prior criticism of what's going on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
A good analysis of this talkpage's role, but I don't really see an argument for splitting, save for "it serves dual roles". Is that bad? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "bad", perhaps inefficient? The prep/queue discussions should archive in a matter of days whereas the other discussions should not, so more manual maintenance is another volunteer burden. Personally, when the number of discussions get this large, I find myself less able to either see where I could help at a glance, and it's more time to read through everything (promoting these thoughts). CMD (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
If that's an issue, one type could go in the upper half and one in the bottom half. Personally, I prefer being able to read everything on the same page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. If you did it through transclusion that would allow for the page to be split top and bottom and for each to archive independently. CMD (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is for us to consolidate all discussions of a hook to the nom page, rather than scattering it around in different places. For example, Template:Did you know/Sandbox/Kajaani Castle. The "Post-promotion discussion" section could be wrapped in a <noinclude> tag and/or given some identifying CSS class. Then, the entire template could be included here. A minor amount of CSS hacking could let each editor see the transclusion in whatever way they prefer. Some might want to see it exactly as we do now. Some might want to just see a one-line summary. Some might want to see it all, I suppose. We could provide some small gadgets which do all the right magic, so all each editor would have to do is install the right gadget to get the presentation they prefer. WP:FAC works this way. People just transclude their nominations into the top-level page. If you install Wikipedia:Nominations viewer, you get just the summary lines. It seems to work well. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
That would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't you extract the post-promotion discussion to some central page of post-promotions discussions with Template:Excerpt or similar? CMD (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure. There's two distinct ideas here; splitting post-approval hook review off into it's own page (which I support) and my added suggestion consolidating all the discussion of a hook onto the nom page. We should do both. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
So, the workflow for the added suggestion would be: 1) Queuer finds issue with hook (preppers too?); 2) Queuer adds new Level 2 section to Template:Did you know nominations/ARTICLE; 3) Queuer transcludes said new section to say Template talk:Did you know/Queue (through some hopefully easy process)?
And then regarding the other question of creating organisation while still allowing everything to be looked at on this page, the entirety of Template talk:Did you know/Queue is transcluded to here?
While this might need some detail tweaks for making each step work simply, I would broadly support moving towards this. CMD (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically the workflow, except that that it would all be simplified to "reviewer clicks button which does all that for them". I've been toying with some scripts to do that in User:RoySmith/dyk-pingifier.js, which unfortunately has been slow going as I struggle to wrap my head around javascript itself and javascript deployment processes. RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's deprecate DYKtickAGF

Why do we have {{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)

Today's WP:ERRORS debacle.
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. SilverserenC 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: [6]. Help:Translation says 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'_noticeboard/Archive337#Fake_referencing is interesting reading in this context. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@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 {{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)

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 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)

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)

Sammi Brie I'll ask you a similar question. I reviewed another one of 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)
@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: "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: "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)

Moving forward

My reading of the above says there's rough consensus to do this. Note that WP:DYKCITE already requires hook facts to be verified (No one is required to check that the article's citations generally back up its content, with the exception of the hook fact), so this is really just a clarification of that. If you feel we need to do a more formal RFC, this is your chance to speak up. Lacking that, I intend to add the following paragraph after that:

For sources which are not readily available to the reviewer because they are off-line or behind a paywall, the nominator must provide a copy for review. This could be done by posting (either publicly or privately to the reviewer) an image of the relevant material in the source, by providing a "gift" or "sharing" link for paywalled material, by providing a direct quotation from the source, or by any other method mutually agreeable to the nominator and the reviewer. For non-English sources where the reviewer is unable to perform a satisfactory review using automated translation tools, the nominator is responsible for providing a translation.

I also intend to delete from Template:DYKSymbols2 the reference accepted in good faith line.

@Wugapodes and Theleekycauldron: because apparently this will have implications for WugBot and WP:PSHAW. And I would appreciate input from anybody else about other follow-on changes that need to be made.RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

PSHAW is going to continue recognizing as a valid way to signal approval of an article, so no changes on my end. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
also, i like this change :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you. If we decide that AGF is no long a valid way to approve a nomination, PSHAW will need to enforce that. RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
The fact that we're deprecating blind approval doesn't mean that we deprecate a checkmark symbol. Maybe that checkmark becomes a general symbol of approval, maybe it's for situations where the reviewer is assuming good faith that the nominator has accurately reproduced an offline and/or foreign-language source. It's not for PSHAW to parse whether the use of that symbol automatically means the reviewer has made a mistake, that's for a careful human promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with you on that, but it's not the battle I want to fight today, so okay. RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
My two cents is that WugBot should enforce the AGF deprecation but PSHAW should not. WugBot doesn't involve human judgment, so if AGF tick is not a valid way to approve, WugBot should not move it to the approved page. Promoting hooks involves human judgment, so if there's an AGF tick, the human should know well enough to decide whether to promote or not. RoySmith when would you want to implement this? For WugBot, I can make that change in the next week or so. — Wug·a·po·des 03:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I would personally prefer if an uninvolved editor makes the final decision, given that RoySmith started the discussion and thus making him involved. I have no opinion on whether or not there is rough consensus in favor of the change and will not object if another editor reaches the same conclusion, this is merely more of a procedural matter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I've read the discussion, and I think there's a pretty clear consensus that at least the guidance around the AGF tick needs to be tightened and brought in line with other content review processes. There are edge cases brought up that shouldn't be ignored (non-free images and video are a notable problem that doesn't seem resolved), but in my reading no one seems to be saying that the process of "it's offline/hard to access so I'll use AGF without even asking for a quote" is workable. It seems people are in agreement with asking noms to provide quotes, and claims cited solely to an image or video seem rare enough that they can be handled case by case with IAR.
Whether that requires WugBot or whatever to no longer recognize the specific tick mark? Meh, probably not. I can see a rough consensus to do it if I squint, but it wasn't discussed as a binary choice so forcing one probably isn't worth it. That said, removing the tick will draw attention to the guidance change which might be good for raising awareness.
Either way, it's one line of code on my end, so just give me a few days lead time to make sure I'm free to flip the switch and watch the bot for a few hours afterwards. — Wug·a·po·des 06:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Wugapodes thanks for the reply. My primary concern is that I don't break anything by editing Template:DYKSymbols2. If we end up with the instructions no longer saying you can use {{DYKtickAGF}} but the software still accepting it, that's oddly inconsistent but as long as nothing actually breaks, I guess it's not a big deal. RoySmith (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
It seems it would be simpler to replace "accepted in good faith" with something like "with a supporting quote provided" rather than figure out how to adjust the ticks. CMD (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I think we should treat approval based on a supplied quote the same as any other approval, i.e. just use the normal {{DYKtick}}. It's one thing to want to check that a source has been properly summarized or interpreted, but I think we can take for granted that if somebody supplies a direct quote, it's accurate. If somebody is inventing quotes that don't exist in the source, that's something we need to deal with via other means. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Done

I've made the proposed changes:

I have no strong opinion on how PSHAW and WugBot should track this, so I'll leave that to you guys to handle as you see fit. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Roy. Unless someone feels strongly that WugBot should enforce this change, I'm going to avoid creating a bunch of "why isn't the bot moving my approved nom" posts for you all to deal with. Let's revisit this in a few months once people get used to the change. — Wug·a·po·des 03:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep area 2 (27 May 00:00)

Montages of a Modern Motherhood

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

As always Prince of Erebor, DYK receives more nominations with images than we can actually run. Some image nominations are thus selected to run without an image. Absent specific reasons to prioritise certain images, we normally turn down requests such as this simply because some nominations has to not go in the image slot. I hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Got it! I was just uncertain whether a portrait like that is suitable for DYK noms as I have almost never submitted an image hook before (I think I only submitted one with my fourth or fifth nom), so I wanted to make sure it is not a problem on my end, and I was also eager to see how an image hook would play out. Perhaps next time! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

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

@DYK admins: If someone could flick the switch for 2-a-day.--Launchballer 00:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Flag of Lincoln, Nebraska

@History6042, Hurstbergn, Toadboy123, and Darth Stabro: Significant WP:CLOP which will need resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see an issue. The source text states:
Some of the recognizable imagery implied by the lines are a sunrise, the state capitol building, and an aerial view of the traditional center of town (the star located at 13th and O Street).
...while the DYK nomination states:
...uses lines to represent both the state capitol building and the center of town?
(Bolded are statements that I believe are similar)
The DYK nomination is substantially more vague compared to the source text; and above all, the DYK is nothing more than a short description of the symbolism of the flag and how it encompasses several parts of Lincoln's urban geography. IMO I think this is just copyright paranoia.
- Hurstbergn (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
You don't see an issue with both the article and the source saying (for example, and with one solitary differing phrase elided) "The winning flag, entitled All Roads Lead to Lincoln, was created by Ed Mejia, a local creative director, art director, and graphic designer. His design was selected by [...] committee from a pool of over 190 submissions from the public."?--Launchballer 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@Hurstbergn & Launchballer: I have added a cleanup tag to the article and placed quotes from the sources into HTML comments. The current version of the article is likely a derivative work of the cited sources. If the body text is fixed, then the comments should be removed and the older versions of the article revision deleted. In many places the article text is almost identical to the source's text:
Source
"The deep blue represents groundwater aquifers, an abundant and valuable natural resource significant to our region."
Wikipedia article
"The deep blue represents groundwater aquifers, a natural resource significant to the region."
Rjjiii (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Pulled.--Launchballer 17:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

St. Augustine Seminary High School

@Perfect4th and AirshipJungleman29: I'm fairly certain that WP:DYKCOMPLETE demands that the {{incomplete list}} tag requires resolving.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged Launchballer but does the absence of a few non-notable priests mean that the article "fails to deal adequately with the topic"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much because I hit 'ping all' instead of 'ping default', but my concern is that a tag that says 'this list is incomplete' falls foul of "reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress". (Of course, if none of them are notable, why have the list in the first place?)--Launchballer 15:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Because they can be verified. Please note the "reasonably". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hwanhaejangseong

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

If we call it a 13th century wall and call the roads 20th century does that make it read as less of an everyday occurrence? Perhaps one missing element is that this was a >100km structure, but given the exact length isn't known I find that hard to fit into a hook in readable yet an ERRORS-avoiding manner. CMD (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking along the lines of "that much of a very long wall in present-day South Korea survived for 700 years".--Launchballer 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how that holds interest in a way the original doesn't. Surely things hanging around is a bit more everyday than ancient monuments being destroyed as an afterthought? You get those lovely spots in France where the Roman wall lies on either side of a roundabout, but it doesn't come to mind as an everyday thing. CMD (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the age could be worked into the original hook? Something like:
"... that a 700-year-old fortification on Jeju Island was mostly destroyed during the construction of a coastal road?"
Rjjiii (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how the original hook did not meet DYKINT, but the new proposal sounds fine to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the meat of what made me glaze over was Jeju Island. I recommend trimming that bit or changing it to "modern-day South Korea" or somesuch.--Launchballer 08:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer, Chipmunkdavis, and Epicgenius: Something like: "... that a 700-year-old fortification in present-day South Korea was mostly destroyed during the construction of a coastal road?" Rjjiii (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me, would prefer to hear from @Chipmunkdavis: before substituting.--Launchballer 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
No objections to adding temporal or geographical context. 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC) CMD (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I swapped in the hook.--Launchballer 17:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Arrest of Marcy Rheintgen

@Plifal, John Cummings, Bremps, Sock-the-guy, Tbhotch, Trystan, and Lajmmoore: Even after removing some large quotes per WP:SUMMARY, I still see close paraphrasing, and this needs resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Launchballer, thanks, I will work on the text using earwig. I don't see any rules in WP:SUMMARY that prohibit the use of quotations, the only thing I see that mentions quotations is that they should be referenced. Is there some specific restriction on quotations in articles for DYK I'm not aware of? John Cummings (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Just reread WP:SUMMARY and you're right, although WP:OVERQUOTING says "Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working small portions of the quotation into the article text, or both."--Launchballer 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
hi, took a look at the article history, and changed the text that was highlighted as a concern due to summary. also found no reference of jon harris maurer in the source cited. feel free to revert if inaccurate. was there anything else specifically? :) --Plifal (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Launchballer are we good to go? Hi Plifal, thanks for your help :) John Cummings (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I think "They had initially told Rheintgen they planned to issue a notice to appear in front of a judge, but then arrested her for not meeting the criteria for a notice to appear." is still a bit too close to "Police initially told Rheintgen they’d issue a notice to appear in front of a judge to avoid sending her to jail — but they ultimately arrested her instead because she didn’t meet the criteria for a notice to appear.".--Launchballer 09:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Launchballer, thanks, I've done some more on it, an issue is that 'notice to appear' is a legal term so there's limited ways you can talk about it. Thanks :) John Cummings (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Launchballer is it too late to request the mugshot image is added? I think having an image is important in this story. John Cummings (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
One step ahead of you; I'd already pulled #Flag of Lincoln, Nebraska and put this in its place.--Launchballer 19:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Riverine rabbit

@Sohom Datta, Reconrabbit, and BeanieFan11: I see WP:CLOP that wants resolving before primetime.--Launchballer 14:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I did see that as well, but it seemed like a case of WP:LIMITED to me. (How many other ways are you going to describe the characteristics of a rabbit without misinterpreting the sources). Sohom (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
If it's from Animal Diversity Web, I can try my hand at reworking those parts further, but there's only so many ways to describe the specific description and some of its features. Are there egregious examples that I missed? I didn't completely rewrite the article and the way it was expanded in 2017 added a lot of the close paraphrasing. -- Reconrabbit 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Mostly LIMITED, but there probably shouldn't be two adjacent sentences from the source even if they are both individually covered by that. I broke them up.--Launchballer 09:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Greg Jensen

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

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

Moratorium on "first" hooks?

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 StabroTalk • 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:

Any exceptional claim requires 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 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, [7] as well as [8], 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 List of all NFL players born in Denmark and a List of all NFL players born in Greece. Assuming the website is reliable for sports statistics (I think it is; the main discussion I could find that said yes is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley) this looks like a good positive example how to source a "first" hook. —Kusma (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Kusma: On the other hand, I find hooks sourced solely to primary source databases to be a sort of WP:OR. Mention in secondary sources should be the barometer for "why does this hook matter", effectively a filter for database mining for trivia. It's also potentially unclear how far back in history such databases go, i.e. is the "first" based on complete data for the league's history since day 1, or is work still ongoing? —Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that the example I gave only shows a good way how to prove the "first", but it does not show that anybody cares about the "first"; that can usually be demonstrated from weaker sources like obituaries or newspaper reports though. —Kusma (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    Combing more through the details, that database openly lists a slew of "Unknown" birthplaces for players.[9] So a human in a secondary source might (hopefully) preface a statement with "believed to be the first", accounting for the known incompleteness, and that's not even accounting for whether all players from the NFL's start are even in the database yet. —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Going to be honest, I'd support this moratorium. As someone who's had a few DYK hooks approved, if all you can find for a hook is "first X".. then bluntly, you haven't tried hard enough. In other words, there is virtually nobody and nothing which is only notable for being the first "whatever". And given the concerns presented by others as to the sourcing that would be needed, there is no reason not to have a moratorium on "first" hooks. Obviously IAR would still apply - for example, a hook of "Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize" would still be acceptable even given the moratorium - because it's true, it's a big point in her life, and it's extremely well sourced. But failing an IAR instance similar to that, "first" hooks are not ideal for DYK. People don't care about who was the "first" to do X - and they won't remember it. Let's bring DYK back to interesting facts that people won't know and will care about. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
    Except WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE doesn't mention "it's a big point in their life", it encourages "unusual or intriguing". On the other hand, DYK sometimes encourages trivial non-encyclopedic bits or quotes onto a page, solely to promote a DYK hook. —Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Another one at ERRORS today. I'd object to a blanket ban on them as I'm planning on bringing Magnetic (Illit song) here via GA at some point, but we really should require queuers to open these to the gallery at minimum (see #HSwMS Gefle, Singapore Rail Test Centre).--Launchballer 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I think this one (Hazel Vincent Wallace) would have been caught by my suggestion to use other types of sources (that could prove the negative...) and to never consider obituaries (even in high-quality newspapers) as a source for "first" claims. I just don't have a good snappy way to turn this into a rule. —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
How about 'hooks with exceptional claims such as firsts require in-depth sourcing of the set'.--Launchballer 17:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
As I've said previously, I think probably the best way to reduce the error rate would be to require nominators and/or reviewers to do a google search on the claim to see if there are any other claimants. Same for "onlys".
There are certain firsts, though, that don't need extra scrutiny - well defined ones, like sporting records, for example. But a lot of them clearly do. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, you would think so, right? But just a few days ago we had:
  • ... that Anja Margetić was the first woman to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Olympics?
which turned out not to be true. RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's not exactly a sporting record though, is it? It's really just another typical "first" that happens to relate to a sportsperson. When I said "sporting record" I meant performances that go into official records - there is rarely any dispute about those. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've had enough of this

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

I think what you wrote is pretty reasonable. Let's run with that and see if results in an improvement. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm still convinced that the bulk of the issues are "first in the world hooks", e.g. a US source writing about a "first Asian" feat being taken to mean the first Asian in the world, either sloppily by the source's author, or WP:OR by the hook's writer that's not caught by the approver. It's not even just "first" hooks; many errors are where the nomination has issues like:
  1. The supporting statement from the source is not even quoted (and anyways the source doesn't support the hook)
  2. The approver doesn't catch the WP:OR, quoted or not
I fear there might be a confirmation bias on "firsts" when there are inherent DYK problems with all hooks. And sometimes, sources are just plain wrong, "firsts" or not, even if WP followed process. —Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sri Jumahaliah Hanifa

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

Prep 1

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

Sigh, another "first" hook that fails to meet scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about this, I was the reviewer of this, I just checked the sources given and it seemed good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
With "firsts", unless the source is rock solid, it's almost essential to do a google search on the claim to see what else it turns up. Maybe something along those lines could be added to the guideline? Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a strong wording that any superlative should be carefully double-checked. CMD (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
We already have "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" in the guidelines, which I think is supposed to cover that. What we really need is stricter enforcement because right now it's still too lax and too many of these errors slip through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Creation's claim to being the first seems to be unverifiable,[10] and far more high-quality sources seem willing to go to bat with El Apostol than Creation. However, if you guys prefer, I'd be willing to go with less strong wording such as "one of the first" or "is claimed to be lost". Lazman321 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
How does this wording sound?
  • ALT1: ... that the only copy of El Apóstol, widely considered to be the first animated feature film, was lost in a fire?
It makes the claim less definite and also includes attribution. The only issue is that the Vulture source (the only one I can access) does not say it's historians that claim it is the first but instead outright says that it is the first. Maybe the other source says that instead? Is it also possible that there were other animated films before El Apóstol that we don't know about, so maybe it should be "the first known animated film"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
There are plenty of quality sources that name El Apóstol as the first animated feature, and I've found only one that names Creation, so I think ALT1 should be acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Gatoclass I guess the current hook at Prep 1 can be swapped out for ALT1 then? As the proposer, I can't do it myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, @Chipmunkdavis, @Gatoclass, @Lazman321, I did add the alt hook 1. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please be extra careful with BLPs

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

Looking for help on squid hooks

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

☛ Template:Did you know nominations/Pholidoteuthis adami

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

Back to 1/day soon

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

@Kusma, I think switching to 2 days messed up a special occasion for June 1. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I kicked that back by three days at the start of the spurt, so it should be where it's supposed to be.--Launchballer 23:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on QPQs

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

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

reviewing a double nom should be fine, I don't know of any reason we'd require two separate nominations? Unless I missed something... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, sounds good. I'm asking because the banner could be interpreted to mean "nomination subpages", not "articles that have been nominated". – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it's just an oversight. Perhaps the one who wrote the banner's text forgot that multi-article nominations are a thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I updated it to 'an extra article'.--Launchballer 09:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Launchballer. To make it more clear, I'd suggest "an extra article for each page nominated" rather than "an extra article per nomination", because people might interpret "nomination" to mean "subpage" and not "nominated article". (WP:DYKUBM has the same ambiguous word choice, as well.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKUBM says "editors who have nominated twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ for every new nomination until the backlog mode ends". If I recall the discussions when it was implemented correctly, that does mean per nomination, not per article. TSventon (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I see. It would be great if we can find the discussions where the backlog mode was implemented, but to have the requirement be to provide 2 "subpage" reviews and not 2 reviews of "nominated articles" seems rather counter-intuitive, as it would seemingly discourage reviews of multi-article nominations. That's why I'm suggesting that WP:DYKUBM be rephrased, as currently, it could be interpreted either way. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Epicgenius, My recollection is that you queried this when backlog mode was first introduced and the consensus was that a two article nomination in backlog mode would need two plus one (three) QPQs, rather than two plus two (four) QPQs. Obviously the latter interpretation would discourage multi-article nominations. TSventon (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, okay @TSventon. I misunderstood what you meant; sorry about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Does reviewing a nomination with two articles count as two QPQs? As in Template:Did you know nominations/Modulightor Building. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, see theleekycauldron's answer at the beginning of the thread. TSventon (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

"Football" hooks

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 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 Theleekycauldron who wrote much of the current guidelines, as well as to our resident soccer expert SounderBruce and our other American football contributor 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 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:
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 Amakuru wrote 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. 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)
    ... 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 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:

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)

... 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".[11][12] —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)
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 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)
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)
Narutolovehinata5, I honestly think some of this is coming from a disagreement on where the line in the sand is in regards to "how much of a hook needs to be fully understood by most users of EngWikipedia" for it to be "interesting to a general audience". I think some of us draw the line as "is it grammatically correct English with fairly straightforward language?" If so, then its good. Others lean more towards a fuller exposition of the hook before deeming it appropriate for Wikipedia. My comment on increased scrutiny comes from comments from reviewers, approvers, and DYK regulars where sports terms need to be more explained, while other subjects are fine with terminology that is most assuredly not well-known to the general audience, with this all getting wrapped into the idea that "if people don't fully understand the hook, then it is also not interesting to a general audience". I have had comments about "scoring a touchdown" stating that touchdown is not a well-known term, yet somehow "scoring a goal" or something similar is fine. I understand that football (soccer) is more widely followed, but most English speakers can infer that "scoring a touchdown" means gaining points during some type of game, even if they don't fully understand the concept of a touchdown. With that basic grasp of knowledge, a hook that says teams combined for a record number of touchdowns in an NFL game becomes interesting to a general audience, because we can safely assume that English Wikipedia readers have a basic grasp of English. This becomes especially true when nominators provide additional links to terms in the "gray area" of well-known knowledge in the English speaking world. I very much believe, having read DYK almost daily for 20 years, that the acceptability of complex terminology, hooks that aren't easily understood outside of specific fields of study, or "confusing hooks that are written that way to drive clicks" is quite high across the board, excluding AmerFoot (or maybe all sports) hooks (there is obviously the possibility of my own bias here, because I write almost exclusively in AmerFoot). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree on touchdowns/goals; these things (means to score) are easy to transfer from one sport to the other, and not fundamentally different from many other team sports like basketball or hockey. Other concepts can be quite different, like whether there is a designated attacking and defending team. From a European perspective, the most alien things about American sports are that there is no promotion/relegation between leagues and that player careers often involve universities. But American culture has been exported so successfully that even those strange things may be widely enough known to be safe to assume. —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Its not even safe to assume that an American knows the basics of American sports... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

How to move forward

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

Queue 7 26 May 0:00

Torta caprese (nom)

Having doubts as to whether Cookist and Food 52 really are reliable enough sources for this "Italian-American mafia" picture hook. @Vacant0, BeanieFan11, History6042, and Chiswick Chap: Hoping you have a strong reassuring argument here as I wasn't able to easily find an alternate source for this hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure why we would doubt the reliablity of those two articles, considering that they were written by acclaimed food authors. If that's not enough, Freundin also mentions that according to one story the cake was made for a mafia boss [13] while The Daily Meal also mentions that the cake was made for the American mafia [14]. PBS also mentioned it on their show [15]. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and additional sources, @Vacant0. Could you please add the most reliable sources among the ones you just listed to the article? And/or, all of them? The issue is that Cookist and Food 52 are written in that breezy lifestyle blog style, which doesn't particularly inspire confidence in their accuracy, and I wasn't able to find an editorial policy on either blog stating that they fact check submissions or that they have an editorial commitment to accuracy. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I think this hook doesn't fly. I've demoted the hook and reopened for discussion but I think both the article and the hook need more work. Anyway the discussion can continue there. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please restore (pass) this DYK

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

The nomination is at WP:DYKNA; its promotion is at the discretion of promoters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, then someone can be courteous to give a reason. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Rjjiii ... that The Dark Domain, widely considered to be its author's non-self published debut in English six decades after his death, has been praised as evidence placing him "within the canon of supernatural greats"? That should take care of when it was self-published. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
"a random passing busy-body meandering 3O comment" Oof. I commented after deciding not to promote it because I did not belive that the hook met WP:V. Regarding "non-self published debut", the source says that Miroslaw Lipinski translated Grabiński's storied and published them in "The Grabiński Reader and in small press anthologies", the Reader being "home-printed". I think the most direct reading of that hook is that Grabiński self-published stories, not that his translator Lapinksi did so. Rjjiii (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
People can read the article to see that was the case, and it was the first time the work was published in English without self-publishing. Hooks do not have to give all of the information as long as the article does. I have no idea how to add in that it was initially self-published by his translator without being too wordy, but I don't think that is necessary. I also think that ALT0 is fine, as I described at the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@SL93, gotcha, if you think it's clear enough (especially with the context in the article), then I won't object to that, Rjjiii (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's how I took your comment and the subsequent lack of engagement. No biggie, but I still consider both ALT0 and ALT1 fine, for reasons explained in the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by it. A lot gets lost communicating only in text; that's why I explained above. From my perspective, it seems more respectful to say a hook "doesn't meet WP:V." at the nomination where it can be resolved than at WP:ERRORS where there is often nothing to do but pull the hook, Rjjiii (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rjjiii Fair enough. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I didn't notice. My bad, than. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Quality control

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

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

Queue 4

Aquilegia paui

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

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

@Z1720: "The vulnerability of this species is high, with extremely low levels of genetic diversity and low recruitment rates (Blanché et al., Reference Blanché, Molero, Rovira, Simon, Bosch and Sàez2005). A. paui appears to reproduce well by rhizomes (not by seed) in situ although it is not easily cultivated ex situ. The conservation of the endemic wild goat Capra pyrenaica subsp. hispanica, which may be overgrazing subpopulations AP2 and AP3, in Parc Natural dels Ports may be in conflict with the conservation of A. paui, as in other mountain areas in which plant conservation programmes and hunting reserves coexist (Simon et al., Reference Simon, Bosch, Molero and Blanché2001)." Rjjiii (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Thank you for citing the source. I still cannot find the reference to the goats threatening the survival of A. paui in the Wikipedia article. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720: Oh, you know, sometimes I just cannot read. I have added it here using the DYK text. I didn't add any context comparing it to other situations where game reserves and plant conservation overlap, but the cited source about that is open access if anybody wants to expand further. Pbritti, feel free to revise, Rjjiii (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
That works for me! Issue resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a day and a half ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 4. We have a total of 290 nominations, of which 134 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has decreased by 18 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4 (7 June)

Mickey Volcan

@HickoryOughtShirt?4, BeanieFan11, and Cielquiparle: This is more of a double-check, just to be sure, taking into account the new rules regarding bringing "first" or exceptional hooks under scrutiny. This is a request to make sure that the hook sourcing and the fact is watertight. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (25 May 12:00)

Taraxacum mongolicum

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

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

Stray Kids

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

@RoySmith: If you mean other sources besides the billboard sources, there are also Rolling Stone "...,making the K-pop group the first act to debut at Number One with their first six charting albums, the publication reports." and Forbes "...,becoming the first act in the nearly 69-year history of the Billboard 200 to debut at No. 1 with their first six albums."— Shenaall (t ♣ c) 02:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Chill Guy

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

While I understand the sentiment, requesting for an image slot is generally discouraged at WT:DYK, partly because doing so would add additional work for editors, and partly because granting requests can be seen as unfair for other editors who don't make such requests. Plus, we only have a limited number of image slots, so not all such requests can be granted anyway, just like not all nominations with a picture are assured of running with an image. After all, if editors request for an image slot all the time, it could lead to concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Ahh I figured as much, thank you at least for the reply, cheers! 🙂 Johnson524 04:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, if the article text is correct (Despite the success of the artwork, Banks wrote on his Twitter account on November 21, 2024, that he had copyrighted it. Banks further stated he had issued notice and take downs against "mainly unauthorized merchandise and shitcoins" using the artwork for profit; stating "I do not, and will never, endorse or condone any crypto-related projects involving my work," but clarified this did not impact brand accounts using the artwork as a trend.) then the Commons can't offer this with a CC0 waiver, right? Rjjiii (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

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

@Theleekycauldron I didn't see any discussion so I demoted and re-opened two of the hooks you bumped. Maybe the discussion can continue there, so it's all in one place. Suggest that if you're going to bump hooks but aren't going to demote them, maybe bump them to the very last Prep set so they don't "spoil" the next Prep set that could be eligible for promotion to Queue. (I should add that I added one hook to Queue 2 which Launchballer bumped to Prep 3, as Prep 3 already had too many US and sports hooks.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Will keep in mind, thanks :) I wanted to keep them close by so that the nominators didn't feel too slighted by my more subjective choices, but the bottom prep is where bumped hooks are supposed to go and i don't mind using it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

KUAT-TV (nom)

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

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

Wicked! (nom)

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

I agree that this totally fails on WP:DYKGRAT. I searched for book reviews and read the first few in the search results:
Not a single one even mentions this, so clearly mainsteam book reviewers don't consider it important. Yet we want to put it on the main page as the single most interesting thing we could find to say about the book? RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
On your last sentence, Jilly Cooper is an incredibly famous author, and probably the best-known international British female author until the TERF came along. I think readers will know and be interested. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, given that Cooper is basically known for writing "bonkbusters", it might seem a little odd to ignore the central appeal of her writing.
The article also discusses the difference in tone from her previous books, which are much more raunchy, and the condom use is an example of that. So this does not strike me merely as a tangential fact highlighted because of its sexual content - rather, it represents a change in style from the author's earlier novels. It might help, however, if the article expanded a little on the "changes in sexual mores" hinted at in one of the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Could I invite someone to re-review now that new hooks are proposed? @Gatoclass or @Kingsif, perhaps? I think some version of ALT3 should work, Rjjiii (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Jacques Drollet (nom)

@DragonflySixtyseven, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: A few things here; first, the source for the hook says something slightly different:

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

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

Throughout that Maxim article, several members of the Brando family are mentioned by full name or first name, but the bare surname "Brando" is used only when referring to Marlon Brando. The paragraph from which the hook is sourced refers to "Marlon Brando" and "Christian". Also, note a few paragraphs earlier: "But he never returned to the island after 1990, when a series of events—beginning with the conviction of his son Christian".
I also found several sources where Drollet, e.g., rejected Marlon Brando's public apologies (something like "he is an actor. He lies and cries like a horse runs") and otherwise blamed him for what had happened, but I didn't consider them relevant to an article about Drollet.
As for the city website, I'll see if I can do better, but I don't have much time today. DS (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, that could also be right. Is there a contemporaneous source that has a more definitive answer? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that the crux of that segment of the article is "why Marlon Brando did not return to Tahiti even though he had hoped to die there", how insistent are you that I find one? DS (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: It'd make me feel better, but you're probably right, so I won't insist :) I'm still going to pull this for now because of the unresolved sourcing issues in the article – those shouldn't be too difficult to deal with, but there's not a whole lot of time left until air and I want to make sure this queue fully checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Confirm that your sole issue is now the statement about the school? DS (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
yep, that'd be enough for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Better? DS (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I truly wasn't expecting tahiti-infos.com to be reliable, but it is an actual syndicated newspaper, so yes, awesome! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Pilot (Arrested Development) (nom)

@Crystal Drawers and Soman: The article sources substantial amounts of texts to DVD extras (i.e. about the same as a press release), a fansite interview (at best, as reliable as a blog post from the interviewee), and an early-2000s review from a website called DVD talk. I don't think those sources are really reliable, and they definitely shouldn't be used as heavily as they are. Could the sources be replaced? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

DVD extras are generally allowed in television articles, and I see a lot of television episode articles do tend to use them (ex. Weight Gain 4000 uses the episode's commentary track for a substantial amount of the production section, as does You Only Move Twice, Lisa the Skeptic, and many others). I think the blog post is realiable, given it’s an interview with a major crew member on the series. The DVD talk source could probably be replaced, as it's used to just show off the release date of the set rather than using as a review; but finding other sources might be hard, I’ll search, however. Crystal Drawers (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I’ve replaced the DVDTalk source with one of TVShowsOnDVD.com, which is used in a few pieces of television featured content (The Simpsons season 1 for example) Crystal Drawers (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Crystal Drawers: I'll admit to not knowing the standard practice of TV article writers more broadly – despite having written many TV episode articles myself – but articles need to be based on independent sources, and I don't think that DVD extras count as independent. I also don't think tvshowsondvd.com is a reputable TV criticism site, it mostly looks like a website that was active at around the time the pilot was released. I can't speak to the contents of other articles, but I will say that all of them passed FA in 2010 or earlier, when standards were much lower. Self-published sources are really only reliable to make claims about their authors, and only sometimes, and definitely can't be used for claims about other living people. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments :)
I have gone through some manual of style guides for writing Television articles, and found this, which states that DVD commentaries and behind the scenes documentaries (both categories which all the DVD extras used fall under) seem to be considered okay. I don’t know if this guide is supposed to be used for fact or was just written by a user a long time ago but I still think that all the TV episode articles that use DVD bonus features prove they are reliable sources. I have yet to find something that contradictes that or says that DVD sources shouldn’t be used. I’m not too sure about the TvShowsOnDVD thing, but since a lot of other articles (older articles, albeit) use it and have never been complained about in that manner, I also think it’s okay. I think that the previously used DVDTalk was a better site (given it has been around for years and has offered reviews and facts on thousands of DVD releases throughout the years), but you also found it to not be reliable. I don’t know if this makes it more notable or not, but the website does have its own page here, so take that as you will. If you have any more concerns, please let me know (as I am trying to fix up the article), but for now I am not too sure on how to fix the situation Crystal Drawers (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Crystal Drawers: Thanks for the research you've put into this so far! I think we're gonna need a fair amount of time to resolve this and there's only a couple of days left before air, so I'm going to pull the hook out of queue for now. We can talk further on the nompage :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: No prob!
ive actually gone back and reduced the use of primary sources, and added much more secondary sources, just letting you know Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
sounds great! I'll take a look when I'm done with this queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Nizaa language (nom)

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

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

@Theleekycauldron: I'm totally fine with changing the hook to something along the lines of did you know "that one of the alternate names of the Nizaa language was nyam-nyam or cannibal in the Fula language, despite there being no evidence that the Nizaa were cannibals"? I am a bit new to this process, so if a hook was changed now, would it have to go back for review or would it just go back to the queue/prep area? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the most interesting part about the "nyam-nyam" fact is that it, almost certainly, comes from other people talking about the population in such a negative way and this is part of a pattern of anthropological mishandling if not worse. How would we get that into a hook? As it is, the current hook is actually pretty strong so unless an alternative can be written in a really good way is it worth it. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
The sources don't actually mention why the word 'cannibal' was ever used in the first place, and I can't really talk about the anthropological implications withiut WP:OR concerns beyond the Nizaa being labeled as cannibals but not actually being ones. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean, racist or offensive exonyms aren't exactly uncommon, are they? The classic example is that Berber comes from barbarian and many Native American group names come from some form of word meaning "enemy", but to reach for an example from Africa, I'd go for the fact that Hausa may come from a exonym implying that the people are uncultured bushman.[16] That's admittedly a subjective concern, but, @Theleekycauldron, given the lack of follow-up in the article/sources about how the name came to be, I'd be a little uncomfortable putting "hey, this group of people are cannibals!" on the front page. Yes, okay, technically the hook says "is known by", but we know a certain percentage of readers are gong to do a little "there's no smoke without fire"-style reading and arrive at the conclusion that they are cannibals. I know this won't be a view shared by everybody, but I'd much rather be excessively cautious when it comes to describing ethnic conflicts (or repeating (dis?)information that likely originates from such a dispute!) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Given the concerns raised about a hypothetical 'nyam-nyam' hook, would you still be comfortable using it, or would you rather use the hook in the queue right now? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I need some more time to think about/workshop this one, so I've bumped it back to prep 2 for now. Sorry about that, but I wasn't comfortable signing off on the hook as-is. Will get this worked out once I've finished verifying the rest of the queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
No problem. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7: I'm also a little stuck on how Nizaa came to be known as nyam-nyam. Is it because of the other language in the Adamawa region? Is that language derived from the pejorative? How'd the pejorative come to be a nickname for either language? Would it be accurate to say that nyam-nyam was a mislabeling of Nizaa? Sorry, just a bit lost :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: nyam-nyam (or cannibal in the Fula language) seems to be a (mis)labeling of the Nizaa language. The sources never actually mention how or why the language was labeled in that way? Earlier linguists then got confused with other language in Adamawa Region also called/known as nyam-nyam (possibly this language but I'm not sure). Later linguists (which actually distinguish the two languages) don't mention much about the other language. Blench (1993) doesn't mention any details of the other language besides that it was spoken in Adamawa, linguists confused Nizaa and it, and that it is unrelated to Nizaa. Hope this clears up the confusion. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much, PI7! I think GLL is right – without a clear story from RSes, I don't think there's enough to go on to craft a well-informed hook about really contentious information. I do think that the current hook does need to be trimmed pretty aggressively, though, so how about something like:
  • ... that until the 1990s, linguists often confused the Nizaa language with a similarly named local language?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Yes, that looks great! Could you please update the hook on the preparation page? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
aaand done! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Minor question, but would it be useful to wikilink the word "linguists" in the hook? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7: I think it'd mostly be a distraction – the vast majority of people know what a linguist is, and don't need to click the link to understand the hook. I'd rather people read the article you made and I vetted than the one I haven't looked at and isn't super relevant. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Crazy About One Direction (nom)

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

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

Also worth noting that the news sources don't talk about the homoerotic fan art, but I do still give Asquith 2016 more weight as a peer-reviewed source from after the fact. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
yeah the asquith source mentions the homoerotic fan art; sure, don't mind changing it to "rumour" (british english preferably, since the documentary is british) jolielover♥talk 07:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Seconding since rumour seems more well-supported than hoax. We might want to specify that it was a false rumor though? BuySomeApples (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Robin Adair Harvey (nom)

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

For your information leeky, I just promoted two sports hooks to prep 4 that had requests for this set and swapped out this set's quirky hook. As there is a hole in this set, I suggest filling it with one of them.--Launchballer 09:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer Really not sure if this is a good idea. I know this was requested, but this would mean two sports hooks in a set, which is something that we tend to avoid (yes, I know they're from different sports). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
We tend to avoid two sports hooks in a set? Why, and since when? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
There already were two sports hooks in the set (I bumped Leander Wiegand, an American football hook), and two is expressly allowed per WP:DYKVAR. I'd even say let all three in.--Launchballer 10:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
If this is the Hall of Fame special occasion request, it was discussed a while back. I felt like having all three was a bit of an overkill (the original plan was for a triple hook). If there's consensus for two then so be it, just having all three seemed like too much given DYKVAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Per #Question / date request, the original was six separate hooks. We've run two triple hooks this week and they're two of the three most viewed hooks this month.--Launchballer 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
There's already an American football hook of mine in that set – What's wrong with swapping it with a different sportsperson hook like Howell or Miranda? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I plan on swapping it with Howell when prep 4's queued.--Launchballer 19:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
It's done.--Launchballer 12:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer Your constant swapping of hooks between Queues and Prep sets is dizzying. At minimum you should notify the set promoter @Z1720 that they are now short by one hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: If hooks are being pulled, I kindly ask that a hook be promoted from the preps, instead of moving around queue hooks. This makes it easier for other editors without template rights to fill in the gaps that are left over. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, it hadn't occurred to me to do that as I'd planned on filling the hole myself, which I have now done.--Launchballer 13:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the HOF writes the profiles in part based on the nomination for that person they received, and they require all nominations to have newspapers etc. to verify what is stated. Thus, presumably whoever originally nominated Adair for the HOF provided newspaper or school records for the detail, or else I don't think they would've included it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept that level of sourcing elsewhere ("this organisation was given the information by someone using sources which we are told are reliable but that we can't verify, therefore this organisation is a reliable source for that information" ... doesn't work does it?), an actual contemporary (or otherwise reliable) source needs to be provided really. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Why would we not accept a top Delaware sports organization verifying information and then writing about that verified information on their website? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, I guess it would depend on how exactly it collects and verifies its information. I don't think it being a top state sports organization is, on its own, a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" – we'd need to know at a minimum where their information comes from and how rigorous the editorial process is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The review and selection process is detailed here. Arguably it seems there are more eyes on each award submission from different members of the community, such that if anyone had any reason to doubt the claim, they would have raised it. I do think an injury like a broken foot could be considered protected health information and for this reason, organizations such as the team itself (Salisbury University) would not publish information about the injury on their pages about the athlete like here and here. (Also it is quite possible, even likely, that Adair (Harvey) was not aware of the severity of the injury until well after the event in question, such that even if a hockey game at this level was covered by the media, it wouldn't be mentioned.) In this particular case, Adair (Harvey) must have approved that information to be released to the awards organization (and that is why it is ok to mention it in this biography of a living person). This is a physical injury we are talking about and the only people who would know about it for sure either way are Adair's doctor and insurance companies and coaches (who would not discuss this information publicly unnecessarily), the player herself, and her family. I can see how maybe everyone would feel more comfortable if she gave a big interview where she discussed the injury...but even then the journalist would be taking her at her word. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The other thing is that "broken foot" is quite a broad term and could mean anything from a relatively minor fracture of part of the foot to something more major. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it'd be too hard for a journalist to verify the information if it were true – there's teammates, coaches, friends in the school, other people who could verify. Given that this is an impressive story in a place where you'd generally expect to find impressive stories, I'd be surprised if this were true without a local journalist ever having written about it. Stranger things have happened, I guess! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not her foot was broken in the moment that she scored the game-winning goal is something only the player herself can know, and even then, she may never be sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I have looked at everything now including all the coverage about Adair's performance in the match in question at the time. The main reason to reject this hook just comes down to the fact that it's a "one-sentence wonder" – you make a DYK hook about something, you go to the article and the original source, there is no additional depth provided about the claim in either. There is not enough information available to publish a hook like that on the main page, because we're promising more detail about the fact in question that simply isn't available. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite, Theleekycauldron, and Cielquiparle: This is running tomorrow, so to clarify: is this good to run, or does it need to be bumped/pulled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm just a bit surprised that there isn't a contemporary source for it, if it's that much of a big deal. Having said that, the article depends almost entirely on local press sources since the subject has never really done anything notable outside local sports, so perhaps that's not entirely surprising. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
This is actually due to run on 29 May (we're on 26 May).--Launchballer 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Just pull it. Even if it we had more sources for it, maybe we don't want to glofify athletes who play through severe injuries, nor celebrate their coaches who encourage them to do so. The subject deserves a better hook anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't get how this is a valid reason to pull. It's sourced to a source we have no reason to distrust, and is an interesting fact. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
What's wrong with highlighting athletes making impressive accomplishments like this? What "coaches who encourage them" are we celebrating? I thought what matters is that the hook is interesting... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Given how the issue seems unresolved, I've bumped off the hook to Prep area 4 for now until we can get some clarity on the hook issue. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the source is problematic and I think the hook is fine as is, but the other issues raised by Cielquiparle, Theleekycauldron, and Black Kite do raise concerns and unfortunately it doesn't seem like they will be resolved in time for the planned special occasion run. I do disagree with Cielquiparle that "one-sentence wonder" hooks are an issue (I've done several of them in the past myself), but again, with the concerns raised, it's clear that this does need a bit more time in the oven. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I filled the hole.--Launchballer 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Well, I spoke with Harvey and it turns out she didn't score a goal in that game... (though everything else in the HOF bio was correct) – I'll see if I can write up a new hook. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
What an odd situation. As the original reviewer for the hook, I'm shocked the HOF bio had as many holes as it did, especially for appearing reputable. Along with 'glorifying playing through injury', I'll keep these in mind in future reviewing 🙂 Johnson524 00:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Octo Mundi Miracula (nom)

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

Franco was only used for descriptive elements, because her work is the most detailed. It wasn’t used for anything remotely debatable. The two scholars that Franco worked under are both reputable and relevant to the topic: [17][18] The work has also been cited by another publication.[19] Onceinawhile (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Tobin’s work is a lecture series. She has excellent credentials.[20]
She published on this topic in BAR two decades ago:[21]
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Okay, seems like Tobin is a subject-matter expert, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence., which I don't think is true of Franco. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "descriptive elements", but pretty much all of the body prose is sourced to Franco and it does contain some analysis, so it's not like the use of the thesis is for limited background details. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
“Significant scholarly influence” is a relative judgement. In a super-niche topic like this one, one citation is undoubtedly significant.
I can resource those citations, as all of them I have read elsewhere. But it does seem an unnecessarily painful exercise.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, sorry to be a nag – just bad luck that I was the reviewing admin, I think. Since re-citing is tedious, I'm going to pull the hook to give you as much time as you need. Ping me when you're done and I'll happily put it back in prep :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: please could you put it back? I will make the time to fix the citations now. Otherwise you are hitting me twice. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, I haven't actually taken the hook out yet, so sure, if you can do it in the next day or two :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
OK. Doing it now. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: all done. Poor Ms. Franco has been exorcized from our article. You will note that one of the sources I have added is also a thesis. But this time a PhD thesis. I don’t believe there is any other choice if we are going to note the detailed diffusion of the work through later artists, as no other 500-page monographs exist on the topic.
Per the guidance, the PhD thesis has been used with the utmost care. The supervizing professors have good credentials, and the author published three years later in a journal on a related topic. The excerpt used (and quoted in the footnote) is from the English-language abstract of the article - by definition the abstract is the most robust part of any thesis. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile - Ms Franco could be included in External links. — ERcheck (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I have demoted her to that section. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and you've even added more content to the body, too, which assuages a backburner worry I had. Perfect, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Leander Wiegand (nom)

Pulling this one because of substantial problems with the hook and article; see nompage for further discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (30 May 00:00)

United States government group chat leak

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

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

It's in the section "White House internal investigation" which cites this article in The Guardian. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, I see where it talks about the White House, but I still don't see where "Rough Rider" is mentioned. RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith I've added it in now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I said at the nom that "I see multiple paragraphs that require {{cn}} and these should be attended to." They still require {{cn}}. Not sure why this was approved anyway.--Launchballer 20:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer It was a misunderstanding. Because you keep referring to it as {{cn}}, more than one editor including myself interpreted that to mean that there were "citation needed" tags within the article that needed to be resolved. One editor hunted for "cn" tags and only found one and resolved it, and thought they were done. Anyway I've now gone through and added a couple more footnotes so that every paragraph has one at the end of it. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

2005 Vietnamese football match-fixing scandal

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

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

That's fair. I thought the hook reflected somewhat positively on them, but I could also see an angle relating to DYKBLP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree I saw it as positive and don’t think there is an issue. They are also not named. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the above DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I also do not see how the hook violates DYKBLP, especially how it shows that they feel regret about their actions and the hook is intended to be positive, not negative. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Cave Johnson Couts

@AirshipJungleman29 Hey there, I saw that you removed the part about Couts being a San Diego pioneer from the hook. I think this removed imagery of a classic Western gunslinger cowboy cracking his whip is a major part of the hook's hookiness. What do you think? (Also, I thought post-promotion edits to the hook would be logged on the nom's talk page?) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, I think that our worldwide audience, like me, would be less likely to get that image from "San Diego pioneer" and more likely to just be confused. The image you describe it producing is rather famous anyway, and it's the other parts of the hook that are actually intriguing and unusual. As for changes, I think that bot's been broken for a while now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

27 June

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

The date is just within the six-week requirement so it's technically feasible (the nomination was on May 17 and six weeks after that is June 28). The date is Tunick's birthday so I have no issue with the request being fulfilled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both! Remember (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

John P. Morris

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

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

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

A rephrase could be
"…that John P. Morris won a strike by putting pigeons into fur coats"
Changes:
removing ‘first’; it’s still interesting no matter which strike it it
removing ‘live’; it’s still interesting—if not more—if they aren’t
Sorry for bad formatting, I’m trying to get to sleep. Roasted (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
That all works for me. Remember (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
That is probably a better hook tbh. Another thought: "hiding" might be a stronger verb, like below.
Also, someone should likely go back over the article's text. This is borderline, and it's cited, but it would definitely not hurt to clearly rephrase it. Rjjiii (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah hiding is better. And when you say to rephrase, are you saying to retype the sentence on the article proper? Roasted (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I meant in the article proper, Rjjiii (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Swapped with RJJ's suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Chill Guy

@Johnson524, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Cielquiparle: a few things. Firstly, neither the article nor the source mentions that the meme helped "Hinoki Wood" to debut on the music chart—rather that it helped it to peak at number two. Similar for "was promoted by the president of El Salvador"; either the article needs to explicitly say that or the hook needs to be modified. Finally, I'm not certain that "a drawing of a dog ... had its original creator doxxed" is grammatically correct; some workshopping may be needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I suppose the word "debut" can be replaced with "peaked", which would be correct   For your second concern, the article states "The coin's growth was driven in part by a post from Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele on his official Twitter account", how does this not show promotion? The words "driven in part by" I suppose could be replaced with "promoted", but I feel like that's splitting hairs, especially since "driven in part by" is slightly more accurate, but too long to sound catchy in a hook imo. Lastly, if you have any specific suggestions on how to rework the hook to be more grammatical I'd be happy to implement them, but I don't see any issues with it myself. Thanks for the double check and cheers! Johnson524 17:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
 Done Changed "debut" to "peak" (important fix). Changed "had its original creator doxxed" to "got its original creator doxxed". "Was promoted by" is fine/factually correct but switched the order to be more logical/chronological and read more smoothly. Hook now reads:
... that a drawing of a dog was promoted by the president of El Salvador, caused an unaffiliated song to peak on the TikTok Billboard Top 50, and got its original creator doxxed?
Cielquiparle (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all concerns resolved with satisfaction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you so much for the fixes @Cielquiparle! Johnson524 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Església de Sant Serni de Canillo

@Jon698, Dumelow, and Cielquiparle: there is considerable information in the sources which is not yet included: details of the structural layout and interior artwork, extensive details on the history, about the bell, etc. I'd say that until much of this information is included, this very short article (only 20 bytes above the minimum limit and only because of a relatively massive lead) fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

A significant amount of the history in that article is not about the church. I don't see what additional information in the bell article that could be added besides the weight. What would you like added from the "details on the structural layout and interior artwork"? Jon698 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree that the information in the "History" section of the linked source is largely unusable if you are using machine translation to read it in English. (Very unclear what it is trying to say and as @Jon698 says, seems to be less about the building itself.) Agree there is not really more to add re: bell from the other source linked.
Added a sentence about the nave and choir, and another sentence about the altarpieces. Currently stands at 1955 characters. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks Cielquiparle! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC on DYK and COI

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)

New discussion

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)

Background

The previous RfC, which was started by Thriley, came in the wake of two nominations by 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.

Discussion (DYK and COI)

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

I think a page that is seen by a larger segment of the community than this one would be the best location for this. The implications of allowing paid articles on the front page are serious. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I am the editor who closed the previous discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini - I felt myself that it was in the wrong venue and multiple editors had already said as much. To an extent, I also agree with Thriley but I think this is probably the best venue for an initial discussion. If necessary, it could be advertised at and/or moved to WT:Main page and WP:Village pump but I do think discussion about what should be allowable in WP:DYK should be held here. As other editors said in the previous discussion, where a paid edit has been clearly disclosed and is in line with both the English language Wikipedia's policies and the Wikipedia Foundation's terms, I see no issue with a DYK nomination from a non-paid editor based on a paid editors contributions. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Quick questtion- original RfC said "articles created for payment", while this version expands that to "conflict of interest". Before this gets underway, is there a reason this RfC went for a much broader scope? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I don’t appreciate that the wording was changed. This is about paid editing. Thriley (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

There was some discussion at Talk:Graham Rossini prior to the opening of the original RFC at that page which I closed. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I should have also mentioned, there was some objection in that discussion. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that the objection came only from Thriley. The closed RfC found support in the limited time it was open, which is in line with the lack of objections when this was previously discussed here. I think there is merit to further discussion, which could shift perspectives, but as it stands the existing discussions do already indicate some consensus on this matter. CMD (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree, further discussion might have merit. I don't think it would have been all that useful in the initial venue, though. As I said above, I don't really see any issue, but paid editing on Wikipedia can be a very touchy subject so if anyone has legitimate concerns they want to voice here that I haven't considered I am happy to be convinced. Adam Black talk • contribs 05:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
My view remains the same as it was a day or two ago, when I posted it at the previous discussion, so I'm linking to it, rather than repeating it here. (Since editors here are taking specific note of the issue of paid editing, I'll add that what I said still applies the same way to WP:PAID.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Mine as well.--Launchballer 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis. What Sammi is doing should be fine, but we have had questionable cases in the past like TonyTheTiger and his sister. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think that Tony did all of those things when writing an article on a family member, and almost nobody was okay with it. Rjjiii (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The issue with Tony's case was not the COI itself, it was the circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, editors interpreted his nomination as a way to promote his sister, not helped by the fact that he wanted it to run on her birthday (which at the time was not in the article). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I believe it should be permissible in the case of COI editing, with the caveat that the COI should clearly be stated in the nomination, and that the reviewer should apply extra scrutiny. For paid editing, it shouldn't be allowed at all. My reasoning behind this is that content on the Main Page is intended to set an example for the rest of the encyclopedia. For COI editing, a transparency requirement and a stricter DYK review can be good arguments for it setting an example for future COI editors. Meanwhile, paid editing isn't an ideal we should strive for at all – especially not paying for content that will end up on the Main Page, without readers knowing that the article was paid for. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I hate to be that guy, but this is a bad RfC. Most participants can't even agree on what the RfC is about (paid or COI) and are directly contradicting the RfC statement. The responses are all over the place, proposing several different solutions at once but in such vague terms that most aren't actionable. This is much closer to an RFCBEFORE than an actual RfC and I don't think a closer could reasonably read any specific consensus out of it – in fact, I don't think it needs closing at all. I encourage participants to let the discussion get archived and then, if they wish, refine the suggestions here into a new RfC on several specific proposals. Toadspike [Talk] 10:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Broken WP:DYKN transclusions?

@Gatoclass and Theleekycauldron: DYK specializing admins, I'm seeing all the nominations on WP:DYKN starting May 23 not being transcluded, but just appearing as a link to each template. I think the issue has to do with the last entry on May 22, Template:Did you know nominations/2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay - when I edit the page, and preview removing that, the others start showing up. I'm guessing that's either too long a title, or has too many special characters, or both. --GRuban (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

known bug, see WP:PEIS – only so much text can be transcluded onto the page at once :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Today I learned... --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Editing T:TDYK to remove that nom and showing preview shows a couple of extra noms, not all of them. Backlog mode should take care of them. (Is there a way of sorting nominations by bytesize? I tested Easter Oratorio and that would unveil about a third on its own.)--Launchballer 00:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
For the love of Opera, someone approve that DYK! --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer If you don't mind, is it okay if you take a look at the Easter Oratorio nom and approve one of the open suggestions? I'm personally okay with ALT4 and ALT5, but I'd like a second opinion on whether or not they're broadly interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I thought one of them more than the other, so ticked that one.--Launchballer 02:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

For your consideration -- July 2 holding ...

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

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

WP:DYKSO applies here: it seems you are proposing a novel special occasion set, which would need consensus here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for calling that out, for some reason I was thinking there was a four hook threshold, but obviously I was incorrect. Given that, I'll strike the holding request for the first two. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that there's no consensus to have a World UFO Day set, you will have to only pick one out of the three; the others will have to run as regular hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
DYKSO does not require a special occasion set to be approved. Chetsford did what DYKSO says, which is request them to be held for a specific date, and from what I can see, they are being requested within the timeframe allotted (between 1-6 weeks before the date). It's up to the prep-builders and admins if they want to accept the hold requests or not. This isn't a request for a novel thematic set that would need approval here. It's simply a request to hold hooks for a specific date. A novel thematic set would be a set that runs every year, and/or that is a full set of hooks. There is no defined barrier between what qualifies just as holding hooks for a thematic date and what would be classified as a "thematic set", but it's certainly much more than half the set (i.e. 3 hooks, that Chetsford is asking to be held).
Furthermore, even if there is some unwritten "limit", the hooks proposed are not so related to UFOs as for me to oppose such a same-date run. Only two of them directly reference UFOs in the hook, for example, and from my look, the first one (Disclosure movement) could likely have a last slot hook that doesn't say UFO in the hook be prepared. For example: "that the TV show Ancient Aliens speculated the CIA caused Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to prevent the disclosure of purported information about aliens".
Ultimately all three of these topics are relevant to the date proposed, and if the preppers can fit them in in a way that works with the set, I don't see this as a DYKSO problem - since this isn't going to be something that there is likely to be a full set to run every year. I would encourage Chetsford to maybe look at whether other hooks can be proposed for them that may not focus so much on their UFO-ness - that way there's less of a "special occasion" concern. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
The relevant part is here (emphasis mine): Occasionally, DYK will run thematic sets; these cannot be put together on a whim, and novel thematic sets must be approved at WT:DYK. Technically it's not a full set, but I think the spirit stands. Another issue is WP:DYKVAR: guidelines recommend no more than two hooks of a similar topic or nature running per set. Occasionally that could be broken, but that would require consensus at WT:DYK and an explicit IAR exemption. I can see one or at most two hooks being allowed to run, but all three and/or a full set would be a tall order. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
My understanding of two hooks of a similar topic or "nature" running in a set is based on the hook, not based on the subject of the article. Hence why I recommended to Chetsford to try and make the hooks different. Even so, there's one article on a conspiracy theory (the first), one on a person (the second), and one on an event (the third) - so I think with the right hooks any concerns about topic/nature could be resolved. I'm happy to be wrong here, but I don't necessarily agree with there being a hard limit of 2 hooks on a topic without some pre-approval. If you think it's necessary, then consider me as a support for these articles running on the date proposed (and I'm fine with current hooks too) - since this is the proper place to discuss/seek support anyway. There's more than a month to get support for the date request before it comes by - so if someone feels it's necessary, I'd find it more respectful to just start the discussion over them rather than saying "you didn't comply with some unwritten rules so you're screwed" basically. Even if that discussion ultimately ends in a SNOW closure against. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the two-article limit is explicitly stated at DYKVAR rather than it being an unwritten rule: "No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update." Now, what exactly counts as a "topic" here is subjective, but if using the broad interpretation, especially with the idea that they are being requested for a special occasion, then yes, having more than two articles about the same general idea (UFOs) would violate DYKVAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chetsford, I would support Template:Did you know nominations/McMenamins Hotel Oregon UFO Festival running on either World UFO Day date.
I have reservations about running the other two on a day meant to raise awareness about the undoubted existence of UFO’s and with that intelligent beings from outer space. We obviously should not imply that there is evidence for a crashed alien spaceship, but running these hooks on a day where UFO believers are celebrating feels a bit off. I think a kind of sideways comparison would be running stuff like blood libel and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre on August 24. In the same way a Catholic reader might find that disrespectful, we do have readers who will have UFO beliefs that are political or religious. Rjjiii (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Our of respect for our Raëlian readers, or just general prep building convenience, I am fine abandoning this altogether. I just had three articles and noticed a degree of synchronicity but I think that generally this seems like more trouble than it's worth. Chetsford (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I would not mind one of the three running on the day, but having all three never seemed appropriate. Rjjiii's suggestion seems like a good compromise if you're still willing to go with that route. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please consider John C. Raaen Jr. DYK for June 6, 2025

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

Replied there.--Launchballer 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made the update as suggested. — ERcheck (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I promoted this.--Launchballer 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ralph Jarvis

@Cielquiparle, WikiOriginal-9, History6042, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: I was going to bump this back by a set to entertain the above date request, but I'm concerned that this is a WP:DYKBLP violation.--Launchballer 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Either way the hook needs to change, because this source actually doesn't say it's a "juvenile detention center". It says it's a school for juveniles who have run into problems with the law, which sounds like it is probably something different. (Maybe there's another source somewhere that used the "detention center" terminology?)
What if we changed the hook to say:
"... that Ralph Jarvis first played football at a juvenile reform school before being drafted by the Chicago Bears?
Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Slightly better, but I think mainpaging the fact that he's had trouble with the law is unduly negative.--Launchballer 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
But we are including the positive outcome, so it's actually inspirational to our readership - it is possible to pivot when you are down. There is actually quite a lot of coverage about it, beyond the Chicago Bears article, like this one specifically about Glen Mills. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The article about the Chicago Bears drafting him quotes Jarvis himself saying, "I'd like to find that judge and thank him for the way things turned out...I wasn't going to classes before I got sent to Glen Mills and the school brought me to manhood. It made me see the big picture." Cielquiparle (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Launchballer 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I already included in the pro career section "After being drafted by the Bears, Jarvis stated that he wanted to find the judge who sent him to Glen Mills schools and thank him". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Glen Mills Schools calls it a juvenile detention center. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I saw that but that claim is not sourced convincingly. I will fix it it in the other article. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Pinging @Tamzin:, who had an erudite discussion on racist NFL hooks earlier to see if this hook is, in fact, racist. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Racist? Well, it alludes to something that is a function of systematic racism (i.e., Jarvis would have been less likely to be in that position if he were white); I wouldn't say it's racist in the same way as the hook I complained about a few years ago that compared a Black athlete to a sports car someone wants to buy. I think the real question is, as you say, DYKBLP, and that can be resolved by bringing in the gratitude toward the judge, which focuses on a positive and shows he accepts the role that his incarceration has played in his life, making it neither undue nor negative. I don't think length should be an obstacle. ALT1 ... that upon being drafted by the NFL's Chicago Bears, Ralph Jarvis wanted to thank the judge who sent him to the reform school where he first played football? is 156 characters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
ALT1 sounds fine (although "football" either needs to be linked to American football, or to be specified, due to that issue discussed above). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I've gone ahead and swapped the hook with Tamzin's wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Nice. It is also a more accurate hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)

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

@SL93 Citation for used hook: "The wrecks were first found intact by amateur divers in 2002. But a new expedition to mark next year’s 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Java Sea discovered the ships were missing...While sonar shows the imprints of the wrecks on the ocean floor, the ships themselves are no longer there." From this Guardian article
May I request the hook to be pulled from the queue so that the edit dispute can be put to rest (and with some other users chiming in?) GGOTCC 02:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
GGOTCC I added the citation directly after the hook fact per DYK rules. I can pull the hook. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I see what what you meant about a direct citation. GGOTCC 02:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Gustav Conrau

This reference appears to be self-published, and not by a known expert in the field - Lebialem. Pinging Munfarid1. SL93 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Munfarid1 @WatkynBassett Would it be possible to cite a more reliable source or two for that particular paragraph? I have tagged it within the article as {{more reliable source needed}}. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I have just replaced the former source by ref. 4, which is by Bettina von Lintig, a known expert in the field. Munfarid1 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

WFTY-DT

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

Citation is on In response, Suburban Broadcasting filed a $15 million lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against Kitman and Newsday in November 1974, claiming a "willful and malicious effort to mortally injure" WSNL-TV's chances as a "viable advertising medium". Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for missing that. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Music of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom (nom)

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

I can't remember the relevant guideline, but my recollection is that bachelor or master's theses are almost never reliable. I can't remember if things change if the writer is a subject matter, but generally they're avoided unless, for example, these studies are cited by others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." SL93 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry, I'm not sure why this citation wasn't used next to that statement. This reference [1] has been added to that hook. @Cielquiparle: @SL93: @Narutolovehinata5: GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Orsini, Lauren Rae (2012-04-21). "For brony musicians, 'Friendship Is Magic' serves as muse". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2012-04-21.

Template:Did you know nominations/First Jewish–Roman War

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

@Tintor2: I recommend completing that one.--Launchballer 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I see that AirshipJungleman29 has tidied up the formatting of the review, but I don't think Tintor2 has given a clear explanation of what the problem is. I would suggest that a fresh review from another editor is needed. Also pinging @Grapesurgeon and Narutolovehinata5:. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll reply there.--Launchballer 13:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2025 St. Louis tornado

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

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

Recycling a hook?

Back in 2018, I ran:

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

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

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

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

The thing with reusing hooks is that we know how they did; this one was 244th out of 432 that month. I'd want to see an article, but I'd suggest reconfiguring somehow.--Launchballer 22:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The first hook was arguably a violation of WP:DYKINT; the second has no such problem, as it was clearly a significant event in the artist's life, as well as making for a pretty compelling hook. So, no problem with running that hook from this quarter. Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2 (5 June)

Push 2 Start

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

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

Sounder commuter rail

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

Input needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Five domains

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

Queue 3

Dalton Old Pump House

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

@Z1720 Per the discussion with @SL93 above, my !vote is to pull the hook and demote/reopen for further rework/discussion. In other news, I found a secondary source referencing the number of chandeliers at the Dalton Old Pump House – doesn't specify "boiler room", but the number of chandeliers they count is "thirty" and thus conflicts with our hook that says "fifty". I agree that at the moment there isn't much more to say than "this 19th century pumping station was converted into a wedding venue" which by definition is promotional and hence contentious (as multiple editors have raised). (To me, this is the zone of "probably survives AfD but maybe we don't need to put it on the main page". I just thought it was a rather striking photo but that's not really a good enough reason to give it the picture hook slot. We generally prefer picture hook articles to have more substance.) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the solution to just run the hook without an image? It doesn't have to run with the picture. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
No because of the source issue that has already been discussed. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I was referring to Cielquiparle's comment about the "striking photo" aspect, not the sourcing aspect. I mean that, if the sourcing aspect wasn't an issue, then if the article could run (either with the original hook or a new one) without an image. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Z1720, Moondragon21, and Cielquiparle:Thanks everyone. I've added those citations as requested. My interest in the location is merely historical and industrial-archaeological - I have no interest in promoting the business (albeit I am impressed that they have restored this previously derelict grade II*-listed building and industrial monument in an unusual and imaginative way - that's what made me think of the DYK angle). Naturally, many places (including many with DYK hooks) will be in the business of attracting visitors (albeit this one can be visited free of charge); the fact that a building has been restored (and now functions as a going concern) should not invalidate its notability. NB this is my first venture into DYK territory - I am very happy to be guided!
My issue was never about notability. None of those other hooks would point to an advertisement and that is the key difference. The place also happens to sell the building's use. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

Teuku Karimoeddin

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

@SL93: Sorry for the broken link, apparently there have been some changes to the ministry's website in the past days and it also affected the ministry's repository. I've fixed the link in the article. This is the full quote, feel free to translate it: "Tetapi pada saat Pemerintah Jepang mengeluarkan peraturan yang mewajibkan pelajar-pelajar dan mahasiswa untuk mencukur gundul kepalanya, maka para mahasiswa menyatakan penolakannya akan melaksanakan perintah tersebut. Berita tentang penolakan itu terdengar sampai keluar negeri sehingga Radio Australia memberitakan bahwa telah terjadi pemberontakan mahasiswa Indonesia di Jakarta. Kebocoran akan berita tersebut membuat Pemerintah Jepang menganggap bahwa terdapat mata-mata musuh di antara mahasiswa. Akibatnya banyak mahasiswa yang dikeluarkan atau diskors. Karimoeddin termasuk salah seorang yang pimpinan mahasiswa Ika Daigaku yang ditahan oleh Kempetai dan diskors selama tiga bulan karena ia dianggap subversi. Kemudian ia mendapat pengampunan dan boleh melanjutkan pendidikannya hingga tamat." 14:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Jeromi Mikhael How does this hook sound? ... that Teuku Karimoeddin was arrested by the Imperial Japanese military police for resisting mandatory head shaving and other regulations? SL93 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Personally this is better and more factually accurate. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

John C. Raaen Jr.

The 17th reference appears to be self-published. Pinging ERcheck. SL93 (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is from Raaen himself. Raaen kept extensive records of the Normandy landing, as he was officially tasked with writing the after-action report for the invasion month and writing up the recommendations for medals for the invasion; he was also the contact for the War Department Historian. Thus, his notes were the basis for the official record. See Larson, Brittni (July 3, 2012). "Winter Parker publishes D-Day eyewitness book". West Orange Times Observer. Retrieved 30 May 2025.
Raaen had done numerous interviews about his experiences, for example with History Net. — ERcheck (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I would like to leave in the footnote. However, I did add two secondary sources to back it up. One from BBC, and one from the Army (which verifies his climbing ot Pointe du Hoc.) — ERcheck (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
@SL93: Does the above answer your concerns? I'd like to make sure that all issues are addressed before the planned posting to the Main page on June 6. — ERcheck (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
It does. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Dalton Old Pump House

The hook's reference isn't independent of the subject. I feel like a hook should not reference an advertisement for requesting a viewing. Pinging Barabbas1312. SL93 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the home website of any commercial venue could be described as 'an advertisement for requesting a viewing', but I don't know that that necessarily invalidates it as a reference. The detail caught my eye as something unusual and intriguing and I thought it might work as a 'hook' to draw people's attention to an article about a significant but little-known building of historic engineering interest. Barabbas1312 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I won’t continue to argue my point and just let it run, but it could make it seem to our readers that DYK is advertising the place. SL93 (talk) SL93 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how the current hook can be interpreted as advertising the place. I also don't think it's an issue that the source is primary or non-independent as the hook fact is non-controversial and non-contentious. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
The hook itself does not feel like advertising. However, the citation for the hook goes to the venue's website and to a walkthrough of the Boiler Room, which is promotional/advertising.
Suggested ALT: The fact that an old water pumping station is now a wedding venue is, in itself, intriguing. An alternative hook might be: "DYK...that the Dalton Old Pump House, a former water pumping station built in the 1870s, is now a wedding venue?" — ERcheck (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Barabbas1312: Are you okay with the new proposal? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
You could also further economise and say:
Cielquiparle (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 I promoted another picture hook to Prep set 1 if you want to replace Dalton Old Pump House as too promotional and/or re-open the nomination for further discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Same name, different capitalization

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

I'm pretty sure I was able to add multiple QPQs to a nomination by adding closing and opening square brackets, in that order, e.g. (from KRCW-TV) "Template:Did you know nominations/1958 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres]] and [[Template:Did you know nominations/Stavatti Aerospace". Haven't tried it for a while though.--Launchballer 20:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Technical geography

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

Heads up for Destubathon

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

New reviewer still needed

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

I can do it in 10 hours from now if someone doesn’t get to it before me. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Second opinion added.[22] Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (4 June)

Rule of inference (Nom)

Some three hours before this went live, the following was posted at Errors:

"... that logicians using classical rules of inference can prove anything from a contradiction?" I find this very misleading. First of all, anything? Secondly, from the article: "Rules of inference are definitory rules—rules about which inferences are allowed. They contrast with strategic rules, which govern the inferential steps needed to prove a certain theorem from a specific set of premises" - right here it is stating that the rules aren't proving anything, they're rules about what is allowed. racecard

As nobody from the DYK crew has had a chance to comment, I've pulled this to allow time for discussion. I've plugged the hole with a hook from Queue 5 (kindly fill the hole I made, please). I've reopened the nomination for further discussion. Schwede66 00:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith (P6, 9 June)

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

I thought that running hooks based on bad things about living people were not allowed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, if you've been found guilty of something in the courts, the rule generally does not apply - at least, not in the same way. The problem here as I see it is that this is still an appealable judgement, and there is still a possibility, albeit perhaps slim, that the judgement could be reversed. Given that, I have my doubts this will survive on the main page once the wider community sees it. Gatoclass (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
If the High Court overrules the defamation court, the hook will remain true, although it will then be a violation of WP:DYKBLP. For the moment, it is true and not a violation of WP:DYKBLP. There is no undue weight on negative aspects—I, living in the UK, heard of the subject before the verdict because of this article on the trial. A hook on the subject which does not mention the ruling would be far more non-neutral. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, why not just wait until the High Court has ruled before running it? We could IAR on the nom time limit in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
That means a hold of over a year and possibly two, considering the subject hasn't actually appealed yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Is it not possible to just avoid mentioning the case at all? I know this was discussed multiple times before, but I really don't want another Andrew Tate fiasco to happen to us. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
As I said, not mentioning the thing that makes him a figure of worldwide notability is more non-neutral than including it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Then we should just reject the nom and move on. There's no rule that says we need to run everything that lands on our doorstep. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
That was the exact reasoning that went on with the Tate hook, and look what happened because of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't see it, but I'll bow to collective wisdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
What about the following alternatives:
or
Pinging @AirshipJungleman29, @Gatoclass, @History6042, @Narutolovehinata5 and @RoySmith. Do either of these alternatives maintain neutrality, while addressing other concerns about running this on the mainpage when he may yet appeal to the high court? TarnishedPathtalk 00:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't see any good that will come of running this. RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't see what harm will come of running it, considering it is policy compliant and is a hell of a lot more interesting than a lot of other stuff. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook. I understand the desire to run the hook, but after what happened with the Andrew Tate run a while back, we really should not try to poke the hornet's nest again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, what happened? I didn't see it. TarnishedPathtalk 00:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
It's a very long story. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 199#ANI thread - "BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, I don't really see the similuraties given that the Tate hook became an issue because there was a contention that it was a BLP violation, given that there was usage of a quote that editors thought to have been taken out of context.
I don't see how anyone could claim there are any potential BLP violatoins here or how there is anything remotely taken out of context. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
We are at a lose-lose situation here. Run with a neutral hook, and some editors will complain that running such a hook is in fact "not neutral" and "undue". Run with the proposed hook, and some editors will object on BLP grounds, or it could make a trip to ERRORS or worse ANI. There isn't a solution that will please everybody, and so the safest and probably best option is simply to decline the nomination. "Brute-forcing" a problematic hook should be discouraged, and while it's regrettable when it happens, the alternative could be worse. It is regrettable when a nomination that has seen so much effort is rejected, but not all articles are good fits for DYK and there is no shame in a nomination failing. We should not fall to the sunk cost fallacy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905)

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

Some discussion was had at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 206#Hal Hanson (American football, born 1905) (nom), but most of the lengthening was done by History6042, apparently because of DYKINT concerns. Personally I agree with BeanieFan11 that the successive changes have replaced any sort of intriguing energy with a bland befuddlement. Any chance that an admin is willing to revert the last change at least? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the original hook, but I think at least "that Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'" would be better than this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
It's becoming divergent when a particular detail is essential vs. trivial (e.g. here), especially when it come to a related sport. —Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Ironic. On the one hand there's an uproar over "but what sport?", then we place a writer's name who doesn't have a WP page (but does seem potentially notable), when "Minneapolis Tribune writer" would have provided better context, if mention of the writer was even necessary to begin with. —Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
for what it's worth, I stand by my feeling that the original hook doesn't really pass DYKINT, and despite valiant efforts, I don't think the workshopping does either. As for what qualifiers to include in terms of names of sports and publications, space is precious. The goal of hooks is to hook, and standard practice has always been to use as much detail as you need to accomplish that goal and no more. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
... and standard practice has always been to use as much detail as you need to accomplish that goal and no more: It seems that some also attempt to use less words to hook (some might say clickbait) readers. Perhaps formally decide this one way or another. It's frustrating for all when "their" nomination get tweaked but "another's" doesn't. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
For example, in the same set, * ... that in one year, 166,000 people visited a three-bedroom house with a garage that stood amid New York City's skyscrapers? gives no indication that this wasn't a run-of-the-mill house. —Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think 166K people would "visit" a random residential house. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but my point is why isnt anyone similarly insistent that "basic" information like "temporary demonstration home" be made readily available in the hook? They actually shouldn't, but it's being inconsistently raised at other hooks. —Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Lots of people have a hand in DYK. We don't all agree on the best way to do things, so it is inevitable that rules will be applied inconsistently. We could elect a hook czar who would rigidly enforce a single consistent way of doing things, but I don't think anybody would be happy with that, so we put up with inconsistency. Such is life on a collaborative project. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I get that we're crowdsourced, but it's "basic" information that we're disagreeing on. Or is this just involving (American) sports? —Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Beanie. The original hook that he suggested was excellent ... minimalist and intriguing. Adding "was said to" was also fine because it left the uncertainty and intrigue that leads a reader to want to learn more. The hook that resulted from the "workshopping" (or from one person randomly tinkering) lays out too much detail and removes the intrigue. Oh well, at least Hal Hanson gets a moment in the sun. Cbl62 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
    I'm with Beanie on this one. The original hook left enough unsaid to arouse the reader's curiosity without drifting into easter egg or clickbait territory. The associated image supports the hook with additional context. The version that we ultimately ran is overly verbose. RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Since it's still running, can we fix it? Cbl62 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The original hook was clickbait and not really appropriate IMO. As leeky said, the substitute hook could've used some more workshopping, but at least it isn't clickbait. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
for sure; to revise my answer a little bit, I can definitely see some contingent of readers looking at the original Hal Hanson hook and wondering "well, how did he make brave men wince?", leading them to click on the article. but I don't think that hook really conveyed any encyclopedic information, and there'll be a contingent of readers who are put off by that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
How does adding that "Dick Cullum said in picking the 'Minnesota all-century team'..." help in understanding the hook at all? No reader knows who Dick Cullum is and probably the vast majority have no idea what the 'Minnesota all-century team' is as well – all it has done is drive away more readers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I think that there was an honorable attempt in the revision to try and convey some kind of encyclopedic information, but yeah, the execution left the hook a little confusing and overshadowed its original charm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I would have been happy to go with either " ... that football guard Hal Hanson (pictured) "made brave men wince"?" or " ... that football guard Hal Hanson (pictured) is said to have "made brave men wince"?", ie the addition of the words "football guard" so that readers aren't clickbaited into having to open the article to find out who the heck Hal Hanson was. Having said that, yes, the hook that ended up running was pretty clunky, and maybe the original would have been better - it's just that in principle, I don't like clickbaity hooks as I think they do a disservice to the readership. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the accompanying photo showed a football player, or at least some kind of big muscular athlete. So people should have had some idea who he was before clicking. RoySmith (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

It's not about notability, I just think it's discourteous to readers to omit basic information about a person simply in order to encourage clicks. There are many people, for example, who have no interest whatever in football but might have been encouraged to click on the Hanson article just to find out what sort of person "made brave men wince" – only to find themselves looking at an article on a topic they couldn't care less about. Which means those people have been disappointed and irritated by their interaction with DYK, and that is obviously not good either for the reader or the project.
Having said that, I wouldn't go so far as to say that omission of basic info should be avoided in every case, because sometimes it's just plain impractical to do otherwise, and sometimes for a variety of reasons a hook (or a set) might read better without it. Generally speaking though, the point here is that anything likely to irritate readers should be avoided. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
yeah, what he said :) taking basic information out of the hook changes what readers take away from it. When someone reads DYK that American football guard Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'?", they understand that Hal Hanson played American football and probably did so well enough to intimidate other players, both encyclopedic facts. If they instead read DYK that Hal Hanson was said to have 'made brave men wince'?", they're wondering who on earth Hal Hanson is and why he intimidates people. Now, wonder is a hookier emotion to inspire in the reader than understanding – fundamentally, the more you can get someone to wonder, the hookier your hook is – but DYK is still an organ of an encyclopedia, and our of our basic requirements as a project is that encyclopedic text should convey encyclopedic information. (We get loose on this requirement with quirky and April Fools' day hooks, but those are special cases.) And, as Gatoclass says, we it hurts our ability to build up an audience in the long run if we promise a good story and and don't quite deliver. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
This was clearly a contentious hook and all of this discussion should have taken place prior to running on the main page. In the spirit of improving future process:
  • @Theleekycauldron As already agreed elsewhere, when "bumping" a problematic hook, please bump to the bottom empty Prep set to allow more time to fix, or go ahead and demote and re-open discussion, so that your concern is clearly captured within the nomination template itself (and the discussion can continue in one place there, rather than scattered across multiple threads here).
  • @History6042 Appreciate your being WP:BOLD and fixing the hook directly at Prep, but when you make such a big change, it really needs to be flagged at WT:DYK. Please also ping in the article creator (@Cbl62), the original reviewer (@Bagumba), and the promoter (@Plifal), so they aren't taken by surprise later. (Then if they miss your ping, at least you tried.)
  • @Cielquiparle (That's me.) I shouldn't haven't promoted the set containing this picture hook without questioning the re-wording of this particular hook. I actually remember thinking it wasn't the best wording, but incorrectly assumed it was the agreed upon outcome of the prior DYK Talk discussion, and thought it wasn't worth beating a dead horse. In hindsight, I should have gone back and read the past DYK Talk thread more carefully, and flagged my concern at WT:DYK and/or demoted/re-opened the nomination and flagged it there. (And then even if they miss your ping, at least you tried.)
Re-reading this I clearly see that I could have prevented all of this blowing up the way it did before and on the day, so I take responsibility for that. I was also just getting back into set promotion during a period when DYK seemed particularly short-staffed and misunderstood the context. @Theleekycauldron @History6042 Appreciate you were jumping in as well while we were short-staffed. And appreciate you both in general. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I think another reason we were all caught off-guard was timing: it happened to run earlier than expected due to coming shortly after a three-day sprint of two sets a day, so the apparent running date stated on the header became obsolete. Had that been updated, or at least the hook been bumped or pulled, perhaps this would not have happened. Anyway, what happened isn't ideal, but it is a learning experience that we can learn from so that it won't happen again. We can't always expect to 1-100% avoid questionable hooks slipping through the cracks once in a while, but we can at least try to prevent things from getting to that point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate the accountability, but there's many other parts to the DYK chain, and anyone can volunteer too. I think the root cause is a divide in what is "basic" and required in a hook. More objective guidance on this point is needed at WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. —Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you just propose whatever wording change it is that you are proposing? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm still trying to understand the different perspectives. —Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, @Cielquiparle, and I will start flagging it at DYK and pinging when I make a change. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Good autopsy, Cielquiparle :) For what it's worth, when I bumped the hook, I'm fairly sure I did move it to the bottom – I moved prep 1 to queue 1, emptying prep 1 and sending it to the bottom, and then bumped the hooks from queue 1 to prep 1 five minutes later, which means prep 1 was almost certainly still at the bottom at the time.
So, this was an interesting result in my ongoing experiment. I've been trying to figure out how to do quality control that I can feel good about without spawning huge discussions about subjective criteria, particularly because I tend to take stricter views of DYK guidelines than most. Those discussions are a russian roulette of which one ends up burning you out for a week or more. My thought was that I'm not obligated to sign off a hook I'm uncomfortable with, so if there's something I don't want to run, I can bump it and note my concerns but make it clear that I'm not throwing up a procedural roadblock – any other admin can still promote the hook as normal if they disagree with me.
A couple of things went wonky here. For one, I wasn't able to clearly put my finger on why I wasn't comfortable with the hook. I thought it was a DYKINT concern, but it was more of a concern about whether the hook had substance. That created some confusion and led to the hook being workshopped in a way that caused consternation. For another, I'm still here participating in the autopsy. I'm involved in quite a few follow-up discussions (mostly dealing with re-approving pulled hooks) as a result of promoting two queues, and those are really draining. So my effort to try and keep it lightweight isn't panning out super well.
But hey! The hook scored some 1,500 raw views above the median average for this month's lead hooks, which is way more than the ERRORS Streisand effect could have accounted for :) I think because of that fantastic image. so, not too much to mourn here. onwards and upwards! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron ... but DYK is still an organ of an encyclopedia, and our of our basic requirements as a project is that encyclopedic text should convey encyclopedic information. (We get loose on this requirement with quirky and April Fools' day hooks, but those are special cases.): Thanks for your response. I've had quite a few noms posted, but never paid attention much to how sets are composed. It's also possible that requirements have changed over time, but I thought there was more leeway with hooks that rely almost solely on catchy quotes. Is that (now?) limited to the quirky slot? —Bagumba (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
DYK mores do indeed evolve over time, and even at any given moment, getting all the people involved in DYK to uniformly hew to the rules is like herding cats. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. If FA is the stodgy headmaster of the main page, DYK is the wild child. I think there's room for both. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
After numerous recent discussions forcing arguably unneeded context into already approved hooks, today's set has ... that Mike Estep was nicknamed "The Terminator"?,[23] with zero indication of Estep's background, albeit in the "quirky" slot. Perhaps this is par for the course for the "wild child", but the frustration is for nominators when their hooks are seemingly haphazardly scrutinized and altered. —Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Date request/Bastille Day set

Can Template:Did you know nominations/Concours de la meilleure baguette de Paris run on 14 July for Bastille Day? Thriley (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have any interest in putting together a France themed set for the day? I have several other potential nominations I could make. National days are a natural themed set. Thriley (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I explicitly declined the request at the nomination page. See WP:DYKSO: The reviewer must approve the special occasion request. This did not happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Your decline didn’t make any sense. Thriley (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The article for June, which was nominated 28 February, ran on 1 June. Why let two weeks prevent the hook from running on 14 July? If I had known a reviewer was going to be difficult about the date, I would have created the article two weeks later. Thriley (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I would have recommended. It would be easier to wait for an article to be DYKSO-eligible rather than request for an exemption. Normally, I would have been fine with granting the request, but frankly, the lack of openness towards the article running on any other date, even as a regular hook (i.e. your comment that you were not open to it running as a regular hook) was disappointing to say the least. Not all special occasion requests can be granted, and nominators must be willing to accept that if that happens.
For what it's worth, I did not see the discussion for June, but had I did, I would have also recommended at least a WT:DYK exemption request first. At the very least, I wouldn't have immediately approved the SO request. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I rarely ever ask for special occasion hooks. I’ve happily asked for exemptions for others in the past- I think anyone who uses their time in improving Wikipedia should have simple requests like a date indulged. I don’t even care if the image, which is really good, isn’t run. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, it's one thing to ask for a special occasion request, it's another to be not open to the request being rejected, or at least not being open to the possibility of the hook running as a regular hook. If it was just the former, I would have happily approved request, as long as the nominator was open to the possibility of the requested date not being worked out. It's happened to me before on at least one occasion, so I know the feeling of a requested date ultimately being rejected. The issue for me really was the seeming close-mindedness towards the possibility of the request being rejected, especially when the request was outside the usual six-week limit. Like it was a case of "it must run on the requested date and I do not want it running any time else." That kind of attitude is what we should be discouraging. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Seems a bit heavyhanded. Reminds me of when I have to go to the DMV. Can we please IAR and let the hook run on 14 July? Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to approving the request, it's just that we really should be discouraging close-mindedness on DYK. This is a general sentiment and does not only apply to this case, or even to SO requests in general. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Could be a cultural misunderstanding, not close-mindedness. Early Wikipedia used rules to help make things run smoother. If they got in the way, they were ignored. This seems like a scenario made for IAR. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Please look at our exchange, it is you who instigated the absolute from me. Thriley (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
No need to escalate. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
What's the point of declining this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, against policy and the spirit of DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
IAR and let it be held (to run on that date) even though it was technically outside the 6 week maximum. Honestly, get rid of the 6 week maximum altogether. I know that we shouldn't encourage hat/award collecting behavior... but all the 6 week maximum does is encourage people who do want to run a DYK with a new/expanded article to hold off on expanding it until later. Sure, there's no deadline, but that doesn't mean we should encourage waiting to improve articles to fit within an arbitrary 6 week maximum.
For clarity, I'm not advocating for hooks to be held just because of request. It would still be up to the requester to justify the hook's significance to the date, and to the reviewer to determine if that connection is significantly meaningful enough to hold it for that date. But an arbitrary 6 week limit does nothing. And in this case the hook is clearly related to France and would be a good "easter egg" to run on Bastille Day.
On the subject of a full Bastille Day set, I would only support this if there was a wider discussion regarding this concept to begin with. There are many countries in the world - and many other groups that would be just as recognizable (such as the UN, or the Olympics, for example). I would want an agreement on specific criteria for which countries/groups/organizations qualify, and what the connection should be to approve holding for the next yearly occurrence of that date. Reason being here is it's not really fair to have a one time Bastille Day set for France but then not have a July 4th set for the USA, or ANZAC day, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
There was a discussion a while back suggesting loosening the six-week requirement to eight weeks. I've personally never been a fan of the limit myself and I'd rather also abolish it, but eight weeks/two months sounds like a reasonable compromise. The reason I'm like this is more about following the rules rather than anything else, despite my personal opposition to them.
I also agree with the sentiment above regarding special occasion sets. They are often America-centric, Eurocentric, or Christianity-centric. For example, in the past, it's been suggested to have special occasion sets about Islamic holidays like the Eids, but they never gain any traction. So DYK having sets for Western holidays but not for non-Western holidays can be seen as systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with yeeting the six-week maximum altogether.--Launchballer 09:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Let's go to 8 weeks and retroactively apply the Bastille day. If anyone wants to help fight systematic bias, I've just had an idea. This 16 September is the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinean independence. I have a list offline of at least 50 PNG article topics that don't exist, and there's bound to be hundreds more. If 9-18 of us can upload something on 16 July, we can make a set or two. CMD (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd be open to that, it's not like there's no precedent (see the Canada set we had a few years ago). Anyway, do you think that we need an actual discussion regarding loosening/abolishing the limit? It's a major enough change that I don't think it's a good idea to just do it unilaterally. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I totally agree that a Bastille Day set would just play to our ethnocentric bias. Looking at today's DYK, 8 out of 9 hooks are US or European topics. The rest of the MP is just as bad. 4 out of 5 OTD entries. TFA is American. ITN does better, with only 2 out of 5. Maybe we should change WP:DYKVAR to say Western world instead of just United States? RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'd support that, but on the other hand, I don't know if we have enough hooks to make such a change feasible in practice. Given how so many of our hooks are already about the Western world, I imagine we would easily run out of non-Western world hooks. I agree with the sentiment but I don't know if actually implementing it would be practical. Maybe DYK would need a culture change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
So let's try and use the attractiveness of themed sets to make a change. What sort of sets might people want to contribute to, if someone can do some vague background organising? Are there special events or anniversaries on anyone's mind? CMD (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
https://www.diversityresources.com/interfaith-calendar-2025/ might provide some inspiration. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Or if you prefer, Lists of holidays RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Regarding I imagine we would easily run out of non-Western world hooks, I'd file that under "good problems to have" and assume IAR would let you run more Western hooks if they're all that's left. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a wider discussion about that? I know it will be challenging, but such a proposal (i.e. changing the mentions of "US or UK hooks" to "Western world hooks" in the guidelines) might at least be worth proposing and discussing, even if it ultimately doesn't pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of PNG, I wrote an article last night on the first Papua New Guinean Speaker of the Parliament which has a good hook, though holding till September might be too long. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Nice work! If you have others, perhaps get them up in late July? CMD (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I mainly did it to cross off PNG as part of my quest to write about every country in the world, but if you remind me in late July, I could probably find another PNG topic to write about for DYK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Eagerly looking forward to your Sealand DYK :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Bastille Day is natural set. We have a number of editors who focus on France, including ones who translate through the Open Knowledge Association. There are many angles to approach 14 July potential hooks through the mission of countering systematic bias- France isn't just croissants and chateaus. I have a number of potential hooks that could detail queer and racially diverse nightlife for example. My hope is this will inspire more themed sets. The success of the one for last Halloween demonstrated that it is very possible. Thriley (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps a set for Indian Independence Day on 15 August? Could engage the Indian editing community which is underrepresented on DYK. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines

while reviewing a hook I reread Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. while reading the "This section in a nutshell:" blurb under the "articles" header, the "Articles should not have any maintenance tags" statement doesn't appear anywhere else in the guidelines. the closest thing to this is the "WP:DYKTAG", which only says the article shouldn't have any "dispute tags" and links to a page on dispute tags. So, which is it? No dispute tags, or no maintenance tags? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The detail in WP:DYKTAG implies dispute tags, so changed to that.--Launchballer 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That change looks good. If you check out Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates, as an example, there are serious "dispute tags" like {{hoax}} that should be a dealbreaker, and then there are bunch of lesser maintenance tags like {{Further reading cleanup}} and {{Format footnotes}} which really don't seem that serious. Rjjiii (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Verification of a double nomination hook

In reviewing a double hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Akingbesote, I have encountered a hook that is true, but not explicitly mentioned in either article. It rather requires the reader to compare two separate articles to verify it. Does this meet WP:DYKHFC? Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Replied on the nom page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Burgle Bros

The third reference is an unreliable WordPress blog and Co-op Board Games seems to be an unreliable blog as well. Meeple and the Moose is an unreliable blog. BoardGameGeek is user-edited. Pinging CanonNi SL93 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

CanonNi I will remove this from prep if not fixed. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 apologies, didn't see the previous ping. I'll find some better sources now. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
CanonNi These might help - Gamezebo and 148Apps. I mean, if you want to add information about the video game also. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 alright, I've replaced the unreliable refs. Thanks for your refs too. Just curious, where'd you find those? Cuz when I google "Burgle Bros" all I get are store links and YouTube videos. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't remember. One of my Google searches brought up MetaCritic. The third review featured on the website is now a dead link. SL93 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

The Old Elm

The third reference is unreliable because it is user-edited. Pinging Yelps. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The source supports all the claims of the "parameters" section except the age (plus the fact that its stem in cemented but removing it wouldn't be the end of the world... Except that the claim was the ALT1 of the nom), so then should we merge the age claim in the lead and remove the entirety of the "parameters" section altogether or something? Should seek further input first probably. Removing from prep probably isn't needed unless this issue turns out to be more problematic. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 09:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Yelps I would just remove everything that uses it as a source. SL93 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done, also added another source and overall shuffled around a lot of stuff. Let me know if this is good enough! Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 15:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
It looks fine now. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for help on editing Did You Know nomination...

Hi!

I was wondering if someone could help me out...

I just nominated a new article I wrote for Did You Know, and everything is fine, except for the hook which needs additional references. Nominating the article was easy enough as there were designated spaces for the article title, the hook and the references, but now there's only the discussion page for Did You Know, I can't reply to the comments or edit the page on visual editor, and I don't know how to use the editing format it does allow and I'm kind of stumped. If anyone here could guide me through this, it would make this newbie very happy.

One of the comments also said that it would be failed if I didn't apply the corrections within a week, and I was also wondering if there is a way to ask for extentions.

Here is the discussion I'm referring to: Template:Did you know nominations/Rephaim text

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Provide the refs for the hook here or elsewhere and they will be added for you. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh wow! Thank you!
After I saw @Launchballer's reply I tried adding it in myself and it worked.
Thank you for your offer!
Moonshane1933 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Moonshane1933: My apologies for not saying 'addressed' rather than 'remedied'. I'll try to keep this as simple as I can, but to edit that nomination page, you need to click 'edit source' at the top of the page (near 'talk'). Scroll to the bottom of that window and type your comment above the line that says "Please do not write below this line". I'll assume you figured how to sign since you did that correctly on my talk page (four ~s).--Launchballer 21:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Done! Thank you!
Moonshane1933 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

FlexiRide

  • ... that FlexiRide bus services have no fixed route, operating only when passengers book a trip with a mobile app?
  • Is this interesting? I don't know if on-demand bus services are rare in Australia, but certainly here in the UK they are extremely common in rural areas (for example, our local transport website lists nine services run by four different companies in this area alone). Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Given that the services operate within a fixed service area, I don't find this particularly interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I found the idea of an on-demand bus service unusual at least (they're not a thing where I'm from, unless you're talking about bus rental services, which do exist). If they are more common elsewhere though, then yes maybe a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I've never heard of such a service, so it's interesting to me. RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
No, fair enough then, if they're not a very widespread thing then that's alright (and none of the ALT hooks look particularly much better). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The hook is fine, though it wants ending at 'route'.--Launchballer 14:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. The second part is what kept my interest. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree. I'm normally someone who prefers trimming, but this is a case where the main point work together well and are rather essential to understanding the main hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
How about ending at "... only when passengers book a trip?" It's a little shorter and more accurate as well; apparently the app is not the only way to book a ride; you can also call a phone number. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
That works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated the article and will confirm that this is more correct than what I originally wrote. ThatPB95 Fan (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated the article. DRT is pretty rare in Australia compared to the UK/USA, specifically there are at least 5 (2 in NSW, 2 in QLD, and 1 in VIC (i.e. Flexiride). It's also worth noting that FlexiRide is the only one of its kind in Victoria. ThatPB95 Fan (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (10 June 00:00)

Sheldon L. Toomer

@History6042, Noneofwiz, and BeanieFan11: The article doesn't say anything about a "day-long trip" RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Looks like I missed that. I added it to the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    OK, thanks. I'll still dubious that seven miles is a day-long trip by horse, but that is what the source says, so whatever. RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's wrong by our standards. It would have taken them 2 to 3 hours to cover the distance. However, they might have had to stop along the way for various reasons (mail, water, food, gawking, whatever) and it could have taken them longer. So, I don't think "day-long" means the same thing to us as it does to them. I'm also wondering if there's other considerations, such as there was a time when it was too hot to travel, so they had to travel at a certain time, and that added more hours to the trip. Personally, I think "day-long" is being used to mean something differently. The distance might have been closer to eight miles depending on the route. I often walk eight miles at a brisk pace for exercise, and it takes on average around two hours. It makes no sense that it's going to take them a day unless the rolling hills are very steep and the roads are difficult. One is forced to wonder if this an example of Southern storytelling, or "spinning a yarn". Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    Oh wait, I just realized something. I was writing about this same idea in another article and the same topic came up several weeks ago. It would be most helpful if I would just refer to the source text, but I'm doing something else right now and will go from memory instead. Basically, these people arrived on one side of the island of Maui and had to be transported to the other side. The trip would take about 10-15 minutes today by car, perhaps 20 at the outer reaches of the area. But for them, I believe it was described as "day-long" because they were loaded into ox-carts which were really slow and some of the trip was slightly hilly. Overall, I think the same trip took them 4-6 hours if I recall. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
What about replacing "day-long" with "seven mile". The source, a local paper, says "nearly day-long" and the hook omits "nearly". I presume that the round trip, including travelling seven miles each way, getting served at the bank and possible refreshments would have taken most of a working day. TSventon (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Good solution. Although you may want to confirm that distance. I looked at a map and it said the distance was between seven and eight miles depending on the route. Also, if "day-long" assumes round trip, then you probably don't need to change much. I think the confusion arises because we don't account for the RT. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The source says seven miles, which is obviously (Google maps) about right and we don't know the exact start or end point.
"seven mile" also avoids the problem of working out what "nearly day-long" means. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I think that the problem was caused by changing " the nearly day-long trip just to do his banking" in the newspaper into "the day-long trip to the nearest bank" in the hook, as the first implies a round trip and the second a one way trip. Also the word "nearly" got lost and the fact was not added to the article by the nominator. The trip was by horse and buggy: according to various websites an Amish buggy travels at 5 to 8 mph; perhaps for an important trip you had to base the timetable on the slower speed. TSventon (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: did you see my comment above and are you happy with the hook? TSventon (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@TSventon I'm sorry, I lost track of this. Just so I'm clear, what's the new hook you want to use? RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith:, I suggest using "seven-mile". I have changed journey to round trip in the article based on my reading of the source. TSventon (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ... that Sheldon L. Toomer, tired of the seven-mile trip to the nearest bank, founded a new one?
Got it, thanks. Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Burgle Bros

  • ... that the box of Burgle Bros 2 transforms into a two-layer game board (pictured)?

@CanonNi and History6042: The Wikipedia article's prose does not mention that the box transforms into a two-layer board game. This should be included in the article text. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 I've added it into the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

Everyone Hates Elon

@Ravenpuff Thank you for your copyedit to the Everyone Hates Elon hook! This was pretty much how I originally drafted the hook, but in the end I opted for the more concise "let" wording to avoid a construction like in protest against ... and to raise money. Just so I understand, can I ask what the problem was with the wording as submitted? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging reviewer @Vigilantcosmicpenguin and promoter @AirshipJungleman29 of the nominated hook per WP:DYKTRIM. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I personally have no strong opinions about the phrasing here. But if we are changing the phrasing, I would probably remove the words "in protest against Elon Musk", as that's fairly clear from the rest of the hook. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
That's a really good point, that hadn't occurred to me! So ... that Everyone Hates Elon invited members of the public to destroy a Tesla Model S to raise money for food banks? Or how about ... that Everyone Hates Elon invited members of the public to raise money for food banks by destroying a Tesla Model S? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: Thanks for the ping and sorry for the delayed reply. In response to your original question, there wasn't a problem with the submitted wording per se, just that I thought "let" didn't quite convey the right sense here, since the campaign group were actively inviting people to destroy the Tesla instead of passively letting them. I agree with Vigilantcosmicpenguin, though, that we can trim the obvious fact from this hook – I think your first suggestion works slightly better, because the public were specifically invited only to destroy the car, with the fundraising being only a future outcome not directly involving the public. I've made the relevant change in prep. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
No problem at all, thank you for explaining. I totally agree with you, but that had completely passed me by so I'm really glad you caught it! :) Thanks for making the edit to condense the hook—and thanks to @Vigilantcosmicpenguin for the great suggestion! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Edgar Matobato

I was re-reading the nomination for this Matobato recently and I think the ALT1 hook for it would better meet WP:DYKINT. Vigilantcosmicpenguin's review also said that ALT1 was unexpected, and on a second reading of the nom, I feel ALT1 would raise curiosities than ALT0 (which is somewhat predictable for the subject). Could the hook currently on Prep 5 be swapped in with the ALT1 hook on the nom page? Chlod (say hi!) 08:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 3. We have a total of 339 nominations, of which 250 have been approved, a gap of 89 nominations that has decreased by 50 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 06:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{dyk admins}} Didn't spot that we were that low. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#New nominations are not transcluding at WP:DYKN, I suggested coming out of backlog mode at 100 and received no objections; unless there are any, I plan on toggling it off at midnight.--Launchballer 08:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Fix ping.--Launchballer 08:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, we should go out of backlog mode. Thank you for taking care of this! I have added a redirect so you can ping us lowercase next time :) —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: I toggled out of backlog mode.--Launchballer 00:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Can we recover DYK nomination?

Hello! A few hours after the DYK nomination for the List of bigfin squid specimens and sightings was closed, its editor has just returned. Would it be possible to continue the process, or once closed it is definitive? Thanks in advance. NeoGaze (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a case-by-case thing. If the nomination was closed due to inactivity and a lack of response, then the nomination should remain closed. However, if the nominator is willing to address issues and respond, then they can be invited here to ask for an appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I've just nominated List of bigfin squid specimens and sightings for merging into bigfin squid as a content fork, I wouldn't reopen the nomination at this time.--Kevmin § 12:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
NeoGaze, I think that you were a bit generous in allowing the criteria for dates, etc., as almost half of the prose.
I would suggest that as a new reviewer you could make your life easier by choosing articles that aren't lists, have been submitted in time and where no problems have been highlighted before you start the review. TSventon (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Image for Horvat Mazad

Hello, can someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat Mazad and let me know if the chosen image will work? I don't think it will, but I was curious and took a look at it on different platforms, and it almost seemed to work on my phone but not on my desktop, so now I don't know. If it doesn't work at 100px, could someone take a look at the 40 or so images over at the commons category and find one that does? If not, that's fine, but I was hoping we could find one. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that's not a great image. I took a look through commons:Category:Hurvat Mezad and unfortunately, I don't see anything better. RoySmith (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. Just needed to know I wasn't imagining things. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
My experience is that photos of archeological sites tend to be not the kind of images that work well for DYK. Often the better images are either hand-drawn (i.e. schematic diagrams of the site) or photos of individual artifacts shown against a plain background like they would be in a museum display. RoySmith (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I believe this is one reason why it is recommended to only capture such photos during the golden hour (when the contrasts serve to illuminate the subject with soft and warm tones, rather than harsh ones we see depicted). I believe another way to do it is to make use of clouds and filters when there is a deep blue sky, although I've had mixed results with both. The fact is, most of these images are made in the midday sun in a desert-like environment, which doesn't work well for the end user. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Should the six-week limit specified at WP:DYKSO be loosened or abolished altogether?

Right now, special occasion requests should be done at most six weeks before the request date, and any requests made outside the date require either approval from the reviewer, or an IAR exemption request here at WT:DYK. The limit, however, is rather unpopular, and editors have expressed views ranging from loosening it to abolishing it altogether. On the other hand, other editors have supported it in the past, stating that its existence ensures that articles that run on DYK are "fresh", in line with DYK's goal of promoting new and newly-improved content. With that in mind, given the wide views regarding the current six-week limit, what should be done about it? Note that the current exception regarding April Fools' hooks will not be covered by this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Status quo (six-week limit).
  • Option 2: Loosen the limit to eight weeks or two months (specify which exactly in your !vote).
  • Option 3: Abolish the limit altogether.

Discussion

Pinging @Thriley, Viriditas, BeanieFan11, AirshipJungleman29, Berchanhimez, Launchballer, Chipmunkdavis, and RoySmith: who were involved in the above discussion that inspired this one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. I support quasi-option-3. I don't support a full abolishment - it shouldn't be permitted for someone to propose (and have accepted) something that is only tangentially related to a subject 11 months ahead of time and it be held. At the same time, I think we should be able to trust individual reviewers to determine whether the hold request is reasonable or not. In other words, let the reviewer decide whether the hook is relevant enough to the proposed date to hold, and whether the hold request is reasonable. It's possible a request 12+ months in advance may be reasonable if it's being held for the next year's date to run along with another hook that's still in development, for example. At the same time, a hook about Rook (card game) shouldn't be held for a date relevant to the game of chess, even though the term is the same. If someone is unhappy with a reviewer's assessment of the hold request, they can bring it here for a third opinion or further review.
    I also support removing the arbitrary limit on special occasion hooks. If 5 articles specifically and clearly related to George Washington get improved to DYK requirements, for example, they should all be able to run on a date that's relevant to him. I do not, however, support removing the requirement for regular special occasion sets to be approved here. In other words, if someone thinks that there should be a one-time set related to the Olympics on the day of the opening ceremony, and they have the approvable hooks to back that up, there shouldn't need to get it approved. But if people want a special "olympics" set to run every opening ceremony, that should require approval. Obviously such a one-time "special set" shouldn't be approved if there isn't already evidence there's enough hooks to fill it (or mostly fill it). But a one time special set shouldn't require explicit approval if the hooks are relevant and there to fill it at least halfway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I actually think that it's one-time special sets that require a discussion. We've already had a negative experience in the past before regarding a special set that happened despite there being no consensus to do so but rather it happening as a concession, and it would not be a good idea to repeat that. Besides, having a discussion would not only mean more scrutiny to make sure that the set actually has consensus, but it would also allow for easier coordination and supervision over the whole process. If anything, the only restriction I would suggest is that such sets should not be at a very short notice (like a week or two from the requested date), but instead should be proposed several weeks in advance, to allow for more preparation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    If my proposal (eliminate any arbitrary timeframe but allow reviewers to decide) is accepted, then this wouldn't be a problem. Let's say the Bastille Day hooks above were proposed 3 days before the current year's Bastille Day. Under my proposal (no hard rule), the reviewer could say "yes, I think these can run on Bastille Day, but it's too soon to run them this year and allow time for objections, so I'll approve holding them for next year so that others can object if they have valid objections". That's the biggest problem currently - DYKSO suggests/"requires" them to only be proposed at most 6 weeks in advance, and they can take time to be reviewed. Allowing them to be "approved but postponed" if the reviewer thinks the special occasion request is valid would eliminate this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Loosen it to 2 months or abolish to give creators greater leniency on the dates that they want to hook to presented on. I think 2 months is a good way to go but I am not against abolishing it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • 2 months, simple calendar calculation, easy for nominators and for reviewers (make it 2 months + 1 day to account for timezones if needed). No conflict with the timeout considerations. Not inherently opposed to abolition, but it seems a venue for further arguments regarding potential rejection. CMD (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    Having a "simple calendar calculation" opens this to be a venue for arguments regarding why it's actually necessary, similar to above. It should be based on merit, not based on whether the nominator created/expanded the article a bit too early. We shouldn't be encouraging people to hold off on improving the encyclopedia because of some arbitrary timeframe where they can get it on the mainpage if that's what they want. There is literally 0 benefit to the encyclopedia from having a timed rule. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it opens the venue any more than any other option. The benefit is to keeping DYK ticking along well, and DYK has a specific purpose of encouraging new articles. If we're starting to hold things for years the machine slows down, and that's a whole year of asking for objections, which does not seem a positive culture to create. CMD (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    If the purpose is to encourage new articles, then it fails if we say "your article shouldn't be created until it's close enough to the relevant date to meet this arbitrary criteria". We should encourage creating (or expanding) articles now. Even if it's months before a date relevant to the hook/article.
    On the subject of culture, the only objections allowed should be that the hook/article isn't relevant enough to the date proposed - and would still require consensus here (or on a talkpage made specifically for this purpose, such as WT:DYK/Hold requests or similar). In such cases, the only "harm" is that the hook would be put back into the normal "queue" to be run normally on DYK. Which is no different than happens now. The only change is that the articles would be able to be created/expanded at any time, rather than waiting for 6 (or 8) weeks before the proposed date to comply with this arbitrary restriction. We're here for our readers - and limiting DYK special occasion hooks to any timeframe before the date only encourages people to hold their improvements to the encyclopedia (for our readers) until that date is closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    We already encourage creating articles now, and the ways we don't (eg. x5 expansion) are hard to avoid. There isn't going to be a system without some edge cases. A more complicated process is a harm, if PSHAW ever works for me I don't want to be digging through a new page to check consensus on year-old SOHA discussions. CMD (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see how having no time restriction is a "more complicated process". If anything, it's less complicated - the person submitting doesn't have to abide by some arbitrary timeframe if they want their article to be on DYK, and the reviewer doesn't have to worry about the timing either - they're able to focus on whether the request is reasonable and warranted. So in other words, without adding anything new to the submitter/reviewer's workload, it takes an arbitrary check out. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong feeling one way or another, but I will point out two reasons that it might be best to stick with the status quo. One is that DYK is, in theory, supposed to feature new and newly improved articles. Yes, six weeks is already longer than a lot of nominations take, but 6 months is enough time to get your article to FA, at which point it can't really still be called new. The second is that would normalize basically any date request and the SOHA getting waaay bigger, which means we'd have to probably move it to its own subpage to prevent transclusion issues and that's another page for prep builders to keep track of (we can't build out sets more than two weeks in advance under the current setup, max). I do get that the requirements are cumbersome, and maybe my not wanting to change it is just me getting more small-'c' conservative, but there are philosophical and technical issues with extending the limit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    On the flip side, we should remove the limit for special sets we know we want to run every year, like Halloween and Christmas. It's often a last-second dash to get enough hooks together, and it'd be nice to encourage people to get those in early. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    I'm hoping moving to an obvious calendar trigger (I know I have to get my Christmas hooks in at 25 October) might remove a bit of the psychological block, but I'm not sure any particular fix will remove the last-second dash completely. CMD (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    The counter-argument is that having a time restriction on nominating for DYK encourages people to wait to improve/create/move-to-mainspace articles until they are close enough to the desired date. For example, if I draft a good new article on a Christmas-related topic right now, and I move it to mainspace now for the benefit of our readers to be able to see it, I wouldn't be able to nominate it for DYK and have it held for 25 Dec this year. So if I were a "hat collector" looking to just get more DYK credits, I'd either keep the info offline and wait to start drafting it until mid-November at least, or I'd leave it as a draft (in userspace or draft space) until then. That would mean there's 5 more months where a notable topic, with a decent article, isn't in mainspace and our readers can't benefit from it because I'm looking to get a DYK credit for it but not have it run randomly in the middle of the (northern hemisphere) summertime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    That sounds like a problem with the article creator as opposed to a problem with the time limit. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - do away with special occasion hooks. It gets posted when it gets posted. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4, with the exception of thematic sets. SOHA squabbles are generally more trouble than they are worth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Two months sounds fine to me, but generally special occasion requests should be rare and strongly related to the article and hook. —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - pointless rule.--Launchballer 14:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose option 4 Can't make up my mind yet (or ever), but having date hooks is fun. It's one of the only ways that Wikipedia can present a personality without breaching WP:NPOV. Bremps... 23:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Olympics double hook

There are some issues with the hook as currently written. The first is that it's the theory of one person, rather than it being a general theory. The second is that the mystery Olympian's article states that multiple scholars have questioned the theory, so the theory is not as plausible as the writing might suggest. The hook may need to be rewritten to better match the article. Pings: @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, Howardcorn33, Jeromi Mikhael, and History6042: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: In the DYK nomination, an alt hook was approved that made it clearer that the theory is speculative. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree that is thought to have actually been would suggest a common or even generally accepted theory. We could just change that, but a bit more rewriting adds some fun: how about DYK "... that Olympic historians were unconvinced by speculation that a mysterious French boy who coxswained at the 1900 Olympic Games was instead a renowned Georgian mathematician?" Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I reckon that this'll be not too compact for a hook. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
It may be longer than the original hook, but it is more accurate, and sometimes, a more accurate or precise hook is preferable to a short one. I'm usually a proponent of DYKTRIM and shorter hooks, but there are times when they're not the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
We can trim the word "instead" and it's probably even more accurate! Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps?
"...that Olympic historians were unconvinced by speculation that an unknown boy coxswain grew up to be a renowned Georgian mathematician?"
If the wording proves too difficult I would be fine with dropping the article Giorgi Nikoladze from the hook entirely. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Update to the credit system

Thanks to Shubinator, the credit system can now accommodate promoted sets reviewed by multiple admins/template editors! The set promoter signs the {{DYKbotdo}} as normal, but if another person confirms a specific hook in the set, they can modify the DYKmake and DYKnom credits to reflect that:

* {{DYKmake|Example|Editor|subpage=Example|sign=~~~}} returns

  Example – Editor (give) (tag) – View nom subpage – signed by theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)

and that'll get reflected when DYKUpdateBot gives out the credits to the nominators. That's all, happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Namespaces in principle

Hiya, I'm back with the namespaces after 8 months (has it really been that long? ;), and I'm back here to (re-)discuss whether in principle, people here would be supportive of a comprehensive namespace move. One of the earliest references to there being a problem with DYK namespaces was all the way back 12 years ago in 2012! After doing a serious rescan of the previous discussions, as well as some great points made by RoySmith, BlueMoonset, and Chipmunkdavis I'm back to re-ask if people would in principle support a name-space change for DYK pages

  • Option 0: Do nothing – keep namespaces and pages as is
  • Option 1: Highly limited – only move namespaces for a very select number of pages to achieve maximum effectiveness with minimal effort
  • Option 2: Limited – Move namespaces of more pages, but still retain existing page structure
  • Option 3: Standard(?) – Move namespaces of all pages to be more rational, and rename and resort some sub-pages
  • Option 4: Comprehensive – a full rework of the page structure including fully rationalising the names, sub-pages and redirect

DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Do nothing. Why are you dredging this up again? RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    Appreciate your directness. It sounds like you feel the prior discussions already resolved this. Would you be open to briefly restating what you saw as the consensus or main reasons against changes at the time? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    I hesitate to answer for fear of getting dragged into a long debate, so I'll just give a short answer to your question and then step away: This hits the trifecta of project management "don't do it": lots of work, lots of risk, minimal potential value. RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
    I do think you're absolutely right, and that due to those reasons you've mentioned any changes at all would be extremly unlikely to actually occur for trifecta of project management – however, this is asking for the principle of changing pages which assumes a seamless and easy-to-complete transition DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 0. Not broken.--Launchballer 21:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 in theory, Option 0 in practice. In principle, I do support rationalized namespaces for DYK. We should have done that years ago, and the current system never made much sense. However, as RoySmith has said, the ship has sailed at this point, and the intense amount of work needed to change everything for relatively little benefit, when the status quo already works and isn't broken, means it would be way more trouble than it's worth. If the only benefit is that our links and URLs would look "prettier" and make more sense, then that's simply not enough benefit to justify making such a major and time-consuming change.
DF, I understand this cause means a lot to you, but at this point, I would really suggest you drive your energy into actual, tangible issues that the DYK community is facing these days. The constant backlogs, reviews missing stuff, hooks not meeting interest or sourcing guidelines, errors slipping by despite multiple checks, editors reaching burnout from the pressures involved in building sets, etc. All of these are actual issues that the community has and affect how it runs. The namespace changes, while nice to have, are much lower down in the hierarchy of needs.
At this point, and I am going to be frank here: I would suggest that, for now, you let this idea go as it is simply not DYK's priority at the moment, no matter how much discussion you raise or how much you push the idea. We have more pressing issues to deal with right now, and given how passionate you are about changing DYK's namespaces, I think it would be better for the good of the project if you drive that passion to any of the other, more pressing concerns that I mentioned. I am sure that several of us are in principle open to the idea, but again, it's just not our priority and I cannot see it being one anytime soon, or frankly ever. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 0 in practice, one of the others in theory per NLH5 above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • We're slowly doing Option 1 over time. The next change should be to implement the better system for follow-up discussions that has already been proposed. CMD (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 0 in the medium term, NOTBROKEN is not quite true. I would support anything that moves nomination pages out of the template namespace, as they share almost no features with other templates. It is irritating to have information about "template data" or "Preview page with this template" displayed when they do not apply. We should work towards a system where on discussion pages like our DYK nomination pages, there is a working "reply" button. I do not offer to do the work needed to make the namespace change work, but anybody offering to do this should be welcomed, not driven away. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    With how complex DYK is and how so many pages have to be moved, it's probably going to be far more work than it's worth to move everything, just to fix bugs like the reply function. It is actually probably easier to just change the code to the Reply function so that it works in the Template namespace (or at least anything with the prefix Template:Did you know nominations), than it is to move thousands of nominations and do the necessary changes. Sure, that might require a discussion of some kind or at least talking to technical staff, but they'd probably understand. I get why there's some support for it, but we have to be practical here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    It is indeed maddening that Reply does not work on nominations, but I consider that a bug in the reply tool. RoySmith (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    I do like the Reply tool, but it's not perfect. For one, it's impossible to edit multiple discussions at the same time with it, and at times it can be a pain to create subsections (particularly for RfCs) since there's no option to disable signatures. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    Actually, if we're looking for things to complain about, it also drives me mad that DYK, FAC, and GAN all are doing essentially the same job (i.e. reviewing an article) but they've all picked page structures and formats that are different enough that I can never remember how each one works without checking the instructions. RoySmith (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    It may be worth radically rethinking some of these structures, whose "fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws" :) It is definitely worth thinking about what advantages Talk:MyPage/DYK would have over Wikipedia:DYK nominations/My Page and vice versa. Perhaps that means "if we put in any work into this, might as well go for Option 4 and not limit our options from the start". —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Having DYK in template space is actually quite useful IMO when it comes to doing edit searches and so on. And I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 1 (25 June 00:00)

Marine Terrace MRT station

@History6042, Icepinner, and Arconning: This is a very poor photo to run. I had to click through to the article, read the image caption, and then look long and hard at the photo before I could figure out what it was trying to show. Let's not run this. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith I can try to take another photo if you want. The photo in the article was submitted as part of the DYK nomination as it would provide visual aid to the hook (a family tree of chairs is an interesting subject for a public artwork in a train station so I imagine people would want to see a photo of it). The reason why it's so hard to see the actual subject was because the photo had to be taken by following de minimis guidelines as Singapore does not have Freedom of Panorama (FOP) for paintings. It should be noted that the artwork itself is rather big and would be rather challenging to photograph the subject such that it follows the above laws. However, there are two versions of the artwork, with the other one being directly above the platform. Based on the photos I took, it appears that one is salient compared to the photo you brought up, though it would have to cropped in order for the subject to be more prominent, yet it still has to follow the above laws. Would you prefer that? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner it is unfortunate that getting a better photo is problematic, but that doesn't change the fact that this photo isn't suitable. What's the other photo? RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith Here it is Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 04:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner unfortunately, that's really no better. RoySmith (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith what about it is not good? Is it that it doesn't fall under de minimis? Is it not prominent enough? I'm guessing it might be the latter since the image will be shrunken down. Honestly at this point I'd prefer if the image was removed, I'm not gonna retake a photo since it's hard to take a photo of the subject following the above conditions. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 05:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
My objection is that it doesn't show the subject well, especially at the small size it will be show on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
It does feel like showing a subject through a de minimis photo defeats the stated purpose of de minimis. CMD (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The irony that I did not realise... well the more you learn. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner: Since the artwork is the main subject of the photograph (even if it's a small portion of the picture), I'm concerned it wouldn't pass c:COM:De minimis if the artwork is copyrighted. Just because it isn't a great picture of the artwork doesn't mean it isn't a copyright issue. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't the solution just be to not run with the image at all? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Of course. When I said "Let's not run this" I was referring to the image. RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g I intended the main subject of that photo to be the hallway. Anyways, yes, public artwork in Singapore is copyrighted. See the above image if it's suitable or not Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 04:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g @Narutolovehinata5 @RoySmith sorry for pinging you all again but after thinking about it, I have decided that image should be removed. The hook would still be interesting in itself and it would be a challenge to retake the photo with the above conditions. Feel free to remove it. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 05:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I have started a deletion discussion on Commons for both images since I'm not convinced they pass de minimis. Either the image should be removed from DYK (which seems to be the consensus of this discussion) or the nomination should be held until the deletion discussion is closed. Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

@AirshipJungleman29, Editør, and MallardTV: I don't see how this passes WP:DYKINT. The hook is basically "A sports team won two events". How is that interesting or unusual? RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Come to think about it, I sort of agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Come to look back, I may agree. MallardTV Talk to me! 12:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The surprising thing is that an all-white team won? —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be specialist information? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
And also probably WP:OR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to pull this. People can work on a new hook back at the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The replacement hook for Franco Mastantuono isn't actually true RoySmith—he hasn't joined Real Madrid yet and won't until after the Club World Cup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
In Queue 7, change "* ... that Real Madrid player Franco Mastantuono played youth tennis on a national-level?" to "* ... that River Plate player Franco Mastantuono played youth tennis on a national-level?". He hasn't made an appearance with them yet which was pointed out at User talk:Sahaib#DYK Franco Mastantuono nomination. Sahaib (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Sahaib @AirshipJungleman29 thanks for the alert. How about I make it:
which is not only shorter, but also makes it more clear that he played two different sports. And would be more likely to comply with WP:DYKDEFINITE The hook should include a fact that is unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page. RoySmith (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I was the one who added the modifier to the hook. I did consider "footballer", but considering how vague that word is and how we recently had a discussion about "football" hooks, I thought it was better to try to avoid mentioning the word "football" at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
A lot of people (i.e. me) may have no clue what sport Real Madrid plays. I get that there are multiple sports which are called "football", but none of them are tennis, so no matter which version of football you're thinking of, the concept of "he played a different sport as a youth" is still there. RoySmith (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Hook seems fine. Sahaib (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith I see your point. A bunch of similar athletics articles was promoted to GA in a short period of time, so I tried to combine these two in one hook. I will think about a new hook for the two articles, and if I can't make that work, I will try to come up with two separate hooks. – Editør (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
A side note: the requirement to review four other nominations diverted some of my attention from writing the hook for my own nomination. – Editør (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Big Four (cycling)

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Four (cycling) was promoted to prep 1 on May 31.[24] In this edit,[25] @AirshipJungleman29: said "needs looking at", but have no further explanation that I can find. It was promoted into then pulled from Queue 1 in this edit[26] by AirshipJungleman29, who said "swapping problematic hook back into prep", but again, I canot find any explanation of the problem. Where is the communication and what is the problem? Courtesy ping @Verylongandmemorable:, the nominator. Flibirigit (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies Flibirigit and Verylongandmemorable, I thought I had left a section on this page, but clearly not. IIRC, the problems were a) that it was just one cycling journalist, and not one of any particular reputation, who used the phrase "lockdown"; b) that a one-word snapshot quote in the lead section almost always only says something that could be paraphrased (in this case it duplicates the previous sentence); and c) that having failed to win the most recent of the big races in question, the validity of the assertion is questionable in any case. There are enough superlative facts about the Four that a hook could be built around without relying on a reporter's assertions; could we try and workshop something different? Thanks, and sorry again for my lack of communication. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I notice that the nominator has not edited in a few days. I will explore other hooks this weekend. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Some more ideas for hooks, trying to focus on facts/statistics rather than quotes:
AirshipJungleman29 any thoughts? Like you said, there are many superlative facts, particularly about their Grand Tour dominance, just tricky trying to phrase things so it is clear and impactful to a general (non-cycling) audience. Verylongandmemorable (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I like the first and, especially, the last. If someone else can review them, I'll change the hook in the prep set. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Symphony in F major (Yamada)

@NeoGaze, SL93, and AirshipJungleman29: The source says, "In 1997, the piece was re-constructed based on the few surviving parts and finally published by Shunju-sha Publishing Company in Tokyo as a part of the Anthology of Kousaku Yamada, Volume 1." This gives me the impression that the piece was published in 1997, not 2016. Should this be swapped with another proposed hook? Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 Oops, my bad. Yes, I suggest replacing it for ALT2. Thank you for pointing the mistake out, it completely slipped me by. NeoGaze (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Magnoavipes denaliensis

@OceanGunfish, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29: The source says that the species name translates to "bird with large feet", and this is also stated in the article. In the hook, should "huge" be replaced with "large"? Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Synonym. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, but I don't speak Latin and, while it might be a synonym the hook is referring to a translation and editors might want the most accurate word. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with AirshipJungleman29, its a synonym and acceptable as a hook use.--Kevmin § 17:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. Huge is large. Bremps... 03:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Huge is large, yes, but large is not necessarily huge. It implies a greater magnitude. The hook should be amended so that it matches the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
May I opine that I don't think it matters as a synonym and so whatever reads best should be used. And that "with large feet" sounds better in this hook when read. Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Excessive promotion of Jilly Cooper

Over the past weeks, works by author Jilly Cooper have featured in DYK with excessive frequency. I note that the policy states that DYK is not "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes." I would argue that featuring a book by the same author basically every other day is advertising/promoting a commercial cause. 62.238.249.119 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

From memory, when there are a lot of similar hooks, promoters try to space the hooks out. I checked Lajmmoore's edit history and found 16 Jilly Cooper related nominations since 8 April, which is quite a lot. 4 are still on the approved page. TSventon (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello all! @62.238.249.119 the full quotation I think you're referring to is: "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." I'm interested to hear what other editors think, but from my point of view, I'm just working through the works of author who sold 12 million copies of their books and is under-represented on Wikipedia. Lots of editors have particular interests that they work through and this isn't the only recurring DYK (or GA or FA) topic. Off the top of my head I can think of Alexander McQueen, Christian hymns, American network stations, aquilegias and this author. I expect there are others. If the articles are read, I think they are very neutral, as are the hooks. The article content is often critical, and these criticisms are sometimes used in the hooks. One point of note is that there is a new series of the recent Rivals adaptation due to be released in the autumn, and I was actually trying to avoid promotion by working on the Cooper's works in advance. If promoters more generally have a concern I'm very happy to be advised, to wait for hooks to feature before nominating a new one, etc. I just also want to be emphatic that there's no commercial intent on my part, I edit about women primarily and this is just one aspect of that interest. Thanks al! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The key phrase here is "(e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)" this adds very relevant and essential context to the guideline. Without that added precision, then we would not see dozens of articles about extinct ants and unusual fungi. We have seven million articles and Jilly Cooper, her journalism, politics, her books and films include quite a lot of notable subjects for articles. Its tempting to apologise that we haven't covered her better before. Jilly Cooper is now getting a good number of new articles. If deletion isn't relevant then DYK should certainly reature new articles like these. This is the kind of activity that keeps the Wiki (and DYK) refreshed with new and diverse articles. Its not excessive promotion... its not even promotion. This is DYK's role to show new articles. Well done Lajmmoore. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Victuallers Aww, someone remembers my prolific ant article days of yore. It feels like so long ago now, lol!--Kevmin § 16:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
In general, it'd be nice if we were able to space out our hooks so that this kind of thing doesn't happen, but in practice, it's really difficult for promoters to keep track of that. Maybe at some point we start limiting editors to one DYK a week, but that seems like overkill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi all, just to echo what Victuallers said, this isn't breaking any rules and this kind of work should be encouraged. I completely understand where the confusion has come from, maybe we need better documentation explaining the rules on this to avoid future missunderstandings. John Cummings (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is necessarily having so many nominations about a particular topic or subject. That's been a thing with DYK since forever. It only becomes an issue if we have too many hooks about something that run within a short period of time. Remember the Swiftpedia complaints from the past? There's nothing wrong with contributing about Cooper, the only thing we need to do is probably to space out those runs more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
We will eventually run out of new articles about works by this author. Most of the time, high frequency of DYKs in the same topic area are the result of editor interest, not of promoting commercial causes. If we did not run anything that might cause additional sales, we could not run any hook about books, films, music, cars, or places where somebody might go on vacation. Most of us are trying to promote our new articles, not the subjects of these articles. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a promotional problem, let's face it apart from Tackle! (written in 2023 and currently on the Approved Hooks list), most of these novels are quite old. I think we do need to space them out a little, though; 16 nominations in the last two months should not mean 16 appearances in DYK in two months. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
That hook ran in March 2009. I'd say that met the 'intriguing' part of DYKINT.--Launchballer 00:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I mean, I get why the complaints. We've always had repeating topics on DYK since DYK was a thing, but 16 hooks about the same person within a short amount of time does sound like overkill. It's not exactly "promotion" or "advertising" the way the IP saw it, but I can see why a non-DYK regular or a non-editor reader would get that impression. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I second the opinion of the editors who think care should be taken to space out DYKs about the same topic. A goal of DYK is 'To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers'. Constantly featuring articles from the same very particular niche topic makes an impression that is the exact opposite of variety. It is annoying for the readers who do regularly visit the main page and have, out of what is supposed to be the sum of all knowledge about the world, a single editor's current obscure interest arbitrarily imposed on them again and again. It also does create the impression that the editor is trying to convince the readers that the subject is, in fact, important and not obscure, and that they should be interested in it. For the strength of this effect, not only the frequency but also the length of the series matters - the Alexander McQueen series has been going on for much longer than the Jilly Cooper one and I believe that this makes the annoying effect in question stronger. More radically and controversially, I also think that when editors are creating a series of articles on very closely related topics - as in 'all collections of Alexander McQueen' and 'all paintings of Amrita Sher Gil' - it is good sense for them to simply refrain from nominating more than one of them for DYK. It may make the editor feel proud to have their work featured again and again, but it is not considerate to the readers and does not take into account the objective of the main page as a whole. It is perfectly possible to enjoy making articles without their necessarily getting the maximum possible exposure.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Just to add, if there'd been a guideline about spacing these nominations out, I would have followed it (& I expect everyone else who has themes they edit to would as well), but without one it's hard to know. On the nominations that are not yet promoted, I'm going to go back and de-Cooper them a bit, and add a note about spacing them out Lajmmoore (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    & just to add the outstanding nominations at the moment are for Tackle!, Imogen (novel), Rupert Campbell-Black and Rivals (novel). I checked the hooks and have asked for reviewers to check revised hooks for Tackle! and Rivals - the other two don't mention Cooper. I'm planning to write more articles on the topic, but I won't propose any more DYKs on Cooper until these have run. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Spacing them out seems reasonable. (Actually, I was going to mention the McQueen TFAs, which are much more prominent and often draw several complaints every time they run - and from different people, too.) Maybe it may be helpful to limit hooks on any specific topic to one or two per week. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Desirable? Maybe. Helpful to have as a rule? Certainly not. Prep builders already have to follow a large number of rules; we should not expect them to be aware of everything that has been on the Main page in the last two weeks. —Kusma (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Not a problem really, though. Someone will spot if whatever "rule" has been broken and we can just shuffle them around. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    So nobody will be responsible? —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Kusma, good point. I would say that I prefer this as a guideline, rather than as a hard-and-fast rule, or else there may be some collateral damage. Also, I said "week", but what I really meant was "a group of seven sets". Most of the time, we run through seven sets in a week anyway. However, whenever sets run for only 12 hours instead of 24, it would be a bit restrictive to impose a restriction of one or two hooks for every 14 sets. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Let's make a decision here. One per week sounds reasonable? Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I would support a guideline of 1 or 2 hooks on the same topic for every 7 sets. Usually, this is the same as once or twice a week, since sets typically run for 24 hours. However, my suggestion would also account for periods where hooks are switched out more frequently than every 24 hours. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I just realized this might be overly restrictive for certain users like @Sammi Brie or @Gerda Arendt, who are very prolific DYK nominators but also focus mainly on relatively small topic areas. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Answering to ping. My first barnstar was - in 2009 - to a comment in a similar situation, at the time "too many" hooks related to Ghana. - At the moment, I don't feel like a prolific contributor. My biggest "similar topic" project was Bach's cantatas: the composer went mostly by a one-per-week speed, which might be good for DYK as well. All these compositions are individual masterworks, btw. Please don't forget not to establish too many rules, and to make room for exceptions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    One Jilly Cooper hook sounds ok. But one American football player? One opera singer? One skyscraper? One building in New York? One Gibraltar related hook? One hook about a Mormon? The concept of "same topic" would certainly need some refining. —Kusma (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't even considered this point. To give one example, Ennis House and Samuel Freeman House (both houses in Los Angeles designed in the same style by Frank Lloyd Wright) would count as similar topics. But how similar are these articles to the Acres (designed by the same architect, but in a different geographical area and a different style)? Or Modulightor Building, by a different architect in a different style and different location, or Dalton Old Pump House, whose only similarity is that it also happens to be a historic building? It can get messy quite quickly, I think. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I think there's also a point that different editors might be working on a similar theme and both nominate at the same time - thinking we had a lot of nominations from different editors for women from Ukraine when the war was declared a few years back. There's perhaps some thinking to be done around that. I'm not a promoter though. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 - first

Just bringing a first hook to people's attention even though it appears to be fine. ... that Carlo Rinaldini was the first person to propose a temperature scale that split the interval between the freezing and boiling points of water into equal degrees? SL93 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a particularly bad example of a "first" hook. Not only is it the kind of thing that's difficult to prove, the cited source doesn't even make that claim. RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I'm not so sure. The first source says "Not until 1694" which implies that what the subject did in 1694 was the first case of it. Pinging nominator Hike395. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKHOOK says Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most ... require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail A source which "implies" something doesn't meet that standard. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I guess implied is the wrong word because "Not until 1694" would be more than implying as it is a way to say for the first time. I honestly don't know how anyone can see that differently. SL93 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Page 66 of this book verifies it as well. SL93 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused. I don't see Rinaldini mentioned at all. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The book goes by the other spelling of his last name. The Wikipedia article says, "Carlo Rinaldini, or Renaldini". "The need of a standard scale, easily made and based on constant phenomena that can be reproduced at will, was felt by all who used thermometers, and an important practical pro posal to secure this desideratum was made in 1694 by Carlo Renaldini, a former member of the Accademia del Cimento. and professor of mathematics in Padua. At that date, and in the eightieth year of his age, he published a work on natural philosophy , in which he suggested taking the melting-point of ice and the boil ing-point of water for two fixed points of ther mometer scales, and dividing the space between them into twelve equal parts." SL93 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
There is also this. It really wasn't difficult to prove. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. That source says:

While Hooke was the first to take the freezing point of water as a fixed point ... Huygens was probably the first to suggest two fixed points, the second point being that of boiling water

and later on it says

Nearly thirty years later ... was again proposed by Carlo Renaldini

So while it's clear that Renaldini made some contribution to the design of the thermometer, it's not at all clear exactly what particular thing he contributed that could be claimed to be a "first". RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. The next sentence mentions that he came up with the equal degrees part, and the last part of the sentence says that it was not adopted until the eighteenth century. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The first reference (by Benedict) states:
Not until 1694 did Carlo Rinaldini [...] suggest taking the melting and boiling points of water for two fixed points on a thermometer scale. He divided the space in between them into 12 equal parts.
The second reference (by Howarth) states:
The earliest attempt to calibrate thermometers on the basis of standard fixed-points was made by the Italian mathematician Carlo Renaldini (1615–98) in 1694. He suggested using the freezing and boiling points of water as fixed points and dividing the scale distance between them into twelve parts. Each scale point was defined by the temperature attained on mixing cold and boiling water in proportions of 11:1, 10:2, … , 2:10 and 1:11, but it was later realized that his method of calibration was inherently unreliable.
I interpret the "Not until 1694" the same way that SL93 does. However, if editors wish, we can tweak the phrasing of the hook. Would substituting "calibrate" for "propose" make it better? I worry that makes it a bit too obscure for a general audience, but I'm open to tweaking. — hike395 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I also noticed that the book is in chronological order. SL93 (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
If RoySmith is concerned about sticking very closely to sources, how about
... that Carlo Rinaldini was the first person to calibrate a thermometer by using the freezing and boiling points of water as fixed points, dividing the interval into 12 equal degrees?
— hike395 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
That hook seems too complicated to meet the guidelines. Maybe we should just move away from the "first" angle entirely? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Are you proposing saying that he simply proposed the scale or calibrated it, without talking about that he was first? That would seem puzzling to an average reader, I think. Originally, I proposed the hook
... that Carlo Rinaldini proposed an experiment that discovered convection in air?
but DragonflySixtyseven thought the thermometer hook was better. — hike395 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
How about something like:
  • ... that 17th century mathematician Carlo Rinaldini studied the life cycles of insects, was said to have discovered air convection, and contributed to the design of a practical thermometer?
RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Even though the original hook is correct, this one is more easily accessible for readers. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I really like Roy's hook. Can I suggest a modification, with wikilinks?

I am suggesting this, because Rinaldini was debating whether insects came from plant galls, not insects in general; and his thermometric ideas turned out not to be useful in practice. What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

With the added context, I think this is a stronger hook. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried about the "said to discover air convention" claim. We're stating it in Wikivoice, but the article claims that it was one person who credited him for it. Do we know if others did too, or if it was only Middleton (who doesn't even have an article!) who did so? If it's too unsafe, we could just delete that from the hook and just mention the insects and thermometers parts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Middleton credited Rinaldini with the discovery,[1] while other authors have credited Middleton with giving Rinaldini the credit.[2][3] In the Italian Biographical Dictionary, Giannini gives Rinaldini credit without mentioning Middleton.[4]

An even snappier version of the hook is

per WP:FEW. Pinging @SL93 for attention. — hike395 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good. I didn't receive the ping for some reason. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Middleton, W.E. Knowles (1971). The Experimenters: A Study of The Accademia del Cimento. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. p. 35. ISBN 0-8018-1250-X.
  2. ^ Boschiero, Luciano (2007). "What it meant to be a Cimento academician". Experiment and Natural Philosophy in Seventeenth-Century Tuscany: The History of the Accademia del Cimento. Vol. 21. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 93–109. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6246-9_4.
  3. ^ Brush, Stephen G (1973). "The Development of the Kinetic Theory of Gases: VII. Heat Conduction and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 11 (1): 38–96. JSTOR 41133371.
  4. ^ Giannini, G (2016). "Rinaldini (Renaldini), Carlo". Dizionario biografico degli italiani (PDF) (in Italian). Vol. 87: Renzi-Robortello. Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana.

Talk:Wilberforce University

Hi all. I recently started a five-fold expansion of Wilberforce University with the intention of nominating at WP:DYK. After significantly expanding the history (which is still on-going, I'm not done) I attempted to update the lede section to reflect the new key points made in the article in this edit. Other editors apparently took issue with the expanded lede, and then preceded to chop the lede to even shorter than before I began my expansion (removing an entire paragraph from the old lede present in the article prior to my editing). I've reverted it for now under the argument that is does not meet WP:MOSLEDE criteria, but that decision was objected to on the talk page and its possible the short lede will be restored.

I'm concerned that the proposed short lede (see here) does not sufficiently summarize the key points of the article as required at WP:MOS and for this reason may fail WP:DYKCRIT. It's possible my analysis is incorrect, and others agree the short lede is the better path. Regardless, there is now a conflict over the lede section and I would appreciate additional input as to what should be included or not included, and how best to summarize the article so it complies with WP:MOS guidelines and can pass WP:DYKCRIT. All opinions welcome. Help in reaching a WP:CONSENSUS would be appreciated. Thanks to any who are willing to lend their editorial eyes and thoughts.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how a dispute over the length of the lead section might in any way fail WP:DYKCRIT 4meter4. Far more important, for DYK purposes, are the numerous unsourced passages and table rows.
That said, purely on an MOS basis, I would point to WP:LEADLENGTH, which notes that most lead sections are between 100 and 400 words. Your preferred lead section (for a body of 4,500 words) is 500 words, and your fellow editors seem to prefer a 78-word lead. Try compromising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, the unreferenced passages are from the article prior to my expansion which is not completed. As I said, I am working on it. It is not ready for review which is why I haven't yet nominated it. The goal is to finish fact checking, adding citations, and expanding. As for the lede conflict. I am trying to compromise but I can't get anyone to actually dialogue about specific content in the lede and ways that it could be tightened while still addressing the article's key points. Hence why some new input would be helpful. It would be good to get an impartial person to help facilitate a dialogue towards compromise; particularly someone familiar with DYKCRIT and MOS policies. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
So why are you at this page, if the article is nowhere near to being nominate-able and DYKCRIT not applicable? I'd suggest using the dispute resolution processes in future. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I can have it ready for DYK in the next day or two, but not if there is an edit war in progress. Instability is an issue in passing review. Additionally, I think I was already clear that I was worried the proposed lede would fail DYKCRIT; specifically the WP:DYKCOMPLETE criteria. I am not going to put in a ton of time into expanding an article only to see it fail at DYK. I'd rather move on to another project if that's the case. I've seen articles with insufficient lede sections get rejected in the past. If that's going to be an issue, I want to know now so I don't waist my time putting in a lot of work on a project that won't have its moment on the main page. I can edit elsewhere and have that success.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
It's easy to stop an edit war; just let the other editor have their way. RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I could, and I may do that. But I won't take it to DYK if I do. I would be ashamed to have it featured in that state. If I were a reviewer I would reject it for being incomplete.4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The other editor has suggested splitting out the history section, so that is one DYK possibility. The article had 2016 words of prose on 25 May, so a fivefold expansion would be over 10,000 words and probably long enough to split according to WP:SIZERULE. TSventon (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
DYK doesn't enforce most of WP:MOS. If you want to argume about the length of the lead, WP:FAC is where you should go :-) In any case, my personal opinion is that people tend to write leads that are too long, and I'm inclined to say that your version falls into that bucket. On the other hand, the shorter version seems kind of stingy, so I agree with Airship that you'll probably want to end up somewhere in the middle. One rule of thumb I was taught is to pick one sentence from each major section as a first cut on what your lead should contain. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Good rule of thumb. I would add that expanding the lead before expanding the body is putting the cart before the horse. It would be easier for everyone to figure out what should be in the lead if they can see the text it should be a summary of. CMD (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I did expand the body significantly before expanding the lede, and the text I added was a summary of the new material added to the article's body.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
And that summary was already quite long. If you intend to expand the article still further, much of that would have had to be trimmed to incorporate new material. CMD (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Not really. The new material in the lede falls in line with the required material WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure which requires we cover content like other names of the institution and whether the school is public or private. The new material I added revolved around these specific criteria for university ledes in which we cover that institution was a public-private university (which was missing before) and the other common names used in publications about the school during a 60 year period of the school's history. Explaining the other institutional names (which are likely search terms) and the fact that school was for six decades not a solely private institution but a public-private university are required components in the guideline for lede sections on university pages. The later history of the school is not nearly so complex, and does not require much summary as the content in it isn't listed under the key concepts in WP:UNIGUIDE#Article structure. In other words, no further summary required.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure where the specific criteria for university leads comes from, but this is something that would be much easier to assess if the body wasn't incomplete. CMD (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4 (22 June 00:00)

David Viaene

@SL93, BeanieFan11, and Miraclepine: The source says "bench pressing 500 pounds", not "over 500 pounds". I'd also specify "bench press" in the hook rather than the generic "lift". Which type of lift is important. Benching 500 is impressive. Deadlifting 500 not so much. Maybe also specify "American football"? RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: How about this?
ALT2C: ... that in college, American football player David Viaene was able to bench press 500 pounds (230 kg)? In the weight room, he has bench pressed 505 pounds
ミラP@Miraclepine 17:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Technically 505 pounds is "over 500", FWIW. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. If somebody wants to change it to 505, have at it. RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2 (21 June)

A

Resolved
Not my article, but I'm genuinely curious: why does the lead need expanding? It's not part of the DYK criteria as far as I can tell. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Leads are an important part of WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Keep in mind many readers might only read the lead. CMD (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Not only that, the article is nonsensical! Seriously, has anyone actually read it? Half of it is dedicated to things that are only barely related to its title. This is the sort of thing that has a far higher chance of getting through during the "full-speed-and-damn-the-consequences" 12-hour periods. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
No, seriously @Toadboy123, History6042, and Gatoclass: are you actually trying to say that all three of you read through the article and somehow failed to spot that most of it had nothing to do with the article's title? 605 words on the "Olympic Village Concept", 200 words on "The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games", 300 words on "Restrictions on entry", none of which have anything to do with "Australia at the 1924 Summer Olympics"! This is not one, or two, but three failures of responsibility. (I'm not even going to comment on whatever bad-faith gaming A little sheep0115 is trying to pull.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, perhaps I should have been more forthcoming in the above post. I did a quick scan of the article and, like you, struggled to connect some of the content to the topic. I concluded that the article meant to say the "Olympic Village Concept" originated with the 1924 games, but I felt it needed more explanation in the lede. The above post was meant as an opener to discussion of the content, not a limit to it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That seems tenuous, but even so, this needs pulling. Even the bits that are relevant to the article—the "Performance of athletes in games" [sic] section—are full of poor writing. Oh, and they're cited to Wikipedia. This is just ... unbelievable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I spent more than two hours on set verification this morning, and did not have time to dot every i and t of every article I looked at. I scanned the article, saw a potential issue and flagged it by bringing it here. As I said, the issue raised above was meant as a starting point not an end point. Had I not raised a concern, the article might have made it through to the main page without further consideration. So the reproofs are neither helpful nor necessary.
But I do find it amusing that in one thread I am being castigated for alleged laxity, and in the next for overzealousness. Small wonder nobody wants to bother participating on this project anymore. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
This is exactly what I imagine ChatGPT would give me if I told it to generate 2500 words about Australia at the 1924 olympics. Either way, this clearly needs substantial work and I will pull. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
If I had my way, AI horseshit would qualify for revision deletion as grossly insulting to Wikipedia.--Launchballer 17:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd support that proposal. Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

B

Resolved

C

Resolved
  • Racing Mount Pleasant - GNG concerns - the sources all looks either local or a bit ropey. Second opinions welcome. Pinging nominator Suntooooth.
    It is borderline, but Stereogum and Alternative Press both giving significant attention to the Racing Mount Pleasant singles meets GNG, in my opinion. They definitely wouldn't've met GNG before those singles, but I'd be surprised if an AfD passed on it now. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 10:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Are they accepted reliable sources? All the sources I looked at looked either local or with no identifiable editorial team. Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Will get back to you in a bit - busy for a few hours. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Stereogum and Alternative Press are both on WikiProject Albums' reliable sources list. If that's not good enough, I'm not sure what is. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Those sources still look a bit scratchy to me, but whatever. I guess this one is resolved in the affirmative then. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

D

I changed one word. If you think it needs copyediting some more, let me know. ping Gatoclass Fdfexoex (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't have brought it here for just one word. The writing is clunky and hard to follow. It needs a good copyeditor, preferably someone with a bit of a science background, to go right through it, sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the article is poorly written, but that's not one of the DYK criteria. Maybe one could argue that WP:DYKCOMPLETE applies, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not it's formally one of the criteria, it's been informally one at DYK for at least a decade, after the project copped trenchant criticism about featuring "trash" on the main page. I don't expect perfection but I do expect an article to be at least comprehensible and this one is at best borderline. For example: The composition of the tail can be determined by modelling the transits caused by the dust tail. For Kepler-1520b and K2-22b one work found magnesium-iron silicates fitting the transits well.[3] I really have no idea what that is supposed to mean and I think many readers are likely to have the same problem. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyvios in hooks

It was pointed out to me that the hook for New Star GP (which was in a set I promoted) was a copyvio. My usual review workflow is two passes: first check that the hook is supported by the article, and then run Earwig on the article text looking for copyvios. Which means I never directly compare the hook text to the Earwig report, and this slipped through. Noting this here as a general heads up for what we need to be looking for. RoySmith (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 22 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 9. We have a total of 316 nominations, of which 217 have been approved, a gap of 99 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 17:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Set builders still needed

I am currently trying to help reduce the backlog but can't do anything if there are no sets to verify, so if anybody can help with set building, that would be much appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I finished off prep 2 and plan on finishing prep 3 and prep 4, but should point out that square brackets in captions cause PSHAW to break, so I suggest leaving the ticks out of those.--Launchballer 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I finally finished this.--Launchballer 19:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

There's a report at WP:ERRORS regarding the current hook for Wang Yungui, which was de-WP:PRODed and then tagged with {{unreliable sources}}.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea special set request for 16 September 2025

As I raised in an already archived discussion earlier this month, this 16 September 2025 will be the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinean independence. There have been some calls for more diverse special occasion sets, and you cannot get more diverse than Papua New Guinea. That it is a 50th anniversary also seems a very strong case for a special set, and hopefully planning ahead will help avoid last minute procedural questions.

16 September 2025 is three months from now. There is some discussion above about nomination timing, and while there are various opinions nobody has suggested keeping 6 weeks. Thus I think safely that nominations could be made from 16 July (I read no consensus on other changes, but if it gets closed otherwise perhaps even earlier nominations would be fine). Perhaps 2 September 2025 could be a soft limit for the end of the nomination period, providing a month and a half for submissions and then some buffer time for any issues found during prepping/queueing.

My theme suggestion is anything related to Papua New Guinea, it does not need to specifically relate to independence. There is plenty of unwritten or super stubby material out there to get to two 12-hour sets if there would be consensus for that. I guarantee to write a set myself if needed, although I hope others could join, as the ideal purpose of such sets would be to generate interest in writing new content for chosen topics. (If there are excess, all the better, they can fly free in the normal selection process.)

Any considerations I am missing here? Assuming consensus, looking forward to any participation! CMD (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

All in favour. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
aye! would depend on what kind of hooks we actually get, I wouldn't wanna throw in any random fact because it's Papua New Guinea related, but I like the idea :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Sure, no probs. Gatoclass (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Just leaving a note to say I mentioned this at WIR Lajmmoore (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Preparation area 5

@Launchballer: you trimmed the hook about Thomas Kerr (Scottish politician) quite a lot, making it not as interesting (in my opinion). Can you replace it with one of the other hooks, thanks. Sahaib (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The 2.5 hooks I rejected require knowledge of what the Scottish Conservatives and Reform are.--Launchballer 19:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Would you reject a hook that talked about Democrats and Republicans? ALT2 was the most interesting, though - four of the five main UK parties. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that people would have a general understanding of the words conservatives and reform if anything. I think that is good enough if that hook is what the nominator prefers. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm with Black Kite here. Even without knowing anything about the parties or their positions, having been associated with so many different parties is interesting. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the interest is less the parties themselves and more the number of them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I put it back.--Launchballer 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

Resolved

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Technical geography to prep 5, but I'm now not so sure about it. People would need to know what GIS, remote sensing, and Ptolemaic means. Pinging nominator GeogSage. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GeogSage tends to be pretty busy and hard to get a hold of here. I know, because I just spent a month working with him on that nom. Hopefully, others will chime in. I think the terms are easily recognizable and make sense in the context of the hook, and have links for people who don't recognize them. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I really wish that just clicking on the links were enough, but recent thoughts by others have been that the hook needs to be broadly interesting without readers having to click on the links. I personally think that is bs, but I also don't want any issues to come up towards me. I personally didn't know that GIS stood for geographic information system until I clicked on it. I don't mind, but the mileage may vary with others. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any issues that would reflect on you. If any issues do come up, you have my authorization to blame me for any and all problems. I hereby award you this unlimited, gold-plated, blame Viriditas card, which may be redeemed at any time. Bonus: it will get you 50% off any inter-dimensional breakfast at Shoney's. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn't worry so much. The Wikipedia drama can really get to me at times. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Hey, if I knew how to build sets, I would worry too! I have PSHAW installed, but never got farther than that. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the terms should be understood enough, but even to people who don't know exactly what they mean "GIS" and "remote sensing" just kinda sound modern and techy, and "Ptolemaic" sounds ancient. Words have vibes, so I think it works regardless of precise knowledge for the purposes of the hook. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I’ve been using GIS and Ptolemaic for a very long time (30 years), but remote sensing kind of snuck up on me about ten or 15 years ago. Any idea when it became popular with the general public? It seemed to come out of nowhere, in my mind. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Remote sensing was a core class when I was going through undergrad 15 years ago. The term itself originates from the military, I'm not sure where exactly, but I believe some time in the 1960s (it's in my lecture notes somewhere). One of my favorite quotes:

"There is no longer any need to preach for aerial photography-not in the United States- for so widespread has become its use and so great its value that even the farmer who plants his fields in a remote corner of the country knows its value."

— James Bagley, 1941

. As Remote sensing is an umbrella term that holds air photo interpretation today, the concept has been with the general public for a while, if not the words themselves. Remote sensing probably got popular as the internet made these images available to the general population. It likely was thrown around a lot during the Gulf Wars on the evening news as well, as satellite images were a big part of that discourse. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I first heard remote sensing used by NASA and JPL to describe aspects of the Mars exploration program. I don’t think I had ever heard it used before that time and I’m pretty well read. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
A search on Google scholar for remote sensing, specifying ranges of 1970 to 1980 and 1980 to 1990 shows quite a few hits in the academic literature, and it appears to cross several disciplines. The Google Ngram viewer [36] shows that the term peaked between 1985 and 1989, and has been trending downwards since, with some recent resurgence. I'm not 100% sure how this is calculated because that dip doesn't make much sense to me, but it does show the term isn't super recent. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for being hard to reach @Viriditas, I've found myself busy writing other things (outside Wikipedia), and often needed to think about replies regarding this proposal. The combination of interesting, simple, and few citations was a bit of a riddle. Geographic Information Systems might not be the most familiar term to average readers, although I think it is starting to become more of a recognizable term (I know that it is taught about in high-school AP Geography, for example). While not a synonym for GIS, the term Computer cartography could likely be swapped for it, however that might necessitate another source, as the ones we list don't specifically mention "computer cartography", but instead go into detail about using computers to do cartography under the general umbrella of GIS. Stand alone computer cartography has more or less been subsumed by GIS today, so that isn't surprising. Failing that, we could just use the term cartography, which I'd hope is something we can assume is easily recognizable, however that is less "techy", to borrow at term from @Kingsif, as cartography is among the most ancient of documented the things humans have used writing for. Ptolemaic is Definity a harder term, and if we can't rely on the link that wouldn't be fair for the average advance GIS user to know, much less average Wikipedia enjoyer. I'd suggest swapping that term for Greco-Roman, while keeping the link to Ptolemy's biography.
If someone doesn't know what remote sensing is though, they can click the link. . . I honestly think remote sensing has become a standard concept for 21st century internet users, air photos have been widespread for well over a century, and most people have interacted with a mobile web map that offers satellite images as a base map.
A revised option could be something like:
"... . that while technical geography studies the application of GIS and remote sensing today, it has origins in Greco-Roman and medieval Islamic cartography?"
or
"... . that while technical geography studies the application of Computer cartography and remote sensing today, it has origins in Greco-Roman and medieval Islamic cartography?"
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
That still sounds too complicated and specialist. Why not just trim it to: that technical geography, which deals with spatial information, has origins in Greco-Roman and medieval Islamic cartography? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
The "computer cartography" hook reads fine to me. The issue with the "spacial information" hook is firstly that the term is vague and jargonistic, and secondly, that it's kind of obvious anyway that any kind of geography deals with "spacial information". So I think the more precise terms are necessary. Unless you want to dump the middle clause altogether, which I guess would be another possible solution. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I like the second revision as well. People get what "computer" and "remote" imply, and they'll get what "Greco-Roman" and "medieval" imply too and see that contrast. CMD (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
The second revision sounds good to me too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I like the second revision also. SL93 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
 Done, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
There are two things to fix on my 2nd version above. The word computer should be made lower cases, and technical geography should be linked. I'm fine with any of those two GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Suggested trim for the above:

Or perhaps:

Set builders needed

There is currently only one complete set in prep, we need some set builders if we are going to keep the 12-hour cycle going. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

We have one complete set and sets with five, seven, and six. I can probably fill some of those gaps myself.--Launchballer 10:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm putting together a set now. Thanks, DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
We now have 4 complete preps in addition to the full queue of 7 sets :) DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Chelsea Wolfe (BMX)

Noting for any interested this rather intriguing discussion between Fram and myself on my talk page, as it relates to reviewing and prep-building procedures, as well as subsequent discussion at the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing good ever comes of a "first" hook. CMD (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly just a case of someone who has come to a DYK nom with a problem and a refusal to accept any form of solution, inexplicable unless they just want to win some pointy argument about their initial problem. But not users who are at DYK to be productive, and yes it is the wrong venue to force that. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2025 New York corrections officers' strike

I'm suspicious that the reviewer just drive-by approved this one without actually checking anything. Just a , no comments, and no preference between the two hooks. Apocheir (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagged for a second review by Launchballer. CMD (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK hasn't updated

Pinging @DYK admins: and Shubinator. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. I don't know enough about the inner workings to try and fix anything, though. Having the old hooks still on the main page isn't fatal, so I'd rather wait for somebody who knows what they're doing to take a look. RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Manual update done, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back up and running! Thanks Gatoclass for the manual update. Shubinator (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Supreme state organ of power

Hi!

Those this article (Supreme state organ of power - Wikipedia) now meet the criteria for DYK nomination. I have given it a big expansion! TheUzbek (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it meets the DYK requirements. You can use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck to check for yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (20 June 00:00)

Animals in War (book)

@Launchballer, Lajmmoore, and Sammi Brie: That's not a great image. How about we use File:Detail from Animals in War, Park Lane, London (3538574374).jpg instead? RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair cop, fine by me.--Launchballer 14:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look closer, that picture is more closely associated with the Memorial, and thus only tangential to the book which is the subject of this hook. So maybe not use an image at all? And, I just realized this is another Jilly Cooper hook, to which there has been some pushback recently, so maybe not run this hook at all? RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thinking along the same lines, I had previously removed the gratuitous link to Cooper. I didn't realise though that Animals in War Memorial is a standalone article, in which case it should be linked and, as you say, should not be placed in the image slot per WP:DYKIMG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying these - I hadn't linked it as I thought the link would divert attention. I'm happy for the picture to go, as well as the author. I'd appreciate it if the hook could still run at some point - I nominated it way before the discussion above. I do appreciate the readers point of view, but equally, I disagree with it and don't think a run of hooks related to Cooper's books any different to any of the other runs of plants or network stations or 400m races we've had recently. What I do think I should do (bearing the above discussion in mind) is look at the ones reviewed and try and de-Cooper them a bit so the repetition is less obvious e.g. her name had been used in a few early ones. It's all a learning curve and I always appreciate advice! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the hook should run, there are no obvious issues with the article that require pulling/rejection, but it should probably be spread out. FWIW, this is probably not as problematic as the other hooks since at least Cooper isn't mentioned by name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Had I realised that the award had an article, I wouldn't have put this in the image slot. I swapped it with Taraxacum britannicum, the only non-bio image I'm not involved in. Also, I see a consensus at the #Excessive thread that the Cooper hooks should be spread out rather than capped.--Launchballer 00:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks all! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Taraxacum britannicum

@History6042, MallardTV, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Hilst: The "Iceland" part of the hook needs a source.--Launchballer 00:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It had one, there should be a link to the Kew specs in in the original submission. @Launchballer MallardTV Talk to me! 00:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I see that, but it should be in the article.--Launchballer 00:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@History6042, MallardTV, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Hilst, and Launchballer: I am concerned about the range map, which is not only in the article but also in the DYK set. It portrays the species as occurring in Corsica. The source cited for the range says "Western Europe and Fennoscandia"; the line of thinking seems to have been: Western Europe includes France → France includes Corsica → T. britannicum is found on Corsica. I do not think this is right. Surtsicna (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Would it be worth to remove the map? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I would remove the map and edit the article so that it says what the cited source says, rather than "confirmed occurrences in countries including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden". Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about the map (I'm not the best at making range maps.) MallardTV Talk to me! 12:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I see that a new map has been created for the article, but rather that swap that one in, I used File:Taraxacum britannicum.png which I think is a better image anyway. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Although, now that I've done that, it's unclear to me if that image is properly licensed. It's tagged as CC-BY, but I'm not convinced that's correct. Could somebody who knows more about image licensing than I do please take a look? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@MallardTV I see what's going on. Most of the other images you uploaded to Commons have links to their records.data.kew.org pages, where it says the image is CC-BY. But this one links to the raw file on images.data.kew.org. Could you fix up the commons entry to link to the right place? RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I’ll do that as soon as I can sit down at a computer! (Several hours) MallardTV Talk to me! 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@MallardTV please don't forget that you need to update the commons page. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Yup, that completely slipped my mind. I’ll get to it when I get home this evening. MallardTV Talk to me! 21:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyós

@SL93, Jon698, and BeanieFan11: The citations in this article are very confusing. Some just read "Property" and "Construction 2025". Also, some of the text is copy-pasted from Mapcarta. That site is CC-BY-SA, but the "BY" part of that requires that we provide proper attribution, which I'm not seeing. And, ugh, it looks like I can't even give you the full URL because it's blacklisted, but check the Earwig report. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to mention what started this: I can't verify the hook fact because I can't figure out what the citation ("Property") means. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I misread the source which translated says, "Finally, in terms of customers, the Dutch account for 40% of the purchase of property in La Massana, Anyós and Escàs." So that would be 40% of them split between three villages which isn't interesting. The source is this. I wouldn't mind it being pulled for a new hook. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Pulled and replaced. RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Suff

@SL93, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Boneless Pizza!: This needs an in-line citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I am confused – it has one? "Suff also praised Bright for looking out for him and supporting him when he joined the soap, adding, "I quickly felt comfortable on the show and a massive part of that is from her. There's that motherly aspect, but day-to-day we're just friends and we giggle all the time!"[21]" Sorry my mistake, I got confused on the hook promoted, but the fact does have an inline citation.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I promoted that one. SL93 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I thought it was. "The role had previously been portrayed by Sam Strike from 2013 to 2014, followed by Ted Reilly from 2016 to 2018.[14][15] EastEnders executive producer Chris Clenshaw said that he was "delighted" to welcome Suff in the role of Johnny, saying how he believed that Johnny was still linked to the soap and the "iconic" Queen Victoria pub despite not having appeared since 2018.[12]" SL93 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I found Suff was cast as Johnny Carter on the BBC soap opera EastEnders, becoming the third actor to play the character. which is uncited. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Do you mean the sentence in the lead? It is uncited as it is already sourced in the article body. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the one in the lead. You are correct that it is cited in the body, but I was just trying to explain why I didn't find it originally. Some hooks are easy to verify, some, like this one, turn into scavenger hunts. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I will also add that I didn't promote that hook and I don't know who changed it to ALT0. SL93 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Looks like it was @Gatoclass in Special:Diff/1295876897 RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Jim Lankas

@Launchballer, BeanieFan11, and WikiOriginal-9: as an opinion, the hook fact should probably be attributed ("According to ...") RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  • ... that according to The Citizen-Patriot, when tackling, "Jarring Jim" was "mean, very mean, very mean"? That's much weaker of a hook in my opinion. I've had hooks of this type before; given that its already in quotes (meaning it was someone's opinion) I don't see why its a necessity to specify who said it: that's a reason people would want to learn more and click. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do we even allow hooks like this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's interesting, with or without the attribution. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I would imagine any tackle by a pro football player would be "very mean". It's not like they come up to you and say, "Excuse me sir, might I interest you in laying down on the grass? Here, let me help" RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm putting the obligation to do just that straight into #1 on my list of suggested American football rules. But yeah, the only interesting thing about the hook is the writer's rhetorical device, in which case one should definitely attribute. Otherwise it's just "... that someone, whose name I will not reveal, said something literarily pleasing?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the hook is amusing and eyecatching, and agree it doesn't need the attribution. I'd be willing to bet it gets a stack of pageviews. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think this hook fails to convey a meaningfully encyclopedic fact, so I don't think it should be run, with or without the attribution. (second time I've said I thought something wasn't interesting when I actually meant to say this! keep doing that...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
How does one determine if the hook is a "meaningfully encyclopedic fact"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with the above concerns about interest and think it's an interesting and catchy hook. However, with this opinion clearly being in the minority at this point (only one other non-nominator support versus five opposes), there is consensus against running it. I've gone ahead and pulled the hook; a new hook can be proposed on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Sae Kitamura

Lots of Japanese-only text in the "Award/Publications" etc sections of this article. Is this acceptable for DYK? Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

(hook promoter) I thought it was fine as those were the names of the awards and, absent a non-OR translation, fine within the list as I believe meets the DYK criteria with that section excluded DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
For DYK? Sure. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (13 June 00:00)

Lucky Day (Doctor Who)

@AirshipJungleman29, TheDoctorWho, Pokelego999, and Sammi Brie: The cited source doesn't say anything to support the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

??? @RoySmith: Re-checked the source, the exact quote says "And it's been really interesting talking to people in the village because, you know, they're really excited and want to know how much prep goes into all of this. But it wasn't until I sat down the other day and realised - per block, we have an allocated budget for six-weeks, and we spent two-thirds of that budget on three nights filming here. So it just gives you an idea of quite how much we've got going on." TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we're not looking at the same source? I'm looking at [6], which is https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002bw76/doctor-who-unleashed-season-2-4-lucky-day. But, I did just notice it says at the top, BBC iPlayer only works in the UK. Sorry, it’s due to rights issues, so I'm wondering if we're just getting different versions of the page? RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh, wait. In the nom, you've got "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assume that quote is something that's said on the video. In the article, you're missing the "Event occurs at 10:44–10:53", so I assumed I was just supposed to find the supporting text on the page itself. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Correct, the template used on the nom page and in the article is {{cite episode}}, and that's the link to view the episode. The time isn't included in the article cite, because that same source supports other claims as well, that extend outside of that time frame. I included it on the nom page for ease of verification for a reviewer. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You can indicate the times for the individual citations using {{rp}} with "location=time index 10:44–10:53". See SoHo Weekly News for examples. RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Edinson Edgardo Farfán Córdova

@AirshipJungleman29, Thriley, and Davide King: The hook is supposed to be about the subject, not about subject's predecessor. In fact, I don't see how this article passes WP:N at all, i.e. WP:1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how 1E and NOTINHERITED are applicable at all, but if you disagree you are of course welcome to start an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Would we have an article on him if he wasn't the successor to the man who went on to become pope? The fact that the article was created the same day the 2025 papal conclave ended makes me suspect not. I'm not foolish enough to start an AfD because I know how that would end, but we still need a hook that says something about Córdova independent of his predecessor. RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we could say something about him and just him, but the current belief in DYK is that it has to be interesting, and what's most interesting about him is that he followed big footsteps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
In other words, there's nothing interesting about him. That's exactly the point of WP:INHERITED. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say "nothing". I said that we have this interesting (leaning towards sensational) belief. Perhaps modify that, and then we can say something worth knowing about the new person on that unusual job, where "smell of sheep" is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I would probably be looking for better sources than at current if I were to vote "Keep" at an AfD. Unless I am missing something, there appears to be only one source that is actually about him in any depth (as opposed to press releases and lists which just say "Fr. Cordova has been appointed X"). He's almost certainly notable, but I'd like to see more extensive coverage. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Catholic bishops are notable from their position. There are approximately 5,600 bishops that serve a population of nearly 1.5 billion catholics. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, yes, that much is clear from WP:CLERGY. But my point still holds that if we're going to put somebody on the main page, we need to be able to say something about what they've done other than hold some position which was previously held by some more famous person. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I think it is hooky. The pope is one of the most well known people in the world. Taking a position that was just held by Babe Ruth, Donald Trump, Micheal Jackson etc seems hooky. Thriley (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think the hook fails the "hook must be about the subject" criterion, or at least its spirit, since the hook is arguably too attached to Leo XIV rather than actually being about him. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
A hook which states the subject and the pope held the same position as bishop of a diocese in Peru is about the subject. It connects him to the diocese he serves and to the pope. Thriley (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You're missing the point. If the hook fact is reliant on him being Leo XIV's successor in that position, instead of it being a hook where he can stand on his own, that is an issue. A hook that is about a subject's relationship with another person isn't necessarily wrong or even disallowed (I've proposed similar hooks in the past myself), but this is a different case since it's about succession and not something like inspiration. There has to be a better option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I find interesting that here you argue for sticking to the subject, while in case of this song you brought in a fact around something only marginally related. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Those are two different cases Gerda. The original hook seemed to focus too much on Leo XIV, whereas the new proposal is still more about Cordova than the Pope even if it still mentions Leo. In the case of the song you mentioned, the hook mentions Wilhelmus, but the hook was still primarily about the hook subject. I suspect this may be more of a language barrier in your case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Bill Cottrell

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Lullabying: I don't see how this passes WP:DYKINT. It's basically, "After leaving his first job, he got another job". RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

ALT2 is interesting to me. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Disagree. It's not necessarily the "after leaving their first job, they found a new one" that's the point, it's what that job is. Being in HR is very different from playing American football, so I thought the contrast was unusual. With that said, I wouldn't oppose a switch to ALT2 if consensus leaned that way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Anything becomes less interesting if you summarise it generically. It was interesting enough for me, see what NLH5 says above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
This quote from the Detroit Free Press is the interesting story

"In the 1960s in pro football, the positions up the middle – quarterback, center and middle linebacker – were reserved for white players because they were 'thinking man's' positions," Acho said by text. "It wasn't until Bill Cottrell, who was extremely smart, that it was thought that black players could play center. He was the first."

and a hook should be built around that. I get that the first hook was pulled for lack of sufficient sourcing for the "first" statement, but the overcoming of the NFL's racism really is what we should be highlighting. WP:DYKINT says "Intriguing hooks leave the reader wanting to know more". If somebody really were intrigued by the idea of a football player going into labor relations and clicked through to find out more, they would be disappointed to find that we have exactly one sentence on this aspect of Cottrell's life. Surely if this is important enough to put on the main page, it's important enough to give greater coverage in the article. Looking at it another way, why does the {{Short description}} not say "American football player and labor relations supervisor (1944–2025)"? RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, are we actually sure that he was the first black center in the NFL? We've already had many issues with "first" hooks in the past, so if we are to revisit that angle, we actually have to make sure that the claim is watertight. I do think it is the most interesting fact in the article, but given how much of an exceptional claim it is, I don't know if it is the most practical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
So write a hook about his overcoming the NFL's racism with focusing on the "first" aspect. RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: @Gonzo fan2007: Could either of you try to write a hook based on RoySmith's suggestion? @RoySmith: Did you mean to say "without focusing on the 'first' aspect"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Something like, "... that it was thought that black men could not play the "thinking man's'" position of center in the NFL until the career of Bill Cottrell?" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that's the right idea. My only concern is whether we need to have more explicit attribution, i.e. "According to Jim Acho ..." and how to do that without generating something that's excessively verbose. RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I've bumped the hook to Prep 4 for now to give us more time to discuss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and RoySmith: Well...? What sort of alternative variation of that do you have in mind? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Something like ... that according to an NFL alumni attorney, it was thought that black men could not play the "thinking man's" position of center in the NFL until the career of Bill Cottrell? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Roy, this is not interesting. It should be pulled. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Also agree with Roy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Cottrell. I suggest closing the nomination at timed out as well. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 @TarnishedPath @Khajidha What do you think of BeanieFan11's new proposal above? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
My issue is that it doesn't say who thought such a thing. It could come across as racist without the context, and maybe even racist with the context. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
That people thought only white men were smart enough to play certain positions is indeed racist. We should not shy away from that. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we should shy away from whatever could be interpreted in a bad way by our readers on the main page. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
It still comes across vaguely racist to me, in a sort of "he's a credit to his race" kind of way. I find the fact that he was an unheralded player from a high school with a poor record who became a starting lineup player professionally to be more interesting.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Well we could do then ... that Bill Cottrell went from being an "unheralded" high school player for a poor team to a starter in the NFL? I don't see how the other hook is 'vaguely racist' though: I understand it as highlighting others' racism and how it was because of him that those racist ideas were proved wrong, which is something I think worth highlighting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
My point is that it never needed to be proved wrong. They were only that way because of their racism. People who are targeted by racism do not need to seek validation from those who hold prejudiced views. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I like this hook. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I personaly don't see a problem with the hook above which highlights the racist attitudes of the time. Howver this latest one is good too. TarnishedPathtalk 00:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
However, the hook doesn't state the time period. Even with the time period, it could be interpreted as Wikipedia still supporting the idea. By the way, it isn't just racist attitudes of the time. There are still plenty of people who are that racist. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, why exactly would we want to highlight any racist attitudes of the time? SL93 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Because it's of interest? Anyway as I stated above he most recent hook is interesting also. TarnishedPathtalk 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
As if it's only of the time period... Anyway, I'm glad you like the other hook. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The hook about racism also seems a bit demeaning to Mr. Cottrell to me. It seems as if we are only interested in him because people were racist towards him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith, Narutolovehinata5, Khajidha, SL93, and TarnishedPath: Seriously? I propose the most recent hook that everyone agrees with, I propose it at the nom, and then the response is to fail it because its there's already many football hooks and I don't see anything special about this particular person??? That is very frustrating. It'd been approved for 19 days then pulled because of concerns about the "first" hook – I'll add that those concerns were incorrect (the other "claimaint" brought up to that title isn't actually the first, and there doesn't seem to be any black center prior to him). Then I say that the other two proposed hooks work. I wait 27 further days for the reviewer to return to say that they're good to go. Then they get brought up here and so I propose a different one that everyone agrees with, I wait a few more days for someone to approve it at the nom, and the response? "drop it since there's already a lot of football hooks and he's not special"... That we're denying this historic black athlete who defied racism to play in the NFL from being on the main page for this is very frustrating. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I feel your frustration mate. TarnishedPathtalk 15:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The problem is, there's always something. What about the first black athlete to play wide receiver? To be a place kicker? The first person of mixed-race? The first Albanian? The first queer? The first Jew? That's what I like about the timeout rule; we don't need to get into arguing about whether something deserved to be on the MP; the fact that it didn't get there in a certain amount of time is a dispassionate measure of whether people felt it was good enough.
It's good that nominations compete for a limited number of slots. Competition selects (albeit imperfectly) the better material. Some things don't make the cut, but this is true of all things. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
If there's a hook on the first black wide receiver, I'd support it. The first Albanian NFL player? I'd support that too. I don't think the "amount of time" taken necessarily means it was not a good hook: e.g. for a 27-day period I was waiting for the reviewer to return to say it was good to go. Nearly a whole month. Does that mean it was an unworthy subject, because the reviewer took so long to return? I don't think so. And everyone agreed that the last hook was alright, so I see no reason this should have been declined. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
It means that for two months, as reviewers and prep builders scanned over the list looking for hooks that caught their fancy, they kept passing it over and found something else. The NFL draft works the same way. The players get analysed every way possible: playing stats, how fast they run, how much they bench, how high they can jump, etc. But in the end, they get picked when somebody decides they're good enough to pick. Some guys don't get picked. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
It means that for two months ... they kept passing it over and found something else. No, that's not what happened. It was reviewed within a few days, approved, and then soon after put into the prep before someone complained. ALT hooks were proposed, and we waited nearly a whole month with several pings before we could get the reviewer to return, who said it looked great. So that's half of the two-months just waiting for the reviewer to return. Then it was promoted after a week (a normal wait for an approved hook), and then you complained. So I proposed an ALT that everyone agreed with, and you respond by failing it because the first black center in NFL history is someone who's "not special". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
BeanieFan11 I said this up above, "ALT2 is interesting to me." I don't know why no one seemed to see it. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, and TarnishedPath agreed it was a good hook as well. I see no reason why that hook shouldn't be allowed to be promoted. 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_206&oldid=1298633609"