Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

By /

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

Hello, it has come to my attention that some editors may not be following the guideline which stipulates that your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination. Instead, they are nominating their hooks and submitting QPQs that have not been done and are sometimes abandoned during the process. I hate to mention any names, but User:Howard the Duck has made a habit of this, and he’s been active since 2005 and knows the rules just as well as anyone else. I see Template:Did you know nominations/Yunus Emre power station, a nom he sat on for ten days before abandoning it. And now Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Borgmann. The user does not respond to messages on their talk page. I apologize if this comes off as petty or mean-spirited, but it feels unfair to people waiting for reviews and seems to show a general misunderstanding of the process. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should be stricter when it comes to this requirement. It has been the case that some editors are habitually late in providing QPQs, thus putting their nominations in danger of being closed. Ideally, editors should have at least one or a few spare QPQs in case they won’t be available to review a nomination immediately, but editors seem to be loathe to review if they don’t have their own open nomination. Things like rejection appeals and QPQ donations should be reserved for extreme circumstances, such as an editor being unavailable for reasons beyond their control, but otherwise, we should be more strict about the requirement, not more lenient. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I closed Template:Did you know nominations/NCAA Season 101 basketball tournaments a couple of days ago and just put a timer on Borgmann.–Launchballer 03:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification purposes: HTD’s nomination is Template:Did you know nominations/UAAP Season 88 basketball tournaments and not Borgmann; Borgmann is the nomination he was planning to review for QPQ purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was on holiday; I was supposed to get this done before that but then had a busted keyboard and won’t be able to buy a new one until the weekend; I’m literally typing this on an on screen keyboard LOL. I have no problem with closing those nominations, but I condemn despicable noncompliance of WP:AGF on a section about my noncompliance (LOL). Where was this at Template:Did you know nominations/George Garcia which was all set but was somehow rejected? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Despicable” conduct violations should be dealt with swiftly at the appropriate noticeboard, if you want to open a section there Howard the Duck. I’m not sure why there would be such conduct violations at the George Garcia nomination, which was closed per WP:DYKTIMEOUT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW…Howard the Duck is using the word “despicable” as a joke. It was the favorite word of Daffy Duck who had problems pronouncing it. It sounds to me like Howard had a great vacation filled with general frivolity, but isn’t all that interested in DYK norms and practices. Viriditas (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective reading is a thing, but yes, I had a great vacation, but still I returned with a busted keyboard. I would have loved to get the reviews done, but reviewing with a nobile phone is not feasible. It’s a chore to reply even to this LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My dude. I’ve written the vast majority of my DYK reviews on my mobile, and maybe half of my good articles. People like Jengod have written all of their contribs from their phone. And most nerdy Wikipedians have one keyboard in the closet for these kinds of situations. I’ve gone through four desktop keyboards in just the last 10 years. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This keyboard lasted me more than 10 years, and was on its last legs. I can’t imagine how I’d check references, copyvios, etc. on mobile on a tiny screen LOL; this is not tablet.
I’ve ordered a keyboard and should be here in a couple of days. I’d be fine if these nominations are closed, as I understand that these rules are here for a reason. Once I receive the keyboard, I’d review 2 articles myself. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can promise to get to it in a few days, then I would lobby to keep them open on your behalf. Will you be able to review the Borgmann article at that time? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, given that this has been a recurring thing, and how there were ways to at least inform us ahead of time that there was an issue instead of only telling us now, I’m disinclined to support an extension. HTD should learn from this experience and should either learn to be more prompt with his reviews, or at least know to inform reviewers ahead of time of any possible issues. If he has the capability to write nominations even with a broken keyboard, it is not as difficult to do a review with one as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don’t really care if there’s an extension or not; as stated above, I’d still review 2 articles even if I have no active noms. If this is a recurring thing, just as what was suggested above, you are more than welcome to post at the appopriate drama boards. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you in the very least acknowledge the problems you caused for multiple people waiting for their noms to be reviewed while expecting that your own nom be reviewed with the submission of a QPQ that you never did? That does nothing to relieve the congestion of the queue; it makes it worse. Also, you still haven’t done the QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/UAAP Season 88 basketball tournaments, preferring to instead engage in a bizarre discussion of non-criteria items that you invented while wikilawyering over hypothetical issues that might have occurred. You may want to consider removing yourself from that review if you feel this dispute interferes with your role. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can review once the keyboard arrives, at Friday at the earliest. If that’s not soon enough, you can find another person to review that. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just a one-time thing, perhaps people would be more forgiving. It’s more of an issue when it’s become a habit, since you have had multiple nominations in the past where the QPQ was late. It isn’t a recent thing: the keyboard issue did not apply to the previous situations. If there really was a keyboard issue that was preventing you from making a full review, it isn’t difficult for you to leave a message on mobile saying “due to keyboard issues I will not be able to provide a QPQ immediately; please give lenience” or something to that effect.
As an aside, the repeated use of “LOL” in your responses feels disrespectful, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it did not help in this situation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you’d look at the edit history of NCAA Season 101 basketball tournaments, there’s a hidden section that I’ve not shown as it is unfinished. The keyboard gave out a day after UAAP Season 88 basketball tournaments was nominated. That was supposed to be 5 tournaments but I was only to add just two because of that.
Your recurring inability to WP:AGF is very concerning, more so to someone who is everywhere here at DYK. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not difficult to say in the nomination page that you would be unable to provide a QPQ within the usual timeframe for reasons. It is also not difficult to have a stash of reviews in advance so that, when the times comes that you nominate an article, you already have a QPQ ready to go instead of having to do the QPQ after the nomination. This advice is not just targeted to you but also to other editors in general who have been habitually late in providing QPQs. This isn’t an AGF or ABF thing. It is about following the rules, and making an effort to do so. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George Garcia nomination was virtually approved but was rejected. I suppose the last sentence on WP:DYKTIMEOUT didn’t apply? I had no issue with the nomination lasting for 2 months (LOL), the last month or so having no responses. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the last sentence does not apply, because the nomination was approved and sitting at WP:DYKNA. For your information, a reviewed nomination which is at the approved page has been reviewed and approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was approved, why was it still rejected? That doesn’t make sense? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was not going to be used. DYK receives far more nominations than it can actually present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, QPQs should be substantially complete before they can be used. Just claiming one is not enough. It doesn’t have to be a tick or a fail, but most of the article should be reviewed with maybe just a question or two to get cleared up. Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Gersten was absolutely not sufficient to be used as a QPQ. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already reject QPQs if they are too incomplete. We should do the same for claimed QPQs that were not reviews at all. Even if you claim a nomination for review, you should not use it as a QPQ until you have done something. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of philosophy

[edit]

The software development world is full of processes, maxims, and even cults. One of the things I picked up there is that unblocking your fellow team members (or not blocking them in the first place) is more important than getting your own work done. If you submit a nomination which is missing a required QPQ, that’s a blocker to the person reviewing your nomination because they need to stop what they’re doing and remind you to do your QPQ. In software cult parlance, you’ve broken the build. Don’t do that. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I don’t know why we still aren’t encouraging editors to review nominations even without having their own open nominations. It helps cut down the backlog and also creates a stack of QPQs ready to use when needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that makes way too much sense, Rjjiii (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because we all have ADHD and asking us to do things before the last minute is preaching to the rocks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Howard the Duck’s nom, Template:Did you know nominations/UAAP Season 88 basketball tournaments was rejected, the QPQ he said he was going to do, my nom, Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Borgmann has been languishing for ten days. Howard said he was requesting a second opinion/fresh review, although no review was ever done and no tick mark was left. Not sure if someone needs to add {{DYK?again}} or not. Could someone take a look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone ahead and given it a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I’ve offered a new hook, although it may not be to your liking. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be more strict about requiring QPQs, not less

[edit]

We already have a guideline that states that nominations without a QPQ can be closed without warning. If anything, we are being too lenient: if a QPQ is not provided at the time of the nomination, and the nominator does not give a good reason as to why they’re late, it should be closed immediately. Also, what is stopping editors from reviewing nominations before making a nomination? That way, they already have a QPQ waiting to go, instead of possibly causing delays and inconveniencing reviewers. If a nominator has not done a QPQ, they should own up to it unless there are understandable reasons why. If a nominator cannot provide a QPQ immediately, they must state so at the time of the nomination, say why, and pledge to do a QPQ as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d generally agree. There’s nothing preventing an editor “banking” QPQs so that their own noms can swiftly move forward when they are made. Maximilian775 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have 226 approved nominations at this moment; even if we fill all preps and queues, that leaves over 150. We regularly have issues with WP:PEIS (a technical size restriction) that mean not all approved nominations are shown at WP:DYKNA. The reason why it happens is simple math: if we run 24-hour sets, we get through 9 nominations per day, but we have more than 9 approved nominations on average. There are a few ways in which we can address this. Here is a somewhat structured collection of ideas/ways to approach things.

  • 1. Increase throughput (12-hour sets, faster prep to queue promotions).
    • 1.1 Recruit more people as prep to queue promoters to avoid burnout
    • 1.2 Promote preps to queue without checking or with only minimal checking
  • 2. Decrease the input by approving fewer nominations
    • 2.1 Make the non-subjective criteria stricter
      • 2.1.1 Increase the size requirements
      • 2.1.2 Increase the quality requirements to something like C-Class or B-Class (measure by m:ORES if we can’t agree)
      • 2.1.3 Increase size and quality requirements for repeat nominators
    • 2.2 Make the subjective criteria stricter
      • 2.2.1 Define “interestingness” to reject entire classes of “person did their job” hooks
  • 3. Discard approved nominations
    • 3.1 Once per day, throw away all the ten oldest nominations that have been approved for over ten days. Repeat until the backlog size is under 150.
    • 3.2 Throw away all unpromoted nominations two months after they have been nominated
  • 4. Hide or move the backlog
    • 4.1 Increase the number of preps and queues to 10
    • 4.2 Increase the number of preps and queues to 100
    • 4.3 Stop looking at WP:DYKNA and use the one-week versions instead

Are there any other ideas? My personal favourites are in 2.1. All of the suggestions I made have some drawbacks; the question is how significant the drawbacks are and what we are willing to live with. For example, I am including 1.2 here because I am sure it would fix the backlog, not because I think it is a desirable way to do so. But we need to do something so we need to be honest about what the options are. —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have talked about implementing 12 hour sets. That used to be more common, but since we increased the number of hooks per set from 8 to 9, implemented WP:DYKTIMEOUT, lost interest for promoters and changed when to implement 2 a day, its no longer common. I would note that WP:GAN is the largest backlog it had for several years (877 nominations), possibly ever, although a backlog drive for GA is coming next month. Because we pretty much stopped doing 2 a day, people who don’t work for the administration of DYK (those only reviewing and nominating) would assume their article will always be on the main page for 24 hours, especially for those who joined in 2024 onwards. JuniperChill (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a lot of interesting ideas here. I’m sure many of these will be unpopular, but it’s good to lay them all out.
From a math point of view, 4.1 and 4.2 don’t solve the stated problem. Increasing the storage capacity of the system is useful to accommodate peak flows. If our problem was that we occasionally get messed up when we get a big dump of nominations (say, because of a GAN backlog drive) but overall we’re handling the workload, that would make sense. But that’s not our problem. So those really are non-starters.
Pesonaly, I like 3.1 (throw away all the ten oldest nominations). It has the advantage that it doesn’t require judgement calls. What really drives me nuts is when a problematic nom gets closed for cause, people lose their minds it and it ends up getting reopened. So this takes the human factor out of the equation while at the same time providing people with an incentive to make better nominations. RoySmith (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I like 3.1. What we could do is have GalliumBot make a daily section on this page of “these ten nominations should all be closed by the end of the day UTC; if they’re not promoted, they should be timed out.” theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason why we haven’t increased the number of preps and queues yet? I get that one reason we have the current number is to line up with the seven days of the week, but that seems like the simplest solution. It’s not perfect, and it could be done with other possible options, but it could help buy more time (just like how increasing the number of hooks per set did have some effect on cutting down the backlog).
I very much support option 2.2, but the issue is that it is sure to cause editor resentment, especially if nominators disagree with reviewer rejections. We could try 2.2, we should just expect a backlash.
I oppose 2.1 because it would make it more difficult for newer editors to get into DYK, it would favor veterans too much, and it could potentially exacerbate systemic bias by disallowing articles that simply cannot be expanded further, a possible issue for topics affected by the FUTON bias.
Another possible solution could be to make DYKTIMEOUT stricter during backlog mode: instead of two months before timing out, nominations would only get one month before being timed out. It’s not ideal, of course, which is why I suggest that it only be used during backlog mode. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newbies are exactly why I included 2.1.3. Asking those with 50+ approved nominations to nominate better and longer articles reduces the number of nominations while increasing quality. —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory the increased requirements have good intentions, but the issue is that it could increase systemic bias. It’s not uncommon for niche topics or subjects from non-English speaking countries to have a limited amount of available sourcing. This can limit the maximum length of articles about them, meaning that even if they meet the notability guidelines and have something potentially hooky, not being long enough can disqualify deserving topics from being featured. I’m more of the opinion that editors should voluntarily lessen their nominations and not try to force articles that simply don’t have anything hooky into DYK, but speaking from experience, that’s easier said than done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I want us to do something that works. Losing undersourced and borderline notable articles is a trade-off I would be happy to make. I don’t accept that countering systemic bias means we should promote substandard articles. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t actually think WP:PEIS is an issue, if recent items languish recent items languish, it’s not actually an issue. On other points, 1.1 seems misplaced based on the last few weeks, we need more queuers, not promoters. I’m vaguely positive towards 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, but on their own merit rather than trying to solve PEIS. For 3.1 and 3.2, I would be against as there is not really a huge issue yet and other options are available. As for 4, I don’t think that matters too much, more preps has its benefits but the current pressure point is queues. CMD (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“promoters” is shorthand for prep to queue promoters here as opposed to prep builders. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, now clarified. —Kusma (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies, then yes 1.1 is a good idea. We should promote good preppers. Two promotions in the last week is a good sign. CMD (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see some merit in increasing the length requirement per 2.1.1; however I think it would be make it too difficult for new editors if we required C-class+ with 2.1.2.
Also in support of 2.2.1.
1.2 sounds good in theory, but this would result in more store being brought up and errors and I don’t think anyone would want that. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when this discussion is done. Rather than nothing happening and the same discussion happening in two weeks to a month. Can we take the three most popular specific proposals and make an RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot option 5: don’t do anything at all, let the backlog build up naturally until WP:DYKTIMEOUT starts to self-regulate the system. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We’re so backlogged that DYKTIMEOUT is not proving to be effective. Most nominations are acted upon before they even come close to timing out, and we usually only time out a single-digit number of nominations per month. The status quo is not working out, and keeping things as is and relying on the current rule barely helps at all. One possibility would be to make DYKTIMEOUT stricter or shorter under certain conditions, but who knows how popular such a proposal would. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with my comment Narutolovehinata5, which deals with the future, not the present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think DYKTIMEOUT is a strong enough rule to even create an equilibrium, much less one at a reasonable number. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not theleekycauldron? The number of nominations appearing at DYKNA is greater than the number leaving it. Eventually the backlog will build up to such an extent that the older, unpromoted nominations reach the two-month limit just by existing. There’s the equilibrium, the self regulation; what’s not to like? The only reason we’re having this discussion now is because of a technical limit that has absolutely no impact on how DYK operates. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Well, look at what’s happening right now. The oldest extant nomination is from July 17, which means there’s currently nothing that can be timed out and we’re at 410 open nominations. Yes, more nominations will be timed out as nominations float to the top, but more nominations are also created at the bottom. At some point, as more nominations nominations are created than we can handle, we will reach a balance where DYKTIMEOUT closes the gap between the nomination rate and the review rate, but that balance will be at least 410 open nominations, which I think is too many. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is any number of nominations too many theleekycauldron? Why put any importance on that figure at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: It puts increased strain on the process in a few ways. More open nominations means more surface area for problems to happen; it means more time between nomination and appearance, which is frustrating for nominators (and counter to wanting to run new articles); and it causes technical strain on DYKN and DYKNA re: the PEIS limit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any of that. “Surface area for problems to happen” doesn’t make sense to me; the time between nomination and appearance will be the same as now, as promoters still have discretion to promote whichever hook they want; and the “technical strain” on DYKN and DYKNA just means that you have to click once extra to see some nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t recommend trying to base 2.1.1 on class, although we could require articles to need lead sections. 4.1 also won’t help the backlog, but we could do that anyway, to either 10 or 14. I also suggest the following:
  • 2.1.4 Each self-nomination from those with X+ nominations (either 20 or 50 or some other number) must contain at least one GA. No objection to non-GAs being tacked on, and drivebys help recruit new editors.
  • 2.2.2 ‘Person who did job also did another job’ hooks are rarely interesting, with the caveat that a double hook of that form was last month’s most viewed non-image hook.
  • 3.3 Nominations without good reason to delay that are more than a month old and have been either approved or have unresolved issues after two weeks. If we’re going with 5, DYKTIMEOUT should tighten anyway.
1.2 is the nuclear option. What’s the admin involvement in WP:OTD?–Launchballer 14:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: To answer “What’s the admin involvement in WP:OTD?” The answer is basically none. While I have been checking the OTD hooks for the past couple of months. Previously, it was only one editor who was swapping the hooks and no one checking. If an OTD hook is posted at ERRORS, an admin decides if the hook needs to be swapped out. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m in favour of 1. going to 12-hour DYK permanently, but only if there are six hooks per set (and therefore 12 hooks would run a day). This decreases the work for the p2q promoters (as instead of checking 9 hooks, they are checking 6), allows more image hooks to run, and gives more attention to the hooks that are running in each set (as there are fewer hooks for the reader to click away). The extra space can be given to TFA to have longer blurbs. If DYK starts running out of hooks, the amount of hooks per set can be reduced to 5. DYK ran 6 hooks a set in May 2006. I am also in favour of 2.1.1. increasing size requirements, especially for editors with high DYK counts so that DYK has higher-quality articles and more opportunities for interesting hooks. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel similar. I do not promote as often because it is time consuming and tiring, even if there were no concerns detected. Less hooks would make this more manageable. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume if we moved to six per set we’d have to negotiate with the OTD folks to get them to cut back as well, to keep the main page balanced. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, the main reason I don’t do as many queue promotions as I used to is that I just don’t have the energy for the endless squabbles. It’s not so much the time it takes to do a good review, it’s knowing that every time I find a problem, I’m potentially exposing myself to days of arguing from nominators who just keep fighting to get their way. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I sometimes look at the next prep set and notice something I don’t want to promote. When I don’t have the energy to bring it up and start a discussion, I just ignore it and wait for someone else to deal with it. If five out of eight p2q promoters do this and the remaining three have a stake in the prep set, this means it never gets promoted. I’d be curious to know how common this scenario is. —Kusma (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. When I promote, I just bump or pull stuff first and post later. If someone else runs it, out of my hands. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people start promoting to queue for like a few months, then drop out for various reasons, such as due to losing interest or too much work. Or because we increased the number of hooks per rotation from 8 to 9 in 2024, adding like 5 mins per promotion. JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One elephant in the room is the reason why people get burned out from prep building in the first place. The scrutiny is intense and messing up can lead to consequences. Back when our standards were lower, prep building was not as stressful and people were more willing to collaborate, but as standards have risen, it’s become much easier for editors to get burned out. When we discuss prep/queue building, we also have to discuss why editors get burned out in the first place: recruiting more editors is just a band-aid solution since it does not solve the underlying issue in the first place. Frankly, even the other proposals like increasing article requirements won’t help either in the long run if the issue remains the intense pressure to not mess up when building preps/queues and checking nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that three more hooks per day is on the same planet as “decreasing the work for the p2q promoters”. Sure, you don’t have to assess as many hooks in one go, but unless you want the process to halt, you or someone else will have to do it again within 12 hours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we’re going to go with some variant of 2.2.1, we might as well also phase out hooks that are just “first” hooks given that first hooks tend to be more trouble than they’re worth. So no more “DYK that X was the first Y?” hooks, but “DYK that X, who was the first Y, was Z?” hooks could still be allowed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with implementing anything from 2 or 3, maybe with the exception of 2.2.
  • 2.1 punishes newer editors and those who write about subjects that don’t have that much reliable info on them out there; for example, my nomination of Active Bird Community would’ve been a non-starter even though it has an interesting fact and uses pretty much all reliable info out there about the band (it’s a short article, and not particularly comprehensive due to a lack of reporting about various releases etc, and I’m a repeat nominator so may have additional restrictions).
  • 2.2 could be alright if done well.
  • 3 just wastes the time of anyone who worked on a nomination that gets thrown out, and will cause people (especially newer editors/nominators) to get discouraged with the entire DYK process if their hooks get thrown away for reasons completely out of their control.
I have no strong opinions on 1 or 4, but I am strongly against most of 2 and 3. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relative DYK newbie here; have been lurking this discussion but thought I’d chime in with a couple thoughts. It seems like one of the biggest challenges for admins/template editors is having to review nine hooks in a single sitting, particularly since the expectation seems to be that the queue promoter reads every article. Considering that the hook has (notionally) already been checked by a reviewer and a prep area promoter, perhaps the workflow could be reduced to making sure formatting is correct, the hook is included in the article, and there are no obvious issues? Problems could still be flagged at WP:ERRORS before launch. Perhaps it’s worth an experiment to see if limiting the steps required of queue promoters improves the volunteer experience without leading to a material increase in hook problems at ERRORS? Of course, I’m new here, so if this has been done in the past and found inadequate, forget I said anything. (P.S. I began nominating in March and started promoting hooks to preps around the beginning of this month when I noticed the backlog of approved nominations. This is an interesting area of the project! I am new enough that I’m not going to put myself forward for the template editor permission right now, but if at an appropriate time in the future we still have a shortage of queue promoters I would be happy to contribute in that way.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to DYK for about 12 years. First, I will confess that I had not been sufficiently appreciative of the work done by the promoters. This discussion has informed me a lot about the challenges of the “backstage” process. Next thing I will confess is that DYK drives about 90% of my work on Wikipedia or more. When I decide to write, expand, or improve an article, it is nearly always because I thought of a good hook. Suggestion #3 would thus sadden me quite a bit. 2.1.1 (increasing the size requirements) would disqualify a lot of topics about which little can be written but which may produce particularly interesting hooks; for example, Elias (bishop of Tiberias) and Altuntash (governor of Bosra), where I struggled to squeeze out more than 1500 characters of content, each got over 10,000 views. Yet I understand the need to do something. In times of backlog, I would perhaps go with 2.2 and raise the “interestingness” bar. But in my opinion, how to handle these issues is something for the promoters to decide. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would perhaps go with 2.2 and raise the “interestingness” bar.
The problem with that is that “interestingness” is so subjective. There are hooks that most of us can agree are batshit boring, but then there’s a lot of stuff where there will be disagreement. When promoting, I scroll past a lot of stuff that I think is dull as dishwater that I see others promote the next day. I don’t see how we could effectively ‘raise the bar’ on something that is so subjective. If we do enact any sort of measures to restrict hooks, it would be best to be completely objective measure/s. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could throw out certain hook types that have perennially proven to be controversial. For example, hooks that are simply “X was the first Y” hooks are already controversial and could be restricted due to how they tend to be a pain to verify and often end up being questioned. We could allow exemptions on a case-to-case basis, perhaps through WT:DYK exemptions, but otherwise I would not oppose a blanket ban on them.
Similarly, we could also ban hooks that are just “X doing their job”. For example, “That Japanese voice actor X played Y in Z” or “that opera performer performed the role of A in B at the C, directed by D.” If such hooks are to be allowed, there has to be something different about them: for example, there was a recent hook about an actor who played many, many roles in a series. That might be allowed, but I imagine this would be a rare exception. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath If you can give some examples of hooks that “most of us can agree are batshit boring”, perhaps we can start a discussion regarding those so we could restrict such hooks moving forward. Oftentimes, such hooks are part of a broader pattern, so if we know which hook structures are generally considered “boring”, we can take action. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, this is one I see quite often that I see broad agreement on uninterestingness ‘X did Y job while they saved/competed for/at Z event’ TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, agree with you on ‘X was the first Y’, unless there is something more. TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subjectiveness is a major drawback for 2.2. Two years ago I nominated a hook about Charles III’s wife leaving him after discovering a palace full of mistresses. The reviewer, @Onegreatjoke, found the hook “pretty basic”. @Unlimitedlead chimed in and said that, on the contrary, it was “extremely attention-grabbing”. It ended up getting 20,000 views, no image. Yet interestingness is already one of the main criteria, and simply raising that bar would be a smoother, much less detectable change in how DYK operates than e.g. suggestion #3. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While interestingness is subjective, from experience we already have an idea of kinds of hooks that tend to do badly or are otherwise unworkable. One recurring example is opera performer hooks: hooks that are just them playing a role tend to do really badly, so that kind of hook could easily be phased out if we were to tighten up our rules. “First” hooks may also be on the chopping block due to the aforementioned issues with verification. One radical option could be to phase out the interestingness criteria altogether, which has support among a small minority of our regulars, but that is unlikely to ever happen, especially now when we’re looking for ways to lessen nominations, not increase them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will never agree on what makes a hook interesting, so it’s pointless to try. The arguments that arise about interestingness soak up so much volunteer time, the cure is worse than the disease. If you really wanted to have some interestingness filter, it would have to be very light weight. I could see some automation which adds “interesting” and “boring” buttons to each nomination. Anybody could click them and a nomination would be required to exceed some threshold net score to be run. I don’t know that it would be a good way to determine if something is interesting or not, but at least it wouldn’t suck up tons of people’s time arguing about it. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I had in mind was a simple support/oppose survey where editors could state whether they find a hook interesting or not without reviewing the article. Automation would be neat, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interestingness survey has been proposed in the past, and while I think it’s a good idea, I don’t know how it could work in practice. For one, would voting be open indefinitely, or would there only be a specific time that it’s allowed? The idea would need to be workshopped for details, at the very least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’re designing a control system. We have a bunch of processes which add stuff to the system (i.e. new nominations), and remove stuff from the system (promotions and rejections). People are complaining that the additions outpace the removals, so too much stuff builds up in the holding areas. A basic premise of control theory is that if you want to control the value of some variable X (in this case, the total size of all the transcluded templates) to be within some range (in this case, to be less than whatever the value of WP:PEIS is), you need some kind of feedback loop which measures X and adjust the inputs and outputs based on that measurement. You can write many books (and people have) on how to optimize the feedback, but step one is to have some kind of feedback.

Some of the rules we have (or are considering) do not fit that model. For example, we have a rule “We promote on average 9 nominations per day, except if X gets too big, then we do 18 per day”. That has the requisite feedback behavior. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough available resources to make that work, so its not viable.

So, let’s look at the other rules proposed above. 3.1 is a reasonable rule (at least from the point of view of control theory). It measures the size of the backlog and if it’s above some threshold, it removes noms from the holding area. Good. But 3.2 is less reasonable because, while it does have some kind of feedback, the decision as to which noms to throw away does not directly depend on what you’re trying to control. 4.1 and 4.2 are terrible rules because there’s no feedback at all.

This really isn’t as mysterious as it sounds. We all run feedback loops all the time. Most of us drive cars. We want to keep our speed at some chosen value. Periodically we look at the speedometer and see if we’re above or below that and either push harder or softer on the gas pedal. Imagine if our algorithm for maintaining speed didn’t have any feedback. Perhaps we’d say we’re going to hold the gas pedal down to 70% for 1 minute, then release it to 60% for 1 minute, and keep going back and forth between those. It’s not hard to see that wouldn’t work very well.

So, my point here is that as you’re reading over the rule proposals above (or thinking of others), the question to keep asking yourself is “where’s the feedback?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. You are right that 3. are the only points that actually addresses the backlog directly via a suitable feedback. Stuff like 2.1 slows down the input independent of whether it is needed or not. So it might be a good idea, but it will not solve the issue that we need some switch to use in emergencies.
Our old system of 2/days stopped working because p2q promoters basically went on strike. We also stopped calling for general admin help with p2q promotions, possibly out of fear of activating the clause in 1.2. I think we used to run for a long time on 2/days with decreased scrutiny, hoping for the best (and using that 12 hours is not a long time to find errors). So if we want this system back, we need to consider whether we are happy with decreased quality control. —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with two layers instead of three if needed. OTD seems to survive without a final check.–Launchballer 15:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OTD prioritises high-quality WP:FAs and WP:GAs, not new, recently improved, or recently reviewed GAs. Most articles it runs have been run before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No way should we be going back to worse quality control. Those were the bad old days where there was pretty much a dedicated anti-DYK party reacting to how often things got missed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our old system of 2/days stopped working because p2q promoters basically went on strike Wuh? Did they? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prep builders got burned out and stopped working. It’s been a recurring problem on DYK for years and has largely been caused by increasing pressure and scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did. I got tired of people making more work for other people and assuming those other people would step up and do more. So I stopped doing more. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this would mainly affect DYKN rather than DYKNA (although DYKN has its own PEIS issues), perhaps encouraging editors to review articles regardless if they have an open nomination or not would at least help cut down the backlog. It won’t solve it, of course, but with situations as complex as these, any help is better than nothing. I know I’ve been repeating this advice for years now, but I still haven’t seen a good reason as to why we don’t do it. It would also solve other recurring issues like nominators being late in providing QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The folks at WP:GAN have a new thing where somebody can optionally pledge to do a review when their article is reviewed. I like that idea, perhaps we could do it here as well. People are already required to do reviews under our QPQ system, so they could pledge to do an additional review on top of their QPQ commitment. Totally voluntary, but I’ll state here for the record that when I’m looking for nominations to review, I’ll certainly be zeroing in on those with pledges. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could help, but I was thinking more of editors regularly reviewing nominations even if they don’t have plans to nominate anytime soon. For example, I review a lot more articles per year than I nominate, and even I don’t have any nominations, I still review articles to try to get them out of the way. A pledge would help, but it would still be an additional review at most, instead of it being “one reviewer doing multiple reviews per month.” Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is when a GAN is promoted, no further action is taken. But when a DYK is promoted, there is still the wait to go onto the main page, which can be over a week, plus the need to promote them to queue. JuniperChill (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we shouldn’t worry about the backlog so much and worry more about measures which slow the rate of nominations in not too drastic a manner, so that over time the backlog reduces itself by natural attrition. TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps drastic is what we should do. Stop accepting GA as a qualification for DYK, and turn it (back?) into a showcase for new articles. Let the GA folks have their own section on the main page: Today’s Good Article, similar to WP:TFA. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather go GA only (if we want to reduce the input, why throw away the best articles instead of the worst?); given the current DYK backlog, my new articles are usually promoted to GA before they have percolated through DYK anyway. We could also do easier drastic things, like reducing the DYKTIMEOUT to some time that makes it reasonable to still pretend these are “new articles”. Or rate-limit nominations from DYK regulars (50+ promoted, all of these people who have had their go already) to 1/week when we have a backlog so others can have a go. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first has been proposed multiple times but it sounds like a really bad idea. For one, not all topics can reasonably be brought to GA, and it also sounds like an overcorrection: we might end with too few nominations if we relied only on new GAs.
The second is not ideal and I’m sure it would cause hurt feelings, but it seems like the least-bad option. It might be a good idea to only implement it during certain times, for example backlog mode. It could also be done in conjunction with the “throw out the oldest nominations” proposal, although I’m not sure if closing 10 nominations a day is feasible: maybe five at most since 10 a day seems too drastic.
The third also might be unpopular, but it might work at least during certain times. It could also help us deal with the criticisms about certain topics being too overexposed on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing we should go GA only. I am saying that I prefer “GA only” to “GA should not make articles eligible”. Anyway, I am not looking for what people think will be popular with the crowd (I guess a unicorn that finds all errors and promotes preps to queue at whatever rate is currently needed would easily find consensus support), but I would like to know what people think is preferable and what is acceptable for them. I would like to go for higher quality articles and a rate limit, at least for frequent nominators, but then, neither of these proposals is likely to affect me given the way I currently work. I think more aggressive TIMEOUT will help with the backlog, but I am not super happy about it because it could mean that one of my own precious noms gets discarded. On the plus side, aggressive TIMEOUT could mean that the noms that get discarded are those that no prep builder wants to promote, which could mean (depending on who the prep builders are) higher quality and interestingness of the noms that are chosen. So I’d be willing to go with it even if it is not my preferred option. —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of rate-limiting the DYK regulars for all the reasons stated above. Highlighting the efforts of new contributors to be one of the most important things DYK does. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with being rate-limited, though I suggest a carveout for driveby nominations.–Launchballer 13:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have statistics for new/x5/GA, and for first-fifth(?)ish-time editors vs experienced editors? CMD (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we do, but anecdotally, speaking from experience, failed nominations are far more likely to come from new nominators (“new” in this context referring to nominators who are not required to perform QPQs) than from experienced ones. Generally speaking, nominations by both new and old nominators tend to pass most of the time. Of course, that’s not exactly relevant to this discussion about cutting the backlog, it’s just a statistic I noticed.
As for a stricter timeout, honestly it sucks, but if it’s done fairly, then I would be willing to sacrifice nominations if it means the project improving. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While we’re here, would it be a good idea to revive the DYK reviewer bot that was trialed back in 2016? It’s been mooted a few times, but for whatever reason there’s never been consensus to revive it after the test concluded back then. I don’t think it would entirely solve the issue, but if the bot was able to do the basic checks like newness and length, it would help ease the burden for human reviewers. Most importantly for our purposes, it could also catch ineligible nominations earlier, allowing us to reject them more quickly and ease the backlog, even if only a little. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would only help if the bot was able to do these checks in the cases where it is hard (content copied inside Wikipedia, expansions from redirects that used to be articles in the past). If the bot incorrectly says “new enough, long enough” in such cases it is not worth the five seconds it may save in other circumstances. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot would not replace human reviews, it would only automate some things. A human reviewer will still have to manually check if the bot was correct or not. The idea is, for example, if an article does not meet the basic requirements (in this case, length and newness), the bot would flag the article as potentially ineligible; the final call would still be left to a reviewer. It’s like how the current “Nominator has X nominations” message also serves as a notice for reviewers to see if a nominator needs a QPQ or no, or to inform them when a QPQ has not yet been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where a bot could be helpful is if we introduce more complex requirements or rate limits that depend on a nominator’s previous history. We could do something like “1500 characters for the first 10 nominations, 2000 characters until you hit 100, 2500 until you hit 500 nominations” or “not more than 1 short nomination per month” or even flag or rate-limit nominators who have a history of copyvio or other issues. We could also use a bot to automatically review nominations that lack a required QPQ, warn the nominator and close the nomination after a week without human intervention. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a LOT of nominations coming down the pipeline these days. When I was doing 12-hour sets a few weeks ago, I noticed that there was an average of about 14 or 15 noms per day while the two-set-per day regime only gets rid of 18. So it’s often no more than about three hooks per day one is reducing the backlog by even with 12-hour sets. Some days, indeed, the number of new noms actually exceeds 18.

I would like to have helped out by doing more 12-hour-set drives in recent weeks and had hoped to get back to it, but unfortunately am uncharacteristically busy in real life right now. I’m still hopeful of getting back to it some time in the next few weeks. But in the meantime, if there’s a perception that the backlog has to be reduced by other means, my preferred option would just be to drop all the noms beneath a certain character size. IMO we should favour the nominations into which the most work has been done. It’s pitifully easy to write articles that are only 1500 chars long – too easy, and I see no reason why such minimal effort should automatically be rewarded. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A variable minimum character count depending on whether we are in backlog mode or not is a pretty neat idea, I like it. —Kusma (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Increasing the size requirement to, for example, 2000 characters, may not seem like much in theory. However, regulars here may not realize that it could actually put a wide swathe of potential topics out of reach for DYK. Speaking from experience, some of my own nominations were of articles that could not reach 2000 characters because there just wasn’t enough available sources out there to write a longer article. Even if there was something usable for a hook, a lack of sourcing means around 1600 characters was all I could do. I imagine other editors have been in similar situations too. I suspect that higher requirements will disproportionately affect niche topics, fields where sourcing is not as available.
Some editors have said in the past that this would not strengthen the FUTON bias or cause systemic bias, but speaking from experience, my feeling is that it will. With that said, I may be open to it if it’s only for backlog mode, or if done in conjunction with other potential solutions. However, I would strongly oppose any permanent increase in the minimum length requirements.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support disproportionally affecting fields where sourcing is not available, we should feature fewer articles from such fields at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it means entire niche fields not being given their chance to be featured on DYK in favor of more “accessible” topics (which in practice means Anglophone and First World topics), I would oppose such a proposal for that reason. We already have a US/Anglophone bias on DYK: implementing a rule that could potentially strengthen that bias does not sit well with me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this is true, there are thriving constellations of accessible sources in many languages. I’ve definitely put through some DYKs with few or no anglophone sources. CMD (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a challenge for some topics. For example, I often write articles about Japanese singers and voice actors, and finding sources about voice actors can be surprisingly hard. Many times stuff like personal information is only available in print-only media that is virtually inaccessible outside Japan. There have been multiple cases where I did not bother nominating the article for DYK since I couldn’t make the article long enough, and even if I could, there wasn’t anything that worked as a hook. I’m fine with that, but it can be problematic when I know that the subject does have something hook-worthy. Speaking from experience (I cannot say about other topics), I imagine that my specific topic would be negatively affected by a higher length requirement since finding sources is very difficult if you aren’t Japanese or living in Japan. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a potential issue, but it isn’t directly restricted to non-anglophone countries. I have an article languishing in my userspace from actual England which I did not even put into mainspace because I couldn’t find enough online sources to make me feel comfortable about GNG. CMD (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who’s written extensively about both American sportspeople and African sportspeople, I can agree. I can turn virtually any old NFL player into a GA like this, but it is much harder to write articles of that length for old African sportspeople, particularly since their news archives are almost entirely inaccessible to most editors. That doesn’t mean good hooks can’t be made about African sportspeople, however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is far less systemic bias at DYK than there used to be. I have quite frankly been surprised at the range of noms coming through on other countries these days.
And in any case, this is the English Wikipedia, and reader interest in topics about far-flung foreign countries is often pretty minimal. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that our coverage on non-English topics should be substandard just because they get less readership. One of DYK’s points is to highlight topics and articles that would not get attention otherwise. Saying “these subjects are from a far-away country, so we shouldn’t bother since no one will read about them anyway” is an example of a systemic bias, one that we should be trying to prevent, not enshrine. I understand that many of our regulars are from America or Europe, so it might be easy to underestimate how much niche and non-First World topics could be affected, but I am speaking from experience here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could have some compromise things too: if an article is longer than 3000 characters prose, we apply normal DYKINT to the hook, but if it is shorter, we only consider it if the hook is exceptionally interesting. If we promote a short article on the Main Page, it should at least be worth it in terms of reader engagement. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3000 characters is far too high and is much tougher to reach for many topics. If we must increase the character requirements (and it is something I am not onboard to begin with), 2000 characters seems more reasonable. If we are going to require 3000 characters, something that even non-DYK articles often struggle to reach, we might as well require DYK nominations to be new GAs.
I get we are brainstorming ideas here, but increasing the length requirements seems more trouble than it’s worth. We could discuss it as a last resort, but it might be more reasonable to try other solutions first, such as stricter timeouts, more preps/queues, and a stricter interestingness criteria. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More preps/queues is kicking the can down the road, not a serious proposal. Looking at my own noms, I think Wikipedia would be better if I had expanded Adolf I von Nassau and Samuel Marolois to 3000 characters. From the way they look, I lazily made them just long enough for DYK instead of actually writing decent articles. 1500 characters may have been a reasonable length a decade ago, but we should do better than that now. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what minimum character count we use, some articles will be excluded from consideration because there isn’t enough information in sources to write more. I am in favour of increasing the minimum text size of an article, although 3,000 is too high. I would like to increase it to 2,000 and reevaluate after a trial period. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe leads should be excluded from the character count too – it’s too easy to game them to get to 1500. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leads may be a bit vain at 1,500 characters, but a good x5 expansion might include a really good lead improvement, so there is some loss in adjusting that. (And it would be best to keep length assessment the same for both, for fear of further complicating DYK.) CMD (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that, we need quick tools that compute the length without the lead. I’d rather just make a rule to reject all noms where the lead is obviously too long and try to punish the system-gamers only. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I can’t see why we aren’t even discussing any of the other proposals anymore and seemingly squarely focusing on just increasing the requirements. Some of the other proposals like stricter timeouts and stricter subjective criteria would also help without resorting to that. I don’t see them as “kicking down the road” because the ultimate goal is still to prevent further backlogs. If we try those first and they still do not fix the backlog, that could be the time to increase our requirements. I just do not see it as necessary just yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Premised with the assumption that the effects would be similar, I would find longer articles much more preferable to stricter timeouts, plus length is more understandable for new users than more subjective criteria. CMD (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer having longer length requirements than timeouts: I think an editor would be more upset that they waited two months for a review, only to time out, than to be prevented from nominating an article in the first place because of the length requirements. I am in favour of opening new sub-threads below with level 3 headings to discuss other DYK ideas. Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care what gets editors upset. I care about what’s best for the project. RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a new editor is more likely to quit editing if their two-month old nomination is timed out for complicated reasons, rather than if their article didn’t qualify for DYK in the first place and thus didn’t put in the effort to create the nom and wait for a response. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that’s reasonable. RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I agree that threaded discussions would be an improvement. I think any effective way to deal with the backlog is going to upset people. (We now have 226 approved nominations and if we were able to run 2 sets a day we would want to get down to 120 approved nominations, so potentially we would need to decline a hundred nominations. We also have 164 unapproved nominations, which is higher than the target of 100 when backlog mode for QPQs was last implemented in May-June 2025.) The question is which editors do we upset. Also I agree with what RoySmith said at the beginning of this section, we want a system that controls the number of nominations in holding areas, changes that don’t do that are not guaranteed to solve the current problem and are likely to cause future problems. TSventon (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It would be easy to modify DYKcheck, or write a new program, that listed (a) size of all text, and (b) size of all text minus the lead. One could then see at a glance whether or not the article was long enough. Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some ideas, observations and suggestions but feel the need for more evidence to validate them. Does someone have some numbers to help us quantify the issues? For example, some statistics for the year-to-date or the last full year? These might include:
  1. The number of DYK nominations
  2. The number accepted/rejected
  3. The number of new/expanded/GA
  4. The numbers for popular topic types/categories/projects
  5. The numbers for high volume, veteran editors
  6. The numbers for new editors
  7. The readership patterns such as exceptionally high/low outcomes
  8. The numbers requiring correction at WP:ERRORS
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, did you see the word “statistics? TSventon (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
practically my batsignal some of these stats would take a while to compile, though, because some of the criteria here are a bit subjective. I can say easily enough that in 2024, there were 3,566 passed nominations and 396 failed nominations, for a total of 3,962 nominations and a pass rate of 90%. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also, phew that database outage was weird! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3,566 nominations in a year indicate that the number of hooks/day should be increased to 10.
Is this the average rate in 2025 too?
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson:, 10 hooks/day makes arithmetical sense, but prep builders and admins would have to agree to the additional burden.
We also have to deal with current and future backlogs. Earlier today we had 226 approved nominations (if we could run 2 sets a day we would aim for 120) and 164 unapproved nominations (the target when backlog mode for QPQs was last implemented in May-June was 100). TSventon (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, do you have similar stats for Jan-Aug 2025, if that is a sensible period to run stats for? Some 2025 nominations will still be unassessed. I would expect proportions to be similar to 2024. TSventon (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: I can do Jan–Jun, but there are still open nominations from July and later. In that time period, there were 2,071 passed nominations and 218 failed nominations, for a total of 2,289 nominations and a pass rate of 90.5%. You can see all this for yourself at Category:Passed DYK nominations and Category:Failed DYK nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were 972 distinct nominators in 2024, of which 79 made up over half. The top 10 most prolific were: 
[('BeanieFan11', 156), ('Generalissima', 84), ('Crisco 1492', 73), ('Dumelow', 73), ('Sammi Brie', 67), ('Launchballer', 62), ('Epicgenius', 55), ('4meter4', 48), ('Piotrus', 44), ('Soman', 44)]
accounting for 17.8% of last year’s nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 3,882 I could categorize, 2,847 (73.3%) were creations; 555 (14.3%) were good article improvements; and 480 (12.4%) were 5x expansions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson:, more answers for you. TSventon (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17.8% isn’t really that many. On that number, attempting to limit the number of nominations per user would probably have little effect, unless one were to radically limit the number, which I don’t think anyone would want. Gatoclass (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For 2024, leeky’s stats show that we were only 280 noms above the 9 hooks per day equilibrium. A limit of 1/week would have removed about 200 nominations, which means that we would have needed 9 instead of 32 days of 2/day to process the lot. Given the work-to-rule type industrial action we have seen from many prep to queue promoters in 2025 (we are making sure that updates are not missed but we are not working extra hard to reduce the backlog), this does not seem insignificant. Do you think 1/week is draconian or radical? —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 1 a week is extremely reasonable, presuming that it would not be enforced rigidly. For example I wouldn’t want to see someone who nominated two in a week stomped on if they hadn’t nominated anything in a while. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think enforcement of such a rule should be bot-assisted; a bot could say how long ago the last 4/12/50 nominations were so the human knows whether two in a week is a one-off or a regular occurrence. The other question, of course, is whether we want to rate-limit people at all. I am undecided on that; I just wanted to state that even a 1/week rate limit would have more than “little effect”. —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the useful analysis. I’m not sure I would want to rate-limit users either, but I will say I think 156 noms in a given year is excessive and itself would count for a fair chunk of the excess noms. Other than that, I am actually heartened by the news that there were only 280 excess noms, which is not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. One month per year running 12-hour sets doesn’t sound that burdensome to me, although less would certainly be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how much we’ve been having issues lately with “overrepresented” topics, a rate limit might be worth trying, but I wouldn’t want it to be permanent, at least not at first. It could be possible for backlog mode. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to do this, I strongly recommend that this excludes driveby nominations as they help recruit new nominators.–Launchballer 10:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The top 1% of Wikipedians take 20% of all main page resources. At a quick look this seems decent by global standards. CMD (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another two-set a day run

[edit]

I do wonder if we could do another two-set a day run in the meantime to cut down on the current backlog. I know they’re unpopular (and personally I dislike it when my hooks have to run during them), but it seems like the least bad option: it still allows the widest variety of hooks to run, while also helping cut down on the backlog. We already have criteria so that they don’t last indefinitely, which helps ease the burden, so we shouldn’t be doing it too often anyway. It just seems that lately, we’ve gone from “sometimes” to “never”. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t seen evidence that two sets a day are unpopular for those whose hooks are in them (was this discussed somewhere?), but either way the biggest blocker to two-sets a day is a lack of admins/template editors. We would automatically go to two-sets a day if the queues and preps were full. CMD (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust people are smart enough to assume that for WP:DYKROTATE purposes, “the midnight (UTC) update” means “the update that would have normally happened at midnight had it not been delayed due to technical problems” without my having to clutter up the rule with all that verbosity. RoySmith (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if this applies to editors, but there was a time when two-set runs were more common and my nominations often ended up running during two-set runs due to timing reasons. At the time it was admittedly annoying, but given current circumstances, I still feel that having the current system of two-set runs is the least bad option especially from a countering systemic bias view.
One thing that hasn’t been brought up here in this discussion much is how to solve burnout. We already know that one reason why editors either quit prep building or don’t even want to bother is because of the pressures and knowledge needed. Having to check entire articles and double-check stuff is stressful. Frankly, upping the requirements isn’t going to help resolve this when the issue is with quality control and not input. If we can find a way to make prep building less stressful (although lowering requirements would be counterproductive), maybe we don’t even need to resort to drastic measures in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I haven’t made a lot of nominations, I’ve had a couple of mine run during 12 hour set runs. While I would have preferred that they run during 24 hours sets, I completely understood why 12 hour set runs are necessary.
I’m not against doing 12 set runs every now and then and am willing to help out with promotions from the approved list if/when it occurs. TarnishedPathtalk 13:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that if we don’t switch to 12 hour, then nominators would always assume their article will always run for 24 hours. Now that we have six queues, and over 120 approved nominations, I do see a possibility of running 12 hour sets shortly. Pretty much all of my nominations were on the main page for 24 hours, though that’s likely because of the fact that its pretty much 24 hour 95% of the time since 2024. JuniperChill (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have split this section off as it is not a discussion of statistics. TSventon (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and now a duplicate section has been created JuniperChill (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a general discussion, it was right to start a new topic to actually make the change. Based on the stats above we would need to run 2 sets a day for about three days a month to keep up with new nominations and more than that to tackle the backlog. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do then? Do more two-day sets until the backlog is cleared? That could also potentially buy us more time to discuss possible solutions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I was just quantifying the amount of 2 a day sets needed. I agree that, if it is possible, running 2 sets a day to reduce the backlog or buy time is a good idea. TSventon (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will presumably do two sets a day for as long as preppers and queuers are up to it, which is not the same question as whether the backlog is cleared. CMD (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have recently anointed three new template editors. I am optimistic that with that much new energy and enthusiasm we’ll be able to chew through the backlog in no time. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to the WikiCup

[edit]

Something I’d like to flag for this backlog conversation is the possible influence of the WP:WikiCup, which switched to a no-elimination mode this year. Over in the world of GAs, there has been some discussion that this year’s Cup is contributing GA backlogs more than usual. More than a thousand DYKs About 600 DYKs for new/5x articles have been nominated through the Cup, an average of four two a day. Purely anecdotally, my WikiCup-motivated articles/expansions have sometimes led to hooks I am truly excited to share (like Elizabeth Gunning or Sermons of Laurence Sterne), but there have also been several where the hooks were pretty meh (Lady Jennifer, The Rival Chiefs) and I nominated chiefly for Cup points.

I wonder if some kind of adjustment to Cup rules would have a beneficial knock-on effect at DYK. For example, what if the Cup allowed folks to score points for articles that were reviewed and deemed eligible, but did not run on the main page? (Such as those without interesting hooks.)

My working assumption is that the WikiCup gives points for DYKs because it wants to reward new articles and 5x expansions (especially 5x expansions of very old articles, which get bonus points), but the WikiCup doesn’t have its own infrastructure to verify that new/expanded articles meet various minimums of content quality. In other words, “running on the main page” is a proxy for “passed a relevant review”, but not vital in itself. I think the Cup assumes that QPQ makes Cup-motivated DYK nominations “self-balancing”, but it looks like that is not in fact the case, since QPQ only addresses the need for reviews and not the need for promotions.

If a nominator did a QPQ (thus contributing to some of the DYK workload) would it be just too obnoxious to get nominations that aren’t really engaging with the hook process / actual DYK feature? (I can imagine this leading to submissions that don’t even have hooks and identify themselves as just seeking Cup points.) Are there other ways the WikiCup could be adjusted to improve the DYK “control system”?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LEvalyn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could also give points for promotions/queuing sets. I also wonder if it’s worth tying points for nominations to views.–Launchballer 13:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an interesting idea. I think points for queueing would be unfair in the Cup since most editors don’t have permission to do that, but points for prepping could be feasible if there was a way to track it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really want to end up in a scenario where we give WikiCup points for DYK reviews and one or two people end up reviewing all open DYK nominations, making it hard for other people to do their QPQs. I can’t think of any positive that would balance that risk. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, somebody who knows nothing about DYK beyond it being a way to rack up WikiCup points, shows up and pencil whips a pile of reviews. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression was that there are “enough” reviews happening because of QPQ (certainly I’ve been reviewing alongside my noms) but the crunch is happening because there are too many overall nominations. So I’d be concerned that points for DYK reviews would just lead to an even larger back log of approved nominations. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One possible solution is my oft-repeated advice to review nominations regardless if you have any existing ones, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. It’s a shame because, apart from cutting down on the backlog, it also creates a stash of excess QPQs that can help prevent late QPQs, another constant issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused, can you clarify? My impression was that there are “enough” reviews happening but the crunch is happening because there are too many overall nominations. My understanding is that things are breaking down at the prep/queue stage. Wouldn’t people doing extra reviews just lead to an even larger backlog of approved nominations? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: There are two problems. At present there are too many approved nominations. This can be dealt with by running two sets a day on the main page, but that has not been happening enough recently. There are also too many unapproved nominations, which can be dealt with by requiring an extra QPQ review per nomination, but that creates more approved nominations, so now is probably not the right time. TSventon (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means that editors should not only review other nominations if they have their own open nominations. They also review other nominations at other times as well. For example, I rarely nominate articles but I do several reviews a month: I have reviewed far more nominations than I have made, so I have a large stash of QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that more than a thousand DYKs have been scored at the WikiCup, but a number between 381 and 761, probably around 600. Still a lot, but not quite as much. The WikiCup does not give DYK points for DYK-after-GA and a lot of points for 5x expansions of old articles with many iwlinks, something I quite like, but we should probably discuss at the WikiCup page how the Cup can be less of a burden on other processes. —Kusma (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction, I was misunderstanding the numbers — I thought it was 381 5 point DYKs and 761 10 point DYKs. Less stark for sure; I’ll correct my comment. I thought it was worth hearing from DYK folks whether any proposed changes would actually be helpful before seeing if folks over at the Cup consider those feasible changes to make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot, arguably too much… any time the WikiCup places an undue burden on other processes it needs to be checked, its a game that is only tolerated based on a net positive argument… Playing games on here in general is disruptive after all. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an element here of Goodhart’s law (When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure). WikiCup, for its positives does by definition gamify DYK by assigning points to DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update after a week

[edit]

Kusma started this discussion at 11:13, 17 September 2025, so I thought I would check how numbers have changed since then.

  • At 00:00, 18 September 2025 there were 413 unpromoted nominations, 187 unapproved and 226 approved.
  • At 00:00, 20 September 2025 there were 411 unpromoted nominations, 185 unapproved and 226 approved.
  • At 00:00, 25 September 2025 there were 365 unpromoted nominations, 180 unapproved and 185 approved.
  • When running backlog mode and 2 sets a day the target would be 220 unpromoted nominations, 100 unapproved and 120 approved.
  • Hence the “backlog” of unpromoted nominations has been reduced by 48, from 193 to 145 in the last week, mainly in the last five days. Also 5 extra sets of 9 hooks have run due to having 2 sets a day. Thank you to all prep builders and queue promoters involved. TSventon (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to anyone reading this! I have been editing since late 2023, and worked on DYK since early 2024. I have been promoting almost 100 hooks to this day, as well as frequently posting this page, but I was never able to promote hooks from prep to queue due to the queues being protected so that only template editors (and admins) are able to edit them. Many prep to queue promoters have reduced promoting in recent times due to various reasons, which has lead to the number of queues being filled to no more than a few in recent months, and it even reached zero queues despite running one set a day. Therefore, I think it would be great if I could step in to promote preps to queues to ensure that at least two queues should be filled wherever possible.

In addition to editing for over a year, I also have over 150 edits to template namespace (mostly related to DYK), and was never blocked or violated 3RR. JuniperChill (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@TarnishedPath, Surtsicna, and Jolielover: I can’t find where the hook fact is stated in the article. RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, see Baldwin III of Jerusalem#Wadi Musa TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and the age can be worked out using WP:CALC. TarnishedPathtalk 12:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I’m still not seeing it. Could you quote the sentence where the hook fact is stated? RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is a contraction of the section Baldwin III of Jerusalem#Wadi Musa. It is not one sentence. The age is WP:CALC (though one author explicitly states how old he was in that year) and Melisende’s intervention is in the second paragraph: “aimed to prevent him from building a public image as a successful military leader”. Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts of the hook being spread over two paragraphs is too much, then we could run with ATL3 from the nom
… that King Baldwin III could raise only a meagre army to march north in 1150 because his mother disapproved of the expedition (quarrel pictured)?
That’s covered from the first paragraph in Baldwin III of Jerusalem#Disposal of Edessa. TarnishedPathtalk 14:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is unresolved and I’d rather not this reach the point of no return, I’ve bumped it to Prep 4 to buy us more time. This does mean that Queue 1 needs a new picture hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Statue of Michael Arthur Bass into the slot.–Launchballer 13:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria are we OK with the image? I vaguely remember some issues with Freedom of Panorama in the UK being a problem. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UK’s actually one of the better options with regards to FOP. The Flickr link isn’t working for me at the moment, but assuming it checks out this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above we could utilise ALT3 from the nom or perhaps:
ALT4 … that King Baldwin III‘s mother excluded him from a battle (quarrel pictured), because she resented his previous military success?
The facts from that only rely on the second paragraph from Baldwin III of Jerusalem#Wadi Musa TarnishedPathtalk 00:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, @RoySmith, @Surtsicna, @Jolielover thoughts? TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s fine, but I do not think that it fully addresses @RoySmith‘s concern. I have added a sentence explicitly stating that this was Baldwin’s first military success and that he was 14. That might be what RoySmith’s looking for. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think somebody else needs to handle this. There was a discussion in another thread about how long it takes to review a prep for promotion to queue in which I mentioned the potential for getting pulled into longer discussions. This is a good example. I view my role as queue promoter to spot and call out problems, but not necessarily to own each issue for as long as it takes to resolve. RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the issue remains unresolved and per RoySmith’s comment, I’ve pulled the hook for further work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell that the issue is unresolved? And what further work? Surtsicna (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, there hasn’t been a consensus yet to swap the old hook with ALT4 (or any other hook), and RoySmith said it would be better for another editor to check. Given we’re now doing two-sets a day and time is running out, it’s better to unpromote it and give it more time to discuss without the risk of it running with a questionable hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, OceanGunfish, and Panamitsu: The first time I read this, I assumed it meant one of the species was hunting the other, but I think it’s intended to be that they’re cooperating with each other to hunt mutual prey. Could you suggest some new wording to make this clear? RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith yep co-operating. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so could you write a new hook which makes that clear? RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith
… that one airbreathing catfish species cooperates in pack hunting with another species of catfish? TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, BeanieFan11, and Miraclepine: The way the hook is worded, it sounds like the national, European, and World championships all add up to 14, which isn’t how I’m reading the sources, so this needs to be reworded. RoySmith (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about “…won 14 gold medals at the Polish snowboarding championships?” That would be clearer assuming the machine translation on [1] is accurate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14 national championships and medals at the European and World Championships? – I thought that that sort of wording would imply that the 14 national titles and the “medals at the European and Worlds” are separate. If the hook was trying to convey they were added up to 14, I’d expect it to say something like “14 medals at the national, European and World Championships”? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“as well as …”? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was in “every keystroke is painful” mode when I wrote the above, so let me be a bit more verbose now. @BeanieFan11 how would you feel about “… won 14 gold medals at the Polish snowboarding championships as well as medals at the European and World Championships?” RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with “as well as”, though your suggestion could probably be shortened a bit, e.g. “… that after receiving a snowboard as a Christmas present, Małgorzata Rosiak won 14 national championships as well as medals at the European and World Championships?” BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria says The facts of the hook need to appear in the article How literally is that intended to be interpreted? At one end of the spectrum, sometimes the hook contains a direct quote from the article, making it trivial to find. At the other end, there’s little bits and pieces scattered around the article which in aggregate support the hook. As a reviewer, those drive me nuts because they take a lot of work to figure out. I assume they drive our readers nuts for the same reason. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For multi-hook noms, sometimes the hook fact only appears in one of the articles: depending on the hook, I would still approve it to run. A couple years ago, reviewers/promoters stated that the hook needs to be in all the articles and would not run the hook until this was fixed. I’m OK with the facts being scattered in different places in the article, as long as it is all verified. Z1720 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be clarified in the rules? As far as I can tell, there is nothing written in the guidelines regarding how to handle multi-article hooks where the main hook fact is only found in one of the bolded articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: RoySmith is talking about a single bold link, specifically #Baldwin III of Jerusalem. TSventon (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Z1720’s comment: For multi-hook noms, sometimes the hook fact only appears in one of the articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like, as opposed to “the hook fact has to appear in every article, even if it is irrelevant”? nah. this seems like a no-brainer given the rest of the guideline and there’s not a live case of anyone claiming to believe otherwise. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If editors wonder about a rule, it’s probably a good idea to include clarification. As I’ve said before, oftentimes, what seems to be common sense may not be obvious to others. That’s how the old supplementary guidelines worked anyway: they were based on practice, rather than being proscribed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In spirit it means that a reader interested in the hook can find it. I prefer hooks that use the same terminology as the article, especially if scattered, for that reason, although more as a guideline than a rule. I agree that in multi-hooks all but one bolded link are exempt from this. CMD (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s assume we’re talking about a single bold link. Actually, so as not to be excessively mysterious, let’s assume we’re talking about #Baldwin III of Jerusalem. RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I agree that the hook fact in Baldwin III of Jerusalem is too hard for the reviewer to find in the article and therefore too hard for the reader. I don’t think they satisfy WP:DYKHFC, which says The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. If a part of the hook fact appears multiple times, including across multiple boldlinked articles, citing at least one suffices. Perhaps WP:DYKHFC should be clarified. TSventon (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the other end, there’s little bits and pieces scattered around the article which in aggregate support the hook

I agree that this is a major problem and something needs to be done about it. I myself always give comprehensive instruction on how to verify a hook of mine if I think it might be at all problematic to verify. Maybe require a nominator to do a second QPQ if their nomination proves too difficult? That might encourage them to think harder about assisting reviewers to verify their hooks next time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, scrub the suggestion about doing an extra QPQ, as the project doesn’t really need more QPQs anyway.

What would be MUCH more useful would be a requirement that nominators provide not only the source(s) for the hook fact(s), but also quotes from the nominated article verifying the fact(s), because sources alone do not actually lead nominators to the relevant part of the article – and a requirement for quotes from the article itself would encourage nominators to critically evaluate how well their own textual snippets support the hook facts. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don’t really see a problem, because a reviewer should read the complete article and not just check the hook fact. If it’s still unclear after reading it all whether hook fact(s) are in the article, there’s a problem with the article, but no need to change rules and make nominations more difficult. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem
You wouldn’t, because you have never had to verify a set or take responsibility for it.
The issue here is that the tiny handful of queue promoters who keep the project running have collective burnout, and without them, half the nominations are ultimately going to have to be discarded. It is also far less onerous for a nominator, who has intimate knowledge of their own article, to provide the relevant quotes, while leaving it for queue promoters to try and figure it for themselves – nine times in a row for every set – is a quite unreasonable expectation. The bottom line is that something needs to be done to alleviate the burden on queue promoters if a large percentage of nominations are not going to end up getting the flick. And quite frankly Gerda, given that your own nominations have proven chronically controversial, they are likely going to be first in line when the culling starts. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the misunderstanding. I read “reviewer” in the first post, not “promoter”. How about this: the reviewer points, for all people looking later, at where a hook fact is (hidden) in the article? – Regarding “controversial”: I reduced DYK activity, the last noms passed without controversies, and I find the reviewing process on ITN much more convenient, example Siegmund Nimsgern. I approach #100 for 2025 there, compared to 20 DYK noms. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification Gerda. However, I still believe that the onus should be on the nominator, for the two reasons already given: firstly, that the nominator has intimate knowledge of their own article and can much more easily supply the relevant quotes than the reviewer, and secondly, because making nominators responsible for supplying the relevant quotes will force them to directly compare those quotes to the hook facts and see whether or not they adequately support those facts. Because it’s very clear to me over the course of my years as a queue promoter that many nominators simply are not aware of how inadequately their text supports the given hook facts. Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think asking nominators to provide the article quote as well as the citation would be a good idea. I’ve only promoted “emergency” hooks to fill gaps when hooks needed to be pulled, despite having stared down a blank prep area a couple of times and failed to break through the amount of due diligence required to find and check a whole series in one go. Making that job easier can only be a good thing, and it strikes me that a very small amount of effort from nominators could save a lot of work from promoters and queue builders. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the state of the backlog and the burnout rate of prep to queue promoters, making nominations harder and the queuing checks easier is an obvious way forward. Most other solutions are less nominator friendly. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be MUCH more useful would be a requirement that nominators provide not only the source(s) for the hook fact(s), but also quotes from the nominated article verifying the fact(s)
I see some merit in this. It would make things easier for reviewers in the sorts of circumstances where either the hook facts are spread or the wording for the hook is quite a bit different from the wording in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried in all my nominations to include a short quote from the source validating the hook fact, along with the name of the source, page number if relevant and link if available online. As a reviewer and promoter, noms with just a wikilink or a offline book source and no page # are very hard to evaluate and I often skip over these. I think the instructions to nominators could be more explicit about what to provide in the source field. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All preps and queues are full, except the last one reserved for bumped down hooks.So I would suggest doing two sets a day now. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. We currently have six filled queues, not seven.–Launchballer 16:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted one, History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll ping at midnight.–Launchballer 17:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait until after the update, which is scheduled for 00:42. —Kusma (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good point. How does drift work with 12 hour mode and should we delay this by a day?–Launchballer 18:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot will reset the “time of the last update” to midnight after the update (anything under two hours gets reset to midnight or noon). No need to delay the switch to 12 hour mode for a day, just wait until after tonight’s bot run. —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update has recently happened. If a run of 12 hour sets is going to happen. Now is the time. TarnishedPathtalk 00:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: I have changed the header to be clearer, I hope that is OK. TSventon (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook for Charlie the goat was added to this prep area. However, in the nomination, I requested that the hook be saved for Halloween. Can we reschedule it? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I’ll leave it to you to put it in WP:SOHA.–Launchballer 18:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hook depends on the article’s “At 12:17, Gordeyev’s father was called in by special forces to negotiate with his son. He put on a bulletproof vest, entered Room No. 2, and persuaded his son to let his classmates go and surrender.” cited to [11] and [35]. I can’t see the 12:17 in either of the sources. Worse, that the police have asked the father to negotiate isn’t in any of the sources, but appears in the hook. Pinging nom @7kk, reviewer @Juxlos, prepper @Earth605, GA reviewer @LastJabberwocky: we need better sources or this needs to be pulled. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Could have sworn it was there. Regardless, the surrendering is in that source at the 14:02 timeframe (“14:02 His father persuaded a teenager who captured the students of the school to surrender, ITAR-TASS reports”). From what I read, the 14:02 is the timing of the ITAR-TASS.
Maybe reword ALT0 a bit?
ALT0a: … that an armed teenager who took his classmates hostage during a school shooting was persuaded to surrender by his father?
Juxlos (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approve the new hook. Earth605 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new hook may be fine, but the unsourced / WP:SYNTH content in the article is not. This still needs to be pulled if it isn’t fixed in the next couple of hours. I have tagged a few statements as needing sources / failed verification. —Kusma (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a GA, so I didn’t do any extra checking for, you know, only common sense?
I’ve reviewed the article and didn’t didn’t find the issues that you complained about. No need for pulling. Earth605 (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Earth605, as you reverted my tagging as “incorrect”, I am sure you will have no trouble quoting the content from the sources that supports the statements I have tagged. I tried to verify the content by looking at the sources and could not do so. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the paragraph and the tags seem entirely valid to me, so I have reinstated them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I pulled this with less than two minutes to spare, so I can’t backfill. I’ll let you do that if you feel it necessary.–Launchballer 12:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Launchballer! I was planning to deal with it this evening, hoping it would be all fixed, but it isn’t. I think I’ll replace it by Kembangan MRT station from Prep 2. —Kusma (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if DYK should allow new GAs that are significantly (5x) expanded from prior DYK length that are less than 5 years removed from DYK? Maybe they should only have a 1-year collar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have more nominations coming in than we have the capacity to run. I don’t know that we want to further exacerbate that. TarnishedPathtalk 02:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s redundant. We already allow 5x expansions to be nominated for DYK. In theory, this already means that an article that is featured on DYK as a new GA could be featured again if it is then expanded 5x. Of course, in practice, that is unlikely to happen considering the typical length of GAs, along with Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding article length. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Five years was decided just one year ago (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_197#Require_a_hiatus_between_repeat_nominations_(2,_3,_5,_or_10_years). What’s changed? —Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a huge backlog. Oppose. Five years is good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, MCE89, AirshipJungleman29, and Cielquiparle: That’s not a great image, even in full size. At main-pagge size, it’s almost unrecognizable. There’s some excellent images in National Museum of Ecuador so I suggest a swap. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I ad-libbed the hook a little. RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Launchballer had my back when I messed up the editing. RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042, Juxlos, and Staraction: We’ve got two Indonesian politicians (also see Samsul Ashar) in this set. Maybe we want to swap one out for more variety? RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve swapped the article with Marcello Magni from Prep 7. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Earth605, and PCN02WPS: I don’t see the hook portion prison abolition is not embraced by most human rights organizations in the article, and I don’t see it specifically cited in the sources for the paragraph where I’d expect it to be. Perhaps the nominator means the hook to be a version of imprisonment itself and the length of sentences has largely escaped scrutiny on human rights grounds but there’s no citation for that sentence and there probably should be since it’s in the hook. I assume the citation for this claim is to Lutz Oette, but Oette doesn’t say anything about most human rights organizations; instead, he discusses human rights bodies more generally, not distinguishing between some that embrace prison abolition and others that don’t. I think this discrepancy needs to be cleared up before this appears on the main page. (I think there may be an NPOV issue here as well asserting the harms of imprisonment compared to recognized forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture in wikivoice rather than with attribution.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are three sources supporting this section. I would have said that “human rights bodies” is a synonym for “human rights organizations”, but perhaps I’m wrong on that point. The tricky thing is that the hook has to be about prison abolition, not imprisonment. After checking them all, I think we could change the hook to:
…that prison abolition is not a popular position in the human rights movement, despite the well-documented harms of imprisonment?
What do you think Dclemens1971? I am available for the next several hours so just ping me and I can quickly make any needed changes to the article itself. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, On phone so reply will be quick and free of wiki formatting. To my read, “Human rights bodies” implies governmental or intergovernmental entities (which is the way it’s used in Human rights); “human rights organizations” encompasses NGOs and activist groups.
I would be sure every article sentence that includes part of the hook fact is cited since the hook is spread across multiple sentences. I think your revised hook is better but it still has an NPOV issue of assuming “harms of imprisonment” in wikivoice as a fact, just as the article still has the NPOV issue I identified above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources make it clear that imprisonment is harmful to people who are imprisoned. There is lots of research and scientific evidence to prove that and no serious dispute, so it would be a violation of WP:NPOV (“do not state facts as opinions”) not to say it in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason, I expect, that human rights groups do not generally advocate prison abolition is that there are positive effects on human rights of prison, particularly for the human rights guaranteed by Article 12 of the UN Declaration: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Incapacitation of career criminals through imprisonment has measurable and documented effects on crime rates, even if criminologists disagree about whether or how best to implement it (in addition to Levitt’s work, see also Werminck et al, Vollaard, Chan, Buonnano and Raphael, Barbarino and Mastrobuoni, Malsch and Duker). There is also a literature challenging the notion that prison itself is uniformly harmful to people who are imprisoned and to their families (see Loeffler, Bhuller et al, Hjalmarsson and Lindquist, Arteaga, Norris et al). The article (and hook) appears to grapple selectively with the full range of literature on human rights and prison, in particular the human right to be free of victimization, and that’s the root of the NPOV issue that I think warrants change before this appears on DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that’s the point that many of the sources are making—that, especially more recently, imprisonment is embraced by the human rights system. However, your theory that it’s the only way to protect certain other human rights is wp:or.
cherry picking a few sources that find certain positive effects doesn’t outweigh that reviews of the research find strong evidence that imprisonment is a cause of harm, both to affected individuals and their families, which is why wikipedia is cautious about relying on primary sources. I may add that not all the sources you cite even support your argument, being about relatives or very specific outcomes.
Above I’m citing research that isn’t about prison abolition, but this research is also mentioned in the cited sources.
Lastly, it is possible for something to have both positive and negative effects, but generally human rights is opposed to utilitarianism. human rights organizations can’t be found looking for the positive effects of free speech violations, benevolent dictatorship, or unfair trials—because they came to the conclusion that regardless of their (supposed) benefits these things violated human rights, but they did not come to the same conclusion about jails. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can avoid false accusations of cherry picking in this conversation. What I’m pointing out is that the article states that imprisonment itself and the length of sentences has largely escaped scrutiny on human rights grounds. This is despite similar evidence for the harms of imprisonment compared to recognized forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture. This rather striking claim — that imprisonment per se is a human rights violation — is not universally supported in the literature and thus needs attribution to ensure the article meets NPOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the right place to ask — if I’ve done a review and proposed a hook (which the original author has accepted), should I mark the review as “complete” or as “second reviewer needed”? ie, can I “accept” my own hook or does it need a second pair of eyes? I haven’t been able to find a confident answer in the instructions. Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you need a second person to evaluate the proposed hook, specifically—they need not do a full review. (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of 29 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 23. We have a total of 370 nominations, of which 182 have been approved, a gap of 188 nominations that has increased in size by 8 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

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) 02:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9, BeanieFan11, and TarnishedPath: is there a reason why the 94-word block quote is needed? Because Earwig returned almost 50% similarity. Even if the quote was copyright free, it wouldn’t be suitable for the encyclopedia. JuniperChill (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill give me a minute or two and I’ll summarise it all. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill please have a look and let me know if anything further needs doing. TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath should be good to go now! JuniperChill (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

… that the dark sky movement in New Zealand aims for certification of the country as a Dark Sky Nation?

@Marshelec, Grnrchst, and History6042: the source is quite vague on the actual detail, but it seems to me that the aim is less that of a movement as a whole and more that of one astronomy tourism operator. Are there other sources that are more explicit on the nationwide nature of the goal? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Actions needed for the entire country of New Zealand to achieve certification as a Dark Sky Nation are given in the paper that is currently reference #10 in the article:[2], especially in section 5. Conclusions._Marshelec (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Citation #42 also has a nationwide focus, showing that the interest/drive is wider than any one of the existing certified dark sky places._Marshelec (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this, so someone else will have to have a look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.–Launchballer 11:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.–Launchballer 11:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst, LunaEclipse, and History6042: members? The article only mentions one name, a Volodymyr Zadyraka. Could we have a quote from the source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Ishchenko 2020:

The anarchist theorization was most systematically expounded in the ‘Program of the revolution’s first day’ document prepared by the Autonomous Workers’ Union (2016) and the writings on Nihilist (http://nihilist.li), a website of ‘anarchists and anti-authoritarian radical left’ close to the AWU. Maidan was presented as a revolution against the tightly interconnected classes of state bureaucracy and grand bourgeoisie (notorious post-Soviet ‘oligarchs’). They parasitically extracted Ukraine’s resources in the form of ‘corruption rent’ that was syphoned to offshore accounts and property abroad without productive reinvestment into the Ukrainian economy. On the political level this parasitic structure was supported and defended by the competing clientelist networks (‘clans’) built around every other ‘oligarch’. Maidan prevented Yanukovych’s ‘Family’ clan from monopolizing power and allegedly restored bourgeois pluralism. However, the ‘counter-revolutionary’ intervention of the Russian regime, which is close to ‘fascist’ and supports ‘clerical-conservative’ and ‘totalitarian nationalist’ reaction in Donbass, precluded from fully accomplishing the ‘bourgeois revolution’ in Ukraine. (Zadiraka, 2017a)

I name-dropped Zadyraka in the article because he was the one that went on to further elaborate this characterisation presented in the AWU’s programme, in his own writings for Nihilist. —Grnrchst (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be clear in the article who said what Grnrchst; currently it appears that Zadyraka was the only one to espouse this view. Also, is the source clear that the “Program” document was published on Nihilist, as the article says? The above quote indicates they were two separate publications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I’ve rewritten this part of the article, in line with the source. Thanks for catching the thing about there being two separate publications, I just checked again and saw the programme was published on the AWU website. —Grnrchst (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not 100% clear (not your fault, the passive voice in the source e.g. “Maidan was presented” is very unhelpful, combined with the citation at the end to only Zadyraka) if the source paragraph is summarising only Zadyraka’s views, or Zadyraka’s and the AMU combined. Could you please provide links to the Program document and to Zadyraka’s 2017 writing on Nihilist Grnrchst? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the AWU’s 2016 programme (in Russian) and Zadyraka’s 2017 article (in English). —Grnrchst (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the hook is now GTG. One more question on the article Grnrchst: is “In 2016, the AWU published its analysis of the revolution … in AWU activist Volodymyr Zadyraka’s writings for Nihilist“ correct — i.e. that Zadyraka’s writings were explicitly the analysis of the AWU? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In one of his 2016 reports, Ishchenko describes analyses by Zadyraka and Volodarsky for Nihilist as an elaboration of the AWU’s position. —Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including what would have then been future analyses? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • … that the appointment of Diella as Albania’s virtual minister for public procurements marked the first time that a ministerial role was given to an artificial intelligence system?

@ArionStar, CoryGlee, and History6042: as a “first” hook, this needs strong, secure sourcing. There are four sources cited in the article, of which two (the Guardian and Al Jazeera) place the word “minister” in scare quotes, indicating their skepticism of the title—not a good start. I looked for other sources. This Washington Post article makes the concerns explicit: “Of course, naming Diella a “minister” is a stunt. Albania’s constitution requires cabinet members to be human beings…” Other articles make similar referencess to buffoonery and the like. I think a more conservatively-phrased hook is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quoted because it’s not a minister, it is in a place of one, despite the official appointment cite “minister”. Let’s “‘quote'” the term then. ArionStar (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t quite get you ArionStar, please explain? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prime minister appointed Deilla as “minister” but it’s not a real minister because it’s not a human (the ministerial role was given to it, despite it’s not being a “minister”) … So, the term “minister for public procurements” should be between marks. “Stunt” was a mere criticism. ArionStar (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s interesting. That doesn’t quite come out in the article now, which says “Diella was formally appointed as “Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence of Albania””, and doesn’t quote the term “minister for public procurements”. The sources, article and hook need to agree with each other before this runs per WP:DYKHOOK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. This official site cites it.
“… that the appointment of Diella as Albania’s ‘Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence’ marked the first time that a ministerial role was given to an artificial intelligence (AI) system?” ArionStar (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that reliable sources are dubious about the official announcement, calling it a PR stunt etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Stunt” is a criticism, indicating that it is illegal, but it does not take away the fact that it was the first virtual assistant to be appointed. The appointment is real, but “illegal, lawless” (a stunt). ArionStar (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:publicity stunt “A staged event used to garner publicity, usually for the purposes of marketing or activism.” No indication of illegality, merely of fraudulency. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source cites “stunt” or “publicity stunt”? The paywall limits me to check. ArionStar (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:stunt is (point 2) an ellipsis of “publicity stunt”. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or “a daring or dangerous feat”. ArionStar (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not intelligible English. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Intelligible English”? ArionStar (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Of course, naming Diella a “minister” is a dangerous feat.” does not make sense in the English language, no. It seems you’re unwilling to make corrections to the article, so I’ll leave this here for others to comment on or for the hook to be pulled. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I waited a bit and I’ll see what I do. ArionStar (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in Reception and criticism: “An article in The Washington Post described the appointment of Diella as a stunt, since the Constitution of Albania states that ministerial roles should be given to people.” Thoughts? ArionStar (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative hook idea, regardless of first-ness and stunt-ness it strikes me as already interesting for an AI to be “named” as a minister: what about something as simple as …that the AI system Diella was named Albania’s Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence? Or, …that the Prime Minister of Albania has said that an AI system appointed to his Cabinet will combat corruption? Both statements appear clearly supported by the article and its sources (I checked them). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, let’s move away from first hooks. We can even copy “Minister” with quotes from the sources if that would address the concern of it being an actual Minister. CMD (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are walking that tightrope of “is it really a minister?” that causes problems with the first hook. Personally, I think “named” is just about on the right side of that — it was given the name of minister, which leaves aside the thorny business of being e.g. confirmed or actually holding the position. I might be tempted to rephrase the second to something like …that the Prime Minister of Albania appointed an AI system as a “virtual minister”?, which is a bit less committal on whether the AI is actually in the Cabinet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the problem with the hook? ArionStar (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the constitution says that only human beings can be ministers, or the whole thing was only intended as a stunt rather than a bona fide appointment, then Diella was never appointed as a minister and it fails verification. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this is set to run tomorrow and the hook issue remains unresolved, I have pulled the hook for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped this with Tsugumasa Muraoka – courtesy ping to @Miminity:. I gave it a trim while I was at it and it’s now 1528, so I’d appreciate some extra eyes to make sure I haven’t missed any opportunities for concision.–Launchballer 23:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was hoping that putting it all in the PM’s mouth would help with keeping an appropriate amount of skepticism. Personally, when I first saw the news in the world, I though “minister” was a religious minister so I want to rule out that ambiguity, but I like …that the Prime Minister of Albania appointed an AI system as a “virtual Minister” in his Cabinet? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But wasn’t this the first time a virtual assistant was designed to do so? ArionStar (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a question for the philosophers, experience with past hooks has shown it is a topic best bypassed. CMD (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m newbie here and confused too. ArionStar (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have regularly had hooks saying “X was the first Y” get taken to WP:ERRORS and disproven, even if the initial statement was supported by the sources in the article. The hook is more likely to be accurate if it contains the same information but without a superlative. CMD (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like LEvalyn‘s solution. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • … that a music critic once said that a piano piece written by 11-year-old Nina Milkina was too difficult for a child to play?

I originally posted to the promoter’s talk page about this however I received no response, and since it is now moved to a queue I decided to bring it here; I’ll just copy my concerns over: After they promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Milkina they made some changes to it, however I think there were a few problems with them. For the bit written by 11 year old Nina Milkina, this implies that she is 11 years old right now (she is definitely not), so I’m worried this is kind of misleading. I also think the that was right after is not necessary and could be removed as well. The whole thing just kinda feels more wordy, so I was wondering if the original hook in the nomination could be restored? Sophisticatedevening(talk) 14:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about …that Nina Milkina composed piano music at age 11 that a music critic said was too difficult for a child to play?. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn That works except instead of piano music I would say “a piano piece” or something similar as piano music sounds like it is referring to multiple/all of her works, whereas the critic was only talking about one piece. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 18:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and that would reduce the repetition of the work “music” too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G, Spookyaki, and Bunnypranav: While the article has images of a foldable telescope, I could not find in the article where it states that Dall invented a telescope that was foldable. Can someone post the text below where this is stated (and cited) in the article? Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So my understanding is that a Cassegrain telescope is a type of folding telescope (per the Wiki page, its defining feature is that “the optical path folds back onto itself”), so when the Oxford Ref article says it’s a “variant of the Cassegrain telescope”, it’s saying that it’s foldable. Ditto with the article, which says that “he made a Cassegrain telescope with spherical lenses”. However, I am not an expert. This was just my assessment. Spookyaki (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, Grnrchst, and Bunnypranav: Please note that I changed the hook and the article to match what the quote stated in the source. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since a new FA takes a lot more work than a GA, why isn’t a new FA eligible for DYK? MisawaSakura (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is because featured articles can appear on the main page as Wikipedia:Today’s featured article, so they don’t need DYK slots as well. TSventon (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, except that there are roughly 700 FAs that have never been TFA. I think this rule should be changed, though I know it takes a long hurculean effort to change anything on wiki. MisawaSakura (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is intended to showcase new work, and although it is quality new work, it is generally far from FA. The number of FAs produced is also less than one a day, so if the TFA queue is increasing that is something deliberate at the TFA end. CMD (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if work on an article got an article to FA, with new REALLY INTERESTING facts, it gets ignored, DYK-wise. That’s self-defeating the goal of the DYK. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific article in mind?–Launchballer 01:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aomori Prefecture, which we’re getting close to submitting to FA. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this would be your first FA. The standard advice to first-time FA authors is to send their article to GA first. Mostly to get more eyes on it, but a nice side-effect is that it will also make it eligible for DYK. RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schrocat is going through it for FA-worthiness. A problem with GA is that the backlog is massive. I see many articles have been sitting there almost a year, so by the time those get reviewed and make GA, they are DYK worthy but the “new” factoid is no longer new.MisawaSakura (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GA backlog does not move at the same pace for all articles, and offering to review makes it go much faster. Take a look at WP:GARP or WP:GARC. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a talk about whether articles that had a successful GA within five years could appear on the main page (previously, articles could only appear on the main page once) and since that is being opposed, this proposal will likely fail. Both DYK and GA are heavily backlogged. The good news is there’s a backlog drive with GAN next month and DYK sets are rotating every 12 hours.. JuniperChill (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of DYK is not the interesting facts, the goal is to encourage the development of new (or significantly newly expanded) articles. CMD (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve expanded that article from 102K to 161K, which I consider a significant expansion. I’m sticking to my guns. This policy is self defeating and new FAs should be allowed. It also makes no sense to allow a new GA, started from a 10 year old article, but not a new FA, started from 10 year old article. At that, I’m leaving this dicussion as I know it will go no further. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record in DYK terms that is less than a x2 expansion, whereas a significant expansion is defined as at least x5. CMD (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if she’s already working towards FA, then aiming for TFA will actually be better. TFAs almost always get more eyes than DYK, so if her goal is for Aomori Prefecture to get more eyes, then TFA would be a great way to do it. She can also nominate the article for TFA if she wants: once the article already is an FA, it should be doable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a lot of articles have never been TFA. However, that does not mean there is a queue of 700 articles that will be TFA before yours; usually, for new nominators, their first FA is scheduled as TFA as soon as possible after promotion, which in practice means within the next one to three months. (Many of the 700 FAs are in some narrow topic areas where only one or two per year run on the Main Page to avoid boredom). —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did User:DYKUpdateBot only notify me that one of the 2-article hook articles was included in DYK on 9/23?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the second article was manually added to the nom, no credit line (eg. {{DYKmake|National treasure of France|TonyTheTiger|subpage=Boating Party}}) was added. These credit lines are automatically copied to the preps and queues, and are what is used by the bot to create talkpage posts. CMD (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve manually created the talkpage post. CMD (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with this article. It implies the British aircraft deliberately sank a German hospital ship in clear weather by lying that the weather was bad. However, the source gives the following reason:

The captain of the second aircraft… had identified the ship as a hospital ship and incorrectly assumed that his leader had done so too. He supposed, however, that there must be some special circumstances justifying and exception from standing orders prohibiting attacks on hospital ships and transmitted a message to the following effect: “I H.S. 350” (one hospital ship – course 350 degrees) and giving her position. Owing to atmospheric conditions, this message was received by base incorrectly and read to the following effect: “I H.S.L. 350” (one high-speed launch – course 350 degrees) with a position in the middle of the Gulf of Venice. A second version of this message showing the position of the ship as overland in the Istrian Peninsula and requesting instructions was later retransmitted by another station, but it again incorrectly referred to a high-speed launch.

These messages were then brought to the notice of the controlling officer, who ascertained that no Allied high-speed launch was in the position indicated in the first version of the message, which was in any case many miles from the Tübingen’s position, and gave orders to attack. On receipt of these orders the leader, who was still unaware that the ship was a hospital ship, instructed his section to attack. It was not until he passed over the ship after completing his attack that he distinguished the name Tübingen on her side and realized her identity.

– so it seems the issue was one of miscommunication between the aircraft and their base, which thought the vessel was a launch and gave orders to attack. Pinging the nominator Dumelow. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version