Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

DYK backlog and suggestions for DYK process improvement

[edit]

(This thread has been split from original discussion for clarity.)

Having read the thread that TSventon kindly linked above, I have a few observations and a question. Observations: For an editor like me, who has been circling and occasionally jumping in to try and lend a hand, DYK looks like a well-oiled machine. It's even somewhat intimidating (e.g., feels a bit like a secret society; a lot of complexity in the more technical aspects of what the top-flight regulars do in the queues, etc.; and the outcomes end up on the main page of one of the most-viewed websites in the world -- which, let's face it, is kind of daunting). I had no inkling about some of the issues raised in September's discussion. In fact, the way the project pages read is that DYK wants more submissions (assuming they meet the criteria, follow the rules, etc.), added to which the QPQ impetus implies that the primarily objective for non-regulars (irregulars?) should be doing more reviews (when there are apparently too many approved articles in the pipeline to process already). What's not readily apparent from the project pages ("Aims and objectives"; "What DYK is not"; "Rules"; "Process"; etc.) is what the actual "needs" and "asks" are. So (setting aside the above discussion and the resulting ambiguity I may now personally feel regarding the prospect of investing more time and energy here), the Question is: What can folks do to help reduce the backlog or otherwise lend a hand in ways that help us gain the knowledge and skills needed to eventually take on some of the more pointy, complex and nettlesome tasks to be done where the bottlenecks form? Can some of the more routine tasks be spun-off in bite-sized packets that will free-up bandwidth in the inner-sanctum? There's not really much of an on-ramp for potential new participants here as it stands. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to DYK, and I’d like to echo a similar sentiment — about the systemic backlog discussion, not this or any specific incident. I want to be helpful (and thought I was, by reviewing) but now I wonder if I’m just moving the bottleneck downstream. I understand it’s impossible to define “interesting” universally, but there’s clearly some underlying spectrum. The middle ground is tricky, but at the ends there are some hooks many would agree are interesting — and some that many would agree are not. For the latter, is an individual reviewer empowered to decline an otherwise suitable article on that basis? Because “interesting” is subjective (and all nominators obviously want their articles featured) it feels a bit harsh, the wikipedia equivalent of telling someone you don’t think their pet is cute. But on the other hand, isn’t it kinder for an article to be straightforwardly declined rather than languish for two months because no one wants to flat-out admit the article doesn't have any unique, surprising, or otherwise intriguing facts suitable for a hook? Zzz plant (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that the subjectivity of the processes is one of the root causes of the backlog. That and what appears to be varying degrees of repetition of the work that's done at the QPQ/review level further downstream. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zzz plant: It is nice to see another editor who is interested in Swedish articles. You are helping with the unauthorised backlog by reviewing articles and I think the review is a valuable part of the DYK process, as it gives editors feedback on their new articles. The project will have to decide what to do with the backlog of approved articles at some point, but it is better to review articles than not to review them. When you have a bit of experience, you could help out with prep building and then promoting preps to queue which requires the admin or template editor permission.
On interestingness you can start off by reviewing nominations where the hook looks interesting. When you do review a nomination where you don't find the hook interesting, you should ask the nominator to provide a better hook. If they don't you may have to fail the nomination. Another editor has to close the nomination and might query your review if they think you made a mistake. In borderline cases you can ask here. TSventon (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TSventon:, always happy to see others interested in Swedish topics! I find your workflow explanation really helpful- I’ll start by focusing on hooks that I find clearly interesting and ask for an ALT if not. Zzz plant (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interest does have a subjective element, but there is an objective test for it, namely whether or not a fact is unusual in some way or not. If the hook fact describes something that is commonplace, that by definition is a DYKINT fail. There are other, more subtle criterion that can be applied, but that is the main one. Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that were true. My initial hook(s) about Borgmann were declared uninteresting precisely by that metric, even though the hook described something that has been uncommon for just under a century—the intentional lowering of educational fees. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would fall under the "subtle" criterion, for example if a hook is reliant on background information that may not be interesting or commonplace. This does not mean that hooks cannot be about "unfamiliar" scenarios, it's just that the unusualness has to be obvious or at least self-evident. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not here to relitigate old noms. I’m just noting that Gato’s proposition is easily disproved. As for the rest, I think it’s well established that educational costs have been rising since the 1950s. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to, I was just giving an example of the subtle criteria that Gatoclass mentioned. Those do not necessarily contradict: something can be uncommon, but if the reader is unaware that it is common, then its interest is less obvious. It was intended to be a general explanation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but I still disagree there is an objective test, as Gato defines it. I have had several good laughs over the last week or so, seeing hooks make it to the main page which would otherwise not make it in that form if the reviewer or promoter was different. The bottom line is that DYK is a subjective process at its very heart, which is why there is so much disagreement and ambiguity. As someone famous once said, if everyone is unhappy about the process, it must be working. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, it's probably true that some reviewers have difficulty distinguishing the difference between a hook that is objectively uninteresting per the above criterion, and their own personal preferences, but that doesn't invalidate the criterion, it just means that human beings sometimes make mistakes. But if you think one of your hooks has been unfairly nixed on the basis of DYKINT, you can always bring it to this page for wider input. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not really the type of person to object to the judgment of a reviewer unless there's been an egregious error that can't be resolved. I'm more likely to work towards a compromise that involves creating a new hook to satisfy the reviewer instead. Some nominators refuse to compromise, which makes the process far more difficult. I would not want to burden others by continuing to discuss a problematic hook. I would prefer to just come up with a new one. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more blunt than Viriditas was, define explicitly "unusual" and "commonplace" as presented to the 5 million individuals that view the WP main page on any given day. DYKINT is explicitly a WP:Navelgazing spawned criterion crafted by a minority of WP:Editors exposed to the inner workings of the process and thus convinced there is a need to mediate a hypothetical average hook above "mediocrity". An answer has yet to be provided as to what deleterious harm te purported hooks do to Wikipedia as a whole.--Kevmin § 04:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blunt, in the sense you're using it, is usually a positive (as opposed to blunt in the sense "dull"). Your comment brings to mind a comment made by Potter Stewart in a similarly important (and subjective) matter that came before the US Supreme Court in the 1960s. Where DYKINT is the only issue, wouldn't it be wiser for a reviewer to simply avoid reviewing noms that they personally find uninteresting? De gustibus aut bene, aut nihil. It would spare us all unnecessary hassles and wasted time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Two additional tools from NPP that may be worth looking at for "inspiration" are the Special:NewPagesFeed and WP:NPPSORT page. A "light" version of either or both might help us better visualise and manage the DYK backlog here (by topic, age, etc.). Also, in the same vein, what's the origin of WP:DYKTIMEOUT? As it is currently worded, it seems like a fairly unsporting and highly subjective manner of backlog reduction (and if applied incautiously, potentially harmful to boot). If we're asking folks to take the time and care to nominate DYKs (and therefore, also to spend their time and care providing QPQ reviews), then unceremoniously flushing their work down the drain without warning seems rather unlikely to win people's trust and willingness to participate further. There has to be a better way. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: the timeout section was added here by AirshipJungleman29 and the header was added here by RoySmith, they probably know the background. TSventon (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems like this one needs to be made more clear (and a bit less subjective too), as discussed here, here, and here (and elsewhere, no doubt). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background is a series of very lengthy discussions which can be found somewhere in the archives. The idea was to institute the most sporting and objective method of removing problematic nominations, where reviewers took the time and care to painstakingly review articles and then, in discussions that commonly lasted months and spanned multiple talkpages, were unceremoniously either ignored or bludgeoned into accepting obviously sub-quality articles. Speaking for myself only, such nominations substantially eroded willingness to contribute more to DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that TIMEOUT grew out of frustration with some nominations which were in play for months, never getting any closer to consensus. With some of them, there were fights where somebody would close them and somebody else would come along and reopen them, so they would become an endless time sink. TIMEOUT was a way to put an end to that.
I think it's a good thing. It may seem unfair and/or mean to toss a nomination, but the big picture is that what's really important is that the project keeps running smoothly. I was on my school paper in college. That really teaches you some good lessons about getting stuff done. The clock is ticking at some point the printers say, "That's it, whatever you give us in the next five minutes is what we're printing". Really helps you focus on what's important, and DYK is no different. You just can't afford to keep investing time in a lost cause when there's so much other stuff that needs to get done and isn't. I say "we", but I'm not really part of the "we" any more. I got tired of the same endless battles and have mostly moved on to other things. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @AirshipJungleman29 and RoySmith: I certainly understand the impetus for its creation (and don't think it's not a good thing per se). My suggestion is only that it might stand for a bit more precision in its application (per hammers and nails above, etc.).
Also, people getting "tired of the same endless battles" and abandoning the project is another problem that should be fixed (and is possibly the biggest impediment to solving the other problems, such as backlogs, etc.). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relative newbie at DYK who jumped into the deep end of prep building a couple months ago here -- I don't know the history behind TIMEOUT but I think it's an excellent policy. Invariably the discussions that time out are massive threads that appear to consume huge volumes of volunteer time, or they're so niche or specialized that promoters/reviewers don't feel comfortable making the commitment to move them along. I get that timing out a nomination that many people have invested effort on creating and improving feels crummy, but if we let nominations last indefinitely the simple technical limitations of the DYK nom pages mean reviewers and promoters won't even have new hooks served them to review. There is currently a three-week-long backlog of approved hooks that aren't transcluding to the listing page; is it fair to those nominators for their work to be largely invisible for much of the period when their articles can be considered "new"? Finally, sunk costs are a thing, and if nominators/reviewers/promoters can't reach an agreement on a suitable hook after two months, it seems unlikely that throwing more effort at it will help. TIMEOUT should encourage nominators to be flexible and collaborative in achieving the goals of DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want DYKTIMEOUT to work as it seems it was intended (and not as a blunt and imprecise multi-tool for yeeting anything we don't like, or that's getting our knickers in a twist, or whatever), then it seems to me that it should be used mostly (or only) for noms that have sat dormant and mouldering for whatever agreed period of time (currently 2 months). It's also a polite way out. No need to insult anyone or discourage people for trying to nominate (they can always come here and ask for help, which will likely get someone's attention, and may even lead the nom out of the dark). If the nom is really no good and isn't ever going to see the light of day, then just don't touch it and let it time-out (or quick-fail it). However, as soon as a review has been initiated, or something else that shows the nom has legs and is in motion, then the use of DYKTIMEOUT should no longer be an option (at least until some clock re-setting event occurs, at which point the countdown would start again). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence is quite clear that most DYKers go far out of their way to make a nomination work, and thus it would be a massive collective action problem for DYKers to just leave a nomination alone. Allowing the clock to endlessly reset with each new post would keep nominations going nowhere front and center and make it harder for newer noms to get any visibility, perhaps resulting in those noms timing out since reviewers and promoters can’t easily see them. TIMEOUT may not be perfect, but it seems to me to provide the best balance between DYK’s goals of showcasing new content, encouraging nominations and using volunteer time effectively. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "endlessly reset with each new post", I said "as soon as a review has been initiated". Not the same concept. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also added or something else that shows the nom has legs is in motion, which could just be continued conversation or back-and-forth. If there was a timeout limit following the initiation of the first review, that could also be workable, although I'd suggest a shorter timeout window so that we don't end up with noms that linger for up to four months. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of DYKTIMEOUT was that it would end nominations if it was clear that they were not going anywhere. Making the counter "reset" if new developments happen would defeat the purpose since in theory the nomination could last indefinitely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding making the clock start when the review starts, the problem there is that sometimes (often?) the fact that nobody has picked up a nomination to review is in itself evidence that it's not interesting, and being interesting is one of the DYK criteria. If we get to the TIMEOUT point and nobody has chosen to review it yet, maybe there's a reason? RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually one of the issues with DYKTIMEOUT: editors cannot agree if, for example, it is fair to time out an unreviewed nomination. From experience, if a nomination is unreviewed for so long, it is usually one of three reasons: 1. the hook is hard to understand for a layperson (not necessarily just "uninteresting"), 2. the article needs a review from someone actually familiar with the topic, or 3. the article is about a contentious topic (such as Israel-Palestine). Sometimes it's a combination of the three. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, FAC also has timeout similar to DYK where if it hasn't received a support after a period of time, it will be closed. But the thing is, FACs can be renominated after 14 days. But DYKs cannot be renominated again unless its improved to GA (or expanded 5x). Timeout, along with increasing the number of hooks from 8-9 is the reason why moving to 2 a day has been significantly reduced. Of course, with a 2-month old nomination that was never reviewed, they are encouraged to review the article, than to reject it outright. But if a nomination was reviewed when it was over 53 days old, then a 168 hours notice (7 days) should be given before marking it for closure/rejecting the nomination. Its not the end of the world is the subject of the article is not a GA, but it can take several months for the article to be reviewed as there are several hundred of them, plus up to two months for DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions also arise depending on the reason why the nomination is stuck in the first place. For example, if the nomination is on hold as a result of a merge discussion: a recent discussion encouraged nominations to be put on hold until the discussion finishes, even if the nomination is already over two months old. The question then becomes if DYK should be willing to wait that long, or if the time comes that waiting too long is no longer feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK gets so many submissions it can't keep up. It's constantly going into backlog emergency mode and two-per-day mode to keep from getting buried in more volume than it can handle. FAC on the other hand doesn't get enough submissions to promote one per day so it needs to recycle old articles to keep it's quadrant of the main page from going empty. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I'm not really part of the "we" any more." Sorry to hear that. I had wondered if you'd have to take a step back after the "Why do I bother?" post. I don't know how to make this aspect of DYK better, but the more time I spend here, the more I see this pattern where people step up, but get some kind of implied responsibility for it rather than respect or gratitude. I was really surprised a while back when SL93 asked me about adding one of their articles to a prep set because they had built all other prep sets and so could not promote it. They were putting in a lot of work (for which I'm grateful) but was immediately worried that it would burn them out. I will always be glad to see you around here, but completely understand. Also, this is making me realize that I should (and will at some point) give out barnstars of gratitude/respect to the folks who are keeping us all on track (BlueMoonset), copy-editing hooks on their way to the main page (Ravenpuff), closing out stalled nominations (Launchballer), and nominating hooks for new editors (AirshipJungleman29). Also, regarding the frustration about timing out a nomination, I have actually un-closed a nomination that reached the timeout point (it was a math bio and nothing viable for an average reader had come out of the nomination so far), but the nomination almost immediately stalled out again, and the end result was even more frustrating for the nominator who wrote off DYK for good. Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of disclosure, what nomination was that? Maybe we can learn something from seeing it and perhaps adjust from experience. It's true, we often have negative experiences here, but what matters is how we learn from them to make DYK a better place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, it was Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee. Rjjiii (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was my fault. Mea culpa. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK gets so many submissions it can't keep up. Yes, this (coupled with my own recent unpleasant experience with the project) is why I started this discussion. Before becoming yet another casualty on the not really part of the "we" any more list, I thought I might a least try to help improve certain aspects of the process that seem (to a relative newcomer) like glaring faults in need of repair. TIMEOUT and INT both seem like good candidates. There are others. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a related RL example. Driving tests in the UK are so backlogged that learners often have to wait several months just to book their driving tests. This was because only a few tests were conducted in 2020 and 2021 for a reason everyone should know. In 2019, 1.6 million tests were conducted so you would have an idea on how much the backlog really is. And around half of all tests is a fail.
On Wikipedia, many things are getting backlogged. DYK, GAN, NPP, AFC, you name it. This is why we do backlog drives in these areas. JuniperChill (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we get to the TIMEOUT point and nobody has chosen to review it yet, maybe there's a reason? That's exactly my point. Use it as a scalpel, not a hammer (or bludgeon). Once an article is actively being reviewed, in the process of revision based on DYK reviewer suggestions, etc., then DYKTIMEOUT is probably not the right tool to use. The activity indicates an article that should, by any reasonable standard, get over the line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This also leads us back to the subjectivity problem discussed above. If a solid B-Class article (>85% per ORES/Rater) can end up failed using a combination of DYKINT and TIMEOUT (and policy bombing), then clearly something isn’t working properly. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies. I added that extra "or ... has legs" clause in reference to this discussion. I'll try to stick to one point at a time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the intended purpose Cl3phact0. "blunt and imprecise multi-tool" seems like quite a good description to me. Feel free to start RfCs to remove or reduce TIMEOUT and INT, but all I ask is that you stay around a little to help deal with the consequences. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should necessarily be removed – only suggesting that their internet, purpose, and application could perhaps stand to be more precisely defined. This might help eliminate confusion and streamline the process. (Also, if I have "fundamentally misunderstood the intended purpose" as you say, then it seems likely I'm not the only one in doubt here.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that blunt-force imprecision is a feature of TIMEOUT (not a bug)?
Linguistically, I suspect that for most readers, "time-out" implies either punishment (as in Time-out (parenting)), or a pause (as in Time-out (sport)), or the way it's currently worded, whereby the implication is simply that the clock has run out in a metaphysical sense – a final bell of sorts. This is how I read it: 60 days = time's up (so sorry for your trouble, better luck next time old chap). If that's not the intent, if it's actually meant to be a "blunt and imprecise multi-tool", then perhaps TIMEOUT should have been dubbed HAMMER or SCYTHE (or my new favourite word, "YEET") for the sake of unblinking clarity and transparency.
How might this be improved to be more closely aligned with WP:5P4? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, blunt-force objectivity is the defining feature of TIMEOUT. Sourcing can be argued, interest can be debated, superlative hooks squabbled over, completeness disputed, and whether nominations comply with WP:BLP has led to several threads at the WP:CESSPIT; the passage of time on the other hand is indisputable and unarguable.
Linguistically, "time out" is not here a noun but a verb (c.f. "if a nomination timed out ... may not be timed out"), for which definition you may consult line one of wikt:time out#Verb. I suppose you may also call it a final bell or a funeral bell tolling, or indeed a scythe or a yeeting, but all are equally blunt and imprecise, and anyway this whole nomenclature discussion seems a bit like WP:BIKESHEDding, and I'm not entirely certain how the current doesn't conform with the five pillars? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Very helpful, although as hilarious as it is, I'm pushing back on the bike-shedding analogy – this is not that. Linguistics aside, you've confirmed that my initial reading of TIMEOUT was indeed correct (i.e., "time's up ... better luck next time"). I agree that we absolutely need a tool like this for noms that have sat untouched and unloved for n days. It's the application that I question. Also, there are arguments about the passage of time that I won't introduce here, but which are indeed fascinating. That "all are equally blunt and imprecise" I won't dispute.
However, this all does give considerable added weight to the notion that an article which is "actively, constructively, and conscientiously being resolved" per the detailed suggestions and requests proposed by a DYK reviewer should not be failed using this criteria (regardless of any other issues at hand). It appears, quite simply, that this is clearly not the intended purpose of this tool, full stop.
That said, we may need a different multi-tool for yeeting (or TIMEOUT should simply be called what it is – if we intend to use it that way), and the circumstances that lead to bell tolling should probably be spelt out more clearly too. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"However, this all does give considerable added weight to the notion that an article which is "actively, constructively, and conscientiously being resolved" per the detailed suggestions and requests proposed by a DYK reviewer should not be failed using this criteria (regardless of any other issues at hand). It appears, quite simply, that this is clearly not the intended purpose of this tool, full stop."
I'm intrigued how you reached this conclusion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It seems fairly straightforward. If the TIMEOUT tool is meant to clear out 60 day old articles that are cluttering up the backlog and nowhere near ready for DYK, then let it do that. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TIMEOUT is meant to clear out 60 day old nominations, full stop. See above: "blunt-force objectivity is the defining feature of TIMEOUT". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exempli gratia (I): You're working on an article after a constructive (though perhaps a bit intense) exchange with a reviewer. You've got 10 out of 11 Green tickY marks on the DYK checklist. Nearly there. Final touches. A lot more work than you'd expected, but all's well. You get up to have a stretch, maybe a wee nap, a cup of tea. No, wait! Bam! What's happened? It's GAME OVER, better luck next time old chap. Really, isn't that a tad disrespectful? To my way of thinking, that is a tool that needs a bit of sharpening – and doesn't ring true with a number of our core concepts (such as CIV, EQ, AGF, BITE, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exempli gratia (II): Please see this discussion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion that has been had in depth at least 3 or 4 (maybe more) times since I've been participating in DYK in the last 6 months. There's been all sort of suggestions. The basic problem remains that we are getting more nominations than we can process. To me there is only one way to address that and it's at the start of the process by implementing whatever policies raise the threshold for nomination without raising the bar too much. I don't see any other way to address the underlying issue of too many nominations and not enough capacity to run them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly "one way", but is it really the "only" way? Surely there are other incremental improvements that can be made to methods and procedures that would help eliminate bottlenecks.
For example, regarding the TIMEOUT question, it seems that if we simply tell nominators at the outset (in the nicest possible way) that there is a real possibility that their nomination, if it's not picked up and reviewed by someone within 60 days, will simply drop off the bottom of the list (i.e., the clock will run out). That would take a lot of pressure off. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with being more upfront and explicit about TIMEOUT. That however is not going to change the basic issue of too many nominations and not enough capacity to run them. TarnishedPathtalk 23:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It might also incrementally improve the quality and reduce the number of DOA noms. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One recurring piece of advice that nominators often forget is that not all articles are good fits for DYK. Sometimes, articles just do not have sufficiently interesting material, even if they would otherwise meet the technical requirements like length and newness. If editors could be more selective in the articles they nominate, instead of clearly doomed nominations turning into time-sinks, that would help in reducing the backlog. It would not eliminate it, but it would help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point above. If we tell folks "this might time out" (if it's not well thought out), then they might think a bit harder before submitting. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main DYK page, WP:DYK, says The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. I think that implies that not all nominations will be selected, without going into detail that may change. TSventon (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Implies" isn't that same as saying it flat out. If we make people stop and think for a minute before hitting "send", we may get higher quality noms in general – and more to the point, fewer that waste time due to poor preparation (which may well also go some way towards improving the "too many nominations and not enough capacity to run them" problem, per TarnishedPath above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do see one area where we have an instruction/policy gap that could be made clearer. Our policy language about holds is described at WP:DYKCOMPLETE. What we don't say is what time extension to give once a merge discussion or AFD etc. has ended. To prevent recurring discussions over what to do with these, I think a reasonable time limit could be placed on articles that passed the two month window because they were on hold but which successfully made it through that process (ie survived AFD, GA review, etc). I would suggest a seven day clock from the time a merge/AFD/GA review discussion ended until a timeout close can be given if it passed the two month mark while on hold. This removes ambiguity and gives cover to someone wanting to time out an article after it has been on hold. @Dclemens1971:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @Narutolovehinata5:, @TarnishedPath:, @Cl3phact0: (apologies if I missed someone) Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This might fall under instruction creep since it rarely actually happens (most merge and AFD discussions take place long before DYKTIMEOUT would apply). I don't support having a hard time limit: at most, I'd support a single sentence, maybe at WP:DYKTIMEOUT, clarifying that nominations that go beyond the two month mark due to an AfD or merge discussion may (key word here is may) be granted an extension. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I would oppose that because WP:DYKCOMPLETE/WP:DYKTIMEOUT is clear we must give a time extension to article on hold. There is no may about it. Articles on hold may not be timed out. Timing something out immediately after it is no longer on hold breaks the spirit of that rule. It's pretty explicit we can't time out articles that are on hold and must give them a fair chance at review after they are no longer on hold. That is the policy. Period. The real question here is what is fair with an article like Republican makeup when its merge discussion closes past the two month window? How do we handle that in an impartial way. There might be very good reasons to pass on that one other than timing out, but editors may not be willing to weigh in given the political nature of the topic. In that case it would be helpful to have a set number of days after the merge closes to say, hey nobody approved this in the seven days after the merge discussion ended so it timed out". Fair, and impartial. No messy political fighting. A rule like this can prevent drama.4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is new and may not be known to other editors. If that is the case, then perhaps that should suffice and DYKCOMPLETE no longer needs to include a full explanation. Maybe change "Articles on hold may not..." to "Articles on hold due to a deletion or merge discussion may not..." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 I agree that would be helpful so that editors aren't having to piece together hold rules from two different sections. That's still doesn't address the issue though of re-invoking a time deadline for articles placed on hold. Right now, theoretically, one can't clearly invoke a timeout at all under our rules for an article that went through AFD/MERGEPROP/GAREVIEW. That's a problem. That's why I am suggesting a seven day window of extension that starts at the time an AFD/MERGEPROP/GAREVIEW discussion closes. This takes out any ambiguity, and allows for a reasonable minimal window to get hooks that were on hold processed, but also, importantly, gives cover to an editor wanting to reject a hook that was on hold because of time.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The surest and tidiest way to use TIMEOUT is passively (rather than as a bludgeon). A nom that's past its pull-by date simply and naturally gets culled from the list – no "cover" needed. The specifics of the "pause" (that seems to be something most everyone agrees should be applied in certain cases) need refinement, but the TIMEOUT weeding process could be quite matter of fact and routine (i.e., 60 days and gone). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKTIMEOUT (Draft of proposed revision)

[edit]
  • Current wording:
Unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters. However, if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it. Articles on hold may not be timed out.
  • Proposed wording:
To help ensure that the DYK pipeline doesn’t become clogged with unreviewed nominations, part of the normal DYK process provides that nominations over two months old may be timed out.
DYKTIMEOUT can be used at the discretion of reviewers and promoters, and should be applied when a DYK nominated article has not been promoted after a period of 60 days, or if the nominator is either unwilling or unavailable to perform necessary revisions requested by a reviewer in order to bring the article into compliance with basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Before invoking DYKTIMEOUT, please ensure that the article not currently the subject of merge discussion, and that the nomination is not actively under review and revision likely to lead to the its successful promotion. Articles on hold for the above reasons should not be timed out, and the 60 day countdown should be temporarily paused (regardless of the nomination's age).

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current proposal as instruction creep. I sympathize with the reasoning, but the current wording already works as is, since the proposed wording is basically saying the same thing but longer. Any edge cases, as well as scenarios such as "if the nominator is either unwilling or unavailable to perform necessary revisions". already fall under "discretion of reviewers and promoters". In practice, we already reject nominations early if the nominator is unresponsive, even if they are not two months old yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is in part based on this discussion, so I'm a bit confused by your opposition. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, based on this, we may also want to include AFD nom or a move proposal. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Solution in search of a problem we don't really have. TarnishedPathtalk 11:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I refer to this discussion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters says it all. They may be rejected, not must. It means what it says, and going beyond that is when there doesn't actually appear to be a problem is instruction creep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current language is fine. We don't need to change it.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Day set?

[edit]

Starting a conversation about assembling hooks for Christmas Day. So far I see Template:Did you know nominations/How To Survive Christmas and Template:Did you know nominations/Eat Salmon on Christmas! that are approved. Due to the PEIS issue I can't easily see how many other Christmas-related hooks are in the approved category. Anybody else have anything to throw in? I have a few content ideas I can put together in time but starting now to see if anyone has other ideas in the mix. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in the Philippines is awaiting a GA review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: you can copy the noms from 26 October to 10 November and 11 November to date into sandboxes and preview, it isn't too difficult. Gosh, WP:DYKNA is getting big. I didn't see any other mentions of "Christmas", but I didn't look for "reindeer" or other related topics. TSventon (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like last year I'll write up a plant or animal nomination for the set.--Kevmin § 17:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added Macrobrachium xmas to my sandbox. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added Macrobrachium xmas to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've created and nominated Mary and Eve. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning a Christmas carol article but don't know if it will become long enough for DYK, and it would be for Christmas Eve (24 December). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Macrobrachium xmas. Improvements welcomed. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Macrobrachium xmas and Mary and Eve are now in the approved section. I've just finished and nominated Santa Claus and His Elves. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks for Christmas set(s)

[edit]

(please add suggestions as you have them)

Approved (once approved, please add to the WP:SOHA)

Awaiting approval

Possible

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 27. We have a total of 409 nominations, of which 296 have been approved, a gap of 113 nominations that has decreased in size by 54 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this since so many listed nominations still need to be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly seems to have been a sharp drop off in the number of nominations being made. I'm guessing last month's GA and WIG events had something to do with it, any other reasons?--Launchballer 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk about WP:DYKTIMEOUT

[edit]

The point of DYKTIMEOUT was that nominations that have lasted too long before being approved should be allowed to be closed at any time. However, as time has gone on, we have been seeing more and more exceptions to it, almost like instruction creep. If we are going to let nominations last well beyond the two-months mark anyway, then that defeats the whole point of DYKTIMEOUT. I can understand exceptional cases, such as nominations that were just pulled from Prep/Queue and need some time to discuss urgent matters. However, for most cases, it is not ideal if such nominations have lasted so long without issues being addressed.

Given the increasing creep with regards to DYKTIMEOUT, should we go back to being stricter about it? Maybe we can include an explicit appeal process where any nomination closed under DYKTIMEOUT may be brought to WT:DYK for appeal, but otherwise, any nomination that is older than two months old is in danger of closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many nominations are oustide the two months? TarnishedPathtalk 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see two in the approved list. Do we really need to worry that much about two nominations? Is it as bad as before DYKTIMEOUT came in? TarnishedPathtalk 22:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am mainly looking at DYKN, but right now there are two nominations that are outside the two month mark. One remains in limbo pending the resolution of its merge discussion, the other has already been reviewed and is just waiting for a final tick from the reviewer. The point is that, if the purpose of DYKTIMEOUT is to prevent nominations from languishing for too long, yet we still have nominations that go well beyond the two month mark (as opposed to only going beyond a few days), then it calls its effectiveness into question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem that WP:DYKTIMEOUT solves, as I see it, is boring hooks or controversial articles that no one is going to approve. However, the problem that we're facing right now is that we need more queues so we can run a week or two straight of 12-hour sets to get caught up on the backlog. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it means we need to process more hooks, but I should stress that processing a hook doesn't necessarily mean running it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and 12-hour runs requires a lot of labour that we don't currently have enough volunteers to maintain without burnout. TarnishedPathtalk 00:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently in the process of promoting prep2 to a queue and have approved Tropical Storm Pabuk. JuniperChill (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Tropical Storm Pabuk (2024), however I can't approve Template:Did you know nominations/Arlan (Indonesian politician) as I suggested the alt hook. If someone is willing to review/approve the alt hook I suggested then I think we've resolved most of the DYKTIMEOUT issues? TarnishedPathtalk 00:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not really seeing a significant problem. The policy is working fine. We reject most noms at the two month mark. The only ones getting an exemption are ones being held up due to merge/AFD. We reasonably don’t want to incentivise using AFD/merge as a way to purposefully sink a nom at DYK, so we do protect noms by giving a time extension in such cases. This was already determined through community discussion recently. The only other hook being held up is from a slow reviewer which frankly another reviewer could take over and knock out asap. It doesn’t need to be rejected and it isn’t really fair to the nominator to reject because the reviewer wasn’t timely. This latter issue doesn’t happen often and can be worked around without needing to create new policy. However if we were to do anything more… The only thing I can think of to discourage this would be to ban chronic late reviewers from nominating articles again at DYK (ie get your reviews done on time or you can’t participate at DYK anymore). That said, I can’t think of anyone who is consistently late.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with giving a blanket hold for articles nominated for merge/AFD, but I can support it being implemented on a case-by-case basis. For example, if the merge or AFD was done to filibuster or to deliberately sink a nomination, then yes, that's reasonable. However, errors and issues about a nomination can be raised at any time: just because a nomination is old does not mean it should be immune from problems being pointed out. Most of the time, such issue raising is done in good faith, and saying raising issues late should not be allowed is almost like assuming bad faith on the part of the editor.
    The real question is if it is really feasible to keep nominations open indefinitely when a merge discussion is going on, especially when they sometimes last a while. Normally it is not a major problem since usually only one or at most two nominations at a time are affected, so timing them out does not affect the backlog much. However, it does raise the question on how long such nominations should be allowed to linger. With AFDs it's more understandable since they usually have predictable time limits (often no more than a week). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To avoid repetition and missed communication, this thread should probably be a sub-section of "DYK backlog and suggestions for DYK process improvement" (above) which is addressing the same topic. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please also see proposal for revision here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is interest in adding at least some exceptions to DYKTIMEOUT, is there support for an additional one? In this case, if a nomination that would normally have timed out, is only timing out because it was pulled from prep or queue, then perhaps such nominations could be given an extension? Or would that also count as WP:CREEP? My feeling is that it is indeed CREEP, but at the same time, it does feel like a rational exception. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is already practice. If you want to codify it, sure, but I don't see much point. TarnishedPathtalk 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that nobody really agrees what DYKTIMEOUT is for or how it should be applied. It is vague and imprecise (apparently by design), and therefore easily misused. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it applied when necessary. It mostly works and is there really that much of a problem? There's a sum total of 4 nominations awaiting approval which are past two months in age. Two of those either have current AFD or merge discussions ongoing. What exactly is the problem we are in search of a solution for? TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I sincerely believe that this is a problem. TIMEOUT used properly works fine. Nothing to fault. Used as a weapon, not so much. In conjunction with DYKINT, it's a roadmap to "Kafka's Circus Land" (and avoidable inefficiencies, occasional abuses, regrettable attrition – e.g., this, this, this, etc.). So, again yes, it looks like something that can be improved upon. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Sjölejonet-class submarine (nom)

[edit]

@GGOTCC, Very Polite Person, and Bunnypranav: "... that the Sjölejonet-class (example pictured), Sweden's first indigenous submarine design, featured rotating torpedo tubes and disappearing guns?"

I don't see the word 'indigenous' in the source.
ref 3 has “The Royal Swedish navy had been building submarines since 1908, but the first fully indigenous design, the Sjölejonet Class…” 1brianm7 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was looking at ref2 instead of ref3. I should've used the source provided in the nom rather than the article, as I haven't promoted a prep in a month. This was my 3rd prep-queue promotion. JuniperChill (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Avraham Voluck (nom)

[edit]

@Sir Joseph, TarnishedPath, and Dclemens1971: that David Avraham Voluck, a Chabad Jew and Native tribal judge, credits Alaska Native peoples with inspiring him to become more observant in his own faith?

Which part of this source verifies the hook fact?

JuniperChill (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JC, see this source. "During this time, David was also privileged to work with David Case co-authoring the revision of the legal treatise “Alaska Natives and American Laws”. His experience with the Native peoples awakened a renewed interest in his own culture and history, and David took a two-year sabbatical from the practice of law to attend the Rabbinical College of America, focusing on Talmudic and Jewish Legal Studies." TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you TP! I'm already getting pretty tired after spending over 30 mins promoting prep2 so I'll need to take a pause. JuniperChill (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariame Clément (nom)

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Dclemens1971: ... that Mariame Clément's 2023 production of Mozart's Don Giovanni features the title character sitting on a giant cream cake?

I don't see the words "giant cream cake" on the article. JuniperChill (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did until this "trim". - I would prefer some other hook, about a more recent production, over this little bit, and said so in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ps: The present version also has a grammar mistake caused by the "trim" of several things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I'll go ahead and restore the "giant cream cake" as it was removed by someone uninvolved with DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the nom, I'm not sure why this hook was approved, as it seems to be of the same type as the one which was rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan of Better Call Saul (see "Cobbler" for further info), I voiced my minor objections to the cake hook on the nom's user page, but I was ignored. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I was not the nom, Storye book was. The original hook idea did not seem suitable since it seemed to be complicated and did not focus much on Clément herself. Arguably, the same could be said about the cream cake angle, but at least it seemed to be more "eye-catching" and interesting than the previous angle, so the "it's less about Clément" issue was less of a big deal. As for Viriditas's original objection, I told him that his original objection may not have been obvious to non-fans of Better Call Saul, so I did not see it as a problem. However, if the issue is that it had the same problem as the original angle, then that would be more relevant.
Taking the hook at the article again, there doesn't seem to be anything else that stands out as hooky apart from her dissertation. The "freezing the tableau in time" angle might be hard to explain or at least express in a hook, and the cream cake angle was objected to. The previous proposals did not really explain the "freezing" point in a layperson-friendly way, so their hookiness suffered. The only other option I can see right now is something like:
Admittedly, I'm sure that the article creator will object to that angle, but unless an editor, perhaps 4meter4 can help express the freezing tableau angle more effectively, this seems to be the only thing left in the article that's usable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have an article about one of the best story-tellers on the present opera scene, and you claim that saying something about her unconnected dissertation is more about herself? Instead of her very personal kind of story-telling? Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, given that this hook is scheduled to go live tomorrow, I would be fine with a bumping off or a pull until there is agreement on a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who are still learning the process (and lingua franca) here, what is the difference between "a bumping off" and "a pull" in DYK-speak? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping off means moving the relevant hook to a later set. This is usually to give more time for editors to discuss issues. A pull means to remove a hook from a Queue or Prep entirely and to put it back to WP:DYKN. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think its time to remove this hook from queue2 and replace it with another. I cant because the queue is admin protected (although I have template editor). I was away because my time zone is GMT. Perhaps i could ping the @DYK admins: about this. JuniperChill (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Does that mean that to "pull" a nom reverses its promotion entirely? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gulp. Pretty strong medicine, that! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I prefer it, because it keeps the discussion in one place. I'm just the writer of the article, not the nominator. I was happy with the original proposal but all ALTs seem not to do justice to what this woman does unusually well. How is her dissertation supposed to be interesting, I asked above, but received no answer. Look. - I urge an admin pulling to please place it back in the list of noms awaiting approval. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's lovely. Astoundingly innovative work. Thanks for sharing the link! As for the procedure at DYK, I'm still a bit wet behind the ears (as is evidenced by this very discussion), but it seems terribly wasteful and inefficient (and a tad disrespectful) at this late stage to bin all of the time that was put in to seeing the nom through to promotion (not to mention all of the subsequent work that's been done here by the technical folks) by dint of a few keystrokes. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other option could be to just move the hook to a later set instead of an outright pull. It's really up to an admin to decide at this point. There is opposition to the current hook, so either way it will probably have to change.
For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to the "freezing" angle, my main concern now is how to word it in such a way that a layperson could easily understand it and find it interesting. Right now I feel like the proposals made in the nomination did not do that job well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now the hook is no longer in any prep/queue. And the nom is still closed. Perhaps this could mean the nom should reopen? (as a side note, i cant believe all 3 of my prep-queue promotions were from P2 to Q2.) JuniperChill (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to a prep maker to move it back to a prep or to reopen the nomination. This is a weird case as there is opposition to the cream cake angle, but a few editors, including the nominator, are fine with it. In any case, we still need to agree on a hook, whether it be Cl3phact0's proposal, my proposal, or perhaps a reword of the frozen tableau angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: Pulling doesn't undo the review; once the issues brought up here are resolved, the nomination can be returned to prep fairly easily via script. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a relief! It sounded pretty harsh and draconian (or, perhaps I should say "blunt and imprecise"). Quite stress-inducing and rather off-putting, really.
Probably another instance where DYK nomenclature – both "to pull" and "to bump off" (and how these should/shouldn't be used) ought to be made clear somewhere in the DYK instructions/guidelines. Fewer vagaries = less misunderstanding.
Also, shouldn't “pulling” be used in fairly limited situations where some actual fault in the article or the hook has been discovered post-promotion? Its use simply to cancel noms for subjective reasons or personal preference shouldn’t be accepted (as this effectively annuls the work of the nominator and reviewer). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have come late to this, due to recent broadband issues (now resolved, I hope). I see no objection to the cream cake hook, because it is certainly about Clément herself as a director: she did a quirky thing by putting that scene onstage. I have no objection to the freezing-a-tableau-onstage hook, because that is about Clément herself as a director doing another quirky thing onstage. The point about the frozen tableau hook is that it is a curiosity-clickbait – one wants to know what exactly happened onstage. I have now explained what "frozen tableau" means, in the article. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might work: ... that Don Giovanni sits on a giant cream cake in Mariame Clément's 2023 production of the Mozart opera? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that it is confusing that the hook is in no prep but the nomination is closed. Thank you for the suggestion, but this order of the same fact doesn't work well, because someone will tell you that readers don't know Don Giovanni, and it's anyway better to have the bold subject upfront. Don Giovanni, the character, should not be italic, but the opera, which makes it more difficult. The frozen tableau of the bride about to sign but - much later - not doing it, seems a much more original idea than some simple cake effect which may have been the scenic designer's idea. (I heard Così fan tutte from La Scala on radio last night.) Help with wording it welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing Don Giovanni (italic or not) shouldn't really be a terminal impediment. Conveniently, this is an encyclopaedia, so we have a handy article on the subject just one click away. That said, if you give me a rough thread of an idea, I'll try to help spin it into gold. (I like hooks.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am with you regarding the "click away" view, however, some in this thread have argued differently, over years. See above attempt to bring in her dissertation. If we keep discussing here, Storye book's hook in the nom (trimmed) was
ALT0e: ... that when Mariame Clément directed Mozart's Così fan tutte, she froze a wedding tableau in time, and then restarted it later?
We could add that the freezing happens during the overture, and the restart shortly before the end, for more suspense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might work ALT0f: ... that a Mariame Clément production of Mozart's Così fan tutte freezes a scene during the opera's overture and doesn't restart it until the finale? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer Cl3phact0's wording as it actually makes the main point clear; I think the "froze in time then restarted it later" wording failed to properly convey the actual point. If promoted, it would need to change "doesn't" to "does not" since WP discourages contractions, and maybe "2025" could be added somewhere, but other than that it should be fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that. She isn't the producer, thought, but the director, and "wedding" seems to be needed.
ALT0g: ... that when Mariame Clément directed Mozart's Così fan tutte she froze a wedding tableau during the overture and restarted it in the finale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MisawaSakura's nominations

[edit]

MisawaSakura nominated multiple articles for DYK; however, she requested their withdrawal following an exchange at Template:Did you know nominations/Sing the 50 United States!. Commenters are currently split on whether or not the nominations should continue to run or should the withdrawal request be accepted. The affected nominations are, in addition to the aforementioned Sing the 50 United States! one, are:

In addition, Template:Did you know nominations/Tsugaruite has already been closed by BlueMoonset. Further input is welcome here on whether or not the nominations can continue. For what it is worth, at least one of the nominations has a willing adopter, so that may also need to be discussed here.

Courtesy ping to those who have been involved in these nominations: @1brianm7, TSventon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Kevmin, Theleekycauldron, Thriley, CurryTime7-24, Launchballer, and Yerevantsi:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping Jeromi Mikhael as he has offered to adopt Morizo Ishidate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DYK backlog is awful, but, putting that aside, I see no reason not to respect the main article writer's wishes. No, they don't WP:OWN the article, but DYK is optional and from a general "in a collaborative environment, humans should have a basic amount of respect for each other" standpoint, if somebody has expressed discomfort at the idea of their article appearing on DYK, there is absolutely no reason not to listen to their wishes. Unless you'd like to play power games, but to think that any of the regulars here would be willing to engage in that is silly. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of a Philip Slater quote I've only recently come to appreciate: "Conflict will never be eliminated from human affairs. Conflict is simply the active expression of difference, and an essential part of human development. Without conflict change would be impossible. Our goal as a species at this point in our development is to mold a world in which conflict can be contained within a larger embracing understanding—the realization that we share certain goals and aspirations in common, no matter how much we scream at each other about procedures." Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was one of the votes in favor of running, but it looks like the nominator doesn’t want them to run (I think) and so they shouldn’t. I had understood them withdrawing it as saying that they didn’t care to involve in the DYK bureaucracy anymore, especially since they said they were fine with other people nominating them, and so they would be fine with them running if they had no involvement. From reading their message on theleakycaulddon’s page, I’m pretty sure (though not entirely) sure that I read it wrong. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow nominations to continue where there are willing adopters, including reopening Template:Did you know nominations/Tsugaruite which is interesting. There are some interesting hooks in those nominations and while we may have a backlog, we are more in danger of being swamped by a sea of banality, than we are in danger of too many nominations. No one owns content and a large point of what we do here at DYK is publicizing new content to hopefully get more people interested in editing those subjects. I completely understand why MisawaSakura may have gotten jack with the process, and if they don't want to continue to participate they don't have to. That however is zero reason for the show not to go on. TarnishedPathtalk 09:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TP, did you mean to pick a diffferent example? "that until the late 1990s tsugaruite was misidentified as jordanite?", while interesting to those who are smarter than me about such things, is very much in xkcd:2501 territory. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GLL, the only reason I singled that one out was because it had been closed. That aside I do find it interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all already approved/adopted nominations. We already don't cancel AfD nominations if there are outstanding delete votes. Had I seen Sing the 50 United States I might well have driveby nominated it. As for precedent, we ran Devonshire Lodge after the nominator withdrew.--Launchballer 10:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator withdrew and went on hiatus due to a combination of IRL stress which appeared exacerbated by the DYK nom & feeling like their wishes were being disrespected. [1].
    What an awful precedent. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am completely understanding of getting frustrated by the process, we're all still essentially here to promote the content. TarnishedPathtalk 12:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Speak for yourself; I'm here to encourage people to contribute their writing. They won't do that if they see people active in DYK completely overriding a basic, non-intrusive request to withdraw a nomination, seemingly because they want to spite the nominator and prove they can't OWN content.
    It also makes them less likely to work with you in the future; for example, after seeing the stunt you pulled with Chris's article, I have since mentally written you off as "somebody who thinks their wants are more important than another person saying no". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo, completely unfair assessment and what a horrible way of wording it. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't claim it was a fair assessment, just acknowledging that if you override fairly simple requests, it can make other editors distrustful. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony of you labelling me as someone who disregards others when you've presumed to speak on behalf of others with no regards to what they had to say about it. Thanks for assuming bad faith. TarnishedPathtalk 03:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would pull these out of respect for the nominator. The Devonshire Lodge nomination was not quite the same situation. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 208 § Template:Did you know nominations/Devonshire Lodge, the nominator said that "if anyone wants to adopt the nomination, feel free. I'm going to remove it from my watchlist." MisawaSakura's case is different; they said, "That makes even less sense. I don't know why people worry so much stuff like this instead important things like article quality. I am beyond tired of stuff like this happening to me at DYK. Therefore, I'm making this easy. I'm withdrawing all my DYK noms and will never nominate one again. WITHDRAWN." An editor has already asked them about adopting the nominations at User talk:MisawaSakura § DYK, and their answer was Thanks for your kind a polite post here, but I'm not withdrawing them. I understand TarnishedPath's point above about the content, but volunteers, their time, and their work are what build the content. DYK nominations should not run people off who create the kind of content we want to showcase on the main page. Rjjiii (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respect for others should take precedence over pretty much everything else. No project on Wikipedia should be disrespecting people, exacerbating people, "running people off", or otherwise causing harm (with or without intent). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rjjiii and others. MisawaSakura has expressed not just lack of interest but active discomfort with the entire process. They appear to have already declined the adoption pathway when asked. Appearance on the main page is not a neutral event - it brings a thousand or more views and potentially an editing spike. Giving that experience to an editor who’s essentially said they want nothing to do with DYK feels unnecessarily unkind, especially when we already have a backlog of hooks from willing nominators at our disposal. Zzz plant (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole affair seems like a waste since the reason the withdrawals even happened was due to a miscommunication. Maybe if things were communicated better, things could have turned out differently. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If miscommunication and wasted time are persistent problems (which appears to be the case), then perhaps the process needs improvement? Apart from helping to reduce backlogs by using time more efficiently, this might have the added benefit of diminishing contributor attrition discussed above and elsewhere. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
close them as withdrawn, as is standard procedure when a nominator withdraws their hook. GLL said it perfectly (as per usual). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw them, per others above. DYK is a process to incentivise content creation, running these would not do so. CMD (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow adopted/approved nominations Not much to be said, except that I agree with TarnishedPath and Launchballer. I do really sympathize with Misawa and it's extremely sad if DYK made their mental health worse, but I really don't see how continuing the nominations causes any "disrespect" to them. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nominations I unwittingly triggered this situation by commenting at Template:Did you know nominations/Sing the 50 United States!, if anyone thinks I could have handled that better, please leave a message on my talk page. I apologised on MisawaSakura's talk page for upsetting them, and at that stage I thought they did not mind if other people adopted their nominations. They have now made it clear that they wish the nominations to stay withdrawn. TSventon (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit adoption'. If someone wishes not to be on Wikipedia, they could contact the VRT or start an AFD. However, this doesn't apply if they clearly pass the notability standards (or meet WP:NPOL). Similarly, anything you write online will remain. All content on Wikipedia (even discussionpages and one's own userpage) is freely licenced for anyone to copy and paste to wherever and the page history even shows deleted texts. Deletion under G7 is only permissible if they originally started the page, and no one else made an edit, or only had minor edits by others. JuniperChill (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit adoption No one WP:OWNs any pages they create; there is no reason why someone can't take over any nomination that the original nominator no longer wants to pursue. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw, per GGL and others. For all of the keep voters, if you feel these should be kept please provide detailed rationales in your reason in the RFC you put forward to remove the WITHDRAWN option from our nominations process. TarnishedPath ONLY after that RFC succeeds should we continue with this dicussion. Withdrawn has been a CORE option for project nominations since the beginning of DYK, and we have always honored it. You do not get to by fiat suddenly decide that you don't want it to exist without consent of the entire project.--Kevmin § 18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rfc wouldn't be to remove the withdrawn option entirely. But I think that if one nominator withdraws a nom and someone else agrees to adopt it, they should be able to do so. Of course, some sort of timeframe for this must be decided upon. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Adoption" is a policy/concept that currently is NOT part of the DYK process, while closing in on 2 decades of established precedent exist around the option to withdraw a nomination and that option has never before been denied. So we should be following precedent OR starting a RFC to remove the withdraw option, not just ignoring the precedent because newer editors here want to.--Kevmin § 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ability to withdraw a nomination that's (otherwise) controversial, half-baked, or whatever, may be a useful option to have, not least prior to approval; these aren't and are (otherwise) good-to-go. There's nothing disrespectful about featuring content about trees or prefectures on the main page, in fact it arguably shows respect for these topics; as I have suggested on the nomination pages, the dyk credit can always be withheld as that would seem to be in keeping with the nominator's desire to have no further part in this process; the accusations of "spite" above are crazy, this is simply about showcasing quality content, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Spite" was not an accusation, it was a comment about how the situation could be perceived. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation could be perceived as an aardvark, but it is unlikely, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The ability to withdraw a nomination that's (otherwise) controversial, half-baked, or whatever, may be a useful option to have, not least prior to approval; these aren't and are (otherwise) good-to-go This distinction has never existed in the documentations or active practices of DYK though, its something that seems to ahve been magiced into existence with no community consensus for the sudden and limitation of the scope of Withdrawn. So, again, if this is a change that is felt needed, an RFC must be initiated to see what actual consensus is.--Kevmin § 19:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood/stand the "withdrawal" here to mean "this is ridiculous, I want no further involvement in this process"; the user in question can easily have no further involvement here, while the articles still feature on the main page, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be honest and blunt, you are understanding wrong, and we have 15+ years of precedent for "withdrawn" = closed at nominators request at ANY point. You can take the articles in question, run them through GA or FA and renominate them if you want them to make the main page, but ignoring the withdrawn notification is not an acceptable option.--Kevmin § 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As we already have an apparent overabundance of nominations and hardly enough hours in a day to process them in a timely manner using currently available resources, isn't it something of a waste of both (time and resources) to argue about paring a few hooks that may be problematic on a human level? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant question here revolves around WP:OWN, which mainly applies to articles but has also (controversially) been applied to non-article spaces, such as DYK nominations. The main question here is really: if a nomination has been withdrawn, and if there are editors willing to adopt the nomination, is the original nominator or creator allowed to say "No, you cannot adopt it even if you want to?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "adoption" has never been an allowed option to making an end run around "Withdrawn", precedent of which has always been automatic close at nominators request. On what RFC grounds or similar are you making the assertion that the 15+ year precedent does not apply anymore? (Or do I gent to unilaterally finally remove DKYINT for the broken time sink it has become to the project?).--Kevmin § 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion about what is or isn't relevant is of course welcome. My question was (in breve): "As we already have an overabundance of nominations ... isn't it a waste of time to argue about paring a few?" Strike them off. Move on. Keep the presses running. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit adoption if there are editors keen to take them on and wish to do that. The goal here is to use interesting hooks to highlight well-written informative content to readers. If there are editors who wish to take a nom that the original nominate has decided not to run with, that's good for the project. Editors have the right to pull out of their nomination efforts, but I don't see that it's justified for them to also deny anyone else the right to run with that same content. IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have so many interesting nominations that anyone currently submitting new nominations with over 20 credits is being FORCEBLY MADE to review 2 separate nominations rather then the normal one, and we are still having rounds and rounds of discussions on this page about the overwhelming backlog. Unless you are willing to put in the RFC work to change/remove "Withdrawn" form the DKY rules, we should be following what the rules/precedent for "withdrawn" are and closing the noms. "Adoption" of a nomination is not a DKY policy at all and has not priority over an established rule.--Kevmin § 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit adoption and withdrawal. Once you create something in a namespace outside your user space, it's out of your hands. Yes, we should allow people to consider withdrawing their work at some point in the process, but no, we shouldn't be held hostage to people taking their toys and going home. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow withdrawal to stand: the articles still exist on Wikipedia, but there is no requirement that any article be run through DYK simply because it's eligible. DYK was created to encourage the creation of new articles; ignoring a nominator's withdrawal of the article they created or expanded or shepherded through GAN is the polar opposite of encouragement. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: right now there are two questions that are being discussed here, which are connected but not the same. One is if the withdrawal request should be accepted. The second is whether or not nominations with a willing adopter should be allowed to continue. The answers to both may not always be the same. To make things clear since the two questions have different answers: for those who support granting the withdrawal request, does this apply to all nominations, or only to the nominations that do not have editors willing to adopt them? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the nominations without adopters necessarily need to be withdrawn, the question is only whether the nominations with adopters also need to be withdrawn; I think it can be assumed that those in the "accept withdrawal" camp mean "adopter notwithstanding". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the nominator has suggested that it would be against her wishes for other editors to take over her nominations, so things are more complicated than that. The issue then becomes if WP:OWN applies: specifically, if that applies to DYK nominations, and the question of whether or not an article should run on DYK regardless of the nominator's wishes. Obviously we are talking about a specific case here, but this case could also serve as precedent for similar scenarios in the future. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We've respected in the past when article writers don't want people to nominate their articles for DYK; see Template:Did you know nominations/Federated Legion of Women. I think it's more about common courtesy than it is WP:OWN, because it's not about what the content is, it's about whether you want millions of people to see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone contributes to a free and open encyclopedia, they should be okay with their writing being seen by any number of people. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but independent of whether extending the courtesy is a good idea, I'm just saying that WP:OWN doesn't require us to not extend it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and, as per the lead text of WP:OWN, it's primarily about dictating mainspace content. DYK, GA, FA, and other processes like this explicitly have some degree of ownership built in. So does article writing - I can tell future editors what date or spellling to use in most articles I write, the system automatically notifies me when somebody links to an article I've written.
    Similarly, I can legally move creations like User:JuniperChill/Kayla Simmons or User:Darth Stabro/Royal 10 to mainspace - they're neutral, sourced, BLP compliant. So, @JuniperChill, @Darth Stabro - just as an FYI, I'm going to move those to mainspace when I get the chance, unless somebody beats me too it. I think I can mark them an unpatrolled so they go through NPP? If not, I guess I'll just ask somebody to do that for me. If they get AFDed, or somebody starts pinging you to complain about them at ERRORS, then well, I guess you'll just have to deal with. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Royal 10 has already existed and even been featured on DYK; my userspace draft simply has never been deleted. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the process of creating the Kayla page, I just need to find at least three suitable sources and SCMP is one of them. Its just that most of the results were from The Sun, which is unreliable and I'm not sure on the reliability about theblast.com. JuniperChill (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my replies above, "Withdrawn" is an established DYK rule with precedent, if people want it changed then they need to open an RFC about it.--Kevmin § 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments Kevmin, no one is asking here for DYK to ban nomination withdrawals. This specific discussion is about whether or not to continue this specific set of nominations, especially considering there is interest from some editors in continuing them. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that we are planning to phase out withdrawals, since that is not on the cards at all.
In addition, while the rules do not say anything about adoptions, they are not uncommon on DYK, particularly for stuck nominations whose nominators are unresponsive or cannot participate in the process further. It is inaccurate to say that adoptions are a "concept that currently is NOT part of the DYK process", because they are even if they are not directly stated.
Finally, there is no need to respond to each response that opposes the withdrawals with largely the same point. You have made your point, others will discuss base on that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Baltimore virus groups

[edit]
  • ... that, of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses use the same replication-expression strategy as cellular life forms?

As someone with a very basic understanding of viruses, DNA, biology etc, but not really familiar with much of the detail, I am finding this hook quite incomprehensible. I have no idea what a replication-expression strategy is for example. The original hook said something like "that of all Baltimore virus groups, only double-stranded DNA viruses replicate the same way cellular life forms do?" which sounds much better, although I gather there's a technical reason why that's not accurate. I think this needs some more brainstorming anyway, to get a hook that's accessible to a broad audience. @AirshipJungleman29, Dclemens1971, and Surtsicna:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Baltimore_classification where it was previously discussed and changed. TarnishedPathtalk 21:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what of my point here? I think there is an interesting fact somewhere here, but readers won't be able to appreciate it because it's buried under very technical jargon. I'm not sure if there is a way to reword it that we can come up with here in the next 24 hours, otherwise I will reopen the nom and it can be brainstormd there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that time is running out and this had already been discussed while in Prep/Queue, I've pulled the hook to give more time for a new hook to be proposed. Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Velayinosu has not explained what is wrong with the originally approved hook, and I cannot say that I see what might be wrong with "replicate". Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fitzgerald

[edit]

Does this hook really meet WP:DYKINT? Someone has to be the father of the house, and it doesn't seem like this is a particularly remarkable thing to me, particularly as it's just a sub-national parliament... @Peacemaker67, TarnishedPath, and Dclemens1971:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, i think a new hook would be a good idea. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted ALT0 because I thought it was interesting and it led me to read more about Fitzgerald and about South Australian government that I knew nothing about. It is of course the queue mover’s prerogative to pull the hook if they find it uninteresting, but if that’s the only reason for the pull there’s no point in arguing about the most subjective part of DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, I also approved ALT2 from the nomination.
ALT2 ... that the deputy leader of the South Australian Labor Party, Jack Fitzgerald (pictured), had served as a quartermaster sergeant during the Second Boer War? TarnishedPathtalk 21:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
isn't it quite common for politicians to have served in the military? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been in the past, I don't think it is quite so common these days. Most importantly we need to turn our minds to what our readers would think is common. TarnishedPathtalk 21:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this isn't just service in the military, it's reaching the rank of quartermaster sergeant. TarnishedPathtalk 21:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just off the top of my head, i can think of a living former U.S. president, the current vice president, current senator, recent former mayor and cabinet officer, and a current congressman, all commissioned officers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just my Americanness, but I find the father of the house hook hooky; partly because I have never heard of the term before. To me it reads like he founded the assembly, which is of course not at all what that term means, but it is what Americans would take that turn of phrase to mean. Given the large percentage of readers from the USA on the English wiki, I do think the approved hook works and would grab American readers. It's certainly better than the quartermaster hook. I say leave it be. It's fine.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than the interestingness, my main question is the ambiguity. To most people who are familiar with the context of "Father", as in "Founding Fathers" or "Father of [X]", they would think that it means that Fitzgerald founded the assembly, not that he was a beloved legislator.
I'm taking a look at the article right now and there are multiple possible options. One option could be about his ability to lift heavy weights with one hand to settle wagers. Rather than just saying that he was a quartermaster sergeant, maybe a hook about his actual activities during the war is also feasible.
In the meantime, I've moved the hook to Prep 2 (currently scheduled to run on November 30); this does mean that that there is now a gap that needs to be filled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I also I approved ALT0. I know that there are probably more Aussies than Americans who are aware of the term, but my thinking was around the Americans that didn't and therefore the interestingness of the hook. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really at a loss to see what the issue is with ALT2. The combination is very rare. Having served in the military used to be common in Australian parliamentarians including at state level, but not so any more. In fact, I am unaware of any current SA parliamentarian who has, and certainly very few have seen war service since the Malayan Emergency in the 1960s. In addition, this is the Second Boer War, hardly a huge war with hundreds of thousands of Australians participating. Only 1,500 from South Australia served there. Also, he's a Labor politician, not a conservative, and they are less likely to have served, given the influence of anti-conscriptionists etc in the Labor Party. AFAIK, only two South Australians have seen war service and subsequently led their party since 1857, and deputy leaders would be similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:DYKINT. If it is rare, does the general audience know this? If they do not, is that rarity effectively expressed in a hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I see that being consistently applied at DYK, TBH. How are the general audience to know something is rare, are we to find reliable sources of the rarity and include that in the supposedly brief hook? Is an explanation of how something is rare or unusual something that must be included in every article so that it can have a run at DYK? I've had hooks [2][3] run that just said "this guy won the Victoria Cross for doing X", it didn't include the fact that the Victoria Cross is the highest bravery award available to Australian soldiers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subjective criterion so there will always be some controversy about how it is applied. The idea is that the main point or interestingness of an article should at least be evident. It may require some background knowledge, but it should not be reliant on knowledge that is only known by specialists or by a particular location. This does not mean that a hook cannot revolve around unfamiliar names and topics, especially when one of DYK's goals is to introduce them to readers. The idea is something like "even if I don't know who this person is or what they did, this sounds like a cool fact." Theleekycauldron wrote an essay a while ago that explained a rule of thumb in determining a hook's interest, although right now I don't have the link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're either looking for this one or this one, not sure which :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, it was definitely the first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another clear and glaring example of why DYKINT is a broken rule based in pure WP:crystalballing speculation of what 5+ million viewers will "think interesting", and should be removed. the controversy here is based on pure hot air and fearmongering that "not enough clicks will be generated and bad things WILL come to pass. Never mind that its all wp:navelgazing of a small subset of DYK regulars.--Kevmin § 04:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been a long-time vocal critic of DYKINT, if you want it to be phased out, you are free to start an RfC regarding that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to do a "person with job X also had job Y" hook, I think a new about his time as a miner is more interesting than the military service ALT2 (as others have noted, I do vaguely expect career crossover between the military and politics, but I do not expect politicians to do hard labour in the mines!) -- but I also found ALT0 perfectly intriguing because I wasn't sure what being a "father" meant in this context. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original hook looks fine to me. I have never even heard of the title "father of the house", and I very much doubt the vast majority would have heard of it either, so I think the hook is sufficiently interesting. The fact that he served in the military is not in the least unusual, countless former military men have served in parliament, many with much higher rank than sergeant. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But per Naruto's comment above regarding ambiguity, "a father" might be preferable to just "father". Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The original hook is great. Let's run it. This conversation is a time suck, and not needed.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premethylenomycin C lactone

[edit]

Can the extra "a" be removed? Also, since "powerful" was removed due to paraphrasing issues, could "potent" be added, which is in the article currently, so it reads …that researchers accidentally discovered a potent new antibiotic in soil bacteria? Thriley (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Can you take a look? Thriley (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would have PROMO concerns about adding a non-neutral adjective based on science journalism, which is not known for the being most reliable of sources. did fix the typo, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is cited to Nature, "one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals." Thriley (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the hook is cited to an auxiliary news service published on Nature's website. It is not cited to the peer-reviewed journal called Nature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article would be perfectly acceptable for DYK purposes- I've had hooks cited from articles in regional newspapers. Would have liked to have some adjective to describe how important this discovery is. Hookier that way too. Thriley (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
science journalism has a bad habit of playing up the novelty and potency of new discoveries, because they also know that it drives clicks. it might be reliable for a reader-accessible summary of basic facts and context, but it should not be used to make broad claims about reach or importance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (25 Nov)

[edit]

Helen Mulholland (nom)

[edit]

@CaptainAngus, Saltymagnolia, and Theleekycauldron: This is a "first" hook, so this is the usual sanity check for such hooks. Given that it is a strong claim, yet it only has one reference, I would like to see more references confirming the "firstness". Incidentally, I did find it weird that our article on master blender does not mention Mulholland, although this does not affect the nomination or the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: It's a fair comment, and I added a few more references to the claim in the article. Also, the master blender article does mention Mulholland, she's listed in the Notable People section (which I added back in October after creating the article for Mulholland). Let me know your thoughts? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I was checking it earlier and didn't see her name. Maybe I misspelled it when using CTRL+F. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a requirement to provide a quote for offline or paywall sources?

[edit]

I was just looking at the nom in Prep 1, Template:Did you know nominations/Deliverance (collection), with a view to possibly moving it up to Queue 3, but I found I couldn't check the hook source because it's behind a paywall. Should it have been a requirement for the nominator to have given the quote from the source that verifies the hook in the nom? We've removed the "AGF" approval so my understanding is that reviewers should be given all the information they need to check the hook?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:DYKHOOK says that a quote from the source must be provided if needed (although the nom cites Vogue?). Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Premeditated Chaos, and MCE89: who are probably more lucid than I am at the moment.--Launchballer 16:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes - I meant to link to the hook, it's this one in Vogue - [4] - as far as I can tell you need a subscription to get to the hook fact here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Archive.ph.--Launchballer 16:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vogue is weird, sometimes they let you in without a subscription, sometimes they have a fit. It's totally arbitrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i got through that paywall by blocking JS, that works a good 60% of the time, every time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that. When I reviewed the source I didn't get hit with a paywall, so I was able to check it myself without needing to ask for a quote and assumed it would be accessible for others as well (might have been a limited free articles or geoblocking thing?). But the quote supporting the hook fact is: It takes a showman like Alexander McQueen to get the lifeblood pumping back into fashion performance. His show—staged in the Salle Wagram, a nineteenth-century Parisian dance hall—was an exuberantly hilarious reenactment of Sydney Pollack’s Depression-era film They Shoot Horses, Don't They?...The show reached its climax as a lone exhausted dancer in a silver sequined gown mock-expired center stage. MCE89 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, MCE89 that's understandable then. I just didn't want to raise it as a concern if it isn't the current policy to require quotes in these circumstances! Although now that you've provided the quote, I might have a minor quibble to raise - is it really accurate to describe "a lone exhausted dancer in a silver sequined gown mock-expired center stage" as having "danced until they collapsed"? I would say if the expiring is "mock", then it isn't really a real "collapse" as such? Pinging @Premeditated Chaos: as well for a bit of guidance on that point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We elide things in the name of brevity and interest all the time at DYK. Is it really necessary to stop to put our nerd glasses on and say, in the hook, "um, actually, the people in the performance were only pretending to collapse for the sake of the fictional performance"? An interested reader can click through and find out what was going on.
That being said, since I forgot Vogue only mentioned Elson's collapse, here are some quotes for models, plural, collapsing: The pace slows, and the participants pile up, climbing over one another and sinking to the floor in a heap of exhaustion. from Gleason's Alexander McQueen: Evolution, p. 116; and One model...was caught by her partner as she fell, before being carried off...the dishevelled dancers expended any residual energy in attempting kicks that sent them to the ground. from Bethune in Alexander McQueen, p. 315. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 (29 November)

[edit]

XIV International Chopin Piano Competition (nom)

[edit]

Minor point, but this hook implies that the 14th award should have been made in 1990 and 1995, but was in fact not awarded until 2000 due to there being no awards in 1990 and 1995. In fact though, the 1990 ceremony was the 12th and the 1995 was the 13th, with those two ceremonies not having a winner, rather than the 14th being repeatedly deferred. @EleniXDD, Surtsicna, and Dclemens1971:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru I slightly altered the display text of the wikilink, which should address this concern. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teach me English: can we say "crowned" when he got a wreath? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: The hook sounds alright to me? Of course, there are 2 alternative hooks available: Talk:XIV International Chopin Piano Competition EleniXDD※Talk 01:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a language issue. "Crowned" does not literally mean being crowned in this case. Gerda's native language is not English, so maybe she was unfamiliar with this context. For example, "the Los Angeles Dodgers have been crowned MLB champions after their World Series victory over the Toronto Blue Jays." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you for the explanation. EleniXDD※Talk 01:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but Gerda's English is better than that of most Americans. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation for which I asked. (Or how did you interpret: "Teach me language"?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Thanks for the effort. EleniXDD※Talk 01:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 thanks for the fix, although I have tweaked it again slightly, just to move the link elsewhere, to avoid a MOS:EGG issue:

Listers: A Glimpse Into Extreme Birdwatching (nom)

[edit]

Maybe this is nitpicking, but the source line which references the drug use says "When Owen Reiser found his brother on the porch with a bong placed on the family’s bird guide, he knew something was up". This does not directly say that he was "high on marijuana", even if it is implied, merely that he had a bong next to him and "something was up"... so I wonder if WP:DYKDEFINITE is met here. @Verylongandmemorable, Ethmostigmus, and Staraction:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From St. Louis on the Air: Well, as it says in the movie, one day I just got stoned, and I found the family's bird guidebook, a book that we've had for as far as I can remember, just laying around the house. Could be added as a source into the article :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru @Theleekycauldron Yep, I'd looked at the St. Louis on the Air source, which was already added into the article when I reviewed it! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to clarify this more. The source in the article this one! is the same as the one @Theleekycauldron sent, just in an audio format instead. The timestamps (roughly?) line up with the transcript leeky provided.
This was also an issue brought up by Ethmostigmus, the initial reviewer in the DYK nom. In the Audubon source they provided when I was reviewing, the Audubon interviewer's question includes, "The documentary offers a pretty breezy explanation for how this whole thing got started, involving Quentin smoking weed and marveling at a bird guide book."; then, part of Quentin's response is, "It was pretty quick after getting stoned and identifying one woodpecker in the backyard and deciding it’s time to go for it."
Together, I thought this verified the hook enough for WP:DYKDEFINITE. If not, please let me know; I'm quite new to promoting hooks, so I'm definitely going to make some many mistakes while doing this. Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction: thanks for that, that certainly clears up the fundamental question I had as to whether this was verified. The only thing that needs to be done now is to make sure the line is properly cited in the article, so that other readers can find the same information you've told me here. If we're to verify it by listening to the audio, then ideally you should use a {{cite media}} type of citation, which should include the exact number of minutes into the podcast at which we're to listen. Alternatively, if using a transcript, also providing the location would be good since it's quite long. Including part of the quote mentioned by Leeky above in the |quote= part of the template would also be useful so readers know that they're looking for the line "one day I just got stoned". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru, thanks for your response. I added a timestamp and a quote from the audio podcast with {{template:RP}} (see diff). From what I saw, all the other times the same source is cited, it appears in the text, so I kept the cite web there, and split the hook citation to a new, cite audio, ref. Now the article looks like it has a duplicate citation. Is there any way to fix this? Thanks, and sorry for the bother! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, just checking — does the current version of the article meet all expectations? Want to make sure everything's good to go :) Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Staraction: yes, it's all good - the extra info you've added to the source has resolved my concerns over this. Many thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was directly addressed in my review and was very easy to independently verify. Probably best to check these yourself in future. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 16, 2025

[edit]

Urain Ge, 141 Schools for Peace

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)

Hi all. I would like to formally request that Template:Did you know nominations/Urain Ge be displayed on December 16, 2025. Thank you! M. Billoo 01:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Billoo2000: Put it in WP:SOHA. For what it's worth, I'm surprised the The Fate of Ophelia's date request wasn't entertained.--Launchballer 06:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that specific nomination's case, the date request no longer made sense because the promoted hook no longer mentioned the singer by name. Add to the fact that her hooks have had... let's just say not the best reputation over at DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, as Naruto pointed out in the nomination discussion, The Fate of Ophelia hook would have required consensus at DYKT for a date more than six weeks in the future and I didn't see a discussion on that. Plus, it fit well into the prep where I placed it. I've moved the Urain Ge hook into the SOHA for 16 December. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 (December 1)

[edit]

ChatGPT Atlas (nom)

[edit]

@WhatADrag07, Darth Stabro, and HurricaneZeta: This has a fairly promotional ring to it, since the main idea of the hook is simply the existence of this product. Yes, the company has another famous product, but does that alone make this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it could be promotional but I promoted it because ALT1 was struck and ALT2 felt...not that interesting. If it has to be switched, I like the one suggested above. I thought of " ... OpenAI's web browser, ChatGPT Atlas, has browser memories?" but that may also be promotional. Z E T AC 13:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Se-hee (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that Baek Se-hee's favourite food prolonged her life?

@Launchballer, Piotrus, and myself: I've received some feedback that this hook could be adjusted for accuracy. LEvalyn suggested switching the phrasing to "gave her a reason to live" or similar, since "prolonged her life" does create the implication that her favorite food had a medicinal effect or something. Narutolovehinata5 also recommends attributing this statement to the source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that making her not want to kill herself is medicinal (or at least sufficiently close that the hook isn't inaccurate), but if three of you say that then sure. Pinging also @Andrew Davidson:, since he wrote the article.--Launchballer 06:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue I had with the current wording is that it could be reasonably interpreted to mean that it literally prolonged her life (in a medicinal way), instead of the actual meaning (she wanted to continue living because of her favorite food). I don't think this is necessarily a MEDRS issue, but the wording still probably needs to be adjusted to at least make that point clearer, even if the current wording is arguably hookier. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course it's hookier, that's why I proposed it!) It was my understanding that MEDRS would be breached if we were making a claim about a specific foodstuff. This is just 'a foodstuff', and readers can get the rest of the context in the same place they'd find 'which foodstuff'. Also, making her not kill herself is prolonging her life, in my opinion at least.--Launchballer 06:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be pedantic, but it is enough of a concern that it may be safer to go with another hook. If it doesn't get challenged here, it might get challenged at ERRORS. Although not a quirky hook, the spirit of WP:QUIRKY could apply even to regular hooks: that more interesting wordings should not necessarily sacrifice accuracy or precision. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, for clarity, do we want to go with something like "... that according to a scholar, Baek Se-hee's favourite food gave her a reason to live?" or pull it and workshop another hook entirely? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to attribute it to Baek herself, since it was the title of her book. So something like "... that Baek Se-hee claimed that her favourite food gave her a reason to live?", although maybe it could be workshopped further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I regard the current hook as being entirely accurate, although I can just about live with 'claimed that her' being added to it.--Launchballer 06:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would we be okay with "... that Baek Se-hee claimed that her favourite food prolonged her life?" I don't think that phrasing carries the same connotation once it's taken out of Wikipedia's voice, but if anyone thinks that might still be problematic, we can go with NLH's hook. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is less ambigious. No object to running either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for backlog

[edit]

I have an idea for how to deal with there being more nominations than DYK can take, so I'm going to put it here so somebody can tell me it's already been discussed, is completely unworkable, technically unfeasible, is an affront to every single one of the 5 pillars, violates a majority of policies, guidelines and essays and/or is in breach of one or more provisions of the Berne Convention.

When the DYK backlog is being discussed, the two most popular angles to approach it from are DYKINT and DYKTIMEOUT. The reasons for this, I believe, is that in the case of the first it results in, well, more interesting hooks, and in the case of the second the appeal is in its indiscriminate and objective nature. Unfortunately, DYKTIMEOUT is too inflexible, so mostly ends up being ignored, and DYKINT is too subjective. My solution is this: when a nomination is reviewed as usual, a section opened at the bottom of the nomination page for people to leave their signature to endorse the hook, but only based on the hook's interestingness. Prep builders are strongly encouraged (not required, as they still need to have some leeway to make a good set, but encouraged) to only take into consideration the number of signatures a hook has, and not the date it was nominated. Hooks that aren't deemed to be interesting by enough people in time are swallowed by the void of DYKTIMEOUT.

I think we'd be getting the best of both worlds here. This way, everyone gets to judge interestingness by their own subjective criteria, and you can endorse as many hooks as you like. There aren't vastly more hooks a day than we can run, so we wouldn't be losing too much, and it would be by a very objective criteria (2 months and you're done). Another added side benefit is that this might attract more people to DYK who want to do this simple task to make the main page more interesting, and might stick around and help with other things too.

Thoughts? Either that or do that two 6-hook sets a day thing and recruit more queuers idk lol JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too random and inflexible. Also, given that many nominations have multiple alt hooks, and many hooks get modified over time, I don't see how this is workable. Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple hook thing did occur to me, yes. I suppose you'd vote based on the hook you find most interesting, and because the hook opens to endorsement only after it's approved that would only leave edge cases where hooks are sent back from prep, so maybe not that complicated? Also, how do you mean random and inflexible?
(Not arguing here or anything, I am fully ready to shut up about this if it turns out to be unworkable. Just discussion.) JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say hooks wouldn't be !voted on before they are approved. But once they are approved, they have already passed and are not subject to TIMEOUT. So the !votes would serve no purpose. Gatoclass (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yeah, I guess you'd then have to modify TIMEOUT to measure the time until the hooks get promoted to prep, or come up with a new rule to discard hooks not deemed interesting enough in time. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 (November 26)

[edit]

Battle of Burnt Corn (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that the first literary work published in Alabama criticized a participant in the Battle of Burnt Corn?

Just the standard "first" hook check here really. I haven't looked in detail yet, but how certain are we that this "first" claim is accurate?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was extensive discussion above. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (November 27)

[edit]

Sennecaster and I are doing these together :)

  • Bumped Tess Johnston (nom) to Prep 7 on interestingness grounds; no objection to repromotion but worth noting for whomever promotes the next set.
I've taken a look at Tess Johnson, but unfortunately this is going to be tough as nothing else stands out as hooky here. The "she was able to explore more freely since she wasn't a diplomat" angle might be hard to express as a hook. If we have to go with the current angle, as unideal as it is, we may have to trim out the mention of Erh since Erh does not even have an article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soprillo (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that the soprillo saxophone (example pictured) is about half the length of a soprano saxophone and pitched one octave higher?

@Jonathanischoice, Maximilian775, and Bunnypranav: I think the hook is a little basic for this topic; i mean, most people don't know what a soprano saxophone looks like, either. Might I suggest?

  • ALT1: ... that very little music is written for the high-pitched soprillo saxophone (pictured)?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is currently not WP:DYKHFC compliant, so the reference will need to be duplicated for that to be accepted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already had an ALT1 ready to go in one of these discussions in a previous queue, what happened to that? This one obscures the essential novelty of the instrument which is that it is tiny, the smallest saxophone currently manufactured, at 33 cm (13″) long. I tried twice to capture that already, and I assumed this was resolved. Jonathanischoice (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathanischoice: Oh, I didn't see that – still, I mean, that hook is basically the same. But how about:
  • ALT2: ... that very little music is written for the soprillo, the smallest type of saxophone?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Soprillo. TarnishedPathtalk 02:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I'm raising different issues. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but again, it's not very interesting that there's not a lot of music written for the soprillo. There are nevertheless plenty of people who play them, and jazz being jazz, that often means things aren't written down. If that's the angle you're going with, I'd rather just give up on this ridiculous process altogether and withdraw it. Can I do that? — Jonathanischoice (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with:
  • ALT3: ... that the soprillo (example pictured) is the smallest type of saxophone at only 33 centimeters (13 in) long?
— Jonathanischoice (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure, i can put that in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ta :) maybe this time it will work... Jonathanischoice (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Godspeed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about it being the smallest sax was removed by TarnishedPath in the discussion above and everyone had agreed on the wording for the new hook. Why has this been unilaterally changed and the questionable fact now been reinserted?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was precisely my point when I linked the previous discussion. To be honest though, I'm past giving that much of a fuck about DYK at present. TarnishedPathtalk 09:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, who is driving this bus? Does actually have any actual control? I have no idea what the requirements are, because each time something is agreed, a different editor comes in and changes it. I mean really, WTF is going on? It's like the film Brazil only not as funny. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "driver of the bus", decisions are made through consensus and by reference to policy and guideline, as they are across the project. In this case, I understood that we'd reached a conclusion for the hook at the top of this section, and had broad agreement on that. Indeed, you commented "Who am I to stand in the way of progress :)" which I took to mean you had accepted the consensus. Yet here we are changing that agreed hook yet again. We should go back to that agreed version, otherwise it'll have to be postponed again, and probably the nomination page reopened. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything wrong with Theleekycauldron's original suggestion? I thought it was more interesting and perhaps more airtight than the "smallest saxophone" hook. It's also arguably the kind of hook that's more interesting to a general audience than a specialist one, and given how things work at DYK, we generally should have the former's interest in mind and not the latter's.
In any case, given that there's still disagreement on the hook, I have bumped this to Prep 6 to give us more time. I would have also swapped out the hook with Leeky's wording, but right now the fact remains DYKHFC non-compliant. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be fooled, I DID accept the consensus. I only responded to a new editor with a new opinion, seemingly without having read the previous discussion. Don't blame me for the flaws in this ridiculous process. Surely these discussions should take place on the original nomination page instead of amongst the firehose of this page? How many separate threads are there now about the Soprillo hook? How can anyone reasonably keep it together? I certainly can't. This whole process is an utter circus, and is actually mentally traumatic for nominators. You should all go back to base camp and rethink the whole process, or at least streamline it for newbies like me, and rewrite the guidelines, which are basically a bewildering, indecipherable morass of disjunct, outdated or inaccurate word salads. I thought it would be fun, but I can tell you as a new participant that it is not. I am not going to waste any more energy on it, since I've got much more fun, interesting, and fulfilling stuff to do around here, like getting articles up to GA or FA. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be "driven" by reductio ad absurdum arguments (and random, often subjective seemingly arbitrary application of "policies" and "guidelines") at the cost of rendering a number DYK's stated intents and purposes essentially moot. It's too bad, as it's great feature and it should be a pleasure to be a part of, not a trial by fire. The film Brazil would be an apt analogy – if only we weren't hurting people (and wasting time and resource to boot). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to recap right now, we have three issues: ALT0 fails the interestingness requirement, ALT1 doesn't include anything about size (and the nominator doesn't think it's interesting either), and ALTs 2 and 3 are apparently questionable on superlative re: size. I guess we need another hook? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It only seems to be you that has a problem with the first hooks, which were agreed to by removing the superlative (smallest). A general audience would probably know what a saxophone is, and it is interesting that there is a piccolo-sized saxophone that's only a foot long, regardless of whether you know anything about saxophones or not. I argue it is not very interesting how much music is written for an instrument. Not much music is written for a soprano trombone either. But you know what, if you really think that's interesting, or meets whatever requirements you're all making up on the spot at this particular point in time, then fill your boots, I agree. Make up whatever ridiculously obscure and uninteresting hook you want, in order to meet your bizarre requirements. But how do we know some other editor will come along in 2 days time with their own arbitrary opinion, and want to change it? Christ on a stick, I don't care, make it stop. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn that this one earned a Green tickY mark somewhere in this vertiginous process: (ALTn) ... that the soprillo (example pictured) is about half the length of a soprano saxophone and pitched one octave higher? I could've sworn it... flummoxed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 doesn't mention that the soprillo is a foot long, only that it's half as big as a soprano saxophone. like, okay, so it's half the size of an instrument nobody knows the size of. i'm not riveted. and for the record, that's exactly what i would expect from an instrument designed to be an octave higher. regardless, i know all of this can be confusing, so let me offer my apology that other people are trying to change your work on a wiki. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind of you, much appreciated, though no need for apologies! We're all in this together. Just trying to lend a hand and have a lark. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift: The Official Release Party of a Showgirl (nom)

[edit]

@M.Billoo2000 and Epicgenius: I don't think this article can meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE without at least some description of the actual contents of the movie, so I've bumped this out of queue. Also (cc Dclemens1971), why not mention that it's a Taylor Swift film instead of referring to it as "a 2025 musical film"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about that, but the idea about that was that DYK was so sick and tired of Taylor Swift hooks, that it might be better to not mention her by name. Sure, one could argue that having her name in the hook would garner more interest, but then again, there is also the "mystery" aspect to consider. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As promoter, I was much more intrigued by the rest of the hook not knowing it was Swift concert movie, so I saw no reason to adjust the approved hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all righty, i'll leave that call to you because it's not in queue 6 anymore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Hi. Please check that I have expanded Taylor Swift: The Official Release Party of a Showgirl#Synopsis. Thank you! M. Billoo 06:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looks good! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gardener (priest) (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971: While verifying the hook, I noticed couldn't find bit about the Bible verse in the source, even though it's verifying the same sentence. I've tagged the bit that I think fails verification, could that be fixed before showtime? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s in the Nunatsiaq News story. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
figured it'd show up somewhere, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ján Nagy (nom)

[edit]

@BeanieFan11, Alansohn, and TarnishedPath: I've bumped this one out of prep because of concerns about the sourcing for the article and hook here. Nine citations to the Slovak Olympic and Sports Committee is a lot, when you consider that (1) it's not independent of the subject and (2) I can't be sure, but I can't find evidence of a substantive editorial process. There's also the citations to pametnaroda.cz, which is a "database of eyewitness accounts" with minimal oversight. Could those be replaced, at least to the extent possible? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pamet Naroda appears to be published by the organization Post Bellum, which (presumably) wrote their article based on an interview with Nagy. It doesn't seem to be cited for anything particularly controversial, and given that it is founded by "a group of historians and journalists," I don't see why it would be unreliable. The Slovak Olympic committee article is written by noted sportswriter Ľubomír Souček. Technically I could spend a bunch of time re-reading all the other cited sources about Nagy and perhaps swap three or four of the citations to the Olympic committee, but would that really be necessary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Pamet Naroda is cited for part of what makes up the hook fact – these two sources say that a guy with a weak heart who didn't pass a military fitness test became an olympic weightlifter. that's a pretty likely claim to be challenged. Pamet Naroda is essentially a reproduction of whatever the subject has submitted about themselves. I would argue there are some fairly exceptional claims made by these two sources that ABOUTSELF and simply being written by a notable journalist does not cover; articles should be based on sources that are fact-checked and editorially controlled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the article I do cite the claim to Pamet Naroda, but the Souček source also had the hook fact. I mean, its the national Olympic committee – I don't see how a national Olympic committee could possibly be an unreliable source for information on their athletes. Not only is it in the national Olympic committee by their head of media communication, but its written by one of the most accomplished Slovak sportswriters, the former editor of the national sports newspaper who has written many books on the history of Slovakia at the Olympics. I doubt that there's many more reliable sources for Slovak Olympians than that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If memory serves, the last time we talked about whether a sports organization was reliable for an exceptional claim, it turned out that not only did the subject not score the goal in question, they weren't playing in that game. Why would a national Olympic committee be reliable? No real editing, certainly no fact-checking, because they have no interest in that – their job is to promote their players. Soucek would only be reliable on his own as a subject-matter expert, which is not sufficient to make claims about BLPs (BLP applies to the recently departed as well). WP:RS: Questionable sources are those that ... lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're referring to the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame, a tiny, local sports organization (the athlete referenced did play in that game, FWIW). Not only do we have multiple stories with this hook (Olympic + Post Bellum, run by historians), but the national Olympic committee of Slovakia is many orders of magnitude larger than the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame. A national Olympic committee, with its own media department, certainly wouldn't let anyone willy-nilly publish questionable stories with no oversight. Declaring this unreliable would be akin to declaring one of the most famous and decorated American football writers publishing a story on the official National Football League website as unreliable, something that would be absurd. BLP applies to the recently departed as well – so, you're saying the source is unreliable at the moment, but will become reliable in the future? How does that make any sense? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it means that the requirements on sourcing are higher now, and will get lower as the potential harms of getting it wrong decrease. Anyways, seems we are at an impasse, and it's in another set now for whoever promotes that one to review. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Thagara (nom)

[edit]

@Hteiktinhein: could the academic source you cited in the nom be swapped in instead of Myanmore? i know the media landscape is different in Myanmar, but the website at least currently is publishing what looks a lot like native ad copy and AI-generated content with no byline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done! After the collapse of the media landscape in Myanmar following the 2021 Myanmar coup, most media outlets have nearly died out. There is no longer any real entertainment reporting, and MyanmarMore is one of the few still struggling to stay alive. In recent years, some of their posts may have used AI-generated content, and as a magazine they frequently publish sponsored content for shops and businesses in the Yangon area.
Regarding the Supalaat article, it was published in 2019. At that time, there was no AI or chatbot like ChatGPT, and the piece was written by an English-language reporter (staff). This is just an explanation, and if you have any questions, please let me know. @Theleekycauldron Hteiktinhein (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine (quartz) (nom)

[edit]

@I2Overcome, Editør, and OmegaAOL (as GA reviewer): I swapped this in to replace soprillo, but I've put it back in Prep 2 because I'm a bit concerned about The Citrine Circle and Stone Mania, which look like blogs? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron You are correct, they are basically e-commerce site blogs. I just removed them along with another that OmegaAOL added (The Natural Gemstone Company) that didn’t support the claim anyway. I had originally added the first two because they were the best I could find to support the claim that natural citrine does not form in geodes or contain white quartz. This claim was repeated in multiple self-published sources by mineral collectors and such, but I couldn’t find any better sources. I have added Geology.com instead, which says that almost all citrine geodes are heat-treated amethyst, and I took out the rest. I2Overcome talk 00:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that I also added a new source for the definition of color zoning. I2Overcome talk 00:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This resolved Theleekycauldron? If yes, can you remove the note in the queue, if no can you swap it out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yup, we're good – thanks, I2Overcome! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chole bhature

[edit]

I'm quite surprised to see this hook on the mainpage. As someone who has worked quite a bit on food history articles, almost every food I've ever worked on has had a disputed origin. This would fail WP:DYKINT, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be pulled ASAP, bring it up at ERRORS. Yes, I'm aware it's not supposed to be for interest-related stuff, but it would at least get more eyes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it should be pulled. I just think it's odd that everyone acts all concerned about DYKINT, and the most non-unusual hook is sitting at the top of the main DYK page section. Just wanted to comment. Disputes over the origins of a food are typical. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does everyone know that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly common knowledge. TarnishedPathtalk 12:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vague belief is that picture hooks get less attention as reviewer focus goes towards evaluating the picture. CMD (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From experience, many reviewers (admittedly myself included) sometimes forget to review the picture at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And clocking in at 1,157.0 views per hour, this was 5th best performing hook of the month so far. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! De gustibus non est disputandum, which, it would seem, is part of our DYKINT problem (but who am I to judge). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How well would the hook have done if it had run from Saturday to Sunday instead of from Monday to Tuesday? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How well hooks tend to do on different days of the week definitely seems like the sort of thing somebody would have collected data on. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s hope someone chimes in with the info. Just eyeballing it, the hook ran in a prime slot during the week, covering major time zones during the work hours when more people were glued to their machines. On weekends, less so, with more people out and about. Of course, that might not matter as much given mobile devices. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also had an attractive picture of food; people like food. Especially on Mondays, when you're kind of tired. I think it's an evolution thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re right. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A picture + food + a prime timeslot = likely high interest, no doubt. Just a guess, but perhaps linguistically, when the subject of an article is unto itself an unusual word or an intriguing curiosity that may be unknown to many readers (e.g., "chole bhature" ... what's that?), the rest of the hook being less of a reach (or just plain simpler English) may be an advantage.-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four things take priority on how many people click on a hook, in order:
  • Number one, of course, are pictures—they get more interest (and more interesting/attractive images obviously get more interest).
  • Number two is concision: shorter hooks get more interest. It normally doesn't matter if a hook contains a very intriguing fact if it natters on for 200 characters.
  • Number three is where the hook is placed in the set. The quirky slot gets more attention than the slot immediately above it. When promoting sets, I knew this, and filled the fourth to eighth slots with the least interesting hooks in the set.
  • Number four is the one that gathers all the attention—the "subjectivity" of a hook being "unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". Everyone overcomplicates this. Variations of the xkcd quartz trap are very common here—nominators go one direction ("yes, everyone will obviously be hugely intrigued by this obscure chap doing some normal thing in a boring location!"), while reviewers go in the other direction ("who could possibly think that a food's origin being disputed is interesting? everyone knows that always happens.").
    I like to think I have a good grasp on keeping distance between what I find interesting and what most people do, hence why I like to avoid promoting long hooks on boring topics. The one that people always get tripped up by is popular music—no one is interested in "random band sang song" hooks, no matter if they're your favouritest band everrrrrrrrr and everyone should love them.
Everything else mentioned above is irrelevant. Day of the week, picture of food (on a Monday or not), unusual words—all subservient to the above (although if used correctly the latter can fall under WP:DYKINT). Yes, there are also smaller things that grab hook interest that I haven't covered, but they come up infrequently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the picture thing is largely accurate, there have been exceptions in the past. For example, I have seen some picture hooks that got rather mediocre numbers for a picture hook (say, around 5,000 views during its run). In some cases, one would argue that the hook would have completely flopped had it not been in the picture slot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s quite literally the opposite of an exception. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of your bullet points above (and related observations) ought to be in our doc somewhere, especially: avoid promoting long hooks on boring topics. Best thing I've read here all day. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ Timing and WP:QPQ

[edit]

WP:QPQ states Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination. A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed as "incomplete" without warning.

I don't have the history of how this all came about or when this wording was developed, but I do have 90 DYK noms dating back many years, so I have some experience. In my time, the expectation was that QPQ was completed in a generally timely manner so as not to hold up the review process. Practically, this has been a day or so for regular DYKers and maybe a little longer for newbies. However, there has generally been some leeway given, as an incomplete QPQ does not practically cause many issues.

All that said, I want to try to understand the intent of this rule, and the problem it is trying to solve. Recently RoySmith has been targeting BeanieFan11 nominations with what can only be described as "quickfails". See Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Bergey, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Deig, and Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Teele for recent examples of this, where RoySmith "closed as incomplete" all three about 1 hour and 15 minutes after nominating. With DYK in double QPQ mode, Beanie would have six QPQ's to complete on these 3 noms. Now I know that in the past BeanieFan11 has taken some time to complete QPQs on their DYKs, but honestly even a few day delay doesn't seem to impact DYK in any appreciable way. Another example, Template:Did you know nominations/Trouble (comics) was open for a week without a QPQ before Launchballer provided a courtesy ping and note to the nominator.

At the very least, this "rule" is being enforced in an inequitable fashion, likely because the wording is too ambiguous or a feeling that high DYK contributors should be held to a higher standard. If the intent is to require QPQs be completed prior to nomination, then this should be clearly stated (and maybe the wizard updated to not allow the nomination to be processed without the QPQ field being filled out with a live link to a DYK nomination). If the intent is to have QPQs be completed generally at the same time as nomination, than this should be stated, maybe noting that QPQ should be completed within 24 hours of nomination. A possible rewording could look like this:

Your QPQ review should be made within 24 hours of your nomination. A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed as "incomplete" after this timeframe, although a reminder to the nominator, especially if they are new to DYK, is preferred.

Courtesy ping to Narutolovehinata5 who commented on one of BeanieFan11s nominations regarding this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here only because I was pinged. I came upon this when I submitted {{Did you know nominations/Laurence J. Lesh}} and was looking for other noms to review to satisfy my QPQ requirement. After I got started on {{Did you know nominations/Jake Bergey}} I discovered that it wasn't eligible due to the QPQ problem. So that was a waste of my time, which annoyed me. I don't remember the exact sequence of events after that, but yes, at some point I started looking for other similar nominations and closed them all. As for needing to do six QPQs, boo hoo. I got my QPQs done on time. So could anybody else.
As for "a feeling that high DYK contributors should be held to a higher standard": Yes, they should. This is a general rule in all kinds of projects: the senior people should lead by example, not throw their weight around and try to get away with as much as they can because they think they're special. RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, RoySmith. But if that's the expectation, then state it clearly in the guideline/rule. Otherwise this "rule" is being applied haphazardly, at best, and at worst is being used by you to make a point toward another editor (its not hard to read between the lines of what you are saying and who your last paragraph is directed at, but I'll leave it at that). Strike or at the time of and you will have your wish and can quickfail as many QPQ-less noms as you want. But the phrase or at the time of currently means something and obviously implies some leeway as to when QPQ can be finished. I'm not here to litigate your quickfails, I am here to try to write a better rule to avoid future conflict at DYK. Your quickfails have been pointy and caused unnecessary distraction which could be solved by a simple fix to the wording of the rule. I don't care the outcome of that discussion, and honestly just want to avoid you quickfailing noms to make a point. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it says "at the time of the nomination" is because, in the past, nominators had up to a week to do their QPQs. This was eventually phased out as it became not uncommon for editors to forget to do their QPQs, thus leading to nominations still not having QPQs after several weeks. "At the time of the nomination" could also reasonably mean "do a QPQ immediately after starting the nomination." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which, in any reasonable or normal interpretation, can't mean that the QPQs have to be done within 1 hour of nomination (especially considering everyone's desire to have a thorough QPQ review). I often edit at work, and have made a nomination in the past and then had to suddenly jump to something else before coming back to do my QPQ. Again, whatever the expectation is, just clearly state it. That said, I'm not seeing a serious problem that needs solving here. As Beanie mentioned on their talk page, nominations routinely wait weeks before being reviewed. I have never had a problem finding a nom to QPQ review, and the very first, and easiest might I add, part of reviewing is to see if the QPQ is done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the reason why a QPQ is now required when nominating rather than after a week is because its not uncommon for noms to be sitting around without any action for several weeks and only when the article gets reviewed, the nom has another week of hope. At least WP:DYKTIMEOUT means that nominations shouldn't take longer than 2 months to be reviewed. JuniperChill (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was because it became not uncommon for nominations to linger for weeks or even months without QPQs, since they wouldn't get attention and editors forgot to check and notice that they did in fact require QPQs. It's become less of a problem now since nominations now automatically state how many QPQs a nomination requires, but the possibility remains given our constant backlog. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered that it wasn't eligible due to the QPQ problem. So that was a waste of my time, which annoyed me. A "waste of [your] time"? It takes about two seconds to read the statement "QPQ to be done". Aside from that, what is the issue with pinging the nominator to do a QPQ – what is the benefit of instant-quickfailing nominations when there is a promise to do a QPQ very soon and, in one of those cases, one QPQ was already present at the nom? throw their weight around and try to get away with as much as they can because they think they're special – seriously? I asked for one day to do six QPQs – what is unreasonable about that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned this at your talk page so I won't repeat it at length here, but for the benefit of the others reading this discussion, this entire conflict would have been avoided if you did one of two things: 1. you did your QPQs ahead of time, or 2. you reviewed nominations even if you don't have any open nominations. Having a stack of QPQs ready to go from built up reviews is something I've repeatedly encouraged here at DYK (not to you specifically, in general) and would definitely help solve our issues with late QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the rule should be changed. I began doing my QPQs before making noms a while back, and it is honestly so much easier since there is no need to rush or stress about it. There's no downside to changing the rule and it prevents perennial disputes like this from arising every week. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with a change to specify that QPQs must be done “before”. It facilitates speed of reviewing (some reviewers mostly review new items) and it’s not much of a burden since the same amount of time is still required to complete a nom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ before is pretty much what I have always been doing. It is not usually difficult. Occasionally I have to wait a day or so to find a nomination that intrigues me enough to review it and I just wait to nominate my own article as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would actually prefer the rule to be that QPQs should be done before the nomination and not at the time of the nomination. The current wording was mainly intended for edge cases where the nominator was unable to provide a QPQ at the time of the nomination for justifiable reasons. However, given all these disagreements, maybe a blanket "nominations must be done before the nomination" rule would be more effective, leaving open WT:DYK as a venue for appeals in exceptional circumstances. It seems many of our editors are open to following the rule, so it's mostly just a case of adjustment for the others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of "at the time of nomination" means you need to provide a QPQ review the moment you nominate an article for DYK. It doesn't sound like to provide a QPQ within a few mins of opening the nomination to me. Notice how it doesn't say "you must review another article before making your DYK nomination". "Before [..] the time of nomination" for me doesn't really make sense considering its not possible to provide a QPQ before making a DYK nomination, but you can definitely review. English seems to be the language where you can have a word that has a million different meanings. And 11/12/2025 is a very good example of this. Without context, I wouldn't know whether this means 11 December 2025 or November 12 2025. JuniperChill (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a change to just "before". If we stick with the current wording, I think an hour's grace time is sufficient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QPQs should be done before the nom is submitted; i.e., submitted with the nomination. That's how I've always interpreted "at the time of nomination". I recently had to do six QPQs for Template:Did you know nominations/Jessie Wright and yes, it was annoying but I got it done. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of "at the time of the nomination" (disclosure: I was the one who wrote that in the rules) was something like "okay, I just nominated the article, I will now promptly review another nomination to do my QPQ." There was no hard deadline, only the idea that if a reviewer notices you do not have a QPQ ready, be ready for the nomination to be closed. In practice, we usually do not immediately close a nomination without a QPQ, we usually ping the editor first, so it is not a major issue. However, "late" QPQs are common enough that we ought to be discouraging them. As other editors have stated, it is not that much effort to do QPQs before submitting a nomination, and doing so would help ease headaches. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This in lies the issue; especially when we are requiring double QPQs. The current wording gives some leeway. I don't think anyone was expecting quickfails after 1 hour though, especially when BeanieFan had already completed one QPQ on one of his noms. So if we are going to have some leeway, than define it. If not, then state that and move on. Otherwise, the current wording allows reviewers too much discretion to apply the rule differently to different editors (as I showed above in my examples). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the current wording is to provide grace time as mentioned above. If we have to change this to strictly before because that grace time has been abused that would be disappointing. Hopefully newer QPQers will still be provided some grace. CMD (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, I don't know that anyone is "abusing" the grace time. We have examples above where an editor is making a very strict interpretation of the "rules" to make a point to a prolific DYKer, while other nominators are given a week and a courtesy ping before the nomination is failed. My preference, again, is to provide a grace period of a day. If after 24 hours, the QPQ is not done, than it can be failed, although it is preferable, especially for newbies, that a ping or notice is provided first, so as not to discourage participation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a strict interpretation of the rules, it is an interpretation of the rules that nobody familiar with the DYK project over the past year will be surprised by. CMD (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of my 22 nominations this year did I complete the QPQ prior to nomination, and none of them got quickfailed in an hour. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly something to change moving forward then? CMD (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Goldstein

[edit]

Talk:Charles Goldstein: here we have a person who helped in great style to restore art belonging to Jewish owners deprived by Nazis, which would be great to know, and even was the (rather new) nominator's first choice, and all we get is Trump's nickname for him, so Trump's ignorance of European royalty, - that may be interesting, but nothing interesting about the subject, imho. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that the hook would intrigue more people to learn everything we can say about the subject. That is after all the first goal of DYK: to showcase the content. The one-line factoid we obsess over, whether that involve a president or Nazis, is a means to the proper end. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will disagree. There will be people who would avoid anything connected to that president, and the Nazis, and believe strongly that the news about him restoring artworks would have been the better news than the ignorance of the president. He was invited to the Elbphilharmonie and thought it was an opera house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the ignorance! (what's the difference?) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too late to have this conversation, unless there's some genuine error with the existing hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had wanted to change something about this hook I would have gone to WP:ERRORS (where they would have told me it's not an error). No, what I would like to see is some insight that what was done in this case and many others is a mistake: making some great achiever "interesting" not by what they achieved, but by some (more) famous other name. (I learned here, project opera, that it is name-calling to mention just a "laundry-list" of famous colleagues when attempting to give quality to a performer.) I believe it's unfair to the achiever, because the good news about their achievements doesn't get across. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with your general thoughts on this matter, and sometimes our interests align. This is one such case, and I do think it would have been more interesting to mention the overall impact of Goldstein's work. That original hook was plagued by a verifiability issue that could have been fixed with a little wordsmithing. In the general case, I don't think it's worth discussing a shift in our hook priorities until it's evident that more people agree with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the (much newer, this was my 4th review; don’t see why it’s relevant) reviewer. I found the original book interesting and I approved it. Making an off-handed comment about the surprise I saw at not finding a Trump hook (because I had checked the references before reading the article and was thinking “this sounds a lot like… oh”). This should’ve been a matter of no consequence, as I approved the hook, but I quickly realized that the hook as written was not verifiable. The nominator then suggested a hook with Trump, I found it interesting and approved, suggesting hookier wording that the promoter obviously agreed with. I think somebody being disliked by Donald Trump is interesting and I have a personal affinity for hooks that play around with the article name (I think half the articles I’ve gotten to DYK do that). Philosophically, I think 200 characters is insufficient to do anything encyclopedic and so I aim to make the hook to draw in as many people as possible, to the encyclopedic content. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not a big fan of hooks that rely on Donald Trump because I feel that Trump hooks are a horse beaten to death and overused. Personally, I was fine with the original hook, and had its issues been addressed, I think it would have made a great hook. Having said that, I can see why the current hook was approved, and I (begrudgingly) feel it would have probably gotten more attention than the original proposal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

XIV International Chopin Piano Competition

[edit]

Is it just me, or is this hook a little confusing? It seems to imply that the judges withheld the prize from Yundi specifically. However, I can't find a way to adequately rewrite it (if indeed there is a problem). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't even think the hook as written is that interesting. The point is supposed to be that Yundi was the first winner crowned in 15 years (since the previous two iterations did not award a First Prize winner). That is a more interesting point, but it is lost in the wording. Maybe changing it to either of this would work?
... that by winning the International Chopin Piano Competition in 2000, Yundi became the first pianist to be awarded the first prize in 15 years?
... that prior to Yundi winning the International Chopin Piano Competition in 2000, the competition's prior two iterations did not award a first prize winner?
Obviously this is a "first" hook, but at least it's one that's straightforward to prove. Either wording could probably still be wordsmithed, but this is more to give possible directions rather than to come up with a final wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALTc: ... that Yundi won the 2000 International Chopin Piano Competition, after 15 years without a first prize awarded?
ALTd: ... that Yundi won the 2000 International Chopin Piano Competition, after no first prize was awarded in 1990 and 1995? I prefer ALTd because people might assume they are held annually, 15 times without a first prize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with ALTd. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like ALTc. I don't like ALTd. It seems like random years are picked and that the in-between years aren't addressed. It doesn't communicate that the prize isn't awarded annually, and seems like some sort of error is in the hook (even though that isn't the case). This is an example where getting too technical and pedantic sucks the interest right out of it.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have a point there. Is it important to note that the contest is not annual, or would explaining that only complicate the hook further? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped in ALTc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Autumn Colors on the Que and Hua Mountains

[edit]

Perhaps for the hook for Autumn Colors on the Que and Hua Mountains, the hook should specify what year or century it was painted so that "the following seven centuries" has a bit of context. Would that be an ok change? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 (6 Dec)

[edit]
  • ... that Water World Lloret has been described as "a favourite of foreign tourists" with 60% of visitors coming from outside Spain?

This is more of a sanity check than anything, but considering Spain's popularity among foreign tourists, is it really that much of a surprise that most of its visitors are foreign? I imagine the same could be said about other popular Spanish tourist destinations. I don't really see anything else hooky in the article, so I won't hold this from running, I just thought it was a bit of a "well, duh" hook. I can see why others might find it interesting, hence why this is just a sanity check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Morava Airport (nom)

[edit]

I noticed my hook was sent to prep, and in this form I feel like it's just not interesting? Small airport in small country has small number of flights? My original proposed hook was (imo) interesting by pointing out that the only destination is global aviation mega hub Istanbul, rather than some airport in Serbia for regional connectivity or whatever, but that isn't really there anymore. JustARandomSquid (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an avgeek myself, I actually find the current wording more interesting than the other proposal. A small airport being connected to a hub is not really unusual: it's even the norm in many places like the US. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess in the US it would be the nearest large American hub. But ok, I see two people agreeing it is interesting, so I guess I'm outvoted lol. Also, not sure if you get told this often enough @Narutolovehinata5, but great work on DYK in general, it's just a super stressful area of Wikipedia and your contributions mean a lot to be community! JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a not avgeek, I find the small airport is small angle interesting. Maybe make it more concise by just saying “Morava” instead of “Serbia’s smallest passenger” 1brianm7 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing word limit and attribution

[edit]

I am in process of addressing/ resolving various concerns raised by reviewer User:AirshipJungleman29 at Template:Did you know nominations/My Choice (film).

From previous discussion I am already aware one of my following DYK alt3 is not likely to be accepted. But to avoid similar issues in future I would prefer to have feed back.

Sentence of the alt3 is well attributed in the article as below:

"..According to Gauri D. Chakraborty, the advent of neoliberal feminism in films like My Choice and Veere Di Wedding resulted from a complex interplay of gender constructions within and between governments, markets, and civil societies encompassing multiple ideological intersections.[1].."

Though alt3 AirshipJungleman29's concern is right, I considered dropping attribution named in the article to save on the word limit of the DYK. As below:

If I have to add attribution in DYK at least I will need to add "Gauri Chakraborty" even if I drop middle initial. But that won't suffice I will need to add "the/an academic" to describe who is she, saying "According to the/an academic Gauri Chakraborty". That adds almost 6 words and that makes balancing word limit challenging.

a) Whether we do have already any FAQ in this regard may be I missed upon it?
b) Whether mentioning surname in attribution at such times can be okay to save on words?
c) Are their any other ways being used in DYKs to address attribution needs, if any.

I reiterate my purpose is not to push this Alt3 in the nominated DYK, but a sincere wish to understand to file better DYK nominations in the future. Bookku (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, stating an opinion in wikivoice without attribution would be a violation of NPOV. That’s why attribution is requested for opinionated statements at DYK and elsewhere on the project. This is separate from the fact that the hook is entirely uninteresting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I will take care henceforth. Bookku (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]





References

  1. ^ Chakraborty, Gauri D. (24 March 2023). "6. New Feminist Visibilities and Sisterhood: Re-interpreting Marriage Desire and Self-Fulfillment in mainstream Hindi Cinema" (PDF). In Chakraborty Paunksnis, Runa; Paunksnis, Šarūnas (eds.). Gender, Cinema, Streaming Platforms: Shifting Frames in Neoliberal India. Germany: Springer International Publishing. pp. 154, 155. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16700-3_6. ISBN 978-3-031-16700-3.

Bookku (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]