Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK backlog and suggestions for DYK process improvement

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]
@Jonathanischoice:, the process involves three people checking a hook and sometimes those three people will disagree, particularly on subjective things like interestingness and whether a superlative is appropriately sourced. I don't think a flow chart would change that. Anyway Soprillo and its picture are now on the main page, so that is a good result. TSventon (talk) 18:02, 2 December 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]

WP:DYKTIMEOUT (Draft shorter addition)

[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:
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 that are under review, MERGE, or AFD discussions should be placed on hold. Articles on hold may not be timed out.

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No real objection to this much more targeted change, although what under review means is unclear. I suggest amending the proposed additional sentence to read Articles that are subject to proposed mergers, requested moves or Articles for Deletion discussions should be placed on hold until those discussions conclude. I think this reflects current consensus and practice and could be boldly added if no one objects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that is that said wording would be redundant to the current wording of WP:DYKTAG. Maybe different wording is needed to prevent redundancy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that a reevaluation of GA status is also a reason we place things on hold.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed wording (revised per discussion):
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 that are subject to proposed mergers, requested moves, Articles for Deletion discussions, GA status reevaluation, or that are being edited in accordance with a DYK review should be placed on hold until those discussions conclude.

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as too long. My suggestion would simply to change Articles on hold may not be timed out. to Nominations on hold due to a discussion may not be timed out. Technically it is similar to Dclemens1971's wording, but in a more general form. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a nomination where there was a lengthy discussion at WP:BLPN regarding the article's adherence to that policy. Should that nomination not have gone on hold? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of "formal discussion", i.e. ones that involve processes. I imagine being discussed at a noticeboard would not count and in fact would be a disqualifier, instead of being used as a way to hold the nom. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if instead of BLPN there was a formal RfC on the talk page. Does the nomination go on hold then? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is no, since that suggests that the issue is the article itself and not the question of its existence. I think when people were thinking about discussions that would hold nominations, they referred to discussions that would affect the existence of the article itself (i.e. deletion or merge discussions). Regular content discussions that would not affect existence, like RfCs, are different. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLPN should not be on the list of reasons for holding or pausing TIMEOUT. Only MERGE, MOVE, AFD, GA status discussions, and DYK review specific revision. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed wording (shorter version, per discussion):
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 that are under MERGE, MOVE, AFD, GA, and DYK review discussion should be placed on hold until those discussions conclude.

-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 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]
I just nominated a lost Baltic Amber dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium johnianum for the Christmas sets Template:Did you know nominations/Arceuthobium johnianum.--Kevmin § 17:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas in the Philippines was quickfailed a couple of days ago. Anybody fancy de-AIing it?--Launchballer 10:38, 7 December 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

Christmas Eve

[edit]

for 24 December

Awaiting approval

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]

"... that Anil Dash has described ChatGPT Atlas, as an "anti-web browser" that "actively fights against the web"? DS (talk) 14:46, 29 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]
It is, yes. "Did you know that [new product X] from [company Y] has [property Z]" will always be promotional. DS (talk) 20:12, 29 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]
  • I've gone ahead and replaced it with my wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Narutolovehinata5, Piotrus, TechnoSquirrel69, Launchballer, Andrew Davidson, and LEvalyn: I'm on board with the original rationale for making this change. However, I have swapped this out once more (to Prep 2) prior to its proposed run tomorrow because I'm not sure that "claimed that her favourite food gave her a reason to live" is accurate per the article text here. This claim is actually attributed in the article to some fella called Brian Duff (a possibly non-notable individual whose occupation and significance isn't stated in the article - as an aside, saying who he is would be a useful addition). The article doesn't say that Baek made such a claim herself... it might be that when you read her book it's obvious that she thought that herself, but that's not stated in the text. Oh, and per MOS:CLAIM we should probably use a less loaded term such as said or wrote rather than claimed... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we need a completely different angle here instead. Maybe something like "... that Baek Se-hee wrote a memoir on how her favorite food [something]"? The issue is that I'm not sure what should come next, but the idea is still the "favorite food gave her a reason to live" thought even if it doesn't use that exact wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duff is an Associate Professor at the University of New England. Looking at this again, I'm not convinced the claim actually needs attribution (and actually made an edit putting the claim in wikivoice and fixing a few other policy violations at the time, but was reverted and just didn't fancy arguing over it). One solution would be Naruto's new hook but "kept her attending therapy sessions".--Launchballer 11:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Duff is a political theorist – see his profile.
As a simple uncontroversial hook, we might have
as the book title is quite hooky. Linking its article might draw off readers from the main article but the link will help it to stand out, I reckon.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking its article might draw off readers from the main article is an excellent reason to not link the book. Otherwise, I'm fine with that.--Launchballer 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A longer hook, which lays it on thick but is still under 200 chars, would be:
  • ALT2 ... that Baek Se-hee wrote I Want to Die but I Want to Eat Tteokbokki and its sequel, I Want to Die but I Still Want to Eat Tteokbokki, and then she died?
That's not a happy ending but that may make it an effective hook. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame brackets aren't allowed. ALT2a: ... that Baek Se-hee wrote I Want to Die but I Want to Eat Tteokbokki (2018), wrote its sequel I Want to Die but I Still Want to Eat Tteokbokki (2019), and died (2025)? would work.--Launchballer 11:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would not work as the guidelines don't allow parentheses in hooks unless absolutely necessary (for example, for conversions, translations, or where the article title has parentheses). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with the original alt (with or without a link), but not so keen on the latter two suggestions. While factually correct, it sounds a bit like we're making light of her death, like "oh look, she wrote this book about how she wanted to die but stayed alive to eat tteokbokki, but then she died anyway". Might be just me, but that sounds in slightly poor taste. We also officially have no idea why she died anyway, so we shouldn't be implying there was any link between the book and her eventual death (even though perhaps we can guess at what happened).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped it with Andrew's ALT, albeit without the link. Anyone who wants to read about the book can do so from her article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 7 December 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]
Would failing every nomination missing two QPQs within an hour of it being made improve Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the point comes across, probably. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are able to manage, so it is all a matter of adjusting. Yes, if "preventing nominations from languishing too long" or "speeding up nomination processing" means improving Wikipedia, then so be it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if "preventing nominations from languishing too long" or "speeding up nomination processing" means improving Wikipedia – say you have an otherwise-excellent DYK nom with one QPQ and a promise to do a second within some hours. How does failing that nom accomplish either of those things? BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the solution is to do those QPQs ahead of time and have a stash of QPQs ready to go. You don't need to have open or planned nominations to do reviews. The nomination can even wait until after the QPQs are done to make things safer. After all, the deadline is seven days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain how failing a nom with one QPQ an hour after it is made improves Wikipedia or accomplishes the goals of "preventing nominations from languishing" or "speeding up processing". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's because, in the past, these "short" delays sometimes led to cases of nominations going for days or even weeks without QPQs. Ideally we want to stop that from happening. Again, I do not understand the apparent resistance to doing QPQs ahead of time when many other editors are able to do it. I get it can be difficult with things like multiple nominations or successive nominations, but there are already strategies to adjust that others have used effectively. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there was a promise made at the noms in question that the QPQs were to be completed within 24 hours. It is not logically possible that allowing someone a few more hours as requested, and only that, would result in the "nominations going for days or even weeks without QPQs". Some editors are able to manage doing loads of QPQs ahead of time, others aren't. I don't understand what is possibly wrong with allowing an otherwise-perfect nomination, with a promise to do a QPQ within some hours, to have those few hours. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work that you do. Can you expand on why someone would not be able to do QPQs before making a nomination? Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a general issue where most of our editors could not manage, I would get your point. However, many of our editors have no issues doing QPQs ahead of time. If the issue is simply "I am currently incapable of doing early reviews, unlike other editors", you can state so and explain your reasons. If you have the time and effort to do reviews within 24 hours of a nomination, there is nothing stopping you from doing the same ahead of time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i will point out that "incomplete" closes, as i understand it, are without prejudice- so if your nom does get closed and you're still within 7 days of the qualifying event after you've done the QPQ, you can make a new nom (or possibly reopen it?) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making a new nom is not needed. The nominator themselves unilaterally reopening the nomination is discouraged but not explicitly prohibited. The safest option is to make an appeal at WT:DYK: similar scenarios in the past have been accepted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap-up

[edit]

Look, there's two issues here. One is in regards to the current wording of the "rules". Obviously or at the time of leaves open ambiguity. To be frank, I have never once considered that QPQ must be done before my nominations. But whatever, easy fix, just make it clearer. If the expectation is "QPQ before", then state that clearly in the rules.

Second though, is the enforcement of the ambiguous rule at the moment. There is quite literally nothing on Wikipedia where we expect actions to occur within minutes. There is no problem here that must be solved, as I don't see nominations languishing, causing all types of problems at DYK. The "problem" that RoySmith recited above about wasting time reviewing was not a real problem. They got annoyed at BeanieFan11 and closed their nominations to make a point (if anything, they spent more time finding his noms and closing them that could have gone towards completing his own QPQ). This is an activity (making a point) that is clearly discouraged on Wikipedia. A quick review of BeanieFan11's talk page and I don't see any messages from RoySmith, let alone any comments asking them to change how they edit or giving them some heads up that they are going to be enforcing things differently (noting that RoySmith has reviewed a ton of BeanieFan11's nominations in the past). As the example I posted above, there are plenty of nominations today that don't get a "zero tolerance" enforcement on QPQ.

All that said, my recommendation is rewrite the "rules" the way that the DYK team wants them to be, and to be reasonable and flexible with heir enforcement. These types of things are the issues that cause people to abandon a process or not participate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One possible factor to consider is that BeanieFan11 has a history or pattern of providing "late" QPQs, as opposed to it being a one-time thing. Other editors may have been granted leniency because late QPQs were usually one-offs and not things they actively did on a regular basis. Maybe RoySmith was telling them to avoid doing that in the future, especially when other editors have been able to cope with the idea of doing QPQs before nominations.
I would agree though that the safest solution would be to tighten the requirement to instead mandate doing QPQs before nominating, as long as it comes with being more strict with rejecting nominations without QPQs on the spot. Such closures could always be appealed with at WT:DYK. The above discussion shows that there is interest for it, at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We expect actions to occur "within minutes". We expect AN/I notifications to be sent out immediately. We expect posts to various noticeboards to be fully formed straight away. BeanieFan11 does not need any unique warnings from RoySmith, they are fully aware of the expectations after many many past requests. What you cite as "enforcement of the ambiguous rule" was the "flexible", in that there has been a huge amount of past flexibility. CMD (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, you are warping what I said. AN/I specifically states When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. My point, which seems to keep being disregarded, is that the current wording and enforcement at DYK leaves ambiguity (the wording isn't clear and the "rules" are not enforced equally). As I mentioned before, I have 22 noms this year; not one of them did I do QPQ before the nomination. None of mine got quickfailed. Narutolovehinata5 mentioned before that BeanieFan11 has had a history of letting noms sit waiting for QPQ, and as I mentioned above, RoySmith has reviewed a lot of BeanieFan11's noms. It's not that much of a stretch to see that RoySmith got annoyed and failed BeanieFan11's noms, a pointy action that isn't appropriate regardless of extenuating circumstances. If it was such a problem, a simple post here, as I did, asking for clarity on whether BeanieFan11's noms should be closed as incomplete if QPQ isn't done prior to the nomination would have likely developed some consensus for moving forward. SO I say again, change the "rules" to make this clear, as they are at AN/I, so that this problem goes away. I am sure that everyone, including BeanieFan11, will make an educated choice on whether to continue at DYK after the rules have been updated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably too involved to make the change myself, but the above discussion suggests that there at least a loose consensus to change the wording and make it stricter. So instead of Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination, it should be changed to Your QPQ review should be made before your nomination. I don't know though if the discussion above is enough to change the wording, or if we need a wider dedicated discussion regarding it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent there is ambiguity here, there is ambiguity in all Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Some editors get blocked for edit warring only when breaching 3RR, others get blocked before then. Everyone has reviewed a lot of BeanieFan11's noms. Failing incomplete nominations is not pointy. Your post above received numerous replies saying QPQs should be done before nominations, and yet this has been reopened with another subheader saying the same thing as the first subheader. Everyone, including BeaneFan11, has the ability to make an educated choice based on this discussion without the rules needing to specifically bend to make sure of this. CMD (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launchballer made a bold change to the guidance: "A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed with 24 hours notice." I'm satisfied that this clarifies the matter, though I'd still prefer we just switch to "before". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above discussion I've also gone ahead and dropped "or at the time of the nomination". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tweaked it to "within 24 hours", given the comments on timing of the above discussion were about closing, rather than about the notice for closing. Such notice is also explicitly contradictory to the modal opinion above of "before". Further, it is somewhat redundant, as there is notice for the need for QPQ during the submission process. CMD (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5: I'm not sure where you got consensus to remove "at the time it the nomination". The new wording is even more confusing than the old, since it states you must do the QPQ before the nom but also talks about periods of 24 hours. Not to mention that the wording "Your QPQ review should be made before your nomination. A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed within 24 hours. sounds the 2rong way round. Are we saying it can be closed any time up to 24 hours after nom but not thereafter? Please revert your edit and let's think about this again. I think having up to 24 hours after the nom and no more than that is the right way forward here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors in the above section, specifically Viriditas, Dclemens1971, David Eppstein, Firefangledfeathers, and Darth Stabro, either supported changing the rule to specifying "before" or noted that they preferred to provide their QPQs ahead of time. In addition, I interpreted RoySmith's comments and actions as also being supportive of a rule change.
    As for the "24 hours" thing, that wording was done by Launchballer, so it would be better to discuss with them that aspect. The simplest rule would probably be a reversion to the original wording, but dropping "at the time of the nomination". So something like Your QPQ review should be made before your nomination. A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed without warning. The 24 hours notice is a courtesy and not a requirement. I'd actually prefer that nominations without QPQs being provided should be closed on the spot, but having a warning sounds like a reasonable compromise since editors would likely be upset with a direct closure. Another option could be to change the second part to: A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed as incomplete. This would leave it to editor discretion if a warning will be given or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is someone nominates a good, solid article, proposes an excellent hook, but for whatever reason hasn't done the QPQ as per – do we toss out the nom because the "rules" say xyz, or run with it because it makes DYK better? Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a case-by-case thing, and it would depend on the reason why they did not do a QPQ. If it was for reasons beyond their control, such as being unable to do a QPQ because of a lack of internet or a sudden emergency that made them unavailable, leeway would likely be granted. If it was because they forgot, a 24-hour notice should suffice. If it was because they refused to do a QPQ (yes, this has actually happened at least once), the nomination can be rejected on the spot. Remember that the key word here is "editor discretion": there's no hard and fast rule, it depends on the situation. The ideal solution really would be to do reviews ahead of time and have a stash, but few editors do that in practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a clear absence of consensus for any such change. Many editors above argued for being lenient while others stated they were in favour of tightening. What we've ended up with us a change which just muddies the water further. Requiring editors to do the QPQ before even submitting the nomination is a huge change, and not one you should be making unilaterally like this, particularly when you already declared yourself "too involved" above.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a huge change, yes, but it is also one that many editors are already used to doing. In fact, cases of the QPQ not being provided at the time of the nomination are not the norm. At the very least, there was some support above for implementing such a change, although I am too involved to declare it a consensus. I also do not see the two points as incompatible: it is possible to require nominations be done before the nomination, but also to allow a grace period (such as a 24-hour notice) depending on the circumstances. At first that may seem contradictory, but think of it as something like "I'm sorry I wasn't able to do a QPQ immediately, but I have good reasons for it, please give me more time."
    If you want, we could start a proper discussion about mandating QPQs before the nomination, although we would first need to discuss a wording to be discussed (jumping straight into a discussion or even an RfC might be improper in this case). I'm not really sure if it is necessary though considering the support for the idea given by some editors earlier. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring editors to do the QPQ before submitting would once have been a huge change, but it effectively had consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 201#QPQ timeouts. Narutolovehinat5 actually unilaterally weakened this in [1], a partial or full reversion of this now is not a huge unilateral change. CMD (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we require QPQs to be done before a nomination is created?

[edit]

Starting a proper discussion regarding this so we can have some final clarity at WP:QPQ and come up with clear, unconfusing wording. Should we require that the QPQ be done before the nomination? As in, changing "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination" to "Your QPQ review should be made before your nomination." If so, how should we handle "A nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed within 24 hours"?

Pinging all previous participants: @Gonzo fan2007, RoySmith, BeanieFan11, Dclemens1971, David Eppstein, JuniperChill, Firefangledfeathers, Darth Stabro, Chipmunkdavis, AirshipJungleman29, Theleekycauldron, Amakuru, and Cl3phact0:, as well as Launchballer who was involved with the current wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but it should be enforced technically. It's arbitrary and capricious to just have people going around closing things, maybe with warning, maybe not, when they spot a nom without a QPQ. We should have the DYK nomination wizard require a valid bluelink to a DYK nom before it creates the nomination, and if the nominator games that requirement, only then are uninvolved users allowed to close on sight. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we require that the QPQ be done before the nomination? No. IMO, a reasonable policy would be, "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination, and a nomination that does not include the required number of submitted QPQs may be closed after 24 hours." There is no valid reason that an otherwise-perfect nomination should not have a few hours to complete two QPQs, when it would've often taken weeks to even be reviewed by anyone anyway. There is no benefit to failing such nominations that quickly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose perfectly fine to do it at the time of the nomination or shortly after, if say it's nearing the WP:DYKNEW limit or the nominator doesn't realise they have to start providing QPQs. Not every nominator is a veteran who knows DYKCRIT and all enclose acronyms off by heart. A little leeway never hurt anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If push comes to shove, yes, nominations should be complete. We don't expect GANs or FACs of ITNs to be submitted incomplete, creating complicated rules to facilitate incomplete nominations has its drawbacks. I would prefer retaining some flexibility/leeway in this, especially for newer participants, I agree with "Not every nominator is a veteran" etc.; however, the flipside of such flexibility is being "arbitrary and capricious". Given these conflicts, easier to trim the complexity of the DYK process slightly and have a simple rule: "nominations should be complete". CMD (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just crack down on the few persistently WP:GAMING the system Otherwise, begrudgingly yes, thanks to a few bad apples.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AirshipJungleman29. It seems entirely reasonable to me to have a grace period of 24 hours, in a process that often takes weeks anyway. My preference would be to set a hard limit of 24 hours and quickfail if that's exceeded. But if we do go down the route of requiring QPQ before the nom is submitted, then there must be no exceptions to that. In that case, the mention of 24 hours should be removed and any noms not meeting the guideline should be quickfailed, with no prejudice against renom if they later fulfil the requirements within the usual seven day window.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

I've moved this set into queue and will complete the required checks over the next day, leaving any notes below. Happy Thanksgiving to all American DYKers! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Colors on the Que and Hua Mountains

[edit]
I think this hook should mention the year or century the painting was made so that the mention of the following seven centuries has context. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. Thanks for suggestion. Rest of nom checks out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow 2291

[edit]

@Gb321, Drmies, and HurricaneZeta: What makes ForestWatch a reliable source for this article? The source article reads like a casual blog post. It's unbylined, and there does not appear to be any editor or other editorial oversight listed on the site. I can't find the specific quarter-century claim in the hook in any other source, which supports the claim but with a vaguer timeline of "decades" or "quite some time." The ForestWatch source is also heavily relied on for the article, so I'd want to be confident that this is a reliable source before moving it along. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the page it seems like they know what they're doing - I don't remember my exact thought process, but I believed that it was a reliable source. I'm happy to rephrase the hook if needed to put the vaguer "decades" or completely rewrite it. Z E T AC 21:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta Seems like a small, local nonprofit. Not a comment on its effectiveness as an organization but unclear whether it passes the test of reliability as a secondary source. The LA Daily News says "decades", and I think that's better-supported ground. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Z E T AC 18:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, I tweaked the main text. I don't know how to tweak the hook, but "in decades" is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta @Dclemens1971 @Drmies I added refs and clarified info to lower article's reliance on Forest Watch Gb321 (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. This is in queue and good to move forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary editing

[edit]

@BillHPike: I altered the hook text to attribute the claim to the author of the textbook in question, since her account is the only source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Creek Fire

[edit]

@Hurricane Wind and Fire, MisawaSakura, and HurricaneZeta: In trying to find a better source for the hook claim than the Hindustan Times article (which does not involve any actual reporting, just regurgitating a viral X post about the so-called "firenado") I came across a document from the U.S. government's Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center that describes the 12 July Deer Creek incident as "pyro-vortex tornado" and says on page 6: Most firefighters have seen some form of fire whirl. Fire whirls can be very extreme and sometimes long lasting. It is often assumed that every spinning fire vortex is a fire whirl. It is important to recognize the difference and categorize appropriately. Since the article refers to the fire tornado as a fire whirl, I want to be sure we have sufficient sourcing indicating whether the vortex/tornado incident at Deer Creek is such. Due to the 12-hour sets currently running, I've bumped this to Prep 3 for further discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I changed the wording to fire induced tornado with the weather.gov source. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 15:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Any other improvements that need to be made? Or can an editor with permission remove the “Under discussion” notice from Prep 3? 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine and will do so. Just promoted the set. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drop out of unreviewed backlog mode?

[edit]

As we are now down to under 125 unreviewed nominations, and are in 12 hour mode to work though the 208 reviewed nominations, should we drop out of unreviewed backlog mode now?--Kevmin § 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, we normally run unreviewed backlog mode until we have around 100 unreviewed nominations and (aim to) run 12 hour mode until we have around 120 reviewed nominations, so I think we should keep unreviewed backlog mode for the moment. TSventon (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: does a long run of unreviewed backlog mode cause problems? I think one of the purposes of backlog mode is to reduce the average wait for nominations to be reviewed, giving nominators a better chance to fix any problems. We could reduce the length of unreviewed backlog mode by starting when the page reached 200 items rather than waiting until PEIS problems start. This run started at 00:00 on 19 October with 226 nominations and at 00:00 on 30 November we are down to 115, so we are almost down to 100ish. TSventon (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be an unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't be opposed to backlog mode being permanent (i.e. permanently requiring two QPQs for eligible nominators). Most of our nominators are already used to making DYK reviews, and except for certain circumstances (such as multi-article noms), reviewing two nominations instead of one isn't that much harder work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Abso-fucking-luetly NOT an acceptable suggestion. Fact is the vast majority of the "Backlogging" happened from the under 5 noms crowd, and in the abysmal panic bureaucracy that has evolved from the Errors/PROTECTHEMAINPAGE crowds forcing 3 separate rounds if reviewing onto the project for fear of all hell breaking loose at MP:errors over a lapsed word choice. The regular contributors with over 20 noms are the smallest percentage of input into the system, NOT the solution to the systemic problem of allowing freebee nominations.--Kevmin § 03:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support requiring at least 2 QPQs. I don't understand the objection. It's not like it's a huge ask. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Viriditas: wouldn't running the current version of unreviewed backlog mode permanently mean we ran out of available unreviewed nominations after a few weeks? The current system for unreviewed backlog mode seems reasonably effective at keeping the backlog of unreviewed nominations under control. TSventon (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth experimenting about at least, but from experience we tend to be in a backlog more commonly than not being in one. In fact, us having "too few nominations" has never been an issue from what I remember in my many years at DYK. If it does become a problem, perhaps we could do a reverse practice where we would require only one QPQ for a period, but two QPQs would be the default. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: we don't have "too few nominations" when in normal, non backlog, mode. Backlog mode has been around for about four years and is always turned off before we get "too few nominations" In 2024 we ran backlog mode for around 2 months and this year will be around 3 months. We don't go much below 70 unapproved nominations as by then a lot of the "backlog" is nominations in progress or needing a second review. TSventon (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "nominations in progress or needing a second review", which flags an inefficiency that seems to be baked into the current QPQ process. How can we reduce the "needing a second review" part of that? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: looking at the current unapproved nominations, most of the second reviews seem to be requests to review alternative hooks. I identified second reviews separately as I don't think reviewing an alternative hook counts as a QPQ, but that may have changed. Counting them is fiddly, but there are only a few of them. TSventon (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back though the last 4 years, since the system was voted in, its been used 3 total times, Spring 2024, Holiday 2024 and now (holiday 2025). Each of the backlogs has come after a backlog drive elsewhere OR at the end of WIKICUP. Really we do a decent job of keeping on top of the system at most times out side of those two external group effects. We should do short UBM runs to PREP for the increases we will get, and quite honestly we should require that WIKICUP takes DYK out of being a point-scoring option, given the problems generated.--Kevmin § 03:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We ended the last two backlog modes at 65 and 79. We can wait a little while longer.--Launchballer 01:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I am tempted to suggest a rule change at the Wikicup to require that DYK nominations should provide 2 QPQ reviews to be eligible for Wikicup points. I fear that the editors at Wikicup would not agree with the idea. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, wikicup participants are typically going to be seasoned enough that they can do reviews and as a decades long contributor here, CUP and backlog pushes are two of the largest contributors to DYK becoming backlogged and overwhelming our processes.--Kevmin § 18:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the assertion that the end of the WikiCup has a measurable effect at the end of the year isn't supported by any evidence. This year, fully half of the WikiCup DYK submissions came in the first two rounds (between January and April). It is a similar story but even more pronounced the previous year, with two-thirds of submissions in the first four months. In both cases, less than 12.5% of WikiCup DYK points came in the final round (September-October). A better explanation is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Please take a moment to read what I wrote more carefully. I noted Wikicup and Backlog drives as major contributors to DYK backlogging over the year I did not assert that WikiCup was the specific and only driver for end of year backlogging, and in fact your results support my first post inn that it notably impacts in the ear year areas, while back log drives are summer and fall impacts.--Kevmin § 18:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose you could say that the reviewer isn’t allowed to suggest hooks or work on the article, in which case the number of second reviews (different from second opinions) would drop to zero. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a grain of idea that could bear further development here: Separating the task of the reviewer from the work of those writing hooks and/or editing per DYK reviewer requests might well help resolve certain issues. If the reviewer mostly sticks to ticking the boxes with the requisite Green tickY or Red XN marks, throughput might go up, backlogs might go down, and the perplexing repetition of seemingly completed tasks might well go poof and simply vanish into the æther. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is palpable at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of the blind man who has only encountered the elephant's rear who lectures others about how stinky and disgusting elephants are. Only the man is not blind and is perfectly able to see and touch the whole elephant, but just chooses not to. Or another comparison: reading only WP:ANI, concluding that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken, and then preaching about urgently-needed reform, without bothering to actually engage with its processes in any meaningful way.
In other words: before you continue your lectures on how DYK should function (many of which, such as the above, just describes how it does function), please consider reviewing more than two nominations, or promoting more than zero. If nothing else, there's an increased chance people will listen to you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of right this second, we're at 80. I'll switch at midnight.--Launchballer 20:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: @DYK admins: It's done.--Launchballer 00:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes 73 days (10 weeks) of backlog mode in 2025, compared to 47 days (7 weeks) in 2024. TSventon (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 (1 December)

[edit]

Tilly Norwood

[edit]

@Launchballer @Narutolovehinata5 @Usernameunique @AirshipJungleman29 - How do we feel about running an AI-generated image on the main page? I know some people won't exactly be too comfortable with it, including myself. Might be splitting hairs here, but I think, at this point in time, running an AI-generated image hook isn't the best idea. Z E T AC 21:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree, but I think we can IAR in this case because it's the actual article subject. I would be far far less comfortable running with an AI image if it was for a "regular" topic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't really think it's a good idea to run it regardless of the subject. Would you consider switching with one of the other hooks? Z E T AC 21:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you can point me to an actual policy violation. IDON'TLIKEIT is not that.--Launchballer 21:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context, and the fact that the hook expressly terms Norwood an "AI creation", it seems fine to me. If others have concerns, perhaps the caption could also reflect that it's AI, e.g., "AI creation Tilly Norwood" or "Tilly Norwood (AI creation)". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it's better to leave it as is then, it did feel like splitting hairs. There's also quite a couple discussions on LLM usage on Wikipedia ongoing. Z E T AC 22:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The LLM image policy allows for images that are themselves explicit subjects of commentary, as opposed to random AI images. However, we should not run such images with plain captions such as "Tilly Norwood" given the photorealism does not make it clear to a reader that it's not a fictional character. CMD (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, Usernameunique, and AirshipJungleman29: are we confident that the image is public domain? It is AI produced, but C:Commons:AI-generated media#United Kingdom says In the United Kingdom there is copyright protection for AI-generated media ... In deletion requests, it may therefore be necessary to determine whether the work was generated in the United Kingdom, and if this can be affirmed, deletion may be necessary. Particle6 appears to be a UK based company. TSventon (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then the image should probably be deleted, making this entire discussion moot. I was working under the assumption that the picture was public domain just like in the US. However, wouldn't the solution then be to generate an AI image in the US as a replacement? That would probably be a whole can of worms though and would be outside DYK's scope. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - I won't be the one to nominate it on Commons, but this is pretty significant to avoid a potential copyvio on the main page. That said, I did/do withdraw my earlier comments on running an AI-generated image, and I'm not opposed in this case. But we should not generate an image to bypass that. Z E T AC 00:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's mad. Alright, I suggest sending both it - and the video in the article - to c:Commons:Deletion requests.--Launchballer 01:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sent them there myself; Airship already pulled the nom.--Launchballer 18:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bring us back where we were, but Category:Files ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries exists for a reason- we can upload files locally if they're in the public domain in the US, even if they aren't PD in their home country. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean in practical terms? Can local files run at DYK?--Launchballer 20:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, unless there's some esoteric rule I'm not aware of? They just can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FallingGravity, I see you've uploaded a fair-use image here on English Wikipedia. What are your thoughts regarding the above option? Rjjiii (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale is a lot weaker for DYK entries since images aren't required and there's probably other hooks that have free images. FallingGravity 02:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the rule is that Main Page images need to be public domain or freely available everywhere (i.e. Commons-eligible). If the material is public domain in the US but not in its home country, and vice-versa, it doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this makes sense - the Main Page will be viewed in the UK and Hong Kong of course, so we can't run it without blocking the content in those countries (to my understanding). Z E T AC 03:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the main page has such a rule, though? Similarly, I don't think we block our UK readers from reading articles like Edge (magazine) or Cadbury, despite the fact that we use public domain logos that can't be uploaded to Commons.
Looking at past examples, Template:POTD/2014-11-12 showcased a rather wonderful picture of the Burj Khalifa, which had already been deleted on commons and re-uploaded locally. To be on the safe side, this looks to have been discussed extensively at FFD, where the major sticking point was not the fact it was uploaded locally, but rather that the source had been messed with and we needed to see that the original uploader had, in fact, uploaded it under the right license.
There's similar cases at Template:POTD/2017-05-01, Template:POTD/2016-07-19, Template:POTD/2022-10-18, Template:POTD/2023-04-28 to list a few I found.. DYK can set its own rules, but as far as I'm aware, it would be the only area of the site to restrict locally-uploaded PD photos. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2022 discussion on local images being OK at DYK. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is only fair-use images that are banned on the Main Page. There is some detail in the Main Page FAQ and this is the original 2007 discussion on the matter. Extension of this to exclude locally-hosted images would require a wider discussion, I think - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. One point of confusion though: if an image is uploaded locally because it is public domain in the US but not in its home country (or more rarely vice-versa), would that technically be fair use or fair dealing (or equivalent copyright exceptions in the home country), or it does not count as fair use because the important thing is the US? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not classed as fair use but public domain in the United States and, as the Wikimedia Foundation is located in California and the servers are hosted in Virginia this is fine. There is some more detail on this at Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights. It is a useful option to retain as determining if a file is public domain in the US is a lot more straightforwrard than determining if it is public domain in the US and its source country, which is the standard required to host at Commons - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow: Reading the FAQ again, it says that "only freely licensed images be used on the Main Page" and that "this excludes copyrighted images." Since the image is public domain in the US but not in its country of origin (the UK), does that mean it can still be allowed on the Main Page, or is this a gray area? Please correct me on this, but I actually do not remember a locally-uploaded image being featured on the Main Page before (whether it be for FA, ITN, DYK, OTD, etc.) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 "freely licensed" is only talking in terms of US law. We are not bound by UK law; that is merely a courtesy that Commons extends. If you'd like the English Wikipedia to block images not freely licensed in their source country, for main page content or otherwise, you're more than welcome to, but it would require an RFC.
I gave you several examples of locally-uploaded only images being used on the main page in a comment above.[2]
GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 16:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying I wanted them blocked. I was merely asking for a clarification since the current wording was vague. If that is the case, the wording has to be changed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 (4 Dec, set two)

[edit]

James Mange (nom)

[edit]

The current hook seems too complex since the descriptor for the subject is long and pushes his mention later into the hook, but I'm not sure how to trim it further. What would be the better option?

Normally I'd go for ALTb, but I think that the mention of him being a reggae musician could have also attracted more attention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for ALTa here - the political prisoner is the least interesting out of the three main facts here. Z E T AC 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curtesy pings to @Iostn, @Hybernator, @Dclemens1971 and @Theleekycauldron. TarnishedPathtalk 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i was only involved procedurally, so i'll leave the substantive issues to those more in the know. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALTa seems good to me. TarnishedPathtalk 23:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that AJ29 has already trimmed the hook into a hybrid of the two, so I guess this is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine by me Iostn (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggler's Cove (bar) (nom)

[edit]

Trying to get some extra clarification on this hook I just promoted. It feels a bit too lengthy to me, and I tweaked it a bit (switched the wording around) so it doesn't seem promotional ("offers" seems a bit too peacocky to me for some reason). Any suggestions for trimming this? @BanjoZebra: @HwyNerd Mike: courtesy pings. Z E T AC 15:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna hijack this thread, sorry Zeta, because this is a superlative claim hook ("widest selection of any bar in the United States") and the sources are a local paper (which tend to exaggerate and basically aren't reliable for nationwide superlative claims) and a listicle with some suspiciously glowing prose about the bars it's covering. I don't think the sources here are reliable enough for the exceptional claim being made. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the hook to omit the superlative claim entirely and to attribute the 1,300 figure. The article may need to be edited to reflect the changed wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, otherwise no comment. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 15:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thought so. Thanks for catching that. Z E T AC 16:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Merging noms

[edit]

I've never done this before, so I am kindly asking for help. Three scholars participating in a Wiki Education project have made three DYK noms: Template:Did you know nominations/KCNA2-related disorders, Template:Did you know nominations/KCNH1-related disorders and Template:Did you know nominations/Okur-Chung Neurodevelopmental Syndrome. Launchballer came up with the idea to merge the first two into a double hook; I recommended turning it into a triple hook. The problem is that we have centralized discussion over at KCNH1-related disorders. How do we point the other noms there? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make a note on two of the noms pointing to the third one, and then close them all as passed (or two as moot) when promoted. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should I do the reviews on each page or on the single, centralized nom? It sounds like you are saying treat them as separate until the very end. My thought was that everything should be centralized on one page, but I could see how that might be unusual to others. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One other issue is that two of the three nominators appear to be inactive right now, so this whole discussion may be moot if there's no one who could handle the relevant articles and address issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to address all of the issues because I think it is salvageable. I suppose this is treated like a typical multiple nom, but I've never worked on those before. Note, the only issue I can see is that there is a slight bit of consciousness raising going on, such that there is a connection between bringing awareness to these ultra-rare diseases, raising money for research, and educating the public about it. I'm assuming this is all in good faith. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I mean, there's no way to, like, merge the page histories, but i would still do all of the reviews in one place. just make a note on the other two pages that discussion is going to happen there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And make sure that the credits are transferred too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just to make sure I was covering all of the bases and wasn’t missing anything, I asked for input from WPMED. Bon courage thinks all the noms should be closed for various reasons. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected all three noms and made an informal protest by noting my objection to the way we do things in my closing comments. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce Lehrmann

[edit]

Previously this nomination was pulled from a que right before it was about to run on the main page due to WP:BLP and WP:DYKHOOKBLP concerns as the civil judgement against Lehrmann was the subject of appeal. Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 209#Bruce Lehrmann for previous discussion in WT:DYK.
Within the last hour and a bit Lehrmann's appeal has been dismissed by the Full Court of the Federal Court, with the appeal judges making findings against Lehrmann. going beyond the original trial judge. Please see https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/bruce-lehrmann-learns-fate-in-high-stakes-defamation-appeal-20251201-p5njr7.html.
I'm seeking a WP:IAR exemption to reoppen this and allow it to run. Pinging @Gatoclass, @LivelyRatification, @Earth605, @Narutolovehinata5, @Amakuru, @Bagumba, @Rjjiii, @AndyTheGrump and @Launchballer as involved editors. TarnishedPathtalk 00:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would be okay with allowing an IAR run given the circumstances, but given how the intended hook basically goes "Hey, did you know that this living person is a convicted criminal?", I am not exactly comfortable with running that angle. It is almost like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS case, or at least something along that spirit. Yes, I know that it is not a BLP violation per WP:BLPCRIME, but it still doesn't sound like a good idea. Sometimes, articles are just not good fits for DYK due to their content or subject, and I feel that this may be one of those cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the proposed hooks mentioned or hinted at any criminality and if needed further hooks could be proposed. TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is literally about his defamation case. I really do not think a hook about the case, regardless of his conviction, is a good idea here. It is still basically saying "Did you know that this guy is a criminal?", which raises concerns since this is a BLP (it might, but not necessarily assured, have been more acceptable if the subject was long deceased). Even if we go with a diffeent hook, if the best we can come up with is about his criminality, then perhaps it is better to not run the article at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the part of WP:BLP that either the hooks or the article are violating? TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, I don't think it should run, or at least not in its current state. HurricaneZetaC 00:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For others reading this discussion, it should be noted that several objections from the previous discussion were not just about the hook but also the article itself: they were concerned if it was proper to run the article at all given its subject matter and the subject's claim to notability. At least some of those concerns were also independent of the results of the appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The article still looks questionable to me. And frankly, I'm rather disappointed that nobody seems to be commenting on the 'Within the last hour and a bit' aspect here. Why the mad rush? Surely, if this appeal is of significance, there are going to be more sources, and the article is going to need updating. At this point, there are more important issues to deal with than an ephemeral DYK hook. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TarnishedPath, if I may ask, why do you want the article to still run on DYK despite past opposition and its prior rejection? As others have said, that effort and drive may have been better spent on other nominations and articles that are more suitable for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does anyone want to run on DYK? To get it showcased and hopefully get more interest in the subject matter. My reasons are no different to anyone else. Yes it was previously rejected, but those reasons are largely removed with this outcome. The main arguments against running it previously was that the civil judgement was the subject of appeal. TarnishedPathtalk 00:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I do not understand why you are particularly invested in this article specifically, when there are many other articles that could be created or brought to DYK standards. The effort being made here for an article that was already controversial to begin with seems like a waste of effort that could have been given to other articles instead. Remember that IAR unclosings are already rare to begin with, and usually those were closed due to technicalities rather an issue with the article itself. I do not see it wise to grant such an exemption just to run a hook that highlights a negative aspect about a living person's life.
If I may ask: were you also personally invested in the case in a non-Wiki capacity? By invested, I do not mean actually "involved", but rather emotionally invested in the case itself and its outcome. I'm asking because I otherwise can't see a reason why you would be so invested in this article and seeing it run on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no non-Wiki interest. I generally write on highly contentious topics as I find them more interesting. TarnishedPathtalk 01:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His lawyer is already talking about taking it to the high court. He's also on trial elsewhere for similar things. Personally I don't really see anything we gain from running this, especially with that information in the background. Plus it's a DYK about someone being found in a civil case to have raped someone. Let the nom rest.Basetornado (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article once again, I have ongoing misgivings about it, mainly that, although Lehmann has been accused of all sorts of things, he hasn't actually been convicted of any crimes in a court of law. Which quite frankly makes me question if there should even be a page on him at this stage.

What I will say is that it appears he is still facing a rape charge from an earlier accusation, and that he could still be tried for that. If so, and he was found guilty, I would certainly be in favour of running the article at that point. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't offer much hope to the nominator at this time. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No queues, admin required (resolved)

[edit]

{{DYK admins}} As there are no queues and there is (just under) 12 hours to go, it would be great if an admin is able to promote to a queue, as only admins can do so due to cascading protection to main page. JuniperChill (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

already done by Ganesha811 just mins after i posted the comment JuniperChill (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]
@Very Polite Person proposed, I approved and @AirshipJungleman29 promoted the hook "... the United States agreed Australian staff would support the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station in Alice Springs, but the United States Air Force runs it instead?" @Ravenpuff has subsequently changed the hook to "... that a research station in Alice Springs is run by the United States Air Force, although it was agreed that Australian staff would support it?" which changes the meaning, making it less interesting and has failed to ping anyone involved in the process. Please restore the promoted hook.

TarnishedPathtalk 12:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Seems reasonable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry TarnishedPath, I fail to see how the meaning is changed or the hook is less interesting; apologies for forgetting to ping you, but to me it was a simple trim of excess verbosity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the reworded hook lost the ordering of the events - it makes it sound like the base was simply run by the USAF and that as an aside, some Australians are also helping out with some support aspects. Whereas per the original hook, it makes clear that it was actually intended all along that Australians were supposed to run it, and that there was actually some sort of reneging of an agreement here, or at least that's what I'm taking from it (I haven't looked in detail at the actual sourcing).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, my contribution to this hook was just to rearrange the clauses in its wording, which had been originally amended by AirshipJungleman29. I'm happy with the current (restored) wording, only that I would introduce a "that" after "agreed" for extra clarity. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru completely correct. The agreement was that it was to be jointly run, given that it is on Australian territory. Then it turned out that the US was completely running it. That is more interesting than the changed hook. TarnishedPathtalk 23:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure how that comes through in the original hook either. It says “the US agreed that Australia would support the base” (but presumably the US still runs it) followed by “the USAF runs it” (i.e. no change). I feel like I’m missing something, but it's on the MP in seven minutes so no real point continuing this further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sneeze Achiu

[edit]
  • ... that Sneeze Achiu (pictured) had documents indicating he was white so that he would not be segregated from his teammates?

The article does not use the word white anywhere, it says the documents listed him as "Hawaiian-American-Caucausian" (including the quotes). While Caucasian and white might be acceptable synonyms for each other on their own, the inclusion of the Hawaiian-American suggests he was documented as some sort of mixed race, so I think that makes this misleading or inaccurate.

On a slightly less pressing note, I'm not sure "Sneeze Achiu" is the WP:COMMONNAME for him, most sources such as Britannica call him "Walter Achiu" while noting the Sneeze nickname further down the page. Pinging @ThaesOfereode, BeanieFan11, AirshipJungleman29, and Ganesha811: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified it to read 'Caucasian'. The new wording could be read to imply solely Caucasian, but I think that's fair to reflect the ambiguity in "Hawaiian-American-Caucasian". —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru. My reading of this was that the "Hawaiian-American" was the nationality section, not a racial category. During this period, Hawaii was not yet a state (rather a territory) and he would have been identified as a US national, but not necessarily a citizen (not sure how the law worked at this time). My understanding is that he would've been categorized as "Asian" ("Pacific Islander" was introduced with the 2000 Census afaik), but he was recorded as "Caucasian" to avoid segregation. Maybe "Hawaiian-American" was added to add plausible deniability as well? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK, no further objections then your honour. I think Ganesha's change to Caucasian definitely makes things a lot better anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, thanks! ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has the naming issue been addressed as well? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, but I'll take a stab at it. I think Sneeze is the better name here. Both NFL.com and pro-football-reference (Wikipedia's football stat site of choice) use Sneeze and he was typically billed as Sneeze during his wrestling career. I believe all of the yearbooks introduce him as Walter and then use Sneeze thereafter (cf. 1927 yearbook), but I'd have to double-check. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode: I'd be interested to hear any feedback you have on that... Not of relevance to the DYK run, but I may decide to start a WP:RM discussion on this one in the future. Per WP:NCBIO, "most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>" and I think that's what would make more sense here. It reminds me a little bit of the Andrew Flintoff vs Freddie Flintoff debate. While certain nicknames may be quite widely used, you still find the majority of sources use the actual given name on first mention.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 (11 December)

[edit]

Eurovision Song Contest 1965 (nom)

[edit]

According to the article, Kirby "supposedly stormed into the Luxembourgish delegation's dressing room, claiming the contest had been rigged in Gall's favour, and slapped her" (emphasis mine). If the slap is "supposed", then why are we stating it in the hook as an established fact? Also, the "supposed" angle carries a bit of WP:WEASEL about it too. If there is doubt about it then we should say so in the article, explaining why. Or if it's stated in a particular source but we don't think it sufficiently well-established to say it in WikiVoice, then it should be attributed per WP:INTEXT. @Sims2aholic8, JuneGloom07, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, you're right, I totally skipped over the "supposedly" when I looked at the article. I suggested the ALT3 hook as a tweak to the original nominated hook, and per the source which doesn't say "supposedly" (at least in the translated version). If it cannot be used, could we switch to ALT2? That one is cited to two EBU sources in the Legacy section and doesn't contain any WEASEL words. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the source doesn't say supposedly, and it's something that is cited as having definitely happened, then we can just remove supposedly from the article I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed it. HurricaneZetaC 17:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (6 December)

[edit]

Greening the Rubble (nom)

[edit]

Slightly minor point perhaps, but the article suggests that the "greening the rubble" process has largely finished now, being established in the wake of the 2010 earthquake and renaming itself in 2019. The hook phrases this in the present tense as if it's still going on... @AirshipJungleman29, Panamitsu, and Miraclepine:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would changing "green" to "greened" work? ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it's an excellent hook. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 (12 December)

[edit]

Leon Russianoff (nom)

[edit]

@UpTheOctave!, Maximilian775, and HurricaneZeta: Maybe it's just me, but the hook seems only mildly interesting at best. Is it considered unusual for an orchestra's section to have shared a teacher? Maybe the hook is a bit too abstract for it to be that attention-grabbing. Maybe ALT2, or perhaps even a revised version of ALT0, would be a better option here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do agree that ALT2 would work, but I don't really see too much of an issue with the current blurb personally. It feels interesting to me. Not a big music person, but someone being such a good teacher/musician that every player of their instrument in a major orchestra having learnt from them seems interesting. ALT2 is interesting as well, didn't have formal training, yet was considered the best etc. But don't really see a need for a change.Basetornado (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed the most interesting to me, but ALT2 is ok as well. HurricaneZetaC 17:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that in a country as large as the United States and an orchestra as prestigious as the NYP, it would be unusual for all the players to study under one person. It says something about the ability and quality of the teacher. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hook is fine, but I do want to point out this is another instance of what is interesting to some is not interesting to others. It is extremely common for a select group of musicians to share a popular teacher. UpTheOctave says otherwise up above, but I disagree with them. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it's "extremely common ... to share a popular teacher", but I think it's a mistake to apply that logic here. While there is certainly something to be said about clustering and geographic connections, I would maintain that having all four players of this section in particular be trained by a common teacher is an unlikely occurrence. It wasn't like Russianoff was without colleagues or contemporaries either: David Weber, Kalmen Opperman, and Joseph Allard come to mind, all of whom taught in the NY area at various points overlapping with Russianoff. I think the context matters here. I'm not oblivious that the context may not be immediately obvious to the average person, so I would be fine with something like ALT2 if deemed needed ;) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5 and Queue 6

[edit]

@Amakuru per WP:DYKVAR, shouldn't there not be two images of people in consecutive sets? Or is it a bit different because one is a painting? HurricaneZetaC 17:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HurricaneZeta: I have no idea to be honest, and as promoting admin I don't tend to get involved too much with decisions of that nature, I'm mainly on the look out for factual, MOS and policy issues rather than the intricacies of DYK scheduling. Pinging @TechnoSquirrel69 and TarnishedPath: who made the picture hook decisions for those particular sets while they were in prep. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I built that queue before the Durrani portrait had been set, or I probably would've picked a different image. I'm not opposed to swapping queues as necessary to reduce the repetition. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sasanian relief discovered in England

[edit]

I've just created an entry which worth a DYK: an 81-kg Sasanian relief discovered in England which turned out to be hacked out from the living rock from an identified location in Fars, Iran. --Z 14:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZxxZxxZ: it looks interesting, why not nominate it yourself? TSventon (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need a better title than Sasanian relief, & don't we have a photo? Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 25 nominations that need reviewing, all of those in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 29. We have a total of 331 nominations, of which 247 have been approved, a gap of 84 nominations that has decreased in size by 23 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Tan Boon Chiang

[edit]
  • ... that Tan Boon Chiang awarded four cases of PepsiCo soft drinks to each worker in Singapore after rejecting their claim for higher wages?

@BenTanXiaoMing, Toadboy123, and HurricaneZeta: where does the "each worker in Singapore" come from? Unless I'm missing something, the article and source say that this judgement was only for the 200 or so workers of a specific company. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Amakuru, Olliefant in this edit, you edited the hook from "most" (moderately interesting) to "a large number" (not fascinating, and what is "large"?)

I mean, it is in the lead but I tried not to interfere with the DYK process. Among the elections listed we have:

  • President: contested
  • Senate: contested
  • Representative: contested
  • Gov: contested
  • Lt. Gov.: contested
  • Insurance Commissioner: contested
  • state Senate: the text says "all but two" which is 8/10 (unfortunately the number of contested seats not mentioned)
  • state House: 20/41 uncontested
  • county elections:
New Castle: 1 executive + 5/6 unopposed councillors
Kent: 3/3 councillors
Sussex: 2/3 councillors
Mayor of Wilmington: unopposed

In total, I count 70 elections, of which 40 positions were unopposed. This qualifies for the "majority" label, and it's definitely going to be better. We could specify that this concerns "major" elections (county- and statewide level), as we don't mention elections for every mayor in every village in Delaware.

What is needed to salvage the original version? Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 06:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the wording in the article. I think the original wording in the hook should be restored Olliefant (she/her) 06:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]