Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations

Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.

I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.

One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.

One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course (timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• How do these professors even know there is such a thing as DYK to point their students at? Most of them aren't actually editors themselves. Ian (Wiki Ed)Is there a way to remove DYK from the teaching modules? Because this is burdening an already overburdened system, and frankly it's not doing a damn thing for the students. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee Long ago it was an option, so some instructors who've been around a long time know of it. We removed that quite a few years ago (although we still have a help guide that gets emailed to students when they do nominate an article).

  As for how people find things beyond that...I've had some really strange questions over the years, like "I followed the instructions [here]", and they point to some ancient set of instructions somewhere on Commons, or a YouTube video. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, the out-of-date instructions I just found today for enabling something on my phone...thanks, that's interesting history here. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Ian (Wiki Ed): Will WikiEdu be able to commit to a solution, or at least propose one, that can help prevent this from happening again? This has been a perennial issue for years and despite multiple discussions here about them, it appears that nothing has actually been done so far. Either clearer instructions have to be given to instructors regarding how DYK works, DYK itself has to become more involved in helping out these nominations, or DYK should be removed as a course requirement until changes are made. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Censorship by copyright pulled

There was a report at Errors concerning the Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged (Template:Globalize), with Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the admin instructions have read article and copyedit as an optional component. Schwede66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, just letting you know that I'm about to go tramping (aka hiking); back in 36 hours or so. Schwede66 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is deeply unfair on several levels; first, it allows one to spuriously tag an article about to be DYKed or just DYKed and demand it to be pulled, likely not eligible for re-DYKing. Second, I don't agree with this being called in need of significant globalization - as Schwede notes, the list of examples is globalized. And the concern about the prose being focused on NA issues is highly debatable. DMCA and American copyright legislation have wide-ranging international application. Besides, prose mentions non-NA legislation like European Union's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Later, the prose discusses European history (ex. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers to suppress texts it deemed problematic, such as anti-Cromwellian and anti-Caroline satirical writings) as well as the concept of the Global South. This is something to be discussed on the talk page, not something that should lead to emergency DYKpull, but bottom line, IMHO the article was incorrectly orange tagged and should not have been pulled from the main page. Last but not least, best practices when tagging articles require that the tagger starts a discussion on the talk page - this was not done. Nor was the globalize template even explained in the edit summary. So we have bad templating followed by a bad pull. Ironically, this seems like some sort of "censorship by tagging". I request that this is restored for the main page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would WP:IAR support it being added to a later set of hooks because it was pulled early. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I felt bad @Piotrus: and I pinged you at errors. It does feel unfair that editors driveby tagged the article while it was on the main page. I felt like the article was comprehensive enough for DYK in that form and could have included those items later. Our own AirshipJungleman29 also tagged the article. As BlueMoonset has said below it would probably be unfair to run it again because it was live for the majority of the runtime. I can agree with the @Launchballer: suggestion about adding it as a tenth if that idea gains support. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be opposed to another run on the main page. The hook was up for over 19 hours, which is significantly more than hooks get when we're running two sets a day. It's too bad that it didn't get the full 24 hours, but it got over 80% of the time—and 160% of what a 12-hour hook gets. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm broadly of the view that pulled hooks should resume where they left off, as a tenth hook.--Launchballer 22:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Requires an admin to add it back. If you can find one willing, go ahead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am fine with it being run at a 10th hook for ~5h, that's a fair compromise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a neat way to go about it. I'm also supportive of Launchballer's suggestion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated the hook as there's consensus to do so. Schwede66 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/One Chun (ALT hooks need checking)
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK)
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Kaneiolouma Complex
• April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Axel Downard-Wilke
• April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Classy 101 (ALT needs checking)
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/George Henry Jenkins
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind (ALT needs checking)
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvio Porcel de Peralta
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Joanne McCarthy (basketball)
• April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Emerald Archer (Arrow episode)
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Croxton
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Toy Town
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Ugly Black Bird
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Brandy Hellville & the Cult of Fast Fashion
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Cosmic Ray (film)
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic Yemeni Union of Peasants
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Nighat Arif
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Kikunosuke Toya
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlize Mörz
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Estoppey D-series

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

Hi all

Please could I ask someone to look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination was rejected with only the comment With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines states that 'Rejected' should only be used for an "article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible" which isn't true (I fixed the issue raised in 10 mins). Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Replied there.--Launchballer 09:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Hal Malchow

I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here, but since we're putting a WP:BDP on the main page with an accusation of a crime, it wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on it. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the accusation of a crime by someone who died mere weeks ago, though he was never convicted or even charged with it: a negative hook when we're not supposed to do that to real people while they're alive or within a couple of years of their death. Can this nomination be pulled while a new hook is proposed and reviewed? (The other hook listed in the nomination template is neither well written nor interesting, so not an adequate substitute.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with BlueMoonset. Schwede66 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@SWinxy, Elias Ziade, and PrimalMustelid: see the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, although I have no ability to remove a promoted hook in queue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Pulled. RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith, I've plugged the hole in Q2. PrimalMustelid, as you are not an admin, you cannot edit the queue (i.e. there was no expectation for you to do so; you were invited to comment here). Schwede66 19:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm liking this new 9-hook thing. It makes pulling a hook a lot less painful; if we find one to replace it with, great. If not, the world won't end if we go with 8. RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset Good point, I agree with pulling the nomination. It's important to handle accusations sensitively. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Self (EP)

The source says I must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs, which turned into the stronger he stated he "listened to snippets of 100,000 songs" in the article, which in turn got turned into the even stronger statement Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of more than 100,000 songs in wiki-voice for the hook. I think this needs to be rephrased. RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And on the copyright front, there's a lot of word-for-word between the article and https://www.sonar.pictures/the-stratospheric-colossus-of-sound-20 (and some other sources). Earwig has the details. I'm not great at figuring out who copied from who, so this needs another set of eyes to look it over. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, but 1) I would add quotes to the hook material in question (which solves the problem), and 2) Sonar.pictures looks like they copied the content from Wikipedia in an example of backwards copyvio, but again, I'm just guessing. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sonar.pictures is very clearly the one who copied from Wikipedia. Regarding the hook, it was an error to say "more" than 100,000 songs. However, I think just removing that word would make it fine. Skyshiftertalk 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Approving hooks individually instead of by set

As a result of a recent ERRORS discussion, a hook had to be pulled. This was no-one's fault in particular and there are bound to be false positives. One of the users pointed out that were hooks to be approved individually instead of by set, it would likely prevent many pulls and corrections. It would also reduce load on any individual sysop since they're not required to go through five hooks when approving. Instead, they may approve as many or as few as they'd like when they wish to work on this.

I'm posting this here because ERRORS gets wiped daily and the discussion is long gone. Pinging Amakuru and Schwede66 as people who weighed in. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need another discussion on this topic? I'm fairly sure that after the last one, we came to the conclusion that this is perfectly viable right now. I certainly remember individual hooks being approved in prep sets a week or two ago (EDIT: see this example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is that this needs a well-defined mechanism for how to implement it, and one that is understood by, and communicated to, all admins who work on DYK. I don't see any recent updates to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions that would suggest a new system is in place. First choice would be something technical, whereby the current {{DYKbotdo}} template, which automatically authorises the whole set, is replaced with a hook-by-hook sign-off. Then the bots can be adjusted to (a) not push a set to the main page if any are outstanding, and (b) provide suitable early warnings here at WT:DYK if a set has missing sign-offs and is imminent for promotion. I think the principle that one admin handles the whole set is still proabbly broadly a good one, but this adds in an extra level of security. Second choice would be a manual system where maybe the hooks all start with some sort of flag on them, and you remove them one by one as you check the hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need an extra layer of security? If yes, can we afford an extra layer of security? —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Individual hook approvals would help to put more blame on individual admins. Given how many admins we have at DYK, I think this is not a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that concern, Kusma. Hook sets get signed off by individual admins and they are thus responsible for the hooks in the set. If individual hooks get signed off by admins, then they are responsible for those individual hooks. There is no difference whatsoever that I can spot. Schwede66 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur that we previously agreed that signing off individual hooks for the main page can be done. We do this very occasionally. I agree with Amakuru's thinking that it's worthwhile to change the process of how hooks make it to the main page. Hear me out.

In my view, it is worthwhile to redesign the process of signing off on hooks for the main page so that signing off on individual hooks becomes the default. The following are descriptions of how we go about this task today, how we could redesign it in the future, followed by thoughts on why the redesign would have benefits.

At present, the most common process is as follows:

1. promote the next set to queue using PSHAW
2. undertake the required hook checks; some admins do this in one go and others do it over a longer period (up to several days)
3. start discussions at WT:DYK if needed
4. send hooks back to prep or reopen the nomination; possibly replacing the hook with another one
5. at the right time, Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot puts the set onto the main page and sends out credits (using the name of the admin who promoted the set)

What I suggest we do instead is as such (and where things change, I've emphasised the text as such):

1. review an individual hook in one of the upper prep sets and sign it off (how the signing off happens is something that needs designing; Amakuru is suggesting that we could have flags that get removed through the review process)
2. start discussions at WT:DYK if needed
3. send hooks back to prep or reopen the nomination; possibly replacing the hook with another one
4. once the top hook set has all its hooks signed off, a bot records the names of each user who signed off each hook, and promotes the set to queue
5. at the right time, Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot puts the set onto the main page and sends out credits (using the names of the admins who signed off on each hook)

The benefits that I see are as follows:

• The main reason why queues are often empty is that it's a huge time commitment to take on a full set. I've seen in various discussions that others say that it takes them at least an hour to do all the checks. I've never been able to get through this in under two hours (maybe I'm just slow; maybe I'm too thorough). If you tackle one hook at a time, it's a commitment that is way less demanding.
• Redesigning the process so that reviewing individual hooks, as opposed to a full set, becomes the norm should thus result in queues being empty way less frequently.
• A minor side issue is that those hooks that currently get approved individually go out with the wrong credit; it shows the admin's name who promoted to queue rather than the admin who reviewed the individual hook.
• This system removes one set of potential error, and that is that not all the reviews happened after the promoting admin didn't do all the checks. It's inherently unsafe to promote first and then check. We all do it—to avoid edit conflicts—but no doubt that is how a lot of stuff that ends up at Errors has slipped through the cracks.
• Another potential source of errors is when the queues are empty and we issue a call to admins who aren't DYK regulars to come and give a helping hand. There is heaps to know how DYK works and admins without that background knowledge can easily miss things; it's not as simple as just following the admin instructions. I'd rather see the regulars deal with promotions to the main page than admins with little experience how DYK works. Hence it's important to have a system in place that minimises the risk of the queues running empty.

What do you think? Do the benefits that I've identified make sense to you? If so, is it thus worth the effort of redesigning the system? Schwede66 04:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point, my default is procedure #2. That's something that's already been discussed and happened, so no reason not to just make sure every admin knows it's an acceptable procedure. I don't think we need regular DYK admins for it, either. Any admin who is simply a DYK regular could handle that without the risk of introducing errors. And I'd be willing to do the actual simple move of a set that had been checked by other admins.

Re: credits. I certainly don't care whether I get the "credit" for checking an individual hook. The admin doing the actual move can have it as far as I'm concerned. So if we can't get consensus for a bot, this would still work as the default expectation of admins working here.

In the event we could gain consensus here for bot promotions of sets in which every hook is marked as checked: I'd support that. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sets needing promotion

@DYK admins: There are only a few queue sets left, and the number of unpromoted hooks is climbing up quickly. Let’s start promoting them before the schedule reverts to the 12 hour mark, please. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Destinies of the Soul

The hook says the only book that contained human skin but the article just says it was the only one of the three books that were tested. For all we know, there are others that weren't found because they weren't tested. So this needs to be qualified with something like "believed to be". RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Forever Young (Blackpink song)

The hook fact is sourced to https://sbsstar.net/, which doesn't strike me as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't there also a Blackpink hook in queue 2? I recommend kicking this one back.--Launchballer 22:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The article uses a different source, which seems to be an Indonesian news site of some kind. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but given that the fact isn't a contentious claim and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to doubt its authenticity, the Indonesian source might be fine for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)