We already have our regularly scheduled set for Christmas every year, and Christmas is ultimately a Christian holiday (even if it is celebrated by many non-Christians due to secularization). However, I don't think we've ever had a full set about Eid al-Fitr, one of the two main holidays in Islam (along with Eid al-Adha). In many Muslim countries, Eid al-Fitr is a far bigger celebration than Christmas. Even as a Roman Catholic myself, it feels weird that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet we have yet to do a set for it when we've done sets for other celebrations. I'm aware that such a set has been mooted in the past, but for whatever reason the idea has never gained traction.
This year, Eid al-Fitr will be around March 19 (the exact date depends on the country or location). Should we do an Islam-related set around that time? The above discussion regarding special sets says that we should be encouraging broader sets, not more narrowly minded ones, so I don't see it being difficult to have a whole set about Islam, Islam-related celebrations, or even facts from predominantly Muslim countries. If DYK could work together on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day set, or one editor can make an entire set about a single American school, I can't see why DYK can't run a set about the world's second-largest religion. If the reception to this is good, I can imagine us also doing another set for Eid al-Adha around May 27, and perhaps for either set or even both to become regular scheduled sets moving forward ala Christmas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few ideas about potential articles... I could probably throw together something on Para Perintis Kemerdekaan for a more heavily Islamic themed hook, though unfortunately most of my Indonesian sources are no longer with me. (I also have plans to write Pak Kasur [id], but even though he was from a Muslim-majority country his output was very non-denominational.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all, but if you're going to propose sets, I would like to see you also contribute to the same set you propose. I think it's odd for people to propose a set, like a Philippines-related set, but not contribute to the same set. In other words, people who propose a set should have some skin in the game in helping to make the set happen. Simply proposing a random set isn't helpful, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, while I'd love to participate myself, Islam and other related topics are outside my line of expertise, so it would be difficult for me to write such articles. However, perhaps if there are any Muslim anime personalities or something Islam-related that is also anime-related, perhaps I could chime in with a hook or two. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, the only way she could run again at DYK is if the article is brought to GA status, which might be a tall order given the timeframe we have. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support one set in March or May, provided there is a sufficient number proposed. I do not support making it an annually scheduled set or scheduling a second Eid set this year until we can evaluate participation and response. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Idea is great. We need to find the relevant topics. Not necessarily about religious articles, but there can be some articles about sweet dishes as well which can be featured on Eid al-Fitr and about meat dishes on Eid al-Adha. Otherwise, we can make a set about the films and media which subject around Eids. M.Billoo05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like either the IWD set or the MLK set where we are on the lookout for new article creations about Islamic countries and Islam, and see if they can fit. We could also see if any of our open or approved nominations fit too. To make things easier, the set probably does not have to be entirely Eid-focused, the hooks just have to focus on Islam or an Islamic country (like how the MLK and IWD sets are broad in topic). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, albeit this is well outside of my comfort zone. Looking at WT:ISLAM#Article alerts, I see two DYK nominations, two GA candidates, and about half a dozen AfC submissions. I see also that @EasternShah: has also posted on the WikiProject's talk page. In short, filling a set shouldn't be tricky.--Launchballer10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the two DYK nominations do not seem appropriate. The first nomination is likely to be rejected on article quality and hook accuracy grounds, while the second nomination is about a Boko Haram leader and is probably not the best option to be featured. The two GA nominations have yet to be reviewed, so they are possibilities if they are reviewed soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled together Para Perintis Kemerdekaan and nominated it with a request to hold for Eid. If we get anything more specifically about Eid, great, but I think the link between the film and Islam is strong enough to make it a viable choice. (On an unrelated note, Kompas increased its database rates from 35k rupiah to 99k rupiah per article... this may be my last Indonesian article citing archival resources). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While the intention is good, this would be an Eid al-Fitr set and not an Indonesia set, so ideally we'd want multiple Islam-related articles from across various countries and regions. If we ever decide to have an Indonesia set on August 17, that at least would be a possibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is my area of expertise. I'm not saying we'd have to run them all, but Indonesia is also the world's largest Muslim majority country, so two hooks would not be amiss. The only other topic that is coming to mind is about a fikh concept of spouses failing to do their duties, which would not be appropriate for Eid. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some more thought needs to be put into identifying the "theme" of this set (see my comment below). The proposed hooks all have ties to Islam as a religion, but from what I can tell there is not a single proposed hook directly connected to the Eid al-Fitr festival. When we run a holiday set, it doesn't mean it is a catch all for other topics. I know Christmas was raised as a "Christian holiday" (although many of our hooks for Christmas are not religious as Christmas is also a secular holiday celebrated by non Christians) but we don't use Christmas themed sets to run hooks on theologians (unless they are directly Christmas connected) or on churches (unless again the hook is directly connected to Christmas), or Christian films in general (unless they are Christmas films). If we are going to just allow anything connected to Islam run we should just say so. Then we could just run it sometime during Ramadan in general and not necessarily have to tie it into Eid al-Fitr specifically. I also note there are articles being identified that are not even tied directly to Islam/religion, such as the Canal of Zubaidah (which I guess is sort of tied to Islam with the pilgrims thing but it is a stretch). The article selection is very odd. In future I would support an annual Ramadan set, but require all of the hooks to follow a Ramadan theme (ie not Islam in general but specific holiday themed hooks tied to Ramadan). It's probably too late to do that this year, but something to implement in 2027. 4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished reviewing both of these nominations. They should be good to once the hook issues are addressed. For other interested editors, be on the lookout for Islam-related new creations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, thank you for the mention, I really appreciate it. And thanks to everyone for the encouragement and interest. This project will only grow stronger with your ideas, participation, and support. Looking forward to working together and making Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 a meaningful and collaborative effort. Warm Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)09:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added another one, as well as notes about country and topic to make diversification easier. I realize that makes two Indonesia suggestions; the way I see it, if we have more than enough for a full set, we can run one at another time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The hooks in most these do not appear to be directly related to the Eid al-Fitr festival. Simply being muslim or writing on an Islam related topic isn't clearly connected to Eid al-Fitr, anymore than writing on a Christian theologian would be about Christmas (we wouldn't accept that for Christmas hooks). I don't think these are meeting the intended targeted theme. If we are going to have an Eid al-Fitr set the hooks need to be directly linked to Eid al-Fitr. From what I am seeing, this has not been thought through. We need to either reject the topics clearly not related to Eid al-Fitr and create articles that are related to nominate (option 1); or change the targeted scope to reflect these nominations as encompassing of Islam in general (option 2); or abandon this idea altogether (option 3). I'm not supportive of continuing down the current path as is. Themed sets need to clearly implement the intended theme.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One reason for the apparent lack of "theme" is a reaction to the William & Mary set. It was criticized for being too focused on one topic and mentioning the school's name repeatedly may have contributed to the set's poor reception. By having a set about Islam in general rather than just Eid, that would at least take into account the "broad yet still themed" idea. Also, while the set is planned to run on Eid al-Fitr, it was never intended to be a purely Eid set from the start but a general Islam set, just one that happens to run on the holiday. I don't recall us ever running an Islam-focused set before, so this would be a good time to try one out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Even Wiki Loves Ramadan, which benefits from the entire month, allows "rich cultural practices, Islamic heritage, and biographies of significant Islamic figures" rather than specifically things that occur during Ramadan. If you have any articles you feel are a better fit, please feel free to nominate them and mark them above. Unfortunately, neither Eid al-Adha nor Eid al-Fitr enjoy the same access to sources due to systemic bias – the average English Wikipedia editor knows little of Islam, nor the languages used in Muslim-majority countries where specific local Eid celebrations are practiced. Even with my background living in a Muslim majority country, I had to wrack my brain to come up with ideas that were geographically and thematically diverse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think we should refer to this as an “Islam themed set” going forward so it is clear that is the intended topic target. We can run it at the time of the 2026 Eid al-Fitr event but I would not refer to it as a “Eid al-Fitr set” as that is confusing for hook selection and submission purposes. We should be clear that the hook set theme is broadly the Islam religion.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 20 February 2026
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– To me, the title "Recent additions" implies that all new articles on Wikipedia are listed on this page, which is not the case. That list is at Special:NewPages. Wikipedia:Recentadditions is instead "a record of material that was featured on the Main Page as part of Did you know (DYK)." I can remember being quite confused by the title of this page in the past so I assume that a lot of other people have experienced the same thing. I couldn't find any indication anywhere that this move request has happened before so I apologise if it has and the consensus was to keep the current title. Panamitsu✨22:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this does happen, a few bots like DYKUpdateBot and GalliumBot which read off that page will need to be reconfigured. This page isn't the best venue for this since there are lots of topics added every day (this one got buried). HurricaneZetaC17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, solely on the basis that its more intuitive and thus would help newer users. Its a good thing to encourage newer editors to contribute content, in however small a way that may be. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 05:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if there's consensus for this move, the closer should not perform the move automatically. Like Zeta said, Shubinator and I will need to push updates to our bots, otherwise things break. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noting that Earwig is generating 403 errors, so will assess this set for that another time, and that this was technically queued a few seconds after midnight but I suggest that we go for another three 2-a-day spurt anyway - we still hit seven queues before the current one was moved.--Launchballer01:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DYKHOOK, "Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most are discouraged as they are regularly debunked at ERRORS. Such hooks require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient." I don't think anyone's ever analysed a set of every Lego film ever made.--Launchballer09:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is one thing, but I don't think it's possible to check it in the first place. And, after googling, I see that our article says "The earliest known brickfilm was a German advertisement for Lego, released in circa 1960. It features various brick-built animal characters, including dogs, cats, and camels, all animated using stop-motion. Little information is known about the advertisement, other than it was released for German cinemas. A display featuring the advertisement is located in the History Collection of Lego House, in Billund, Denmark.". I'm going to let someone else check the validity of that claim and bump this.--Launchballer09:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That claim may be true. However, this was the first true short film we know of (i.e. not a commercial) that was a brickfilm. That is something there is a lot of agreement about. Slate mentions it in both the article and the headline. ACMI states that "the first known brick film was created by Danish kids Lars C. Hassing and Henrik Hassing," and Vox states that "it’s widely considered to be the first time anyone made a motion picture with Lego blocks". I can see where those could be viewed as "throwaway comment in the article," but all of the sources that cover it do so in the context of that fact. However, to suit this, I'll propose a more explanatory hook: "... that En rejse til månen, often considered to be the first amateur film made with Lego, was not released publicly until forty years after it was created?" NewAccount7295 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would people be okay with simply avoiding mentioning the "first" claim altogether, or do editors believe the "first" claim is essential? Is there an issue with going with just "... that En rejse til månen, a 1973 amateur film made with Lego, was not released publicly until forty years after it was created?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could swap it with that (or with the alternate hook I suggested here [1] since it reframes it to state that it is often considered the first, per several sources. Also, the use of amateur is accurate since the commercial from the 1960s was official). If we gain agreement on which to use, maybe we could swap it back to Queue 2 or Queue 3 move it up to a sooner queue? NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the hook, but I've restored the under discussion tag as the sourcing concern I mentioned above has not been addressed yet. I see that an alternative has been proposed, but that would need to be incorporated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After promoting to queue, I've changed this to " ... that En rejse til månen, a 1973 amateur film made with Lego, was not released publicly until forty years after it was created" as suggested above to match the consensus here and to better meet WP:V. Rjjiii (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta, ScalarFactor, and 1brianm7:
Two things. One, the source given in the article doesn't seem to contain this. Secondly, the hook says "around 30" but the source the nom claims has it mentions "nearly 30", and these aren't the same thing.--Launchballer01:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source in the article has it in the last paragraph, "Nearly 30 of the Scottish distilleries of which Barnard wrote are long gone". The word could be changed from "around" to "nearly". It could also be changed to one of the other hooks (I personally find ALT3 or ALT3a much more interesting) 1brianm7 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source is used in the article under the Legacy header, which backs it up like 1brianm7 said, yes. I just said 'around' because I thought it sounded better than 'nearly', but if it's an issue it can be changed on an ALT can be used. ScalarFactor (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure if this is actually an issue, but Queue 2 currently has two hooks that are both book articles written by me, which might violate the spirit of WP:DYKVAR, if not the letter. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely be using one of the other hooks here (probably one of the ALT3s which was flagged as the most interesting in the nom, but later changed?). Firstly, this hook isn't actually that interesting - it is unsurprising that some businesses would not have existed 100 years after a survey was done (in fact, I'm surprised it was as few as 30). Secondly, it suggests the distillery business in Scotland is declining, when in fact there are over 150 whisky distilleries today. Black Kite (talk)12:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was the one that stuck out to me the most when promoting. It can be swapped to an ALT if consensus here is that it's not interesting, but before that how about changing "around" to "close to"? HurricaneZetaC19:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify ALT0, but ALT1's source contains the quote: "Our hypothesis links it to a series of xenophobic musical compositions that circulated with great success from the mid-19th century in England and Germany, and with which it shares notable similarities. They all originate from a composition by the American Septimus Winner, which uses Native Americans as the object of ridicule, replaced by Black children in other versions." Black Kite (talk)10:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've added McCullough published her second and best-known book to the article, which is supported by "The novel that consumes her legacy, The Thorn Birds (1977)..." in the source. MCE89 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hex Maniac was in the right place. We're on day three of spurt four, which means the sets are scheduled to run at noon, 24, 25, 26, and 27.--Launchballer03:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the high Arctic relocation and the Home Children are sufficiently different situations that we don't need to worry about any overlap. Personally, I prefer ALT1 since I think the image is more striking (and it doesn't work as well with ALT0) but OK with whatever consensus decides. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21: Thanks for working on that! I'm not seeing a statement in the source you introduced that verifies the charges against Caouissin. The BBC source right after it mentions that he was charged, but not what the charges were. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a contentious topic and is scheduled to run in a few days, I've pulled it from prep per the "contentious hooks and articles are subject to greater scrutiny" guideline. It would probably be better for this to be discussed without a time limit than having to rush things, given obvious sensitivities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: non-neutral would need to imply who is to blame. The wording is intended to do the opposite - simply state factually that both sides blame the other. That is one thing that everyone agrees on. Would you be comfortable if we track the source more closely - replace “there is a blame game over” with “there is a dispute over who is to blame for”?
On footnotes, the longest is 193 words. Per our discussion on this a few months ago at Template:Did you know nominations/Walls of Babylon, that is well within the 250-300 limit for free use. And given the sensitivity around this topic, the quotations are invaluable to help editors and readers verify it.
Agree – it's like saying that it's raining is non neutral because it implies people have got wet. They might have, but that's irrelevant. It is an undisputed fact that it is raining. Just as it is an undisputed fact that people are blaming each other over this issue.
Does anyone object if we just track the wording in the source?
to me, blame game and dispute over who is to blame do imply that someone should be blamed, thought that could just be me reading it too literally. ltbdl (kiss) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding sources that use that phrasing; I'm fine with the hook using it in that case. I agree that delinking it would be better. Onceinawhile, thanks for the reminder of our previous discussion; I thought the situation seemed familiar. Since it seems there are no further concerns, I've reapproved the nomination. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are now open preps for February 27, it should be time to re-promote Hex Maniac into one of the two preps. I think there are currently two approved Pokémon-related hooks and a few others that are waiting for an approval. Since a full or partial set is not happening, could Hex Maniac be moved to one of the sets? Ideally the first one since it would be February 27 for most of the world during its run. Since February 27 will have two sets, maybe we could have at least one Pokémon hook per set? Unless we move back to one-a-day before the 27th (probably unlikely given the current backlog, but still), in which case there could be two hooks in the set instead.
Hex Maniac is now where it should be. We're on day two of spurt three; if we enter a fourth, I suggest adding another to the next set.--Launchballer00:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reviewed Drill Dozer: if we are still running two-sets a day by the 27th, it could go in the second set, but if it's down to one-a-day, it could stay in the main set (or possibly on a later date if there are more than two Pokémon-related hooks ready for promotion). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and @Narutolovehinata5, Prep 1 and 2 were full until a few minutes ago when I cleared up a space in Prep 2 to make way for the Base Set nomination. However, upon review of that nomination I found 5 citation needed tags in the article. I've requested @Cukie Gherkin correct that.
I'm presuming that we go to 1-a-day tomorrow. We can always move the Hex Maniac hook again if we go for another spurt.--Launchballer04:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Moved to queue 1, which heads out on 27 February for either 12 or 24 hours - courtesy ping to HurricaneZetaC. Can you do me a favour and promote Professor Oak and Smeargle to prep 2? If we run two that day, that means there's still two in the second set, and I should be able to check that set in the morning.--Launchballer00:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! However, given the recent complaints about the W&M set and concerns about promotion, I'm wondering if it would be possible to reword some of the promoted hooks to avoid mentioning "Pokémon" by name, or if it would be impractical. I'm worried that either a third-party editor or a reader would complain about why we are running four Pokémon hooks in one day (if they are unaware of Pokémon Day), so de-emphasizing the series' name might help avoid that issue. The Professor Oak hook does not mention Pokémon so that's good; however, I'm not sure if is possible to do so for Smeargle given the nature of the hook fact. My suggestion would have been to have a maximum of one hook per set that directly mentions "Pokémon", while the other hook would omit stating the name. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second set should be fine since only Smeargle's hook says "Pokémon", but I'm less sure about the first set. I'm having trouble in finding a way for either the Base Set or the Hex Maniac hooks to avoid mentioning the series while still retaining the main point. My guess would be that Base Set might be more practical to reword since I think that a card set of any card game turning out to be fake despite being bought for millions is interesting, though I will leave it to other editors regarding a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask this question as well. I recently completed my first DYK review. According to WP:DYKRI, a comment should be left for one's first few reviews, stating you would like a second opinion, which I did. WP:DYKQPQ doesn't explicitly state that a review ending with a second opinion counts toward QPQ, which leaves me confused. Would my review count towards my QPQ? Jude Halleytalk/contribs03:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
QPQs are only valid for initial reviews. If you are chiming in with a second opinion, that does not count as a QPQ. Even if you ask for a second opinion, if you checked all of the DYK criteria, it counts: the second opinion by the new editor would not count as a valid QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pitching in, Chris! I've made just one more change (removed a sentence in quotes which is not actually a quote from that source, as far as I can tell), and feel like this is resolved now. I'll untag the hook in the prep area. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When can a split article qualify for DYK?
As part of the good-article review for In Memory of Theo Faiss, I'm planning to split some of the background section into a new article on Theo Faiss. Before I do so, however, I'd like to determine how and when it will be able to qualify for DYK—in particular, whether subsequent promotion to GA will do so. The guidelines currently state that Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text. As others mentioned last month, this creates some confusion. In particular, it is worded to say that split articles are ineligible as a whole (with one exception for 5x expansion), not merely ineligible on grounds of newness.
Thus, if an article is split, and the new article later becomes a good article (even without a 5x expansion), is it then eligible for DYK? The other way I see to ensure eligibility would be to (a) create a new article with 1,500 characters of new prose, (b) nominate it (as eligibility is judged at the time of nomination), and then (c) copy in the prose from the old article. But this is perhaps less in keeping with the spirit of DYK than going through GA.
Promotion to GA would definitely qualify. Really the only purpose of this rule is that ya can't just copy a bunch of existing text and call it a new article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Faiss's article would only eligible for DYK if it was promoted to GA status (like what Leeky said), or if the copied content was expanded 5x. Because it is a split, Faiss's page would not be considered "newly-created" for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are we saying that the clarification/amendment I proposed in the last discussion should be written into the guidance -- I had it as:
A split from an existing article is not considered "new" under the DYK criteria. For these purposes, a "split" is any article that shared more than 20% of its text with existing articles when created. However, an article which begins as a split may later qualify under the criteria of 5x expansion or the award of Good Article status. Text copied from freely-licensed sources, including other Wikipedia articles, does not count towards the length requirement.
In any case, I think Hawkeye7's point is worth addressing first -- for what it's worth, my answer would be "yes", since an article on the Savannah River Plant has to meet slightly different standards of completeness (it needs to neglect no major aspects of the sources about the plant, whereas the parent only needs to neglect no major aspect about the site) and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE than the article on the Savannah River Site, so it's not an automatic given that it will meet GA standards immediately simply because the parent article does. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. It seems that everyone is on the same general page: A split article does not qualify under the newness criterion, but may qualify under the expansion or GA criteria. UC's clarifying language seems to be on the right track. In addition, part of the confusion seems to be that the current language regarding splitting is part of "Length" (which at first glance gives it broader reach) rather than "Newness" (where it would seem more appropriate). Perhaps the following bolded sentence (drawing on UC's) could be added after the line in "Newness" that Articles that have been re-created from deletion may be considered new. A split from an existing article is not considered new unless the originating article itself meets the newness threshold, although the split article may later qualify if it is expanded 5x, or designated a good article. The edits to UC's language are primarily for streamlining rather than substance; the only intended substantive change is to remove the definition of a split (more than 20% comes from an existing article), which seems a different issue. Then, I think we could delete the following from "Length": Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text. Articles split from new articles or articles with active nominations remain eligible, unless the parent article only qualifies as a newly good article. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(not involved in the previous discussion) I would say that promotion to GA is definitely the easiest thing to do. Its unrealistic/not expected to improve expand an existing article that's 2000 words long because not only is it very tiring to do, but its also going to exceed the recommended maximum article size of 9000 words. The 5x rule is mostly about articles expanded from a stub/start class article for DYK, although I could argue that an article that is 5x expanded may also qualify for GA nomination. I guess the reason why the 5x rule was implemented is because it can take several months for a GA to be reviewed, but up to 2 for DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These hooks got a lot of flack because of doubts as to whether Ames (the team's leading scorer) and Pippen (the team's leader in assists and steals) were truly responsible for the success, since no source backs this up. I interpretted this to mean that the doubt is whether they were any more important to the team than the other players. I pointed out that last year's All-ACC honors were determined by a ballot of an 81-member panel consisting of the league’s 18 head coaches and 63 members of the media and we can expect a similar announcement from the conference this coming March 9th, which is in 2 weeks. This would be an expert assessment of whether these two players' performance during the season was deserving of being awarded as among the superior performances of the conference. I understand that WP:DYKTIMEOUT likes a review to be completed within 2 months, but that in this case it would take 2.5 months for a source to present a determination that would quell the doubt. I had hoped that since DYKTIMEOUT is to be applied with discretion and we know we need 2.5 months in the case of this nomination that it would be allowed discretion. However, since we should be prepared for a negative outcome from the conference media and coaches, I prepared alternate hooks for the negative outcome. Among the alternatives are the following:
ALT2a: ... that Dai Dai Ames and Justin Pippen(pictured) joined the Cal Bears after it replaced nearly all of its players in 2025?
Although I consider it pretty ridiculous to doubt whether a leading scorer and a leading assister and stealer are responsible for the success of the basketball team, I am quite hopeful that March 9 would yield a positive presentation of this argument. However, I am a bit taken aback by the resistance that ALT4a/ALT5a is getting as a too basketbally hook. Can I get some feedback. Is 4a/5a really a bad hook? Does 1a really need more than the fact that these players are statistical leaders on the team? Is March 9 really too much discretion to allow?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
March 9 is simply too far away. Normally, DYKTIMEOUT only does not apply if a nomination is on hold due to being subject of a discussion like AFD or a merge discussion, or if it is pending a review. The nomination already had a full review, the hooks were discussed, and they have been questioned. That counts as an example of "unresolved within two months" under which DYKTIMEOUT would apply. There's also an element of WP:CRYSTAL here: needing to wait until a later date to determine a hook's suitability is too much when we are, at this point, not even sure if the result is what is wanted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been saying for weeks that if we wait until March 9, we will have clarity and no one told me that would be too late, so I did not spend a lot of energy finding other hooks.
ALT17:...that a twice-reversed foul enabled Dai Dai Ames to make 7 points in 6 seconds, leading to a 1-point Cal Bears victory over Notre Dame, a tirade and a reprimand?
The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 31. We have a total of 326 nominations, of which 162 have been approved, a gap of 164 nominations that has decreased in size by 10 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 04:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator of this nomination, who also started Template:Did you know nominations/Mã Pí Lèng Pass, appears to have retired from Wikipedia and had their account renamed/locked. Should the nomination be allowed to continue, or should it be closed given that the article creator/main contributor will be unable to address any concerns? This is also an invitation for an uninvolved editor to adopt the nomination if anyone is willing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template editor extension
Hi, earlier this month leeky gave me template editor for one month as a trial. Since then I've promoted to queue several times (see Special:History/Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep) and want to continue doing it, so could I be granted it indefinitely? Thanks, HurricaneZetaC15:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion increasing QPQ requirement to 2?
I was a frequent DYKer but was away for a while. Upon returning, I discovered the requirement for QPQ has been raised to 2 for seasoned contributors. GREAT rule, love it. However, the tag at the top of Template talk:Did you know links to the latest discussion about switching to 12 hours. It would be more helpful to link to the discussion that led to the increasing to 2 QPQs. Where is that discussion? I could not locate it in the archives. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I know what the expected level of completeness for DYK is. The example given at WP:DYKCOMPLETE is an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a biography of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive, and I don't think that's quite the situation here given that the contents are summarized at least to some extent by the things about the book that the reviewers comment on. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a legitimate POV, and others have argued that elsewhere in the past; it's an argument I've often disagreed with. In fact, there was an editor several years back who argued we should get rid of plot summaries and synopses altogether and only discuss them in the reception section. That's an unusual POV, IMO, but there are people who support your position. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying that covering the contents mostly or entirely in the reception section is the preferable approach. What I'm saying is that the contents are covered in the article, at least to some extent, and that this happens to be in the reception section in this case. TompaDompa (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem. Reception/analysis is the key element of such articles, plot summary/list of contents is secondary (and as TD mentions, the content of the book is discussed in the reception section). It is debatable whether plot summaries/synopses should even count for prose size, and they generally tend to be ORish (we routinely accept such sections as unreferenced or as referenced to the primary source in question, see also MOS:NOVELPLOT). Mind you, this is about novels; I am not sure what is the relevant guideline for non-novels (if you know it, please link it). PS. If you'd like me to write a short paragraph summarizing the contents, based on the book itself, per NOVELPLOT, let me know and I am sure I can whip one up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Also, I don't see plot summaries as OR. I admit, depending on the work, it can be somewhat difficult to summarize and condense a story into its constituent parts, but the best writers we have on this site are able to do so with alacrity, and it has yet to present itself as a problem. Recently, I was particularly impressed by the editors who wrote the plot section for The Batman, as they managed to summarize a three-hour film in just 630 words. There's no OR. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak to the source directly, as it looks like a blog, but it appears to be a matter of Chinese history that Zhang Gan used the I Ching. The article notes that there were witnesses, such as Shen Zui, who apparently wrote about it. We should be able to easily replace the source. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of Zui's books was translated into English here, but I can't find anything about Zhou Yi, Yi Jing, I Ching, or Zhang Gan, just lots of references to Zhang Qun. Probably should pull, unfortunately. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will do if I don't get an explanation in the next 24 hours or so. (I moved this forward to entertain a date request; it hits the main page in 36.)--Launchballer00:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked for "Compass General" which is the term used in English, apparently, and could find nothing but other cites on inf.news. It is not encouraging that the original source was written by someone using a humorous pseudonym. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas I looked for an literary source regarding this and found it in Google Books (中南大剿匪 The Great Suppression of Bandits in Central and Southern China) by Liu Wenyan. The part about Zhang using predictions states: "The compass was never out of his sight. Whether in daily life, on military campaigns, or in battle, he would first consult the compass before deciding on any strategy or plan. It is said that Zhang Gan's divination was remarkably accurate: he predicted Bai Chongxi's "inescapable calamity" after injuring his hip; he predicted the Japanese attack on Taierzhuang on the Jinpu Railway and urged Li Zongren to prepare accordingly; he predicted that Chiang Kai-shek would step down in a certain year and month, and when Li Zongren would ascend to the presidency... "The Compass General " 158." (... 罗盘,从不离身。不论起居、行军、打仗,首先要对对罗盘,才决定方略大计。据说张淦卜卦十分灵验:他曾算出白崇禧跌伤胯骨的“难逃之劫” ;算出日军进攻津浦线上的台儿庄,并呈请李宗仁早作准备;算出蒋介石某年某月将下野,李宗仁何时登上总统 ... 罗盘将军” 158.). Here is a web source about it too: 迷信风水的抗日名将，打仗前必算卦，却沦为我军俘虏. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, so I substituted it in. I also kicked it back, and whoever handles the next set (I'm involved with enough hooks there that it won't be me) can double-check it.--Launchballer16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the "the aussies were apparently able to buy it" thing, I understood the hook as that being the reason why it was so expensive, regardless of whether anyone actually did get the money together. I'm only bringing it up because I think the old version was quirkier. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, In Queue 7, "that Ladislav Zgusta escaped Czechoslovakia to the United States partially by elephant?" might sound better as "that Ladislav Zgusta escaped from Czechoslovakia to the United States partially by elephant?". JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that "Australasia" by William Charles Wentworth, the first book of verse by a native-born Australian, "celebrates the development of a new Britannia in another world"?
I can't find an example of an earlier book of verse by a native-born Australian. There were certainly earlier books of verses published in Australia, but they were penned by people not born in Australia. I see no reason not to accept the evaluation by a subject matter expert.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'poet' is redundant. The claim exists in the W. C. Wentworth biography by Tink and elsewhere. Add back 'poet' if you want but it is stating the obvious; an author of a book of verse is a poet. Will Thorpe (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the O Heraldo and The Hindu sources have the same issue. I'm pulling this one for now; these concerns are better addressed on the nomination page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is entirely cited to the BBC in the nom, which is why I promoted it. Not sure why this was pulled. I think it should be reinstated. I don't really see what the Hindustan Times and Economic Times have to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually stricter than what we do in practice. Usually non-reliable sources may be allowed in articles under limited circumstances (for example, ABOUTSELF or uncontroversial cases). DYKCITE actually focuses more on the "reasonably could be challenged" aspect than "everything must be cited to a reliable source". In practice the line can be blurry, but we should tend to assume good faith and treat cases on a case-by-case basis rather than having blanket bans.
Having said that, the reliance on those press-releases-disguised-as-news articles is an actual concern here, something bad enough that WP:RSNOI exists, so the pulling is justified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article relies on those at all. Most of the info is in the BBC article. The only thing I could find a bit iffy is the claim that the Anke Gowda Jnana Prathistana is the "largest" private library. We only know that it is one of the largest private libraries. Other than that, the article seems fine. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent some time going through all of the sources online. I don't see any evidence of any press releases so I'm boggled at this concern. Who is supposed to be issuing these so-called press releases? Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the press releases, if they exist, are not (or are no longer) online, but another possibility mentioned in RSNOI is that the articles were paid for by the subject and published without disclosure. Either way, that would make the sources dubious for statements of fact and would certainly compromise their independence from the subject. Also, the presence of only one reliable-looking source in the article raised the question of whether Gowda is notable, which was another reason I pulled this one. The Mathrubhumi source helps in that regard, though it is on the shorter side. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are no press releases, so I don't know where you got that from. Here's what happened: The Mathrubhumi and other sources first covered this in 2025, although there may have been others, Mathrubhumi is cited earlier than most. At some point Gowda is nominated for the Padma Shri by the Indian government, which is when all the media reports and primary coverage were released. He received the prize, which has no monetary value, and received additional coverage. The concern with press releases is something I'm very familiar with and I don't see any evidence of that here at all. This is a human-interest story which is why it received a lot of coverage. To recap, there are no press releases, nobody was paid for anything, and this was widely covered by dozens of independent sources which are considered the most reliable in that country. The subject is now listed at List of Padma Shri award recipients (2020–2029). You're seeing things that don't exist. According to these sources, Gowda has been building the library for 50 years and has received press coverage for the last 17 years. Those older sources are likely more difficult to find. He was apparently recognized in 2009 with a G.P. Rajaratnam Sahitya Paricharika Award from the Kannada Book Authority, followed by a Nudi-Siri Award in 2011, a Rajyotsava Award in 2014, and a Limca Book of Records award in 2016, so there should be a paper trail of continuous coverage. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the problematic sources are pulled, there's plenty left. Hard to see articles from non-western counties get pulled for vague "press release" reasons. Thriley (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We feature pornographic "actresses", reality TV influencers, obscure sports figures, and other bright lights of Western culture, yet a humble servant of the common good from India (who has actually been recognized on a national level with awards of merit in a country of over a billion souls) is problematic? C'mon folks, this just makes no sense at all. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they are press releases or not, all the sources are from less than two weeks apart and are all ultimately for the same thing. That's not WP:SUSTAINED coverage.--Launchballer04:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They all describe why he is notable, for accumulating over two million books over a lifetime and offering them as one of the largest free-access personal libraries in India. Thriley (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about Indian press (or India, for that matter). I saw the article on the BBC and thought that Gowda's life was interesting and that he is WP:N (he's won at least two awards that seem to be highly esteemed recognition of public merit, and he's spent a lifetime doing something rather laudable and unusual – for which he has been noted in his country for some time). Not sure I see the issue here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting confused here as well. As far as I can tell, there is enough coverage for the subject to be notable, so that should not be in question. The real question is actually if the sources used are WP:RSNOI cases: as in, if the article is reliant on paid coverage. Given the sources given above, the solution would be to replace whatever questionable sources there are in the article, not to nominate the article for deletion or to suggest a lack of notability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns about the hooks (there are four ALTs), then why not just go through the ordinary editorial process on the submission page? Why does this need resubmitting? It shouldn't have had Thriley's mark "revoked" ("reverted", "undone", "pulled", or whatever the correct DYK terminology might be) in the first place. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pull the hook. Three others supported pulling it, with one, little old me, opposing. Now that it's pulled, we can create an even better hook here in this section. Hope we are all on the same page now. I think the original hook that I promoted wasn't as solid as it should have been. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK process still perplexes me (though I've mostly lost interest in trying to improve it). Please do what's best – I'm happy to support whatever hook syntax is deemed optimal (and will gladly lend a hand if I see something that might be improved).
I was simply commenting on the fact that reversing Thriley's review approval in the original nomination template seemed odd and unnecessary. Usually, these matters are addressed here, in these "nom" discussions (and/or other corners of the project), are they not? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Original uncropped image Well, the first thing that came to mind is let's shoot for using the image in the first slot. I think that would require some creative cropping. I was considering playing around with it first thing tomorrow, but I get the sense you are better at this kind of thing than me. Maybe have a go at it? Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbulb: What about using the original, uncropped image? Nothing like it has ever appeared on DYK before, in other words, a photo taken from the perspective of a person from the third person. While I admit my perspective might be in the minority here, I think this would work. The photo angle is entirely unique to DYK and portrays the subject of the hook from the perspective of the library patron he serves. It's perfect and different. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do what's best. I'm not sure I have the stamina to go through another bruising run of the DYK gauntlet. I thought that Mr Gowda was an obvious and unambiguous positive contribution to the project (both DYK and the overall encyclopaedia). I sincerely hope the matter is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I pulled it, the article's sourcing was not in shape for the Main Page. It has improved since then (thanks, Viriditas, for incorporating those sources!), which resolves any notability concerns. However, the Hindustan Times, Economic Times, and O Heraldo sources I flagged at the beginning are still being cited. I still think these are unreliable for the reasons I've already mentioned, and I haven't heard any convincing counterarguments on that front. Given the better sourcing now available, I would recommend replacing those citations entirely. Also, since the article content has changed substantially, the nomination will likely need a full re-review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can compromise by removing those, but I want to informally object, as I think they are suitable. But it's not a sticking point at all, and I'm willing to remove them for now. I may pursue further discussion of this matter at WP:RS/N, not because of this subject specifically, but more for clarification on using these sources in general. Will make the necessary changes later. I'm satisfied by this result. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and feel free to let me know on my talk page if there's anything about my assessment of these sources I could make clearer (or need to change entirely). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see that this seems to be in the process of resolution and moving towards a positive outcome. Another good example of DYK working well (for any sceptics who might happen to be reading this thread). Also, in light of this, and since the article content has changed, shall we also update the nomination template with the "correct" marking (presumably )? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused about the actual established practice (or "rules") here. According to this discussion, Thriley's review should be reinstated (not re-reviewed). Please help us understand these procedures for the avoidance of future confusion and loss of time. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(my response on the nompage was that parts of Thriley's review can still be used, and some parts are intuitively inapplicable either because they were challenged or because they didn't cover the content that's been added since the review. i totally agree with TS69's call here that there should be a new review here, but i think you can limit it just to reviewing the new content against the content-specific criteria. unless TS69 is saying that Thriley's review was so deficient that it's unclear whether they did due diligence on any point, I think you can still rely on Thriley's determination of, say, whether a QPQ has been done.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks . I'll read your comments on the Template page carefully and try to make better sense of this in order to ensure that my future contributions are more likely to hit the mark without undue burning of precious time. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Obviously, if we're not careful to pay attention to the details and nuance, this kind of uncertainty about how we interpret/apply our own "rules" could have a knock-on impact on things like WP:DYKTIMEOUT (which, as previously discussed, is rife with its own inherent ambiguities and uncertainties). As people end up here by dint of our QPQ obligation (whether they like it or not), in my view, we owe them some modicum of respect in how their work is treated. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Including Agnes Borinsky, four of these bios are for Americans. In the spirit of DYKVAR, the set should perhaps max at two bios of a particular nationality and 4 or 5 bios. Perhaps some non-bio articles might come up in the next couple of weeks. CMD (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few nominations at WP:DYKNA where they're technically approved with the green tick, but in reality there have since been concerns raised with no action yet taken to address them. Is that normal? Should those not be tidied up and sent back to the unapproved section if the issues raised are legitimate concerns? JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors have suggested fantastic additions. I prioritised the above because they related to empowering women or fighting for women's rights. Other suggestions fall into what I call the "woman does stuff" category, which are great for back filling if this set needs more articles.
Geographically, there are not a lot of concerns. There are a lot of biographies proposed, so non-biography suggestions would be helpful. If DYK is still on two-sets-a-day next week, we might want to think about putting two sets together. I suggest editors sweep through DYK and suggest some articles below. Editors can also sweep through WP:GAN and revieiw some articles that could also fit this set well. Thanks everyone for your help. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still have gender bias in voice technology in my sandbox, but it needs some work in terms of scope (restriction or widening) and more detail regarding technical limitations, studies, and modern developments. If anyone wants to help me, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge inspired an event and a planned event by fellow sex workers Annie Knight (pictured) and Drake Von?
What’s with the insistence on embarrassing porn hooks
Why does Wikipedia keep insisting on terrible hooks for racy topics like porn. They’re not interesting in the slightest nor are they illuminating. They’re just deeply embarrassing and unfunny. If your only excuse is that you’re not censored and can say anything you want then you have nothing worthwhile to say. DYK should at least be engaging and informative. I really thinks it’s embarrassing every time this topic comes up editors insist on keeping the unamusing sex DYKs because “Wikipedia is not censored”. Write better DYKs. ~2026-12503-07 (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think porn hooks are our biggest problem. From my very limited experience here, I would say diversity, variety, and what we consider interesting are the biggest problems, with porn likely at the bottom. Human sexuality in general is a topic of some interest, and I think we should pursue it, I just don't like the way it is often portrayed less than academically, but that's just my own personal gripe. Otherwise, I don't have a problem. I just wish the porn hooks leaned towards the more educational, that's all. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK lead pic here is of course NOT a "drawing", as the caption claims. It is an incredibly low-res repro of a book illustration, created and printed by by who knows what processes. Really the image is far too low in quality to use on the MP. Plus, it's just a beetle that looks like all other beetles. The 5th hook has a beautiful painting, which has been approved. I'm biased of course, but when we have attractive and interesting images, we should use them. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the painting image would be beautiful! The beetle fact is very interesting but I don't understand why it needs to be seen as an image. There isn't even an image comparison between the beetle itself and its "nearby relatives". aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain myself as the promoter, the reason I didn't promote the painting from the fifth hook is because, well, that isn't the painting in the hook. As for the beetle, I guess it is just a beetle, I see that, I mostly chose it because it wasn't a person, and it was sort of nice and visible. If we want to swap it out (which, by all means do, I'm new to prepping, clean up my mess), there's also an interesting painting in the second to last hook. JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors feel strongly, I'm happy to let the painting take precedence over the beetle. I'm more than content simply knowing that someone, somewhere, will learn about an otherwise unassuming Iberian beetle. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject article above has me wondering if it's AI-generated. Can someone with more experience in the area take a look? Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62, outside of WP I see AI slop on a daily basis and that article doesn't strike me as it. Perhaps some of the phrasing is awkward in parts, but that's not necessarily an AI thing. TarnishedPathtalk03:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Based on the creator's comments at the nom, it appears I have misinterpreted awkward phrasing, and language that doesn't track with the source, as possible AI content. Instead, it appears to be just old-fashioned human error. Thanks for having a look. Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay, I could see that. If the nominator either prefers the current wording or doesn't reply, I'll just accept consensus is against me here. Rjjiii (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go with a hook that does not use the the term "blame game"? Considering this is IP we are talking about, I feel that any hook we run on the topic has to be done right. This was also the issue with the nomination before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Different hook altogether, one that avoids using the word "blame". TarnishedPath's wording is an improvement, but I'm not sure if it works either: "shape the perceptions of Western Christian communities" is vague and does not make it clear if it's talking about what Western Christian communities think, or what should be thought of those communities. I'm also not sure if the hook wording also works because suggesting that media coverage "seek to shape" gives the impression of bias or at least an agenda. Given that time is running out and the nature of IP I would suggest pulling this again until there's a hook that should satisfy everyone and not be misinterpreted or at least look wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: we already rediscussed and reagreed this three days ago (see above in this page). The process of uncontrolled layers of approval is unreasonable. Pulling this again is not the solution. Please could you read all the discussions and suggest some drafting yourself? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more clear, can we shorten it without loosing meaning. Something like: "... that conflicting media coverage of Christian emigration from Israel and Palestine seeks to influence Western Christians?"? Rjjiii (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, thoughts? @Ltbdl:, you were one of the editors above that raised neutrality concerns. Can I rope you in for input? @Onceinawhile, I'm not planning to pull it and I think the idea of "a hook that should satisfy everyone" may even be unrealistic in this topic area, but this is going to get more scrutiny at WP:ERRORS. To avoid pulling it again, I think it makes sense to have an alternative hook. I'll likely post a link to this discussion at ERRORS if we roll with the original hook, and will probably drop a notice at WP:NPOVN. Rjjiii (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of a pull, the hook could also be bumped. This is scheduled to run tomorrow so it's a bit of a tight deadline to discuss a final wording. I'm really unsure if the hook is sufficiently neutral (my above concern about the "seeks to influence Western Christians?" point has yet to actually be addressed). I would suggest a different hook fact, but this is beyond my comfort zone and IP is a topic I'm personally uncomfortable about. To answer Onceinawhile's question earlier, I had missed the rest of the previous discussion and had not realized that the article was already repromoted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the hook is now so vague it's not interesting. it boils down to "... that conflicting media narratives of <event> seeks to influence <demographic>?" ltbdl (click) 00:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've moved the hook to Prep 7. In the meantime, could a different hook angle be proposed here? The issue could also be the angle itself and not just how it's worded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to see absurdity in the idea that there could be any POV in stating factually that opposing sides blame each other. Anyway, here are four further ideas (all of which can be easily sourced):
ALT1 …that emigration of Christians from the region of Israel and Palestine has been ongoing for over a century?
ALT2 …that emigration of Christians from Israel and Palestine is considered important, since the region is the birthplace of Christianity?
ALT3 …that Christians are emigrating from the region in which their religion began?
ALT4 …that Christians have been emigrating for over a century from the region in which their religion began?
I like TarnishedPath's hook best of the options I've seen. That competing media narratives seek to use the issue to influence contemporary politics is the interesting DYK thing here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Girls' Last Tour looks good, but the source provided in the Zhang Gan nomination does not appear to be reliable — it has a statement at the bottom: "Sohu is an information publishing platform and only provides information storage space services." The Chinese Wikipedia community also designated it as generally unreliable for UGC-like concerns. That being said, it's not actually cited in the article; the statement is backed up by an offline Chinese book source. I would ask the nominator for a quote or something, but it appears they've been blocked for sockpuppetry, so I'm not sure how to proceed here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several instances of currency symbols not being used when the currency in the hook is not clear from context. A general reminder to please use the currency symbol in hooks when it's not clear from context so as to avoid ERRORS reports. Thanks. 781h (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination had been submitted with a picture. Since it was unclear whether it was PD in Macedonia, I got in touch with the original uploader. She said that employees from the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia uploaded it to the archive as PD. She even got in touch with the archivists that worked on the file, but unfortunately they can't produce any proof of its PD. I assume this means we can't use it as a pictured hook?
Another question: can't we move the hook to the last position? Sounds quirky enough to me.
The situation with the image is unfortunate. There's a huge number of really valuable images acquired through these GLAM programmes that are claimed to be in the public domain with no real proof. Archivists aren't copyright lawyers, I guess. As for quirkiness, I personally think the agreeing to have a child together is quirkier, but if one of the other preps is lacking anything particularly interesting, we could push it back. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, ScalarFactor, and Crisco 1492: Hook says "the German government developed the free and open-source OpenDesk office suite with less than 0.1% of the amount it spent on proprietary software" but the article attributes as "Golem reported in August 2024 that, on an annual basis, the German government funded OpenDesk with less than 0.1% of the amount it had been spending on proprietary software." and the source (per Google Translate) says "The federal government is spending barely one-thousandth of what it pays annually for proprietary software licenses.", and none of these are the same thing. Also, @DYK admins: I ended up removing the empty slot in Queue 3 as we only have 12 hours until that set hits the main page, any admin is free to move a ninth into the set. (We probably should have gone to one-a-day this morning, though as there are two Pokémon hooks in both of today's sets it probably isn't that bad a thing we didn't.)--Launchballer12:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of two-a-day, I think the only real metric for when to switch is whether the admins burn out, so if someone commits to queueing a few more, we can always go for longer, but either way this was very successful (12 days, that's 108 extra hooks?). Kudos for everyone involved! JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template editors were granted the ability to promote preps to queues since late 2024, myself included. HurricaneZeta (a non-admin template editor) was the one who promoted several in a row. Back in the day, 2/day was pretty common as there were 8 hooks per set. Of course, if a set is due to hit the main page within 24 hours (12 hours under 2/day), then its fully protected due to cascading protection being apply to the mainspace. JuniperChill (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 and Launchballer: I don't think the new phrasing ("... that the German government spends barely a thousandth of previous expenses for office suites after switching the free and open-sourceOpenDesk?") is correct, because the source does not state that the amount the German government spent on proprietary software referred only to office suite licenses.
Die Microsoft-365-Alternative setzt dazu auf sieben bewährte Open-Source-Werkzeuge, deren Auswahl noch aus Zeiten von Dataport stammt und die Schritt für Schritt modernisiert werden soll. Kritiker monieren, das gehe sehr langsam, auch weil es mit bescheidenen Mitteln geschehe: Der Bund gibt dafür knapp ein Tausendstel dessen aus, was er Jahr für Jahr in proprietäre Softwarelizenzen zahlt. Damit, so die häufigste Kritik, könne man keine konkurrenzfähige Lösung bauen und betreiben.
The Microsoft 365 alternative relies on seven proven open source tools, which were selected back in the Dataport era and are to be modernized step by step. Critics complain that this is happening very slowly, partly because it is being done with modest resources: the federal government is spending just under one-thousandth of what it pays each year for proprietary software licenses. The most common criticism is that this is not enough to build and operate a competitive solution.
In the German-language sentence, the word knapp is defined in Wiktionary as "somewhat less (than)", in the Collins German Dictionary as "almost", and on the Langenscheidt website as "just under" or "little less than". Based on this, I believe Google Translate's translation of knapp into "barely" is not appropriate in this context. When I input only "Der Bund gibt dafür knapp ein Tausendstel dessen aus, was er Jahr für Jahr in proprietäre Softwarelizenzen zahlt." into Google Translate, it becomes consistent with the dictionary definitions and translates knapp into "just under", instead: "The federal government spends just under one thousandth of what it pays annually for proprietary software licenses on this."
The phrase Jahr für Jahr means "year after year", per Wiktionary; Google Translate and DeepL Translate convert this phrase into "annually" and "each year", respectively, for the translated text. In light of this, I have rephrased the sentence in the OpenDesk article to better reflect the source's representation of the time frames in question: "Golem reported in August 2024 that the German government funded OpenDesk with slightly under 0.1% of the amount it had been spending annually on proprietary software." Would the following revised hook be acceptable?
At Andrew Ranken, the reviewer is arguing that the article does not count as new because a version existed for three minutes in 2023. I think this is unreasonable and would appreciate extra eyes on this.--Launchballer13:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer is unhappy that I am strictly following WP:DYK5X. The version of the article I identified as the version from which the nominator needed to expand existed in 2023 and in 2026 pre-expansion. The nominator seems to think I can overlook this version because it was only briefly in article space, but it did in fact exist multiple time in article space over a three year period. The argument was made it was redirected due to BLP violations and shouldn't count, but DYK5X is clear only copyright violated text is discounted and we must go with the last version of the article pre-expansion. There's really no way around this one without ignoring the guideline's instructions. I note too that DYK5X directly states, We don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. This is the type of situation being targeted in that comment in the guideline. This may be frustrating for the nominator, but we've long been sticklers here at DYK for upholding the last version because of arguments like this where people want to bend the rules. The only way DYK5X is sustainable is to be consistent about using the last version of the article pre expansion without considering the state of the article (unless its copyright violated). There is a reason the guideline is written the way it is.4meter4 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article was there for three minutes in 2023 and for 31 hours in 2026 before I expanded it. That's less than a week. It is unreasonable to count the 2-and-a-bit years it was not live.--Launchballer13:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how the guideline is written. We must use the last version of the article prior to expansion. Again this version of the article existed in 2023 and again in 2026 pre-expansion. I'm not going to use a different version of the article. This is exactly the type of scenario our guideline was written to prevent. We have a clear policy here.4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) WP:DYKNEW specifies explicitly that "Articles that have been re-created from deletion may be considered new." So, straight off the bat, copyvios are not the only text that are dismissed. Functionally, I would consider blanking and redirecting to be equivalent to deleting in this context, as it is specifically offered by WP:ATD-R where a potential target exists, may be the outcome of an AFD, and still results in the text no longer being live. That the page remained a redirect for over a decade, with only the three-day blip that was soon reverted, further reaffirms that the article was essentially non-existent at the time renewed editing began after his death. This is not a case of the nominator gaming the system, which we would rightly refuse; this is a case of a nominator coming across an article topic that was non-existent on Wikipedia and expanding it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that. Redirection is not synonymous with deletion and we have never interpreted redirected articles as equivalent to deletion (for one because article history is still accessible to the nominator and can be used as a basis for expansion). Also, typically we don't discount pre-redirect text at all. Only redirects where there was no pre-existing article are considered new. This is actually an area where our guideline could be clearer. If an article with text gets WP:BLAR we still go with the pre-BLAR text no matter how long its been gone from article space (because again article history is there for the expander to work from and WP:PRESERVE/WP:ATTRIBUTION matter). In this case however, we have both pre-redirect and post-redirect text. I strongly oppose viewing this as a new article, or discounting the prior contributions of other editors in article history, no matter how poor they were. The approach being taken here brings too much ambiguity into policy interpretation, not to mention you are asking me to ignore the text in the guideline. I am not going to do that 4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To say that this article "existed in 2023" is bizarre, since it lasted only three minutes (minutes, not days) before its contents were removed/reverted as highly problematic (and this wasn't the only reversion of this IP author's work). While there's a redirect—and a redirect is not an article, but a courtesy so Wikipedia readers can find some information about the topic—that isn't an article, and any article that has been gone for that long has never, in my experience, been considered anything but new when recreated. I'm with Chris Woodrich on this. One exception: if the new article reuses material from a previously deleted article (and I don't count things like birth and death dates that have a predetermined format), then the new article should be expanded 5x to the extent that material is reused. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if the new article reuses material from a previously deleted article (and I don't count things like birth and death dates that have a predetermined format), then the new article should be expanded 5x to the extent that material is reused I'm not sure if there's actually a rule or guideline about that. For example, for articles that were nominated for DYK but failed due to article deletion or redirection, then the articles were re-created, such cases have always been treated as new for DYK purposes. Are you referring to splits or content reuse? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, if it is in the article history we have to take into account the expander might have used it. That's asking too much of the reviewer to evaluate what material has been reused and what hasn't and doing the math on that. It also isn't clear cut on the part of the person being reviewed (ie this prose counts, this doesn't when calculating 5x exapansion). I don't think that's fair to either participant, which is why the guideline has the statements "This calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began, even if text from the original was deleted in the process" ""We don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article". It's much simpler and fairer to just go off of the most recent version of the article in article space prior to expansion which is what was done here. The 2023 version was briefly restored in 2026, and has been in the article history for three years. For me this is just a simple matter of identifying the most recent version in article space prior to expansion that didn't have copyright violation issues and going with that. That is literally what the guideline says to do.
If the consensus here is to ignore that editor's contribution from 2023, I am happy to comply with that consensus. I do think this crosses over into the ignoring prior content though. We're basically saying this content that has existed in the article history for three years doesn't matter, and the fact that it was restored briefly in 2026 doesn't matter. This would be WP:IAR of WP:DYKCRIT in my opinion, and you are essentially asking the reviewer to research why an article was redirected and whether that redirection was implemented for a valid reason (ie were there really policy problems in that version of the article? how does the reviewer know that). If this is the type of thing we want to allow, I think we need to revisit WP:DYK5X and update the guideline. That guideline could use some clarity on WP:BLAR type scenarios.
I'd be ok with updating the WP:DYK5X criteria to say something like "articles that have been redirected for X length of time should be considered new even if pulling from prior content", and "content rapidly BLARed for policy violations with an evidence based discussion linked in the nomination should not be counted" or something like that. If we are going to say older reused content isn't allowed in an expansion, but then turn around and allow this to happen we're fundamentally asking the reviewer to parse out what is new and what isn't and then having to do the math based on subjective evaluation. Now we are getting into the heart of the matter of why we mandated the last version of the article is the version that should be used at review. This is exactly the type of surgical evaluation of expansion we've categorically said editors don't have time to do. I don't have time to check whether the expanded version has reused text from the 2023 redirected article, and evaluate what's new and what isn't, and for sure that type of review is going to become a contentious mess. I also don't have time to investigate the circumstances of why that article was redirected in the first place. Redirections happen all the time through WP:BOLD editing, and sometimes they are done without a good reason and without a community conversation. You are essentially asking the reviewer to evaluate the circumstances of a redirect which is again not something we should put on reviewers. There are too many variables at work here, and if editors are honest, our policies are not as permissible as people are claiming they are in this context. 4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if an article "only existed for a few minutes" or "for a short period of time". The rules already say that articles that are newly converted from redirects count as "new" for DYK purposes. Whether or not the article previously existed is immaterial as the rules are silent on that, but given the circumstances, I would agree that it would be considered "new" for our purposes. After all, if the page remained a redirect for a long period and that was not questioned before, that would de facto count as consensus to not have a page.
Saying an AFD is needed seems overly bureaucratic in this case, what matters is the spirit. It's like how we already allow newly-promoted GAs to be nominated for DYK even in cases where they were former GAs that were re-promoted to GA status. If there are any concerns about gaming, those can be dealt with on an individual basis instead of there being a firm rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The rules state: Articles can be made eligible via a fivefold expansion of an article's prose. This calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began. The expansion can be considered to have begun from this version, since it was made on 11 Feb, 3 days before the nomination date, and the previous version was this version. Therefore the article qualifies as a x5 expansion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who is saying an AFD is needed? AFD has nothing to do with this. I do have questions about whether restored WP:BLAR articles can be "new". I don't think they can because editors can pull from older versions of the article, and in such cases attribution comes into play. My main issue here is if someone is pulling content back from an article long ago BLARed how to we evaluate that fairly, and what is the responsibility of the nominator and reviewer in that context? I think that is a valid question worth articulating an answer to as a community. I note that the nominator put this forward as a five time expansion nomination, and now we have all these editors saying it is "new". It can't be both. If it was a new article it should have been nominated as one, and this again where our guideline on restored BLAR articles is ambiguous. We really should say how to handle nominations that have unusual article histories. I'm getting mixed messages here (even different editors pointing to different versions from the article history from which to begin the review), which just shows the guideline in this area does not have uniform understanding or consensus. I think we need a policy discussion on how to review articles written from a BLAR page, and perhaps a way of clearly articulating how to view articles that were BLARed that have lengthy edit histories. It would benefit everyone, if only so we don't have confusion and can avoid conflict and everyone can be on the same page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article can actually be considered either new (as it was expanded from a redirect) or a x5 expansion (taking from the version prior to the expansion start). It just depends on which rule the nominator chooses.
With regard to the possibility that somebody might just recreate content from an earlier article that has been redirected, yes, that can probably be seen as a loophole, as somebody could theoretically recreate an article moments after it was redirected by somebody else and then claim it as new. However, that has never occurred to my knowledge, and it seems unlikely given that the redirector would be likely to protest.
The original rule concerning the qualification for x5 expansion was created because some users would delete some or all of the content of an earlier article, and then claim they had a legitimate DYK because the original article was substandard. To end argumentation about such moves, it was decided that the x5 expansion would be counted simply from the previous version of the article "no matter how bad it was", because reviewers do not have time to be making judgements about the quality of content. Gatoclass (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It's a bit more complicated in this instance. this edit was the first to remove the redirect and restored a version of the article from 2023. It was clearly not new. That version apparently had BLP issues which is how Launchballer came to chop and then expand content. There isn't really a clear point in the article history where a redirect was replaced by a "new article" or expanded original content. That isn't what happened in the edit history of this particular article. I'm no more enlightened than earlier. I'm still left viewing the 2023 version of the article as the starting point because essentially edit warring between a redirect chop of that content and then a restore of that content on February 12, 2026 is what began this editing in this instance from the redirect. It wasn't an expansion from a redirect that began the editing cycle in this case. We can't call this an expand from a redirect because the redirect was removed and the old version of the article restored. If editors want to ignore that content that certainly is something we can determine to do as a community, but to say this was an expand from redirect isn't really what happened. We had a content dispute happening from the redirect, and then a rewrite following that content dispute. That is a different thing then a straight expand from redirect.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like such a pointless thing to get this hung up on. Unless it's happening all the damn time, can we not just write it off as a one-time edge case unlikely to be repeated? ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, assuming you are correct that a user restored content from a 2023 article before Launchballer began his expansion - technically, it doesn't matter, because the restored 2023 content was restored on 11 February, and the article was nominated on the 14th. So the restored content can simply be considered part of the expansion for DYK purposes because it happened within the seven-day window.
Now, ethically speaking, one might argue that the content is not truly new because it was restored - but as you yourself pointed out, it was content that had previously been deleted as unsuitable and it had BLP issues. So it was clearly problematic content.
The point here is that we assume good faith that the users who previously edited the article before the expansion did so in good faith themselves, so we don't have to get into the weeds of deciding how much of the previous content may or may not be valid. Remember that there can be umpteen prior edits before an expansion, so which one do we use as the "previous version"? The longest one in the history? That would negate all the work done since, potentially by numerous editors over a long period, who got rid of inappropriate content. This is why we simply take the last edit prior to the beginning of the expansion - because otherwise, the job becomes impossible. Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you that some grace could be given here. As for BLP issues, I am repeating what was reported by Launchballer, and assuming in good faith that the assessment was accurate. I want to be clear that I personally don't know that the content had BLP violations or that the article was indeed a problem from my own assessment of the material. I didn't evaluate it closely enough to form an opinion. I still think that it's odd/not policy based to classify identical material that existed just prior to a BLAR that was restored in a content disputed as "the beginning of an expansion" from a redirect. We clearly are bending the rules here in an WP:IAR way, but IAR is a policy for a reason and this probably is one of those times when we should apply it given the weirdness of this scenario.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done Indonesia, film
pulling this one for now; these concerns are better addressed on the nomination page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
mark "revoked" ("reverted", "undone", "pulled", or whatever the correct DYK terminology might be) in the first place. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
)?
, 
, or 
, but if there are serious concerns and one of those icons weren't added, you can add it yourself. They won't be promoted anyway. HurricaneZetaC 17:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
