DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 757 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'm fairly certain that's not true at all; that Brie was compensated for the article would mean it would deserve {{COI}}, which isn't a disqualifier per WP:DYKCOMPLETE.--Launchballer 16:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. If this is allowed, then all properly disclosed paid editors could use the front page to promote whatever they wanted. Thriley (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest raising this at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#ASU — disclosed paid editing. For what it's worth, Joe Matesic was passed no questions asked by BeanieFan11 (who I am purposefully not pinging per WP:CANVASS).--Launchballer 17:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's no blanket ban against DYK nominations where COI is involved. Things are treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than there being hard rules against it. We did have that issue with TonyTheTiger and his sister a while back, and that nomination was ultimately rejected, but again that nomination was discussed largely on its merits and not solely for being a COI. In this particular case, while Sammi did write the article on the direction of ASU, her nominating the article was done independently and was not a request by ASU. If it had been the latter, then perhaps this nomination would be inappropriate, but in this case, it's just an article she nominated that just happened to be one she made as part of her paid editing work, rather than her being paid to nominate it for DYK. I kinda doubt her ASU superiors even know what DYK is (please correct me if I'm wrong Sammi). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct on all counts. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a community discussion on disclosed paid editors and DYK. I think it would be best to have a complete ban of paid articles on DYK rather than evaluating them on a case by case basis. Brie is an exceptional editor with a long history. To make an exception for her but not other paid editors opens up too many potential time consuming discussions that would be avoided with a simple ban. Thriley (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: If you believe that we need a hard ban on any COI articles on DYK, then please feel free to start an RfC about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did so. Thank you for the suggestion. Thriley (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: I see that you started the discussion, however it was on Rossini's talk page rather than a page with a wider audience like WT:DYK. If it's possible, I would suggest relocating the RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Is there another place that would have an even wider audience? The DYK community is fairly small. Thriley (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is, but I think DYK should decide what DYK runs even if it is small.--Launchballer 18:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this discussion, I've had nominations go through DYK whilst working as a Wikimedian in residence, and I think as long as it is disclosed there shouldn't be an issue. The nominations I put through were part of projects with cultural heritage organisations (which I think as a community we want to encourage their support in general) and the hits from a DYK can be really helpful to demonstrate the impact that engaging appropriately with Wikimedia can have. I think clarification would be good, but I don't think it is outside the spirit of DYK. Lajmmoore (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate if someone else could review this. I still don't feel completely comfortable approving. Sammi Brie, I hope my question about this one didn't annoy you too much. Just wanted community input- paid editing holds both great promise and great potential harm to the project. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough, well sourced, neutral and plagiarism free. Earwig picks up a couple of 8/9% things but these are job titles or other longer names. Hooks are cited are interesting, I think I prefer ALT0 and ALT1, but thats personal preference. I couldn't access The Athletic for some reason, so AGF. Thanks for declaring COI. QPQ is done. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Request for comment on paid editing and Did You Know

[edit]
PROCEDURAL CLOSE
This discussion has been procedurally closed as it was opened in the wrong venue. This discussion may be of value to the Wikipedia community but the talk page of this particular article is not the correct venue for this discussion. The initiator is invited to open a discussion at WT:DYK. Adam Black talk • contribs 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Is it appropriate for articles created for payment to appear on Did You Know. Thriley (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, if (and only if) proper disclosures have been made. In other words, if the COI guideline and the paid editing policy have been followed, I think we should allow it, but of course, violations should be disqualifying. I'll also add the caveat that if a reviewer feels that, as a result of COI bias, the page might not meet our notability requirements, that's a valid reason to fail the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really should be at WT:DYK, but yes per Tryptofish.--Launchballer 20:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, given that the reviewer believes that the nomination is not for advertising or promotional reasons (as in WP:DYKNOT), or the page is nominated by an independent editor. Justiyaya 00:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an appropriate venue for this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add birth date

[edit]

Add the birth date of October 17, 1979. The year is covered by existing sourcing [1] in the article, but the date is now known from social media posts of ASU athletics accounts such as this one. Melted BrieASU (onward to victory · t · c) 05:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Are there reliable sources for this? Social media accounts are not one of them. NotJamestack (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NotJamestack In this case, I estimate that is a case of WP:ABOUTSELF as that is an official ASU account. Melted BrieASU (onward to victory · t · c) 17:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]