Template:Did you know nominations/Influencer

Adrien Nunez as a basketball player

Haley Cavinder

Hanna Cavinder

Cavinder Twins in action

• ... that the 2021 Supreme Court NCAA v. Alston ruling made student athlete influencers (pictured) eligible for compensation?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia chrysantha
• Comment: 2 QPQs in one.

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

• Interesting article. No problems with copyright and hook mentioned in the article with proper source. Images have no copyright problems and freely licensed. Overall, the article has no problems with citations. Good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger, Toadboy123, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith: per the nominator's request, I've pulled this hook while we sort out some content issues. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron, Toadboy123, AirshipJungleman29, and RoySmith: The article talk is pointing toward a formal WP:RM, which is a one-week process once it is started. Before it is started, a procedural reversion back to the original location is considered Kosher. Then the RM can commence. This was moved from main space on December 2. I am going to assume that if everything is settled within 2 months of that date it would be considered timely for DYK since it is not uncommon for noms to drag on that long. I expect to be able to report back with a properly formed page location consensus via RM before then.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • P.S. I do believe even a non-RM admin can process the reversion, if anyone wants to speed the process initiation along.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • My attitude on stuff like this is that as long as you get the nomination in on time (which you have), that stops the clock, so I wouldn't worry about that. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Still waiting on Talk:Influencer#Requested_move_8_January_2025.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Having an open move request doesn't seem like it should be an issue for DYK purposes, so the article can probably run regardless. If there's any movement on the move proposal then that can be worked on as time goes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, Toadboy123, AirshipJungleman29, RoySmith, Theleekycauldron, and Narutolovehinata5: The move request closed. What else needs to be done here?--Launchballer 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the hook even had to be pulled from Queue in the first place, as having an ongoing move discussion is not considered a disqualifying issue for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I was concerned about warring continuing when the page became prominently displayed and wanted to find a consensus for page name to know where to restore it to. I did not know that was not a concern. I was not concerned about it being disqualified, just worried about name stability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If there was an issue with an article title in the middle of it being in prep, that could have simply been done at the time instead of waiting for the move discussion to finish. It's like how an article being moved should not affect the status of its nomination, nor should the nomination also be moved to the new title. In any case, I see you tried to include multiple DYK images in the nomination. That simply will not fly due to accessibility concerns on the main page. Unless you can think of a really good example of an influencer (and given how subjective this is, it might encroach into OR territory), it would be for the best for the hook to run without an image. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, there are way too many images here, and if any of them are not student athlete influencers, then they should be deleted immediately since they don't fit the hook. (I only see two mentioned in the article, in a quick glance; if those are the only ones who are mentioned, then please remove the rest.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Just changed the article and forgot what the hook was focussing on. Not a very cerebral effort.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This can probably be repromoted then if there are really no issues left. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)