Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Crisco 1492 in topic Halloween set
Archive 210←Archive 215Archive 216Archive 217

Queue 1 (1 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago43 comments9 people in discussion

Kotaro Tatsumi (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Miminity, and Richard Nevell: This is currently sourced to his own website and needs a better source.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it’s not controversial Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Well no, if his website's the only source then it isn't due, surely? Not to mention that helping the unfortunate is exactly the kind of thing one might fluff a CV with...--Launchballer 14:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Drive-by did a search - the Japanese Communist Party website (again, kinda primary) says "ハンセン病の専門医で現国立療養所邑久光明園（岡山県）園長の畑野研太郎氏が、北野高校の卒業生であることから、文化祭では畑野氏が取り組んでいたバングラデシュのハンセン病患者のワクチン接種を支援するチャリティーコンサートを開催。３年生も終りに近づいた95年１月17日に起きた阪神淡路大震災では、自治会で救援カンパも呼び掛けました", or "Because Kentaro Hatano, a specialist in leprosy and the current director of the National Sanatorium Oku Komeien (Okayama Prefecture), is an alumnus of Kitano High School, the school held a charity concert at the school festival to support the vaccination of leprosy patients in Bangladesh, a project that Mr. Hatano was involved in. When the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake occurred on January 17, 1995, as the third year of high school was nearing its end, the student council also appealed for relief donations." Other than that, all I can find are a few sites that read kinda unreliable, specifically Kotae Blog and Curious Channel, and false positives. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend (nom)

Opening this up to the floor per WP:DYKFIRST.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at this one yesterday and considered pulling it because it looked like the article may not accurately reflect the sources, as the article seems to imply it's just the robots doing all the fighting themselves whereas one of the sources I checked said they are largely controlled by remotes operated by humans. But I didn't have time to investigate it more thoroughly and was unfortunately unable to find time to do more work in the queues today, so somebody else might like to take a look to compare the article with the sources - thanks for bringing this one to wider attention. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
I think the "first" claim probably checks out though, as it is quite specific, though it might be worth double-checking. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Was wondering what the thanks was for. "Remote control is barred" is cited to two sources, one of which says that and the other says differently. A flip through some random sources suggests that it is in fact barred, but pinging @Dragonhawk12, Beta Beta Beta, and JaredMcKenzie: anyway.--Launchballer 14:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
One of the sources - I don't recall which - definitely says the robots are remote controlled by humans, but that the robots' combat moves rely on AI. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
The thanks, BTW, was for helping keep the 12-hour cycle going - unfortunately I was unable to help today due to some other things coming up. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
As far as I know, autonomy at least to a degree (no human intervention) is the requirement for qualifications. Also these robots are capable of both teleoperation and autonomy. The rules for qualification is that robots need to be able to manipulate its own joints and recover from a fallen position without human intervention and adopt the boxing stance and there's a time limit. Also their company reputation is based on developing AI-powered robots so doubt you would expect them to be fully remote controlled. There is bound to be a degree of an autonomy mandate especially given the qualification criteria.
But their company website hasn't yet published their rules for main tournament so not possible to presume. I be fine leaving out the part about them being "fully autonomous" for now - until the company publishes their main tournament rule book. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Gatoclass was probably referring to , which says "Human operators control each robot using handheld remotes and custom control interfaces, dictating overarching strategy: positioning on the mat, when to advance, when to trigger specific combat moves. The robot’s internal AI handles execution — calculating the micro-adjustments required for walking, shifting weight, and throwing strikes without losing balance. The human provides the intent. The AI provides the physical execution."--Launchballer 11:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to me to be broadly teleoperation. "Fully remote controlled" would be misleading since the robots translate intent into pre-trained moves. The robot isn't reproducing every single movement of pilot's controller input as their AI system is doing part of the control. But it doesn't sound like fully autonomous either as there is still a human in the loop. Probably the author may have misunderstood or didn't know the nuance. It sits more between conventional teleoperation and full autonomy. Regardless I removed that part from the article saying remote control is barred and added in their published rules for recovery test. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
IMO the hook should be pulled because the article still exaggerates the autonomy of the robots, which according to the source quoted, are actually remotely controlled by humans for much of what they do. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
@Gatoclass How? Did you not see me just remove the part about remote control is barred. What else is possibly an issue? Also it's misleading to conflate remote controlled for teleoperation. They are not the same thing. A robot can be very advanced in AI and only receive basic intent but translate them into autonomous actions.
Neither the hook nor the current article even mention the robots have full autonomy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
The quote above from Launchballer should make it clear - humans dictate "overarching strategy: positioning on the mat, when to advance, when to trigger specific combat moves". All the robots do is handle "execution". The article makes none of that clear, so it gives a misleading impression of the autonomy of these robots. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
It's not full autonomy but it's also not acting out a pre-designed routine. There is a degree of autonomy that's not possible with conventional pure remote control. There's a nuance where a highly autonomous robot still needs certain directions. Obviously it's not going to dance whenever it feels like it. Also if a robot is out of commission or a match hasn't started, you need a human to direct it when to begin fighting. Source said - the depth of autonomy differs. URKL's robots handle substantially more of the low-level physical decision-making required to execute an operator's commands than a directly teleoperated system would. The result is combat movement that can be faster and more dynamically responsive than pure teleoperation, while remaining strategically directed by a human operator rather than operating autonomously or solely from pre-programmed routines. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
As described, it really isn't much different than a human operating a fighter in a video game. The human decides where to move and what attack to use and then sends the command via remote, and the software handles the rest. You wouldn't say the computer fighter on screen has any sort of "autonomy" worth the name, and it appears these robots have no more.
Regardless, the bottom line is that the article as it currently stands does not accurately describe how much of the robots' actions are controlled by human operators. Until that is fixed, it shouldn't be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
I am now genuinely concerned in your response - as it seems that despite I have repeatedly told you I removed the issue - you are repeatedly referring to the problematic wording as though it is still present in the article, despite the fact that I have removed it.
If there is a particular sentence or paragraph that is incorrect - do point it out to me. Otherwise please do not characterize the article as misleading when the wording u appear to be referring to has already been removed.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Please understand Video games is not comparable to real world robotics in terms of AI usage. To explain - unlike video games - it's IMPOSSIBLE for robots to rely on pre-programmed trajectories when recovering from falls. People tried and failed. A remote control with zero level of real AI autonomy can not pull this off. But for URKL, human intervention is not needed for them to stand up on their own. So that recovery movement without human intervention in itself is inherently advanced autonomy.
Don't take my word for it - as even the source that we both just literally read made great efforts to explain that UKRL differs from direct teleoperation system as it has higher autonomy. It is accurately a semi-teleoperated system which also means semi-autonomous. The basics is others who are actually in the Ai tech industry accept a semi autonomous robot can receive commands from humans. In contrast to fully autonomous robots, semi-autonomous robots depend on commands from a human. And others are also coherent with our source that UKRL is not purely teleoperated as many of its moves are decided autonomously without human intervention. Ie - These units are semi‑teleoperated: onboard systems handle balance, stabilization, and motion execution, while human operators issue high‑level intent commands like “right punch” or “left kick.” I already explained what's done autonomously and what's still done by remote. It's semi-teleoperated / not directly teleoperated due to higher autonomy which my article accurately reflects.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Regardless I already removed the part about full autonomy so I don't know what else you expect me to do further. Again - did you not realize my latest edits to remove that issue? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
As this remains unresolved I've bumped this to Prep 2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
It's resolved tho. The other guy had issues with the article saying full autonomy. I agree and removed it. Despite it's removed and I had explicitly informed them that it had been removed - for some odd reason he keeps replying as though the article still retains that problematic phrase.
At this point, when u continuously tell someone that you've already addressed the issue, but they keep responding as if you haven't, it becomes problematic to understand what they're actually objecting to. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for those edits, but I think the article needs a little more work. I will try to find some time to make some adjustments over the next day or two so it can be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Like what? Seriously, this is odd. You only raised one issue, and that issue has now been resolved. You previously said bottom line is that the article as it currently stands does not accurately describe how much of the robots' actions are controlled by human operators. Until that is fixed, it shouldn't be promoted.
However I have told you repeatedly that issue has been resolved, yet you have continued to respond as tho I have not addressed it. Now you appear to be raising a different unspecified objection. If there is a substantive issue preventing promotion of an article that happens to show China producing world class robots, please identify it specifically rather than just introducing a new objection after the original one had been addressed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
I have told you repeatedly that issue has been resolved
You don't get to decide whether or not "an issue has been resolved" on your own nomination, we have reviewers and set promoters to do that independently and I am one of them. As it happens, I am under no obligation to fix the issues myself, but have undertaken to try rather than just marking your nom as not ready for promotion. Please exercise a little patience as I am currently busy in real life and can't get to it right away. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
When I had said it was resolved - I meant specifically and only the original issue you raised. No more than that.
You had said the article shouldn't have claims of full autonomy. I removed those claims and told you I have done so. That was the issue you had raised, and therefore you can understand my frustration when I kept telling you I removed it yet you kept telling me that specific issue is still there.
I wasn't saying that there could not be other issues with the article. I was simply pointing out that the particular issue you originally raised had been addressed.
Nobody is forcing or pushing you to work on that article. I am certainly not. If you want to raise additional issues, I am more than happy to take notes of them and work through them separately. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
I have added a brief quote from one of the sources to the article, which on reflection is pretty much all I think it needed to address my concern about accuracy.
Please note however that I have not addressed the WP:DYKFIRST question originally raised by Launchballer - that will still have to be checked out by somebody at some point. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Your edits are fine.
And it's definitely the first professional league. By definition, professional means promotion and publicity and this is the first one ever to be found. I have always been keen on robotics but I know it's only in the last two years when they really advanced. Nowadays I genuinely can't even tell whether a dancing robot is actually a human person in disguise. They become that good. Ie - ^^
But prior to 2025, robots were not even capable of such impressive moves to be worth investing for a public tournament. If there was a commerical professional robot tournament prior to 2025 - it definitely hasn't made any news. No earlier professional humanoid robot combat league has been identified in reliable sources. Given that a genuine professional league would be expected to involve organised public competitions and promotion, the available evidence supports describing URKL as the first. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, @JaredMcKenzie, @Launchballer and @Narutolovehinata5 is this resolved? TarnishedPathtalk 00:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't think so. The first claim is only mentioned once all article, to a single source. DYKFIRST requires strong sourcing, and for such a claim like this, one source is not going to cut it. The explanation above, even if not in the article, could count as original research, so I don't think that's enough to support the claim either. I would suggest moving away from this angle, it's more trouble than it's worth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath@Narutolovehinata5 Huh, only one source? There's like multiple sources there and in their opening line and or headline. It is supported by a substantial body of independent reliable sources in their voice - The available reliable coverage consistently treats the event as unprecedented and emphasize this. What are the odds that ten sources all acknowledge it's unprecedented and the world's first and are also all wrong? I have not found a single reliable source that had contradicted it and so I have more than enough reason to believe it's a well supported fact. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
And crucially, my above ten sources authors wrote it in their own editorial voice. All ten sources didn't say stuff like "according to". They all stated it as a fact rather than a claim. That is important as it means the characterization is being independently adopted by multiple publications, rather than just mere reported as an unverified claim by EngineAI or the organizers. Yes, the organisers indeed did make that claim but they were clearly not alone in making this characterization. Multiple independent publications reviewed the event and likewise described it as the world's first. So my sources isn't simply that: "EngineAI says it's the first." It is: "EngineAI says it's the first, and multiple independent publications independently characterize it as the world's first in their own voice." JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Alternatively, I could write the hook as something like - Did you know that Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend is a professional robot fighting league in which human-sized humanoid robots fight in the ring, and that one opening match ended with a robot decapitating its opponent with a head kick? - it doesn't mention it's the world first of its kind but it's still interesting and definitely also well supported by many coverage. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Too wordy. How about:
Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Substituted, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The Young Lady with the Shiner (nom)

@Sennecaster, APK, and Victuallers: This is currently sourced to , which I can't get a preview of, and , which has fallen offline and the Internet Archive's down. Any chance of a quote from the first or of an alternative source?--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer; He went to Pittsfield General Hospital, which led to an article in The Berkshire Eagle. He told a reporter that he would accept a black eye in any of its "ripe" stages of discoloration...Finally, the father of two-and-a-half-year-old Tommy Forsberg, of Worcester, Massachusetts, who had fallen down a flight of stairs that left him with two shinners, drove the boy to Rockwell's studio and had him pose. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
@Sennecaster:, thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Paula Maxa (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Jishara, and 1timeuse75: There appears to be close paraphrasing from which needs fixing. I'm fine with the hook (murder by definition is fatal, so the hook is obviously not referring to actual murder), but you should watchlist WP:ERRORS just in case.--Launchballer 12:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'll take a source that wasn't months away from publishing bullshit-bot vomit if you've got one.--Launchballer 12:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Changed wording and removed that source Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (August 31)

Latest comment: 1 month ago40 comments6 people in discussion

Rhoda Roberts (nom)

  • ... that arts trailblazer and cultural leader Rhoda Roberts became the first Indigenous Australian television presenter in 1989?

@Beta Beta Beta, Laterthanyouthink, and TarnishedPath: "arts trailblazer" certainly seems less neutral than it could be, but I'm primarily concerned about the article's use of the International Business Times, which is designated as generally unreliable. And, as TarnishedPath predicated in the nomination, I'm going to poke at the "first" claim — sorry! (: More specifically, why is the source for that statement, Satellite Dreaming, reliable? —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, my research led me to believe the first claim was solid, more eyes looking at these things is never a bad thing though. Regarding the "arts trailblazer" bit, remove it. Regarding IBT, I'll leave that to @Laterthanyouthink to replace as they're better acquainted with the subject than myself. TarnishedPathtalk 06:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
@Beta Beta Beta, TechnoSquirrel69, and TarnishedPath:
- I had no idea that IBT was a dodgy source, although in this case pretty much everything that was written there is corroborated elsewhere, so I have found other sources for everything that I used it for. Yes, "trailblazer" does sound like a bold claim, but the word in one of its forms appears in almost every article written about her after her death (and probably a few before that too) - although I did not use it in the article. She really was one of a kind in Australia, extremely highly thought of by all and sundry. Happy to drop it on consensus.
I'm not sure what the problem is about Satellite Dreaming Revisited? I have now added a bit about her role in the original film and the new website of that name, but am not clear on what it is that you objected to... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69, are you happy with the replacement of the source and my suggestion of removing the "arts trailblazer" part from the hook? TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for making those fixes! My concern with the website was that I didn't find any signs of it having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The typical standards I would look for would be something like an editorial board or a peer-review process (for journals), or evidence that other reliable sources consider it reliable as well. Essentially, we need some assurance that the source has done its homework before making factual claims. I hadn't realized it before, but since Roberts was involved with Satellite Dreaming, that means the website is not an independent source for statements about her; again, that makes its reliability doubtful. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
She wasn't involved with the filmmakers - she was interviewed for the film... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
The NFSA website is a reliable source about the film. Also, the co-producer of the original film, and creator of the website, is Tony Dowmunt, "Emeritus Professor in the Department of Media, Commmunications and Culture at Goldsmiths University of London, and was Convenor of the MA Screen Documentary in the Department from 1995-2015". The website is set up in accordance with cultural protocols (which, incidentally WMAU is in the process of trying to incorporate into Wikimedia at the moment) and in my view appears to be very well-credentialled. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Is this resolved? There are three bios next to each other in this set and there's a hook in Queue 3 (omnisexuality) I asked for a second opinion on and haven't got, so I'd like to swap them.--Launchballer 20:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I was going to swap out Omnisexuality to Prep 6, but the Swap took was malfunctioning for me. I'm guessing Queue 3 has already been cascaded protected, but that would be weird since I'm still seeing "Edit source" rather than "View source" despite the page showing up as fully protected rather than just template protected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
I have kicked it back to prep until the issues are resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
What are the issues? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, @Laterthanyouthink, @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5 and @TechnoSquirrel69 if we remove the arts trailblazer bit from the hook, does that resolve this? TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
In my case, no, because the primary issue here is that it's a "first" hook. If that is to stay in the article, the sourcing has to be extra strong and needs multiple strong sources. Otherwise, I would suggest trying other options first and see if that's feasible. If not, we could go with the "first" option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Do you mean just supplying citations in the article where people have said that she's a trailblazer? That is easily done, because there are plenty. Let me know if this is the issue, and I can do this later. Else does it need a different hook? (I'm new to this process.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that the word "trailblazer" could be interpreted as a peacock term, and such words should generally be avoided in articles, let alone hooks. As for "first" hooks, the relevant guideline is WP:DYKHOOKCITE, specifically the part about "first" hooks. DYK now discourages superlative hooks (meaning those that revolve around "firsts", "biggests", etc.) as they have often been questioned and/or turned out to be wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
I think that "arts trailblazer" is well supported by the sources. The claim that she was "the first Indigenous Australian television presenter" looks a bit squishy - the Sydney Morning Herald describes her as the first indigenous person to host a "prime-time" program: which is not the same thing, and The Guardian says she was the first to host "a prime-time current affairs program", which is not the same thing again (though they are referring to different programs and one claim does not necessarily invalidate the other).
I think one "first" she can be reliably credited with, however, is as co-host of "the first Aboriginal current affairs program" in Australia., so that would probably work as an alternative hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
If you look at the nom page, I did a wee bit of research on the subject and I couldn't find any ealier hosts. Not by much, but my research led me to believe that she was in fact the first. TarnishedPathtalk 12:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
The first what? Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Exactly what the hook says. However, if this is an issue which comes down to sourcing then perhaps we need to go to ALT0, which is interesting and which I also approved. I think adding qualifiers to the current hook is going to dilute the interestingness. TarnishedPathtalk 12:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
We can't use ALT0 because Roberts herself is the source of the claim. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
From mamamia and in their own voice:
Rhoda is a Bundjalung woman, a nurse, journalist, broadcaster, actor, producer, writer, art advisor, and artistic director. And she's also responsible for a lot of major cultural moments in Australia, from the Awakening Ceremony during the opening of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 to coining the phrase Welcome to Country.
From the Australian Broadcating Corporation, and again in their own voice:
"The woman who coined the term "Welcome to Country" has been remembered as a "true storyteller" and inspiration to many at a funeral on Bundjalung Country in northern New South Wales."
Both of those are rock solid sources. Both of those sources were put forward in the nomination. TarnishedPathtalk 13:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would describe either of those quotes as "rock solid" proof, but regardless, the claim is only attributed to Roberts herself in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Both sources have been disxcussed at RSN and I've not seen any reason to doubt them as bering GREL. @Laterthanyouthink, can you comment on why the ABC and Mamamia state that she coined the phrase in their own voices and yet the article attributes it to Roberts? Do we need to update the article to go with what the sourcing states? TarnishedPathtalk 13:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Trying to respond, but this reply functionality does not work properly on my tablet and it's just lost everything I've typed, including links and quotes. I'll get back to it on the computer tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
ABC is a very solid source, and while I'm not familiar with mammamia I accept that it probably is, but even from very solid sources, corners can be cut and inaccuracies creep in. That is why we generally like to see more substantial coverage than just a brief line like those above. Having said that, it seems nobody else has put up their hand to claim authorship of the phrase, so it's probably a pretty safe bet. All the same, as I noted earlier, the statement is not actually in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Getting back to this one - I have quite a list of sources which cite her having coined the term and instigated the practice in the 1980s, to a greater or lesser extent, such as this ABC one, this Guardian one, and this University of Technology Sydney one, but last night I came across the Inaugural Rhoda Roberts Oration, delivered by Wesley Enoch and reported by the Koori Mail, which describes how it came to be in some detail. I have not yet added it to the article, but will be doing so shortly, as that oration needs to be added anyway.
The UTS one also says "first Indigenous host on primetime TV"; ABC says "first Aboriginal host on mainstream television", Guardian says "the first Aboriginal person to host a prime-time current affairs program", and many others say similar. There had not previously been an Indigenous host or presenter anywhere on national TV that I could find - the only possible predecessors on any station, but only by a year, would most likely have been on Imparja Television, an Aboriginal-run station that started in January 1988 - but this was not national, mainstream, or primetime. (This last sentence is based only on fairly quick OR and I don't claim this as fact).
I agree that "trailblazer" could be a peacock term, and did not use it in the article, but as her contribution was clearly extraordinary, I don't see it as an exaggeration, and it has been used by multiple reliable sources, so it seems ideal to use as a hook to me... However, I'll leave others to decide on the hook as I am not experienced in this process. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink, the issue that Gatoclass points out above is that the hook states that she coined it without attribution and yet in the article it is attributed to her. I.e., She credits herself with introducing the term "Welcome to Country" in the 1980s in the lead and "Roberts "modestly yet proudly" credited herself with introducing the term "Welcome to Country" in the 1980s" in the body. Per WP:DYKDEFINITE, [t]he wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information. Given that the ABC and Mamamia state that she coined the term without stating that she credited herself, I'd suggest the article needs to be updated to state the claim as fact, wiothout using termelogy which states that she credits herself. Once you did that I see no issue with moving forward with ALT0. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
There's more about it in a footnote in the Rhoda Roberts Oration section, with quite a long explanation in that source, but I could use some of this earlier in the article as well I suppose. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink, that's fine, but those two parts I quoted, they need to be adjusted so that they state she coined it in wikipedia voice without stating that "credits herself" or "credited herself". TarnishedPathtalk 13:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay, I've written some more about it in the lead and body. See what you think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
That looks like what would be required. @Gatoclass, @Launchballer, @Narutolovehinata5 and @TechnoSquirrel69, given the couple of changes which @Laterthanyouthink has made to the article, the sources, the article and ALT0 are all now in agreement. If there is no further issue could someone swap it into the Prep 6. TarnishedPathtalk 12:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

So what is the proposed hook? Gatoclass (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass as I stated above, ALT0 * ... that Indigenous Australian cultural leader Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country", a ceremony which is included at the opening of the Australian Parliament as well major sporting events?
The article is now in agreement with the hook. TarnishedPathtalk 00:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
A bit clunky. Suggested tweak:
Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
You forgot an "as" before "major sporting events", but at 191 characters long (once the typo has been fixed), that doesn't seem to fix the issue either. It's within 200 characters, but the hook itself still feels long and clunky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
If you want to make it less clunky, we can remove the cultural leader bit. While it is true and supported, our readers can find that out by reading the article. So we could have *ALT0b: ... that Indigenous Australian Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country" for a ceremony used at the opening of the Australian Parliament as well as major sporting events?
TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Leaving out "cultural leader" omits most of her life's work in favour of a relatively minor achievement, so I think it has to stay. I disagree with Naruto that ALT0a is overly long and clunky, I think it reads cleanly and easily and doesn't seem excessively long at all. "Clunky" hooks are generally hooks that are either badly expressed and could be expressed more concisely, and/or hooks that are difficult to read because they contain too many facts with no obvious connection, and neither of those apply to ALT0a in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
What about...
that Indigenous Australian cultural leader Rhoda Roberts coined the term "Welcome to Country", for a ceremony now used at the opening of Parliament and most major events? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Works for me. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Substituted, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (8 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Pixar Place Hotel (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, NewAccount7295, Finnfrog99, and Finnfrog99/t: the cited source says Most of the Pan Pacific Hotel’s 350 employees were offered jobs with Disney, and about 50 have chosen not to remain with the new owners, Disneyland spokesman Tom Brocato said. - this is not what is said in the hook and article, and cannot be put in wikivoice as it is only according to the spokesman. As an aside, I also struggle to see how it's interesting. Also, the sentence after this in the article is not cited. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 The article says "At the time the hotel had around 350 employees, most of whom remained employed at the hotel after the change of ownership." followed by the source. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
In addition to WP:DYKINT concern, I don't think we should rely on a company spokesman to say in wikivoice that "most employees remained employed"; Disney would have a PR incentive to convey a seamless/pain-free acquisition. I suggest pulling to allow for another hook angle to be workshopped. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Pulled.--Launchballer 15:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Image choice rationale

Latest comment: 1 month ago24 comments12 people in discussion

I was wondering if there was a specific unwritten standard for DYK lead image choice. There seem to be some that are either hard to see or not particularly suitable, attractive, and interesting. There is a fair bit of taste at play, but the one today is a rather plain, beige portrait supplied by a subject not apparently known for their appearance. The one before it was a picture of an edifice that was the subject of the page but with a tree covering the upper-right quarter. The Guvercinada one discussed above had an S, A, and I photo, but instead used one where you couldn't see the building in question.

I'm not trying to impugn the work to get those photos. Their value for Wikipedia is of course not in doubt. I haven't done any prep myself, so I'm not coming with a lot of authority. I also have some bias, as someone whose (suitable, imo) images have not been chosen before, though none in these past few sets. But it seems like DYK image choice rationale could bear a discussion. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The choice of the image hook for today is a bit baffling. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
For that matter, I don't even find the hook that interesting. But my own fault for not monitoring preps/queues closely recently. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
I have found that in this year alone, the quality of images in the lead position has dramatically declined, to the point that each week now there is an image in first slot that should not be there. I think we need to have a new discussion about using quality images in this slot, as either people have forgotten how we used to do this or due to an influx of new people working in preps and queues, the knowledge has been lost or forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Case in point: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Not the best image for DYK at this time. We can do better; Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Barely visible at DYK resolution. What am I looking at? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
@Viriditas: There are better images in prep than Audobon Terrace and Kiyoko Tanaka, but they aren't so bad that I'd object to them running, and as #Spider pulsar (nom) and #Pixar Place Hotel (nom) both have question marks and the rest are bios I'm not able to swap Audobon Terrace out particularly easily. I suggest that if you want something else in there, promote something. As for Tanaka, there is actually a request for 13 September on Approved and prep 4 is the first set that could feasibly run that day, so suggest putting him in that slot.--Launchballer 03:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Or ticking off Demirhisar in prep 5, which I reviewed and could move in.--Launchballer 10:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Queue 6 has apparently free photos in Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Gil-Marchex (@RabidTuberculosis:, rev. @Zingarese: ), Template:Did you know nominations/Mansfield Crisis (my own, rev. RabidTuberculosis), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dániel Karsai (@Kovcszaln6: rev. @Lynngol:). Would be in comparison to Template:Did you know nominations/Audubon Terrace (@Epicgenius: rev. @TheBritinator:)
Prep 4 (the Tanaka image) doesn't seem to have any current available contenders besides possibly the co-nom'd page Chieko Hara. The Tanaka image also looks within the bounds to me and was explicitly praised by reviewer. Some of these less suitable images are questionable to me because the reviewer doesn't mention them either way (to say good, bad, or assess the free-ness). Given how relatively few image hooks there are and how they reflect on the whole section, I think requiring a sentence or two of prose that explicitly approves the image to possibly help this problem. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
The Gil-Marchex and Karsai images would violate WP:DYKVAR and the Mansfield Crisis image doesn't clearly depict a crisis.--Launchballer 18:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer and @Viriditas, I don't really see the problem with the image in Queue 6. One could argue that the image is too drab, but DYK isn't supposed to be running FP-quality images, just something that illustrates the topic. (Also, to be fair, the image does depict the actual terrace at Audubon Terrace.) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, the Audobon Terrace image is fine; yes, the fine detail may not be visible in the thumbnail, but it's intriguing enough and importantly, it's in colour and is a decent resolution when clicked on. The Tanaka image also looks passable to me, it isn't high quality but it looks good as the thumbnail and doesn't look bad in full resolution.
By contrast, the image of the torpedo boat in prep 3 is low resolution and quite scratchy. While I get that the promoter may have chosen it to get some variety into the sets, its quality really isn't up to an appropriate standard for the main page in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I’m a partisan here, but I struggle to see how it doesn’t reflect the integration crisis. It’s about the enforced segregation of a school—-the picture shows an officer enforcing segregation with a vestige of the pro-segregation fight over the schoolhouse door. There was a clearer connection in the hook, but it was trimmed.
I think that following a strict notion of DYKVAR which can result in plain portrait then plain edifice then plain portrait then plain edifice is potentially influencing the overall feeling shared by some people here. Maybe it’s the 12-hour sets, but it’s not nothing and it’s not for a lack of interesting images.
We have 2 NYC architecture (uptown Manhattan even) elements within 24 hours, for example. Great pages they may be, but it’s not really feeling like variety. It’s worth assessing even beyond these hooks/images. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
This is an issue that's been bugging me for a while, IMO high-quality images should almost always be chosen for the lead (taking into account the need for variety, historical importance etc), but a lot of lead images now seem to be of pretty indifferent quality, as if set builders aren't taking the issue of quality into account at all. I would certainly support adding something to the guidelines regarding the issue, assuming it's not already there. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
WP:DYKIMG says The first hook in the set on the main page must have an associated image or other piece of media. The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{main page image/DYK}} template (140x140 pixels, adjusted for aspect ratio). That could obviously be tweaked. TSventon (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm unsure how it would be tweaked, as it already states that the images must be suitable, attractive, interesting and display well at DYK size. What more guidance would we give? TarnishedPathtalk 11:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I wonder whether requiring an explicit go-ahead from reviewer and from prepper would help. Like looking through some of these bad examples, the reviewer didn't really explicitly mention the image either way (even to say image freely available). I think if it limits the pool to only reviews that explicitly check off the photo it could create extra roadblocks, but they could be resolved by a ping to reviewer. Not sure how practical would be. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
My opinion is that images can look better from far off than they do close up, and since DYK images are small and seen from far off, only the good details stand out in some cases. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I feel like that's the case far more often than not. TheBritinator (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't see any need to change the guidance on image choice. The selection of image hooks will always be somewhat subjective and a matter of the promoter's taste in addition to balancing DYKVAR, etc. It's certainly within the discretion of a queue mover to change the image if they don't like it, but I would encourage us not to micromanage other promoters' image selections unless the image does not meet objective criteria or is just categorically unsuitable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree, I don't see a compelling reason to micromanage images to such a degree. They can be handled on a case-by-case basis just fine. TheBritinator (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I'll try to make this my last contribution in this conversation as I've participated throughout and it seems wound-down. But no one is trying to micromanage. There have been multiple iffy images I've noticed over multiple weeks. That happens and, at the end of the day, a prepper/queuer's taste will rule the day. I spotlighted 3-4 from the past few days and multiple people independently agreed and also noted the trend. Whether you want to disregard that view is up to you.
But even in this discussion, there are conflicting views on the guidelines. Should the image be of strong quality (composition, brightness, sharpness) or should it just be acceptable to show a specific tangible subject (mostly buildings and portraits)? Should it be best at thumbnail size or should it require someone to enlarge to actually see what's going on? Does color have an inherent advantage over BW? DYKVAR is followed with some admirable religiosity, but surely it runs into trouble when Saturday and Sunday both have images of buildings on the same island in the same city, supplied by the same (dogged, invaluable) contributor? Can a contributor, as with Guvercinada Castle above, simply say that they prefer a less suitable, less DYK-appropriate photo (per promoter and reviewer) and be heeded? Is there something that can change or is the system working precisely as desired? It is nothing against the excellent contributions themselves, only that DYK image selection might not be fully calibrated. Again, whether you want to acknowledge the concerns here is up to you as individual preppers/queuers, but it's not a matter of mere hindsight bias or nitpicking. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I made a comment here a month or so ago recommending that an image expert go over the queue, just like Ravenpuff goes over the wording. That's the solution, but you have to find someone to do it. At the time, I recommended User:Based5290 for the job as they have shown a proven track record of working with great images and understanding the concept in discussions about them. But they aren't all that active. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't really see the need to formalize this anymore beyond what we already do, leaving it to the discretion of promoters and queuers. My one image hook defies all of the standards brought up here for consideration, and it got more views than that day's TFA: "... that there was a decades-long search for a photograph of Shorty Gallagher (pictured)?" 1brianm7 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. Not sure how that addresses the fundamental problem of bad images. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we keep 2/day sets going?

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

We currently have three sets in queue and just two filled preps (plus one prep that is nearly full of hooks under discussion on this page). I would like to keep this run of 2/day sets going, since WP:DYKNA is still backlogged by two weeks, but if we are at just two queues or fewer after midnight UTC tomorrow I plan to switch back to 24-hour sets. Please queue and prep as you're able to help reduce the backlog of approved hooks! (And thanks to everyone who helped us reduce the backlog over the past several weeks with a nice long run of 2/day sets.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

With just two queues loaded and only two filled preps, I am switching back to 24-hour sets. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (9 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments8 people in discussion

List of Kessoku Band live performances (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Harushiga, and Miraclepine: WP:DYKFICTION, surely?--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I added 'real-life' and moved it back so someone can double-check.--Launchballer 21:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Bunny Fabrique (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Cbl62, and Miraclepine: Not a DYK showstopper, but [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] deserves {{clump}}.--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Miraclepine was concerned that the claimed tie to the French monarchy should not be sourced only to a local Indiana newspaper, so I added further citations showing the breadth of coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Galena Creek Regional Park (nom)

@Crisco 1492, Hurricane Wind and Fire, and Epicgenius: This is a bit too close to 'DYK this product is commercially available' for my liking, got anything else?--Launchballer 23:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

It was used for training before the 1960 Winter Olympics. Sounds more interesting. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
How about "... that a fish hatchery in Galena Creek Regional Park that was last operated in 1949 is an event venue?" – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I like @Epicgenius's idea and exact rewording, but for @NewAccount7295's suggestion:
"... that Galena Creek Regional Park was used for training for the 1960 Winter Olympics?"
Source: "Galena Creek Recreation Area and Visitor Center". sierranevadageotourism.org. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 03:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Does the rewording or new hook work? Sorry if it seems like I'm impatient. Also do we need to move this discussion elsewhere since you moved the hook to prep 7? 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 21:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I moved the new hook in. I prefer that hooks I alter in this way be double-checked by someone else.--Launchballer 21:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer Thanks for that. However you left the opening part "that a fish hatchery" in prep 7. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why'd you decline my draft? (talk, contribs)🔥 21:53, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
So I did. My mistake.--Launchballer 21:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1 (8 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago27 comments9 people in discussion

Spider pulsar (nom)

@Nrco0e, Shocksingularity, and Beta Beta Beta: (not sure why this isn't coming up on Template:DYK scrutiny...) Ref 38 is cited to O'Doherty, but there's no corresponding citation to that. I have no idea why WP:Cite Unseen is highlighting D'Amico, Roberts, Manchester, Hui, Ginzburg, Swihart, Kandel, Koljonen, Disberg, Yang, and Bykov as unreliable.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the O'Doherty source myself. There aren't really any contentious claims here, so I'll say that the rest are false positives.--Launchballer 15:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Vermilion (horse) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Horsebutch, and Alansohn: Significant unsourced content that needs citing before primetime. I also can't find the hook in the article.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Kager Knueppel (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, JTtheOG, and Miraclepine: This needs more context. As written, this says Knueppel did something with his brother and cousin, which strikes me as something almost everybody does at some point.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: How about this?
Note that I didn't say "as (high school) basketball champions" because Kash isn't mentioned in the wiaawi ref or the (paywalled) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, the original hook featured some alliteration but had to be shortened. There is also ALT1, or even something like ALT2: ... that Kager Knueppel did not lose a basketball game in his first two years of high school? JTtheOG (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
ALT0b is a good starting point. I've substituted in "that Kager Knueppel won a state basketball championship with his brothers and cousin" and have moved it to a prep so someone else can check it.--Launchballer 16:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Centro de Exposições do Centro Administrativo da Bahia (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Thriley, and NewAccount7295: The article dances around the hook fact but I think it should be spelled out.--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Since there was shoring work supposedly done, perhaps an ALT would be better: that the brutalist "Balance Building" was called a "ticking time bomb"? Thriley (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
I swapped it in and moved it back so someone else can double check.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alberto Ravagnani (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Aydoh8, Bungle491, and Z1720: Article says "his main reason for [standing down as a priest was] his disagreement with the Church's celibacy rules, which require ordained members of the Church to abstain from marriage and sexual activity" which isn't quite the same as "left the priesthood so that he could have sex".--Launchballer 14:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

In this source (which is in the article) he states While I'm still a Catholic, I am no more a priest, so theoretically I can have sex. If this means this hook can't be ran on a technicality you could always use the alt hook, even if that would mean the article gets chucked to the back of the queue. In solidarity, Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
"I am no more a priest, so theoretically I can have sex" does not mean "he left the priesthood so that he could have sex" and arguably implies the direct opposite of that.--Launchballer 13:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped to Prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 and @Launchballer, there's ALT1: ... that Alberto Ravagnani used ChatGPT to write sermons? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-07/alberto-ravagnani-quits-catholic-ministry/106423724
Thoughts on using that? TarnishedPathtalk 08:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
For Wikipedians, surely that is an unduly negative fact in a BLP.... I kid, I kid. That seems to work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be bold, sub it in and remove the under discussion tag. TarnishedPathtalk 13:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hololive Dreams (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, 1brianm7, and Crisco 1492: I can't believe I managed to review the wrong hook earlier, but the poker and mahjong hook is sourced to the producer saying those things are in there, and I think it shouldn't.--Launchballer 23:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I noted this at the nomination. MOS:VGGAMEPLAY says "primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable [as sources for gameplay sections]." We can go to ALT0 if you don't think that fact is good to run on the main page. (also found another review, gonna add that in a few hours) 1brianm7 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't cited to either of those things. It's cited to a producer saying they're in there. If he's the only one that thinks that worth mentioning, then it shouldn't be in the article.--Launchballer 14:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
"Primary sources like game manuals and game guides". The guideline does warn against excessive content from primary sources, but I don't really think a short description of a minigame in a section about minigames included in the game otherwise sourced to secondary sources meets that. The proper venue for removing the allowance to cite primary sources in gameplay sections is WT:VGMOS. The editorial process for this primary source is stronger than the examples given, as IGN decided it was worth including without any comment doubting its truthfulness and providing it a very small modicum of weight compared to the already allowed primary sourcing. Prior to writing this I had always assumed gameplay sections had some sort of MOS:PLOT exception, but they do not... for some reason. I do know that we have somewhat higher standards for putting stuff on the Main Page, and so am fine moving to ALT0. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I've swapped the hook and put it in an earlier prep so someone can double check.--Launchballer 16:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
@1brianm7 @Launchballer How does ALT0 pass WP:DYKFICTION? I do not see how characters having apples fall on their heads during the game can be described as a real-world fact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I thought "Video game mechanics are not considered in-universe for DYK purposes and are not covered by this criterion" covered it.--Launchballer 03:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Seconding Launchballer. It is an interaction coded into the game and discovering it gives the player an achievement (that info is not in the source). 1brianm7 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
OK, fine, if that's the criterion. (It doesn't make sense under the principle that anything can be designed to happen in a video game though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
(Disclosure: I was the one who added that to DYKFICTION). My understanding is that video game mechanics don't count as in-universe because they involve player (or real-world) involvement, rather than something that actually happens as part of the plot. There's a real world connection involved. I vaguely recall there being an RFC or discussion a while back that actually talked about video game mechanics in relation to DYKFICTION and I think the consensus was that they were not covered. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (13 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Russian Pilgrim Residence (Jordan) (nom)

@TarnishedPath, Makeandtoss, and ZKang123: Per MOS:$ we likely need a currency symbol, and because I don't speak Arabic and am reviewing the source w/ google translate - I'd just like to check if the cost is reported in USD despite being in Jordan. Zzz plant (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Zzz plant: 40 million USD per the Arabic source. Btw if you want to trim "Vladimir" and just keep "Putin" it also makes sense. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Zzz plant: I think the "$" is enough to describe USD. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
This has come up several times at ERRORS recently, I think it has to be $US whenever the country isn't clear in the hook. Because there are also (Canadian, Australian, etc.) dollars. Zzz plant (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Halloween set again?

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Since it's about a month and a half before Halloween, should we start setting up hooks for a Halloween set in SOHA? Just a thought. Beta Beta Beta - talk 08:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably. If people have some now is the time. CMD (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I can expand a halloween-related food article this week for DYK if you want. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Thriley: suggested repurposing my DYKAPRIL nom Wednesday Addams (Wednesday) for Halloween, although that would mean IARing on a four-month-old hook. Suggest we keep that as backup.--Launchballer 14:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived earlier today, 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 August 3. We have a total of 379 nominations, of which 201 have been approved, a gap of 178 nominations that has decreased in size by 6 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

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) 21:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Only a quarter of the nominations have been struck, so I'm posting to prevent this listing from being archived for another five days. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

List of operas based on the Andromeda myth

Queue 5 (September 11, 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's fairly minor, but having a hook mentioning romantic visual novels next to that quirky hook should probably be avoided by WP:DYKVAR. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Could someone do a swap? I was going to do it myself but the Queue is already fully protected. I was planning to swap the Nekomata Okayu hook with the Oscar Wiggli one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
 Done, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (September 9)

Latest comment: 1 month ago32 comments9 people in discussion

1936 Liechtenstein general election (nom)

Moved from WP:ERRORS
 – TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • "... that in the 1936 Liechtenstein general election, the Patriotic Union received 47% of the vote, yet only won four of the fifteen seats?" As far as I can tell, the PU received 40.75% of the total vote, and the PCP 59.25%. The 47% comes from a strange subset called "national vote", where the 5 most popular candidates of every party are compared, but where the supposed percentage comes from adding up these figures even though that's not a correct calculation of the total percentage of the votes. Fram (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
    Not familiar enough with Liechtenstein elections to make a change without discussion. Ping to @TheBritinator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Also @RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, Soman, and Z1720:.Launchballer 14:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
@Fram Here are what the two respective books say:

TheBritinator (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Geiger and Vogt seem to disagree on the total number of votes on the municipal elections. Geiger says 2313 went to both the FBP and VU combined, whereas Vogt says 2256 including individual votes for other candidates. They agree on the national vote. TheBritinator (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. So the 47% is for 5 of the 15 seats, and the 40% is for 10 of the 15 seats. The hook mixes these two, stating that they had 47% for the 15 seats, which isn't correct. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. The two vote counts combined for each party (7,735 & 6,779) creates 53.29% and 46.71% respectively. Again, however, the two books disagree with each other on exact figures. I prioritized Vogt here as he goes into depth on the actual results, while Geiger just mentions the result in a couple of sentences. Maybe this could be cleared up in a note? TheBritinator (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Those vote totals exceed the total population of Luechtenstein at the time... there were only about 2600 people who could vote, it seems. Fram (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
I think that you are misunderstanding. It is a combination of the total votes from the municipal and national votes. I re-checked all the numbers, and I am quite confident that there isn't an error here. TheBritinator (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
how can you have 15000 votes in a country with some 10000 people at the time, and only some 3000 or so eligible voters? I wont have time to discuss this further, but it is all wrong. Fram (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
I've bumped this back a few sets to allow longer to discuss this. Suggest moving this to WT:DYK.--Launchballer 20:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram:, I think the simple answer to your question is that about 2,500 voters took part in the election and got 1 vote in the first (municipality) round and 5 votes in the second (national) round, hence the total number of votes cast was almost 15,000. TSventon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, voters voted for a candidate in their respective municipality and then had up to 10 votes in the national vote. This is explained in the article, so I am honestly confused as to why this is an issue. TheBritinator (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
TheBritinator I have skimmed the article and can't find up to ten, what text should I be looking for?
In any case I don't think it makes sense to add the municipality and the national votes and calculate a percentage as electors cast 1 vote each to elect 10 municipality representatives and about 5 votes each to elect 5 national representatives, so you could say each municipality vote was ten times more important than the national votes. TSventon (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Apologies yes I meant 5 votes. I'm not really seeing your point though; the election was held in two stages with the party vote counts for both added together to form an overall percentage. I don't see how arguing that one is more important than the other is relevant here. TheBritinator (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Are we any closer to a solution here? Bumping to prep 1, but this can be moved back up if there's a resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't believe there is an error here. TheBritinator (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
But why are you giving the votes for the 5 national candidates 83% of the weight in your overall percentage, and the votes for the 10 municipal candidates 17% of the weight? The same 2500 or so people votes, once 40% for candidates of the one party, and once 47% for candidates of that party. The party got 1 out of 5 candidates when they got 47%, and 3 out of 10 candidates when they got 40%. They didn't get 4 out of 15 when they got 47%. Fram (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, @Fram, @Launchballer, @TSventon and @TheBritinator, what is the status here. Are we moving ahead with the hook as it currenlty exists. It seems to me that there is conensus that there is no issue. Am I off in my assessment? TarnishedPathtalk 08:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Uh, where did you get that idea? I clearly object right above, and a few posts above this TSventon also says "I don't think it makes sense to add the municipality and the national votes and calculate a percentage". The 47% only applies to 5 seats, not to all 15 seats, hence the hook is incorrect. Fram (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
OK, I've bumped this back to Prep 7. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
That's not the case and I have already explained why. I see no point in responding to a conversation going in circles. There's no error here. TheBritinator (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
But your reply is not convincing at all. People had one vote in the first round (electing 10 people), and 5 votes in a second round (electing 5 people). There was not one unified round electing 15 people, and your percentage count and election result is incorrectly combining the two: for the percentage, you count the 1st round votes as 1/6th, and the second round votes as 5/6th, even though the result value of a first round vote was 10/15th and the second round votes weighed only for 5/15th. At most you could take the percentage of the 1st round (I.e. "one" count per voter) and the average of the second round (i.e. again "one" count per voter), instead of giving the choice of the voter 5 times as much weight in the second round than in the 1st round, even though they elected only half as much people then. Your hook is WP:SYNTH. Fram (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Number 57: could you suggest a solution to this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
That is wholly irrelevant. TheBritinator (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Wholly irrelevant to a hook that says ".. that, in the 1936 Liechtenstein general election, the Patriotic Union received 47% of the vote, but won only four of the fifteen seats?" Okay... Fram (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
I was taking a look at the article and was wondering if anything else could be used as a hook, but nothing stood out. Maybe the article just isn't a good fit for DYK in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Why not amend it to "the Patriotic Union received over 40% of the vote, yet only won four of the fifteen seats?". They received over 40% in both categories of the vote. Number 57 10:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Fine by me. TheBritinator (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Since everyone seems good with this, I will make the change and move it into Queue 5. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Bio hooks

Latest comment: 1 month ago13 comments6 people in discussion

WP:DYKNA contains an abundance of bio hooks and not as many non-bio hooks at present, at least for the older noms. Do we need to temporarily relax WP:DYKVAR requirements so that we can bio hooks next to each other in order to clear some of them? TarnishedPathtalk 09:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, a temporary relaxation might help us clear the backlog. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Would allowing 6 bios per set be a suitable relaxation? Of the oldest 22 nominations, all but one are bios. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I think that might be a good short-term measure. TarnishedPathtalk 12:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
6/9 seems a bit overwhelming for the 3 trapped outliers, why not do a couple of 9/9s instead? Special bio days, with normal DYKvar for geography and gender etc. CMD (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
How many bios are there in total?--Launchballer 12:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Category:Pending DYK nominations has 195 bio noms out of a total of 394. TSventon (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer, I scrolled past 16 bio hooks before getting to the first non-bio hook. Category:Pending DYK biographies says that 49% of pending hooks are bios. I think the present issue is that a lot of the older hooks are bios, meaning anyone building sets has to do a lot of scrolling to fill the gaps between bios. TarnishedPathtalk 12:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
49% bios tells me that Approved is a bit more bio-loose nearer the bottom. For now, suggest doing nothing.--Launchballer 21:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
If we're going to do nothing then prep builders need to make sure that every second hook in a set is a bio, and that when selecting bios they are picking from the oldest nominations first, or the issue will get worse. TarnishedPathtalk 01:25, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Yep, I think we got here because there were some preps earlier in the summer that had very few bio hooks in them. If we don't relax DYKVAR (and it sounds like we may not need to), we need to be disciplined as prep builders at including 4-5 bio hooks in every set until we get the backlog of them down a bit. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
What about temporarily allowing two bio hooks in a row to give a total of five bio hooks when the lead hook is a bio and the quirky is a non bio? And when the lead hook is a non bio and the quirky is a bio? The former seems to happen fairly often, e.g. from 23 to 31 August 2026 sets beginning Nathaniel Chauncey, Ole Peterson (Minnesota politician, born 1832), Caroline Bruce, Countess of Ailesbury and Kane Parsons. TSventon (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

12 September birthday of Carola von Braun

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Carola von Braun - as I notice only now, the idea of running her on her birthday has not been picked up. Too late? - At this point I think perhaps better later but pictured. What do others think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably too late. The next Queue is already fully protected, and WP:SOHA suggests making requests at least a week in advance. As it stands, a swap would require a queue check and swapping out hooks, and is likely too much work. There's no shame in it running as a regular hook even if it misses the day. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
As it stands, the hook has already been promoted to an image slot, but moving forward, it should be noted that specifically asking for the image slot is frowned upon due to a lack of slots and an overabundance of candidates. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting second look at Template:Did you know nominations/Bahanur Şahin Gökalp

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just reviewed this and tagged it as "again" because I had some trouble with the hooks (I couldn't verify the hook that I found more interesting). This is my second review. A second look would be appreciated if anyone is willing, especially because this nom has been sitting there since 25 July. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 14:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Cat: the review looks fine, any more questions? Nominators should help with hard-to-check references when asked, see WP:DYKCITE. That helps preppers and queuers do their checks as well. TSventon (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! I confirmed the nom was automatically moved to WP:DYKNA right after I approved it too, so all looks fine and no more questions now. Thanks again. Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 13:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (7 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments8 people in discussion

Niall Horan

This was meant to be running as an image on the 13th, and was being kept in the special occassional holding area. Is there a reason this has changed? Pinging @TarnishedPath: as they're the one that moved it to a prep Template:Did you know nominations/Niall Horan EmergentAnarchy (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@EmergentAnarchy, the hook is in Prep 7 which will run on 13th of October. As per it getting an image slot, that is never guaranteed and is up to our guidelines and prep builder descretion. In this case Prep 7 already had an image hook when I promoter your nomination and the sets either side of Prep 7 have images of people. WP:DYKVAR suggests that we not have three sets in a row where the image hook is of a person. TarnishedPathtalk 09:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Phoenix Dust Storm Scale (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Stu in Flag, Sammi Brie, and BenTanXiaoMing: I'm seeing some WP:AISIGNS in this, what was its involvement?--Launchballer 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

This was a bit of a drive-by from me, so I wasn't involved in the article and can't answer it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer: if you could point out your specific concern or concerns, I could attempt to explain or rectify it? Stu in Flag (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I believe that you may have used AI to use generate at least part of this article. I want you to tell me the extent to which you've used that.--Launchballer 03:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped to Prep 1. @Stu in Flag, please answer Launchballer's question. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Still not clear on the specific article part or parts. It's been about a month since I wrote it. I stumbled across the lack of an article on this topic. Put together an outline. Used claude for literature searches and summaries. I use strict accuracy and no-confabulation rules for searches. Nothing is worse than an invented, non-existent reference. I store as many of the references locally so that i can read them easily and fact check/verify without having to reperform a search. I use redundant references checks and I personally verify every claim.
Speaking of redundancy, which could be seen as a potential AI issue, it seems important to repeatedly mention that this scale is not readily generalizable to other locales. There has already been an attempt to rename/redescribe it as an "American" system.
However, while trying to decipher WP:AISIGNS, and rereading the article. I decided to overhaul it in any case. My original outline was not as clear as it could have been. The new one builds from needs to design, testing and use. Much better story.
Just in case this is the core concern, the short movie is from a real event and I made it with my iPhone at the time noted. It is not AI generated.
Finally, my background is engineering and I have read, written and edited thousands of technical documents. Engineer speak can generate similar issues.
Hope this helps. I am still not clear on the specific concern. Stu in Flag (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that AI-generated text is prohibited in articles, although the new version looks cleaner. I'm going to let someone else queue this.--Launchballer 13:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to pull this and mark it as rejected. I've prod'd the article. I would have CSD'd it but the criteria is narrow. TarnishedPathtalk 08:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
I've now nominated this at AFD, due to the article creator removing my PROD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Dust Storm Scale. TarnishedPathtalk 16:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison (golfer) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, JTtheOG, and Miraclepine: Not seeing sourcing for the Professional wins or Results in major championships tables.--Launchballer 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: The content is mentioned and sourced in the Professional career section, but in golf articles the professional wins and major championship results sections usually aren't sourced inline. For golf tournaments from 1986 onwards, the results are verified by the Official World Golf Ranking external link.
This seems to have been standard before I began editing golf articles. I'm not sure if it's the best referencing method, but these sections are about displaying statistical information in a wikitable so the content is usually non-controversial. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Flies in the face of WP:V, so yeah, not the best referencing method. I'll take your word that it's in there and have cited it myself.--Launchballer 13:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

the Xianzhou Luofu (nom)

@Ravenpuff and Gommeh: Just checking this is where it needs to be?--Launchballer 03:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I know what you mean. Can you please elaborate? In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 11:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
This was moved to Xianzhou Luofu and back and I don't want a redirect on the main page.--Launchballer 12:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
The move had a decent chance of being controversial, so I moved it back and told the person who did it to consider an RM. I'm positive this is where it should be; the "the" is present on official game maps. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 13:01, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Chieko Hara (nom)

@RabidTuberculosis, Generalissima, and Beta Beta Beta: Did a spot-check on the sources for Kiyoko Tanaka and I found some source-text integrity issues. The sentence reading The Fryderyk Chopin Institute records that between 1955 and 1957, she undertook several tours that established her internationally, with the European musical press describing her as one of the finest pianists of her generation, and that in 1958 she made an extensive and well-received tour of South America is supported by a source whose only reference to Tanaka is as follows: The history of classical music in Japan provides many examples of prominent musicians pursuing successful careers on both the local level – e.g. the pianist, violinist and composer Kōda Nobu (1870–1946), author of the first composed piece of music based on Western music techniques (Violin Sonata, 1895) and her younger sister, the violinist Andō Kō (1878–1963), or Kuno Hisa (1886–1925) – and the international stage – e.g. pianists Tanaka Kiyoko (1932–1996) and Hara Chieko (1914−2001) (Tamagawa, 2012: p.47). Profiles of female musicians were featured in popular magazines like Fujin Sekai [Women’s World] and Fujin Gahō [Illustrated Magazine for Women] in the 1920s (Utagawa, 2019: pp.164–165). Instead, this claim is mostly supported by a different source, the Chopin Institute, but the Chopin Institute bio does not verify that the European musical press described her this way nor that her South American tour was extensive. (It is described as "grand".) This bio is used for several other claims but does not verify that she won a "premier prix" at the Conservatoire, and neither it nor nor this source validate the claim that she was the first Japanese competitor to be placed at the Long-Thibaud competition. The failures of source-text integrity raise concerns about Hagitani 2005, an offline source cited for 19 claims without any page numbers and thus virtually impossible to validate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for looking at this article closely! Looks like a small mix-up, sourcing is otherwise sound.
But the Chopin Institute bio does not verify that the European musical press described her this way nor that her South American tour was extensive.
The Chopin Institute bio states "Between 1955 and 1957, she embarked on several highly acclaimed artistic tours, which led the European music press to hail her as "one of the best pianists of her generation." In 1958, she embarked on a major concert tour of South America, a string of unwavering successes. She was always popular in her home country – there were seasons during which she gave dozens of concerts, performing 120 times a year in Japan alone." It looks like the version on the Wayback Machine has different wording without the bits about European press that the article mentions, so I understand why you flagged this. I've updated the article's link to the live URL, so this should be resolved!
Hagitani 2005, an offline source cited for 19 claims without any page numbers and thus virtually impossible to validate.
The Hagitani biography was the most comprehensive account of her life, and I cited pages 24-30 in the first paragraph of Early Life. The rest of the article does not cite individual pages (possibly because of unfamiliarity with sfn notation). It seems the author has removed previews for all of their works on Google Books , and I can't find a PDF or other scan of the text. This is quite unfortunate as, being a Japanese source, it explicitly tracked Tanaka's firsts as a Japanese winner, including for Long-Thibaud. Since the article was written with access to the source, and since the claim checks out through manual verification of prior winners, I haven't edited it.
This bio is used for several other claims but does not verify that she won a "premier prix" at the Conservatoire I believe Hagitani explicitly named the prize, since it's included in the article. However, the Chopin Institute bio states that she "graduated with distinction", and contemporary sources using wording like "diploma with honors" to refer to the Premier Prix interchangeably. The context is that the Paris Conservatoire held a concours (exit exam) that resulted in a prize (either 1st or 2nd) to graduate. "Premier Prix" was a distinction (not a prize in the usual sense, as many students earned it concurrently when graduating) such that students who did not get the distinction could retry the exam to earn a "premier prix" and graduate (see ). Happy to make changes if you have suggestions! RabidTuberculosis (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
@RabidTuberculosis I don't understand your point about "Since the article was written with access to the source". Presumably you wrote the article, so you have access to the source and can thus provide page numbers for this source? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I had access to the source when the article was written in July and cited six of the 294 pages. Some time after the article's publication, the source went offline, so I no longer have access. The bibliography lists the biography as a whole. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Then why did you use the source for other claims where you don't have page numbers? It doesn't make any sense that you would use the source for a claim on a page number you didn't read? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I used a translation engine for parts of the book mentioning her name, and was working off translated English text. I left correlating the translated segments used in the article to original Japanese language pages as a TODO, likely because it was non-trivial to do so for the first pages I'd referenced, and the article was still a draft. Will see if I can get a physical copy on loan! Otherwise the reference to the work, even without pagination, should be useful for interested readers. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I find this extremely unconvincing. Why, if you reviewed the full copy of the book, would you have one citation go to a specific page but not the others? I am pulling this and will move this discussion to the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Chieko Hara
 – Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

IranNastaliq (nom)

@Noamonsol234, Jishara, and Beta Beta Beta: Thanks for contributing to DYK for the first time! I believe this hook needs to be reworded to be understandable to non-experts in typography or unicode per WP:DYKINT. Can you suggest a simpler way of phrasing this? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

On the talk page, the nominator posted Talk:IranNastaliq#The story behind "IranNastaliq" article: 6 months of research, Persian translations, and the journey from Draft to My First Ever Wikipedia Mainspace!, which is unadulterated LLM slop. I'm not seeing any signs of it in the article, but make sure you're sure.--Launchballer 13:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
The infobox is manually created. I don't see how a person figures out how to do "{| class="infobox" style="width:27em; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color:#f8f9fa; font-size:88%; line-height:1.5em; float:right; clear:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em; padding:0.2em;"..." in their first article. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I have opened an AfD for this article. Kisseran (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Pulled.--Launchballer 10:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

My DYK was blatantly ghosted

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

See Talk:Victor Amalraj. DareshMohan (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@DareshMohan, I've pinged the reviewer to the nomination and left them a message on their user talk. Ps, I'd avoid usage of the term "blatantly ghosted". People get busy and lose track of things. TarnishedPathtalk 00:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
@DareshMohan the nomination is now approved.
By the way, can I recommend using the WP:DYKCHECK tool to check the 1500 characters as then you and the reviewer should have the same number. TSventon (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 6 (7 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago31 comments11 people in discussion

Tendai Rinomhota (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Crisco 1492, JuniperChill, Narutolovehinata5, and TheBritinator: Hook is cited to Ok.co.uk, which is unreliable per WP:NPPSG, and I'm not sure I'm keen on Female First either. Personally, I'm not sure why the hook isn't "that the death of Tendai Rinomhota's Emmerdale character has been described as one of the soap's most memorable", but that wasn't proposed at the nom.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that hook or angle specifically would appeal to non-fans of the show, or to people who've never heard about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
I did not propose that hook as I thought it focused more on the character than actress but I am happy with it being used. Regarding the source, I would not usually use it but since it is specifically referring to her social media where she said that and hence I believe ut satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF, especially as the information is not contentious. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
I think 'this show has many deaths and this one's memorable' would work with any show.--Launchballer 12:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to change it in that case DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Why is "actress moves from country to country" viewed as interesting to any audience? Dahn (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
    It is not common for actresses to move to another continent for years for a stage production DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
    Nothing in the hook says that she moved there "for years", or even that she did it for a stage production (just after being cast in a stage production; she might have then starred in a million other Australian plays and movies). It may look like all this is clear to you, from the writing perspective, with advanced knowledge of the topic, but the hook does not give anything of that to the reader -- we are simply told that she moved to Australia. Also, while not exactly common, even a hook that would specify it was "for years" and "for a stage production" is still not exactly interesting, but more on the "we couldn't come up with any other hook" side. Dahn (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    Looks like there's not a consensus here yet; bumping back to prep 1. (For what it's worth, I find the "did you know she moved somewhere after getting cast in this role" angle not intriguing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing that consensus for anything currently exists. I'm bumping this back to Prep 6. TarnishedPathtalk 08:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Beta Beta Beta, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Crisco 1492, JuniperChill, Narutolovehinata5, and TheBritinator:, is this any closer to be resolved? TarnishedPathtalk 15:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Personally I'm not convinced about this hook being interesting, as I stated in the review itself. I won't push back if people disagree though. TheBritinator (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Right, well there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that the current hook isn't interesting. I maintain that my hook is, but this needs a new one either way.--Launchballer 16:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, what was the hook that you proposed? TheBritinator (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
First comment in this section, "that the death of Tendai Rinomhota's Emmerdale character has been described as one of the soap's most memorable".--Launchballer 16:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I am fine with you changing it to that, please do if you are happy with it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. TheBritinator (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Fine by me too JuniperChill (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Deez (musician) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Poirot09, and Krisgabwoosh: Two things here, including that the Singles table needs sources. The hook says "worked around 22 hours a day for a month and a half" but the article says "within a month and a half by working around 22 hours a day", which isn't quite the same thing - not that this seems to be based on a quote and that I think this would be too self-serving for us to just take his word for it per WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, I trimmed everything after 'album'.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Refs are in the body, but I'll also link them in the table. I personally disagree with the trimming, I think it's relevant information. Also, I don't think it's that much of an exceptional claim, but I'll leave the decision to other editors who are more familiar with DYK if it should be pulled. Poirot09 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
It's certainly useful, but it isn't essential to understanding the hook. The showstopper is that the hook disagrees with the article.--Launchballer 13:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Pulled. I agree with Launchballer that this claim is self-serving. I wouldn't even attribute it to him, as working 22 hr/day for 6+ weeks is physiologically implausible and likely an exaggeration on his part in the interview. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Lady of Lawers (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Very Polite Person, and MumphingSquirrel: Not necessarily a DYK issue, but you may wish to resolve the 'inconsistent' tag in the article. Also, one source has copied us.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah that inconsistent tag was actually me. I thought I'd had a lead on a different version of that part but it didn't pan out.
What source copied us? This was the entire article before I built it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_of_Lawers&oldid=1318821245 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
, but they credit us, so no problems. Thank you for removing the tag.--Launchballer 13:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Candidatus Magnetoglobus multicellularis (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Dandelionmoth, Bruce1ee, EmergentAnarchy, and Generalissima: Two things. One, I added a {{cn}} tag which must be resolved before this can run. Secondly - is this really quirky enough for the bottom slot? I think Lady of Lawers would be better for this.--Launchballer 11:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I took this out of the quirky slot; the {{cn}} must be resolved.--Launchballer 16:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped to prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I've bumped this back to Prep 6 and left a notice on the nominators user talk. TarnishedPathtalk 08:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Beta Beta Beta, Dandelionmoth, Bruce1ee, EmergentAnarchy, and Generalissima: can we get the citation needed tag resolved please. TarnishedPathtalk 15:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Added a source that I think verifies the sentence. Not my area of expertise though, so I'd appreciate if someone else could take a look. Zzz plant (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (9 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Fredericus van Rossum du Chattel (nom)

@Procrastineur49, Crisco 1492, and BeanieFan11: Hook says "too Dutch" but the article says "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes" and these aren't the same.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crisco 1492, please could you quote the sources (with translations) for the hook's "too Dutch to successfully paint Indonesia" and the article's "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes to paint the archipelago"? De Sumatra Post and Het Nieuws van den Dag seem to have different opinions. TSventon (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm out of town doing some photography, but I'll give some quotes when I have access to a computer. Reviews did change between his early Indies work and his later stuff (after ten plus years of dealing with the tropics, he adapted). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay, so re-reviewing on my phone, there's a couple quotes that together present the point. Paragraph 2: "Now came Du Chattel, the artist who already has such an excellent reputation in the Netherlands; he stayed for twenty months and traversed the entire Indies." Second last paragraph: "Mr. Du Chattel has not yet progressed beyond the lakes, the mountains, the rice fields, the trees. Many of his sketches approach the ideal, but, except for that Smeroe, they do not reach it. Not yet! For I believe that if the Indies have had a longer influence on this excellent artist, he will then be able to yield even more and even higher than has already been achieved here." Last paragraph, "His work in the Indies makes us appreciate the Dutch Du Chattel all the more". The Sumatra Post echoes a similar assessment of his early work, but holds that the works completed later were able to surpass the innate 'Dutchness' of his earlier landscapes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I have read both articles and the bit about "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes to paint the archipelago" seems to mirror "Du Chattel’s initial depictions of the East Indies landscape could not quite shake off the atmosphere and character of the nature he had studied and painted his entire life: the Dutch landscape, with its myriad intimate, quiet moods." from De Sumatra Post, but as you say, that was about his past works. I don't think the article text and hook text are supported by Het Nieuws van den Dag, which is the following reference. TSventon (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I moved "too entrenched in Dutch landscapes" in and moved it back so someone else can check it. Please address the above.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Apologies, my post was unclear. I meant please address my comment in the section above this one, i.e. Zhao Leji.--Launchballer 15:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Ajax (dog), Pipper (dog), Puppy (sculpture) (nom)

The last 'dog' is a sculpture of a dog. I suppose "12 metres" is a bit of a clue, but I'm going to open this to the floor anyway.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I am more worried by the lack of a picture of the first dog. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Puppy sculpture
Puppy sculpture
Should be an an image hook. Pipper (dog) and Puppy (sculpture) both have usable images and they look great. Let's just run one of the articles though instead of three. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to ping @Unknown Temptation, Generalissima, and Beta Beta Beta: for their takes on the above.--Launchballer 18:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Maybe I'm showing my inexperience as someone with 16 credits on DYK in six years, but I thought the element of surprise was what gets clicks here. It was OK for me four years ago when the hook was that it wasn't a celebrity, but a statue of him. I would be open to splitting the three across three hooks, as long as Generalissima retains three QPQ credits from the original review. Btw, the lack of a photo of the first dog is, morbidly, because the preserved body is open to the public. I've shown people the photo in real life and they were unaware the dog was even passed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I think Launchballer is just being cautious and giving people an opportunity to object to the dog sculpture. And thank you for explaining about the preserved body. TSventon (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Part of the delight about this lovely hook is that it includes three various and different dog articles. Including a photo is one of the rare times the surprise of the hook’s end would be spoiled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

PSHAW question

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I used PSHAW to close Template:Did you know nominations/Cold spot (astronomy), however it did not close the entire discussion, which kept the unclosed part in DYKNA. I fixed it, but is there something I did wrong here? Lynch44 00:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

No, this happens from time to time. I often fix these PSHAW errors in closing when I promote or queue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
It's a very common error, usually caused by people adding content or comments below the }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> part. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (17 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Al-Nour al-Qubba (nom)

@Chomik! @Grnrchst @Z1720 Shortened hook to make it more concise and motivate readers to read more.Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The Main Woods (nom)

@TonySt @Dizzycheekchewer @Z1720 Agree with comment from @Eddie891 that the wording "so inspired by" sounds awkward – strikes me as also non-neutral and unencyclopedic – so have simplified. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Burima Fireworks (nom)

@Babin Mew @Makeandtoss @Z1720 Have shortened hook which was overexplaining an interesting fact – it's better to keep it simple so that readers are compelled to read more. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

MV Jernas (nom)

@P,TO 19104 Yes, "photogenic" is non-neutral and is inappropriate to state in wikivoice, so have removed that and the word "dilapidated" which doesn't appear in the article and seems like excessive detail for a hook. @AdobongPogi @Z1720 Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Yenser (nom)

@Genes100 @Very Polite Person @Z1720 Removed one of the many descriptors in this hook ("the historical directory") to make it a bit snappier. No need to overexplain. Readers should click on the link to read more! Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 2 (15 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments8 people in discussion

@DYK admins: A heads up that this is the only queued set.--Launchballer 01:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Return of the Hero (The Flying Doctors) (nom)

As this is a first, opening this up to the floor.--Launchballer 01:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Since time is short, I was going to bump it to Prep 2 to give us more time, but the set's already protected. Can an admin bump this? Less than 24 hours is not enough time to scrutinize this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Better ping @Edlectro28, Rhain, and Thriley: then.--Launchballer 02:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Wrong ping—we did a different hook. – Rhain ☔ he
him 03:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped back to prep 1 as requested, and I'll find a replacement for it in a moment. Courtesy pings for TarnishedPath, JuneGloom07, and DaniloDaysOfOurLives. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Just noticed that this was a SOHA request for September 15, so I'll leave the slot open for it in case this can be resolved quickly. I'll have to fill it with something else in about 15 hours, though. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I was pinged, but I don't quite understand the problem. Is it the hook, the sources, or the article? - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07:, the hook has the word "first", which often causes problems, so WP:DYKHOOK says Such hooks require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient. Additionally, queuers are encouraged to bring superlative hooks to Wikipedia talk:Did you know for further discussion even if they appear watertight. TSventon (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. It's definitely not a throwaway comment in the sources. There's at least five there that back up the hook, only two are currently used as inline citations though (the two I included in the nom). - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Prior to promoting this I did a wee bit of research and found that the claim held up. The next Australian soapie to address AIDs was A Country Practice in 1988. I would encourage moving this back so that we can run it as a SOHA. TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Ps, I know that masters thesis generally aren't considered GREL unless they have use by others, that aside it is covered at https://doi.org/10.25949/28628291. TarnishedPathtalk 12:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (16 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Casabe (nom)

  • ... that the main ingredient of casabe is toxic?

@TechnoSquirrel69 edited this hook in the prep area to change the phrase "casabe" to "cassava bread". I disagree with this change as it makes it less interesting. The hookiness is about the ingredient; readers will click the hook to learn what the ingredient is. Including the word "cassava" makes this obvious, so readers will not want to know more. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

(Oops, I just noticed that's cassava with a double S; now fixed!) Hey vigilantcosmicpenguin! My main concern with casabe is that I felt the average reader might not realize that it's a kind of food. Maybe we can pipe the link as "a South American flatbread"? —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Sure, works for me. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 12:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Switched! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
might be just me, but I have no idea what cassava is, so it wouldn't take away from the hookiness for me... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm sure that a lot of readers also have no idea what cassava is (especially since it's not common in the region where most readers are from), but a small proportion of readers will already know that cassava is toxic. If I were to come across that version of the hook as a reader, I would have already known what it was about. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 1 (September 21)

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Alberto Ravagnani (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Aydoh8, and Bungle491: Given that this is mentioned in the article only in passing, can I get a temperature check on whether or not this focuses unduly on a negative aspect about this person? —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

See #Alberto Ravagnani (nom).--Launchballer 09:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Actually, should probably ping @Dclemens1971 and TarnishedPath:. My take is that this is 'person uses app'; the DYKBLP violation would be to accuse him of delivering said sermons.--Launchballer 12:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I know how Wikipedians feel about ChatGPT, but lots of people love it and are proud to use it. According to ABC, he said it about himself in his YouTube videos. I would expect he does not see it as a negative and thus it would not be unduly negative to include it in DYK per WP:DYKBLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines, but thought it was worth bringing up nonetheless. Sounds good to me! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I've moved it into prep 5 and queued it, having reviewed the hook I'd displaced to move it. I'll actually check that this evening. Might be able to queue prep 6 if someone can clean it up before I get back.--Launchballer 17:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I like Dclemens don't see it as being negative. I know our community has views about it and why we have those views, but as stated above the subject stated it about themselves. Additionaly, LLN usage is becoming widespred in the corporate world. Personaly I find it annoying when I have to deal with AI slop at work, but obviously a lot of my co-workers don't or I wouldn't have to deal with it. TarnishedPathtalk 13:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

DYK Hooks That Are Blatantly Inappropriate

Latest comment: 1 month ago70 comments17 people in discussion

Can we stop including pornographic links in the DYK? I'm not asking to remove the articles, or to never include any boundary-pushing DYKs, but a link on the main page of English Wikipedia to the "jerk off instruction" category of pornography should not be allowed. A high school teacher should be able to show students Wikipedia without showing them a direct link to a pornographic article. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is worth reading, along with the content disclaimer Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I am not calling for censorship, I am calling for discretion in the links on the main page. Discretion is not censorship. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can find an article by searching or finding a link in a related article. There should not be a direct link on the main page to an article explicitly regarding pornographic content. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Seeking a blanket prohibition against linking items that some may deem pornographic from the mainpage would require a broad consensus, i.e., an RFC. Current practice at various parts of the main page is to allow links to items that some may deem disturbing or inappropriate (pornography, other nudity, violence, etc.). Your personal threshhold will be different than others'. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    "Some" do not find "jerk off instructions" pornographic - the article is explicitly regarding pornographic content. To argue otherwise is wildly obtuse. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    Did I say that it wasn't pornographic? No. I said "items that some may deem pornographic". In this case, that may be 99.9% of people. But my phrasing also allows things like Michaelangelo's David, Botticelli's Venus, etc. When I was living in Indonesia, they censored a woman in a one-piece swimsuit on national television. As mentioned below, there is no universal consensus as to what is "blatantly inappropriate". What you may deem appropriate may be considered blatantly inappropriate by someone else - especially given that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and people's cultural backgrounds shape their definitions of what is appropriate and what is inappropriate differently. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    An article about a genre of pornography is not "You know it when you see it". It is literally an article about a genre of pornography. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    And again: this is the wrong venue for a blanket change to MP policy. That would require an RFC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not asking for a blanket change to policy, I am asking for people to use discretion. That is not a change of policy, that is a change of thinking. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also find the pornography-related materials on DYK personally distasteful, and because I sometimes use a work computer for Wikipedia purposes I do not queue or prep any hooks that might require me to click on porn-related news sites to validate them. One reason I remain involved with DYK is to help write, review, and promote hooks that I don't find distasteful and that I think will intrigue readers. If this is a concern for you, please consider being part of the solution and participating in DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I will from now on, thank you. Still trying to find the time to be a more active member, so I will focus on learning more about participating. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
There is no universal consensus what is "blatantly inappropriate". And "discretion" that leads to some topics not being shown is exactly censorship. —Kusma (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Children shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised. Wikipedia is no different. There are many, many things I would not let my children see on this website. In your example of a high school teacher, I would expect any responsible teacher to review what they plan on showing their students beforehand. TarnishedPathtalk 15:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia SHOULD be different. This site is a collection of knowledge, every social media site has direct access to pornography - I am not saying to delete pornographic articles, I am saying that we should not be putting links to articles about pornographic content on the front page. I do not appreciate devil's advocacy and intentional hardheadedness. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Also, I do screen the content beforehand - and I am tired of not being able to show my students Wikipedia because some edgelords want to put links to articles about porn on the front page. That is the reason I posted. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
You are asking for a change in policy, or at least to ignore a policy. You aren't the first person to ask this and won't be the last. As already noted, the way for you to do to use discretion as you put it is to participate in the process that determines what hooks are and which ones appear on the main page. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
There is no policy I am asking anyone to ignore, I am not advocating for the deletion of any information nor am I seeking to censor an opinion of any person. I am simply stating that links on the landing page of one of the most-visited sites in the world should be selected with a little more thought behind who accesses the site and why this site is important in the first place. I will participate from this point forward in the process, but I am confused as to why this concern has been met with such resistance and intentional evasion of the point. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
No one is evading your point. What they are pointing out is that your preferred approach (and mine) -- that DYK avoids pornography-related hooks on the Main Page -- does not have consensus support. If you wish to change the current practice, a successful WP:RFC would be required in order to show the community's consensus, and successful RFCs usually require a lot of work to build support and answer objections before they can be launched. Haranguing editors about a change of thinking from the perspective of an outsider who edits infrequently is not likely to build the support that your preferred approach will require. You are welcome to contribute here, but I recommend a different approach if you wish to change what appears on the Main Page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
With all due respect, editors are not special. They are humans, just as I am. I am not interested in politicking, I am simply voicing a concern and a request for discernment. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Regardless, I'm not sure why your students should use be using Wikipedia or that those at school/work should access it. From what I remember, my school/college/uni had a policy to avoid using Wikipedia as a source of information and I almost never accessed it while in education. Additionally, Wikipedia is not great on updates due to things like WP:NOTNEWS and cause Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, based on reliable sources, and follow other policies like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (if applicable) and cannot be used for promotion. Wikipedia is also not the place to tell readers how to do things (WP:NOTGUIDE) It's why those things should be done elsewhere, such as Google and social media. JuniperChill (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Please tell me more about how I should do my job. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, I agree that I would expect any responsible teacher to review what they plan on showing their students beforehand, but DYK contents change too often for that to be the only solution. You could check the page two minutes before you show it, and still end up with new, unreviewed contents on the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
While we are here talking about porn hooks, I am wondering if we can treat them better. In some cases it feels like we've run hooks where the hook fact or interest was inherently about the material being about pornography (meaning using it being a porn topic as the focus) rather than treating porn as a regular topic. For example, a hook that went "Did you know that X did porn before becoming Y", or "Did you know that A did porn/OnlyFans/etc.?" rather than "Did you know that pornographic actor X did Y?" To me, focusing on porn itself, rather than them just happening to do porn, feels cheap or low effort. I'm not opposed to porn hooks on DYK but I do feel that we need to treat such hooks more seriously (by that I mean make them more encyclopedic). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
From recent examples: A topic about an actress known for her pornographic work, who starred in both the actual version of a show and that show's porn parody, is at least an interesting hook - that is not school appropriate, but I wouldn't lodge a complaint. I just chose not to have the homepage open that day for my students to see. On the other hand, the recent "gooncave" and "jerk off instructions" links have both been the last link on the DYK, and the hooks were both about vague personal feelings associated directly with pornography. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is essential and nips the argument you're making in the bud. Whatever your view on it, JOI/gooning deserves a place on the site. And if it's on the site it can/should/will be linked throughout, including on the MP. It's also, of course, what some students will be interested in searching for on their own, which absolutely can't be censored.
Aside from that intractable principle, I do think people could consider WP:DYKGRAT more than they do. Was "goon" three times in a sentence necessary? I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't (guidelines/propriety aside, I think it's a fun/funny hook), but I think it's worth consideration. I don't think just telling educators to keep their students off the site is the only possible approach. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
In Australia goon is wine that is sold in a box. We have a party game called "goon of forturne" where we use clothes pegs to attach the various types and qualities of goon bladders to a Hills Hoist clothes line and spin it. What ever lands in front of someone, they drink.
A term that might be offensive in the US, isn't here. WP:NOTCENSORED is important. TarnishedPathtalk 10:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
It's a fair point. I'm no expert, but I think the new definition of goon is an internet thing more than an American one. Even in the US, "goon" had previously been like a galoot or a henchman and it's still common and innocent in that usage.
I definitely don't think there's any top-down solution but, I think that people should still consider gratuitousness more than they do. And while we can't ignore NotCensored or keep JOI/Goon from the MP, we also don't want to just shoo people away from the site. Remembering DYKGRAT and trying to apply in good faith is the middle-ground (though ofc individual views on gratuitous hooks will differ). Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I do think we need to take into mind DYKGRAT more often when it comes to porn-related hooks. They've become more common recently ever since it was discovered that they were essentially "instant attention" cheat codes, and recent hooks have tended to focus too much on the gratuitous aspects rather than encyclopedic stuff. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Those articles HAVE a place on the site, I am saying that place should not be on the front page. It is not censorship, stop with that nonsense. SouthsideIndy317 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
You've been repeating yourself and aren't necessarily being the most WP:CIVIL. There is such a thing as being too enthusiastic about your own view (WP:BLUDGEON) and answering every argument isn't always the way to win people to your POV. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
When people repeat themselves, it's often a sign that they don't feel like their view is being taken seriously. What could you say that would help this newcomer understand that you see their side of this situation, ideally without saying anything about your side of it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Once is enough seems relevant. Also, while discussion is encouraged as part of dispute resolution, consensus doesn't require unanimity. —Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
... feels cheap or low effort ...: Exactly. Consider why we probably wouldn't run a hook in any other circumstance merely because someone received a box of fruit. —Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it has been mentioned here, but there is a copy of most Main Pages at Wikipedia:Main Page history#Snapshots of the Main Page if there is a need to find a different version to show students. (Those not found there may be found on the Internet Archive.) CMD (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
@SouthsideIndy317: I appreciate what you have to say. The Wikipedia community doesn't at all represent the views of many of the world. The best thing you can do is invite friends and acquaintances with similar views on here to edit. I would happily help you with any questions you might have. Thriley (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment Can we stop using WP:NOTCENSORED where it doesn't apply, please? NOTCENSORED applies to actually censoring content, which we don't do. Where we place content, however, is purely an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
And actually, while I'm here, can I make a practical suggestion? If we place content on the MP which is likely to trigger school content filters so that the page is inaccessible to students, this isn't helping them or us. So if we must highlight such articles, could we possibly arrange it so they land on DYK on a Saturday or Sunday (if we're on 12 hours, the best ones would be the second Saturday or first Sunday one)? Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
It is correct that the Main Page has been censored for a long time. This censorship mostly pertains to not showing images (that are appropriate in the relevant articles) on the Main Page. There is a much stronger opposition to disallowing certain articles to be linked from the Main Page. We should certainly not care about what content filters schools in Afghanistan, China, the United Kingdom or the United States place on their students' ability to access Wikipedia's Main Page; it should be neutral, not follow the restrictions of some specific ideology. If schools want to make their students curious what their school wants to hide from them, that is their business. —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
See, this is exactly my point. In the UK and many other countries, content filters in schools are a legal requirement - it's not a question of "what schools want to hide from them", that's just nonsense. A school without an Internet content filter in the UK could actually fail Ofsted's safeguarding requirement and theoretically be closed. For information though, most content filters go for wording - "porn"/"pornography" would absolutely trigger them, as would a number of sexual swear words. Now I realise there are valid reasons for including the word "pornography" on the MP even if it isn't one of those "tee hee, let's get pornography on the MP, aren't we edgy" nominations, and there's nothing we can do about that. Ironically, images may not unless their alt text contains a trigger. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Indeed articles about anti-pornography activists might trigger such a filter, too, while some porn actresses could pass depending on how you write the hook. I still do not think it would improve matters if we tried to work around specific content filters (and which ones? those used by English schools? those used by schools in Utah?). I would certainly oppose anything that prohibits porn-related hooks or abortion-related hooks or transgender-related hooks or religion-related hooks or blasphemy-related hooks or gun-related hooks or violence-related hooks; all of those are objectionable to some people (and images even more so). If we wanted to make sure we do no harm, we should certainly ban some suicide-related hooks. I just don't see how we can start down this road without ending up with a censorship regime. —Kusma (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
As I said though, we could get round that by posting such hooks at the weekend. Win-win, surely? Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
In the best case scenario, building an infrastructure that allows pornography-related hooks to be posted only during non-school hours is a drain on resources we do not have at DYK, not something I would describe as a win. (It is not even clear that this would have any effect on blocks of Wikipedia). In the worst case scenario, this infrastructure gives people the means to make it easy that drag queen content, medical information about sexuality or abortion, LGBT content or whatever they find objectionable is relegated to non-primetime hours. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I think that Black Kite has made a practical suggestion. Remembering the day of the week isn't "a drain on resources". Even just trying to remember the day of the week would be a reasonable thing to do, or not objecting if someone else suggests moving the article to a different day.
This could be a general rule: Try to think about the day/date when you're placing sensitive content. Run the stuff that will appeal to certain juvenile sensibilities on the weekends. (It doesn't come up that often.) If we're running an anti-____ hook, avoid running it on a major ____ holidays or anniversaries; instead, run it a day or two before or after. For example, maybe we don't need to run a string of "Did you know that Paul Politician has voted against LGBTQ rights 123 times?" articles during Pride Month; maybe we can uphold our policy of not censoring Wikipedia's contents and not rain on that celebration through a small amount of rescheduling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Of course planning ahead for the day of the week is a drain on resources. And changing between 12 hour sets and 24 hour sets will mess this up completely. In DYK of 20 years ago it would have been easy, but now it would mean additional workload for the group of people here that burns out faster than than almost every other group. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Uh, no. We have preps and Queues lined out in such a way that it would be very easy to build sets without it being a burden. You are vastly overstating the burden being placed here. It would take almost no time and effort to swap a hook into a weekend set, and it would be very easy for promoters building weekend sets to put articles of this kind into the sets while following normal procedures. In short, the burden here is no more or less than the burden already in place.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Also, the minimum request here is simply to not object if someone else adjusts a queue to accommodate this sort of circumstance, exactly the way that sensible editors don't object if someone else adjusts a queue to put a holiday-themed item in the queue that will be shown on that holiday. It takes most editors zero time and resources to not post a complaint and not revert such an edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Would it really? We already accommodate special occasion requests just fine, and often we even work harder to ensure that hooks run on the requested date and make concessions to make it possible. Having a hook run on a weekend seems like a smaller ask since all you need to do is to see which sets are scheduled to run on a Saturday or Sunday and put them there accordingly. I don't have an opinion on the actual proposal to have said hooks primarily run on weekends, but the actual logistics shouldn't be difficult. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I like the idea of running weekend sets. It would be good to encourage promoters to wait to promote adult themed hooks (as defined at the discretion of the promoter) to the weekend; but without making it a hard rule that it must be done (ie if one slips through every now and then no big deal). There really aren't that many hooks of this kind, and if wouldn't be too hard to self-police as a promoter. This wouldn't be censoring DYK as we would still run the hooks, but it would make the main page more user friendly to schools during the school week. I would think that the general rule of thumb would be anything that a teacher or kid would get in trouble for looking at during the school day by the administration would be a good common sense hold for the weekend sets. This wouldn't be hard to do if we were just advise at Wikipedia:DYKPROMO that its not required but strongly encouraged to put hooks that could be perceived as "adult-oriented" in sets that will run on the weekends outside of the school week to make the main page user friendly to schools. I don't think this would be overly burdensome on the current process as we aren't exactly getting flooded by content of this nature. We also have a vested interest in keeping schools engaged with using the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. "Anything people could get in trouble for" includes LGBT topics. I think it is our duty to present these during school hours. —Kusma (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Oh please. Nobody proved your point. The schools I worked for all had PFLAG and GSA programs, so I don't buy the anti-LGBTQ angle you are pushing. We can absolutely promote family friendly LGBTQ etc hooks during the school week, and most schools wouldn't blink eye. Running a sexually explicit hook on the other hand (gay, straight, or whatever), wouldn't fly at most schools. We aren't talking about catering to the most conservative extremes of the populace, but making a reasonable optional accommodation which fits with more universal societal norms for schools. This just WP:COMMONSENSE. Plus there is no down side to running the rare hook of this kind on a Saturday or Sunday. The benefits far outway the negatives here, because this isn't censoring DYK. These articles still get the same amount of main page time as every other article. 4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not "family friendly", and pretending it is by introducing a watershed on the Main Page is never going to be enough for any of the more conservative elements or countries. What makes you think it will be worth doing? And we build an infrastructure that can be used for watershedding all content, we need those "universal norms" for the contentiousness of watershedded content. What will be left other than Walt Disney type stuff? —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Nonsense. What infrastructure? This would be an optional editorial decision on the part of promoters. It's not a requirement, and it is not policy or a guideline. It is only a recommendation that can be ignored. You are vastly overstating what is being said here. I note too that out of all of the hooks in the current queues in preps there are only two hooks I personally would consider moving to a weekend set, neither of them having to do with LGBTQ issues. In short, the majority of the preps and queues would likely remain unaltered than what they have been to begin with. Further, we don't have enough "Disney" type hooks to even make a single Disney set, let alone a steady stream of Disney sets. DYK submitters aren't writing a steady diet of Disney hooks, and that isn't going to change. We are always going to run every hook that gets approved. 4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
No no no. We are not talking about things here such as LGBTQ+ issues. We are talking about things that would legally be problematic for U-18s to even read or (and this is the bigger issue) things that contain language that would be immediately rejected by a content filter even if they aren't problematic in themselves (obvious example: the article that appeared as TFA on 9 July 2009). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Also of note: yet another pornstar has received top billing as the image hook for today. I wonder if we looked back, what the last time was a pornstar didn't receive the image hook? This was brought up recently - are these really the most interesting images being selected? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
It is a boring hook for an article that is just barely long enough. I have long campaigned for increased quality requirements that would have kept this from DYK. I agree that porn "stars" are overrepresented in picture hooks. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
That hook got bumped time and again until someone finally found it interesting. Who cares that a pornographic performer got a box of fruit? Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should have received the image hook, but this is what I've been thinking about for a while now: if we are going to run hooks about pornographic actors, can we at least try to do better with the actual hooks themselves and write hooks that are genuinely interesting on their own merits? The hook probably would not have gotten the image slot if it was about a regular person, and it's debatable if the hook would have even been approved and promoted if it was the same hook but not about pornography. Can we please put a kibosh on this sentiment that porn-related hooks are automatically or inherently hooky? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Depends if "inherently hooky" is measured solely by clicks or not. Though the clicks in this case might be more tied to having an image with cleavage. —Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
+1 Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I've seen the argument made that porn hooks are inherently hooky because they tend to overpeform when it comes to viewership, like people are attracted to the word "porn" itself and not necessarily the fact. I'm genuinely surprised we aren't pushing back on that idea more, because yes while it is true that the hooks get more readers, it comes at the expense of effort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
And, as mentioned, at the expense of issues in schools. All this for a barely-more-than-stub on a borderline notable porn star with a boring hook? Call me unimpressed. Black Kite (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
This particular hook (like most porn hooks) is worthless. The fight is to prevent a slow normalisation of further censoring the Main Page. Do not try to make it "family friendly" by pointing to vague "issues in schools" without any evidence. —Kusma (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
I think I've already explained that the problem is the word "porn" triggering the content filters. I also said that there are completely valid reasons to use the word on the MP, but in my opinion trivial and uninteresting bios are not included in those reasons. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
I will just say that I am opposed to the notion of confining hooks that may (or may not) trigger somebody's content filter to weekends. It would mean that all the hooks that have something to do with sex or profanity (and we get quite a few of them these days) would have to be crammed into two days which would start making the weekend sets look sleazy and tabloidy. Hooks of this type need to be spaced out appropriately so they don't overwhelm the sets. Gatoclass (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
I glanced through this month's DYK sets so far. There are about 25 sets so far. I didn't see any on profanity, and I only saw a couple that might be affected by this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
The "taking into account schools" proposal is a separate thing. I'm talking about porn hooks themselves being treated with kid gloves when it comes to interest. When the issue is that the hooks keep getting a pass from DYKINT, it means we need to increase our scrutiny of such hooks. DYKINT is one thing, but so is DYKGRAT, and several of the hooks we've run have also seemingly failed the latter.
I've also been thinking that, similar to "first" or superlative hooks where editors are encouraged to bring them here for scrutiny, that maybe we should also encourage bringing up such hooks here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
We don't need more instruction creep. People have plenty of time to object to a hook if they think it beyond the pale, and we get very few objections of this type. 99% of these hooks run without a squeak from anybody. Gatoclass (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 27 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 20. We have a total of 393 nominations, of which 245 have been approved, a gap of 148 nominations that has decreased in size by 30 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 2 (22 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Guntur Soekarnoputra (nom)

This is one of my nominations and thus another pair of eyes would be ideal. I moved to queue as we were down to one queued set. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Doing.--Launchballer 22:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--Launchballer 22:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Mlle Saint-Christophle (nom)

@Dclemens1971, 4meter4, Obleronet, and Victuallers: I'm not actually seeing it cited that she was a soprano in the article. Given that the Somerset source literally has soprano in its title, this should be easy to reference. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I added the fact into the body. All of the sources used call her a French soprano so it is certainly not a fact that is controversial in any way. It was stated clearly in the lead. Not sure this was really worth pinpointing, but regardless it is now in the body with a citation at the end of the sentence to a source with that fact (Grove which calls her a "French soprano" in the very first sentence). Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Transgender Day of Remembrance

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Two months from now is 20 November, which is Transgender Day of Remembrance. We ran a trans-themed set for it last year, worth running another this year?--Launchballer 22:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

We also did a Trans Day of Visibility set on 31 March. Probably worth asking about the precedent here. Are there any other topics for which we consistently set apart two days per year for special sets? Perhaps we should select one date going forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Can't think of any, though there are a couple of topics that sometimes get multiple sets including the last Halloween and April Fools' Day. (I'm even not sure there are that many topics with more than one special day.)--Launchballer 23:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
If you had to pick TDOV or TDOR for an annual day on trans-related hooks, which would you choose? (Not to preclude multiple sets on that one day if there were enough interest.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
I'd probably pick TDOV given that it is forward looking. That aside, I think it may be a good idea to cool it on special sets for a while, until we clear the DYKNA backlog. TarnishedPathtalk 00:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
TDOV it is.--Launchballer 00:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on 12 hour sets

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments5 people in discussion

@Dclemens1971 and Launchballer: thank you (and everyone else who was involved) for your hard work in running 12 hour sets recently. The run lasted from 6 August to 8 September (30 days excluding special occasions) and reduced the pipeline/ backlog from 540 to around 400 now.

I wanted to ask whether you were happy with how the run went and whether you still think doing 12 hour sets is sustainable? I think that ideally the pipeline/ backlog shouldn’t be much more than 450 (50 days at 9 hooks a day), but that depends on the availability of preppers and queue-ers to keep the numbers down. TSventon (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If I'm doing my math right, then 12 hour sets just mean that 9 more hooks go live each day. Thus, the backlog is 270 less than it would have been if we stayed on 24 hour sets. And, given that the actual backlog only decreased by 140, if hooks are always nominated/approved at the rate they were during that span, we would need to run on 12 hour sets every other day to stop the backlog from rising again, more frequently if we wanted to decrease the backlog. I'm sure the statistics on the frequency at which hooks are nominated and approved during various months is laying around somewhere (I don't know where, though). 1brianm7 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
1brianm7, the pipeline I counted was unapproved plus approved plus special occasion holding area. There were about 437 noms in 34 days, about 12.8 a day, of which perhaps 11.5 a day will get approved. For frequency statistics, you can check Category:Passed DYK nominations and Category:Failed DYK nominations, which have monthly subtotals, and should be complete up to about June. TSventon (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Very happy with the length of the run (the longest since I've been involved at DYK if I recall correctly). Thanks to everyone who helped prep and queue sets! I guess it's not sustainable at the moment since it hasn't been sustained :) The US Labor Day holiday seems to have reduced availability for folks who were keeping preps and queues full (self included). I would love to get us back to 12-hour sets to get the backlog down to a manageable level, but I'm working on the new page backlog drive this month won't have time to do much more queuing until October. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
It's a good start, although I'm glad we stoped when we did. The last set I did took me a couple of days to look at which I could not have done when we were at 2-a-day. Suggest that we revisit that when we hit seven filled sets. Also, I'm involved with two in prep 3, but might be able to look at prep 4.--Launchballer 01:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
It was a good run. It's too bad we don't have more volunteers to have kept it going a bit longer. Ideally we want to get rid of the WP:PEIS issue from both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA and also leave a bit of breathing room. TarnishedPathtalk 02:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: I support "get[ting] rid of the WP:PEIS issue from both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA and also leav[ing] a bit of breathing room", mainly because that would mean reducing the total pipeline to where it was a couple of years ago, around 270 or below, and therefore reducing the wait until a nomination is prepped to around 30 days. But PEIS issues are annoying as well. TSventon (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Also, the trigger for 2 sets a day was DYKNA exceeding its PEIS limit, which doesn't work if DYKNA always exceeds its PEIS limit. TSventon (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Halloween set building

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just here to remind people to help build a Halloween set for 2026. One hook is already in SOHA for Halloween; however, that is eight too few for me.

Perhaps this will also be used as general discussion for Halloween set building. Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There was a suggestion that Wednesday Addams (Wednesday) be used for this.--Launchballer 12:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I just opened Template:Did you know nominations/And Then There Were None (manga). ミラP@Miraclepine 19:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (23 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Umbellaoolithus (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Ashorocetus, and Kevmin:  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Just going to note here that I changed "herbivore" to "ate plants". The article reads "Isotope analysis of the carbon and oxygen preserved in the eggshell suggests that the parent fed on C3 plants, and inhabited a warm and dry environment.", which indicates only that it ate C3 plants; it could have been an omnivore.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Crisco 1492: I do not object to the change in wording; I overlooked this possibility due to the lack of any plausible omnivorous candidates - Umbellaoolithus is not very similar to known eggs of oviraptorids, and basal sauropodomorphs is not possible due to the Cretaceous age. A therizinosaur is possible and they are occasionally thought to be omnivores. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
    The change of wording is fine by me. Beta Beta Beta - talk 17:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Makan Nasiri (nom)

I suggested this hook and thus a second pair of eyes is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hook looks good to me, do you need the article checked as well?--Launchballer 03:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:DYKUBM

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As we are down to 125 unapproved nominations I'm going to be bold and turn off backlog mode. TarnishedPathtalk 00:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Please do, I've been keeping an eye on it and I think it's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (26 September)

Latest comment: 1 month ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Bumped here are three hooks whose discussions were prematurely archived. Unarchiving them for further discussion/resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Gottlob Herbert Bidermann (nom)

@Bozfour, Toadboy123, and Beta Beta Beta: Is there an independent source for the five wounds and 1,000 days in captivity? The sole source for these claims in the article is the subject's memoir. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Fair challenge, and thanks for looking closely. Taking the two claims separately.
Nearly 1,000 days. Not memoir-only. Oliver Griffin's review in H-German (H-Net Reviews, July 2004), already cited in the article, describes the epilogue as covering a 1,000-day Soviet captivity before Bidermann's return to Württemberg in 1948. That is a scholarly review summarising the book rather than independent confirmation of the figure, so I'll add it as a second citation and reword the article so the number is attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Five wounds. I'll concede this one. TracesOfWar carries a full wound chronology tied to the Black, Silver and Gold Wound Badges, but its page-level source list includes Bidermann's own memoir, and none of the published works it lists cover Verwundetenabzeichen data — so it is not independent of the memoir and I won't present it as though it were. The University Press of Kansas jacket description says "wounded five times", but that is publisher copy, and the Amazon, Goodreads and JSTOR wordings are reprints of it rather than separate sources. I have no independent source for the count.
Worth noting the article isn't otherwise memoir-dependent. Bidermann's German Cross in Gold is in Patzwall & Scherzer Bd II, p. 41 ("Bidermann, Gottlob, Lt.d.R., GR 437, WH, 01.01.1945") and his Ehrenblattspange in Scheibert (1986), p. 16 ("Bidermann, Gottlob, Lt., 1./Gren.Rgt. 437, 7.11.1944"), both verified against the volumes in hand. Those are independent published registers; it's specifically the wound count and the captivity length that rest on the memoir.
Since both challenged facts sit in the promoted hook, I'd rather replace it than defend it. Proposing:
ALT1: ... that German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann wrote his Eastern Front memoir in 1964, but it did not appear in English until 2000, when it became a History Book Club main selection?
ALT2: ... that in his introduction to German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann's Eastern Front memoir, Dennis Showalter drew attention to what the book leaves out?
ALT3 (original, attributed): ... that according to his own memoir, German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann survived five wounds and nearly 1,000 days as a Soviet prisoner?
ALT1 rests on publication facts. ALT2 is sourced to the Griffin review. ALT3 keeps the original but stops asserting the figures in Wikipedia's voice. Happy with any of them, or none — and no objection if you or an admin would rather pull the hook from the queue while this is sorted out. Bozfour (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Both edits are now made: the captivity length and the wound count are attributed to the memoir in-text, and Griffin (H-German, July 2004) has been added as a second citation on the captivity sentence. The ALT hooks above stand. Bozfour (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm not particularly taken by any of these alternatives but happy to let another editor tick them off if they like them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to bump this back to Prep 6 to allow for more discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:01, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath and Dclemens1971: Yes — trying a different angle. The previous alts leaned on publication facts, which were accurate but flat. This one is about the book itself:
ALT4: ... that the English edition of German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann's Eastern Front memoir includes events absent from the German original, added from interviews with him thirty-six years later?
ALT5: ... that German soldier Gottlob Herbert Bidermann published his Eastern Front memoir privately in 1964, and it reached English readers only in 2000 — expanded by his translator with material Bidermann had not written down?
Both are cited in the article to the memoir's own front matter and to Griffin's review in H-German. ALT4 is the tighter of the two; ALT5 gives more context if the hook reads too abruptly without it. Bozfour (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I think ALT5 is workable. @Dclemens1971? TarnishedPathtalk 16:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
I guess so, assuming it's supported by the source (haven't checked). Right at the edge of DYKINT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
@Bozfour, Toadboy123, Beta Beta Beta, and Dclemens1971: Dclemens1971 wasn't taken by any of the suggested alts. Do we have anything else? TarnishedPathtalk 15:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Johnny Hudgins (nom)

@Procrastineur49, DonCalo, and WikiOriginal-9: Article says "a moonwalk-like step along with a slow-motion spin", but the hook says "the Moonwalk" and these aren't the same thing, and both of the times the articles claim he was known as the Black Charlie Chaplin are attributed. I've also trimmed a couple of aspects.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I've bumped this to Prep 1 in order to make way for a SOHA. TarnishedPathtalk 02:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Now Prep 6. TarnishedPathtalk 05:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what the current status of this is. However, I thought the point of a hook was to keep it short, so "a moonwalk-like step along with a slow-motion spin" has been abbreviated to "the Moonwalk". Anyway, the moonwalk is a dance step. This source also says "Meet the 'black Charlie Chaplin' who devised the Moonwalk before Michael Jackson". I hope that answers the question if there was one. - DonCalo (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
@DonCalo, per WP:DYKDEFINITE, the hook, the article and the source all need to agree. Currently the hook says "the Moonwalk", but the article says "a moonwalk-like step along with a slow-motion spin". So what did Hudgins do? "the Moonwalk" or a "a moonwalk-like step along with a slow-motion spin"? TarnishedPathtalk 15:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
The moonwalk is a dance step + Hudgins performed a moonwalk-like step = the moonwalk. This source very clearly says that Hudgins performed a moonwalk. I adapted the sentence in the Hudgins article to "an early instance of and similar to the dance moves of Michael Jackson's signature moonwalk". I hope that resolves the issue. - DonCalo (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think this is quite resolved yet. The hook says he performed the moonwalk, but the article equivocates- saying his move was "moonwalk-like" and "similar to" Michael Jackson's moves, while also "an early instance" of it. I also see a few small unreferenced passages in the article. Zzz plant (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Oh really, a few small unreferenced passages? Which ones? Frankly, you people completely are missing the point, but do as you like ... The hook is now a pale shadow of what it used to be. But do whatever you like – I couldn’t care less by now. - DonCalo (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Zhao Leji (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, The Account 2, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Two things. I attributed one phrase which was quite close to the source and which you may wish to summarise before primetime. The other thing is that the source is blog.bnn.co, which a) is a blog, b) comes up as unreliable on WP:Cite Unseen, and c) says "principle" rather than "unspoken rule" according to Google Translate.--Launchballer 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Bumped.--Launchballer 21:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped to Prep 6. Ps, @Launchballer cheers for enlightening me to Cite Unseen. Another script to crowd out my common.js page lol. TarnishedPathtalk 05:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
@Beta Beta Beta, The Account 2, AirshipJungleman29, Crisco 1492, and Launchballer: I can't see any discussion to resolve what Launchballer raises. TarnishedPathtalk 15:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Too late for a 24 Sept special occassion?

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I requested 24 Sept for Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian Association of Stand-up Comedians. It was approved 10 Sept and I was waiting for someone to put the 'closed' template on the nomination page before following through, but that never happened. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Reidgreg, this can be a little confusing for folks and we probably need to address it in writing somewhere in the guidelines. Once a special occasion request is approved, either the reviewer or the nominator can paste the template for the nomination into the WP:SOHA area of the Approved page. That's where promoters look for special occasion hooks. A nomination isn't "closed" until it's promoted to a prep area. Sorry it didn't work out this time! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I was actually just about to post that I WP:BOLDly made the promotion as I was building preps, given the last-minute nature of the request and apparent oversight. Yes, moving forward, either yourself or the reviewer should move to the dedicated section once the nomination is approved. That being said, another eye would be appreciated on the item (now in Queue 2). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--Launchballer 23:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
That definitely needs to be updated in the instructions, then, since the current instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines#Special occasion requests imply that all that's needed is for it to be mentioned in the nomination and for the reviewer to "approve". I have a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlton Public Library (Massachusetts) that I asked to be done sometime during the first full week of October for Banned Books Week; could someone do whatever needs to happen for that? I'm not sure how to designate for anytime-in-a-specific-week versus wanting a specific day. PeterCooperJr (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 5 (18 September 2026)

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Two things; apologies for taking so long after queuing this set to actually check it, and none of the below are in this set for that reason.--Launchballer 23:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Aay Khuku Aay (song) (nom)

@Z1720, Babin Mew, and GGOTCC: The hook and article both say "used without prior permission", but as far as I can work out this was used without the permission of Sravanti, and this would need permission from the label.--Launchballer 23:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: as you've queued this.--Launchballer 03:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Haven’t finished the queue checks yet, just needed to get one in so others can fill in behind. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Bumped to prep 6 since there has been no response here from nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
I do not understand what the issue is? GGOTCC 21:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
"Without prior permission" implied that it was released in breach of copyright, which wasn't the case.--Launchballer 01:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Anoplotheriidae (nom)

@Z1720, PrimalMustelid, and Kevmin: Apologies, but I don't understand the source. I see a table on page 206 with 265.967 on it. Where am I getting 13.187?--Launchballer 23:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It's also in table 8 in page 206 if you look at the fourth row for Dacrytherium saturnini. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed that.--Launchballer 03:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Bajestan Playa (nom)

@Z1720, ایران 1405, and Gerda Arendt: I'm seeing a reference to Iranpress.com, which appears to be broken, and to Khosravichenar, A.; Aalijahan, M. (2023). "Assessing a multi-method approach for dryland soil salinization – The example of the Bajestan region", which doesn't exist and its DOI takes me to a piece about China. I strongly suspect AI may have been used in this.--Launchballer 23:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer The Iran Press article is archived: . The Ecological Indicators article has an incorrect DOI but the article does actually exist and is here: . If these articles had truly not existed, the article would have been eligible for immediate deletion. But while it's not G15-eligible, I'm getting strong LLM vibes from the prose. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
The article's lead image definitely looks fake. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
That, and new users depositing entire articles in one go is always a 9.0 on my weird shit-o-meter. Pulled. I need longer to decide whether to tag it or AfD it.--Launchballer 00:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

DYK Images

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

How strictly are we defining 'the image should be used in the article'? Are crops meant to improve visibility at 100px considered new images when the source remains used in the article? Historically, we have allowed crops (Eternal Silence (sculpture) ran with a crop when the image used showed the full sculpture), but another editor mentioned that they had been required to include the crop in the article for it to be approved. Given that the needs at 250px and 100px are quite different, I feel like crops should be allowed... but the current wording is somewhat ambiguous.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be so mechanical as to exclude crops; it's a portion of an image that is used in the article, the pixels are there, that's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
I think crops have pretty much always been allowed. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
WP:DYKIMG says, "It must already be in the article (or a crop from an image already in the article, if necessary to maintain quality at small size)", which sure sounds to me like a cropped version of an image in the article is fine (and even expected). — PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Ah, okay, so that DYK nomination to which I was referred was in error. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (20 September)

Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments8 people in discussion

Joe Pellegrini (defensive tackle) (nom)

@WikiOriginal-9, TheBritinator, and Z1720: I don't get the interesting factor of the hook, since the hook doesn't imply the newspaper's mistake. Why should I care what a small market newspaper thought about this obscure football player? But I love the facts here, so what do you think about changing the hook to "... that when the Idaho Statesman reported that Joe Pellegrini was still playing for the New York Jets, he was actually working for a local bank? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Since I don’t think this meets DYKINT as approved, I’ve bumped to prep 7 for further discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
The original hook was "... that Joe Pellegrini, who played for the New York Jets from 1978 to 1979, is not the same person as Joe Pellegrini, who played for the New York Jets from 1982 to 1983?" If that makes a difference. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I thought that one was fine, although I do think my suggestion is punchier. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that when the Idaho Statesman reported that Joe Pellegrini was still playing for the New York Jets, he was actually working for a local bank? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, this seems like a good alternative. Any thoughts? TarnishedPathtalk 01:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Forget that, I realised this is the same as what you proposed. I'm going to be bold and swap it in. TarnishedPathtalk 01:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it will work, seems like the nominator was willing to adopt it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Paramita Bandara (nom)

@Somebodyidkfkdt, Whyiseverythingalreadyused, A.Cython, and Z1720: I am concerned about the promoted hook. First off, I don't know why it was interesting that a vice principal made a snide joke about her incoming boss. Second, the snide joke involves a generally derogatory racial/sexual stereotype. If this is the most interesting thing we can say about Bandara, perhaps, but it doesn't really focus on her. (I can't verify it since it appears to be accessible only in-person in Singapore.) The other hooks are highly specific or routine facts and aren't particularly hooky. Are there alternatives to suggest? I've bumped this to Prep 2 to facilitate further discussion. If another queue mover wants to queue this, though, I won't object. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Not an issue. Think of an African American calling another African American the N-word. Is African American 1 denigrating African American 2? Clearly not. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 17:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Then it will be up to another queue mover's discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
I was not aware of the negative connotation of "dragon lady" during the review. For me "dragon" meant powerful, i.e., a powerful lady. I also agree that the other hooks were too specific to be interesting as stated during the review.A.Cython(talk) 20:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
I also think that Dragon lady is too pejorative for BLP and think the hook (with or without it) is not particularly intriguing. Some potential alternative angles, take em or leave em:
ALT5 that one of Singapore's "best known educationists" had her own education supported by her siblings?
ALT6 that principal Paramita Bandara claimed to have kept every card sent from students or teachers during her decades-long career?
Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
(It's not a BLP since she's been dead for some time, but it is an issue of gratuitousness and more than that whether it is interesting that a local school employee made a snide remark about a new boss.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
True, complete brainfart on me (right after reading over the page too). Either way, I still agree with the concern. Aside from the pejorative name, it's at best intra-office politics between administrators at a school that has cuspy notability and doesn't really give us a hook about Bandara. It's a solid page and I think there are better angles available. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
I like ALT6, but I think it should just be "said she kept" per MOS:CLAIM. Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 01:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
ALT6 probably sounds good as long as it's attributed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
I find ALT2 interesting enough: ... that principal Paramita Bandara had the teachers and parents cook halal food for the opening ceremony of Pasir Ris Secondary School after learning that the caterer had not prepared any? Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 01:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:DYKQ

Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments8 people in discussion

@DYK admins: , there's currently nothing in the queues. TarnishedPathtalk 00:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm also pretty tied up at WCNA for the next few days. If a non-admin queue editor can check and sign the next queue, I'm happy to move it into the cascade-protected slot! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
I see @Amakuru: got the last one (and bumped something - this is his reminder to explain himself!). I was going to queue the next one, but I had a power cut and I've had enough excitement for now. Might take it this afternoon.--Launchballer 02:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Launchballer: yes, sorry for not posting here earlier I was completely offline all weekend. I pushed Madyina Mguluwe out to prep 4 because I wanted to query the copyright status of the image File:Madyina Nguluwe (cropped).jpg. Its licence section points to an X post at which does say "All photos are available under a Creative Commons 4.0 CC‑BY‑SA licence", but I found this a rather vague rationale for assuming the particular photo in question, which it's claimed is "Source: COSAFA website" is actually also CC-BY-SA, particularly when the file page also says "©Alche Greeff/BackpagePix".
On the other hook I pulled, Yeh Cheng-min, I found the wording to be confusing, so wanted to workshop a change after returnning from my time away. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
I suspect that image would be deleted at Commons if it were nominated. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Yep, that's a case for VRT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay, that's really embarrassing given WP:ERRORS. Pinging @Victuallers: as uploader.--Launchballer 12:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
No its not really embarrassing. Its really over-reacting. We don't have an image - we contact the key person at COSAFA and she says all of her images are cc-by-sa. We get her to record that in public. Not surprisingly she didn't take all the pictures herself (obviously). Some were taken by photographers she hired. Which she confirmed are all COSAFA photos. This is a late over reaction to concerns that could have been checked at the time. Oh yes - they were! What more can we do to stop this? Victuallers (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
The CC declaration has to be done by the creator. If an entity holds the copyright (because, for example, they hired the photographer and those were the terms), they have to use the VRT process to certify they have the ability to release the image under a Commons compatible license. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
I can see that this might be desirable but I think you may have imagined that there is such a condition (on commons?). However even if that was/is the case (and there are thousands of images that show this is not universally understood), common sense would tell you that the COSAFA official has that authority over COSAFA images. Victuallers (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can say anything they want on X, and we cannot verify the arrangements under which COSAFA may have obtained its photos and contracted with photographers. That is why the VRT process is required if the person who produced the image is not the one uploading it. To avoid any concern here, I have swapped in a different image. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7

Also, for the school teacher, technically she swayed the deciding vote rather than decided the vote. I don't trust my fat fingers to edit a protected page, let alone the AI spellcheck that turns fat into father but leaves spellcjeck alone, so could someone on a desktop fix that? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
The source for the Sukarno hook says "shadow puppetry", which I've no problem with simplifying to puppetry in the hook but you may wish to add "shadow" to the article. The source for the football player says "first man-of-war" rather than "first vessel", are they the same thing?--Launchballer 19:22, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Audubon Park, Manhattan (nom)

This seems slightly misleading to me... it implies that the preservationists' efforts to locate the house were what actively caused the disappearance, like some sort of strange observer effect or something. In fact, it seems that the house was deliberately disassembled and moved to 161st Street, with the intention of rebuilding it there; the rebuilding never happened because of a lack of funds during the Great Depression, and it was the house's decorations that subsequently disappeared, probably having been taken by scavengers. I think the hook should probably be reworded to make that sequence of events clearer... Pinging @Epicgenius, Generalissima, and Beta Beta Beta: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amakuru, fair point. What about:
– Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
(Also, the "pictured" refers to Audubon Park, not the house. If needed this can be swapped for another image hook.) – Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Epicgenius: thanks for the reply and clarification... although I'm still a little unsure which event you're referring to when you say "it disappeared without a trace"?
As I understand it, there are several distinct things going on:
  • The original house was partially demolished in 1931, with its roof and porches deliberately removed.
  • That original site was then redeveloped in 1932, so any remaining visible traces of the house there were lost at that time through redevelopment.
  • The surviving structure was moved to a proposed reconstruction site at 161st Street, but the intended rebuilding never took place, apparently owing to a lack of funds.
  • The decorative elements of the relocated house at 161st Street subsequently disappeared, possibly having been taken by scavengers.
  • The relocated remains of the house also eventually disappeared, although the LPC report suggests that, having been left without a roof, they probably deteriorated through exposure to the elements.
So I think the problem with both versions of the hook is that they may be conflating different events and imply that an intact house somehow mysteriously vanished. Or have I misunderstood something here? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@Amakuru, regarding point 1, essentially the entire house (including its decorations) was disassembled for relocation to another site. Regarding point 2, the entire site was redeveloped; none of the original decorations remained at their original site. Points 3 and 4 are correct. For point 5, since the whole house was disassembled, there was nothing left in the original site; nothing was built at the new site, either, and the design details were taken.
Alternatively, we can just go with another hook (of which I proposed several). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Epicgenius: Thanks for the clarification. Just to expand on my fifth point, I was referring to the eventual fate of the relocated remains at 161st Street, rather than anything left at the original site. But yes, I think we're probably overcomplicating this now! Given that the dismantling and relocation were deliberate, and the subsequent loss of the remains has a plausible explanation, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the suggestion that the house mysteriously disappeared without a trace. Perhaps one of the alternative hooks would be preferable? I do like ALT4, regarding him handing over the estate to his wife to avoid debt collectors, although I think you reckoned that would preclude using the picture? Not sure on that point myself, the picture does still represent the estate, so would probably be OK? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@Amakuru, I would be fine with using an alt and not using the picture. (The picture depicts the neighborhood rather than the former estate, in any case.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
 Done Swapped out for ALT4 and moved to a non-image slot. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Majdi Harasis

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion

My DYK nomination of Majdi Harasis was "rejected". The initial review raised legitimate, actionable concerns, which I addressed. The follow-up review, however, raised no further actionable issues and instead rejected the nomination saying that 1- the article looks like a CV and 2- that there are no interesting hooks possible.

I believe this does not align with DYK reviewer instructions, which state that a rejection is appropriate when an article is “completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible.” Neither appears to apply here. If there are remaining concerns, I believe they should be stated as actionable issues rather than rejecting the nomination outright.

Moreover, DYK has accepted hooks with arguably uninteresting hooks, including this recent example: "... that California Creek and Dakota Creek are in Washington?" Also, Yōichi Nakanishi whose DYK hook was recently promoted, is of similar "status".

I therefore request that the nomination be reopened and given another opportunity for review. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hook interestingness is subjective and there are good reasons to question if such hooks should have been promoted at all. However, the CV-like issue is more serious and would have required a fundamental rewrite. The hook issue was probably salvageable but the CV issue was very difficult. If you are still interested in the article being featured at DYK, I suggest you first bring it to GA status. The GAN should also deal with any issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
This is the advice that has already been given. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Could you please explain how there's a CV-like issue in the current version of the article? It doesn't seem substantially different from for example Yōichi Nakanishi. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Military career" section somewhat reminds me of professional profiles, the kind that are published in press releases, official websites, and the like. I'm also not sure if the Awards and insignia section is better off as prose rather than a list, but I am less familiar with military articles, so if lists are the norm then I won't question that. The rest of the article looks better, but I can see why it raised concerns. I have checked Nakanishi and his case actually does look CV-like, I am not sure if I would have approved that article as is, unless that is all there is. Note that "this article was rejected, why was the other passed?" is similar to WP:OSE and does not necessarily mean we liked the other example; if anything, it can also raise questions on whether the other example was treated properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I too see the limitations of my "why this, not that" argument. But it doesn't have to raise questions on whether the other example was passed, it could raise questions on why this example was "rejected". And again, I can also see why it raised concerns, but I can't see why it would be rejected when the feedback you gave is actually actionable and changeable. This is not an "insurmountable" amount of work. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
My advice would be to bring the article to GA status, as the process should ensure that there will be few if any remaining questions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/2

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Just going to note here that two hooks are particularly "extraordinary", and thus I'm marking them for extra eyes:

... that in 1967 the Cambodian Civil War began with a rebel assault on a Royal Khmer Socialist Youth co-operative farm? – Start points for conflicts tend to be more complicated than a single raid (see Beginning of World War II, for example), though if that's the balance of the scholarship no issues on my end.
... that the 2026 Leagues Cup final featured one of the fastest yellow cards in soccer history, issued just eight seconds into the match? – "One of" makes it less likely to be disproven than "the fastest" on its own, but marking for extra eyes just in case.
 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I am not sure if this would count as DYKINT given it is a sports hook and those seem to be hit and miss when it comes to interest, but could the 2026 Leagues Cup hook be fixed by changing it to "that the 2026 Leagues Cup featured a yellow card just eight seconds into the match?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
The source was pretty clear on it and I have no reason to doubt its validity. (But don't mind the trim either.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

planned update

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Fairly soon (assuming I successfully tweak PSHAW, which i don't think will be a huge issue), I'll be pushing an update to {{DYKsubpage}} and the {{NewDYKnomination}} module, which is currently available in the sandboxes ({{DYKsubpage/sandbox}} and Module:NewDYKnomination/sandbox). Rather than having the {{DYKsubpage}} template wrap the entire discussion, the DYKsubpage template will now simply show the headers and the discussion will take place outside the subpage template. When the discussion is closed, the closer will add a {{DYK bottom}} (which PSHAW will do automatically). This comes with several advantages:

  • In the current architecture, people comment outside the template / remove the template bottom all the damn time, which closers end up having to manually troubleshoot. No issues with that now, since there is no bottom to the discussion until close. (This is how discussion closes work in most venues.)
  • The reply tool will work on nom subpages, although it unfortunately still won't work through transclusion to DYKNA/DYKNA. You'll still have to open the page directly for now. Someday I'll come back to fix that. The Convenient Discussions tool will work both on nom subpages and through transclusion.
  • Because the PEIS limit counts double transclusions twice, we will be able to have up to twice as many noms on DYKN/DYKNA without breaking the PEIS limit, since we're no longer double transcluding every discussion.

@RoySmith, is DYKToolsBot gonna need updating? What about DYKHousekeepingBot, @Shubinator? Anyone else have any thoughts/feedback before I push? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Do you know when this is going to happen? I'm leaving on a road trip in a couple of days and won't have any real time to look at this until I get back next Friday. Can you hold off deploying this for a couple of weeks? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
yeah, no problem :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, one comment and one question. Firstly we use PEIS limits to trigger backlog mode and 2 sets a day mode, though the latter doesn't really work. We might need numerical triggers to replace PEIS. Secondly, how will reviewers see if an unapproved nomination is available for review if the discussion isn't transcluded? TSventon (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
the discussions will remain transcluded, it's just that the reply tool still won't work when viewing a nompage through a transclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I think it would be better if we activated WP:DYKUBM when we felt that it was needed, rather than being forced to because of technical reasons. And I don't think 2-a-day mode is relevant to the PEIS issues at all - it's just if we have enough prep-builders and enqueuers to support that many hooks, no? ScalarFactor (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Two-a-day mode was one of our main tools to address PEIS issues. With this change, maybe we would need to change to number based, but I don't know the numbers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I haven't seen you in quite a long time on WT:DYK leek! But anyway, It's great that it will reduce the PEIS to DYK. The WP:FAC page has reached that limit today (as all FAC nominations get transcluded onto that page), although several nominations have since been closed. That's why FAC has rules that most templates cannot be used, which includes putting quotes in {{tq}} which is commonly used in DYK/GAN. (See also: today's WT:FAC discussion regarding PEIS)
I couldn't think of how many people only reply/add comments using the 'reply' button, but I assume that's likely users who use visual editor (as that is now the default for new editors, although I (almost) exclusively use the normal editor.) I use the 'reply' tool 90% of the time outside DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
good to see you, Juniper! hopefully next year I'll have some more time for it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

New tool for reviewing the leads of articles, might be useful for folks working on New Content

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hey all, I am currently testing a new user script designed to help people "review" the lead sections of articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadads/Lead_Balancer

The script does a quick heuristic to flag if any of the sections are under represented in the lead or (if compared to Featured Articles in releated WIkiProjects) the lead is too short or long. And then, if you need help understanding what topics could be emphasized, there is a small LLM call within the tool that audits the page for sections worth highlighting.

It's still in testing, so would love feedback -- especially if it doesn't handle DYKs and similar "recently expanded or created" content, Sadads (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. TarnishedPathtalk 01:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sadads, a bit of initial feedback. The script doesn't make suggestions for pages that are in contentious topic areas. That's potentially a lot of articles. Additionally it doesn't make suggestions for pages that are GA nominees, where no GA review has started. For me that has reduced it's usefulness. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath Good call on the GAN articles -- its actually almost perfect for those (works best on longer articles with lots of content with sections). My harness lumped that in with the other "Quality article" types -readded. The only classes of controversial articles are the ones with talk page templates like
"Template:Contentious topics/talk notice",
"Template:Contentious topic/talk notice",
"Template:Ds/talk notice",
"Template:Gs/talk notice",
"Template:Arbitration Committee restriction",
"Template:Featured article candidates"
Basically I wanted the tool to be usable by as "early of a user as possible" so want to keep them on rails, especially when building the topic lists. I haven't hit limitations as an experienced user wanting to work on breaking news for example, Sadads (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sadads, I just ran it over Pistol Grip (Ben Roberts-Smith VC) and Crossing the Line (McKenzie book) (two articles I have put forward as GANs), and it has given me some useful points to consider prior to any review occuring. TarnishedPathtalk 05:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Nice! Yeah, I am fairly happy with the results so far -- it helps me get through the cognitive overwhelm that is sometimes involved in reading the whole article, where you start seeing lots of other problems to fix, whereas a good lead rewrite is a nice, parceabel short task you can do if you understand the topic area, Sadads (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
It's an interesting tool and I ran it on some of my articles where I have tried to make a lead, and its findings were broadly similar to my own conclusions. I don't think the prohibition on checking GAs, maybe also FAs, is needed. GA is (or attempts to be) a low bar for articles to clear. E.g., I'd love to know what it finds on A Tale of Two Nations, a GA I wrote with a one paragraph lede that is a bit short but that I feel decently summarizes it. I also think it's prominence, right next to Article and Talk, is a bit undue. Most editors won't need to rewrite an article's lede as much as they need to go to its talk, history, or the article itself. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree, that I'd like to see its usage to be expanded to current GAs. It would be nice to check articles that passed a while ago to see if they could do with improvement. TarnishedPathtalk 01:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
So what I am going to do @TarnishedPath @1brianm7, is make it possible to do "1 GA at a time" when reading the page, but not do it in Batch -- the Batch/Lead Worklist function encourages "show up and work quickly" type work on top of articles, and I don't want someone (especially newer/over enthusiastic editors) to suddenly "show up" on a well maintained GA and rewrite the lead.
I will add this tomorrow or the next day. I am running another data process, right now before I do that to make sure I understand the "scope" of the tool, but my intent is to really help experienced editors to "see" neglected leads/content Sadads (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

King Simmons (nom)

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion

"... that King Simmons hit a deer on his way to the airport?"
This is uninteresting, this a common thing that happens to people. Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, common in many parts of the U.S. and Canada, deer overpopulation being what it is. (I once had a teacher who hit so many deer with her convertible that we called it Deerslayer.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe it's more interesting to non-Western readers? It might stand out more to those where such incidents are far rarer, but I guess it depends on the circumstances of the deer hitting or how it happened. I don't see anything else interesting in the article, so maybe the hook wpuld be more interesting if it mentioned that it happened on the way to the airport to start his CFL career?
While not related to the hook, given that he is still alive, I don't know if "he was an avid golfer" is the right wording or not because that is the same wording used for deceased people. I would suggest a minor rewrite in case it really only refers to him no longer playing golf. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I skipped over this the other day when I was doing some promotions because I don't find it interesting. I saw in the nomination that the nominator thought it was of interest because the person's first name is King, and that didn't do anything for me. TarnishedPathtalk 02:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
yeah, also not super enticed by this hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Pulled Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 27 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 18. We have a total of 393 nominations, of which 246 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has decreased in size by 1 over the past fortnight. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Heads Up

Latest comment: 29 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just a heads up that I am going to take a Wikibreak for a bit (not sure how long, maybe a week). I'm not worried about the queues - we have some great admins and template editors - but there may be some more lifting needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and enjoy your break! Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Hope to see you soon and enjoy your break. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

World Space Week

Latest comment: 29 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just saw the Google doodle for World Space Week which runs from October 4 until October 10. Is it possible then to have Template:Did you know nominations/Canasnack, Template:Did you know nominations/Rise (zero gravity indicator), and Template:Did you know nominations/Pioneer 10 and maybe other space DYKs on the main page during that time frame? All of these were approved weeks ago. I can understand if it’s not possible. I just thought it would be a nice idea. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It's very short notice for a special request, and the preps through 10 October are already built with only one open slot. If you had to pick one of these to run during that time, which one would you choose @Thepharoah17? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Rise (zero gravity indicator) since it has an image with it. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
No guarantees, and no guarantees of an image slot, but I'll see what I can do when I have time to do a queue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Date request

Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, sorry if this request is a bit close, but I reviewed/approved Template:Did you know nominations/Chester Marcol Game and the nominator asked if it could be featured on October 11, since the article is about a game between the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears and those two teams play on that date. Would it be possible to include it in the set for that date? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7 (4 October)

Latest comment: 28 days ago19 comments8 people in discussion

Notes from the queue checks follow below.

Ernst Frey (nom)

@KhoaNguyen1, Maury Markowitz, and Beta Beta Beta: Interesting article! I am going to pipe the link to make it hookier and specifying "People's Army of Vietnam" to be more specific (since there were multiple Vietnams in the era in question). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 The new hook seems great to me, I have no objection. KhoaNguyen1|Talk 14:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Baptism Site International Orthodox University (nom)

@Makeandtoss, Surtsicna, and Beta Beta Beta: This article is too short. The lead entirely duplicated content in the otherwise short article. The line ...which aimed to introduce the university and its academic programs to broader audiences about the university's launch of a website was entirely unnecessary and constituted padding -- no one needs to have the purpose of a university website explained in an encyclopedia. I'd argue that even keeping the fact that the university launched a website on a particular day is unencyclopedic. There's also a fluffy quote that accounts for 171 characters. Once I removed the duplicative lead material and section headers, as well as the pointless explanation of the purpose of a website, the article is below 1,500 characters and should honestly be trimmed further. This needs real substance added in order to be eligible for DYK. I'll bump this to a later prep, but plan to pull it for further work if robust encyclopedic material is not added within the next couple days. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for taking the initiative and doing some improvements. I have expanded the curriculum section accordingly, let me know if any other changes are required. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Now the article is closely paraphrasing its source. Compare source: It will include approximately thirty (30) weeks of reading per year and is a four-year program based on a reading list of (50) classical books in the areas of world history, Christian spiritual writings, philosophy, world religions, ecology, world literature, and science.... These courses will carry no credits, but examinations will be conducted on a pass/fail basis with no numerical grades. As part of their studies, undergraduate students will participate in a spiritual retreat program specifically designed for them. Students will have the unique opportunity to spend a certain number of days in the heart of Al Maghtas, the UNESCO-recognized Baptism Site. The program begins with three days in the first year and goes up to forty days in the final year. As part of their studies, postgraduate students will also participate in the Program, however, for only seven days. with article: The first being the Great Books Program, which runs with the undergraduate curriculum and is a four-year program based on a reading list of approximately 50 classical works covering subjects including world history, Christian spiritual writings, philosophy, world religions, ecology, literature, and science. The program involves approximately 30 weeks of reading per year and is assessed on a pass/fail basis without academic credit... Undergraduate students also participate in an annual Spiritual Retreat Program at Al-Maghtas, with the duration increasing from three days in the first year to 40 days in the final year. Postgraduate students participate in a seven-day retreat. In addition to closely paraphrasing the source, it sounds like marketing material for the school instead of an encyclopedic treatment of its academic program. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Hopefully better now. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, the DYK check script suggest that the article satisfies our length requirements. Does Makeandtoss's edits satisfy your concerns about close paraphrasing? TarnishedPathtalk 11:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I won't stand in the way of this proceeding. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to remove the under discussion template. If anyone has further concerns they can re-add it. TarnishedPathtalk 22:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Seems it's already been done. TarnishedPathtalk 22:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Squid on Strike (nom)

@Finnfrog99, EmergentAnarchy, and Beta Beta Beta: The sourcing here is extremely thin. We have a student newspaper, a union's strike publication and a Collider post. Usually, a strike publication does the same kind of journalism that the striking workers would have done for their employer, just under their own banner. But this strike publication seems to be navel-gazing coverage of their own strike, functionally as a self-published blog. And as a WP:VALNET site, Collider is considered "situationally reliable" with a reputation for churnalism. Is there better sourcing out there? If not, I'm not even sure this would scrape by as a standalone page at AfD. In addition to the thin sourcing, the hook does not really pass WP:DYKINT. "Did you know a student newspaper compared X topic to Marxism" seems par for the course, not unique and intriguing. Bumped to allow for discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

the Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide disgrees on collider, calling it generally reliable
I did find these collider sources which also talk about the episode . And this mary sue source Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
that NPPSG listing is based on the opinion of literally one discussion participant, and IME, Collider produces quite a lot of churn. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Might be worth taking to AfD if notability is in question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, @Finnfrog99, @Narutolovehinata5, @Theleekycauldron, @Beta Beta Beta and @EmergentAnarchy what is happening here? Is this to be referred to AfD? TarnishedPathtalk 11:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Personally I would send it to AfD just to test notability, although I do not have an opinion on whether or not the episode is notable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
if we can't find any more source, i guess refer it to AFD. I thought it was fine when i reviewed it EmergentAnarchy (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, I've nominated it and I'm going to pull this nomination from the prep area at least until such time as the question is resolved. TarnishedPathtalk 11:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Ps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squid on Strike TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 27 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The nominator of the Day of the Dead Parade article said they wanted it to be on DYK on 31 October, 1 November, or 2 November, to coincide with Day of the Dead observances. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Then it's been promoted a couple weeks too early. I'll pull and put it in the SOHA for Halloween. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Light Flip (nom)

Whilst starting to build this prep set, I checked the image in the hook already there, but found it to be suspicious (since, how is there a free picture of a phone that has not released yet?), and I found the source image at the product's site, which does not have a free licence. I've tagged the image as copyvio on Commons. Pinging Thriley as reviewer and Beta Beta Beta as promoter. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I contacted the company asking for an image to be uploaded after creating the initial stub. The image was uploaded by one of the company founders. I believe the image was his to give away. The image has been deleted. Can it be undeleted and a discussion had? I could contact him again if he needs to provide additional information. Thriley (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
They would need to license it through the VRT process since it has already been published online on a copyrighted site. Or your contact could upload a personal photo of the device. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok. I just sent an email asking for a reupload. Hoping for a quick response! Thriley (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, if it's their image to give away it's fine, though that should be established via VRT so we can be 100% confident DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Anny Schlemm

Latest comment: 26 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Anny Schlemm is on the Main page, from Q3, which was like this, and I wonder why Grimes2 got credit but I didn't. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I copied the credit, but would still like to know what happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: My guess is that it was confused by there being two DYKmakes and no DYKnom, although that doesn't explain why @Finnfrog99: didn't seem to get one for Madge Fagan.--Launchballer 07:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking about it. However, the explanation (see below and on my talk) seems to be that by following an instruction to subscribe to Nervous bot, I blocked other bots. I'll watch if the change I made now helps, but no need to search for other reasons now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I received a bot GA notification, - it seems to be solved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, so that is what broke it. Nervousbot appears to have sent out a message rectifying this mistake Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

DYN nomination status of ISRO

Latest comment: 26 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone! What's the update regarding ISRO's DIY nomination? Is there any further change needed, or is the nomination ready for promotion? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 01:57, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Akshadev: yes, the nomination is ticked and is listed as approved at WP:DYKNA#Articles created/expanded on September 30, but it doesn't display fully due to the size of the page. A promoter will need to check it in due course and may have queries, but there are a lot of older articles that are likely to be promoted first. You could watchlist Template:Did you know nominations/ISRO. TSventon (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@TSventon: I see. Actually, the nomination discussion is still open, so I thought it best to ask. Thank you for your time. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 02:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
The process can be confusing. The way it works is that the nomination stays open when it is approved and is closed as part of the process of promoting to prep. That allows a promoter (or another editor) to ask more questions until the nomination is promoted. TSventon (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 1 (12 October)

Latest comment: 25 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would someone mind signing off on Han Ji-pyeong, since I approved the hook? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I boldly added the character's name as I don't think its removal is necessary.--Launchballer 07:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 2 (13 October)

Latest comment: 25 days ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Lego Vidiyo (nom)

@NewAccount7295, EvanTech10, and Crisco 1492: The promoted fact about minifigures dancing is not in the article. It will need to be added or the hook will be bumped. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 Just go ahead and change it to either ALT0 , ALT1, or ALT2, and perhaps add the image to it. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
It’s unclear whether @EvanTech10 approved additional hooks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I can approve ALT1 or ALT2
If we can alter ALT3 to be something like "...that Lego minifigures could make music videos on their own version of TikTok?" I can also support that as well. @NewAccount7295 what do you think? EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 15:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@EvanTech10 Let's go with ALT2. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I can sign off that!
Courtesy copy: ALT2: "... that Lego Vidiyo was described as TikTok but for children?" EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 15:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 Prep 6 and Prep 1 are both lacking hooks. Why don't we swap it there and have it as an image hook? (It's fine if we don't. I don't want to sound demanding) NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
The image is a logo that is almost certainly above the threshold of originality. It likely does not qualify for its PD license on Commons and thus is not eligible to be displayed on the main page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 In that case how is the Lego logo (File:LEGO logo.svg) allowed? NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Not sure, but the Vidiyo logo is more complex than the Lego one, and I suspect it would be debatable whether it meets the requirements for Commons. Regardless, it would not be typical for us to use a product logo as a DYK image, and requesting image slots is frowned on because if editors grant some requests it incentivizes more people to ask for them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally blocked DYKUpdateBot from my user talk page

Latest comment: 23 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello! This is silly, but I just realised that I accidentally blocked DYKUpdateBot from posting to my user talk page for 2026 Kyiv SBU–HUR shootout, by following the opt-in instructions for User:NervousBot, which say to put {{bots|allow=NervousBot}} on one's talk page. I only just found out that according to the documentation for Template:Bots, that causes all other bots to be blocked. I have now changed the bots template to allow all bots; will the bot try again? Thanks and sorry for the trivial question. Helpful Cat🐈 07:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Cat: Unfortunately, DYKUpdateBot only takes one run at it, but someone can always give you that credit manually :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Speaking of which, if you change line 25 of creditor.js to prep = await Prep.create(mw.config.get('wgPageName')); (to fix the bug, a typo, which broke it), PSHAW can do it! :) @Helpful Cat: I gotchu when the time comes! :) Unsurprising (vacation account)  📝 🗣️💬 👥 (main) 16:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Just for users seeing this, I would like to apologise for the instructions being incorrect/misleading, and mention that I have updated the instructions and alerted everyone who was affected with the ways to resolve it. Balance3641 🍃 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for fixing it and notifying everyone so quickly! Helpful Cat🐈 04:35, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Your credit has been given, thanks for bringing awareness to this! Cheers! Unsurprising (vacation account)  📝 🗣️💬 👥 (main) 16:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the manual credit! Cheers! Helpful Cat🐈 16:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
My pleasure! Cheers! Unsurprising (Andy)  📝 🗣️💬 👥 12:44, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, 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 September 24. We have a total of 454 nominations, of which 296 have been approved, a gap of 158 nominations that has increased in size by 11 over the past twelve days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6 (October 10)

Latest comment: 22 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Laura Davoli (nom)

  • ... that Australian player Laura Davoli was one of two UT Arlington players at the 2026 Wheelchair Basketball World Championships?

@Hawkeye7, JuneGloom07, and TarnishedPath:Just to clarify: what is supposed to be the interesting fact here: that she plays wheelchair basketball, that she is from UT Arlington (which I imagine needs to be linked for the benefit of non-American readers), or that she is Australian but played for an American university? I'm not really sure if the current wording meets DYKINT, so if it's one of those, maybe the wording has to be changed to make the emphasis clearer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of people are aware that American universities have wheelchair basketball teams, much less that they give sports scholarships to foreign students. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Or that a particular US university had two players playing in the world championship at the same time. No issue to linking the university from me. TarnishedPathtalk 03:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Both of them sound like specialist "needs sports knowledge or background" knowledge to me, though I supposed others can chime in. In the meantime, I've bumped it to Prep 5 (October 16) to allow more time to discuss a new hook, although if this is ultimately queued again I won't object other than maybe linking UT Arlington. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
With no further discussion, I'm OK with the hook as is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and TarnishedPath: Would you be okay with this being reworded? I'm not against the hook fact itself but I think the current wording could be improved for the benefit of non-sports fans. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Off-topic: Vital Articles proposal backlog

Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm posting this in a couple general wikiprojects with the hope of attracting experienced editors who can help address the backlog at the WT:Vital articles and especially WT:VA5, which is the largest section. Each proposal needs a quorum of at least 4 votes, but some have been sitting for almost a year without receiving enough to either approve or reject. It's so backlogged that the page lags for a good few seconds before edits can be saved. There are dozens of proposals in multiple different areas, but even a few people pitching in can really help reduce the build-up. If you do participate, please make sure to consider WP:VITALCRITERIA. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Light Flip image

Latest comment: 21 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Dimensionally: @Dclemens1971: @Beta Beta Beta: @Launchballer: VRT process has been completed. Image is good to go. Thriley (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (8 October)

Latest comment: 21 days ago30 comments12 people in discussion

Eweka I (nom)

@Vanderwaalforces, Gerda Arendt, and TarnishedPath: Looking at earlier revisions of this article I find that it was built with large additions of source-free text, with sources added later. Several of the passages in this early revision include WP:AILEGACY indicators, such as underlining his historical significance, emphasizing the need for a monarch well-versed in the traditions and customs of Benin, Eweka I left an indelible mark on the kingdom's political and cultural landscape and, most tellingly, Oba Eweka I's reign was a pivotal period in the history of the Benin Kingdom. His establishment of the Obaship marked the beginning of a new era. I also see WP:AICUTOFF language like Eweka I's death, while not extensively documented in historical records, is believed to have occurred. That, plus the addition of sources only later in the drafting process, raises questions about how this article was written and sourced that I hope VWF can address. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Additional courtesy ping to GA reviewer A.Cython. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I was pinged. - When I translate from German, I often arrive at articles without sources for a start, because they rarely use inline citation. I think it's even wanted for transparency. Example: Wolfgang Emanuel Schmidt - and the article still needs work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 The Diff which you linked to is 2023 and I’ve said elsewhere, I did use AI as of that time, but this article has in fact been substantially rewritten by myself recently about few months ago ON MY OWN. Rewritten to the point where no errors from earlier revisions are present. Did you spot issues with this current version? I’d love to know. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Relevant AIN entry. Kisseran (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
At the very least I think we need to pull this nomination until such time as the WP:AIN discussion has concluded. TarnishedPathtalk 07:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Ps, while not conclusive, note GPT Zero analysis. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath why might that be? Nominations should be pulled when issues are identified with the articles in question right. Did you find a specific issues with the current version of this article, on your own, that requires the article to be pulled out of the queue? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominations are also pulled when there are active AFD discussions, until such time as those discussions are concluded. I'm going to bump this back to the prep area and I'll see what consensus there is about whether we need to pull it or not. TarnishedPathtalk 07:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I've bumped this back to Prep 7. TarnishedPathtalk 07:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Bumped back to Prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, @Gerda Arendt, @Kisseran and @Vanderwaalforces given the AIN discussion hasn't had any comments in 7 days I think this might be fine to proceed? If there are no objections I will remove the under discussion tag. TarnishedPathtalk 07:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to @Gnomingstuff, who started the AIN discussion. I remain unconvinced that the issues pointed out the AIN discussion are resolved. That said, if there is consensus that this should proceed, I won't try to stonewall this or anything like that. Kisseran (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged here, I have said most of what I have to say. I will note that they still have not addressed the question of their AI use because they are supposedly still overwhelmed and not in the right state of mind to reply further to that post after almost two weeks, but apparently this is only a selective state of mind since they seem perfectly fine responding here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff Oh, so you’ve said most of what you have to say and you think I have not myself? You claim I have not addressed the question of my AI use, how so? In the first thread Kisseran opened I stated clearly there my stand, but then like I said, you have a conviction that I still use AI! You claim to not like arguments Gnomingstuff, but the opposite seems to be the case from what I’ve seen myself, more or less a reverse psychology. Look, till now, apart from my writing style which you said is very AI-ish, you have refused to tell me a particular content policy my articles violate; are there particular content policies (I am aware of) that I am violating? Source misrepresentation, puffery, etc! How did these articles pass GA and FA reviews? You are convinced Gnomingstuff and it is evident with how you had to reiterate a thread that was archived. Hate is a strong word and I know it’s meaning, so yes, I don’t know about you, but I hate arguments and draggings. I am so tired and exhausted of you, trust me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Did you use AI on these recent articles? Yes or no. Stop generating walls of text that do not answer this question directly, and also stop pinging me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gnomingstuff I have answered every single question I have been asked, and I will not continue to say one thing over and over again. You are rude, disrespectful and your behaviour is unacceptable as other editors have told you in the past. You now think I am “generating” walls of texts, you see where your bias has taken you to? I won’t continue to waste my time on trying to follow you up, it’s not worth it, you’re too rude and unbelievable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Why should I not ping you? (rhetorical) In the old thread I gave a reply that I believed answered every possible questions you might have as to your accusations, you seem to not be satisfied with that because of your bias and whatnot. Unless you have actionable feedback for me regarding the already hectic work I do in freaking digging up sources on subjects you will never write about nor anyone else (Wikipedia is 25? Why has nobody written about them till now?), and write about them, PLEASE do not discuss anything with me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
In the following 94-word freakout:
I have answered every single question I have been asked, and I will not continue to say one thing over and over again. You are rude, disrespectful and your behaviour is unacceptable as other editors have told you in the past. You now think I am “generating” walls of texts, you see where your bias has taken you to? I won’t continue to waste my time on trying to follow you up, it’s not worth it, you’re too rude and unbelievable. Why should I not ping you? (rhetorical) In the old thread I gave a reply that I believed answered every possible questions you might have as to your accusations, you seem to not be satisfied with that because of your bias and whatnot. Unless you have actionable feedback for me regarding the already hectic work I do in freaking digging up sources on subjects you will never write about nor anyone else (Wikipedia is 25? Why has nobody written about them till now?), and write about them, PLEASE do not discuss anything with me.
is nowhere to be found a statement like "Yes, I used AI." or "No, I did not use AI." Lots of sanctimony and accusations and general Gish galloping of unpleasantness, but not an answer to the question being asked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I personally will not bother about anything here; if the current article has no content issues that would stop it from appearing and yet you removed it from the original schedule date, then there’s nothing I am interested in discussing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
With immense disappointment, I've pulled this given the AINB filing, the GPTZero scan, and the fact that VWF is now blocked from mainspace and cannot address quality concerns if they're brought up. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Suga Shrine (Shinjuku) (nom)

@Yue, OpalYosutebito, and TarnishedPath: When I take out the material in the lead that is duplicative of the main body, I end up with approximately 1,300 characters, short of the threshold for DYK. Any chance Yue or someone else can quickly top this up by a couple hundred characters? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably be able to expand it some more today. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
It's now at 1512 without the lead. I'll add a bit about the name later if nobody else does; I'm waiting on a friend for some translation help because the Japanese text in the source about the etymology is confusing and the English translation provided doesn't make any sense to me. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, this looks good to go. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:DYKLEN does not discuss removing the lead for the length count, and instead recommends DYKCheck, which does not do this. Where does this supposed part of the rules come from? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
There's no official rule against it, and it's usually not a problem when the article is short and the lead feels duplicative. It's more of a case by case thing, or perhaps an application of the old pre-Leeky revamp rules that said "even articles slightly above the 1500 character minimum may be declined per reviewer discretion." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
MOS:NOLEAD suggests that articles below 400 words do not need leads.--Launchballer 05:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Launchballer is right. If a very short article doesn't need a lead, then I calculate the portion of the lead that duplicates the body text and subtract that from the overall character count. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 3

Latest comment: 20 days ago23 comments8 people in discussion

Was going to take the next set, but this happened. Any idea?--Launchballer 20:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer No idea, but it just worked for me. I don't have time to do the checks atm; can you still do this set? Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The below should answer your question.--Launchballer 06:18, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Favre-Leuba (nom)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember, OpalYosutebito, Thepharoah17, and Unsurprising: I'm seeing close paraphrasing of at least, although is probably a backwards copy. I'll also note that there are three Swiss hooks in this set including the one above this one, so at least one will need to move per WP:DYKVAR. Also, "the first woman to climb Mount Everest wore a Favre-Leuba watch while doing so" - why isn't the hook about that?--Launchballer 06:18, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Bumped on WP:DYKVAR grounds. I prefer Launchballer's hook as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm cool with @Launchballer's hook. Should I edit the page or the nom template? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Noms are not allowed to edit hooks that are already in prep, so another editor will have to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Good to know :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Is the close paraphrasing dealt with? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm working on it right now. Sorry I didn't see this sooner; I've been busy with grad projects :( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 I should be done now. Please let me know if you have further concerns - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I've swapped the hook per @Launchballer suggestion above. @OpalYosutebito, please see Earwig report which shows that most of the lead and almost all of the history section are word for word from https://treasurefinejewelry.com/products/art-deco-1930-wrist-watch-in-900-platinum-with-4-98-ctw-in-round-diamonds. This needs to be addressed before this hook can be on the mainpage. I've bumped this back to Prep 6 as more work is needed. TarnishedPathtalk 01:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That page was created on 1 September 2024; the last version of our article before that was , which was identical to their page. I'm fairly sure they copied us.--Launchballer 01:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking into that. I'll remove the under discussion tag. TarnishedPathtalk 02:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, it has Wikipedia written all over it... literally! :O - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

George Leonard Huxley (nom)

@Kisseran, Edward056686, and Thriley: I'm not seeing how the article backs up that he was leading civil rights efforts in the 1960s, can you help me find it?--Launchballer 06:18, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

During the 1970s, Huxley was a member of the executive of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement Kisseran (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
That confirms that he was leading civil rights efforts in the 1970s, not the 1960s.--Launchballer 08:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I read the hook as saying that he was leading academic initiatives in the 1960s and leading civil rights efforts in the 1970s. Kisseran (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It is a bit unclear. The alt hook seems more interesting anyway. Thriley (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Alirio García Flamenco (nom)

@Dclemens1971, PizzaKing13, Ominae, Sammi Brie, TarnishedPath, and Z1720: Cited source has fallen over, any chance of a replacement?--Launchballer 06:18, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks to be archived . Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (15 October 2026)

Latest comment: 19 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Concerns and controversies at the 46th Chess Olympiad#Observance of Yom Kippur (nom)

@Dimensionally, Kiril Simeonovski, and PizzaKing13: Apologies for leaving this so late, but there's two issues with this. For one, the link shouldn't go to a section of an article per MOS:EGG. More pressingly, I'm seeing quite a lot of close paraphrasing from several sources (see Earwig report) and I think this needs bumping.--Launchballer 17:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Swapped out, now in Prep 1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Bumped back to Prep 6. TarnishedPathtalk 01:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I see that the link was changed and someone already worked on the article. I carefully went through it once again and made some changes, but the article looks good and doesn't indicate close paraphrasing from any source. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer, do you see the issues as being resolved? TarnishedPathtalk 10:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 6 (17 October 2026)

Latest comment: 19 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Arthur Heurtley House (nom)

@NewAccount7295, Epicgenius, and RabidTuberculosis: I don't see that the promoted hook was ever approved, and I also prefer the Madonna hook.--Launchballer 14:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

We can see what the reviewer thinks. The idea of someone buying a house they read about in a book sounds very interesting to me. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Each hook is acceptably sourced. I think the Madonna hook is most punchy, and the current one may be less so.RabidTuberculosis (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Burndy Library (nom)

@NewAccount7295, ABehjat, and Thriley: Article contradicts the hook, saying "he made exceptions for later work, acquiring material by and about Planck, Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr and Fermi". Suggest swapping to ALT0.--Launchballer 14:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It just needs to be reworded: ATL1b "... that the Burndy Library collected the classics of science mostly up to 1900 because its founder believed most of the basic theories of physical science were formulated by then?" I added the word "mostly". NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Pier 57 (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, Epicgenius, and Generalissima: I was able to verify this using the pieces in the article, but I do want to go on record as saying I really don't like the idea of sending reviewers pages because promoters and queuers still need to see them.--Launchballer 14:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer, fair enough. The only reason I did that is because the passage in question is like 3 pages long, and the other alternative was to pull up quotes from several sources that verify various parts of the hook (but not all of it at once). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Adjustments to WP:DYKG for AI-affected articles at DYK

Latest comment: 17 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

There are some cases at WP:AINB involving prolific DYK contributors. Our current WP:DYKG do not address LLM use at all. To better manage our volunteer time here, I propose three additions to DYKG, two of them fairly straightforward and in line with the broader way we've been handling AI:

  • To the section on External Policy Compliance (new language in bold): Articles should be neutral, and free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing and media copyright. All content subject to the policy on biographies of living persons must conform with it. Achieving good article status does not grant a pass for this section; DYK-specific verification is still required. Articles must comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of large language models.
  • To the section on Newness (new language in bold): A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same, or if the nominator or page creator is subject to a discussion at the AI Noticeboard.

A third proposal is a little less straightforward so I'm setting it apart here:

  • To Rules for Reviewing, add a new paragraph: Due to the amount of volunteer time required to manually verify LLM-generated sources and claims, reviewers are permitted, at their discretion, to close nominations of articles with LLM-generated text or whose nominator or page creator is subject to a discussion at the AI Noticeboard.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on these. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The first and second proposals sound good. I'm wondering, however, whether the third proposal would be redundant. We already can reject articles with dispute tags; perhaps we can specify that AI-generated counts as a dispute tag? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps it’s overkill/instruction creep. I was hoping to add some language that streamlines the closure of an LLM article nom so we don’t waste editor time on them once AI use is discovered. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The first sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971, are these additions necessary given we already have WP:NOLLM to empower volunteers? TarnishedPathtalk 03:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually I agree with the first two additions. The third, I think we should wait for the conclusion of any discussions at WP:AINB before taking that type of action. TarnishedPathtalk 03:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, if needed should specify that it kicks in when a user has been blocked or pblocked at AINB. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Cool with me. I just don't want our reviewers to be jumping the gun the second a AINB posting exits. TarnishedPathtalk 13:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Could the first proposal not be concisely incorporated into the first sentence? As for the second proposal, would that not fit better alongside "Articles nominated for deletion or merging and articles nominated as good articles that subsequently undergo good article reassessment"? CMD (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
No objection to any smoother way to incorporate the sentiments. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The first could be expressed as "Articles should be neutral, compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of large language models, and free of copyright violations". I'm mostly fine with two, but I don't think a driveby nominator turning up at AIN should necessarily affect the nom if they haven't edited the article. Three I'd suggest adding words to the effect of 'or where an LLM was used to reply at the nom' because we just don't need that.--Launchballer 14:28, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Given that I think copyright violations are more common and important, I'd mention copyvios before the LLM guidelines. So "Articles should be neutral, free of copyright violations, and compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of large language models." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Lobbes Bible (nom)

Latest comment: 17 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@TarnishedPath, Yakikaki, 4meter4, and Z1720: I bumped this hook down to Prep 4 just now after promoting the next up prep set. The hook doesn't meet WP:V: "... that the Lobbes Bible is one of the earliest medieval books in which the illustrations are consistently related to the narrative of the text?. The cited source says, "The manuscript has a special importance within the history of medieval book illustration for it is the earliest extant Bible - possibly the earliest manuscript of any sort - in which the imagery is entirely confined to the initials in such a way that the initials as they introduce each book contain a running illustration of the adjoined narrative text. No earlier known Bible uses historiated initiatials so exclusively or so consistently." I also found "earliest medieval books" to be confusing because I thought it was unclear whether that ruled out even earlier pre-medieval texts like the Book of the Dead. Rjjiii (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I think that the quoted passage actually says what the hook says, but I agree upon reading it again that it's not crystal clear and that that's a reading implying several assumptions (e.g., that earlier illustrations that were not historiated initials were even less closely tied to the narrative, which I believe is correct but would be very difficult to pinpoint in a quotable passage for our purposes). Upon reflection it may therefore not be the best choice for a DYK, after all. I also don't want to force it, we already have too many forced DYKs littering the main page... For me it's totally fine to pull the hook. I'll try to find the time in the coming days to look at the article more closely again. Sorry for the bother. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I did not feel bothered nor expect any kind of apology. I also think that the article itself with its paragraph on historiated initials is more clear. Good luck with whatever direction you take things, Rjjiii (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I also find the hook rather confusing. What does "the illustrations are consistently related to the narrative of the text" mean? I'm not even sure if, with the current wording, people would even get the meaning or point. In the meantime, per the nominator's request I've pulled it for further discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 19 days ago30 comments9 people in discussion

Sabrina Online (nom)

@PrimalMustelid, Epicgenius, and Crisco 1492: I've bumped this due to its use of Dogpatch Press, which appears to be a self-published blog. And while Epicgenius approved the use of self-published sources in which Eric Schwartz was describing himself, but the bulk of the Production section is based on Schwartz's own claims, raising questions about the independence of the article and the whether the article is excessively based on them per WP:ABOUTSELF. Bringing this here for discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

By claims do you mean the interviews? Dogpatch Press is only used in only two statements and is not the main basis for the Production section. The statement was also vague because "article" could refer to either Sabrina Online's article or the Dogpatch Press page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Two separate issues. (1) The use of Dogpatch Press as a self-published source, period. (2) The use of blog interviews of Eric Schwartz to source almost the entire Production section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
I used Dogpatch Press here since Fred Patten is the author of that one article I'm using, and he is well-known as a furry historian himself (he states information that I cite for the premise and development sections). And also, I don't see anything wrong with using primary sources for fictional media for as long as it provides some much-needed additional context to the thought process and work habits of someone like Schwartz. They are interviews in blog posts, yes, but they're still interviews with the author himself, and that's the important part here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  • While secondary sources would naturally be preferred, primary sources are acceptable for supplemental information (taking into consideration the constraints of WP:PRIMARY). Sure, they don't contribute to establishing notability, but so long as nothing extraordinary is claimed, a primary source should be usable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
What are the independent sources that establish Fred Patten as a reliable expert on this subject? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Fred Patten has been recognized as a credible and notable historian when it comes to niche subjects (anime, furry, etc): 1 2 3 4 5
He's also written two relatively well-cited books, one 15 times and another 259 times per Google Scholar. He's a niche freelance historian, but he is referenced as credible enough by a fair few authors at least. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
15 citations seems quite low, but perhaps this is just an area where I apparently don't have enough expertise. I won't object if another editor queues this but I'm not going to do so myself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to bump this back to Prep 7. @Crisco 1492, @Dclemens1971, @Narutolovehinata5 and @PrimalMustelid, this discussion doesn't seem to be resolving anything. As far as I can tell we have concerns about notability and about sourcing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Do we need to pull this and nominate it for AFD and wait for an outcome there? TarnishedPathtalk 10:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think notability is necessarily an issue, the coverage seems to establish notability at minimum. The issue is more the article being too reliant on primary sources, which is not necessarily an issue if used properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I would not dismiss fifteen citations. Patten's clearly been viewed as reliable in sources that we would generally consider reliable (one of the articles citing him was published in a Taylor and Francis journal, for instance), and it is thus reasonable to consider him a subject matter expert for furry history; he is also, as demonstrated by PM above, a resource used by reliable mass media in discussing furry culture. As for the use of primary sources for production, I have mentioned above that I consider it warranted so long as extraordinary claims are cited to secondary sources. The cited receipt of a notable (albeit niche) award also suggests an easy keep at AFD. If we want to go through the whole rigamorole to be safe, fine, but I'm not seeing the delay as warranted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold and remove the under discussion tag then. If anyone feels that strongly about it then can discuss it here. TarnishedPathtalk 11:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If I'm an outlier on this and the only one with concerns about the sourcing, I'll move the hook back into the queue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The Cross (Barre, Massachusetts) (nom)

  • ... that a man constructed a gigantic cross (pictured) with letters visible from 20,000 feet (6,000 m) in the air, and said that God told him to do so?

Just a query about the image here. Since the cross is a nontrivial artwork in its own right, and possibly arguably a 2D work at that, I'm not sure it's covered by US freedom of panorama laws, which generally only cover buildings. At the very least, the image needs a licence description explaining why the work itself, as opposed to just the aerial photograph of it, is in the public domain. Given that the artwork appears to be relatively recent, I'd probably err on the side of caution and say we shouldn't use the image here unless its copyright status can be established; it may also need to be deleted from Commons. Pinging @PeterCooperJr, Miraclepine, and Beta Beta Beta:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi. My (possibly wishful) thinking was that the visible text is either trivial ("God's Wisdom") or excerpts from the KJV bible, and that the overall arrangement was below the threshold of originality, since it consists of just arranging the text on a cross. (And the original creator and his heirs don't seem to claim any copyright over it as far as I can tell, though I do understand that doesn't inherently mean it doesn't have copyright attached anyway.)
I would be happy to add the tagging to the Commons description page if my thinking there is accurate. And/or I could reach out to them to see if I can get an actual CC0 dedication or similar if people think that's necessary. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Would de minimis count here too or not? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
I think it would be de minimis. It's text plus rudimentary shapes. While it might look like something complex all together, this example shows the US Copyright Office considers the complexity of the constitutive part before it considers whether it builds to something theoretically bigger. Shape plus shape plus shape plus text isn't considered original enough to copyright.
I tried to see if there was anything as well about an artwork so big it is visible only from miles up, but wasn't able to find anything. This is definitely not a building (which the US defines as something permanent, stationary and habitable to humans) but arguably is a "structure" (and covered by the same no-copyright rule as stuff like dams, bridges, and walkways). This is not an expert view, but I think the picture can be safely used. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. I've boldly gone ahead and updated the Commons page (commons:File:The Barre Cross in MassGIS 2023 Aerial Imagery.jpg) to mark the "depicted work" as PD-ineligible (assuming that's the right tag?) separate from the photograph itself. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for the responses. Firstly, I don't think this qualifies for de minimis - the assumption with that principle is that the copyrighted element is only in the background of the image, and clearly with this picture, the cross is the photo's entire subject. On threshold of originality, I agree that the individual elements – the biblical quotations, lettering and simple geometric shapes – are unlikely to attract copyright protection in their own right. However, I'm less convinced that this necessarily makes the composition as a whole ineligible. The US Copyright Office's Circular 33 specifically acknowledges that "a work of authorship that incorporates one or more familiar symbols or designs into a larger design" can sometimes "qualify for protection where their overall arrangement contains sufficient creative expression".
Looking at the aerial photograph, this seems to me to be more than simply text arranged on a cross: there's the large surrounding heart, the cross with its various inscriptions, the triangular element below it, and the enormous lettering at the bottom, all deliberately arranged as a single piece of land art. I'm not an expert on this and I wouldn't assert definitively that the work is copyrighted, but I think there's sufficient doubt that we shouldn't simply apply {{PD-ineligible}} without further consideration. If contacting the creator's family to obtain a suitable free licence or CC0 dedication is a realistic possibility, that would seem the preferable way forward. In the meantime, however, I think we need to apply the precautionary principle and this DYK hook should not run with the image at this time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Totally fair. I've sent an email to the address listed on the contact section of their web site. If I don't hear back in another day or two, I'll try giving the phone number a call. PeterCooperJr (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough on caution. De minimis is not exclusively a background thing and often comes into play when the primary element or end result is considered too generic/rudimentary to copyright. I actually returned to the sources and feel more comfortable with it being non-copyrightable. The US Copyright Office only cares about the copyright of buildings, and explicitly in Circular 41 dismisses any claim to copyright of works like this one:
The Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in an architectural work if the work is a humanly habitable structure that is intended to be both permanent and stationary. Examples of works that satisfy this requirement include houses, office buildings, churches, and museums. By contrast, the Office will refuse to register bridges, cloverleaves, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, or boats (although a house boat that is permanently affixed to a dock may be registerable as an architectural work).
It is not subject as an architectural work. This here is a more detailed review of their architectural work policies, which gives an example of landscaping being dismissed:
Arlinda Atkins designs a condominium complex with a large, complex parking structure and intricate landscape design. She attempts to register each aspect of this design as an architectural work. The registration specialist will register the condominium design if it is sufficiently original, but will ask the applicant to remove the reference to the parking structure and landscape design.
Lastly, when discussing art in this context, they refer to it requiring pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities. It doesn't have that in these case. If it were a portrait of a biblical figure or something that would be one thing, but it's just shapes and text. Even if the text were more stylized or the shapes were abstract, it would have a case, but that's not so here. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Since it may take a bit to hear back from the artist, I'm going to pull the hook so we can continue filling up the preps. Please ping me when the status of the image is resolved so I can re-promote it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also just started a discussion on the Wikimedia Commons Copyright Village Pump (commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#The Barre Cross (large-scale land art / geoglyph)) in the hopes of getting more people familiar with US copyright intricacies to weigh in. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
As just another update, I tried calling the phone number listed on the website for The Cross and got a message that it was disconnected. I've tried sending another email, though maybe it will end up that I'll need to try postal mail or make another visit in person. (It's about an hour's drive from me and not likely to happen this weekend, and even then there isn't any guarantee that I'd be able to get in contact with someone who might have any artwork rights.) Still early on the discussion on Commons, but if I can summarize the couple responses there so far it sounds to me like there a general leaning that it's probably okay as is. Thanks. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Between the discussion here and at Commons, are you satisfied that there's enough evidence that the artwork qualifies for PD-ineligible, or do you still have concerns? Obviously if I do manage to get in touch with the creator's heirs and get a CC0 or similar dedication I'll be happy to update the Commons description accordingly as well. Thank you. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 7 days. Just want to make sure anyone else who wants to weigh in gets a chance. PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@PeterCooperJr Just in case, would you be okay with the hook running without a picture? Even if the image issues are sorted out, there is no guarantee that this will run with an image anyway, especially if it gets pulled in the meantime. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I mean, certainly I'd prefer running with the picture to running without. I think it's a neat picture, and more interesting than the usual image slot of just a person's face. But running without an image is certainly better than not running at all. @Amakuru, who raised the initial concerns, actually just commented on the nomination page that they've re-approved. My understanding of the consensus, both here and on the thread I opened on Commons, that that while nothing is ever 100% certain with intellectual property law, it seems likely to be fine to be used as is. Thanks! PeterCooperJr (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Thank you for promoting this to the image slot in Prep 3. The first time around that it was in the process, Abductive and I decided that the source's "visible from some 20,000 feet in the air" wasn't really more than one significant figure of precision, and so the article's metric equivalent was rounded to say "6,000 m" instead, as was the DYK hook. But since that change wasn't ever made on the actual nomination page, I think it got lost in the shuffle of it being pulled and now put back. That's a long-winded way to say that I think the prepped hook should change "6,100 m" to be "6,000 m" just like the article currently has, but I didn't think I was supposed to be editing my own hooks that are prepped. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I put -3 sigfig so its good now. Abductive (reasoning) 20:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

All queues are empty

Latest comment: 16 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@DYK admins: hi, DYK queue status is red, please can somebody promote a prep or two within the next 19 hours. TSventon (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Rjjiii, thank you, that was quick. TSventon (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
No problem. The other six are still empty, and some of the prep sets need to be filled out. Rjjiii (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Alright, between myself and Beta Beta Beta, we have full preps. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Da Mao and Er Shun, Da Mao and Er Shun (nom)

Latest comment: 16 days ago11 comments6 people in discussion

@Lynch44, OpalYosutebito, and Chao Garden: I'm not happy with this appearing as two bold links as it could delude readers into thinking this is a double hook. I could just remove one randomly, but I want your opinions first.--Launchballer 23:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe unhighlight Er Shun? Da Mao is the one that's pictured IIRC - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree that Da Mao should probably be bold linked. Lynch44 23:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
The hook is not in the picture slot at the moment, so I'm not sure how what would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Move it to a picture slot. There's capacity and pandas rock! I might be biased because I just got back from a trip to China where I took heaps of panda photos. TarnishedPathtalk 10:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@OpalYosutebito: Would a revised hook that only mentions one name work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the current hook. We just need to remove an extraneous link. I'd say preferably, also move it to an image slot, but that's neither here nor there. TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I've moved this into an image slot and boldly rearranged the hook to put Da Mao first; feel free to object to my rewording or suggest another hook.--Launchballer 13:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm okay with these changes. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I'm going to remove the under discussion tag given that was primarily about linking the same page twice. TarnishedPathtalk 23:15, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

New Main Page layout

Latest comment: 16 days ago14 comments11 people in discussion

Since it's shortly going to look like this with all that lovely empty space at the bottom of DYK, has there been a discussion about making the sets bigger (and therefore perhaps not having to switch to 2 per day)? Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

How about making more room for the TFA, sparing us the usual problem to find that not even the most important things don't fit into that small space? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
And how about more space for each hook, because often a bit more background would make things more interesting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 216#Break out on TWAFI.--Launchballer 13:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Launchballer has posted the link to the previous discussion. For my part:
  • Making sets incrementally larger will incrementally reduce my availability to queue them, and it appeared the same was true for other queue movers.
  • The current maximum hook length is a good discipline for hook writers and I do not support expanding it.
As someone said in the earlier discussion, it’s not DYK’s job to fix a main page imbalance created by a perhaps ill-considered move to put an article that is widely acknowledged to be of low quality in our most valuable main page real estate for an entire week. (If you look at ERRORS, you’ll see that the blurb going live tomorrow includes unsourced/unverified claims.) I’ll be interested to see the results of this project but I don’t believe we need to make big changes at DYK to accommodate it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Is this going to be a permanent addition or are they going to do a trial first? If it's gonna cause complaints and concerns, then they really need to find a way to balance concerns. I know some would say "that's the entire point of putting it on the Main Page", but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed with Dclemens on all counts; don't enlarge sets or hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Confectionery store hasn't even gotten 1,000 visits over the past month. Who is picking these? Thriley (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@Thriley: "Confectionery store" got 2,000 visits over the past month, if you count redirects. Also, I am not convinced that encouraging new editors to edit an article will always result in improvement. TSventon (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
i think it very much can, but not if the idea is just "have at it". nobody has put any effort into finding general, high-level sources about candy stores for editors to use, and I suspect they would be pretty hard to find. TWAFI is a good idea that isn't really gonna work if there aren't very clear, manageable tasks for people to do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Dclemens and leeky. I don't see that it should be up to DYK to fill the gap. TarnishedPathtalk 04:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relevent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Brainstorming ways to deal with the super ugly blank space to the left of OTD now that AFI is on the main page. TarnishedPathtalk 04:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
To be honest this is really more of a "left hand not talking to the right hand" moment, since the different processes for Main Page content (TFA, DYK, OTD, ITN) haven't really discussed the Main Page layout as a whole. Perhaps some consideration should be given to narrowing the left (TFA/DYK) column to get rid of that blank space. But I don't know if that will even get consensus, let alone be workable. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
The left side has already been reduced from 55% to 46%. It is my understanding that these are temporary measures, though a reduction to 50% was mentioned a few times in the discussion before the RfC that created the new section. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (21 October 2026)

Latest comment: 14 days ago13 comments6 people in discussion

We probably shouldn't have a school next to an arch per WP:DYKVAR as both are structures. Suggest moving the former between the panda and the lake.--Launchballer 18:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The Cross (Barre, Massachusetts) (nom)

@Dclemens1971, PeterCooperJr, Amakuru, Epicgenius, Mandarax, and Miraclepine: Claimed is a MOS:SAID violation at the very least, and I suggest ending the sentence just before that per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 18:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have no objection to the trim. Thanks. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Did the bot not work to update the home page from the queue? Or am I just being too impatient? PeterCooperJr (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, turns out both. The bot (and many of the others) was down, and I just was too impatient since of course the community dealt with it quickly. Thank you, everyone! PeterCooperJr (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Satrio Wiratama (nom)

@Zzz plant, OpalYosutebito, Knightoftheswords281, and TechnoSquirrel69: Has there been a log of every giant panda born everywhere in the world? If not, this is unverifiable.--Launchballer 18:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

What? The sources clearly say that Satrio was the first giant panda born in Indonesia - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting that my checkmark here was restoring the one placed by the original reviewer once my concerns had been addressed; I haven't reviewed the article any further than that. At a glance, though, this does seem like a potentially problematic "first" hook. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe it can be changed to "first giant panda confirmed to be born..."? I'm not sure... :\ - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
That's an unnecessary qualification. If giant pandas were discovered to have been born in Indonesia before this, it would be a phenomenal breakthrough in animal science. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Pandas' natural range is limited to China, and they were not documented to have left China in captivity until the 20th century, at which point the activities and movements of pandas outside of China became very well-documented. It's extremely unlikely that there were pandas born in Indonesia earlier than this documented case. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this need for a global log of GP births is coming from when the claim being made is that he was the first born in Indonesia, not globally. As Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) has noted, by the time GPs had left China, we were well into the era of documenting and tracking such species. Looking into it, not only did they never leave China beforehand, but to this day, all GPs outside of China are not in the wild, but under human captivity, so this is something that's easy to verify. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

All queues are empty!

Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@DYK admins: DYK queue status is dark red. Please promote a queue or two so we don't have any disruptions! EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 01:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 6

Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Otonose Kanade and Yukihana Lamy running in the same set is definitely a WP:DYKVAR failure, although it would certainly be interesting. Given the presence of All of Tokyo!, that also makes three hooks closely related to Japan, so I would recommend knocking one of the two to a latter set. (Not Prep 7, 1, or 2, as that would then create another DYKVAR failure). Not doing it myself because Kanade is one of my hooks, so I shouldn't make decisions affecting when and where it runs. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, didn't realise Otonose was also a VTuber. Will reshuffle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Toolforge offline, affects many bots

Latest comment: 13 days ago26 comments9 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Toolforge and Cloud VPS temporarily offline. Toolforge hosts many Wikipedia tools and bots, including DYKUpdateBot. As a one-off, I've kicked off a DYKUpdateBot run from my personal computer. Hopefully Wikimedia folks can bring Toolforge back online soon. Shubinator (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

My take on this is that we probably will not have Toolforge back for at least several days. The WMF folks have a lot of work on their plate responding to this and will certainly (and rightfully so) be prioritizing the core systems over toolforge. RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah just saw "Currently, all of cloud-vps and toolforge is offline and is likely to remain so at least through late October." Yikes. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
That sounds pretty long for them to be down if the reason is a security update. Hoping things will be fixed soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Presumably several of the other thirteen bots listed at WP:DYKSB are also affected. TSventon (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
yeah, GalliumBot (and particularly transfem) will be offline until Toolforge returns. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Is there then a list of crucial tasks that will need to be done manually? The loss of transfem for a few days is probably not too concerning, so long as it is able to pick up where it left off when it comes back. CMD (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The most crucial is DYKUpdateBot's task of updating the main page and handing out credits; Unsurprising and i have been working on updating PSHAW's crediting script, but right now I don't think we have any script that can replace DYKUpdateBot's core functionality. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
When push comes to shove, updating the main page is a lot more important than handing out credits. RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
1. Certainly, we're not flying the same hooks as yesterday (or nine blank hooks just showing "... that"), even if those authors aren't immediately credited (they can always be handed out later).
2. @Theleekycauldron: the crediting script also should be tested on uncreated talk pages. One time, when testing the crediting script, it gave out just one or two credits, even though the queue was complete... It's certainly possible a successful nominator has no talk page messages, especially if they're a new editor (and often drive-by nominator).
3. Is my computer bugging, for instance because I forgot to purge my cache, or did the hooks randomly switch back to the day's before when I was browsing the Main Page yesterday?
4. Mistakes can happen during testing also. I'll leave it up to y'all (the people taking care of DYK, especially with the help of perms, which I barely have but aren't too important for this, so I unfortunately do not have editing privileges for the DYK template 🤣), but I'm willing to give personal feedback (like this) and otherwise help out anytime! Unsurprising  📝 🗣️💬 👥 11:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The crediting is the most tedious part of the homepage update, so if that can be updated it will be a big help. I'll aim to be online tomorrow at midnight UTC to assist with the transition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Since GalliumBot will be offline for a while, how will we handle approved nominations being moved from WP:DYKN in the meantime? Manually? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
DYKNA is PEIS-backlogged to September 26 and preps are full, so there is no immediate need to manually do DYKN transfers. Just to have it on record, we should not do 12 hour sets while main page updates are manual. CMD (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
... hey, since DYK-Tools-Bot isn't running right now, this seems like a good time for me to implement that DYKsubpage update! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: bet! I'm ready to update active nominations at any time! :D Unsurprising  📝 🗣️💬 👥 11:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Earwig is on toolforge, so reviewers will need to do without it for a few days. TSventon (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I will aim to run DYKUpdateBot on my computer in time for the daily 00:00 UTC update, so manual updates and credit distribution shouldn't be necessary. That said, while updates are semi-automated instead of fully automated, please coordinate with me before changing the 24-hour update cadence. Shubinator (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
KrinkleBot is also hosted on Toolforge, and likely also down. When it's online, KrinkleBot protects Main Page images over at Commons. Since the bot is likely offline, set promoters, please ensure images are protected (either at Commons or here at enwiki) before promoting to the queues! Shubinator (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding headings like "Articles created/expanded on October 21", normally done by MusikBot, is probably necessary so I have done it today. Nyanardsan had to add a nomination to WP:DYKN manually as DYK-helper had not done so. TSventon (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
So that's why...I was wondering what happened because Earwig loads forever. I ended up using run-off-the-mill plagiarism checker and if only the Wikipedia page turns up, I assume it's original. I hope that's fine Nyanardsan (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Tools are helpful, but you should also gain an indicator when checking the hook source. CMD (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
With the update now live, do we have an ETA on when everything will be back to normal? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The best place to watch for updates is wikitech:Incidents/2026-10-21 PHP security update/Community. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Toolforge folks are planning to have Toolforge up and running for non-PHP tools within 24 hours. Sounds like each non-PHP tool owner will then need to start their tool/bot again? Hopefully by this time tomorrow DYKUpdateBot will be running on Toolforge. Shubinator (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot back up and running on Toolforge! Shubinator (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
GalliumBot is back up as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanksgiving SOHA (Special Occasion Holding Area)

Latest comment: 12 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Dear fellow Wikipedians and Did You Know? participants,

After noticing an interesting recent Good Article about the 1942 Phoenix Thanksgiving Day riot, I would like to request a SOHA for Thanksgiving Day (United States/Norfolk Island date, November 25th/26th). If you are interested, please consider finding recently created, brought to Good Article status, moved to mainspace, converted from redirect, and/or fivefold-expanded articles. You can also try bringing Thanksgiving-related articles, especially your own, to DYK eligibility.

This specific article may not be flown on Thanksgiving Day, but rather a similar time, due to its negative correlation with Thanksgiving. Regardless, I appreciate everyone's desire to help and improve DYK! I'll be happy to find pumpkin pie and turkey on the Main Page slightly over a month from now! :)

Cheers, Not surprising 📝 👥 13:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want me to do the nominations and add you as co-nom, please let me know! I have plenty of QPQs... Not surprising 📝 👥 13:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I would generally be supportive of a Thanksgiving Day special set as I am for most of the enthusiasms of DYK participants, provided there are enough items, but we should discuss whether it's too U.S.-centric. We had the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence set on 4 July, which was a rare anniversary occasion. If we did a set with articles on Thanksgiving observances from the U.S. as well as other countries, that might be more acceptable, but then the question is whether to run it on U.S. Thanksgiving Day. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hooks related to a certain country's Thanksgiving should be flown on that country's Thanksgiving Day. We should also be inclusive to all countries and their Thanksgiving celebration, so there should be more than just a U.S. set. Unfortunately, Saint Lucia's and Canada's already passed, though Liberia's is coming up in early November, and other countries (including the U.S. and Norfolk Island) celebrate late November.
The main questions/concerns (I, and many others, would have) about this setup is:
  1. Will we have enough nominations, especially for the other countries? Time isn't a problem for late November, though for earlier Thanksgiving celebrations (like Liberia), we may want some help. If needed, we can work with others to create enough new articles and/or bring existing ones to DYK status.
  2. Speaking of countries, are we using just the upcoming countries in the Thanksgiving article? Are we adding additional countries?
  3. Because November 25th is used by both the United States and Norfolk Island (see the Thanksgiving article for reference), should it be split evenly between both, assuming Norfolk Island has enough hooks?
Not surprising 📝 👥 14:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I think we would be hard-pressed to have one Norfolk Island Thanksgiving hook, much less four. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I fully agree with both Thanksgiving celebrators being credited to the highest extent. Also, Norfolk Thanksgiving is one day earlier (sorry, I confused this years' with next years' Thanksgiving dates!), though as we mentioned before, this SOHA is shown on U.S. Thanksgiving Day. Unsurprising... 📝 👥 19:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 7

Latest comment: 11 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Quaking pudding (nom)

@Whonting, Unsurprising, and NewAccount7295: I bumped this to Prep 4 for a number of reasons. The "one of the first" claim needs to be interrogated a bit to be sure it holds up, since the language is not quite the same as the source. There's also a question of WP:DYKINT, where ALT1 seems to require specialty knowledge about how puddings are made to be intriguing. I thought about subbing in ALT0, but the hook claim is a bit broader than the article and text support. Is Martha Washington's boiled almond pudding also a quaking pudding? Unclear from the article and with the source unavailable online I'd recommend quotations be provided. If Hannah Glasse is the only person documented to have flavored her pudding with ambergris, we might need to qualify the hook some more. I don't think ALT2 works on DYKINT grounds. I'd love to see this hook run in an image slot given the fantastic gif, but I think a stronger hook is needed here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dclemens1971, responding to these briefly, I'll return with the last in a few hours:
  • A cloth here should be understood as a bag. Wilson 1976 states on p. 283: "The invention of the pudding-cloth or bag finally severed the link between puddings and animal guts."
  • I don't think agree on DYKINT, implicit in the claim is that this is novel. The hook could be modified to say "that quaking puddings (example pictured) were among the first puddings to be cooked in a bag rather than entrails?, but I worried this may be understood (even if not necessarily implying) a clean transition from entrails to bags. Wilson writes "xperiments were made in fitting puddings into other receptacles [including] Hollowed carrots, turnips and cucumbers... in the Elizabethan era", also on p. 283.
  • Washington's boiled almond pudding was a quaking pudding, Hess writes "This is an excellent recipe; actually, it is for a quaking pudding (C 84), a far lighter affair than most of the puddings in this section." p. 103.
  • I'll come back in a few hours with access to Glasse, but Hannah Glasse wasn't the only person documented to have flavored her pudding with ambergris since we mention Washington's recipe did too. "[& put in a little ambergreece]".
Whonting (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Coming back to this - sorry Dclemens1971, I realise I mixed up the reference to ambergris in Glasse. I have instead added two other texts flavouring their quaking puddings with ambergris (The Closet Opened (1669) and The English and French Cook (1674)), with quotes inline. Whonting (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Swapping the ambergris hook into Queue 3. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 5 (30 October)

Latest comment: 11 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Sarah Jakes Roberts (nom)

@Jishara, Knightoftheswords281, and Unsurprising: The promoted hook feels unduly negative and a violation of WP:DYKBLP. It's a single passing reference in a very long LA Times profile (I was a waitress at the strip club). Likely acceptable to include in the bio, but I think this runs afoul of DYKBLP and I think it should be pulled for that reason. If this were something she were widely known for, sure, but making this as the sole biographical detail we are including in DYK is prurient. ALT2 reads as promotional of her clothing line. ALT1 is mildly interesting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: thanks for bringing this up! No specific hook needs to be run, so if you want ALT1, I don't object. Per your points, ALTs 0 and 2 should be avoided as well. If ALT1 is not ready, we can pull to discuss. I am currently on the hook puller tool (PSHAW) in case, though you can pull it yourself if you want. Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If you have any other concerns about that prep, please let me know! Others should also participate in forming it. Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Others can and will, and hooks get moved around as needed by queue movers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: I'm totally fine with ALT1 if that's the one you prefer. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 I'm fine with ALT1 if that's okay. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I've swapped in a slightly modified version of ALT1. If it should mention that she went viral for doing so, let me know. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
We could mention that as well. Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Swapped into Queue 3. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Prep 7 (November 1)

Latest comment: 10 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

PSHAW isn't working for me, but for some reason only for Prep 7? I am able to promote to all of the other preps just fine. I have no clue why. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7: It's working now, try Prep 7 again! I used Prep 6 (which is working) as a reference point. Seems like PSHAW does not like extra lines! Pinging @Theleekycauldron because this can also appreciate some work... :) Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
so that means #7 on the bucket list is to live peacefully with extra-lines. coincidentally, there were 6 on the initial list (which is in your October archive), we're talking about prep 7, and I used prep 6 as a reference point...
the PSHAW to-do list on its page has five tasks also... (oh yeah, I should strike out the "Rejection messages" item!) Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! (Promoting without PSHAW was a much less painful experience than I expected, though.) 1brianm7 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
My pleasure! It indeed doesn't take that much effort, though it's seamless with PSHAW! Unsurprising... 📝 👥 19:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Oscar Curtis (nom)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives, 1brianm7, and Miraclepine: The article has a section saying he was traveling in 2026 while going on a break from Hollyoaks, and a section that he was bit by a monkey while traveling in 2026, but it never says the two occur at the same point, which the source does, but we don't. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed it. They are in separate sections as one is in about his personal life and the other is about his career. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Brookie (food) (nom)

@Beta Beta Beta, FinnDalyyy, and CaptainEek: I spied this paragraph in the article and am bringing it up here since solving it on my own would require the queuer to bring it here since it would mean the article had been substantially edited since last being reviewed: "The brookie is believed to have been invented in the late 20th century in the United States, however its exact origins are unknown. Many restaurants and bakeries claim to have invented the brookie. The earliest known mention of a brookie was in 1988, where The Vanderbilt Hustler shows a menu from Rafferty's Bar & Restaurant with the brookie listed as a dessert.[reference to Vanderbilt Hustler issue]", and I am wondering if there is some source missing here. This paragraph is full of WP:original research. I think it is probably true, though: I did some searching for counter examples and I found a 1991 ad by a bakery, a 1991 New Jersey restaurant review, and a 1992 review of Rafferty's. Does some source make mention of the many restaurants claiming it, though? 1brianm7 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @1brianm7, thank you for reaching out.
Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation online with restaurants claiming ownership of the brookie, though many of the claims are unproven, nonsensical, or years later than the menu. I found a few sources that state that the origin is unclear, like a Malibu Gift article and a Medium article. If either of these sources are usable then I will be happy to add them. If rewording or deleting the statement would be preferable then I will do that instead. I would love to work with you on this.
Thank you, - FinnDalyyy (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello again, @1brianm7.
I believe that I have found a reliable source that states the fact that the origins of brookies are messy and have multiple claims. The source will be added and is from a 2020 Lovefood article discussing hybrid desserts.. This is the most optimal source from what I've found. I will edit the text in Brookie (food) to say "Many individuals claim to have invented the brookie" rather than "Many restaurants and bakeries claim to have invented the brookie." As to keep it more accurate to the source.
Thank you very much, I am here to solve any other issues or subjects in need of discussion.
- FinnDalyyy (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@FinnDalyyy thank you for the response and changes, thanks to Whonting as well. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 10 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Miguel de Jesús Cházaro Basañez (nom)

@Thriley, Abductive, and Crisco 1492: The obituary used as a source for the claim about his death says he discovered 10 agaves, not 11, and I can't find a source that states 11. Can you help here? (Bumped to Prep 4 due to the short time for Queue 5.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I cited that with this obituary: "Descubrió y describió como autor o coautor 21 especies nuevas para la ciencia: Agave wendti, A. valenciana, A. vazquezgarciae, A. arcedianoensis, A. microceps, A. gomezpompae, A. jimenoi, A. kristenii, A. temacapulinensis, A. maria-patriciae, A. sororum." Thriley (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
So why does the other source say 10? Is there a reason to trust one over the other? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The obituary I cited above is published in a journal out of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I would say it is the more reliable source for his scientific achievements. Thriley (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
POWO (the source of all botanical truth) lists Agave wendtii, Agave jimenoi, Agave kristenii, Agave maria-patriciae, Agave sororum, Agave temacapulinensis, Agave valenciana, Agave vazquezgarciae, Agave arcedianoensis, Agave gomezpompae, Agave microceps, and Echinoagave nievesiorum. That's 11 and a half. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, this seems resolved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed clarification regarding the Somyev language entry

Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sure this was unintentional, but can we change "the importation of hoes" to "the importation of tools" in order to prevent potential misinterpretation? It should be fine because the lead uses "tools" rather than naming a specific type of tool.~2026-56950-68 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56950-68: hi, that is on the main page, so please report at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Current DYK if you think that is an error. TSventon (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 3 (28 October)

Latest comment: 9 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

WD J1330+6435 (nom)

@Tinh1000000, Unsurprising, and NewAccount7295: I don't see any evidence that the image is in the source it's claimed to be in or that it is Commons-compatible. I've bumped it out of the image slot. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 The image comes from Appendix B of the paper, specifically Figure B7 (second row, second column) for the spectrum graph and Figure B11 (second row) for the simulated view. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 01:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Licence wise the article is under CC BY and I imagine would also extend to the figures. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 01:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree now that I see where it is. It's helpful to specify in the image upload documentation where at the link the image can be found. Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I’ve added links to the figures in the source section of the Commons file. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 01:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
If you believe it is properly licensed now can you add it back to an image slot? (But keep the quaking pudding image slot, I like that one too) NewAccount7295 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 In case you missed this. It would be a big missed opportunity not to have WD J1330+6435 as an image slot. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Should we introduce additional time limits for DYK nominations, in addition to the existing DYKTIMEOUT guidelines?

Latest comment: 9 days ago47 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's been asked that this RfC be put out of its misery, I've decided to do that for you all.

As an experiment, I decided to tally up the !votes here, given that I didn't find weight of arguments to apply very well, based on the varied opinion and lack of demonstrable applicability (apart from GLL who made a good point or two). This was calculated based on each !vote being divisible by the number of !votes made, likewise with oppose !votes which were just as relevant. So those who !voted for 1 option got 1, 2 options were weighted as 0.5, 3 options 0.33, etc. Same with opposes, one !vote each.

The end result only confirmed everyone's suspicions, a complete lack of consensus. Either we go by the positive integer total of 13.32, or the combined positive and negative of of 10.32. The totals were: A -1, B 5.83, C -2, D 0.33, E 3.33, F 3.83. There is however something useful to take away from this; Options A and C received negative support, the others received positive. Option B was the most popular but didn't reach a majority (based on all !votes at least), with E and F close behind, noting that a third of combined !votes were for the status quo to remain. Now you have three positive options, you could try another RfC?

In future, pretty please, workshop your RfCs so as to include basic options of "Nominations can be closed if the nominator does not respond to the most recent comment or review within X timeframe" and "Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within X of a review starting", alongside status quo, rather than these specific timeframes and conditions, then work from there next time. Thank you. (non-admin closure) CNCin solidarity (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Should nominations that have not received a response from the nominator be eligible for closure, ala DYKTIMEOUT? Here are some possible options, note that you can state a preference for more than one option:

  • Option A: Nominations can be closed if the nominator does not respond to the most recent comment or review within one week (notifying the nominator is not mandatory).
  • Option B: Nominations can be closed if the nominator does not respond to the most recent comment or review within one week, plus a ping or talk page message.
  • Option C: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within one week of a review starting.
  • Option D: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within two weeks of a review starting.
  • Option E: Status quo.
  • Option F: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within one month of a review starting.

This is a follow-up to the existing discussion regarding DYKTIMEOUT. Given that one of the reasons for the backlog is due to a large number of open nominations that spend weeks or even months without resolution. Given that it is common for nominations to go for a while without a response from the nominator, leading to languishing reviews, this is being proposed to add a soft time limit for nominations (independent of DYKTIMEOUT). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I have also proposed additional options about adding GAN/GAR-style time limits on nominations once a review has started. Note that all of these options may allow extensions if requested at WT:DYK, whether it be due to extenuating circumstances, or for legitimate reasons like waiting for access to a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Option B with a preference for talk page messages. Pings get lost. TarnishedPathtalk 06:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
More overhead, but could this distinguish between "nominator is actively editing" and "nominator is not actively editing"? One week can very easily coincide with real life responsibilities (from finals and travel to medical emergencies and "my children got the flu and I can't check Wikipedia this week"). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Given that "nominator is not actively editing" is a common reason to close nominations, along with "not replying despite activity elsewhere", the proposal does not distinguish between the two. However, extenuating circumstances like what you said could allow for extensions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Asking people to petition for extensions places a burden that will, at times, be too much for an individuals -- so rather than ask the community to re-open a nom which it would like to, they might not and we would loose the nom. And, maybe, the nominator. Is that tradeoff worth it to you? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
If it's something that they can mention ahead of time, for example "due to X, I will be away for a period" or "I will be unable to work on this because of X", reviewers or the community will likely be willing to give grace. Also, the proposal is not about reopening closed nominations, but rather what to do with nominations that have not been resolved within a certain amount of time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point -- you can't schedule certain real life events, such as most medical emergencies. If somebody gets called away from the internet (or even just Wikipedia) for a couple weeks because of a real life emergency, then comes back to find out that somebody reviewed their DYK nom, found an issue they could have corrected, but the nom timed out and was closed, when it wouldn't have been closed under the old system, then the community will need to decide if it wants to reopen their nomination or not.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Option B; notifying the nominator is a good idea. The later options mean that a DYK can be closed because of the inactivity of a reviewer, which I don't like. Also, I don't think this applies after a DYK is approved. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
B but exclusively talk pages instead of pings as well, and an increase to two weeks, allowing for extra-Wikipedia events. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Please also refer to the breakout discussion here, which also seems germane to this matter. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Option E: Not because I think the status quo is perfect (it's obviously in need of improvement and simplification), but I don't think adding more rules and complexity is the solution either. It's already rather difficult for even the most experienced DYKers to master the nuances and ins and outs of the "rules" and accepted practice (or, indeed, agree upon their "proper" application). For outsiders, DYK-curious newbies, and DYK neophytes it's neigh unto impossible. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Question: I'm leaning towards Option B, but I'd like clarity on when the clock starts – or rather, when the ping/usertalk message occurs. Are we waiting a week with no response, then leaving a talk page message, then waiting another week? Are we leaving a talk message immediately after the review, and the clock starts then? If so, what if there are subsequent comments over the course of several days, then a period of no response? Another talk page reminder, or is the original clock still running? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I think that it's generally good practice for reviewer's to leave a user talk message straight after leaving feedback in the nomination that requires attention. At least I try to make that my practice. TarnishedPathtalk 13:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I would like to see that become standard practice no matter the result of this RFC, but upon further reflection, I think I'm landing on Option E per Cl3phact0. If Option B were enacted, I'd like to see some sort of carveout or leniency given to newer nominators, and I worry that would take the teeth out of the rule and make it largely ineffective. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Option E. I would go with the status quo for now, but GLL makes a good point. Sometimes, there are things going on in people's personal lives that prevent them from editing for more than a week. When I was a younger editor, I remember not being able to edit for two weeks at a time when I was preparing for college exams. Option B and F are my second and third choices. I find options C and D to be way too strict, and option A would be assuming the nominator has watchlisted the nomination and is looking out for comments, which isn't always the case, so I would oppose A, C, and D. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know how many times I have asked users to please not start RFC's on this page without discussing the wording of the RFC first! It happens again and again. We really need a note at the top of the page prohibiting it.
Having said that, Option D probably comes closest to my conception of how this might best work - but I think it should be at least a month, not two weeks - and perhaps allow somebody to put up their hand to persevere with the review if they are so inclined. But again, this really needed more discussion IMO before jumping ahead to an RFC. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
To clarify, Option E is for the status quo (no change to the current rules), but your opinion seems to be proposing a different alternative altogether, closer to Option C or D. Were you suggesting an additional option rather than supporting D/C/E? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, misread that, it was supposed to be option D - fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I have added an Option F because I think two weeks isn't nearly long enough to resolve issues on a nomination, and that is what I am going to !vote for - though I still think users should have the right to adopt a nomination for review if they think it worth the effort. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • option F then B, life happens and 1 week is exceptionally harsh. I would prefer an in-between of 2 weeks and then a close, because the majority of us are not addicted to being on project the entire waking life.--Kevmin § 15:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I think we generally should have more ways to remove nominations, for example by various forms of "time out" (better than explicitly discussing DYKINT in my view), to help us select the best nominations and not run boring ones, especially during backlog times. I am not sure the proposals are perfect yet, though. Options C/D are close to allowing reviewers to reject any nomination by simply stalling for a week or two (and need better ways of dealing with reviewers that go AWOL). It may be better to ask for reasonably quick responses from nominators. If reviews happen within a week or two after nominating, I think it can be expected that people stick around to see what happens (or just not get a DYK slot). Not getting a chance to put an article on DYK is not the end of the world and not a serious punishment, so we should not pretend it is. So something like B might be ok, but I don't expect it to help with the backlog much. —Kusma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
    Options C and D only refer to nominators not being responsive, not reviewers. Reviewers not being responsive is another issue and may require a different discussion to find a solution to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
    Spitballing here, but allow a re-review of a stalled nomination due to reviewer going AWOL to count as a 2nd QPQ during backlog mode? Allow 2 re-reviews to count as a QPQ? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
    I was thinking that your first suggestion may be helpful, with the proviso that any subsequent review is a full review and not merely a "yep you've fixed the issue raised previoulsy and here's a tick". TarnishedPathtalk 06:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
    How often to reviewers go AWOL? Is this a common occurrence? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
    I think a lot of people don't put nominations on their watchlists, while they are progress and I'd say that for both nominators and reviewers. Add to that pings not always working and things slide. TarnishedPathtalk 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I do find myself leaning towards Option D or Option F, with the caveat that the nominator should be notified. Things can slip people's minds, so a gentle reminder would not be out of place.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • In principle, Option F, since if a review begins and can't get to resolution within a month it's probably doomed anyway, but in point of fact, Option E, because Option F makes no reference to a review where the nominator is responsive and the reviewer disappears or asks for a new reviewer, and I hate to penalize a nominator in this situation. I am also supportive of clarifying language that approved and unpromoted nominations may be marked for closure after two months, as in general cases a nomination unpromoted that long probably has some implicit problems of interestingness or other defects that are keeping promoters away. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
    @Dclemens1971: To clarify, this RfC only applies to nominators being unresponsive. How to deal with reviewers being unresponsive will be the subject of a future, separate discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    Good point, and I guess I should have read the introduction more carefully; I read the options presented more literally. In the specific case of an unresponsive nominator, B, D, or F is acceptable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    @Dclemens1971: You say that you are "supportive of clarifying language that approved and unpromoted nominations may be marked for closure after two months"—I think that this is the wrong approach. With the exception of cases where the reviewer has missed a major issue, the opposite should apply. Correctly reviewed and approved noms should generally be exempt from TIMEOUT. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    I've seen you make that point above and I fundamentally disagree. Even setting aside the issue that an approved nom may not have been correctly reviewed, it is unfair to new noms if unpromoted noms are permitted to remain at the top of the approved list indefinitely. It's definitionally a situation in which TIMEOUT should apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    We disagree. That's okay. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    I think DYKTIMEOUT should apply to approved nominations as well, given that the language suggests it and there's nothing in it that actually bans approved nominations from being timed out. What I am against is it being mandatory: for cases where an approved nomination is eligible to be timed out, the option to promote should also be available. Basically, such cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis rather than them being timed out just because they reached two months. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    The language is unclear and ambiguous at best. It suggests nothing and begets confusion. The first sentence says one thing, the second sentence contradicts the first, and the third sentence introduces a new concept ("on hold") without defining it. In practice, it can be applied however the user wishes (i.e., "a case-by-case basis"). Only erroneously approved noms that are defective to the point of ineligibility should time out—otherwise, why bother with reviews at all? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    The first and second statements are not in contradiction. The first says that nominations can be timed out. It does not mean they should or must. The second tells that for nominations still awaiting a review, timing out is an option, but actually reviewing is encouraged. I agree that the third sentence needs to be clarified somehow: I think Launchballer was the one who added that to the guidelines? It should be modified to say that nominations on hold due to a deletion or merge discussion should not be timed out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    The third sentence could just as easily say that "an approved nomination or a nomination on hold hold due to a deletion or merger discussions should not be timed out unless it is found to be ineligible." -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Option B, F or A (for B, a ping to the nominator suffices for me). Life happens, but that should not be a reason for reviewers and overworked promoters to be left hanging on the vine where there are other more engaged nominator submissions to choose from. Oppose C, D and E, because I am uncomfortable with squeezing nominators who are actively working to achieve compliance into an only one- or two-week window, and the status quo is unacceptable. StonyBrook babble 12:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Up to the discretion of the relevant administrator, sometimes the nominator's attention may not be needed, in which case they should not be required to reply. If it is needed, the relevant administrator should choose when enough time passed using their best judgment. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Options D and B: One month is a long time, and close within a week and/or without a talk page ping is too harsh so oppose A, C, and F. Therefore, two weeks is enough and a reminder ping on user talk page is a good idea. M. Billoo 17:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Options F and B, provided a talk page message is required (not everyone has pings enabled, so I oppose Option A). Oppose Option C or D given concerns about the excessive time crunch, and Option E given the backlog would be worse if we did nothing. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Option E, or Option G (or modified Option B) GLL makes a good point here. I think we can only close nomination for editor who are active during those one or two week period. For inactive users, I think WP:DYKTIMEOUT is enough. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Option E Allows for editors who may be busy or new to editing who might leave for weeks at a time. It also is helpful for the editors who could possibly suffer from terrible ADHD. Thriley (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Since the RfC tag has just been removed, maybe it's time to close this and determine a consensus? Or should I list this at WP:CR? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I already listed it at WP:CR a while ago when there hadn't been any comments for days. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
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.

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, 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 September 29. We have a total of 472 nominations, of which 320 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has decreased in size by 6 over the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Posting to extend by five days the time before this list is automatically archived, as there are twenty noms still needing work. Thanks to anyone who takes them on. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
How do we feel about the AI-generation claims on CACNA1C-Related Disorders? The counterpoint of a version controlled google doc cited in the removal of an AI-generated tag don't seem particularly convincing to me. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The strange combination of the massive rewrite being both intimately familiar and entirely unfamiliar with how to code an article leaves me wanting. No human writing in an external browser could do so many things correctly while doing so many things wrong. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Yep, bullshit-bot vomit is bullshit-bot vomiting. I've reverted and rejected the nom.--Launchballer 12:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

WD J1330+6435

Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is currently part of Queue 3 and was previously an image hook, but was removed from being on e due to a licensing concern, which has apparently been fixed now. Can it be moved to a different queue/prep as an image hook? (Quaking pudding is a good image slot too and should be kept where it is) I asked this above and didn't receive an answer. Sorry to have to do so again. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Bot failed to update hooks

Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

@DYK admins: it's been almost 30 mins since the next day on UTC and it seems like the hooks haven't been changed to the next day EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 00:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The hooks still have not been updated, after 48 minutes. Beta Beta Beta - talk 00:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@EvanTech10 and @Beta Beta Beta: Seems this needs to be manually updated on T:DYK using Queue 3. Courtesy ping to @Shubinator. Unsurprising, and feel free to tell me something! 📝 👥 00:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back up and running, updating now! Sorry for the delay. Shubinator (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Shubs! I see the updated T:DYK now. DYKUpdateBot surely does a lot, and they shouldn't be pressured. Unsurprising, and feel free to tell me something! 📝 👥 01:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue 4 (29 October 2026)

Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

George Healiʻi Kāhea Beckley (nom)

@Crisco 1492, KAVEBEAR, Mafarkafut, and Gurkubondinn: An {{AI-generated}} tag was added to this last month, although KAVEBEAR seems to have undone the offending revision. Are we satisfied that this is clean?--Launchballer 22:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

No, I've been meaning to file an AINB about this editor, just haven't gotten around to it yet. There is most likely AI-generated material still there, removing the tell-tale signs does not fix the problem. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
For crying out loud. @DYK admins: , can someone swap it with Maudy Koesnaedi in Prep 3, which is clean?--Launchballer 22:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Done. I pulled the Beckley hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Brookie (food) (nom)

Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

@Beta Beta Beta, FinnDalyyy, and CaptainEek: Three things. I don't find the hook particularly interesting given that it requires knowledge of what Shark Tank is (and 'product is presented on Shark Tank' happens several times an episode). I was going to suggest making something out of "Brookies often have a fudgy or cakey texture like brownies, while also keeping the chewy texture from cookies", but that paragraph's unsourced. Also, that looks really tasty, is there a reason it didn't get the image slot?--Launchballer 15:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The Day of the Dead hook is a better image and was requested for 1 November. No objection to shifting the Brookie back to an open image slot though. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually, the reason I saw this is because I saw another Day of the Dead hook in Approved, so moved this back for that.--Launchballer 15:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the hooks were borderline on being interesting; there just wasn't much of anything interesting in the article? I agree that "thing went on shark tank" isn't that unique, though I think there is general knowledge of what shark tank is. I'm fine with going back to the drawing board for other hooks, but I can't say I have any brilliant ideas off the top of my head. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If there isn't anything that could be used in an article, there's no shame in not nominating an article, because not all articles are meant to be for DYK. If you are unsure on whether or not an article has suitable material, there are ways to ask for informal sanity checks or to workshop possibilities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Launchballer. A source has been added for the paragraph mentioned, so if you find that section most interesting it could be used.
Thank you, - FinnDalyyy (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I've pulled this - see my comment there.--Launchballer 04:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Halloween set

Latest comment: 5 days ago33 comments7 people in discussion

Halloween is two weeks away. There is close to a complete set. Just need a few more approvals. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll take Hulda and Dark Pictures. I see there's some funny business with Witches; if you need an image, Wednesday Addams (Wednesday) could be pulled out of WP:DYKAPRIL.--Launchballer 18:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Does the image for Kenova Pumpkin House seem good enough? Thought that could run and the day of the dead parade image could run on 1 or 2 November when Mexico celebrates the holiday. Thriley (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
A slight crop of the 1720 witch engraving (assuming that nom gets approved) would be my first choice, followed by Kenova Pumpkin House, which I think is also good. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the engraving is clear enough at a small size, and judging by the nom Miraclepine is also not sure. Pumpkin House is marginally better, but I wouldn't promote it.--Launchballer 18:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Can you please follow what is listed here? There are are one to three more hooks coming, with Whonting nominating a spookier food that can be substituted for pumpkin scone. I would like to add recently uploaded pictures to the Kenova Pumpkin House nomination which are ideal for the front page. I think the Day of the Dead Parade is best run on the actual Day of the Dead. Thriley (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Approved

Need review

Halloween Set - Prep 6

I've populated Prep 6 with the held Halloween hooks, as well as a mixture of macabre, spooky, or eerie topics from further below. Unfortunately, that means only two biography-adjacent articles. Leaving a note here in case there is any need for discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Besides there just being two biography-adjacent articles, my only question is: should we ignore the warning at the top, which says: ' Empty hooks are usually written as "... that ..." '? The second slot is blank and just says "...", which is probably okay as it is not active/being used. Unsurprising... 📝 👥 18:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • I was in the middle of pulling one item that I really shouldn't have promoted, which is why that error was there. Unfortunately, it also means we're down to one biography adjacent hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Day of the Dead had also been requested for 1 November, so if you have one other you could add it to the Halloween set and bump Day of the Dead back one. I also don't think it's a problem not to have biographies. Our rule on that is no more than half should be bios but it doesn't give us a minimum quota. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
My suggestion remains IARing on Wednesday Addams (Wednesday) from WP:DYKAPRIL.--Launchballer 18:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If any of these new Pumpkin House pics don't work: I think Wednesday makes the most sense. Thriley (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I specifically nominated Hulda of Bohemia for Halloween. It is natural for the set. Hope it can be reviewed in time. Thriley (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Aye, I do want to pull/move the second house (the dead wife) if we have another item that is more thematically appropriate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
    Alright, I've swapped the second house with The Dark Pictures, so if Hulda or Witches are reviewed in time, we can swap out the Day of the Dead parade to the more traditional date of November 1st and still have a full Halloween set.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hulda of Bohemia (and possibly Wednesday depending on hook) needs another reviewer. I suggest swapping Hulda and the spiders hook in prep 5 with Razis and earthquake lights.--Launchballer 04:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Myself and Thriley have both said that Wednesday would make a better image than the earthquake lights, I think that hook should be moved in.--Launchballer 10:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Nice one, thanks.--Launchballer 13:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry this is late notice, but I've just created funeral food and nominated it for DYK, which I think would fit the Halloween set well. Whonting (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Whonting: It is late notice, but it fits better than Razis, so I approved it and suggest swapping it with that.--Launchballer 13:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Queue checks

Going through the queue checks now.

It was requested to run at Halloween after being approved as a DYKAPRIL hook, and had never been prepped.--Launchballer 12:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, Naruto. Though I didn't think of it as this request was not submitted at the time of submission. This is an unusual case, and hopefully should not be repeated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_217&oldid=1383738447"