Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

In defense of "First hooks" and a possible solution for reviewers

I am seeing some recent backlash against "first hooks" leading to WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP at review. One recent example is Template:Did you know nominations/Jocelyn Borgella where it was suggested by Narutolovehinata5 that a first hook shouldn't be used even when there were tons of reliable sources verifying the hook fact. This seemed entirely inappropriate given the evidence. While I don't doubt that we have had issues with some assertions of "first achievements" in past hook proposals (a minority of them in my estimate), we could also find many examples of first achievements highlighted at DYK which were successful. I think we need to be careful here not to take a personal bias against "first achievement" hooks into review, and look at each case impartially on its own. Some first achievements are extremely well documented and supported by multiple reliable sources (ie nobody could argue with ...did you know that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America?). Others don't have that type of evidentiary support. I would suggest that we follow WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require hooks of this type be supported by multiple sources. This would seem a reasonable and policy based way to ensure these types of hooks won't end up at WP:ERRORS. This is already suggested at WP:DYKCITE but we could state there more explicitly that "first achievement" claims must have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim. That said, I don't think we should be dissuading nominators from actively proposing these hooks because they often do make great hooks when there is evidence backing up the claim. Nor should we be requiring other kinds of hook proposals when they aren't needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

we could state there more explicitly that "first achievement" claims must have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim We sort of do that already at WP:DYKHOOK.--Launchballer 15:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer Good point. The guidelines talk around these ideas without outright highlighting what nominating/reviewing editors should be doing. I think we could outright have a sentence on hooks with "extraordinary claims", such as first achievement claims, needing multiple pieces of evidence. This would let nominating editors know they need to provide multiple sources supporting the hook claim when first proposing the hook fact in the template. That's why I am suggesting a more explicitly stated guideline for this type of hook as this appears to be a repeating point of contention. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. "First" statements often lack some important context even in high quality reliable sources. For a made up example, I am sure you can find hundreds of sources that say "Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister" without further qualification even if that is wrong (compare Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir for earlier examples): she was the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The same thing happens far more often with less high profile "firsts"; very often someone is the first person in the United States to achieve X, not the first person worldwide.

The answer in my view is to find sources that are not investigating the person named as "first" in the hook, but focusing on the whatever they were first in. Instead of using a biography of George Washington to show that he was the first POTUS, use a source listing all of them, which makes it clear what the context is in which he was the first.

Do not ever use local newspapers as sources for global "first" claims unless you are making a very local statement. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to try to make sure our hooks are not just supported by reliable sources, but actually true. Meh, I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the core guiding light of wikipedia editing because of WP:No original research being a foundational policy and our rules around editing without editorial review. We report what is in RS, and if multiple pieces of RS are saying something we can say it. It shouldn't get more complicated than that in most cases because those are our guidelines. Going at it from the angle of truth not verifiability (which is WP:OR) is frankly not workable without an editorial board which doesn't exist on wikipedia. That said, where there are contradictions in reliable materials or multiple competing claims, or other good evidence based reasons to doubt truthfulness I am not advocating that we ignore those. I just don't think that we must have sources directly studying a specific issue to support a claim. A biography of George Washington stating he was the first president of the United States is a suitable source for that claim, even if it doesn't contain a list of every United States president.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of local papers making "first" claims is a question of verifiability vs. truth; it's a question of subject-matter reliability, like in medicine. We give a presumption to institutions with editorial staff and fact-checking that the information they produce is reliable, but that presumption can be rebutted if they consistently fail to catch mistakes. The New York Post has an editorial board, rag that it is, and so do most local papers. Local papers do fine for a lot of things, but they just do not have the institutional ability or incentive to debunk a broad 'first' claim about a hometown hero, and so they screw this particular thing up. A lot. So, the presumption that local papers are reliable does not apply to 'first' claims, the same way it doesn't for biomedical claims. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The Main Page isn't an encyclopaedia article, it is more like a magazine. We (the DYK community) are the editorial board of one section of that magazine. The least we can do is try to fact check the claims that we are presenting to thousands and thousands of readers. —Kusma (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:Could be. I think again that this emphasizes the need for multiple sources that are clearly independent from one another which would align with the language at verifiability. If the concern is only coverage in a single local paper; requiring multiple sources (ie different publications not in the same newspaper/publication by different named authors) goes a long way in solving the problem. I get it that some claims get repeated, but we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think we would need some hard concrete evidence proving its not true or likely not true once multiple RS has verified its true. That's how wikipedia is set up, and we shouldn't divert from that. Some of the issues I see here are editors relying on speculative claims that the reporter and its paper didn't have due diligence. If that isn't based on anything tangible I don't think we should accept it as reality.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma I'm not against fact checking. If there is hard material evidence proving a claim isn't true or likely not true we shouldn't run it. The problem I see is that editors are questioning first achievement claims without any evidence suggesting that the claim isn't true. That isn't fact checking, but speculative discourse.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

As leeky says above, the issue is subject-matter reliability. Newspapers are good sources for the fact that something happened in some place a given day, but not necessary for the more extraordinary claim that the same thing did not happen on any of the previous days in history in any other place on Earth. But that is what a "first" claim is, so we need a source that is reliable on that subject matter. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is where multiple sources by different authors comes into play both in terms of improving the chances of reliability, and in terms of establishing a mainstream POV. When a fact gets repeated in multiple places by different authors it becomes a mainstream view which is addressed at WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So again, the best policy based way is to approach this is to require extraordinary claims to be verified to multiple sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources reliable on the subject matter, not multiple sources happy to reprint the same flashy headline. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Source reliability can be subjective in these cases. I would say it depends on the publication, and the author, and the claim being made. And that is something that we really can’t address any differently than what is currently in the guideline as it is very context dependent. Where we can improve in the language at DYKCRIT is strengthening our sourcing requirements for exceptional claims. I would think everyone participating here could agree on mandating the need for multiple RS on these types of hooks would be an improvement.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That is exactly fact checking. You say something. I hear it and think "but is it really?" and go looking for the facts. Not just what your source says, but what the reality actually is.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I was previously a defender of "first" hooks on DYK, even going as far as to oppose proposals on a blanket ban, but experience has shown that they have proven to be more trouble than they're worth. Even seemingly airtight "first" hooks, such as the recent "first Bermudian MLB player" (which none other than the MLB itself said was the case!), turned out to be inaccurate. We can probably still allow "first" hooks in certain circumstances, but given our issues with them, I'd now only support that if them being a "first" is the only interesting thing we can say about them and there are no other options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems overly prescriptive in my opinion, and I think exaggerates the extent of the problems we’ve encountered at DYK overall.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"First" hooks have regularly been reported at ERRORS and other venues like here, it's a recurring issue. If "first" hooks (or really superlative hooks in general) weren't so consistently problematic, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, nor would there have been proposals to ban them altogether. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Failed proposals (and rightly so). I noticed you overturned the hook review without even bothering to engage with the sources… not exactly giving me confidence in fair and impartial reviewing.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

When there is growing sentiment (if not consensus) against "first" hooks, and you were going against that in approving the hook, it was probably for the best to hold that approval in the meantime. Yes, the hook seems airtight, but we know from experience that even airtight hooks are not necessarily perfect, and it seems unwise to go with a hook format that consensus is currently leaning against. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

where is the consensus? nobody has suggested a ban on these type of hooks accept you. no one has made a formal proposal. You are making an opinion up that nobody in this thread has even proposed?4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "consensus" was the wrong word, but it is true that in recent times, there has been rising sentiment against "first" hooks, something that you acknowledged in your opening statement. At the very least, "first" hooks are controversial, and other editors have expressed their reservations against them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

yes a growing sentiment among a minority of DYK contributors. I don’t think this group is representative of the DYK community or Wikipedia editors at large. If a formal RFC were done I am pretty sure the community would lean hard on following written guidelines outside of DYK on multiple RS which is exactly what I am calling for. I don’t think a topic ban would be supported at all because it goes against the spirit of our content inclusion policies and policies prohibiting censorship. I’m raising this point precisely because this tiny group is pushing an agenda not compliant with wider guidelines. That is a problem.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Another issue is that it also depends on the kind of "first" being discussed here. There are "first" hooks that are easy to prove: it's easy to prove that George Washington was the first President of the US: just pull up a list of people who have been elected to the position and see who came first. Even then, his claim as the "first" US president, depending on how you define the position, isn't airtight either. On the other hand, "first Haitian NFL player" is more difficult to prove and also vague. Does it mean the first NFL player to come from Haiti, or the first NFL player of Haitian heritage? The first may be easier to prove but is not necessarily straightforward (as seen in the Bermudian MLB player case), the latter opens the door to more possible counterexamples. This is what I mean that "first" hooks are often more trouble than they're worth: proving that they actually are the "first" can be difficult, and even seemingly airtight cases could turn out to be false if a counterexample is found. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s a rather fruitless exercise looking at individual cases. The truth is one could present many cases of easy to prove firsts, and then other cases where they are difficult to prove. We could show DYK hooks of this type which had issues and other that sailed through without a problem. Hook verifiability issues crop up in all contexts. Not just this one. Occasionally errors happen. It’s not the end of the world as long as we make good faith efforts to prevent it. I don’t think this should be treated any differently than other contexts other than an increase in source verification standards because that’s already in our wider policies outside DYK.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

We have numerous articles that show how problematic a "first" claim can be. List of scientific priority disputes is just one of many. List of multiple discoveries is yet another. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Numerous counter examples of non-problematic articles could also be produced. It's not helpful cherrypicking articles because each example is unique to itself. The ratio of error in these kinds of hooks is relatively small.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think multiple reliable sources are necessary to confirm a "first", but I think probably at least one specialist source should be required. Newspapers, for example, are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the more obscure firsts (they are probably okay for well-documented topics like sports statistics). If you have a specialist source, or a specialist in the field, confirming a first, that should probably be sufficient.

Other than that, I have argued that both nominators and reviewers should be required to try and disprove a "first" claim by searching for other possible candidates for the "first". If this were a requirement, it would probably radically reduce the number of erroneous "firsts" getting to or close to the main page, because many of them can be disproven with a quick online search. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If it were one minor newspaper making in passing a questionable 'first' claim, then I could agree it may be valid to reject. However, in Borgella's case, we over a dozen prominent newspapers discussing the fact across a span of three decades, and several of the newspapers featured stories specifically on him being the first. Not to mention the book about him is titled First Football Player of Haitian Descent Drafted In The NFL. I've also thoroughly searched for any other candidates for "first Haitian NFL player" and couldn't find any valid challengers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if there's a book about the guy, that could be considered an expert source, could it not?

Otherwise, it sounds like the sourcing is strong enough regardless. Besides, newspapers tend to be pretty good on sporting firsts because they have dedicated sports writers. On random topics, not so much. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The term "first Haitian" is still vague enough that it would still be a good idea to clarify it in the article. I'm not sure if the sources support it, but changing it to "ethnic Haitian" might work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we need some kind of guidelines regarding "first" hooks in general. Experience has shown that such claims are regularly challenged (just look at the recent "first Lithuanian bank" nomination), but there are rare cases where the "first" claim is airtight. It does not seem like the status quo is working, but it isn't clear what direction we should go in. A blanket ban might be the most effective, but it might be unpopular among nominators. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep. I think we should probably limit them to cases where you can pretty much explicitly prove it's the first, for example the first in a finite list of things where the list itself is sourced and there's no room for doubt about the claim. The first X in the List of FIFA World Cup finals might be an example of that because the finals themselves are clearly delineated and the stats for each one known. Anything looser though, including supposed subject-matter-expert sources, seems to be far too prone to error and I'd support a motion to prohibit those ones. (I was the Queue checker who approved the Bermudian MLB fact, and I did check unsuccessfully for counter examples myself, which just shows however exhaustive you try to be it's still unreliable).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Given the above, I've started an RfC below. It has been expanded to be about superlative hooks in general, although of course our main issue has been with "first" hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

First black NBA player example

I want to offer an erroneous hook as an example of how easy it is to get these wrong:

• ... that Earl Lloyd was the first African American to play for an NBA team?

Wikipedia article

"Earl Francis Lloyd (April 3, 1928 – February 26, 2015) was an American professional basketball player and coach. He was the first African American player to play a game in the National Basketball Association (NBA).[2][3][4][5][6]"

Sources

• "NBA Pioneers: League celebrates 75th anniversary of first Black players". NBA. Retrieved 2025-10-06. Lloyd technically was the NBA's first Black player, his Capitols opening the 1950-51 season at Rochester on Halloween, one day before Cooper's Celtics played at Fort Wayne and four days before New York tipped off vs. Tri-Cities.
• "Black History Heroes: Earl Lloyd, the NBA's first Black player, moved basketball forward". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-10-06. Earl Lloyd, the first Black player to appear in an NBA game, encountered the ugly side of humanity. It didn't stop him.
• "Earl Lloyd". Britannica. Retrieved 2025-10-06. first African American to play in the National Basketball Association (NBA).
• "How Earl Lloyd became the first black NBA player". NBC News. October 31, 2016. Retrieved 2025-10-06. A few months later, Earl Lloyd, who was just 22 at the time, crashed the boards of NBA integration on the night of October 31, 1950 when the Washington Capitols faced the Rochester Royals - making Lloyd, a Washington Capitol, the first black player to compete in an NBA game.
• "Earl Lloyd, N.B.A.'s First Black Player, Dies at 86 (Published 2015)". February 27, 2015. Earl Lloyd, who became the first black player to appear in an N.B.A. game when he took the court for the Washington Capitols in October 1950,
• "5 Quotes From Earl Lloyd, The First Black Player In The NBA". NPR. February 27, 2015. Retrieved 2025-10-06.
• "Earl Lloyd dies; helped break NBA race barrier". ESPN. 27 February 2015.
• "First Black NBA Player Passes Away". TIME Magazine.

Discussion

I think that most editors would find the hook solid, but further research would show that African Americans played for the NBL teams that currently exist as the Atlanta Hawks and Sacramento Kings post-merger. The Washington Post has criticized the NBA's official narrative as ignoring "important progress toward racially integrating the hardwood". Black Fives who cover the "African American basketball teams that played prior to the racial integration of professional leagues" specifically call out the sources above and call us out for leaning on them, 'What makes this worse is that supposedly bona fide journalists, writers, columnists, and hosts justify getting it wrong with, “that’s what the league says.” Or worse, “it’s on Wikipedia.”'. Regardless of how this discussion shakes out, I personally find an effective way to test superlative hooks to check for something that would disprove them. Does another source somewhere say that something else was earlier, faster, more expensive, etc? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC

Should DYK prohibit or restrict superlative hooks, such as those that revolve around a "first X" hook fact?

• Option 1 - Ban all superlative hooks
• Option 2 - Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents)
• Option 3 - Only allow superlative hooks to be approved on a case-by-case basis after a WT:DYK discussion
• Option 4 - Status quo (bringing superlative hooks to WT:DYK is optional but encouraged, not mandatory, hooks do not need a WT:DYK discussion to be approved by a reviewer)

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think both Option 2 and Option 3 are workable together. I.e., Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents); or on a case by case basis after a WT:DYK discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 14:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 is clearly overkill. Option 2 doesn't work because we would never be able to create a comprehensive list of allowable topics. I sort of thought Option 3 was the status quo, but I'm not entirely happy with that either because it's an overly bureaucratic solution. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The current status quo is that reviewers are allowed to approve superlative hooks, WT:DYK discussions are optional, and oftentimes the claim is only scrutinized after promotion. Option 3 would make it that superlative hooks cannot be approved by a reviewer without a prior WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, so given that, then I guess I'd go with Option 4 (status quo). RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• What is the "Status quo"? CMD (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Status quo is the current practice: they are allowed, but editors are encouraged to scrutinize such claims. Bringing to WT:DYK is currently optional: option three would make it necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a very badly formed RFC. What's a "superlative hook" for example? I don't think any of the proposals are workable because the concept itself of what is being targeted is not clear.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Superlative is a standard term in grammar. In English, a hint is that a word ends in "st": first, biggest, smallest, oldest, fastest, largest, best, most (whatever), etc. Superlative hooks are hooks which are based on superlative comparisons, most often stating that somebody was the first person to do something. For our purposes, what makes these problematic is that the discovery of a single counter-example is sufficient to show that the hook is incorrect. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Superlative can also mean possessing a quality of excellence (in which case we would be banning high quality hooks), or is sometimes used to criticize a point as exaggeration (which would already be banned). Somehow I missed this word as a grammatical category identifying words of comparison.4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support option 4; but open to other ideas if they come up. Oppose options 1, 2, and 3. Option 1 is excessive as there are many superlative hooks which can be verified reliably. Option 2 is not workable per the reasoning outlined by RoySmith. Option 3 is not necessary as we should trust hook reviewers and promoters to use good judgement in reviewing hooks case by case as a matter of good and ethical policy writing (I don't like codifying a lack of faith in reviewing editors into policy). Any solution put forward here should be targeted at helping individual reviewers and nominators; not further burdening/complicating the review process by bringing in another layer of review by requiring a second discussion on this page. This is why I suggested a path not in these proposals: tightening scrutiny in the WP:DYKCRIT language itself. (ie increased sourcing rigor). As mentioned elsewhere but not in the proposals, maybe asking reviewers and nominators to actively search for other possible examples to disprove the hook would be a reasonable DYKCRIT step to add in the review guideline for hooks with superlatives. Undoubtedly that criteria would slow down reviews of those hooks and would only attract a certain kind of reviewer willing to go the extra mile. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• 4, others seem to add more regulation and work. 4meter4 said it better than I could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, to formalise what has developed to be current practice. Superlative hooks have proven tricky in their verificability, and they further veer towards the tabloidy style that DYK is sometimes criticised for. If a nominator wants to come out with a very strong case for a particular superlative because it has some special quality and there is nothing else hooky about the topic, that is possible under 2/3. Options such as tightening scrutiny or otherwise expecting reviewers to do more put the burden where it should not be, the heavy lifting needs to come from the nominator-side (by explaining option 2 on the nompage or obtaining consensus here per option 3). CMD (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4, the other three are all instruction creep. 4meter4 covered the level of sourcing and other needs that should be happening in their opening post above.--Kevmin § 15:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Let's go for Option 2/3. It is best if any potential problems are caught early. In the current practice, it happens too often that the queuer is the first to notice that there is a "first" issue, leading to discussions under time pressure and pulled hooks. More "instruction creep" can actually save paperwork here. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Unless the first is as absolutely air tight as "first man on the moon", we should probably just avoid such hooks. Really, if a "first" is all you can come up with, then don't nominate it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would that be an option 1/2 then? People are definitely going to push the envelope if all we say is "we should avoid these hooks", not "these hooks are not allowed except under these specific circumstances". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty much just option 1. Too many firsts (and other superlatives) are just too vague or too qualified to be interesting. The "first Slovenian restaurant with three stars" thing comes to mind. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 (status quo) first hooks are interesting enough, and are required to be sourced anyway. For example, DYK that Beaulieu Park is the first station on the Great Eastern Main Line in over 100 years. I live in the UK but I you should get a bunch of responses that's true if you Google it elsewhere (even from NZ) as well as looking at the sources on the linked article. The station is opening this month. I wouldn't want a newcomer would say that's interesting, only to then be greeted with a notice saying that the hook isn't approved due to it being a superlative hook. WP:DYKG is almost 4000 words long, probably longer than the former supplementary guidelines. JuniperChill (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4, hooks are supposed to be interesting for a wider audience, and "X is the first of its category" is the quintessential type of interesting stuff about a topic that people may not have heard about before. Of course, we need to have confirmation in reliable sources that X is indeed the first... just like with any other hook. Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 - and will people PLEASE stop starting RFCs without discussing the phrasing of the question here first! Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 of the presented options, which as 4meter4 and Gatoclass note, are poorly phrased. I don't quite know what hat the middle two options were pulled out of, but they would certainly have benefitted from discussion beforehand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4.
  
  Why is this even being asked? Is it just Jocelyn Borgella? That nomination is currently doing exactly what should happen: People asked for clarification if Haitian ethnicity or nationality was intended and people paused promotion until whichever it is gets more authoritatively double checked.
  
  Or has there been a recent spate of badly reviewed articles? That would be the problem to fix, not specially excluding a common and interesting category of hooks. Actually start removing people's QPQ credits if they're just pretending to have verified that facts they're supposedly reviewing. — LlywelynII 04:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. I understand the concern with "superlative" (or extraordinary, one could say) hooks, but I really don't think there's anything wrong with nominating a superlative hook on something with an "airtight case". I also respectfully disagree with Roysmith's interpretation. We don't have to create a bureaucratic list of "every single acceptable topic for 'superlative' hooks". We can have a general list for a few topics, like modern metro systems, but we should encourage editors to use WP:COMMONSENSE. For example, for Istana Park, I wouldn't approve "it was the first park in Downtown Singapore to have palm trees planted on purpose" since the history of parks in Singapore is not airtight. However, say for example Toa Payoh MRT station, I wouldn't mind approving that "it was the first MRT station to finish construction" or something, since there were only like, what, less than 12 stations built at the time, and in my eyes it's pretty airtight since MRT stations (or possibly most modern metro systems) are a well defined topic.
  Obviously, it'll be the nominator's responsibility to provide strong evidence so that it won't end up at WP:ERRORS, but if they can, and the evidence and justification are strong, then I don't see the harm in approving it. Option 3 isn't a bad idea, but DYK already has a massive backlog, and examining articles would only further increase the backlog. Icepinner 10:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4, personally. Option 3 is what essentially ends up happening for many hooks, but like Roy said, it's rather bureaucratic; a fair number of superlative hooks are super-specific and unlikely to elicit much debate. As for options 1 and 2, these seem like overkill, and option 2 especially seems like it would create more problems than it solves (e.g. there'd be arguments on what would qualify as "airtight"). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 Hooks are interesting and can be and are supposed to be reliably source. I agree with others above that option 1 and 2 is overkill and the third just seems to be unnecessary Bureaucracy.GothicGolem29 (talk)
• Option 3 Only because in almost all cases, such superlative hooks warrant broader discussion over interestingness and reductiveness anyway (IMO). Besides this, I wouldn't oppose either of options 2 and 4. Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 > Option 2 > Option 4 > Option 1. I agree they can be problematic and should be vetted. What really bothers me about most of them is that in most cases there's something more interesting. Unless the very fact it was the first is interesting for some reason, let's at least look for something more. For an example, this was pulled recently at ERRORS. There's nothing inherently interesting about the first Slovenian restaurant with three stars having a woman chef. If the chef had been an ostrich, that would be interesting. Valereee (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Easily Option 4 due to the overwhelming instruction creep that is taking over DYK --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support option 4 only. Options 1 and 2 are excessive. Option 3 is instruction creep and unnecessary when he should continue trusting reviewers and promoters. Flibirigit (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 They can be rejected on a per case basis, but I don't see a need for the broader aforementioned proposals.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. I think that discouraging these hooks, as we have been doing, is largely working (much better than no guidance!) and that we don't need more WP:CREEP. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4: I think the community as a whole is already well aware of the potential issues here and is using the tools as its disposal well to deal with them. Those tools include WP:ERRORS: I don't see that the occasional prompt pulling (and they do seem to be very occasional) is necessarily a terrible thing: that final check is part of the system too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. Regular reviewers and promoters seem to be generally aware of why superlative hooks are challenging and are likely to query the sources or challenge the hooks in the nom discussion before the hooks are either promoted or brought to DYKT. We do not need a blanket ban on superlatives (some are supported by multiple and/or very reliable/robust sources) and superlatives are often likely to be interesting to readers. Appropriate questions on the part of reviewers and promoters, combined with an occasional discussion at DYKT or ERRORS, seems like a small price to pay compared to losing superlative hooks entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  They obviously haven't been querying sources or challenging the hooks, given how many wind up at ertors. The problem is that the process is geared to pass noms through. We should be actively trying to disprove the assertions, including questioning exactly what the words mean. (ie: is a French book one written in French or one published in France or...) That way we can be more sure of their validity. And some articles just may not have any good hooks. Not everything needs to get in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Not many have ended up at errors in comparison to the numbers that got rejected in review, or successfully ran at DYK. The assertion that there hasn't been largely competent reviewing is false. The few that end up at ERRORS get remembered because they are highly visible. The many that got rejected in review are forgotten, and the ones that run successfully are equally forgotten because nobody kicked up a stink. 4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I would support a ban on "firsts" sourced only to a stats database (which I've seen multiple times for some sports hooks). We should rely on WP:SECONDARY sources analyzing and making the claim, not primary source stats databases (which also may not be complete) on what might be a trivial WP:OR "first".—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. This RFC has been quiet for about a week. It's probably time to close it.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This is Halloween.

Cosplay Freddie wants to show his claws

Since it felt a little rushed last year, I figured now would be a good time to start getting things together for the Halloween/Samhain/Dios de las Muertas/All Saints day sets. Im starting the writing on a couple new species articles that can be halloween themed. What are others thinking?--Kevmin § 16:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I can look through the nominations we already have for anything that could be used, we’re not too far out they couldn’t be held I don’t think. Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have at least two articles I’m thinking of nominating. A biography and a building. Thriley (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I just created and nominated Ingersoll's Ordinary. Thriley (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a current nomination for the Bulgarian noble who survived with a spear through his eye. The picture would work well! GGOTCC 13:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I did one on Polybius. It's an urban legend about an addictive arcade machine released in Portland, Oregon suburbs in 1981. It gets children hooked and then scrambles their brains. The article/subject fits, but the hook itself is about a historian. All the spooky aspects are somewhat fictional, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

What are the chances that DYK will be running every 12 hours at the end of October? Should we prepare two sets? I could probably put together at least six Halloween hooks if needed. Thriley (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to make predictions that far out in the future, but based on the recent queue-filling history, I'd say close to zero. RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

even if it did, we shift back to 24-hour sets for holidays if we need to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on finishing up Draft:Charlie (goat) for the Halloween set. Feel totally free to contribute. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

image compliance check

the ONLY mainpage compliant image of decent quality

I'm finishing drafting for a new flat worm article, named for Freddy Kreuger, and I want to verify the compliance of the image I would use in the nomination. The image is licensed CC-By-2.0 and verified by flickerbot to the Flicker stream it came from. The question is how does the Freddie cosplay fall out with regards to copyright of a character? @BlueMoonset, Nikkimaria, and RoySmith:--Kevmin § 17:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, image copyright is not my strong suit. But I'll bet Nikki knows. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

If the Freddie character is itself under copyright and non-free, a mask depicting it would also be non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Gregor Baci and File:Portrait of Gregor Baci.jpg would not have this issue! GGOTCC 01:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kevmin: If we are to use a cosplay image, I think File:Freddy Cosplay.jpg is a better option in terms of pose and quality. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: I have reverted your change to the Freddius. One, the claw image is the one in the nomination, so removing it immediately put the nomination at odds with DYK rules. Two, while cosplay images are allowed on commons, its clear from discussion with Nikkimaria and Schwede66 that they are not mainpage complaint.--Kevmin § 17:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt drafts

Please see WP:VPM#User:MichaelQSchmidt has died. There are apparently a few horror movie drafts which need to be completed and might work here. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, the horror film drafts in that list are: Aika Tappaa, City of the Damned, Dead Game, Delaney, Killer School Girls from Outer Space, and The Locals. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

List of potential Halloween set hooks

• Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Gregor Baci (approved for Halloween, image hook)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Ingersoll's Ordinary (approved for Halloween)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Polybius (urban legend) (approved but not confirmed for Halloween)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie (goat) (approved for Halloween)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Freddius (approved for Halloween)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Friday the 13th (1980 film) (approved for Halloween)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Fujuriphyes dagon (approved for Halloween)

Feel free to add hooks as this set develops. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Tish Weinstock
• Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Hirshorn

Two more. Thriley (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pennywise could work here.--Launchballer 13:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Got another one in case we get enough for a second set: Template:Did you know nominations/Villains Are Destined to Die. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded, though I should preface by saying I'm the one who got it to GA. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

We also have Eva Coo in SOHA, All You Need Is Death on Approved, and Magic Cat Academy on TM:TDYK. That's 13 if I can count and I'm sure more are on their way. Second set?--Launchballer 01:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Also CarnEvil.--Launchballer 15:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Magic Cat Academy & Template:Did you know nominations/CarnEvil still need reviews if someone is debating what to check out for their QPQ. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a zombie-related hook of mine that's already been promoted, but I don't know when it's due to run, if you wanted to sub it in to fill a second set? Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's currently Queue 4, around 27 hours from now.--Launchballer 21:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, probably best to not disturb that, actually! Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Graciana de Barrenechea, if you're looking for more - there's a strong image at the article if you need one, too. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, prep 6 is full. We have, I think, six more themed noms. Is it time to, um, work them into prep7? Better now than when that's got too many hooks in to bump down to prep3/4. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. The Graciana image would divert readers to The Incantation; what else is there?--Launchballer 22:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, none of the others at the moment have image options. The photo of Barrenechea's house (also in article) isn't exactly on-theme. I will look around other noms we might've overlooked, and other content we might be able to whip up. Also ping to @Dclemens1971: who I know has looked at some of the Halloween hooks, and has been building out prep7 with other hooks. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I only see five hooks in the holding area so I didn't realize we'd be able to do two sets. (Can we run two sets with fewer than 9 hooks? Not sure how that works.) We can move the Freddius hook from Prep 6 if you need one with an image. Feel free to bump Prep 7 to Prep 3 or split it up among preps 2 and 3 (although it does have a lovely variety as it is if I do say so myself). Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As soon as another prep opens up entirely, I'm sure we can wholesale move it ;) Freddius might have to do it if the sarcophagi won't. There's five in SOHA, my unreviewed nom. I might nom another but wouldn't want to overload. We can incorporate other hooks - ask the sarcophagi nom if they don't mind Halloween, and there's an approved nom about a cemetery for slaves being built over... Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

If sarcophagi are considered mummies enough for Halloween, Template:Did you know nominations/Deir el-Balah sarcophagi could be an option. Ask nominator? Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty tangential to Halloween but if you are looking for something to build out a second set I have a hook approved at Template:Did you know nominations/Willows Inn about a fancy restaurant that inspired a 2022 horror-comedy film. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, with themed sets I also prefer a bit of variety in how hooks connect to the theme, rather than a whole repetitive set of heavily laid-on Halloween/Christmas characters. Alt0 could work IMO. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Depending on how quick someone could turn it around if willing, The Zombies (EP) just got nommed at GA... Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I split the set. There are five in SOHA, plus Willows Inn in the image slot, Barrenechea and sarcophagi on this page, plus Zombies is also a 5x expansion. Nine and nine I reckon.--Launchballer 14:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: Prep 7 is being set aside for Halloween, perhaps you would consider promoting some of the hooks mentioned in my above comment?--Launchballer 23:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We've got the go-ahead for the Deir el-Balah sarcophagi image to be used, which I think is more evocative of Halloween than the Willows Inn building! I can promote at least some of them to prep. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Only Hal Hirshorn, The Zombies (EP), and Graciana de Barrenechea remaining. Hirshorn seems ready to roll.--Launchballer 14:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I've also added Hirshorn, but that's as much as I can do. Barrenechea needs a review, I'm happy to nom Zombies, which will also need a review. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If you can find a hook for Zombies, feel free to nominate. I can't, and I'm inclined to move one from 7 to 6 and run two eights.--Launchballer 23:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If Barrenechea doesn't get a review by tomorrow, that's (two sets of eight) probably the time-safe option. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

As @Theleekycauldron: just moved one out from prep 7 into queue 4, I will review Barrenechea myself if no-one else does so sharpish.--Launchballer 01:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I put it back, sorry! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I got the ping about this edit (hopefully this is the right place to reply). The change to the Deir el-Balah hook is still factually correct, and while the wording has a slightly different meaning I don't think it's significant. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I would sign off on the Pennywise hook, but its one ref in the article is Encyclopedia Brittanica, is there anything else to support? Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Didn't see any more when I looked, although it has a fact-checking byline and seems fine to me?--Launchballer 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The concern is that it's (like Wikipedia) a tertiary encyclopedia and, for this, the claim is a sort of judgment. Like, if it was that there were evil clown sightings of people dressed like Pennywise, that's objective. But the claim is the character was blamed, i.e. that sources have connected it as inspiration. If those sources can't be found, is EB making a conjecture claim (i.e. what we'd call WP:OR)? Because we basically can't trust that kind of source for that kind of editorial claim. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Most sources seem to blame It rather than Pennywise, and as I can't tell whether they mean the film of the character I removed the claim from the article. Dclemens1971 already approved ALT2 from the nom, so I suggest moving that in instead.--Launchballer 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This sorted itself out below.--Launchballer 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: The intention was for both Halloween sets to run today, which would require a one-day switch to two-a-day.--Launchballer 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh, both will run when it's October 31st somewhere, so I'm not sure it's the most pertinent to do this, if the admins are busy. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Question re: review (re-review)

@Rjjiii and Launchballer: As it seems that there's at least a reasonable chance that Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Consort Gallery went “off the rails” due to procedural mistakes (likely magnified by my own misunderstanding DYK etiquette), more than for any specific policy failures, would you please consider reversing this closure and giving it a fresh review? Happy to put a bit more time into this if it might result in a positive outcome. It would be very much appreciated. Cheers,  Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Another reason why the nomination was closed was because, as of today, it is already two months old. Per WP:DYKTIMEOUT, nominations that are older than two months old may be closed if they remain unpromoted and have unresolved issues. Although the nomination was closed just a few days before the two-month mark, it did not seem like the issues were going to be resolved soon anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Screenshot of DYK checklist (nearly completed)

Thanks for that. This is what I saw when I wrote "pretty much everything else seems to be in order", and it's what led me to believe that "the issues were going to be resolved soon" (in other words, to make the assumption that the review process was nearly finished).

That, coupled with the fact that DYKTIMEOUT says if a nomination timed out while it was waiting for a review or a re-review, consider reviewing the nomination rather than rejecting it – hence the assumption that working through the reviewer's requests and trying to sort the last details so that they'd be happy to add that last missing Y was just part of normal DYK process.

In good faith, and based on these two seemingly rational assumptions, much time was spent. It's a shame to lose all that time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

(This is Rjjiii on my mobile account): While the first 3 reviews put concerns in their own words and cited essays, their words and those essays reflect the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. I can give a deeper explanation if needed. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. That would be very helpful. Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because this still has unresolved issues. You will be able to renominate once it's passed GA.--Launchballer 15:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. It never hurts to ask, right? It all started so well (Great job on the article and nice hooks to boot, etc.) and ended with an irrevocable "yeet". Too bad. Bit of a rollercoaster ride. Thanks for considering the request anyhow. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are some connections between the comments and cited essays with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)

"Quotations should not substitute for exposition in Wikipedia's own voice. They are useful for capturing the original author's tone or attitude, but shouldn't be used instead of a clear editorial summary of what they say."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, § WP:VOICE (policy)

"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. [...] Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, [...]"

Reviewer comment

"Lots of unattributed quotes two months into nom"

• Comment: A good faith effort to resolve this and refine the text more generally per other comments was actively being implemented at the time of the apparently mistaken "yeeting" (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:INTEXT (guideline)

"In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution may need to be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing."

WP:TOOMANYREFS (the essay)

"If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability. [...] If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:TSI (guideline)

"When using inline citations, it is important to maintain text–source integrity. The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed."

• Comment: Issue discussed with reviewer and apparently resolved at the time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:OVERQUOTE (the essay)

"A major problem with quotes in the lead is the concern about giving WP:UNDUE weight to one or a few sources within the limited space of the lead section."

• Comment: Quotes were removed from the lead section during review process, per request. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, § WP:UNDUE (policy) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10

01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. [...] Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."

Reviewer comment

" I stick to one citation and bundle as necessary. I do this as a courtesy to the reader and to promote readability of the text. I'm still not clear why there is a "better source needed" tag."

• Comment: Both of these were resolved during review (here and here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources, § WP:CITEBUNDLE (guideline)

"Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote."

• Comment: Discussed elsewhere; also, this does not appear to be a DYK policy issue per se (and it certainly doesn't seem like it ought to be grounds for outright rejection of the nom). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll study all of this before submitting another DYK. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

​Follow-up: In this instance, it looks as if most of these issues were actually resolved or in the process of being resolved in this series of edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (per DYK reviewer request) – and some were also discussed elsewhere in various parallel threads with additional context added.

Again, the information and thoughts above (not to mention the considerable amount of time that's been invested here) are appreciated, but there still seems to be a disconnect between policy and outcomes.

DYK policy (which probably doesn't need to be quoted here, of all places!), says "DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia" as well as "to acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement", which seems to be the exact opposite of the apparent outcome here at present.

As the intention with this article was to try to take it from Creation --> DYK --> GA --> FA over time (in the hope of achieving an elusive and coveted Wikipedia:Four Award), this unfortunate misunderstanding is, well, rather a discouragement. What's the best way out of this loop? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

PS: Signing previously added comments (above). Apologies for the oversight. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to nominate the article for GA, have it pass GAN, then renominate it for DYK. By then, it will be more likely to succeed, especially since passing a GA review would also likely mean that it resolved whatever issues hounded the original DYK nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but it needs DYK first to be eligible for WP:4A, so that won't work in this case. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard of Four Awards needing to go in that specific order before, and if that is the case, I imagine it is a remnant of the time before being a newly-promoted GA was a pathway to DYK (in the past, DYKs could only be new creations or expansions, not newly-promoted GAs). If that is truly the case, I suggest that there be a discussion at Four Award clarifying that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not the case; WP:4A says "The DYK nomination does not need to be made before the article becomes a Good Article." CoconutOctopus talk 11:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, my mistake! I read "all four stages of editorial development (creation, DYK, GA, FA)" as an ordered sequence. I stand corrected.

Be that as it may, this particular case still appears to be an outlier as the "rejection" was the result of another error (amplified by a misunderstanding), and as such, should probably be corrected in good faith. That's the primary issue. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Broken transclusion on DYKN

Hi folks,

on newest version of Chromium there's an error somewhere around Template:Did you know nominations/Sequenza III that prevents transclusion of all articles starting from Template:Did you know nominations/Jakobus Onnen. The code seems OK. Is there any reason for that? My computer is old but CPU, GPU or memory usage are not maxed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:PEIS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki:, DYKN is currently too large to display all nominations, so DYK currently requires an additional QPQ review for each new nomination. That should eventually reduce the size of DYKN (and increase the size of DYKNA). TSventon (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Nov 7)

Madeleine Tchicaya

• ... that Madeleine Tchicaya was the first woman to graduate from Ivory Coast's National School of Administration?

@Jolielover, 4meter4, and Jeromi Mikhael: While undoubtedly a great achievement, and in this case a "first" hook that seems to be solid based on the nomination, is there really nothing else we can say about her? The school she graduated from does not even have an Wikipedia article (although it is probably notable enough to have one). Unless an article for the school could be made, I do not see how this particular "first" hook is interesting or works out. I also remember there being an essay discouraging "first woman" hooks whenever possible, so there's that as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that first woman hook discussion came after my nomination - although I do apologize for it. The news articles seem to tout this as a massive accomplishment so I took it as such. There are other interesting hooks that could come, like the alternative ones suggested. @4meter4: I feel as though someone admitting they are bored to death of politics is pretty interesting. Also, the President was the one of the country, Félix Houphouët-Boigny. Could be interesting that he personally called for her to run for a second term. jolielover♥talk 07:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I like the hook I approved. Feel free to review an alt if you feel it is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I do wonder if the original hook could be revisited. If it could be made clear that it was the president of Ivory Coast that had asked her instead of the vague "President", maybe that would make it more interesting. Another possible solution could be to create an article for the school, then make it a double hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover: Would creating an article on the National School of Administration be feasible? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather not... jolielover♥talk 12:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover: If that's the case, it might be better to run with a variation of ALT0, or perhaps to propose a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

...that Madeleine Tchicaya was elected to the National Assembly of the Ivory Coast, but left after one term as she was "bored to death"? Source: [1]

...that the President of the Ivory Coast personally requested Madeleine Tchicaya to run for a second term in the country's National Assembly? Source: [2]

...that although Madeleine Tchicaya's father became the "laughing stock" of his community for choosing to educate rather than wed off his daughter, she eventually joined the country's National Assembly? Source: [3] jolielover♥talk 09:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm okay with the first hook. @4meter4 and Jeromi Mikhael: Is the first option okay for you? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting to not be asked or pinged anymore. I didn't see the need to change the hook, and I don't want to be involved in approving an alt. I am not opposed to anything others deem acceptable. I just don't want to give any more time to this. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover: Okay, so I was planning to approve the "bored to death" hook as the most interesting of the options, but checking the source, it is not clear if the "bored to death" claim came from her or from the source. Can this be clarified? If this doesn't work out, we could go with a revised version of the second option (i.e. her declining to run again despite the president personally encouraging her). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm also not sure whether it came from the source or her. Sure, the 2nd one could work. jolielover♥talk 02:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I've queued this set; may pull this if necessary.--Launchballer 04:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Work Song (Corbin/Hanner song)

• ... that the music video for Corbin/Hanner's "Work Song" was the first by a country artist to feature time-lapse photography?

@TenPoundHammer, Ilikepie2221, and Jeromi Mikhael: This is a "first" hook: as such, I am inviting a second look at this hook to scrutinize its firstness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Alternate hook if the firstness fails: that Corbin/Hanner's "Work Song" has been described as "hillbilly reggae"? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kansas-city-star/184102592/}} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Ping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That works. Given that the reviewer hasn't edited since the 26th, I'd also like to hear from Launchballer for their thoughts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I was also going to object to the timelapse hook, but for a different reason; I didn't know what timelapse photography was. The hillbilly reggae hook checks out and I'll substitute it in when I finish the set.--Launchballer 23:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I substituted it in.--Launchballer 02:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

• Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Not an error, but there's a hook about marine invertebrates named after HP Lovecraft monsters, and a hook about a marine invertebrate named after Freddy Krueger. Might be worth swapping one? Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There's more Halloween goodnees in Prep 7 if you wanted to switch something. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that hook and I have some reservations about the wording. The addition of "actually" may make it seem that those names are only referring to the species and not the characters. Maybe removing "actually" would make the hooks more accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The "actually" is a cutesy nod to the fact that those names are not popularly associated with these invertebrates and is appropriate for this hook. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that term be subjective or at least inaccurate? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Can "that Tish Weinstock got married over the Halloween weekend in 2022 at a castle wearing a wedding dress made from antique lace styled after Morticia Addams?" be switched to "that Tish Weinstock got married over Halloween weekend in 2022 at a castle wearing a wedding dress made from antique lace styled after Morticia Addams?"? The "the" before Halloween weekend is not necessary. Thriley (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Pennywise hook (Prep 7)

• ... that a Stephen King character has been suggested as the inspiration for a 2016 rash of scary clown sightings?

- I did a search for "2016" "scary" and "sightings" and came up with nothing, also a scan of the article turned up nothing. Where in the article is the hook fact? Gatoclass (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears that the sightings did actually happen: The Guardian reported on it, for example. It shouldn't be too hard to add info about it to the article: pinging Gommeh for their input here. In the meantime, given that it was supposed to run in two days, I've bumped the hook off to Prep 6 to buy us more time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the article per #List of potential Halloween set hooks. All the sources I could find blamed the film rather than the character.--Launchballer 10:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay then, substitute hook:

• ALTE1: ... that movie characters like Pennywise have been cited as contributing to some people's fear of clowns?

Source.

Can somebody verify this hook ASAP please so that the nom can be restored to prep 7? Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that hook. I'd ping @Kingsif, Dclemens1971, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan:, but I'm not sure they're currently online. @Narutolovehinata5:, perhaps you'd like to?--Launchballer 11:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've restored the nom to p7 with said hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright. As for the last hook, All You Need Is Death, I nominated on behalf of an IP (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 208#Need help submitting nom), does that involve me out of queuing it?--Launchballer 12:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

12-hour cycle

I have rotated back to a 12-hour cycle for the Halloween sets only. Somebody will have to change back to 24 hours after they have been featured - cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: (below applies also).--Launchballer 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

No queues

@DYK admins: there are currently no queues, with eleven and a half hours to go until Wikipedia midnight. Please help or the main page could remain stuck in Halloween for ever... TSventon (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on the next set now, but could certainly take some help on the double noms/larger articles.--Launchballer 12:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh never mind. @Ganesha811:, could you remove my tick from the queue?--Launchballer 12:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for checking that one, it's a big set so I'll be going over it for a minute. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Bruce Lehrmann

• ... that the controversy and collateral damage surrounding legal proceedings brought by Bruce Lehrmann was described by an Australian judge as an "omnishambles"?

- I hate to do this (again) to a good-faith contributor, but as with the Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) article, I have some BLP concerns about this one, so at present I have kicked the nom back to prep 2. The issue is that Lehrmann is, as I understand it, currently appealing the rape finding against him, and the appeals court has not yet made a judgement.

Given that the court might conceivably vacate the judgement of the lower court - unlikely as that may be - it would seem to me to be a BLP violation to put an article on the main page before the judgement has been rendered. I would be more than happy to hold this one over until then. Pinging @TarnishedPath, LivelyRatification, and Earth605:, comments from uninvolved parties welcome. Please note that I personally will not be able to contribute further to this discussion for some hours as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In my view, the hook did not address specifics of the legal proceedings, they simply say that they caused "controversy and collateral damage" and that a judge described it as an "omnishambles". Even in the very unlikely scenario that a judge were to find Lehrmann innocent tomorrow, write a fawning judgement exonerating him, etc etc, I still think "controversy" and "collateral damage" would be fairly reasonable terms to describe what happened after that case. Fairly mild when you consider what some Australian media ran with after it, too. Of course it would be an obvious BLP violation to call him a "loser and a rapist" (as one News Corp paper did), but the statement here seems to me to be pretty uncontroversial -- I don't reckon it violates WP:DYKBLP. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if my remarks above were not clear enough. The issue is not with the hook - the hook is perfectly fine. My objection is to running the article before the appeals court has ruled, because if the higher court vacates the judgement that the subject committed rape, then we've run an article that says the courts ruled that he committed rape when in fact they didn't. This is a clear BLP issue in my view that warrants holding the nomination until the higher court has ruled (which really shouldn't be too long a wait in any case). Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't waiting that long potentially make the nomination in danger of timing out? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but we can always make an exception. Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, noting that WP:BLPPUBLIC applies here (they've been featured in a current affairs show as the interviewee and there has been extensive coverage of the whole controversy) I don't see any possible violation regardless of what the final outcome is given that the terms "alleged" is used in all the appropriate places and that the article indicates the judgement is a civil finding. The article has been through two reviews prior to DYK nomination (WP:PR and WP:GA) and any policy issues would have been taken care of at that time. Regarding to hook itself, there is no WP:DYKBLP issue, given it focuses on the collateral damage (there is a lot).

I don't see any cause to wait until the Full Bench of the Federal Court either decides to overturn the judgement or dismiss the appeal as it won't change much in the article either way beyond the addition of a couple of paragraphs. Additionally, we have no way of judging how long it is going to take. It could be early next year or it could be two years. For example, it took almost two years between the Full Bench hearing Ben Roberts-Smith's appeal and them deciding to dismiss it.TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass here. Until the appeals process has played out, this is not a fait accompli, and we should err on the side of caution in not bringing main page attention to it at this point. That's not to say the article isn't compliant in itself, or that the "omnishambles" angle will be subject to change, simply that the saga is clearly a negative aspect of the individual's life, and until the final stone is thrown, I don't think it's correct to highlight it on the main page. I see no issues with doing an IAR revival once the final decision is known. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

An IAR revival in possibly two years? Despite receiving an IAR exception for Ben Roberts-Smith to run in a double bolded hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Nick McKenzie, that looks like is going to time out. If/when there is a decision by the Full Bench, I'd likely be the first person to edit Bruce Lehrmann to ensure that it is BLP compliant which ever way the cards fall. TarnishedPath^talk 07:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I am speaking in a general sense and am not specifically talking about this case (I have no opinion on this nomination), but to be frank, there are times when articles are simply just not good fits for DYK for reasons beyond the article or contributors' control. For example, there are times when running a particular article at a particular time, or presenting a particular hook fact in an inappropriate time, may not be the wisest decision. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't control when GA reviewers decide to take up particular articles and then our rules mean that an article must be nominated within 7 days of passing GA. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In such cases, it may be better to let nominations go. Not all articles are meant to be for DYK, and them not being featured on DYK, while disappointing, isn't the end of the world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought that given the sea of banality that constitutes a lot of nominations that some spicy stuff would be welcomed, particularly when it meets all WP PAG and all DYK guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 10:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK has had a long history of dealing with crime or controversy-related nominations, and we've had negative experiences that have caused some editors to be reluctant to sign them off. For example, in the past, we had an editor who would often nominate Northern Ireland-related articles for DYK, but proposing hooks that seemingly promoted a Unionist perspective. The same editor also proposed other provocative hooks, such as hooks that seemingly attacked Islam or made fun of people. They have since been banned from DYK. I am bringing them up as an example to show that DYK's reservations on featuring controversial articles did not come out of nowhere but rather from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If I was proposing POV hooks, punching down making fun of people or attacking people's religions I could understand some people flinching away. That's not what I'm about. Most of my writing is in various contentious topic areas, and as such IK am well aware of heightened expectations about adherence to policy in those topics. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, when I opened this discussion, it never occurred to me that the appeals court might take so long to issue a ruling - I assumed it would be no more than two or three months. I think we could hold the nom that long but probably no longer.

As an alternative, I think you would need at minimum to state clearly in both the lede and main body text that the outcome of the appeal is still pending as the court has reserved judgement. I think it would also need to be made clear what the grounds for the appeal are exactly. I couldn't see any of this information when I read through the article, it read to me as if the judges had basically dismissed the appeal after ridiculing the defence's arguments, which is not the case.

So if you think you could refactor appropriately, I might be persuaded to take another look at promoting it prior to the final judgement being delivered, because at the moment it just delivers a misleading account of the state of the play in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, the basis of the appeal, which is what recieved so much dismissal from the judges, is stated in the sentence "In court Burrows argued that Lehrmann was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because "[h]e was taken by surprise as to the nature of the rape … it was pleaded as a violent rape, when His Honour [Justice Lee] found it was a non-violent rape."

I'll add something about that into the lead and make other changes you've suggested tomorrow (it's currently 11:13pm here) and then ping you to see what your feelings are. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, please see the series of edits I've made at Special:Diff/1319875488/1319991213. I hope this address any concerns and that other editors take it into consideration. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeing controversy used in the hook makes me wary of WP:DYKHOOKBLP:

Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.

—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba, the pertinent part of what you quoted is the term "unduly". TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the word "controversy" in the given context necessarily pertains to Lehrmann, because the word "surrounding" implies any number of other actors. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, you're entirely correct. Justice Lee's statement is about how much other civil action had come about in relation to the whole affair. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

As Narutolovehinata5 says above, unfortunately not every article is suitable for a DYK hook. Given that this individual's entire notability is around a controversy, and one which hasn't yet played itself out fully in the courts at that, I think this is one of those cases where we just shouldn't run it on Wikipedia's front page. Sorry for the disappointment that will bring.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

To get a broader perspective, I've posted a {{please see}} at WP:BLPN. The article seems well-done, but I don't see an appropriate way to present the subject at DYK. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hell no, of course we shouldn't be featuring Lehrmann in a DYK hook. Even ignoring the negative BLP aspects, it is grossly undue to draw attention to court cases etc (which inevitably will involve negative material about something, or they don't get to court) on the sole basis that a Judge used a particular word to describe it. Cherry-picking reports on serious court cases for single-word comments made in passing is entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised about the hook and article, I've gone ahead and pulled it. Given Rjjiii's call for further input, I'm not sure if discussion should continue here or on the nomination page, but either way it does not seem like a good idea to keep it in Prep until we gain a consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 it should be closed as rejected.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I should at the bare minimum be afforded the opportunity to make adjustments to the article, per @Gatoclass's suggestions, prior to it being rejected. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the article or the discussion itself, but it appears that multiple editors (Amakuru, AndyTheGrump, and perhaps Rjjiii) are leaning against this running at all regardless of edits done to the article, in addition to Bagumba's objection to the hook (although they have not talked about the article). At the very least, consensus appears to be against running the article at this time, and even if you have made edits to the article, you have convince the objectors to give it a chance.

My advice to you TarnishedPath is this: not all articles are meant to be for DYK, and sometimes you have to choose your battles. A nomination failing, while it sucks, does not mean you aren't a good editor, nor does it mean that your efforts aren't appreciated. It could also be a lesson for you: instead of expending your time and effort on doomed articles, you can channel that towards nominations that have a better chance of success. As you mentioned earlier, your editing focus tends to be on contentious topics, so this may not be as easy as those who focus on less controversial subjects, but my advice remains. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Arguments that it should not feature regardless of anything else do not address the requirements for deterring consensus found at WP:DETCON. The article ticks all of the eligibility criteria and a chance to improve it should be afforded. TarnishedPath^talk 02:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't care to figure out the indenting, but I call codswallop on the idea you can't control when an article becomes a GA - you have the option to delay nominating and WP:GARC and WP:GARP are things. (I intend on using the former for Irina Voronina and Lola Young (singer).) No objection to this running in similar circumstances to Ben's article; delayed and preferably as a side article to another nom.--Launchballer 02:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer, I have thought about WP:GARC and WP:GARP, however I don't feel confident to do GA reviews and don't want to be responsible for having something promoted to GA that shouldn't be there. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2: Bayden Barber (nom)

@TheLoyalOrder and LivelyRatification: I've bumped this one out of queue because I think the article relies too heavily on WP:ABOUTSELF sources. Text cited to the subject of the article shouldn't be unduly self-serving, shouldn't make claims about third parties, and shouldn't make claims about events not directly related to the source. I don't think this needs a pull, but could the aboutself-cited text be re-sourced or removed? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't immediately have time to address this concern but I think it's reasonable. The sources directly from Barber could probably stand to be trimmed. LivelyRatification (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

ok ill address this TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Odd editing from a newly created account

One of the hooks I reviewed (still technically waiting for a reply), Template:Did you know nominations/City of Oaks Marathon, was recently rejected in this edit by Sodanight. This user is a newly created account. See Special:Contributions/Sodanight. They also approved Template:Did you know nominations/Hopton, Derbyshire. Seems a bit odd having an editor with a new account and no DYK nominated articles reviewing at DYK... I reverted their rejection of the one hook because I am still reviewing and it has technically not timed out yet. Someone might want to double check the Hopton, Derbyshire review...4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Update. Turns out that Template:Did you know nominations/Hopton, Derbyshire was in fact nominated pretty far outside of the window in which it was expanded. The expansion began October 7 and the bulk of the expansion was mostly done by October 17. A small amount of work was done after but not much prose count added after October 17. It wasn't nominated until October 31, far outside the seven day window. I suspect the new account may have been created to get around WP:DYKCRIT review, and we may have a WP:SOCK issue. I overturned the approval and rejected it.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

These are confirmed to each other:

• U1ajl5xge2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• U1ajl5xge (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sodanight (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Izno (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps, but I reverted the article back to before their first edit.--Launchballer 21:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Is @217.41.21.222: also the same user?--Launchballer 20:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback at Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics

Could someone have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics? There seems to be no progress on the discussion of the pictured hook and the alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Dianna Cowern

• ... that science communicator Dianna Cowern (pictured) has an asteroid named after her? (nom)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Launchballer, and TarnishedPath: To my knowledge, quite a few people get asteroids named after them – especially science communicators, in fact – so I feel that this fact isn't particularly noteworthy for Cowern. Could we instead write about something to do with her career or background? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally like this hook. I wasn't aware of the fact that lots of people have asteroids named after them, but it does seem like a snappy, interesting fact to me. If we're going to sub in another one, let's not just make it banal facts about viewership or something, we need one that will be interesting to readers, which the asteroid one is IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Although I agree with the sentiment, I actually do think that the hook is interesting, particularly to non-astronomy buffs. It's a cute hook regardless even if it's commonplace (even Scott Manley has an asteroid named after him!) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know how common it was either, and would question whether a broad audience would.--Launchballer 13:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur. To a general audience this hook works.4meter4 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

As the article creator, I agree that this hook is not interesting. I don't think we should use a fact that could also apply to lots of people. It's simply an honor bestowed upon people; it also wouldn't be interesting to simply state that someone has an Oscar, or a Nobel Prize, or the Legion d'Honneur. I also think there's potential for other people to have more specific asteroid-related hooks (for example, a hook for Matt Parker could perhaps say that he has asteroid number pi, or that he and his wife both have asteroids, if there were sourcing for that), so we should defer similar hooks for something more interesting.

For the sake of the discussion, I'll suggest an alt hook. I don't think it's super interesting, but I think it's more interesting than the asteroid fact:

• ALT1: ... that Dianna Cowern created her first YouTube video as a joke for friends and did not expect it to get as popular as it did? Source: [4] — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

As the person who proposed that name to the IAU, I don't know how much I should continue to involve myself in the discussion. What I would like to say is that, while there certainly are several thousand living people who have an asteroid named after themselves (there are about 25,000 named asteroids, not all named after people, and many of those not alive[5]), I wouldn't call it "common", and the list of YouTubers/science communicators who do is quite limited (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEllcogziLI is complete). Renerpho (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a weird case in that the consensus is leaning towards keeping the original hook, but the article creator prefers something else. However, I still think that the current hook is more interesting than ALT1: without context, ALT1, while a perfectly acceptable hook under any other circumstance, doesn't have the same punch or hookiness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I like Amakuru wasn't aware that lots of people have asteroids named after them, which is why I promoted it. I don't think that is something that most people would know and therefore this passes as interesting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

But on the other hand, would this be even more interesting if it started 'the YouTuber Dianna Cowern'?--Launchballer 20:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "YouTuber" is more interesting. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I've changed the hook to say "science YouTuber" instead of "science communicator". Hope that works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Renerpho (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, my suggestion was to drop 'science' altogether.--Launchballer 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

In the nom, @Grnrchst suggested that "science communicator" should be used as it is used in the supporting source for the hook, which is why I promoted that wording. Either works for me. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Gmrchst suggested to use either "YouTuber" or "science communicator", without specifying a preference. It was me who suggested that "science communicator" may be better because that's what's used in the source. The citation [6] doesn't specifically give "science YouTuber", but it gives "educational YouTuber" as yet another alternative.

There is another problem with Narutolovehinata5's version: "Science communicator" is used in the first sentence of the lede, and she's called a "YouTuber" at least tangentially further down, but the phrases "science YouTuber" and "educational YouTuber" are not used anywhere in the Wikipedia article. Strictly speaking, the hook as it stands now (with "science YouTuber") isn't supported by the article.

For that reason, I tend to agree with Launchballer and Gmrchst, that we should choose between "science communicator" and "YouTuber". I personally see no problem with "YouTuber" (without "science"). It's supported by both the article and the citation -- not to mention that, as noted by others, it may be more interesting. Renerpho (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the hook in the prep area accordingly ("... that YouTuber Dianna Cowern (pictured) has an asteroid named after her?", which was ALT0a). I hope that's okay. Renerpho (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are allowed to make the change yourself: as you were the one who proposed naming the asteroid after her, this might count as a COI. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do we have two different talk page notices for article that have run?

I'm looking at the talk pages of two hooks that ran on 24 October 2025. Talk:History of penicillin has:

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 24, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that penicillin was forgotten about for a decade after its initial discovery in 1929?

Talk:Isaac A. Hopper has a more verbose version:

A fact from Isaac A. Hopper appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 October 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Isaac A. Hopper was one of the One Hundred?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac A. Hopper.

why are they different? I've noticed this for a while and always assumed we just changed process at some point, but these are both from the same day. RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I realize that I will probably be the lone voice here, and I'm fine with that, but variety is the spice of life. I love the idea that we have two different messages saying the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

But I'm still curious what causes some to get one flavor and some to get the other? I assumed these are placed by some bot, why doesn't it bottify the same way uniformly? What's annoying is that one doesn't include the link for the page view stats. RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Both notices were placed by User:DYKUpdateBot, so hopefully Shubinator knows what is going on. It seems that GA DYKs get the shorter message. TSventon (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

{{Article history}} just renders DYKs differently than {{DYK talk}}, but, not sure who changed the language. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Same reason that the article history template renders a GAN as e.g. "June 7, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed" while {{FailedGA}} is more verbose. The former is more concise and meant to dovetail with similar article milestones. If an article doesn't have any other milestones, it gets the longer template. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if even the short version included the view count link. Without the link, it's surprisingly difficult to find the right incantation. RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I've updated {{DYK talk}} to link directly to DYK stats pages instead of the wmcloud tool (the stats pages do link to the wmcloud tool). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I have written a proof of concept in Module:Article history/config/sandbox. You can replace {{Article history with {{Article history/sandbox to see how it looks. It seems to work even with really odd titles like Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot. Page moves give a link to the correct page but no anchor; that's how the other template works as well. I wasn't sure how to handle multiple dyk nominations for page views, so this just ignores them. I wouldn't push anything live until bot operators comment, since I don't know how the bots update talk pages. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK question

I've had one unasked question for a long time, and now it’s time to ask. My question is: if a DYK nomination was closed due to delay or lack of reviewer interest under WP:DYKTIMEOUT, is it possible to reopen the case? I feel that this kind of move is unfair...You know one of my past nominations was rejected simply because no reviewer showed up. I understand that DYK reviewing is volunteer work; I’m just asking this out of curiosity and for my knowledge. Thanks Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally, the answer is no. One of the reasons why DYKTIMEOUT even exists is to make sure that nominations do not linger for too long. DYKTIMEOUT is actually a relatively new thing, only implemented within the last two years or so. In the past, nominations could last for as long as three months, but even then it was considered a problem.

Note that DYKTIMEOUT does state that leniency may be given for nominations that did not get reviewed, but it would really depend on the reason behind the lack of a review. For example, if a nomination about a controversial topic remains pending at the time of timing out, it could be seen as a soft rejection by editors, a sign that the DYK community is not comfortable running the hook or article. Similarly, if a nomination was never reviewed before it timed out, it could be because editors did not feel that the hook was interesting enough, so it could be seen as a soft rejection. It's a case-by-case thing, and whether or not to time out a nomination that is pending a review or re-review is at the discretion of reviewers.

For such cases, assuming it wasn't nominated for DYK as a newly-promoted GA, such articles can always be renominated if they are brought to GA status. Note, however, that DYK is not a right: as such, there will always be articles that are not good fits for DYK, often for reasons beyond nominators' or editors' control. If their nominations don't work out, it is disappointing but it is not the end of the world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(Hypothetical situation:) It gets tricky when the article is nominated for deletion (or merge) 59 days after the DYK nomination was opened since AFDS can last for over 14 days. When an article is clearly voted to be deleted (or redirected/merged), then the nomination can close. I'm not saying timeout should be repealed, but I think nominations shouldn't be rejected simply because its been waiting to be approved/promoted for two months. If there's problems with the article after two months, then I see a case. I think that more nominators should be aware of this rule.

There is no such thing as a timeout in GA, although when an FAC hasn't gathered at least two support votes after over a month, the nomination may timeout. GA articles can sit form minutes to several months without a review. I'm guessing because when the GA is successful, no further action is needed but for DYK, there's the need to put it in a prep followed by a queue, which could only hold nine nominations at a time. JuniperChill (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKTIMEOUT states that nominations may be closed at the discretion of editors, meaning that a nomination could be exempted from timing out depending on the circumstances, such as the scenario you give. On the other hand, it is common for nominations to be timed out if there is no progress on a merge discussion and it does not seem like it would be resolved anytime soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

Would really appreciate if someone could find the time to review this as it is close to timing out. Willing to help out with any volunteer work suggested by whoever reviews it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the nomination does not time out until the 12th, so there is still plenty of time for an uninvolved editor to take a look at this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Cheers @1brianm7. TarnishedPath^talk 08:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The DYK template format

I'm sure this has been discussed before, perhaps someone will point me to the last established consensus or something. But in short, unlike, say, a GA or FA discussion, the DYK-template is a pain in the ass to discuss in, and that can't be encouraging for new editors, and not very fun for others either. I'm guessing changing this deeply rooted procedure would take a significant technical effort that would also be a pain in the ass, but wouldn't it be good if we could get this thing into a more user-friendly shape? Again, a GA/FA discussion format would make sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

agreed; pretty much the only upside to the template existing this way is that you don't have to remember to tag the bottom of the discussion to close the div when you're closing the discussion. as a cost for that, we have to spend a bunch of time keeping stuff inside the template and can't use DiscussionTools, so. I don't feel like we're getting the better end of the bargain. (I'd have to put my money where my mouth is, though...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

pretty much the only upside to the template existing this way is that you don't have to remember to tag the bottom of the discussion to close the div when you're closing the discussion

I've had to fix templates on a number of occasions after I've promoted a hook because people had started adding comments below the line, that tells you not to, prior to promotion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A few pages at the Wikipedia namespace are enabled for discussion (ie, the teahouse, help desk and AFD pages), therefore having the reply tool there. I'm guessing its not possible due to technical restrictions for it to be enabled to template space. There has been some talk about moving DYK noms from template space but has been unsuccessful due to the amount of work needed. JuniperChill (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

GA-reviews like Talk:Larries/GA1 take place in the Talk: namespace, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have DYK-reviews there too. I'm assuming a change can be done if the community wants it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Without digging through the archives I believe the current consensus is "we all wish it wasn't in the template space, but making the switch would require a significant amount of coordinated effort that has so far proved infeasible". Basically someone will have to come in with a fully worked through plan and sufficient manpower and coding knowledge to overcome the inertia for a process that already regularly exceeds volunteer time. CMD (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much this. A namespace switch is essentially a perennial proposal at this point, but actually implementing it would be far beyond our current capabilities. Not to mention, it would likely break our current technical processes and bots. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I actually just checked WP:PERENNIAL to see if this was on there. I guess it's Village pump (proposals) or Village pump (idea lab) next. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For

I was planning to promote this hook to the bottom slot of the prep as " ... that these aren't the droids you're looking for? " Would it be OK, since I've seen some prior movie meme catchphrases that were formatted as such? (Tagging Piotrus Metropolitan90 as editors involved in the nomination) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No objection from me. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A bit April Foolish, but no objection from me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90 proposed "... that the line These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For from the film Star Wars inspired the titles of songs by Queens of the Stone Age and Neko Case?" which I think is pretty good and could played around with a bit. TarnishedPath^talk 03:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No objection from me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Template editor permission request

Hi DYKers! With filled queues hovering around one or two recently and a large backlog of approved nominations, I am seeing if there is consensus within the community to grant template editor permission for promoting preps to queue. I've been nominating at DYK since March-ish, with 29 nominations, and I began promoting to prep areas a couple months ago before the last cycle of 12-hour sets. (I apparently have done 192 promotions, a number that surprised me.) Elsewhere around the project, I create articles (with autopatrolled status) and am also a new page reviewer and page mover. If granted this permission, I'd continue to work carefully and ask questions when I'm unsure about anything. I am familiar with the required steps for queuing, recently helping out with these checks during a time crunch. Happy to answer any questions; thank you for considering this request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support Has clue.--Launchballer 02:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Question: @Dclemens1971 there have been a number of other editors who have requested and been granted the perm in the last few months with offers of helping to promote from prep to queue and then they have been not as active. I get that life happens, so I'm not going to call them out by name; however, if you are granted the perm, how much promoting from prep to queue do reasonably foresee being able to do each week? TarnishedPath^talk 03:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  During normal seasons, I would anticipate being able to queue two to four sets per month. (There are periods of the year where I take wikibreaks due to travel or busy work/family life times.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Support, you seem to have your head screwed on correctly and that seems like a reasonable commitment. TarnishedPath^talk 03:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 3. We have a total of 410 nominations, of which 224 have been approved, a gap of 186 nominations that has decreased in size by 9 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

• September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Homeopathy Unrefuted
• September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Russian sabotage operations in Europe
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Republican makeup
• September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/The World After Gaza
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Bijal P. Trivedi
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Anita Lidya Luhulima
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Fort George, Grenada
• September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Dickson (announcer)
• September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sławomir (musician)
• September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Saving Grace (podcast)
• September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Erich Dieckmann (furniture designer)
• September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Delmass cave
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Nambiar
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Burger Continental
• September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Vindelev Hoard
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Pearls Group
• September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Theo Waimuri
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Y: Marshals
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Thagara
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Mustarjil
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Velký vlastenecký výlet
• September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Glory Hole Park
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Yonki-no-kai Productions
• September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Boeing machinists' strike
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Angela Pack
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Open Cup final
• September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Tilly Norwood
• October 1: Template:Did you know nominations/No Toilet, No Bride
• October 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Politik (song)
• October 3: Template:Did you know nominations/The Fate of Ophelia (two articles)

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:DYKnot

During a discussion at errors @Tamzin advised that they had a user essay about articles which aren't good for taking to DYK at User:Tamzin/The ones I never put up for DYK which I then thought it would be a good idea to create a redirect for it. Tamzin has subsequently suggested moving the essay to project space. I'm not interested in the idea; however, I thought others may be so I'm posting here. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Well specifically I've suggested generalizing it to different people's anecdotes about why they (if they are people who usually take their articles to DYK) haven't taken specific articles. I don't think my own personal anecdote should be its own projectspace essay haha. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure others have their own anecdotes. It would also be a matter of changing the language from first person to third person. TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I was thinking just divide it up into section headers by user, bunch of mini-essays. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

That probably makes more sense. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)