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)

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)

It may be helpful for all aspects of what you are attempting to do to wait a bit and try later at the GA-to-DYK pathway (nominate and have the article pass GA, then renominate for DYK on those grounds). The GA review process, at this juncture, is better suited to solving the problems that are outstanding from this nomination, if any, and will provide more legitimacy to your article when it returns. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You may well be right. Had hoped that the error could be rectified by gently pointing out the mistakes that were made (including my own). Not having much luck with that, are we? Seems that your advice is to abandon any further such effort?

Perhaps this project would benefit from something akin to the flowcharts that we use for AFC and NPP (e.g., File:Flow_chart_for_AFC_3.1.png, File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, or File:NPP_flowchart.svg). This would help clarify the process for outsiders and also help eliminate some of the the vagaries. It also seems that if by using the current process, starting from Wikipedia:DYK_help, we can go from "Great job on the article and nice hooks to boot" to the purgatory of a random "yeet", then we have a problem.

I'll hold out hope for a fair and rational outcome here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:34, 7 November 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)

@DYK admins: The hook is now in the next set to be promoted. Can the hook be pulled? I can no longer do it myself as the set is now protected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I've substituted in another hook and reopened the nomination page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 5 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)

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)

I have made several edits to the page cutting back sources directly from Barber TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheLoyalOrder, @LivelyRatification, and @Theleekycauldron: I've bumped this down prep 4 when promoting just now to give some more time. Much of the issue does seem to be resolved, but Barber himself is still the main source for Bayden_Barber#National_government. Is there not secondary coverage of this? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

i have trimmed back that section TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've also added a short section at the end on his involvement with Te Pāti Māori caucus division mediation on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum which is currently unfolding TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:47, 6 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)

True; but if anyone objects to the change, I think there are enough people here who can revert it. Renerpho (talk) 13:53, 4 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)

@TarnishedPath: can't tell you how many times i've had to do the same. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 5 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)

@Chipmunkdavis and Narutolovehinata5: the fact that DYK nompages are in template space and the fact that the text of the pages is wrapped in the {{DYKsubpage}} template are different things; we're talking about the second. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the goal should be to fix this problem, rather than to stop people pointing out that it's a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Why can't we just do the reviews and discussions on the talk pages?

Like so: Template talk:Did you know nominations/Archives of the Impossible#Test <- has the happy [ reply ] function. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You can reply there as easily as I did here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason it couldn't happen on Template:Did you know nominations/Archives of the Impossible; it's just that all of the text is wrapped in a {{DYKsubpage}} template and the replytool can't edit through a template wrapper, which is not the same as being in templatespace. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I get that, I mean why couldn't we do the back-and-forth and have the tools write stuff to talk too when the nomination is launched?

I feel like I'm missing an obvious reason why everything here after this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Archives_of_the_Impossible&oldid=1319456819

Couldn't be done here: Template talk:Did you know nominations/Archives of the Impossible — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person Do you see this working similar to a Signpost article like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-20/Traffic report, where the talkpage discussion is transcluded at the bottom, but you can use "reply" if you find the talkpage? If so, I think that would be improvement. Can it be done with reasonable effort? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes to the first question, and presumably to the second, though I'm unsure how would be best. It just seems like we ought to use the talk side of the page for actual back and forth. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing@Mathglot You seem to know stuff about WP-coding, is this something you'd like to weigh in on? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like the problem is that Talk:Aesthetics#Did you know nomination (transcluded content) shows a Reply button that doesn't work, and Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics doesn't even show the Reply button. It doesn't even show up if you try to force it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Aesthetics?dtenable=1

If memory serves, @Matma Rex did some magic a few years ago to make the Reply button work on some transcluded contents, but I don't know what's changed in the meantime (and he might not either).

As for fixing it, I think the first question would be: Why do you need to wrap each DYK subpage/nom in div tags? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the DYK-template problem is that since "talking" takes place in template-space, there is no alternative from wikitext. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I remember a bit from when I was working on the reply tool :) I think there are at least two problems here, but maybe they can be fixed.

1. The transclusion at Talk:Aesthetics#Did you know nomination doesn't allow replying because the transcluded page is a template. This is actually a special case for the 'Template:' namespace in the code: [7]. It works on normal discussion pages, e.g. WP:VPALL allows replying to any comment transcluded from the other pages.

If I remember correctly, I added that special case as a fail-safe to make sure that the new functionality allowing replies inside transcluded content, which we were adding at the time (T247535), would never cause replies to be posted inside real templates (e.g. Template:Unblock). I certainly did not imagine at the time that anyone would hold discussions in the template namespace, that would be crazy, right? right?… I learned about the DYK discussions later, but, honestly, I hoped that someone would figure out how to move them to a more appropriate namespace in a year or two.

It's possible that we could just remove that special case, and allow replying. I am pretty sure that it was intended as a fail-safe, in case of bugs in the system that places the replies, and I feel like those bugs have all been resolved in the years since. Someone could file a bug about this :)

2. The page itself at Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics doesn't allow replying because, being a template page, it's not treated as a discussion page (see mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Limitations).

This can be fixed by adding __NEWSECTIONLINK__ to it (or one of the transcluded templates), and then replying would probably just work, as long as you visit that page directly. Since a new section link is probably not desirable, you can also add __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ in the same place, per mw:Help:DiscussionTools/Magic_words_and_markup that combination will enable discussion features without adding the new section link. You'll have to figure out some way to not apply these when the DYK discussions are transcluded in other places, probably some condition pages on the page title, I don't know enough about the system to tell you exactly what would be correct.

Hope that helps! Matma Rex talk 20:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, no, sorry, they wouldn't just work, because the page is wrapped in the {{DYKsubpage}} template :( The reply tool can't reply to such comments (see #Wrapper_templates here). That markup would also have to be changed to allow replying. Matma Rex talk 20:55, 5 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)

Support ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 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)

Prep 3: New Coimbra Fort

Hi there! I'm copying over a comment I made at Talk:New Coimbra Fort for additional eyes. I wascurious about the continued use of the word "Indian" within this article, as well as with the current DYK (i.e., "... that the New Coimbra Fort was founded by 245 men in 15 canoes, guided by an elderly Indian man?"). I do not speak Brazilian Portuguese well enough to know the ins-and-outs of referring to Payaguá and Kadiwé peoples. However, our current page about the native people of Brazil is Indigenous peoples in Brazil, not Indians in Brazil (the latter redirects to Indian immigration to Brazil). The Indigenous peoples pages begins with the statement "Indigenous peoples in Brazil or Native Brazilians", without mentioning "Indians", aside from referring to historic associations, events, etc. As such, I'm curious why the current article and the DYK continues to use the term "Indian" and whether this should be changed before the DYK goes live. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cross-posted from the article talk page: My guess is because "Indian" is the dictionary translation of the source sentence (A expedição foi guiada rio abaixo, desde Cuiabá, por um índio idoso, p. 3). I'm not a Portuguese speaker so I wouldn't try to translate the source to a preferred idiomatic expression, but no objection if other editors want to. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Cross-post: I used Indian because all of the sources use "índio" rather than "indígena"; Almeida (2019) and Oliveira (2014) use both terms. I think the semantical issue is similar to that present in English, but I'm not sure. I do accept the changes that have been made, they probably make the article clearer. Coeusin (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Help needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender violence hoax and WP:SOHA

Help needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender violence hoax and WP:SOHA if possible. On this edit:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved&diff=prev&oldid=1320430287

I was attempting to set that for November 20, but I may have no idea what I am doing. Apparently I broke something as detailed on that DYK nomination page. Help? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this me or is this an everyone headache... reply function

I edit on plain text, so the old style editor. I like being able to have really granular editing. But on just about every page EXCEPT for the DYK templates, the [ reply ] function works.

But not on the templates. Why? Can we change that to let [ reply ] work there too on each?

I like plain text but [ reply ] is too useful. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person, see the discussion above at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#The_DYK_template_format. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION

How do we handle a nomination like Template:Did you know nominations/Y: Marshals? Nothing about the content of the show is even known, and it is anticipated to premiere at some point in 2026. The current article doesn't indicate if they have even finished filming. It feels odd to me as a reviewer to even consider this, but I suspect this has been discussed many times before. How does DYK handle this? Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't recall any such discussion, but I can't say I'm terribly keen on the idea of featuring upcoming shows. At the same time, I can see that not featuring such articles might make it difficult to run them at DYK even when they are finished because of the "newness" requirement. So it's a bit of a conundrum. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I reached out. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue as long as the hook is not intended to promote the work. While we do have a rule about being careful about emphasizing a release date in a hook, that's mostly intended for special occasion hooks. As long as the subject is notable, even if it has yet to be released, it isn't banned from running. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I guess a nominator can always get an article up to GA standard later. Other than that, I would lean to failing nominations of this type per WP:INCOMPLETE (and perhaps PROMOTION), but others may differ. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It would really depend on the circumstances. I don't think it is fair to disqualify future events or unreleased subjects from DYK on DYKINCOMPLETE grounds, unless the article itself is lacking in basic information. One could argue that they in fact do not violate DYKINCOMPLETE, as the information could be all that is available at the time of the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, it would be a much more interesting and informative article if it was nominated via GA after the program has actually aired. Right now, as Viriditas suggested, it reads like little more than a promotional press release. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't find any of the proposed hooks interesting, and if I saw that someone else had approved any of them, I would pass over the nomination when promoting to prep. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Without looking at Y: Marshals or its nomination, my The Mountain (Gorillaz album) hook attracted a similar complaint at ERRORS and at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 209#History merge? and the consensus was that PROMOTION doesn't necessarily apply to unreleased media.--Launchballer 18:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that was the discussion I had forgotten about. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns about Template:Did you know nominations/Sing the 50 United States!, about a Dr Seuss book to be published in 2026. The sources seem (to me) to be based on a press release (or possibly several) from the publishers, which I don't think is ideal for a DYK article. TSventon (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I only took a look at the AP source, but I do not see it as being based on a press release. Even if it is, AP is still reporting on it independently, this isn't churnalism, and AP is a source of record. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian sabotage operations in Europe

A request has been made for someone to check the nomination, as the nominator used AI assistance in writing the article. As the nomination will turn two months old in two days, urgent attention is needed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The article wasn’t ready for DYK as of four days ago. I don’t know where it is now. This kind of issue has been happening a lot lately, and when it comes up the nominator has to put in a lot of time to fix it. I do want to put in a good word for Piotrus, who has created a lot of great articles using AI to help them with their writing. Obviously, this is controversial right now in the community, so Piotrus may have to change their approach. Viriditas (talk) Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Piotrus for their input here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas I did fix the issues raised at the talk page (also ping User:Boud). I hope the article is fine now - can we remove the template at talk? For the record, I have revised my use of LLMs since that experiment (i.e. reduced the use of LLMs and increased step by step checks for any LLM output, since, yes, LLMs makes way too many mistakes, sigh, even when asked to just polish the prose). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas and Piotrus: I think that the AI warning template should not be removed until someone independent of Piotrus and me does a thorough check: there's a big risk that many of the sources more or less have information related to what is summarised in the Wikipedia article, but not quite, and checking and fixing likely requires more than just a rapid browse of sources vs Wikipedia text. Boud (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair. If we have to drop it from the DYK queue, oh well. Lesson learned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The World After Gaza

Operational question: Template:Did you know nominations/The World After Gaza was approved by Storye book, then a second review was called for by GolsaGolsa. After some discussion but over a month with no further response and the WP:DYKTIMEOUT limit being reached, Narutolovehinata5 rejected the nomination, and I procedurally closed it. The nominator, Buidhe, reverted my procedural close, removing GolsaGolsa and Naruto's comments along the way and thus restoring the nomination to the "approved" list. I have no opinion about the merits of this nomination; I only closed it because it had timed out and been rejected, but I am bringing the conversation here because I'm not confident a nomination can be unilaterally returned to the "approved" list by the nominator. I believe I've pinged all participants but feel free to bring in anyone else here who needs to be included. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I was mistaken on the DYKTIMEOUT issue and have stricken that bit. The rejection was on staleness grounds, not timing out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the perspectives. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The article and initial hooks were approved, all discussion is about the latter hooks, which are not relevant as the initial ones provided were fine.

This is just a third editor acting as a spoiler and asking for a "second review" because they preferred a different hook. The correct close would have been to recognize that the initial hooks were approved, and restoring the discussion to the approved page instead of arbitrarily rejecting it.

I don't see what reply I could have made to the last comment because my position is that the first hooks suggested were already approved and good to go. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There should have been no close, as discussion should have been ongoing. There should instead have been a ping to the participants of the discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't have been closed, though the comment should have been replied to rather than removed. I reopened.--Launchballer 20:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree, but also feel that it is appropriate to point out that this should be held to the same standard (although here too, the proper response was probably to reply rather than rvt). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense. The same logic also seems to apply to the Prince Consort Gallery nom (per above and here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for not attending to this nom earlier, when it was in trouble. I have had severely intermittent broadband since 1 August, and am still struggling to access my watchlist and fulfil obligations. My new provider promises to give me full internet access next week. Thank you to those who have dealt with the problem, and thank you all for your understanding. Storye book (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Should WP:DYKTIMEOUT not apply to articles that are up for merging?

Given that merge discussions often take weeks or even months to be resolved, for cases where such discussions are ongoing and will bring the nomination beyond two months, should DYKTIMEOUT be paused until the discussion is completed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes.--Launchballer 00:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes; however, I think that the discussion should be listed for an uninvolved close at WP:CR after a reasonable period if an uninvolved closer can't be found to close it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (9 November 2025)

McLaren MCL38

@Dclemens1971, 5225C, and Piotrus: Several passages ending with "in the WDC." lack an inline citation. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Should be sorted. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good, thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hypnosis in fiction

@Dclemens1971, Piotrus, Launchballer, and Maximilian775: The hook fact needs an inline citation when it runs on the main page even though it is in the lead section of the article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

It's cited inline in the first paragraph under the header "20th century". Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Perhaps, I am overlooking it. Where are "most portrayals" and "seductive" stereotypes in that first paragraph? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii Barrett opens by saying she will “chronicle the negative stereotypes … and examine the handful of positive exceptions.” That framing directly implies a large majority of negative depictions versus a small number of positive ones. For seductinve, ex. "Numerous films featured similar plots of malevolent males using hypnosis to seduce and control hapless heroines". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a citation to Barrett. There are ample citations in the body, so this can be removed after it runs on the page, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Agus Black Hoe Budianto

@Juxlos: This currently has an orphan tag on it. Could you add any links onto related pages like Ngawi Regency? Also, why not place the article at Agus Budianto which is currently a redirect here? The name is not a dealbreaker for DYK, but there is a possibility that its appearance on the main page will prompt someone to move the article to his actual name. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: the name, I was actually a little split. I think I will remove the quotation marks since in most official references (e.g. this KPU document, PDF page 76), he has the "Black Hoe" as part of his name. On a second pass, I think he changed his name at some point. Orphan tag fixed. Juxlos (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Berenice Olmedo

@TarnishedPath, Netherzone, Left guide, and Pbritti: Minus quotations this comes in just under 1,400 characters. One more sentence on some aspect of their art would put this comfortably above 1,500 characters of prose. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised "that Berenice Olmedo once sold products made from dog carcasses at a flea market" wasn't suggested as a hook. That made me laugh out loud when I read that.--Launchballer 03:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't sip anything before you look at her bag with a tail. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I had initially suggested a similar hook at the main author's talk page, but they preferred not to use it, so I respected their preference. Left guide (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Do as you wish. I never intended this as a DYK I just wanted to share it with some friendly fellow editors, so those of you who are more experienced in the Did You Know area, do as you feel is best for the subject of the article and the WP readership. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I just added a sentence about her first solo exhibition using the ARTNews source you linked (which was already cited elsewhere in the article); character counter has the sentence at 131 prose characters, so we're good on that front. Thanks for flagging. Left guide (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That resolves my concern. If there is a consensus run some other hook, you can ping me to update the queue, but I don't have an issue running the current hook if that is more respectful of the artist's intentions. (Although I wonder if naming one of the more unusual "medical devices" like the "scoliosis corsets" would pull more readers?) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I had a giggle when I read Launchballer's suggestion. I reckon we should run with that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The article creator said they would not object to it running, so I suggest a swap. I don't have access to the source and it's currently not DYKHFC compliant, so those will need to be resolved first. If time is too short, the hook could be bumped while we wait for both to be done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Page 161 of the book as cited was visible to me as a public preview on Google Books. Is there a reason you seem to have trouble accessing it? The WP:DYKHFC concern is easily resolvable by using WP:REPEATCITE techniques which I can do if needed. Left guide (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources

I've resolved the DYKHFC concern. Left guide (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Per consensus here I've swapped the hook, although the original was also fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The Dead Girls

@Jeromi Mikhael, TonyTheTiger, and Kingsif: "Spanish language" from the hook is in the last sentence of the lead but needs an inline citation for when the article runs on the Main Page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed thematic set

Two weeks from now (20 November) is Trans Day of Remembrance. We currently have Transgender violence hoax and Masoud El Amaratly at Approved, Remilia, Germ (song), and Dinosaur emojis at TM:TDYK, and the latter's Republican makeup has a hook that mentions transphobia. Possibly worth running a full thematic set?--Launchballer 07:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm up for it. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems there is an image hook in the Dinosaur emoji nomination, and Masoud El Amaratly has an audio file that could also serve. CMD (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Article alerts, I also see that Kate Nambiar and Mustarjil have been nominated, Marsha P. Johnson has been nominated for GA (in which case I also recommend IARing the two week old Weinstein Hall occupation and running a double nom), the new articles Blossom C. Brown and Death of Lia Smith are less than a week old, and there are also the drafts Draft:RadPride, Draft:Fa'atama, and Draft:Moscow Community Centre for LGBT+ Initiatives. My thinking is that we want to run more biographies than anything else, though I'm not sure I'll be able to review Marsha P. Johnson quickly enough. Thoughts?--Launchballer 16:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My general thoughts towards thematic sets is that given they are sacrificing diversity in one aspect deliberately, it is probably good to maintain diversity in other ways, so I'm not sure we should run more than the usual 2-4 biographies if we don't have to. CMD (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My argument for including more than usual is that TDOR was set up to memorialise trans people. I'm thinking Masoud El Amaratly, Remilia, Blossom C. Brown, and Lia Smith, all of whom are trans, the non-bios Transgender violence hoax, Germ, Dinosaur emojis, and Mustarjil, and possibly Marsha P. Johnson if we can process her quickly enough and either Kate Nambiar or Republican makeup if not. (Possibly Hyperpop, but again, I can't review that quickly enough.)--Launchballer 17:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think it is a good idea to have Republican makeup in the set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, I only suggested it because there was a transphobia hook at the nom, but actually I missed that Nambiar was also trans, so I'd suggest running her as well. (I don't regard a set with bios at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 as violating the spirit of WP:DYKVAR.)--Launchballer 06:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Support, and let me know how I can help :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Kate Nambiar Mustarjil Remilia Dinosaur emojis Death of Lia Smith Germ (song) Blossom C. Brown Transgender violence hoax Masoud El Amaratly

I made a table listing what needs doing (other suggestions welcome).--Launchballer 06:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I just looked at your talk page. Agender is nearly eleven days old, I'm guessing that's too long?--Launchballer 07:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved nominations which exist to the holding area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I've got a QPQ to burn, I'll take my chances :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Heinie Jawish

Bringing this here for opinions as it is a 'first'.

... that Heinie Jawish is the only person born in Syria to play in the NFL?

The sourcing supporting this is a newspaper clipping from 1921 which writes "probably the only Syrian playing football in this country on a college team" and Pro Football Reference which lists only one Syrian-born NFL player. While conducting searches I wasn't able to find any other Syrian-born NFL players; however I want some other opinions.

Curtesy pings to @BeanieFan11 and @Dclemens1971. TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think there might be another issue here. Jawish's article says he was born in Ottoman Syria, which is not congruent to modern day Syria. Parts of Ottoman Syria are now in Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon. Do we know exactly where he was born? Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Good point. Perhaps the hook should be ... that Heinie Jawish is the only person born in Ottoman Syria to play in the NFL? TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't sound as interesting. We might need a different hook at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  And, though unlikely, there might have been a player born in Ottoman Syria but in a location in present-day other countries. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, not so unlikely it seems - Jimmy Jemail was born in Byblos (then part of Ottoman Syria, now in Lebanon) in 1893. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Per the source, he was born in "Syria, Ottoman Empire". I think that indicates he was born in Syria rather than a place outside of present-day Syria. We also have Pro Football Archives and the Historical Dictionary of Football both indicating he is the only Syrian NFL player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the Syria that existed in the Ottoman Empire was not the same Syria that exists today. If we had an actual place of birth we could run with it, but having said that, the website you're quoting says that Jimmy Jemail was born in Beirut, when the NYT source in his article says he was born in Byblos. OK, not a big deal in terms of distance, but it isn't part of Beirut. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
      • His family added his birthplace as "Suffod, Syria", which also indicates to me that it's in Syria, rather than someplace outside of present-day Syria. Pro Football Archives isn't the only source that says Jemail was born in Beirut, either (see Time.com for example). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
        • Apart from the fact there's no source for that birthplace, I can't even find any place called "Suffod" in Syria (or Ottoman Syria). If it existed, it might be a place that is no longer in Syria and was renamed, but I have no evidence for this. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
          • Regardless of Suffod, Pro Football Archives specifically says that it was "Syria, Ottoman Empire" – doesn't that indicate it was in the part of the Ottoman Empire that is now Syria? If it was in e.g. what is now Lebanon, I'd expect it to say something like "Lebanon, Ottoman Empire", not "Syria". BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
            • I know it's annoying, but in the end someone born in 1900 was not born in "Syria", which didn't exist until at least 1920 (and effectively not until 1936). Even if we had a reliable source as to where he was actually born, and it was in current Syria, we'd still need to say "modern-day Syria". Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

            The formulation "Syria, Ottoman Empire" suggests to me the region of the Ottoman Empire called Syria, but tells me nothing about whether a specific location would still be included in modern Syria. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

          @Black Kite I just had a poke around his immigration papers which lists is residence as "S - vowel - cursive F - vowel D", Turkey (aka the Ottoman Empire). I wonder if that means Safed, modern-day Israel? (and Palestine for much of Jawish's adult life) At the time of his birth, Safed was in Syria vilayet. I could see an American-born grandchild writing that as "Suffod". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

          @BeanieFan11 ... please pretend I pinged the right person with a name beginning with B. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

          Looking at the other sources, if we can prove he was born there, it doesn't appear any other NFL player was born in what is now modern-day Israel ... Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I requested a second source, and thought it was still pretty heavily reliant on an OR inference. I wouldn't have promoted it for this reason and now we see yet again why more definitive sources are needed for these kinds of hooks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4: This Thriving Land

I have revised the tone of a section that was pointed out. Is this article's overall tone now all right? I may need some feedback to follow or improve. Thank you all so much for the help. EleniXDD※Talk 02:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Festival of Transitional Architecture

I pulled this hook from Queue 4 because the hook's source does not talk about the event as if it happened, only that it is planned to happen. There is no source in the article that talks about the hook as verifiably happening. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)